Teams that Lost Money in 2004

[Drury_Sakic]

That wasn't the answer to my question, it was who was reporting the names of teams forcing the lockout.

Anyway, I would think that the Kronke's would be a little upset if the lockout was costing them that huge of a profit. But it isn't.

I think the poster was just speculating(common sense speculating) about the teams causing the lockouts..


Kronke is upset, but when he tried to send PL (our GM) into the mix he got turned away by the NHL....

Stan also knows that after teh lockout, the usual 5-10 million dollar proift (if the team went deep into the playoffs)he made with a 55-65 million dollar payroll will go much higher with a 35-40 million dollar payroll(given a few seasons for the league to recover)

 

[mooseOAK*]

I think the poster was just speculating(common sense speculating) about the teams causing the lockouts..


Kronke is upset, but when he tried to send PL (our GM) into the mix he got turned away by the NHL....

Stan also knows that after teh lockout, the usual 5-10 million dollar proift (if the team went deep into the playoffs)he made with a 55-65 million dollar payroll will go much higher with a 35-40 million dollar payroll(given a few seasons for the league to recover)

If you believe Forbes, as you say that you do, they say that the revenues are 88 million and with payroll expenses of 65 million then a profit is highly unlikely, let alone 5-10 million dollars.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

If you believe Forbes, as you say that you do, they say that the revenues are 88 million and with payroll expenses of 65 million then a profit is highly unlikely, let alone 5-10 million dollars.

Well.. yes.. and no...

First, I am NOT buying totally in to Forbes numbers...nor the NHL's... but a mean of the two...

Anyways...
Between 10-15 million dollars of Kronkes reported 20-25 million dollars to start up his TV station were offeset by Avs revenue...(it varies depending on where you get the numbers from)

Plus, the Avs typically Average more playoff home games than they played in 2004...


Soo.. thats where I get the 5-10 mill...

 

[kdb209]

The Denver area has never had to experience a bad hockey team, how good the market is won't be determined until that happens for a few years in a row.

But people do point to it as a big market team even though it really isn't.

The Colorado Rockies (1976-1982) RIP.

Now alot changed in 20 yrs and a deep pocket owner and a competent GM can make all the difference.

 

[Phanuthier*]

Calgary would have lost millions this year had they not made the playoffs. It wasn't until the 1st several games against San Jose that they turned a profit.

I should also mention that Calgary maximized all of their playoff home appearances in the postseason. There were 3 home games per series for all 4 series.

So basically, it took Calgary 6-7 playoff games to breakeven.

Not to mention making a couple million in car flags

(More exactly, ~4-5$ million on car flags...)

 

[Drury_Sakic]

I really..


REALLY..

Hate Car Flags..

of any nature...

 

[PantherBlood6*]

Why? They don't have any really big stars (One of the youngest teams in the NHL), therefore no high $$ saleries. They're rebuilding, so they have a bunch of hot youngsters who are starting to play like older players, but at 1/2 the price. Add to this there was a large number of sellouts this season, shows why they didn't really lose that much.

Also, Sunrise is basically a suburb of Miami, how does that make it small market?

Most consider Florida a small market because they believe Miami just simply isn't interested in hockey -- which to some extent is true. What most don't realize is there are tons and tons of transplants from up north -- or "snowbirds" -- in Broward County. While most of them are not Panther fans, they attend games all the same.

This area is football first, football second, football third, then maybe some basketball, baseball, hockey after. But as you've seen with the Marlins the last few years, the Heat this year, and even the Panthers in '96(how soon they forget....) -- you put a winner on the ice and people are going to show up no matter what sport. Florida hasn't made the playoffs since 2000 -- and havent won a playoff game since 1997 -- yet still averaged 15,904 in 2004. If the ownership steps up and puts a competative team on the ice I have no doubts this team could be a huge success. That being said -- with Cohen -- thats a huge "if".

I find it hard to believe Florida is losing as much money as Cohen has claimed to be losing -- then turns around and bids 8-10 mil(or whatever it was) to host the NCAA Frozen Four tournament.

 

[NYIsles1*]

Forbes Estimates do not add up...

Forbes estimates of the Rangers revenue was 33m off (118.m vs 85m) in doucments obtained during Feb negotiations from the league which even Larry Brooks did not dispute.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/story/232240p-199467c.htmlhttp://www.nydailynews.com/sports/h...0p-199467c.html

The Daily News has learned that the Rangers were among the teams to have claimed to have lost the most money last season - approximately $40 million. The Players Association finds that claim incredulous.

http://www.nypost.com/business/28740.htm
9/17 article-link does not work..

The owners of the perennially money-losing Rangers hockey team are going to plug up a big red-ink hole with the National Hockey League shutdown of the season.

The Rangers haven't made the playoffs in seven years or any profits
in years. In fact, industry sources say the team loses between $25 million and $30 million a year with its highly paid players and steep overhead in Madison Square Garden arena.

http://washingtontimes.com/sports/2...24222-3766r.htm

But union officials say more than two-thirds of a listed $224 million loss for the 2003-04 season was because of six teams and about a third arose from just New York-area teams. Saskin declined to identify those teams, but both the Rangers and Islanders have sustained heavy losses in recent years.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/story/270716p-231824c.html

Now, the club is hemorrhaging money - it claimed $31 million in losses last season - is nowhere near contention and is selling a rebuilding program that was desperately launched on the fly at the end of last season.

 

[NYIsles1*]

2003 Report on Islanders also disputes Forbes..

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/17/sports/hockey/17islanders.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=3979ccd6cf74854f&ex=1113883200&oref=login

Improving Islanders Still Losing Money
7/17/2003..

Since the 2000-1 season, they have poured in $53.5 million to cover
cash losses of $52.2 million, which peaked at $22.5 million last
season, documents that the team provided to The New York Times show.
Wang admits that owning a sports team is "crazy" and is not designed
to make money. To publicly reveal the extent of his losses may not be
crazy, but it is far from standard procedure in sports, where most
privately owned teams would rather lose on the field than show fans
and reporters their losses or profits.

"People see our revenues at $57 million and our payroll at $44
million, and want to know why we don't pay more for players. But we
have other expenses, most of them fixed. Players' salaries aren't our
only expense." (The $44 million includes salaries, bonuses, insurance
and pension payments.)

The Islanders' calculated loss of $19.5 million in 2001-2 is
considerably larger than Forbes's $4.5 million estimate. Part of the
discrepancy exists in the team's inclusion of $6.8 million in
interest to pay the debt to acquire the team. Forbes excludes that
figure because it is tax deductible. Their calculations differ in
various other ways.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/17/sports/hockey/17islanders.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=3979ccd6cf74854f&ex=1113883200&oref=login

(Page 2 of 2)

The financial documents the Islanders provided were audited by Ernst
& Young, except, as yet, last season's, McCarthy said, and are the
same statements the team submits to the league.

In the three seasons, ticket revenues have swelled 134 percent to
$23.9 million; luxury suite sales have jumped 45 percent (as the
number of unsold boxes has gone from 11 to 2) and advertising and
sponsorship revenue has risen 59 percent. Media revenue, bolstered by
a huge deal with Cablevision's MSG and Fox Sports New York, increased
18 percent to $23 million. Playoff revenue totaled $1 million last
season and $1.4 million in 2001-2. But even though revenue has grown 64 percent since the final year of the Milstein ownership, operating expense has expanded by 87 percent; player salaries, $15.5 million in 1999-2000, soared 150 percent to $38.8 million last season.
The league's lack of enormous national revenue also hurts. The ABC/
ESPN and Canadian television deals barely bring each team about $6
million; at the opposite end, the National Football League's network
deal brings each team a yearly average of nearly $70 million. The
nearly $900,000 the Islanders got last year from national
licensing "couldn't pay for a third-line player,'' McCarthy said.

The size of a payroll may be the primary difference between profits
and losses - and in some cases, between victories and losses - but
there are mundane fixed costs that never go away. For the Islanders,
they include payments to help run the league office ($2.4 million
last season), $519,000 for player meals and lodging, $1.3 million for
scouting and $1.2 million on minor league operations.

Rent at the Coliseum rose to $2.5 million last year, based on paying
SMG, the landlord, 11 percent of net ticket revenue. The team gets
nothing from parking and concessions and pays SMG and the county 40
percent of its advertising income.

 

[NYIsles1*]

every big market team overspent and the owners could easily police themselves without a hard cap...LA is in california..hockey in california...The Devils will always have a hard time selling with NYR/NYI/PHILY so close. Anaheim, Phoenix, Florida, Carolina should not even exist. How many teams does that leave now?

Many of these so-called big market owners have done so well policing themselves they priced out their own fans from attending games to pay for the player market they set.

Your comments that the Devils have a hard time selling or that Phoenix, Florida, Carolina should not even exist does not come close to the bigger problem because even in Manhattan hockey has no image or standing with the public or the media.

Here is an article from a New York City sports columnist comment on a perfect sports world, this is the best he could say for hockey...

Want to explain why is it the Rangers should exist also?

http://www.nypost.com/sports/44730.htm

Playoff hockey would be at our doorstep, meaning even non-fans who swear they hate hockey can steal glimpses at the games when no one else is looking.

 

[Mess]

The Denver area has never had to experience a bad hockey team, how good the market is won't be determined until that happens for a few years in a row.

But people do point to it as a big market team even though it really isn't.

WRONG !!!!

You're showing your age again ..

The Colorado Rockies of the NHL from 1976 - 1982 were a complete failure as an Expansion team in the NHL, and they also played out of Denver and were even coached by DON CHERRY at one time. Relocated to become your present day New Jersey Devils.

http://hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/teamseasons.php?tid=137

The Success of the Avs is what has made the second go around attempt succeed .. IMO

If the Quebec Nordiques would have moved a few years earlier before all those 1st overall picks we might be looking at a similar situation to Atlanta now ..

In fact Eric Lindros may not have refused to join the team, when he was drafted which would have in turn never made Peter Forsberg an Avalanche player ever .. (Nor all those other players that came with him ) Ray Bourque would not have asked to join a contender to finish his career .. and Av's may not have won their Cups ..

Perhaps its us older guys who are a little more skeptical of these NHL Markets we currently have as we have been through the failed experiments of the Colorado Rockies, Cleveland Barons, California Golden Seals, Atlanta Flames, Minnesota North Stars, New England Whalers, Kansas-City Scouts, etc in the past 30 years ..

 

[Scoogs]

I really..


REALLY..

Hate Car Flags..

of any nature...

Why??? They rule

Simply because I have a flag, and I see someone supporting the same thing I am, so I honk, they honk, someone else then drives by and honks, and then you have a whole city of honking horns.

Its funny

 

[Bruwinz37]

Interestingly ..

The teams that have been reported to be the strongest supporters of Bettman and a Lower Hard Cap :

Chicago, Boston, Calgary, Edmonton, Nashville .. all are not on the losing list ..

I really hate when people take information and do not use it in proper context and think that they came up with some sort of revelation. Sure, Boston makes money, but they also have extremely high ticket prices and a great TV deal with NESN. They also spend pretty well, but they dont overspend big on FAs. If they spent like Toronto or Philly they would be in the red. Edmonton, Nashville and Calgary have to work on tight budgets every year in order not to lose money. Of course they support a cap Sherlock, they want to be able to compete for some of the big ticket FAs and want to be able to keep the players they have developed.

Looking over that list in general tells me a couple things. St Louis is a train wreck and whoever manages that team should be held accountable big time. Carolina will simply never make it, the fan base is too weak. If you are losing over 20m now a salary cap isnt going to help that much.

 

[jaws]

As reported by Forbes..

http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists...ssListType=Misc&uniqueId=310760&datatype=Misc

A few notes about the numbers..

They are conservative from the money lost point...their numbers are roughly 2/3rds of what the NHL claimed to have lost.....

But, that said, its not like Forbes is a 2nd rate company....their data is usually good....

I don't totally believe the NHL, as its in their best interest to inflate their numbers(not that I believe they are outright lying, but that they streatched them whenever possible)..

Plus, these are just one years numbers....so...Take Calgary...they turned a small profit according to Forbes, but thats with them playing 4 rounds of hockey....minus an improbable playoff run, their losses would have been quite large.. the opposite occures for Colorado, Detriot, and Dallas... if those teams would have pulled into the next round(or not had 2 8 million goaltenders)..they would have made profits...

Odds are you could average the NHL/Leveit numbers and the Forbes numbers and come out close to actual losses...

Another thing to look at regarding ALL the numbers out there is that there are some money factors not counted in... As in the case of Colorado, 10-15 million dollars of their spendings went into creating Kronke's network, so take that off of the expences of the Avs and they actually made somewhere in the 9-10 million dollar mark(long term, they will profit from not outsourcing local broadcasting rights and new Ad income).....

I don't really understand why you think Forbes is so conservative in their numbers when they are the ones pointing out the $10-20 million dollar transactions that the NHL leaves out. To me, its the NHL who is being conservative about the money they actually make, by hidding such luxury boxes and TV deals that Forbes publishes. To me, they are the liberal ones, in favour of showing fans more of the truth than the NHL.

You mention that the NHL numbers are inflated, but argue its not an out right lie. But if those numbers are inflated, than is that not a lie none the less? And if they are lying, why believe anything they say? If they are lying, don't you think they have something to hide? And why not believe that their numbers are inflated, do you really think the Rangers lost $40 million, when they have been able to spend up to $60-70 million on payrole for the last few years? When they have the most profitable arena, sellout every night, have the greatest population base, the second best TV deal in the NHL, and yet they still lose $40 million? Doesn't sound right to me.

MSG owns the Gardens, MSG network, the Rangers, the Knicks, and the WNBA team. Owning all these sport business, they can cycle their money through each club's books, hidding what each actually makes and loses. The Atlanta Braves for example reported $10 million losses every year in the 90s, despite selling out all the time, great TV deal, and going to the playoffs every year (Business of Sports Show: Bob McCowin).

If MSG wants to make big losses for the Rangers, alls they have to do is charge the Rangers big rent money, making it look like they opperate at a loss. Luxury suits usually fall under "arena events," even though people paid for those tickets to watch a hockey game. Also note the fact that attendence figures do not include luxury seats. In Ottawa, 18 500 is a sellout, even if all boxes are empty, its still
18 500.

This Levitt character is also a joke,

...under Levitt's stewardship of the US Securities and Exchange Commission from 1993 until 2001 that 'cooking' the account books of giant corportations reached its height, when the accounting boondoggles at Enron, Worldcom, and a host of others were taking place. In an attempt to bolster its claims of finacial ruin and narrow its cavernous creditability gap, the NHL could have chosen a more reputable spokesman."

(Edge, 131)

So why should I believe that his "independent report" is anything close to the truth? Why believe the NHL when Jacobs has a history with the IRS, Melnik is being investigated by both Canada and the US for funny financial business, Wirtz is a known criminal, Roy Mlakar is being sued by former GM Marshall Johnson for not receiving his full pay, Charles Wang hides his cable deal, and Kronke-as you pointed out-uses Avs money to build his own network...why should I trust these guys and their numbers when they continue to lie, lie, and lie?????

I know I sound like a broken record here but man, these guys are all crooks. To believe their numbers to be true just because its their numbers, is just as bad as believeing Bush when he says Saddam has WMDs.

 

[NYIsles1*]

And why not believe that their numbers are inflated, do you really think the Rangers lost $40 million, when they have been able to spend up to $60-70 million on payrole for the last few years? When they have the most profitable arena, sellout every night, have the greatest population base, the second best TV deal in the NHL, and yet they still lose $40 million? Doesn't sound right to me.

The Wings according to Forbes lost 16.4m and spent almost 80m on their team. If the Blues lose 30-40m at the modern Saavis center it makes perfect sense the Garden losses this and more on hockey. Folks have to see the NYC hockey market for what it is today.

I think the Rangers losts more than 40m, especially when it's consistent with losses reported by teams in more modern facilities with far greater revenue streams.

Msg is old and limited in luxury boxes, they priced out most fans and almost never have a true sellout, and they do not play in a large hockey market when they draw television ratings equal to only 60,000 homes with an 80m dollar team.

They have no major media coverage and cannot compete with baseball's all-star team in the Bronx or the seven other teams ahead of the in their market. They pay out almost more to the Isles for the television rights than they can take in themselves.

Considering Dolan has never done anything for anyone but himself why would he be the one to step up and claim 40m in losses? He was not obligated to and never cared what anyone thought as he signed player after to above market contracts. He spends his money because Cablevision has the money to play with.

Dolan wanted to purchase the Isles in the early nineties, if he owned them he would spend exactly what he now spent on the Rangers.

 

[nyrmessier011]

...Your comments that the Devils have a hard time selling or that Phoenix, Florida, Carolina should not even exist does not come close to the bigger problem because even in Manhattan hockey has no image or standing with the public or the media....
.

Want to explain why is it the Rangers should exist also?

But you don't disagree with my comments then. The Rangers should exist because they put 18,200 fans in the seats 33 out of 41 home games a year and the other games are 18,000+. For NYR, the image and media problem doesn't come close to the problems in 25 or so other cities, nor does image matter that much to NYR, TOR or DET because they sellout more games then the other franchises combined I bet.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Anyone find it funny that the NHL awhile back called Forbes estimates completely wrong and that they basically weren't good enough for the NHL. Then when the Ducks try to sell their team off the NHL won't let them sell it at too low of a franchise value, and the franchise value they used? Forbes of course.

 

[grego]

But you don't disagree with my comments then. The Rangers should exist because they put 18,200 fans in the seats 33 out of 41 home games a year and the other games are 18,000+. For NYR, the image and media problem doesn't come close to the problems in 25 or so other cities, nor does image matter that much to NYR, TOR or DET because they sellout more games then the other franchises combined I bet.

That is a joke to say 3 teams sell out more then all the other franchise combined. The Oilers many years play to capacity almost every night, so they would have a lot of sell outs too during a season. So we only need to find 2 more teams that have some sell outs. The Canucks are doing well and likely would sell out a lot too.

I think with about 26 teams left they should come up with more sell outs then that one team you have left with sooo many sell outs.

The teams you mentioned may do well, but you totally over exaggerated there

 

[NYIsles1*]

The Rangers should exist because they put 18,200 fans in the seats 33 out of 41 home games a year and the other games are 18,000+..

The only thing more understated than Forbes team losses are Dolan's reported attendance for home games. Anyone who attends games at Msg knows the Rangers cannot give the seats away most games, the Ranger true draw is as weak as the Devils or Isles because tickets are too expensive and it's a very small core fan base and the product is not what it used to be.

The 80's for the Isles and 1994 for the Rangers are long gone.

What the stands look like in Toronto, Detroit (along with several outstanding US markets) and almost all the Canadian teams are far superior to the fan support inside Msg for games, win or lose.

For NYR, the image and media problem doesn't come close to the problems in 25 or so other cities,

Actually no market in the entire NHL has the problems the New York market team now has because they play in the largest baseball market in the U.S.

Why bother with an 80m dollar Ranger team or playoff Islander and Devils teams when there is a 200m dollar baseball team? The Flyers, Wings, Leafs will never have that problem nor does their media which is why they are better hockey markets.

If the assembled Ranger roster the last few years was in most other NHL markets that team would be getting the primary attention of that markets media. In New York it has no impact whatsoever because the other sports here are just much larger in every possible dynamic.

Nothing that happens during the six month hockey season is going to change it, moving forward it will take a miracle for things not to get worse than they were in New York, especially if the Mets become a good baseball team again.

 

[nyrmessier011]

The only thing more understated than Forbes team losses are Dolan's reported attendance for home games. Anyone who attends games at Msg knows the Rangers cannot give the seats away most games, the Ranger true draw is as weak as the Devils or Isles because tickets are too expensive and it's a very small core fan base and the product is not what it used to be.

The 80's for the Isles and 1994 for the Rangers are long gone.

What the stands look like in Toronto, Detroit (along with several outstanding US markets) and almost all the Canadian teams are far superior to the fan support inside Msg for games, win or lose.


Actually no market in the entire NHL has the problems the New York market team now has because they play in the largest baseball market in the U.S.

Why bother with an 80m dollar Ranger team or playoff Islander and Devils teams when there is a 200m dollar baseball team? The Flyers, Wings, Leafs will never have that problem nor does their media which is why they are better hockey markets.

If the assembled Ranger roster the last few years was in most other NHL markets that team would be getting the primary attention of that markets media. In New York it has no impact whatsoever because the other sports here are just much larger in every possible dynamic.

Nothing that happens during the six month hockey season is going to change it, moving forward it will take a miracle for things not to get worse than they were in New York, especially if the Mets become a good baseball team again.

I go to games at the garden and i know they don't bring 18,200 people into the seats, but that does not mean it doesn't "sell out." The paid attendance is more important then what the attendance actually is. The biggest money maker for the NHL is the sale of tickets, which accounted for exactly 50% (coinsidentally?) of the NHL revenue in 2003-2004 which can be found in the Levitt report. The guys that don't show up to the games are the guys who have season tickets, guys who can't make the game because of work, or they are company seats...either way, the place sells out

It hardly matters if 18,200 buy tickets and 100 people show up, they still are bringing in revenues of the avg ticket price times 18,200. I just don't see how your statements regarding baseball have anyhting to do with NYR. The Rangers have absolutly no problem with the Yankees paying there guys $208M as long as they keep bringing 18,000 people to games. Like all other statements you make bashing on NYR, I think you should focus your arguments to Long Island and not Manhattan.

 

[mooseOAK*]

WRONG !!!!

You're showing your age again ..

The Colorado Rockies of the NHL from 1976 - 1982 were a complete failure as an Expansion team in the NHL, and they also played out of Denver and were even coached by DON CHERRY at one time. Relocated to become your present day New Jersey Devils.

http://hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/teamseasons.php?tid=137

The Success of the Avs is what has made the second go around attempt succeed .. IMO

If the Quebec Nordiques would have moved a few years earlier before all those 1st overall picks we might be looking at a similar situation to Atlanta now ..

In fact Eric Lindros may not have refused to join the team, when he was drafted which would have in turn never made Peter Forsberg an Avalanche player ever .. (Nor all those other players that came with him ) Ray Bourque would not have asked to join a contender to finish his career .. and Av's may not have won their Cups ..

Perhaps its us older guys who are a little more skeptical of these NHL Markets we currently have as we have been through the failed experiments of the Colorado Rockies, Cleveland Barons, California Golden Seals, Atlanta Flames, Minnesota North Stars, New England Whalers, Kansas-City Scouts, etc in the past 30 years ..

You truly are amazing. You shout out that I am wrong and then you write 100 words saying basically the same thing that I did. That the Colorado Avalanche has been successful since day one so they may end up being a weak market once that stops.

Maybe you are of the age where Alzheimers sets in, or something.

 

[NYIsles1*]

I go to games at the garden and i know they don't bring 18,200 people into the seats, but that does not mean it doesn't "sell out." The paid attendance is more important then what the attendance actually is.

That may be true for some teams having a poor year but in the Rangers case the seats are not sold, there is no doubt about this whether you want to admit it or not.

I go to the games (Knicks and Rangers) and speak with the ticket people and they cannot sell those seats at those prices for a hockey game, and that included Islander and Devil games no matter who the Rangers signed.

Why do you think Mike Richter night had to be scheduled on a week night against a Western Conference team?

I just don't see how your statements regarding baseball have anyhting to do with NYR.

Because the hold baseball has on this market reduces hockey here to a minor league sport like no other market in the country regardless of how the three local teams do or what stars play here. The Philadelphia Philles are never going to dominate the media year-round or take fan attention from the Flyers in Philadelphia, nor are the Tigers going to dominate the Wings market in Detroit or the Rockies in Colorado.

In New York this happened and it reduced hockey in this region to a small market sport, no other hockey market has this problem. Leetch got traded and Joe Torre got the back pages in Feb.

Like all other statements you make bashing on NYR, I think you should focus your arguments to Long Island and not Manhattan.

I do not bash the Rangers. I call things based upon what has happened or been reported and what the sports market is here.

I will never do what you did and write " Anaheim, Phoenix, Florida, Carolina should not even exist" without a credible argument.

I think anyone who want's someone else's team gone for their own sense of entitlement should have to explain why your own team should remain.

 

[Mess]

You truly are amazing. You shout out that I am wrong and then you write 100 words saying basically the same thing that I did. That the Colorado Avalanche has been successful since day one so they may end up being a weak market once that stops.

Maybe you are of the age where Alzheimers sets in, or something.

Right because when you typed :

The Denver area has never had to experience a bad hockey team, how good the market is won't be determined until that happens for a few years in a row.

But people do point to it as a big market team even though it really isn't.

That of course meant that I couldn't use the Colorado Rockies (1976-1982) who played in Denver and failed miserably to dispute your statement.

 

[PredsFan77*]

contract the southern teams. end of discussion. next topic.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Right because when you typed :

That of course meant that I couldn't use the Colorado Rockies (1976-1982) who played in Denver and failed miserably to dispute your statement.

If you think that is relevant to the situation today then I assume that you also have a plan to market 8 track car stereos. I wasn't even considering it.