DW3 said:
If that line of thinking still in the NHL head office, we'd still be cheering for the Original 6. Just because a team hasn't suffered through years and years of mismanagement. Why else would a person but a team if not to have them be competetive? As for supporting the team through the rough times, I've heard and read plenty of stories about how you could hear a pin drop in the Joe during the "80's. And Columbus may have been the wrong example to use here, since they had a 180+ game sellout streak going before the luckless Panthers came into town a few months ago.
Yes, the Wings had troubled times. 40 years worth. But the franchise survived. Illitch took over and it thrived.
I'm not saying new teams should not try to compete. I'm saying that they shouldn't expect gauranteed business and on-ice success.
You can't build a hockey market in a day. It takes years.
A good hockey team helps (re:colorado ... let's see if that place sells out all the time when the team goes in the tank for 5 straight years or so.)
DW3 said:
Hey, nobody ever said all the owner's weren't cheap skate tightwads. Everybody will admit that Chicago and Boston need new ownership, somebody not afraid to spend a buck or two on the team. Nothing we can do about it, unfortuneitly.
And on the other end of the scale is NYR, who can't seem to spend money fast enough. IMO-They're one of the worst teams out there for running up salaries. They overpay on underachieving talent, getting rid of hot prospects for aging veterans..
I agree.
But I think there is a lesson that can be learned by looking at the 4 US Original Six teams.
On the one hand, free agents flee Boston and Chicago. On the other, free agents flock to the Rangers and Detroit.
But there's a difference between the Rags and Wings.
Free agents take less money than they can get elsewhere to play in Detroit.
The Rags have become home to free agents looking to cash in, and, of course, salary dumps.
Of the four, only Detroit is being run with any sense.
ANd these are the proven markets.
What this tells me is that NHL owners aren't very competent.
DW3 said:
I like Matt Damon (a lot more then Ben Affleck anyway, lol) and I'm not saying he, or anyone else for that matter, isn't entitled to whatever they can earn. What I'm saying is, how can Pitt., Calgary, Nashville, etc. compete with Det., NYR, etc.? As you pointed out, Illitch and gang own very profitable side businesses, which some of them have used to make their product better. But some owners don't have a multi-million $$ business to help them out. Some of them only have the team, which isn't enough to compete with the big-timers. It's like me getting a bidding war with Trump or Bush. What I'm saying is needed is a way for the smaller market teams to be able to compete with the big boys. Yes, the Wings may have helped him buy everything else, but if all he had right now was the team and the arena, would he be making money?
I agree.
the revenue inqueties must be addressed.
If owners were serious about helping out the small market teams, the rich owners would have agreed on a real revenue sharing plan.
But they couldn't give two floaters.
They aren't going to do it.
They want the entire fix to come from the players.