On 2009/08/01, at 2:05, William Underwood wrote:
>
>
> What will be telling about Bettman is how the league reacts to other
> relocation bids.would Bettman fight like a tiger if it was say
> Edmonton
> trying to move to Vegas? We have not really seen such vehement
> opposition
> to that--witness Winnipeg and Quebec.Granted they had facility issue
> but
> Bettman seemed to do little to even try to overcome them.
>










   Phoenix is all about an arena issue. The NHL gets the city of
Glendale to pitch in
and build an arena and then they are going to let the team move five
years after?


Somebody mentioned it awhile back on the list, the NHL did back the
drive which kept the Oilers in Edmonton in
when they let a large ownership group purchase the team at a
considerably lower price than the bid that was on the
table to move the team to Houston.



      And I'd attack the  weak middle.go to war head to head for
players ONLY against the weakest  markets.



Start a rival league in the middle of a pretty deep recession?


James







































[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Point by point James.



There is more to it than the arena issue in Glendale.yes it is part of the
problem but there is also a Camerone mentality (Foreign Legion battle where
there was no surrender rand the last few remaining legionnaires fixed
bayonets and charged a large Mexican force of course being killed in the
doing) of "retreat.never".



As for Edmonton, yes they did make an effort but a rather paltry one as
compared to here. Of course there was an end game there so we never saw it
go to the fullest extent. It comes back to the original question."how far
would they have went?" Nobody ahs that answer but as there is even a
perception that they might not because it is Canada is highly reflective of
the image of the league in that country.



Finally, as far as starting a new league in the middle of a recession.you
normally would be right. Actually James in this case THERE IS NO BETTER
TTIME! The recession doesn't hit hockey in Canada as it does the US as it is
more of a priority item for sponsors and fans. Note that right now there
have been aside from Balsilllie at least 4 groups whom have inquired about
an NHL team for Toronto, a group who bid on Montreal talking Quebec, two
other Canadian groups talking Phoenix one of whom wants to play some games
in Saskatoon and Halifax.while we have what one group out of the US bid on
Phoenix! Canadians with money are coming out of the wood work in search of
teams and how many US investors does the NHL have seriously inquiring about
a sick franchise? Not many. In the new NHL markets hockey is down on the
totem pole a bit and when belts tighten it gets dumped.I submit they are
ripe for an attack.



When you hit an enemies weak point it is doubly effective if you catch him
at a time of poor logistics. You create havoc. While your point is correct
in many situations, having been in the business of promotion for twenty odd
years and been through the new league thing time and time again ranging from
the wildly successful to never got of the ground.I have seen it all and also
learned that paradigms don have exceptions. This is one of them. You are
talking about starting a product that is not a new one and is a revered one
in a market with the express purpose of battle with a product that is weak
in the target markets to attack in a weak economy. Now if we were talking
introductory product in a new market your logic would be flawless and if the
competitor was well entrenched in all markets like the NHL of say 25 years
ago, it would be suicide. Remember in the 70's the NHL was not in a
completely different scenario.weak franchise sin Oakland, KC, Atlanta et al
and the economy was in an inflationary era in 72 then a recession as the oil
crisis hit. The WHA made it through SEVEN years largely because the NHL had
its own fiscal problems. I also submit that if done in conjunction with the
Russians you are talking two oil producing nations going to bat together.
Not only do you have a formidable ally who wants their own venture to
succeed that is in so many word state subsidized, but also you have a
natural differentiation. You are not just the NHL wanna be but you offer an
international dimension. You have a Canada/Russia rivalry and the dual
tailed nationalistic angle of Canada having its own league but also socking
it to Gary. Quite frankly there may be no better time for it.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Actually 8000 a game was pretty good for a new league. Now when you look
closer at WHA attendance in Canada it is actually more impressive than
that.Edmonton was over 10,000 the last two years.Quebec and Winnipeg closer
to 9000.Quebec only seated 10004 in those days, Winnipeg 10031 so they had
nearly 90 % capacity filled. The Toros had over 10000 one year despite
Harold giving them lousy dates and nearly 9000 the next year despite a bad
team. Granted Ottawa, Calgary and Vancouver did not do as well but Calgary
played in the old Corral.



No second league in its right mind expects to MATCH the existent league! He
who plans for that is on some serious wed! :-)  My rule of thumb is if you
can start out at 50 % capacity you are doing good. History tells us not to
expect more. The only rival league in ANY sport that did better was the old
AAFC but they really were an anomaly!  They actually out drew the
established league in head to head markets in LA and New York and had a
better league wide average attendance.of course in Chicago they were a
disaster! But they were a part of the post WW II boom in the late 40's and
it was before TV and the real rise of pro football.



Now if you are not paying what the NHL does across the board you don't need
their revenues, plus if you do something that they don't, do revenue sharing
you make the entity stronger. Even if you do as I suggest, go after the
weaklings you will have more teams than the weak point of the line that you
are attacking nr will you bat 100 % on their players.add on you have the
Russians to go after certain players from them especially the Europeans. The
low end of your line up and farm players CAN NOT GET BIG MONEY!  There are
also structure for both revenue and payrolls that have not been well
explored by traditional leagues some of which are quite novel. One was
broached to me a while back that I can't really discuss publicly that was
FASCINATING for the minor pro level but there is NO REASON why it could not
be applied to a larger venture.only the NFL has even scratched the surface
on the sort of concept for the revenue side. They can even open up PR opps
and tax situations that would be VERY positive for investors but are simply
not possible the way that franchises, contracts, Players Associations and
league by laws are structured by traditional leagues. A new venture need not
be constrained by them.



If you put together the right sort of league you could do at least as well
at the gate as the WHA maybe even better as it is a different era, it is
much easier to promote stuff today. They did not have the technology that we
do. And remember, it can all be structured so you don't NEED NHL size crowds
to cut it.



As for the Canadian teams.I don't think that they would be hurt and in fact
you would go out of your way NOT to do so.by not attacking them directly yet
having a presence in Canada that they get no piece of offers them a possible
motive for future merger. They would feel pressure as you would be another
entity in their back yard but you would not attack their pay rolls. You
would also try to cultivate the wealthier teams by again, not attacking them
as it would be futile. What you want to do is to take that weak part of the
NHL and make it a liability for the stronger part and given their stance on
revenue sharing and that many teams imply lack the funs to help the weak you
would put leverage on them for a merger."merge and take in our cities or
lose teams and credibility." That is sort of what the WHA did."we may not
make a ton of money but we will bleed you where it hurts." the NHL lost a
team and had several others on the brink by the end.And to once again
address another post.the recession was actually an ally of the WHA. They
were relatively lean and mean and actually had a plan to go international
had there been no merger. They had retreated down to three strong Canadian
clubs and one strong US club at the core with two very wealthy groups in
other markets to fill out the league who could weather the storm. The NHL
had weak links back then too and the economy out them in a worse
scenario.remember we EXPECT teams to move and old in new leagues now old
leagues. In one it is what you plan to se in the other it is a extraordinary
thing.



Now no one says it would be a slam dunk success but at some point it is an
option if all others fail. Rival leagues are created when established ones
fail to serve their market. The KHL ahs happened because the NHL ahs always
treated Europe very badly. As they ignore/turn down one Canadian city and
group after another they run the risk of the same thing happening at home.
This is not like other sports where there simply is no market left open, the
NHL is like the NBA leaving several basketball hot beds open and expanding
into great hoops towns like Montreal, Edmonton and Vancouver to "expand the
borders of their game" or the NFL dumping US markets where there is support
to start Euro teams.  The markets and owners are there.and worse yet for
them there is a European side to the equation with money and a string sense
of nationalism. So while it might not be easy the time might be PERFECT for
an INTER KONTIENTAL (no typo.unlike the NHL you RESPECT other nationalities
so the "K" stays) HOCKEY ASSOCIATION!







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Besides hating the *Balsillie* bid, Bettman hates the Coyotes ownership
group. Further, he has defecated on the city of Glendale. The current bid
that Bettman favors essentially only assumes the debt of the Coyotes and
turns on the city of Glendale giving up more concessions to the Coyotes.

As to the suggestion of starting a rival league of some sort (the ghost of
the IHL?), any such effort must incorporate the international size rinks and
rules. Using NHL rink sizes and NHL rules essentially creates a me too
product. Why would consumers pay for that?

As Michael Wilbon, columnist for the Washington Post and co-host of ESPN's
PTI, notes, every city has die hard hockey fans. Unfortunately, all 18,000
of them are at the arena. In other words, no television audience exist
because the live product meets demand. Why would I switch to a league I have
never heard of, and teams that I know nothing about unless you give me
alternate product.

Hockey that uses international rinks and rules posses a threat to the NHL.
Anything less than that, and Bettman never loses sleep.

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Karkoski James <austin@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> On 2009/08/01, at 2:05, William Underwood wrote:
> >
> >
> > What will be telling about Bettman is how the league reacts to other
> > relocation bids.would Bettman fight like a tiger if it was say
> > Edmonton
> > trying to move to Vegas? We have not really seen such vehement
> > opposition
> > to that--witness Winnipeg and Quebec.Granted they had facility issue
> > but
> > Bettman seemed to do little to even try to overcome them.
> >
>
> Phoenix is all about an arena issue. The NHL gets the city of
> Glendale to pitch in
> and build an arena and then they are going to let the team move five
> years after?
>
> Somebody mentioned it awhile back on the list, the NHL did back the
> drive which kept the Oilers in Edmonton in
> when they let a large ownership group purchase the team at a
> considerably lower price than the bid that was on the
> table to move the team to Houston.
>
> And I'd attack the weak middle.go to war head to head for
> players ONLY against the weakest markets.
>
> Start a rival league in the middle of a pretty deep recession?
>
> James
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Note, when I say that the goal is 50 % capacity I don't mean in a really
small building! :-) And before one brings up the KHL.European hockey has
entirely different standards as their financial structure and tax laws
differ.a notable example being rugby in Italy. There is a lot of money in
Italian rugby, enough so that they made many of the Wallaby players form
Australia such highly paid schmamateurs in the early 90's that they could
not afford go pro in rugby league! Now those teams drew small crowds But the
Italian government gave SERIOUS tax right offs for sports sponsorship.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You don't need millions of Americans to "switch".just x number of CANADIANS
who want their cities to have teams and resent Bettman. The Washington Post
columnist is right.about the US.not Canada! And the idea is a CANADIAN
dominated league. The goal in the US would be sheerly to get the more like
10000 fans in the weak markets to dip to 5000 not because of another league
to watch but rather they don't want to watch their pathetic mess of a
franchise! The marketing is directed toward CANADA for the PRECISE reason
that this is  a topic.the NHL has teams where as the columnist accurately
points out here are few to no fans but doesn't where there are fans.Canadian
fans don't need hockey laced with NHL stars to come out and see it.ask any
Leaf fan! :-) Why would customers pay for it? Because it is a chance for
Quebec, Hamilton, Winnipeg et al to see high level hockey. Because it is a
league that is CANADIAN and does not forget the game's roots or most loyal
fans. And because each dollar spent on it is a way to stick it to Gary
Bettman who has for ten years derided them if not in words but by action. It
is a chance for Canada to have what every top Euro nation has , a league to
call its own. And it is a chance to say "bleep off Gary, we will show you
the price for not letting us in your league and you had better think again."



You are underestimating this stuff. Remember CFL fans in Canada do not rally
around the NFL. The Bills were rather disappointed in Toronto. They thought
"well CFL is not even really big league ball anymore so of we come
Torontonians and Canadians of every sort will scream hallaleaujah!" They
didn't. Why? Say what we want about the CFL, it is CANADIAN and has that
CANADIAN content which apparently means something. I'm actually surprised at
the number of  emails that I have gotten off line saying "great idea"..



And calling it an "IHL" is WAY off base! The "I" was always a league that
was essentially a league with mixed identity.most of it wanted to stay minor
pro a FEW teams wanted better.they only had a few players of bona fide NHL
caliber.the KHL has already done better than  that! They would get the odd
hold out to play but leave as soon as the hold out ended and the very odd
good young Euro.it never really became anything more than a very good AAA
league. A league with this sort of ownership and goals would take more god
players. The IHL's budget for most clubs was always miniscule. This would
not be the ghost of the IHL but the WHA and actually much more formidable
with wealthy foreign allies and not feeling the need that the WHA did, to go
into what were either weak US markets or US markets with not enough room for
another hockey team.



Finally if they go messing with your weakest team Bettman BETTER lose
sleep.how many people will pay to see a loser in the newer cities? How many
will stick with instability? All you have to do is to push already weak
teams that bit farther toward the cliff.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Incidentally Mike you don't need to go to international rules or ice
surfaces to differentiate the game.try on full 2 minutes served for all
minors ala pre 1956.get rid of the transom and big creases, back to the
smaller squares and allow goalies to come out but strike the rule (read it
sometime it makes you say to yourself that there are more rules conditions
about how to legally clobber these guys than there are for getting tax write
offs) that says that you have to try to avoid hitting them when they leave
the crease they are just weird looking D so they do so at their own
risk.dump the instigator rule and let the players police themselves.bring
back the banana blade.go to a 3-2-1-0 point system 3 for a regulation time
win, 2 for a OT win 1 for a shoot out win and NONE for a  loss..go to the
Olympic rule on face offs which is a very limited time to get the change and
set or the puck drops.use the old WHA icing rule, as I recall it was to ice
the puck when short you have to clear the blue line.get rid of time outs,
sorry but Punch Imlach, Toe Blake and generations of great coaches lived
without them so lets keep the darn game moving.and if you want international
rules you use them for games against European teams if there are any in the
regular season and for sure in a final series which could be a best of 7
game final, 3 hosted by team A, three by team B and we go back to A for 7 if
needed so there would only be two trips max! Regular season inter
continental play could be handled a lot like the ECHL does, you have a
choice of how much but each team MUST go across the pond for at least one
small block of games. It could be say three in Moscow and that is it! Or
maybe three in Ontario.two in Hamilton one in Toronto.keep it limited, a
special change of pace and cheap! You don't have to make the game European
hockey which may not go here to make it different.I'd also look at for non
international games going with a 16 and 2 line up.it cuts costs. You also
would not need the farm systems that the NHL has, they would RUN your farm
system in  effect as you would raid their minors for your players. The WHA
did that! You have maybe 25 or 26 guys under contract. It saves you money
again. Another interesting concept that I have seen proposed is to have a
pooled farm system, that is x number pf players are signed to LEAGUE
contracts and open to everyone! You could actually hybridize it and go with
maybe 23 contract players per team then a league pool of x number open on
first come first served.thus teams could again save costs.



There are ways to differentiate that would make EVERYONE happy form the "not
enough hitting/fighting folks to the "not enough scoring" folks. You may
even be able to lighten up on zero tolerance and get MORE goals.you heard
that right! Why? Because every minor is a FULL two minutes! It can cost you
two goals against a good PP. Thus you would learn to not take the dumb two
but you could still be allowed to hit more! And with no instigator a lot of
dirty garbage may decline and we may see a few more legit fights. With the
PP rule, the goalie now more encouraged to stay put as if they are caught
with that puck they can be purposely freight trained like any D, banana
blades and chicken coaching being penalized as it would cost you a point the
minute that you go into OT tied, you would see scoring go up. So lets see a
league with more goals, a bit more hitting , a bit more fighting, less dead
time for changes and time outs a bit to appeal to old time hockey yet also
appeal to new hockey.how different is that?



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

And more bits of differentiation.perhaps have an import rule, say 4 non
Canadians and if you go into the US a minimal number of American/US produced
players.maybe even a draft where teams get to select a local first.Adding a
US team or two might be an idea then as you get a Canadian/US rivalry in
there since it would be more Canadian versus American players. And
add/encourage COLOR. Remember the old days when Punch Imlach called Vachon a
junior B goalie? Remember when Melrose and Burns had the "Billy Ray
Cyrus/Wayne Newton" quotes? The days when then Ranger Gump Worsley answered
in an interview when asked which NHL team gave him the toughest time and he
didn't miss a beat and said "the Rangers."? Or wasn't it Gerry Cheevers who
after a blow out was asked what happened and he said "roses are red violets
are blue they got 10 and we only got 2." The No Humor League cracks down the
minute a guy gets even a little but fun! Guys like Brett Hull and Roenick
are PRECISELY what should be unleashed.mouths that roar and have THE
quote.Be the league that is about FUN not corporate homogenized politically
correct dullness! A league that is about FANS not SUITS and you know
something the suits will buy it. Why? They want to sell their various
products to the FANS who outnumber them! To go t an extreme ask Vince
MacMahon who makes being non PC but fun a life style and they can't buy
enough of him! Not that I am suggesting going that off the wall but
everything in healthy doses.and the man took a nearly dead product and made
into an entertainment empire because he remembered the object.to ENTERTAIN!
On a  less extreme, Canadian will understand this one.I love the Blue Bomber
coach Kelly, he is not afraid to have fun! He derided the shot gun in a fun
way sort of saying it was for the brain dead and when he was asked about his
QB situation asked sideline reporter Sara Orelsky..: "can you throw?"  Or
yesterday when his punter made the most bizarre mess of a fake punt and his
won guy sort made like fair catch of it (not legal) he didn't scream, he
laughed along with the rest of us! GREAT STUFF, This man deserves a Grey
Cup! This is what it is all about.FUN! Leagues like the NHL forget that and
take it all too seriously as if it was a war not a GAME that is about
ENTERTAINMENT and FUN! Make personality a big part of who you hire, this
game has a lot of characters and people who are dying to be colorful if you
only let them. HIRE THEM and let them know that they have a lot of rope
within reason to run with things, it is ok to be fun.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In my opinion, it's unworkable, for the following reasons:

There's no way the NHL would allow a franchise from an upstart league to share a
building with an existing NHL franchise.

There are only 12 cities in Canada with rinks that have over 8000 seats.  Of
these, 6 have NHL teams.  There are 3 cities who have 2 rinks of such size each:
Vancouver, Toronto, and Ottawa.  So we are left with 9 possible sites for
franchises in a new league:  Vancouver, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, London, Hamilton,
Toronto, Ottawa, Quebec, Halifax.  It is unlikely that a major league team can
survive for long in an arena with less than 8000 seats, especially if this new
league expects to compete for NHL-calibre players by offering similar salaries. 
Two leagues competing for the same players will only drive the price for players
up, as it did in the 1970s.

Unless new arenas are built in Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, and Kitchener, there
are no possible sites for expansion.  Canada simply does not have the
quickly-growing emerging major-league markets like those of the American South. 
An upstart league will not have the money to construct these rinks on their own
funds, so it would be up to the cities to build them.  This would be unlikely in
Montreal, Calgary, and Edmonton, as they already have NHL teams, and Montreal's
building is still reasonably new.  Kitchener's rink is almost 60 years old now,
so it is not unreasonable to expect a new one is on the horizon.

Best-case scenario: some new arenas are built and a 12- or 13-team league is
established.  Half of these teams are competing with NHL teams in the same city.
Who will switch allegiance?  Not I.  A handful or former NHLers playing in
Pacific Coliseum against a handful of former NHLers representing Saskatoon or
Halifax is not enough to convince me to stop watching the Canucks.  I might give
the new team a couple of hours of my time by watching a game or two on the tube,
but not much more.  The new teams in the bigger cities will die off or move, and
we're left with a league that resembles a Canadian version of the mid-'90s IHL.

To me, as a Canadian, this is not especially appealing.

Richard.

Richard,

Just a thought - does the NHL have "exclusive rights" under every lease
associated with every team? If they don't how can they tell the owner of a rink
who they can rent to? Heck back in the 1970's WHA and NHL teams shared the same
rinks in such cities as Vancouver, Toronto, and New York. Why would it be
different now?

Craig




   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Richard Krueger
   To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 8:50 PM
   Subject: [hockhist] New Canadian Major League


     In my opinion, it's unworkable, for the following reasons:

   There's no way the NHL would allow a franchise from an upstart league to share
a building with an existing NHL franchise.

   There are only 12 cities in Canada with rinks that have over 8000 seats. Of
these, 6 have NHL teams. There are 3 cities who have 2 rinks of such size each:
Vancouver, Toronto, and Ottawa. So we are left with 9 possible sites for
franchises in a new league: Vancouver, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, London, Hamilton,
Toronto, Ottawa, Quebec, Halifax. It is unlikely that a major league team can
survive for long in an arena with less than 8000 seats, especially if this new
league expects to compete for NHL-calibre p layers by offering similar salaries.
Two leagues competing for the same players will only drive the price for players
up, as it did in the 1970s.

   Unless new arenas are built in Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, and Kitchener,
there are no possible sites for expansion. Canada simply does not have the
quickly-growing emerging major-league markets like those of the American South.
An upstart league will not have the money to construct these rinks on their own
funds, so it would be up to the cities to build them. This would be unlikely in
Montreal, Calgary, and Edmonton, as they already have NHL teams, and Montreal's
building is still reasonably new. Kitc hener's rink is almost 60 years old now,
so it is not unreasonable to expect a new one is on the horizon.

   Best-case scenario: some new arenas are built and a 12- or 13-team league is
established. Half of these teams are competing with NHL teams in the same city.
Who will switch allegiance? Not I. A handful or former NHLers playing in Pacific
Coliseum against a handful of former NHLers representing Saskatoon or Halifax is
not enough to convince me to stop watching the Canucks. I might give the new
team a couple of hours of my time by watching a game or two on the tube, but not
much more. The new teams in t he bigger cities will die off or move, and we're
left with a league that resembles a Canadian version of the mid-'90s IHL.

   To me, as a Canadian, this is not especially appealing.

   Richard.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Craig wrote:
>
>
> Richard,
>
> Just a thought - does the NHL have "exclusive rights" under every
> lease associated with every team? If they don't how can they tell the
> owner of a rink who they can rent to?
>






Because that's who makes that rink owner his money.  Would you want to
piss off your primary tenant for a team that may not even last a season?

Richard;



1-You don’t need NHL buildings. And for the record the Leafs actually were
pliable when we talked rebel league in the early 90’s…just as in the old
days of Harold MLG Ltd will do ANYTHING for a quick buck!

2-Keep in mind this is a back door play to the NHL so a BIG part of the
mission is just that…to drive costs UP.

3-There are many ways to finance a venture that traditional North American
sports leagues have not and will not ever try due to their structure making
them impossible. A new entities are not so bound. As I alluded to before I
have talked to a guy who told me about a revolutionary way to pay players
for a minor pro project. And it is RADICAL but it benefits everyone involved
as it generates community bonds, tax benefits and cost savings. There is NO
REASON that it could not be applied to a major league BUT it would require
ANY league to be structured properly as an entity for it. And you do not
NEED to compete with the NHL across the board! You really do not need to
even really approach their salary levels to have a quality league. In hockey
there are a core 8 players on every team…the bottom part does not need to be
millionaires or even CLOSE! Nor do you need to pay a large minor league
payroll.

4-Who needs to expand? Expansion is not a necessary part of pro sports. The
best challengers to the NFL did NOT expand for 5 years!  Yes it can be a
quick money grab but it also destabilizes which is precisely why the AFL did
not do so until 1965! And as I alluded to, you may want to develop a
US/Canadian rivalry hence perhaps Portland, Milwaukee, Seattle, Cleveland or
a second New England team in Hartford or Worcester (Vince MacMahon is based
in Connecticut and I ALWAYS felt hockey was more up his ally than football)
and makes sense…and there IS a second  building in Detroit that is SUPERIOR
to the Joe, the old Tampa owners own it and were KEENLY interested in
something like this for the Palace in the 90’s and would indeed have been a
part of it. They were ring leaders in the “let’s go major league faction” in
the “I”. I actually was at a meeting that was hosted by them. NBA people
HATE Bettman (then folks that I have met over the years in it were THRILLED
the day that he left) and are not crazy about the NHL…some might even
invest...perhaps a Cuban?

5-No one EXPECTS folks in Vancouver to switch loyalties…what is needed is
out there….x thousand in Southern Ontario who are tired if being pissed on
by the NHL…MAYBE x thousand in TO who don’t want to pay a month’s salary to
go to a Leaf game, x thousand in Quebec and Winnipeg who are also pissed off
at being dissed by the NHL, x thousand in other market to have their shot at
the unthinkable…high level hockey in their town! I submit Richard that if
you spent x number of hours boosting TV ratings watching form Vancouver that
would be GREAT!  No one even wants you to “switch loyalties? That is NOT the
goal and fighting Canadian  teams NHL markets is NOT the goal!  First of all
it is silly and futile. Secondly, hamring Canadian franchises will not win
friends in the Canadian market. Thirdly in any sports situation an eventual
merger pr peace agreement HAS to be the goal as opposed to perpetual warfare
and mayhem. The key here is to divide and conquer. You SEEK certain friends
and allies on the other side just as the WHA did with guys like Ed Snider.
Those friends and allies are the Canadian clubs and the wealthy US clubs how
ill see no cause to subsidize weak sisters. If they were of that ilk we
would have seen revenue sharing years ago!. And this is JUST what happened
in the WHA years, as time went on the poorer teams wanted to scream for
peace and some if the richer clubs saw the writing on the wall and one by
one they came over with the exception if one or two like Harold. You create
a pro merger faction over time. And this time you have another division, the
owners versus Bettman,  He will fight for his weakling protégées until the
end but long before that you will see teams in markets where they can make
it but are not extremely wealthy buckle and the wealthy clubs will resent
proposals to dip into  their packet and over time become prepared to allow
Darwinian forces to take over.



If indeed Vancouver got a team Richard if you so much as went to a few games
because you don’t’ want to or cant; shell out full NHL prices but support
the Canucks that would be GREAT! And if there was no Vancouver team and you
even watched x number of games on TV that would be GREAT! The goal and
target audience is not the fans of current NHL teams in Canada in their
cities…it is those without those teams. And it issues the appeal to other
Canadians…do you want top help your countrymen also get teams or do you
really want to see Vegas and Mexico City in the league before Canada? If so
just watch the odd game on TV and give some ratings! The goal is not to
usurp the NHL in Canada but to be a supplementary product that puts hockey
in its rightful places and in the ling run perhaps cures an injustice/



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Many do Craig. But Toronto would be a place where they have been pliable in
the past. Gang, the Leafs know DARN well that TO can support two teams, the
key for them is to get their hands in the pockets of whoever does it. In the
70's, Harold who hated the WHA worse than anyone leased to them. Bassets
loonies were as good as those from anyone else and he was glad to take them!
MLG hates the idea of Hamilton because they don't get into those pockets,
any new NHL team in TO, in contrast would not only pay THEM FULL indemnity
as opposed to having to share it with Buffalo, but they would be their LAND
LORDS! A team in another league would  be a tenant and they wouldn't even
have to worry about them beating them and finishing higher in the NHL
standings! Now would they be great land lords.no.but on the other hand they
have nothing gain by killing you. Keep in mind Bassett was milked by Ballard
mostly over personal hubris, the two hated each other! TO might be
had.Montreal would never support anybody but the Habs. Edmonton, Calgary,
and Ottawa are too small fro two teams. The only other place MIGHT be
Vancouver. Now the WHA failed there but that was the 70's.in those days
Vancouver had a tough time supporting junior along side the NHL.today the
Giants do great!  But you would probably need to go to PNE if you could get
a lease. IT could be hard.



Now one aspect that comes into play is that I am was once told that Canadian
law makes exclusive leases more difficult than the US. But the point is
moot.three NHL cities are too small and hurting those teams is not the goal
nor is instability. One of the big three is an IMPOSSIBLE market, so only
two would even come into play at all, and only one of them all that likely.
Keep in mind a goal would be to get a second team for TO.in the long term
with a merger the goal would be to get at least one maybe two Southern
Ontario teams in, Quebec, Winnipeg, some meaningful re structuring which
would help all NHL teams to insure that Canada never gets raped again, and
for the Europeans, a better deal. The other cities would get two things,
financial compensation and x number of NHL games per year played in their
town as one group proposes for Phoenix. Why would they want that? Simple.
Those towns go from "NO NHL" to NHL x times per year and the owners get a
fat pay out.you know who got the best end of the NBA/ABA merger? The two
guys who were LEFT out and get a paycheck each year for REST OF THEIR LIVES
form the merged teams for bowing out 30 years ago! No risk, no work, just a
check that shows up each year! NOW THAT my friend is a SWEET investment!  Do
the same here for the small markets, it is a lottery ticket worth buying!



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

All,

Geocities is shutting down their free homepages this fall. I have relied on
Geocities for quite a few years to have informative pages on the internet.

Do any of you know of an alternative to geocites?

Frank

I think Tripod offers free sites. 
Bill
 John 3:16




________________________________
From: Frank Liebmann <texliebmann@...>
To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 7:55:47 PM
Subject: [hockhist] geocities alternatives

 
All,

Geocities is shutting down their free homepages this fall. I have relied on
Geocities for quite a few years to have informative pages on the internet.

Do any of you know of an alternative to geocites?

Frank




       __________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your
favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

sites.google.com

   _____

From: hockhist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hockhist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Bill Knauert
Sent: August 5, 2009 1:21 AM
To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [hockhist] geocities alternatives




I think Tripod offers free sites.
Bill
  John 3:16

________________________________
From: Frank Liebmann <texliebmann@ <mailto:texliebmann%40yahoo.com>
yahoo.com>
To: hockhist@yahoogroup <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 7:55:47 PM
Subject: [hockhist] geocities alternatives


All,

Geocities is shutting down their free homepages this fall. I have relied on
Geocities for quite a few years to have informative pages on the internet.

Do any of you know of an alternative to geocites?

Frank

__________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your
favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar. <http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.> yahoo.com.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

My favorite, in honor of his retirement today:

"I don't know what Patrick was doing the other night.  I think he had to go up
in the stands of the United Center to get his jockstrap." Jeremy Roenick to
Patrick Roy, via the media

Patrick's response:

"I don't care what Jeremy says.  Besides, I can't hear him because my two
Stanley Cup rings are in my ears..."

Morey

--- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "William Underwood" <wausport@...> wrote:
>
>  Remember the old days when Punch Imlach called Vachon a
> junior B goalie? Remember when Melrose and Burns had the "Billy Ray
> Cyrus/Wayne Newton" quotes? The days when then Ranger Gump Worsley answered
> in an interview when asked which NHL team gave him the toughest time and he
> didn't miss a beat and said "the Rangers."?

This is mostly for Bill, but anyone feel free to jump in...

I was looking at the 83 Nordiques media guide cover this morning and notice
something unusal.

On the cover are five stars, four of whom are in normal photo: Goulet, Stastny,
et al.  The fifth was Daniel Bouchard.  But Bouchard was not wearing the
traditional hockey shorts, he was wearing either Cooperalls or sweats.  I can't
really tell.

In the west, none of the teams wore Cooperalls, so I didn't get regular
exposure.  When the Whalers and Flyers switched (and switched back because the
when the Whalers were on the road with their green jerseys and green Cooperalls
it looked like skating puke - the Bd of Govs couldn't state that as an official
reason however), did some goalies on other teams switch to the Cooperalls and
place their goalie pads over it?

--- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, Frank Liebmann <texliebmann@...> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Geocities is shutting down their free homepages this fall. I have relied on
Geocities for quite a few years to have informative pages on the internet.
>
> Do any of you know of an alternative to geocites?

I like Google Pages, but it is going away, too; however, those sites are being
automatically migrated to Google Sites (also free), which is open for new
account sign-ups.

http://sites.google.com/

Pattie

In my experience, goalies never wore Cooperalls. They always wore traditional
short pants.

Dave Soutter

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: epenaltybox<mailto:epenaltybox@...>
   To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 4:37 PM
   Subject: [hockhist] Cooperalls


     This is mostly for Bill, but anyone feel free to jump in...

   I was looking at the 83 Nordiques media guide cover this morning and notice
something unusal.

   On the cover are five stars, four of whom are in normal photo: Goulet,
Stastny, et al. The fifth was Daniel Bouchard. But Bouchard was not wearing the
traditional hockey shorts, he was wearing either Cooperalls or sweats. I can't
really tell.

   In the west, none of the teams wore Cooperalls, so I didn't get regular
exposure. When the Whalers and Flyers switched (and switched back because the
when the Whalers were on the road with their green jerseys and green Cooperalls
it looked like skating puke - the Bd of Govs couldn't state that as an official
reason however), did some goalies on other teams switch to the Cooperalls and
place their goalie pads over it?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Not that I can remember.I joined them in 85.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

YES, the Roenicks and Hulls were breaths of fresh air.now what do we
have.Avery? :-)



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I was in the Greater Chicago area last weekend. While I was there, I struck pay
dirt and was able to interview Glenn Hall biographer and Black Hawks fan Tom
"Chico" Adrahtas and last Monday, I got 25 blessed minutes with Stan Mikita at
the Medinah Country Club in Medinah, IL. (There was a Black Hawk alumni golf
tournament there).

The Adrahtas interview was great. Chico gave me great insights into the ambience
and vibes of old Chicago Stadium; Glenn Hall; his memories of the other great
Black Hawks players.

The Mikita interview, despite its brevity, was fascinating as well. Since I had
a very narrow window of time, my questions pretty much dealt with the obvious
questions about his career. He told me that the Black Hawks had his rights since
he was 13 years old. There was never any question of any other NHL team signing
him. (Andy Bathgate told me the same thing).

He talked about discovering blade curvatures.

I asked him who was the toughest defensive forward he faced and he demurred on
the question, telling me the term defensive forward was not applicable to that
era. He told me forwards were expected to be two-way players. However when asked
which defenseman gave him trouble I was delighted to hear him tell me that it
was Bill Gadsby who gave him trouble. I won't repeat what he called Gadsby but
it confirmed what Gadsby told me when I interviewed him in 2007.

He told me how helpful and influential Ted Lindsay was in his development as a
player during the early stages of his career.

He nominated Glenn Hall as MVP of the 1961 Stanley Cup playoffs and he also
considered Glenn Hall to be the unsung hero of the Black Hawks from 1961 to 1967
(which surprised me greatly).

Mikita very pointedly emphasizedto me that the 1961 Stanley Cup was a team
victory. He said that everyone jelled together and played the greatest hockey of
their lives to win the Cup.

Mikita emphasized linemate Ken Wharram's speed.

I asked him about the 1967 semifinal and was surprised by the fact that Mikita
kept confusing the 1967 semifinal with 1962 finals against Toronto. Mikita could
not provide me with any new insights into the 1967 matchup.

He talked about the shock factor in the Phil Esposito trade to Boston.

He told me that the fans in Montreal and Toronto had an appreciation for great
hockey even when an opposing player was doing well against their teams. Mikita
told me that there were times when Montreal and Toronto would cheer something he
did because it was pure quality hockey. He was touched by that.

Mikita's answers were short, clipped, precise, staccato at times with occasional
excursions into pithiness and saltiness.

Here's an example:

I asked about his happiest NHL memory. He said "The paycheck."
I asked about his saddest NHL memory. He said "The paycheck."

I asked him about Tommy Ivan, telling him what Lou Angotti told me about his
merry-go-round negotiations with Ivan. Mikita confirmed Angotti's views and said
to me, "Tommy made it his mission to keep salaries low." Mikita added there were
times when the money wasn't enough.

We were near the end of my time therefore I couldn't press any further but it
was a magical experience. Mikita was very friendly and kind to me. Most
gracious. I will forever be grateful to him for his kindness. His daughter Jane
was most instrumental and helpful in arranging the interview.

Without actually seeing the picture, I wouldn't expect an NHL goalie
from the 80s wearing long pants and their normal jersey except to
perhaps take shots in warmup in a game, perhaps one where they're in
the arena not expecting to play, like before an exhibition game or
something.

Cooperalls were never made for goaltenders, as far as I know. What the
system is is a girdle which holds pads close to the body, and a shell
worn over them and the player's other pads. It works fine, even with a
short shell and socks, but the long-pant look was gone at the NHL
level was short lived. It seems to have been adopted by major league
baseball players, though!

--
Michael Poplawski
Victoria, BC Canada


On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:20 PM, DAVE SOUTTER<dsoutter@...> wrote:
>
>
> In my experience, goalies never wore Cooperalls. They always wore
> traditional short pants.
>
> Dave Soutter
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: epenaltybox<mailto:epenaltybox@...>
> To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 4:37 PM
> Subject: [hockhist] Cooperalls
>
> This is mostly for Bill, but anyone feel free to jump in...
>
> I was looking at the 83 Nordiques media guide cover this morning and notice
> something unusal.
>
> On the cover are five stars, four of whom are in normal photo: Goulet,
> Stastny, et al. The fifth was Daniel Bouchard. But Bouchard was not wearing
> the traditional hockey shorts, he was wearing either Cooperalls or sweats. I
> can't really tell.
>
> In the west, none of the teams wore Cooperalls, so I didn't get regular
> exposure. When the Whalers and Flyers switched (and switched back because
> the when the Whalers were on the road with their green jerseys and green
> Cooperalls it looked like skating puke - the Bd of Govs couldn't state that
> as an official reason however), did some goalies on other teams switch to
> the Cooperalls and place their goalie pads over it?
>

If memory serves me right, the Flyers were the first NHL team to wear them.  But
then the Whalers got involved...

If you can find a phot of the Whalers on the road wearing Cooperalls, especially
against the Canucks in their yellow V jerseys, you might get an idea why the NHL
really banned them.  I recommend that you do not view the pictures at lunch or
dinner time, however, unless you want to go on a diet!

Morey

> Hey, that's pretty smart!!  I guess the big complaint about the
> Cooperalls was that it didn't look right.  I suppose that they were
> pretty convenient, though.
>
> Ian

>

They made it look like the midnight men's league game.but at the same time
they were probably VERY comfortable.I was a bit ahead of my time.back when I
was a midget I was LOUSY with garters so my mom did me a favor and took some
old sweat pants, cut them off and sewed my six to them. It was GREAT!



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

List Rules

1. Do not be rude to you fellow list members. (Please don't get offended too
easily either.)

2. NO SPAM. It's all right to advertise items for sell for now. DON'T LET IT GET
OUT OF HAND. This list isn't intended to be a flea market.

3. Don't contact other list members about Amway, USANA or other multi-level
marketing schemes. We should all remain friends here.

4. Do not attach files. Instead, give list members a FTP or WWW location where
they can download the file. You can upload files to the group website at
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/hockhist/files/. Please use this
responsibly.

5. Languages other than English are permitted. Again, don't be rude. Some of us
are multi-lingual.

6. A list member may post no more than 5 messages a day with a 2 message leaway.

7. List members will keep their posts under 30Kb in size. If your not sure what
30Kb is, you should be safe if you keep posts under 45 lines.

8. Violation of any of these rules may result in a warning, temporary removal or
permanent removal from this list. You may also be restricted to what you can
post.

One of the players who wore the Cooperalls told us that the uniforms were banned
by the NHL because they weren't safe. Apparently after falling, players slid too
fast on the ice if they wore the long pants instead of the regular hockey pants.

--- On Sat, 8/8/09, William Underwood <wausport@...> wrote:


From: William Underwood <wausport@...>
Subject: [hockhist] Re: Cooperalls
To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
Received: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 12:25 PM


 



They made it look like the midnight men's league game.but at the same time
they were probably VERY comfortable. I was a bit ahead of my time.back when I
was a midget I was LOUSY with garters so my mom did me a favor and took some
old sweat pants, cut them off and sewed my six to them. It was GREAT!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

















       __________________________________________________________________
Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8.
Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at
http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I seem to recall that safety concern too!



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks Paul.

After posting I did some additional research and apparantly some of the goalies
were complaining about the black, such as the Flyers wore.  It seems the goalies
couldn't see the puck at all.  This is more hearsay than actual fact, to my
knowledge.

Morey

--- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, Paul Patskou <Paul_Patskou@...> wrote:
>
> One of the players who wore the Cooperalls told us that the uniforms were
banned by the NHL because they weren't safe. Apparently after falling, players
slid too fast on the ice if they wore the long pants instead of the regular
hockey pants.
>
> --- On Sat, 8/8/09, William Underwood <wausport@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: William Underwood <wausport@...>
> Subject: [hockhist] Re: Cooperalls
> To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
> Received: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 12:25 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> They made it look like the midnight men's league game.but at the same time
> they were probably VERY comfortable. I was a bit ahead of my time.back when I
> was a midget I was LOUSY with garters so my mom did me a favor and took some
> old sweat pants, cut them off and sewed my six to them. It was GREAT!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>       __________________________________________________________________
> Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer®
8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at
http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>