Quebec City getting a franchise ?

[Ismellofhockey]

If "always full" is a figure of speech, then yes, it's mildly amusing.

On the other hand, if you've carved out the figure of speech territory so broadly that it includes the phrase "always full", then it must take you forever to get through a normal conversation. Always having to explain which of your statements are figures of speech and whatnot.

To be fair your point escaped me as well, is a glass full only when the next drop makes a spill? I'd say over 90% is "always full" even knowing it's not filled to capacity.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

To be fair your point escaped me as well, is a glass full only when the next drop makes a spill? I'd say over 90% is "always full" even knowing it's not filled to capacity.

Well, 90% isn't the traditional mark for full around here. And I guarantee you that if it were in a "non-traditional" market, there would be half a dozen threads about it.

And I've already exhibited that average attendance was lower than 90% for at least one Nordiques season. Would you also call that "always full"?

 

[SOLR]

Well, 90% isn't the traditional mark for full around here. And I guarantee you that if it were in a "non-traditional" market, there would be half a dozen threads about it.

And I've already exhibited that average attendance was lower than 90% for at least one Nordiques season. Would you also call that "always full"?

Because of the economic conditions,
Team performances,
And considering we are talking about 87% not 70%, yes I would.
*Considering the 10 years average attendance %

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Because of the economic conditions,
Team performances,
And considering we are talking about 87% not 70%, yes I would.

I ask you again to refer to post #353 in this thread. If you're going to start qualifying other people's opinions, then you're going to be awfully busy around here.

And lest you think that you can goad me into responding to anything you type here, this conversation's length has far exceeded my interest in it. Unless you can bring something else to the table other than rhetoric, don't lose any sleep waiting for another response from me. There's only so many ways I can repeat myself.

 

[SOLR]

I ask you again to refer to post #353 in this thread. If you're going to start qualifying other people's opinions, then you're going to be awfully busy around here.

And lest you think that you can goad me into responding to anything you type here, this conversation's length has far exceeded my interest in it. Unless you can bring something else to the table other than rhetoric, don't lose any sleep waiting for another response from me. There's only so many ways I can repeat myself.

I didn't see you bring anything to table either, you never responded to the fact that this whole argument is pointless and respond to a single sentence post. Your really trying to make the point that Quebec City, based on a single season below 90%, can't be represented as "always full" in terms of perception and the way I understood the sentence. I don't disagree with what your saying for the other perception of that particular sentence. Whats next? Your asking questions and I'm trying to give my opinion in good faith, yet your trying bind me into a elementary level scrimmage. Don't accept my answers? So be it, move on, see you later.

 

[SOLR]

If Le Colisee were actually always full, then it would have something to do with this thread subject. I'm assuming that's why the poster in post #353 brought it up.

It wasnt always full.

 

[YellHockey*]

1) Toronto and Ottawa are pretty polarized locations on a marketing level.

This statement makes no sense what so ever.

2) It was done for 20 years.

More like 16 years and under different circumstances. It's been 14 years since QC had a team. Things have changed a lot since then.

 

[finchster]

Quebec City if it had the owners and stadium in place or a plan for a stadium, Quebec should be 1-2 on the list for a hockey team no doubt in my mind. As for percentages of attendance if you wish to discuss it, there are numerous instances of hockey teams from the USA having very poor attendance but doing quite well in the league. Carolina for example having two cup runs in the this decade it would be perfect to see how they perform in attendance numbers by analyzing their attendance numbers of the last seven seasons

2001 13,355, 72.5% ECQF loss
2002 15,508, 82.8% SCF loss
2003 15,682, 83.7% DNQ
2004 12,171, 65.0% DNQ
2006 15,596, 83.3% Stanley Cup winners
2007 17,386, 93.8% DNQ
2008 16,633, 88.8% DNQ

New Jersey is another good example Stanley Cup finals and cup runs in this decade

2001 15,642 82.2% SCF loss
2002 15,925 83.6% ECQF loss
2003 14,858 78.0% Stanley Cup winners
2004 14,912 78.3% ECQF loss
2006 14,230 74.7% ECSF loss
2007 14,176 74.5% ECSF loss
2008 15,564 88.3% ECQF loss < new arena less people than 2002 but a higher percentage full

So does it really matter that one season Quebec had one year lower than 90% when they had a terrible team and during a recession there? No stadium is ‘always full’ and any one who talks like that is making a terrible generalization, but they still had better numbers than successful American teams. Carolina only had one season above 90% and New Jersey none. The low point for Quebec is probably the high point for New Jersey, that’s a huge difference.

As for TV Revenue RDS pays the Montreal Canadiens 20 million for TV rights and the rest of the NHL gets ten, I could see Quebec City getting close to that kind of money for TV revenue from RDS or some other French broadcaster. So Quebec City could work, but ownership and an arena are the largest hurdles and they don’t have it in place just yet.

 

[YellHockey*]

As for TV Revenue RDS pays the Montreal Canadiens 20 million for TV rights and the rest of the NHL gets ten, I could see Quebec City getting close to that kind of money for TV revenue from RDS or some other French broadcaster. So Quebec City could work, but ownership and an arena are the largest hurdles and they don’t have it in place just yet.

That's way off base. The Habs TV rights are worth way more then any QC franchise's TV rights would be considering Montreal's metro area is over four times bigger then QC's metro area, the Habs have a long and storied NHL history while QC has very little, and RDS has only so much airtime to give.

What other french broadcaster would there be? Maybe RIS but that has nowhere near the reach of RDS. There aren't any other french sports networks in Quebec and regular tv networks don't show regional hockey any more.

 

[King_Stannis]

If there's an expansion by the NHL of 2 teams, I would bet my right arm one will be in Canada and the other in the U.S. The way Bettman is always mentioning it, the economic situation, the severe criticism (no matter how warrented or not) of sunbelt hockey, all have me thinking he's going to effectively say "here's your franchise Canada, now sink or swim with it but just get off my back".

Right now, Winnipeg is much better situated to get any potential expansion franchise than QC.

 

[SOLR]

This statement makes no sense what so ever.



More like 16 years and under different circumstances. It's been 14 years since QC had a team. Things have changed a lot since then.

1)Back it up? I'm a 10 years+ marketing executive.
2)Different circumstances? Hardly. What important change would impact a provincial distribution?

You talk some big words, but you hardly bring anything.

 

[SOLR]

That's way off base. The Habs TV rights are worth way more then any QC franchise's TV rights would be considering Montreal's metro area is over four times bigger then QC's metro area, the Habs have a long and storied NHL history while QC has very little, and RDS has only so much airtime to give.

What other french broadcaster would there be? Maybe RIS but that has nowhere near the reach of RDS. There aren't any other french sports networks in Quebec and regular tv networks don't show regional hockey any more.

A gather that you know absolutely nothing about the province of Quebec. The differences in mentality between the french and english populations, the resentment of the regions towards the island of Montreal, the past great penetration of the Nordiques in the Montreal market etc. In other words, your ill equipped to make any comments on what the situation actually is.

Theres plenty of TV options in fact, TVA, an upgraded RIS, a RDS-RDS2(When theres superposition) etc, TV networks can be built from scratch around any NHL hockey team.(RDS was built around the habs)

I will repeat it again, the Nordiques TV market is around 80% the size of the habs market.(Because the habs should be sold across the province as well.) Particularly amongst the french demographic.(That's why I think TVA might be interested) You can safely plan TV rights around 13-15m for the Nords. I tend to remember some nights in the 92-93 season where the Nords ratings where higher than the habs.

 

[Snoil11]

We decided to re-open the thread, but further talks on semantics respectively personal attacks will be deleted without another warning.