Friday, May 30, 2008

The article everyone's talking about

The six Canadian teams account for 31 per cent of the $1.1 billion (U.S.) in league ticket revenue, and have gone through league-leading double-digit increases over last season, according to the internal NHL report.

Overall, the league has seen its ticket revenue rise almost 10 per cent, but 11 of the 24 U.S.-based clubs were either revenue-flat or lost ticket income.
The fact Canadian teams generate close to one-third of NHL revenues isn't new news; that's a figure we've been batting around here ever since the end of the 2005-06 season.

What's new is that we have some updated ticket revenue figures for all 30 NHL teams. And the picture isn't particularly pretty in some areas.

Ticket revenue is the No. 1 source of income for this league, making up close to 50 per cent of total revenues, and it's here where the majority of the league's growth from a $2.1-billion to $2.56-billion industry has taken place.

Blogger Tyler Dellow says, by his math, the Canadian teams have accounted for about 52 per cent of that growth.

Let's make the numbers do a few things here. First, along with the per game revenue figures provided by Westhead, let's add the total figures and bring up the Canada-U.S. split:


2006-07 Tot. 2007-08 Tot. Growth Change
Canada 6.95 284.95 8.70 356.70 71.75 25.18%
U.S. 17.50 717.50 18.65 764.65 47.15 6.57%

In essence, ticket revenues, in total, went from $1-billion to $1.12-billion over the past year, an increase of $119-million (11.9%).

And Canadian teams provided $71.75-million of that growth, increasing ticket revenues 25.2% compared to a 6.6% increase for American teams. The $71.75-million figure represents 60.3% of the league's growth, which came from just six teams.

And while the Canadian dollar's rise has slowed recently, over the period in question, it swung considerably. The exchange rate's average from Oct. 1, 2006, to April 10, 2007, was 0.866. This season, over that same time period, the loonie has been above par (1.007).

If league ticket revenue growth trends continue at this same pace next season, the Canadian teams' take would jump to 35.4%. If it continued for another year, into 2009-10, that figure would near 40 per cent.

Of course, that bubble's going to burst at some point; Canadian teams are not going to be able to keep up 25 per cent increases forever.

Even still, the movement we've seen postlockout has really changed the structure of the league, to the point that adding another Canadian team has become a real possibility. The average Canadian franchise generated $59.45-million from the gate this season. American teams generated just $31.86-million.

The average Canadian team made $41-million more than Phoenix in ticket revenue alone in 2007-08.

No wonder Balsillie's already given them a call.

As much as some want to rail against "self-important Canadian fans," those figures speak volumes. And they're saying much the same as what NHLPA executive director Paul Kelly told Westhead in his piece.

"I think it would be a huge error not to relocate one of the existing franchises to Hamilton or Winnipeg," Kelly said.



A note that I'll be on the radio in Edmonton (The Team 1260) tonight at 5:45 ET and on Sunday morning in Pittsburgh (KDKA) between 11 and noon.
.

Labels:

36 Comments:

At 2:13 PM, May 30, 2008, Blogger Jeff J said...

The fact Canadian teams generate close to one-third of NHL revenues isn't new news...

The *real* question is: How much of that US revenue is coming from Canadian fans?

 
At 2:24 PM, May 30, 2008, Blogger aaron said...

The league will soon realize that it made a huge mistake abandoning hockey cities like Winnipeg and Quebec City for the American south and southwest.

If NHL wants to grow its game, the best thing you they could do is relocate Phoenix and Florida, or add two new teams north of the border.

 
At 2:52 PM, May 30, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you consider that the non-fudged inflation rate is likely 10% or more, 17 teams had flat or declining ticket revenue. Six of the successful 13 saw a substantial boost in the value of their currency.

This is not a robust league.

Putting teams in economic stinkwaters like Winnipeg and Quebec? What a larf.

 
At 3:10 PM, May 30, 2008, Blogger FAUX RUMORS said...

1) IF a large portion of this increased revenue can be traced to the favourable exchange rate, then this would seem to be a mere house of cards, right?
2) Certainly at some point the dollars will change values again, and we might again be talking about a need to compensate Canadien teams for the difference in currencies.
3) So lets not be so quick to want to relocate every struggling US franchise just yet. We would agree that an addition of another team up north makes sense, especially into Ontario. If the NY metro area can support three teams certainly Ontario can.

 
At 3:13 PM, May 30, 2008, Anonymous David Johnson said...

The problem with relocating or expanding more teams in high revenue areas is that it makes if more and more difficult for the low revenue teams to succeed. Moving Nashville to Hamilton might double or triple their revenues which would increase the salary cap, and more importantly the salary floor. If the salary floor rises, that makes teams in Florida, Atlanta, Carolina, Phoenix, etc. less viable. If another moves, the the others become less viable too. So, the problem is that it is not in the best interest of the fringe markets in the U.S. to allow teams to relocate into larger markets and there are probably enough of these teams that they could block such a move (i.e. getting a 2/3rds vote won't be possible). This is why the NHL prefers small revenue like Las Vegas or Kansas City. Relocating there will lower average revenue and slow the growth of the salary cap and floor.

But this is where the next big CBA battle will arise. The players salaries are now tied in to revenues so they do have an interest in getting teams into big revenue locations (see Kelly's remark) but the players currently have no say in this league decision. The next big CBA battle will be the players trying to get more say in league business decisions or to de-link salaries from revenues if the league won't give them more say. I have no idea how it will turn out but it has the potential to cause another work stoppage.

 
At 3:20 PM, May 30, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Faux.
I agree let's not relocate some of the American teams. Instead do what any capitalist would. Close up shop.
What benefit does this CBA have for the small market Canadian teams? Nothing.
The league Canadian Assistance Plan only went to four of six teams, Montreal and Toronto being excluded.
Give the high taxes and media scrutiny players in Canadian cities, its unfair that these teams are propping up their competitors in markets like St. Louis and Phoenix.
Name one major free agent that has decided to come to a Canadian team since this new CBA came into effect?
It's pure and simple BS that Ottawa and Edmonton are propping up Gretzky and his sad sacked franchise and that a Billionaire like Ted Leonosis can suck money out of the league to sign Ovechkin.
Either the US franchises can start charging Canadian market ticket prices or they can go out of business.
Simple as that.

 
At 3:21 PM, May 30, 2008, Blogger FAUX RUMORS said...

1) Interstng take David. We wonder if the players would also request a piece of the expansion pie as well. Afterall, we're told over and over by Gary that the players and owners are now partners, right?

 
At 3:50 PM, May 30, 2008, Blogger Matt said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 3:51 PM, May 30, 2008, Blogger Bubba said...

I've never been able to understand the seemingly constant comparisons of hockey in America versus hockey in Canada, as it relates to the NHL.

To me and I believe most Americans, the NHL isn't a nationalistic issue. But, I can't say the same about many of my Canadian brothers.

If the idea or goal is to grow the sport, doesn't it make sense to bring hockey where it hasn't been played before? Isn't that the intention? Isn't it logical that it will take time for the game to catch on, perhaps as long as a generation?

The way that it is working here in Carolina, (and I know that our market isn't perfect), is that they have been growing interest in the sport by investing in youth hockey.

When the Canes first came here, there was one public sheet of ice to skate on, now there are 8. Youth and adult leagues are booked to the brim while there was little or no interest previously.

It takes time for kids to grow up playing hockey, to eventually love the sport, and for them to end up being die hard fans. It doesn't happen in a few years.

We just recently had our very first local kid get drafted in the OHL. It's another stepping stone for the area, although laughable when you compare this to a typical Canadian market. But it's another step forward.

How do you grow the sport by moving it back to Winnipeg where everyone already knows about and supposedly loves hockey?

The constant comparisons between the markets gets tiresome. What is the significance that 2.7 million Canadians watched the finals, versus 4 million Americans?

The markets are not equal. They never have been and never will be. While every high school in America has a basketball and football team, they do not have a hockey team. How do you combat that? Give up and move the game back to Canada?

Hockey is more popular in Canada than it is in the United States. We get that.

 
At 3:52 PM, May 30, 2008, Blogger Matt said...

For comparison, these are the annual revenue numbers I found:

NFL $6.7 billion
MLB $6.1 billion
NBA $3.4 billion
NHL $2.56 billion

If these were publicly traded companies, their approximate annual revenue rank would be:

NFL 535
MLB 600
NBA 845
NHL 1000

EBay does about $8 billion a year and is ranked 465.

My interpretation is that the NHL is not doing that badly compared to other leagues and that all sports leagues are relatively small businesses compared to the amount of media attention they receive.

 
At 3:59 PM, May 30, 2008, Blogger Matt said...

What is it that makes a hockey fan? How important is it that you have played the game before? I would think that a long term investment in youth hockey by the NHL would lead to long term growth in revenues, but it would be interesting to see a study that correlates playing hockey with attending NHL games. Maybe it is enough to be exposed to lower level hockey as a spectator to become a paying NHL attendee.

 
At 4:01 PM, May 30, 2008, Blogger James Mirtle said...

I don't think saying that Canadian teams generate twice the revenue that American ones do is a "nationalistic issue." It's a common sense one.

Growing the game is fine and dandy where we see that happening, but how's that process fairing in South Florida, where the team's been for 15 years?

I'm not advocating for 10 Canadian teams, but what I do think makes sense is to put another club in Southern Ontario and perhaps Winnipeg if strong ownership can be sought.

Why ignore basic supply and demand principles here? Why deny millions of fans the chance to have their own teams while chasing disinterested fan bases, expansion cash grabs and real estate deals?

Would this league not be on stronger footing with a more Canadian base than it has now?

The NHL's too concerned with becoming something it'll never be instead of celebrating what it is.

 
At 4:27 PM, May 30, 2008, Blogger Matt said...

It would also be interesting to know what hockey revenues at all levels are doing. Is total hockey revenue on the rise? Are lower level leagues seeing similar trends as the NHL?

One of the things that I like about hockey is that it is fun to watch at almost all skill levels. I would much rather be on the glass for a midget AAA game than in the rafters for an NHL game. I wonder what it would do to the economics to double the number of teams and halve the number of seats in the arenas.

 
At 4:50 PM, May 30, 2008, Blogger James Mirtle said...

Imagine the ticket prices in Toronto then...

 
At 4:58 PM, May 30, 2008, Blogger itchit said...

@Bubba - We in Canada feel snubbed by the NHL's small fish in a big pond approach and would prefer it reversed. We want to see teams where hockey is supremely popular. That way hockey's popularity might not be the punchline to a Leno joke. Hockey is an expensive kid's sport for families compared to football, soccer, baseball & basketball and so will be a very slow growth in Carolina and other southern States. It's painful for us to watch that slow growth while we know we deserve a team already. I think it's not US vs Canada but more southern US vs northern US and Canada(where hockey is in our culture). Hamilton(SW of Toronto)is continuing to feel snubbed much the same way Minnesota felt snubbed before the Wild arrived.
P.S. 8 arenas you say eh? Hamilton (pop. 500,000) has 20. That's not counting the 50 outdoor rinks all winter or any of the surrounding cities & towns.

 
At 5:04 PM, May 30, 2008, Anonymous dvc said...

I'm all for restoring NHL hockey in Canadian markets where they'll be better supported. But wasn't the issue with hockey leaving places like Quebec City and Winnipeg in the first place that those arenas were small and outdated and those local governments would not provide any financial assistance to build new arenas, something that's never really been an issue in the US? Has that reality changed?

And I agree, Matt, it doesn't necessarily take the NHL to make hockey popular in newer markets. Isn't minor league hockey very popular throughout Texas?

 
At 7:25 PM, May 30, 2008, Blogger The Forechecker said...

It would appear that currency effects are by the far the biggest factor involved here. Using your 1.007 and 0.886 figures, that would indicate that about 16% of the gain in Canadian revenue was simply due to the swing in exchange rates on ticket prices, setting aside secondary effects like how the stronger Canadian dollar increases overall wealth up there, leaving more discretionary income for the hockey fan to spend.

Take away that currency swing and Canadian teams' revenues would appear to increase by only 9%, certainly good but not ridiculously ahead of the US rate.

That said, I think it probably is a good idea to relocate a sagging team up to the Hamilton area (I would nominate the Islanders personally), but the argument presented in the article isn't the one I'd make.

 
At 8:45 PM, May 30, 2008, Blogger exwhaler said...

Although I'm among those who want to see a team in Winnipeg, I have some worries about this report:

1. As forechecker nicely points out (and the article mentions), the vast majority of the boost in revenue comes from the strength of the Canadian dollar compared to the U.S. dollar. For instance, the article's chart that compares the ticket revenue gains per game is in U.S. dollars. After adjusting the revenue to reveal actual market growth, the percentage increase is less than some American teams and close to others that are generally seen as weak markets. Teams like St. Louis, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and the Rangers all experienced impressive percentage hikes despite a weak U.S. dollar and slow economy. My question is that if Canadian teams struggled a few seasons ago with a weaker dollar to the point that the league had to compensate them for the difference, is it a really good idea to rely on short-term economic factors to determine where to move franchises?

2. This report does not include ticket sales and varying ticket plans and pricing, which have a direct impact on revenue. You cannot separate one from the other. The New Jersey increase of 41 percent was greatly influenced by a new arena with higher ticket prices, while Detroit's lack of ticket sales marketing to compensate for a horrible area economy influenced their 10 percent drop.

I dunno...but I would think attendence numbers combined with revenue stats would be a better indicator of a healthy hockey market. All this report really shows is how bad the Phoenix franchise is doing and really needs to be located. The rest of it is a paper tiger.

 
At 8:53 PM, May 30, 2008, Blogger Daniel said...

Where does concession come in to play for franchises making money? Lets see, I pay $8 for a crappy hot dog. I pay $3 for the same hot dog at the supermarket, but I get 8. I find it hard to believe the arena doesn't get an awesome bulk deal, so lets exaggerate and say they pay $1 per hot dog. That is $7 profit. Same for beer, nachos and all the other crappy food they serve. I am tired of the teams posting losses, they don't lose any money, the owners are mostly greedy pricks who only own a franchise to make money. Seriously, give some of the teams back to Canada where the market is strong.

That is my only complaint with Bettman, American's doesn't care about the game unless it's home town team is winning. Why do we have all the team? Why does Florida and California combine for 5 teams? Toronto could support them all.

 
At 11:01 PM, May 30, 2008, Anonymous Carrie said...

@Daniel: I'm probably the argument against yours. I'm a huge hockey fan in America. Sure the Pens are my fav. team (been a fan since birth practically) but I watch a lot of other teams. I am a fan of the Canucks and watch them whenever I can. Also, I watch the teams my favorites play against as much as possible to learn of their weaknesses, which makes me love hockey even more. I doubt that I'm alone, though. I dislike the comparisons of American markets to Canadian markets because it's different but I expect iot nonetheless. Let's take the Florida Panthers. They have a weak market, but also they haven't been performing as expected and have different people in the area than those in Canada. Canadians have grown up with the game, while introducing the game to a demographic of people who aren't will get you a different reaction. I think that is the main problem with appealing to the American demographic. We grow up with baseball, football, and other sports, while hockey takes the back seat. I think Canada should have some more markets opened up ... I would love for the Whalers to come back ... but Bettman is going to try to appeal to the American market because once you have us hooked, we are consistent viewers. The biggest problem with that is he goes to us when we already are involved in so many other sports interest-wise that he ends up competing with the things like basketball, which bring in huge ratings. Overall, I understand where you guys are coming from but hockey will always be more popular in Canada then in the United States. I just think that the argument is useless right now, especially since Bettman isn't going to change his strategy.

 
At 3:30 AM, May 31, 2008, Blogger J. Michael Neal said...

There are all sorts of little points to make about these figures, such as that the relative inflation rates in the two countries is as important to look at as the exchange rate. I'm going to ignore those, and deal with a philosophical question. Bubba asks:

If the idea or goal is to grow the sport, doesn't it make sense to bring hockey where it hasn't been played before? Isn't that the intention?

It's not my intention. I have no opinion one way or the other about whether the NHL becomes more popular in new geographic locations. Zero. I don't benefit from increased interest. The closest I come is that it would be a minor improvement to me if the NHL had a better TV contract. However, with the Center Ice package available, the emphasis is on "minor."

To the extent that there is a trickle down effect from interest in the NHL to interest in other levels of hockey, I'm actually opposed to increasing its popularity. As interest has grown, NCAA hockey has become less interesting to me. The complete takeover of the Frozen Four by commercial interests has reached the point that my father and I are seriously considering skipping it in several of the upcoming years. I don't want to go to Tampa to watch the tournament. I don't want to watch hockey in a football stadium, which they are going to do in Detroit in a few years.

The Hobey Baker ceremony used to be free to attend. Now, you have to pay admission to see it, and a skills competition. The best host city I have been to in almost twenty years of attending is Providence, which will never host it again, because their arena is too small.

I really don't understand why people who don't have a financial incentive to grow the sport of hockey care whether it's popular somewhere else. Do you feel validated by knowing that someone that you'll never meet likes the same things you do? I don't get it.

I can understand why hockey fans in these markets care a lot. That makes sense to me. If I were feeling particularly altruistic, it might even lead me to believe in spreading the gospel of hockey. Of course, my sense of altruism for the fan in Hamilton who can't go to Leaf games also kicks in, and I get over it.

In the end, putting hockey teams where more people are interested in them makes way too much sense to me.

 
At 9:28 AM, May 31, 2008, Anonymous degroat said...

Would this league not be on stronger footing with a more Canadian base than it has now?

It's ridiculous to assume that because a team is in Canada that it's guaranteed to be successful. Besides the fact that two teams moved out of Canada not all that long ago, it wasn't all that long ago that some Canadian teams were struggling financially and at the box office. Vancouver went through some rough years at the box office. There's no question that Canadian teams all rebounded incredibly from the lockout, but there's no guarantee that it's a trend that's going to continue.

 
At 12:08 PM, May 31, 2008, Blogger itchit said...

I think our friends in the southern US might need a quick geography lesson. I see a lot of the anti-Canadian expansion/relocation bringing up Winnipeg's and Quebec's failure to hold on to their teams. I see a lot of the pro-Canadian commenters talking about Hamilton. Geography lesson: Winnipeg(8th largest Canadian city) and Quebec(7th largest) are smallish cities isolated in relatively "the middle of nowhere".
Hamilton(9th largest) is smack dab in the middle of a huge supercity called "The Golden Horseshoe" that extends from Toronto to Buffalo, including St. Catherines-Niagara (12th) and is close to many other small cities like London(10th) Kitchener(11th), Guelph, Brantford, Woodstock, Milton, etc... Therefore one could argue that Hamilton represents the 9th plus the 10th, 11th,and 12th largest cities in Canada.
2 completely different situations.

P.S. I have a hunch Winnipeg would work anyway, I don't know enough about Quebec City to have an opinion but how about another team just south of Montreal?

 
At 1:17 PM, May 31, 2008, Anonymous dvc said...

Fair point, itchit. I'm all for more teams in Canada. Heck, the Flames moving from Atlanta to Calgary was probably one of the most successful sports franchise relocations ever.

I guess the arena isn't an issue with Hamilton as it was/is with Winnipeg and Quebec, but what about Toronto and Buffalo not wanting to share that Golden Horseshoe market you mentioned with a third franchise? Hasn't that been the issue with putting a team in Hamilton in the past?

I doubt the Leafs would really be hurt by a team in Hamilton, certainly no more so than the Rangers have been hurt by a team in North Jersey for the last 25 years, but wouldn't the Sabres, theoretically at least, lose a chunk of their market, which is already in decline, western New York not exactly being a growth region of the US? That would seem to me to be a significant obstacle to putting a team in Hamilton. Doesn't really bother me, but then I don't have an ownership stake in the Sabres.

 
At 2:27 PM, May 31, 2008, Blogger James Mirtle said...

It's ridiculous to assume that because a team is in Canada that it's guaranteed to be successful.

Another team in Southern Ontario is guaranteed to be one of the most financially successful teams in the NHL, no questions asked. The market is so ridiculously underserved here that they could potentially have two additional teams in the Toronto area become very, very profitable.

The fact that territorial rights come in here is certainly an issue when it comes to plausibility of this happening, but let's not kid ourselves by saying Canada couldn't support more NHL teams.

That's a joke.

 
At 3:03 PM, May 31, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

JMN makes a good point. Increased popularity isn't necessarily a good thing. Anybody remember a time when NFL football games could be watched in under 3 hours, not 5 1/2 commercial-filled ones? Do hockey fans want a TV contract for the NHL that pays their favorite team millions of dollars, but forces them to watch a Crappy Tire ad after every whistle?

 
At 3:49 PM, May 31, 2008, Blogger Scott said...

Toronto is not hockey crazy. They are certainly Leaf crazy. They may be NHL crazy. I think it's hard to say that the market is "underserved" when it comes to pro hockey though. The Marlies were 19th and the Bulldogs 15th in AHL attendance. Both teams were below the league average. Before the complaining starts about having an NHL team in the area, both the Chicago team was 4th in attendance while the Philadelphia team was 8th. There were another two AHL teams from Pennsylvania in the top five. The Marlies were third last in playoff attendance. The two teams below them only had three home games. They had ten. A deep playoff run and nobody cares. The GTA is not hockey-country. It's possibly Leaf country. It's possibly NHL country. Maybe it's time to give some of the smaller markets a break instead of clamouring to relocate their teams. How exactly does the GTA "deserve" another team when they don't even support the teams they have?

 
At 3:57 PM, May 31, 2008, Blogger James Mirtle said...

The fact the Marlies don't draw is in no way indicative of how well Southern Ontario would do with another NHL team.

The AHL tickets have been overpriced for years ($50?), the arena is hard to access via public transit, until this season the team was never very good and the hockey, frankly, has been awful the majority of the time.

There's no question this is a Leafs town, but there are also a ton of NHL fans who are unable to buy a ticket to the Air Canada Centre for a game.

I'm from the West, and didn't realize this until I moved here, but another team in the metro area is a slam dunk. Absolutely.

 
At 12:59 PM, June 01, 2008, Blogger itchit said...

If you (Balsillie) put a team in the middle of the Hamilton -Kitchener -Brantford triangle it would be outside of the territorial issue. I believe Balsillie was already interested at one time in building an arena closer to Kitchener. I also heard speculation that the territorial rights might not be upheld if it came to a Court case. Apparently the 100 km(?) stipulation only came into effect after Copps (Hamilton's arena) had been built and Hamilton lost it's expansion bid to Tampa Bay (good going Gary Bettman). Besides, Buffalo was all set to fold 4-5 years ago before the recent playoff successes. The argument of not allowing a "slam dunk" profitable franchise a chance b/c of potential damage to a failing one (Buffalo) goes against all capitalist philosophy and frankly is beyond me. As I've said before, if you only allowed people living in Toronto who own a orange Oldsmobile and a gerbil named Mr. Nibbles to buy tickets to the new Hamilton team it would still sell out in a split second.

 
At 12:05 AM, June 02, 2008, Blogger Doogie said...

Hamilton lost it's expansion bid to Tampa Bay (good going John Ziegler)

Fixed. The Tampa Bay decision was made well before Napoleon took over.

 
At 11:09 AM, June 02, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did anyone see MacLean interview Napoleon on HNIC on Saturday night? Why didn't they get Elliote to do the interview, but that's for another time...

Very interesting to see Gary get his back up and insist nothing is wrong and everything is roses in ATL, NASH, FLA, PHX, etc despite anecdotal and NHL reports to the contrary... Losing $30M a year in PHX is considered "nothing's wrong"???

 
At 12:13 PM, June 02, 2008, Anonymous degroat said...

Another team in Southern Ontario is guaranteed to be one of the most financially successful teams in the NHL, no questions asked. The market is so ridiculously underserved here that they could potentially have two additional teams in the Toronto area become very, very profitable.

The problem with your claim is that having two professional teams of the same league in the same city rarely results in two 'very very profitable' teams. And even if both are 'successful', one is almost always the red-headed step child of the city. Cubs & White Sox. Lakers & Clippers. Rangers & Islanders. There are only two examples I'm aware of that buck the trend and that is the Giants and Jets in the NYC area and the Dodgers and Angels (and an argument could be made that one barely qualifies).

I'm not saying that Hamilton couldn't support a team, but you're kidding yourself if you think it's a guaranteed long-term success. I'm sure you'd claim that Vancouver is a better hockey town than all but a few US markets. In 99-00, the Canucks averaged 14,642 per game. That would put them 29th in the league this year. That same year both Edmonton and Calgary both averaged under 16K. Right now things are going great for the Canadian market, but things change.

 
At 12:21 PM, June 02, 2008, Blogger James Mirtle said...

Those three cities, combined, are smaller than Toronto.

Those three markets, combined, aren't anywhere close to the Golden Horseshoe in terms of population or wealth.

That's a terrible comparison.

 
At 2:45 PM, June 02, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alas, the smoking gun!

 
At 8:33 PM, June 02, 2008, Anonymous degroat said...

There is evidence that shows that a 2nd team in the Toronto area isn't a guaranteed success. If you can't see that, then you're simply seeing what you want to see and blindly ignoring the evidence that you don't want to view as relevant.

 
At 11:00 PM, June 02, 2008, Blogger bkblades said...

There is evidence that shows that a 2nd team in the Toronto area isn't a guaranteed success. If you can't see that, then you're simply seeing what you want to see and blindly ignoring the evidence that you don't want to view as relevant.

I would love to see this evidence that definitively shows that a second professional (and that's the key word here, an NHL team) cannot be successful in the largest metropolitan region in Canada. It's one of the main reasons why Toronto continually tries to bring an NFL team.

It's not so much because of the rich football history in the city or the desperate need for football, but the mentality (some could call it arrogance) for another big league sport.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link


.

Free Page Rank Checker
eXTReMe Tracker