|
Post by razorsedge on Jun 6, 2009 21:03:08 GMT -5
What really gets under my skin is the term Balsillie likes to use for southern Ontario: Unserved. How the h*ll is southern Ontario the largest unserved market. There is enough teams in that area of North America!
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Jun 6, 2009 21:08:50 GMT -5
^ every tried to attend a leafs game...i believe the GTA and southern Ontario could easily support a few more teams...if you live in North York are you really going to drive hours to another country to attend a hockey game for a team you don't necessarily care for...
|
|
|
Post by razorsedge on Jun 6, 2009 22:18:25 GMT -5
I agree a team would be successful, I just feel "unserved" isn't the right term for Southern Ontario. Central Canada and or even central North America is unserved.
|
|
|
Post by jaylon1970 on Jun 6, 2009 22:30:32 GMT -5
I agree a team would be successful, I just feel "unserved" isn't the right term for Southern Ontario. Central Canada and or even central North America is unserved. central canada does not have the corporate support as you do in southern ontario and the region around toronto...
|
|
|
Post by razorsedge on Jun 6, 2009 22:34:48 GMT -5
I agree a team would be successful, I just feel "unserved" isn't the right term for Southern Ontario. Central Canada and or even central North America is unserved. central canada does not have the corporate support as you do in southern ontario and the region around toronto... In comparison no, but the corporate support is there for Winnipeg.
|
|
|
Post by stannis on Jun 8, 2009 8:51:47 GMT -5
To me it seems as though there would be too much hockey in one area. We have to drive about 7 hours just to go and see a game. There seems to be more than enough choice around Hamilton. Of course there is. I have no sympathy for Hamilton, the city has a remarkable five teams within a drive of 5 1/2 hours. With that much choice, it's not a large enough market to get its own team. You want to make it seven, Jim? You have three acceptable options. Move a team to Winnipeg. Move one to Quebec City. Or make Toronto a two-team city. Those can all be had, with a fair chance of success at worst and little chance of damaging the Sabres. Do not put a team in Hamilton. Couldn't have said it better myself.
|
|
|
Post by buffalobrian on Jun 8, 2009 16:03:38 GMT -5
To me it seems as though there would be too much hockey in one area. We have to drive about 7 hours just to go and see a game. There seems to be more than enough choice around Hamilton. Of course there is. I have no sympathy for Hamilton, the city has a remarkable five teams within a drive of 5 1/2 hours. With that much choice, it's not a large enough market to get its own team. You want to make it seven, Jim? You have three acceptable options. Move a team to Winnipeg. Move one to Quebec City. Or make Toronto a two-team city. Those can all be had, with a fair chance of success at worst and little chance of damaging the Sabres. Do not put a team in Hamilton. I disagree with your statement sniper. Most of the people that cross the border to attend Sabres games do so because of the major price difference between Leafs and Sabres tickets. Full season ticket holders can purchase 100 level seats for less than $50 a seat. The same seats at ACC would cost three times that. I expect that a team in Hamilton would have a seat price of $100 minimum. My point is, the Leafs especially, have price many people out of tickets and a team in Hamilton would do the same for a large number of people. If you live in St. Catherines, half way between Buffalo and Hamilton, my guess is you'll still attend games in Buffalo due to the price difference.
|
|
|
Post by JETStender on Jun 17, 2009 15:02:04 GMT -5
I too for the longest time thought it was a 50 Mile radius from rink. However, the New Jersey Devils had to not only pay the Islanders and Rangers, but the Flyers as well. This was because New Jersey's 50 mile radius encroached on Philadelphia's 50 mile radius. Even if a team was placed in Kitchener/Waterloo, some type of payment would have to be made to Buffalo. JetsTender is right. On top of paying off the Rangers and Islanders, the Devils had to pay the Flyers for TV territorial right infringement. I don't know how much was paid out and in whether it was lump sum or annually. NEW YORK (AP) - McMullen, principal owner of baseball's Houston Astros, and partners Brendan Byrne, the former governor of New Jersey for whom the arena is named, and John Whitehead, purchased the Colorado Rockies Thursday. The deal will cost them an estimated $30 million.
They paid approximately $9 million to Peter Gilbert for the team, and agreed to an estimated $7 million transfer fee upon receiving the necessary unanimous permission Thursday from the league's Board of Governors for the move to sports complex in East Rutherford, N.J.
Running up the tab further are indemnification payments to the New York Rangers, New York Islanders and Philadelphia Flyers for invasion of their territory and television market plus travel concessions made to the Winnipeg Jets who replace the Rockies in the Smythe Division$5M each to the New York teams, $2M to the Flyers. This was also called the "indemnification payment". That leave the other $2M probably going to the Jets for travel.
|
|
|
Post by allthisgold on Jun 17, 2009 17:36:11 GMT -5
Not sure how the team in Hamilton or Toronto would affect the Sabres. However if you are the Sabres you simply don't want to take the risk. A loss of even 1,000 people a game could really hurt that franchise. A franchise like Buffalo could really tank if the city's economy suffers or the team goes into a prolonged period of losing. If I am Buffalo I am fighting this all the way.
|
|
|
Post by WpgJets2008 on Jun 18, 2009 8:50:25 GMT -5
Some thoughts on options for territorial rights compensation and the Sabres risky situation:
If a Hamilton or K-W team arrives somehow, you could argue that territorial rights indemnification is more important to the Sabres than the Leafs. So Buffalo should get more compensation than the Leafs simply out of franchise need.
The crowds and corporate support in Buffalo have been good. Ticket pricing is much less than Canadian teams too. So you have to understand that another NHL team in SWO is a potential big problem (maybe even devastating) to the Sabres, if that 15% of their fans stays in Canada to watch games. The club's past bankruptcy wasn't due to fanbase or corporate support, it was the owners who got themselves into hot water on their own. Losing their NHL team is as nonsensical as Winnipeg's and Quebec's loss in that the fanbase and markets weren't the problem.
I would suggest if I'm the Sabres that any new SWO team (except a second Toronto team which would be too far away), needs to pay out annual compensation to the Sabres for the next 10 years before the market has a chance to find its new balance point and to allow the Sabres to market their club in new ways and new areas. A one time cash payout at the beginning is very hard on that new SWO team and yet has alot of risk associated back to the Sabres. Once the money's gone and it is deemed inadequate then what does the Sabres and the league do? The only option then is to move the club. By spreading out the payments over years, there is time to adjust to the market realities affecting the Sabres, better or wrose than expected at the outset and allows the new team (eg. cash cow) to send profits to the Sabres which really doesn't affect the new clubs viability.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by JETStender on Jun 18, 2009 16:04:31 GMT -5
Some thoughts on options for territorial rights compensation and the Sabres risky situation: If a Hamilton or K-W team arrives somehow, you could argue that territorial rights indemnification is more important to the Sabres than the Leafs. So Buffalo should get more compensation than the Leafs simply out of franchise need. The crowds and corporate support in Buffalo have been good. Ticket pricing is much less than Canadian teams too. So you have to understand that another NHL team in SWO is a potential big problem (maybe even devastating) to the Sabres, if that 15% of their fans stays in Canada to watch games. The club's past bankruptcy wasn't due to fanbase or corporate support, it was the owners who got themselves into hot water on their own. Losing their NHL team is as nonsensical as Winnipeg's and Quebec's loss in that the fanbase and markets weren't the problem. I would suggest if I'm the Sabres that any new SWO team (except a second Toronto team which would be too far away), needs to pay out annual compensation to the Sabres for the next 10 years before the market has a chance to find its new balance point and to allow the Sabres to market their club in new ways and new areas. A one time cash payout at the beginning is very hard on that new SWO team and yet has alot of risk associated back to the Sabres. Once the money's gone and it is deemed inadequate then what does the Sabres and the league do? The only option then is to move the club. By spreading out the payments over years, there is time to adjust to the market realities affecting the Sabres, better or wrose than expected at the outset and allows the new team (eg. cash cow) to send profits to the Sabres which really doesn't affect the new clubs viability. Chris I've been thinking the Sabers stand too lose more then the Leafs, but then I read about the ST renewals being in the high 90's, and about the long wait lists for ST's. Take away the "15% of Canadians who purchase tickets" then their in no real trouble at all. Unless there is actually more Canadians buying tickets then they say.
|
|