|
Post by sawchuk on Jul 2, 2007 19:11:10 GMT
Hamilton, Quebec, Winnipeg for three. The whole ordeal looks a little odd. The new deal looks to have been accepted for $50m less than the previous offer. What's going on there? 2 previously failed franchises and another too close to Toronto for Toronto not to veto it. Like I said, when even Canadians don't think the time is right for another Canadian franchise, you have to wonder whether they have a point. You're making a generalisation on this point, as "not all Canadians" have expressed the view that you are claiming. Quebec & Winnipeg moved at a time when the Canadian economy wasn't as strong as it is at this moment in time. Failed franchises? I guess the Calgary franchise is a "failed" one too given you moved from Atlanta...
|
|
|
Post by Peacock on Jul 2, 2007 20:40:55 GMT
You're making a generalisation on this point, as "not all Canadians" have expressed the view that you are claiming. Quebec & Winnipeg moved at a time when the Canadian economy wasn't as strong as it is at this moment in time. Failed franchises? I guess the Calgary franchise is a "failed" one too given you moved from Atlanta... Yes, you're right, it is a generalisation (although to be fair I never claimed 'all Canadians'). That doesn't mean the basic premise is any less true. Comments I have seen in the Canadian media, and views posted on Canadian Hockey websites and forums suggest that now is not quite the time for a new Canadian franchise. Quebec and Winnipeg were the 2 smallest markets in the NHL...and still would be. Hamilton, as I said, is just too close to Toronto for it to be viable. NHL popularity overall has taken a mauling in the last few years, and it needs to restabilse then grow it's fan base before it considers expanding the number of teams. As for your last point...the Atlanta franchise was the failure, not the Calgary one. They're doing rather nicely...highest %age of capacity attendence for last 2 seasons...and 1 Stanley Cup. ;D
|
|
|
Post by sawchuk on Jul 4, 2007 23:25:09 GMT
I'm not going to nit pick, but the Atlanta Flames and the Calgary Flames are the same franchise.
|
|
|
Post by NevesMetro on Jul 5, 2007 14:20:01 GMT
I'm not going to nit pick, but the Atlanta Flames and the Calgary Flames are the same franchise. Yes they are but, and this is only a matter of opinion... I don't think that they should be. If an owner moves a team because the grass is greener somewhere else then it should be the same franchise, however when the team is put up for sale and a group from over two and a half thousand miles away buys the team (for a record amount at the time) then it shouldn't be the same franchise. To me different city with different owners is not the same team even if the players are.
|
|
|
Post by Peacock on Jul 5, 2007 19:48:10 GMT
I'm not going to nit pick, but the Atlanta Flames and the Calgary Flames are the same franchise. Yes they are but, and this is only a matter of opinion... I don't think that they should be. If an owner moves a team because the grass is greener somewhere else then it should be the same franchise, however when the team is put up for sale and a group from over two and a half thousand miles away buys the team (for a record amount at the time) then it shouldn't be the same franchise. To me different city with different owners is not the same team even if the players are. That's the more or less the same point I was going to make but you beat me to it.
|
|
|
Post by NevesMetro on Jul 5, 2007 20:03:19 GMT
Yes they are but, and this is only a matter of opinion... I don't think that they should be. If an owner moves a team because the grass is greener somewhere else then it should be the same franchise, however when the team is put up for sale and a group from over two and a half thousand miles away buys the team (for a record amount at the time) then it shouldn't be the same franchise. To me different city with different owners is not the same team even if the players are. That's the more or less the same point I was going to make but you beat me to it. Yeah, sorry didn't mean to get in the middle of a conversation. It's just that I've spoken to a few hockey fans in Atlanta and they are still (a little) bitter about how the Flames were SOLD out of town. Some are even (a little) bitter that the Knights moved out to make way for the Thrashers
|
|
|
Post by sawchuk on Jul 7, 2007 12:03:44 GMT
I'm not going to nit pick, but the Atlanta Flames and the Calgary Flames are the same franchise. Yes they are but, and this is only a matter of opinionNo it isn't, it's a simple fact that the hockey franchise that iced in Atlanta is the same one that was re-located to Calgary. It's the same with the Toronto franchise as the Arenas, St Pats & Leafs are all the same franchise regardless of their different name. But like I said, I'm not going to nit pick as it's pointless
|
|
|
Post by NevesMetro on Jul 7, 2007 15:25:48 GMT
Yes they are but, and this is only a matter of opinionNo it isn't, it's a simple fact that the hockey franchise that iced in Atlanta is the same one that was re-located to Calgary. It's the same with the Toronto franchise as the Arenas, St Pats & Leafs are all the same franchise regardless of their different name. But like I said, I'm not going to nit pick as it's pointless Sorry to say....But you did managed to nit pick past my first three words ;D. I said that it's the same franchise, I KNOW that it's the same and I have no doubt that (no matter how often a team moves) they will always be classed as the same. However, It's only my very own opinion that thinks that if a team is sold to different owners in a different city then the franchise should not really be the same one. My opinion won't chance the facts but it's still my opinion Cheers
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,405
|
Post by Yotes on Aug 1, 2007 23:16:59 GMT
|
|