Squiddy*
Registered User
triggrman said:It's his right, I feel the same way about NAFTA.
America pretty much benefits from all the natural resources from canada so do you really feel the same way about nafta?
triggrman said:It's his right, I feel the same way about NAFTA.
jamiebez said:Not really....
Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa have all demonstrated last season that they can sustain $35-40M payrolls and break even (at least), without a dime of revenue sharing. Granted, revenues will likely be down this year for those teams, but it's far from unreasonable to suggest that Winnipeg can't sustain a $30M payroll before we even need to talk about revenue sharing.
I agree with you that the building needs to be at 100% capacity every night, but that should be the least of anyone's concern. This team drew well over 13k in 1981/82 when they only won 9 games!
The only legitimate roadblocks I see are the availability of franchises, and the competition from other potential relocation sites.
PS: I am stunned this thread is still going on... Hockey's back - don't we all have better things to talk about
projexns said:It's a shame that Canadian teams have to share revenues with the American teams.
Imagine if eight Canadian cities (including Winnipeg and Quebec City) could keep all of the Canadian television revenue to themselves. The CBC pays what, $60 million per year in rights fees? The going rate for mid-week Leaf games on Sportsnet/TSN was about $400,000 per game, and I think the Habs and Canucks were fetching around $250,000 per game. Two games a week for 25 weeks at an average of $300,000 per game would be another $15 million in revenue.
It's getting pretty close to $10 million per year for each of the eight Canadian-based teams. But we have to give that up in exchange for a 1/30th slice of U.S.
television revenues.
Then there's licensing and merchandising. Imagine how much money each Canadian team could keep for every jersey, flag, and toddler's pyjamas that is sold with the local team's emblem on them. But again, the Calgary's, Edmonton's, Ottawa's etc. sacrifice that chunk of revenue in exchange for a 1/30th share of Nashville's and Washington's and Carolina's merchandising revenue.
What a shame.
Tokyo Bucks said:The Leafs will never allow it because all pro team owners are greedy bastards, but a second team in Toronto is probably the most economically viable option for another NHL team in Canada. That's because the pro hockey market in Toronto must be big enough for 2 NHL teams, if other Canadian teams less than half of Toronto's size can support a team. It would be great for a league, but it will never happen.
Hockeyfan_86 said:I don't think that there are many people in Toronto that would support another team in TO. Maybe they could gather enough of a following tho...if they managed to garner enough interest in disgruntled torontonians, hamiltonians....surrounding places. All I know is I can never see myself switching allegiance so I wouldn't expect the same from other people. I like the idea of the rivalry it could create though.
Tokyo Bucks said:People probably said the same thing about the Mets and Angels in baseball, Jets in football, and the Nets in basketball (Clippers are probably a bad example ). It can be done, and is probably more feasible than an even smaller Canadian city. Aren't there any anti-Leaf fans in Toronto?
Squiddy said:Probably, but it aint going to happen anyways. The leafs blocked teams in hamilton for years and they aren't going to stop anytime soon.
CHRDANHUTCH said:The Leafs and Marlies bud are in Toronto in case you haven't been paying attention, Squid, besides the Canadiens own the affiliation in Hamilton
The fact it is from Winterpeg causes me to shake my headLe Golie said:
If you look at the revenue picture in Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa over the last 2-3 years under the old CBA, they're all able to support about a $30-32M payroll and at least break even without any playoff OR special event revenue (like the Heritage Classic) OR revenue sharing. That's why I'm confident Winnipeg would be able to support at least $30M, without revenue sharing, and assuming a mediocre team.Resolute said:Actually, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa all received $3 million in revenue sharing from the currency equalization program. Edmonton needed the Heritage Classic to break even, while it took Calgary two playoff rounds. Ottawa's situation last year I am unsure of.
All three will actually be ahead in revenue this year, as all three are playing to 100% capacity, something they werent last season.
Could Winnipeg support a $30 million payroll? Probably. If they sell out. But dont kid yourself, Winnipeg will not sellout in the long term if/when they start losing. Winnipeg is not that special a market. No more so than Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, etc, all of which lost fans in down years.
Also, the salary cap will rise as years go on. Winnipeg will have to raise ticket prices at a faster rate to compensate for the smaller arena. IMO, Winnipeg would constantly be on shaky ground, even in this CBA.
A ridiculously large TV deal would help it thirve (ala the Green Bay Packers)
A loonie that tanks vs the greenback would kill it.
Again.
Well, I hated them when I was living in HamiltonTokyo Bucks said:People probably said the same thing about the Mets and Angels in baseball, Jets in football, and the Nets in basketball (Clippers are probably a bad example ). It can be done, and is probably more feasible than an even smaller Canadian city. Aren't there any anti-Leaf fans in Toronto?
Squiddy said:So what? Is their a point to this argument? who cares if the marlies are in toronto and the bulldogs are in Hamilton? INCASE YOU DON'T KNOW... TORONTO IS DEAD SET ON NOT HAVING LOCAL RIVALRIES IN THEIR 50 OR SOMETHING KM RADIUS.
CHRDANHUTCH said:You are the one who's complaining here that Houston, Winnipeg, etc should be getting an NHL franchise there, Squid, despite what the true fans are saying to you.
BTW, MLSE did not block the Edmonton owned Road Runners from leaving Toronto due to territorial radius that u are whining about, IN fact, MLSE was working to fill the hole created by that decision and Montreal was there to replace the Oilers in Hamilton to fill the franchise void to continue hockey in Hamilton (the old Quebec Citadelles, as a matter of fact, are the current Bulldogs, fyi.)
Edmonton's ownership ie Lyle Abraham couldn't satisfy the lease agreement @ Ricoh Coliseum and that management company overseeing the building tossed the Roadrunners out leaving the Toronto market open, well before the Leafs/MLSE KNEW that the St. John's franchise was entering an option year and was waiting to see if the St. John's team would stay in Newfoundland or fill the void @ Ricoh as the Marlies.
It is a coincidence that the Oilers are back in Hamilton but as a secondary affiliate because Last June (8th) to be accurate, the Road Runners temporarily replaced the Oilers @ Rexall Place due to the lockout, but the decision was made to voluntarily suspend the Oilers' AHL Franchise BUT have yet to announce their plans for 2006-07.
So what are u complaining about, Squid, again get some idea before the next time you have a thought about the territorial rights of the AHL, OK