Worst Oiler NHL Team

Mario R wrote:
>
> The Isles were a dynasty, then us. a couple other cup wins by other teams in
> the interim is pretty much expected, upsets can always occur, its sports, no
> guarantees. I mean few teams in the modern era win cups year after year 5
> out of 7 was pretty dominant in my book.

You forgot Calgary. Being that I was a young lad in Lethbridge at the
time, I have a pretty good memory of the teams they iced. ;^)

>>
>>Agree/disagree. How would you fix it? I'd like to see some salary
>>control, but shouldn't a team and it's fans be rewarded in some way for
>>overwhelming fan support? After all, the game is supposed to be for the
>>fans, right?
>
>
> We don't have overwhelming fan support? Sure our attendence is not as large
> and facility not as large as your's etc. But we are in the same relative
> ballpark.

I'd say, per capita, about the same.

> Any Hockey league that can't sustain a team in a market like
> Edmonton or Calgary is pretty screwed up IMO. Should we be rewarded with our
> current product? Obviously I'd fix it with a firm salary cap, clear
> penalties, close the loopholes, get absolute owner commitment etc. kind of
> like other successful pro-leagues are doing or looking at.
> A tenfold increase in salaries in say 20 years is insane, high time for a
> correction how much has your wage gone up in that time?
>

I'm just saying that the Leafs' payroll isn't some grand conspiracy,
it's the result of huge fan interest and faithfulness, and although I
want some sort of salary cap ro create parity (which, IMO, is the
greatest asset of the NFL), there should be room for rewarding fan
support. Forget Edmonton vs. Totonto, compare Toronto vs. Florida.
Should Florida be rewarded with a salary cap for less fan support?

How about this: if you sell out your building every night, you can
spend X, if you sell out 90% of your games, you can spend Y, etc..
Actually, that sounds totally fair to me.


>>Ummm...how would you describe it then? Sure, let's fix it, but the root
>>cause is the relative size or our markets. Sorry that bothers you, but
>>it's reality.
>
>
> Well in the current unrestricted hockey *marketplace* where an insane owner
> like Leonsis follows untenable business practice only to succeed in
> eventually falling flat on his face any stupid thing is possible. The NHL
> should be run like a business, with owners who intend to make money.

Some high salary teams make alot of money...like the Leafs.

> They should not rely heavily on corporate or public largesse to float their boat
> etc. The root cause is poor business practice, not small markets.
> I am interested in your opinion, did we shrink, become smaller, we were big
> enough before to get into the league , now too small hmmmm why? I wonder
> what you would say about this if the NHL was a world league played only in
> the largest of cities and T.O. couldn't pull it off because your market is
> too *small*.

I think the game got too big for itself. Your previous owner probably
had as much to do with it as anyone: selling Gretzky to LA was a big
part of it. The American, market jumped all over hockey as if it was in
the same category as the other major sports, but hockey wasn't ready for it.

It's as simple as this: selling a small town game in big city markets.
Salaries were bound to approach that of their counterparts in the
other major sports. But the traditional markets were no more ready to
absorb this than before.


> This sounds like so much your house is bigger than mine etc to
> me. The logical extension of the only the strongest markets survive is going
> back to a very constricted league eventually. How many teams do you think
> should be in the league and who are they?
>

Agreed. To be clear: I want a league where Edmonton has every
advantage Toronto has. I just don't think Florida should have the
advantages Toronto has, until (fat chance) their fans support their team
the way Toronto's (and Edmonton's) fans do.

>>You've lost me entirely now. How do you fix a problem by ignoring it?
>>If Edmonton's problems aren't due to a small market size, pray tell me:
>> what are they caused by?
>
>
> Youve lost me. If you call Edmonton a small Hockey market you are really
> calling half the league a small market. Small market does not mean size of
> city it means size the market of potential customers. This is the critical
> point that escapes you and many others.

It's far more than that. It's money generating ability, and clearly
Edmonton is at the low end of the scale in this regard. If it was
attendance only, Edmonton would have a payroll like the Leafs, right?
But like I said above, I personally believe fan support, and
particularly attendance, should be the measuring stick.

> Any business conducts business and
> sets up shop on the basis of an evaluation of potential customers for their
> product(s), not population size or whatever variable you are using to label
> us. Understand totally that if we were talking Baseball, NFL football,
> Basketball, tiddlywinks etc you would be absolutely right, we would be a
> small market.

For whatever reason, other similar sized US markets generate more
revenue. And you're ignoring what this (me) humble former Albertan
knows: Edmonton's population is Edmonton's population: i.e., whatever
it really is. Toronto's, in addition to what is advertized, includes
dozens of municipalities outside of Toronto. I don't know if you've
ever been to the Toronto area, but I personally couldn't get over it
when I first moved here: people live everywhere. There are 10 million
people living between Niagra Falls and Oshawa (a distance about half of
the distance between Calgary and Edmonton, or Lethbridge and Calgary).
You have nothing to compare it to, no matter how big Edson is. ;^)


> But we are not relatively speaking in hockey terms a small
> market until the vast majority of member franchises are bigger than us. We
> are actually a *Medium* market. Their are more potential hockey customers
> here than in half the cities in the league which attendence, gate, revenue
> streams etc. so fully bears out. I hope this is somewhat more clear, bout
> as clear as I can get right now ;o)
>

I think you see yourself as bigger than you are. The average hockey
team in the 'States (in an area of similar population) has advantages
Edmonton can only dream of.
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Oiler NHL Team 

pawn wrote:

> Mario R wrote:
>
>>
>> The Isles were a dynasty, then us. a couple other cup wins by other
>> teams in
>> the interim is pretty much expected, upsets can always occur, its
>> sports, no
>> guarantees. I mean few teams in the modern era win cups year after year 5
>> out of 7 was pretty dominant in my book.
>
>
> You forgot Calgary. Being that I was a young lad in Lethbridge at the
> time, I have a pretty good memory of the teams they iced. ;^)

Hmmm. There is a small possibility that we knew each other, once upon a
time. What schools did you go to in Lethbridge?
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Oiler NHL Team 

Buff wrote:
> pawn wrote:
>
> Hmmm. There is a small possibility that we knew each other, once upon a
> time. What schools did you go to in Lethbridge?

St. Francis 1983-84
Catholic Central HS 1985-1987
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Oiler NHL Team 

pawn wrote:
> Buff wrote:
>
>> pawn wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm. There is a small possibility that we knew each other, once upon
>> a time. What schools did you go to in Lethbridge?
>
>
> St. Francis 1983-84
> Catholic Central HS 1985-1987

SON!?!?!?
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Oiler NHL Team 

fug yue wrote:
>
>>
>> St. Francis 1983-84
>> Catholic Central HS 1985-1987
>
> SON!?!?!?

That's quite the "trip to the store" you took in 1989.
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Oiler NHL Team 

pawn <pawn.TakeThisOut@hanneng.com> wrote in message
news:401C81D0.8010900@hanneng.com...
> Mario R wrote:
> >
> > The Isles were a dynasty, then us. a couple other cup wins by other
teams in
> > the interim is pretty much expected, upsets can always occur, its
sports, no
> > guarantees. I mean few teams in the modern era win cups year after year
5
> > out of 7 was pretty dominant in my book.
>
> You forgot Calgary. Being that I was a young lad in Lethbridge at the
> time, I have a pretty good memory of the teams they iced. ;^)
>
> >>
> >>Agree/disagree. How would you fix it? I'd like to see some salary
> >>control, but shouldn't a team and it's fans be rewarded in some way for
> >>overwhelming fan support? After all, the game is supposed to be for the
> >>fans, right?
> >
> >
> > We don't have overwhelming fan support? Sure our attendence is not as
large
> > and facility not as large as your's etc. But we are in the same relative
> > ballpark.
>
> I'd say, per capita, about the same.

Per capita our support is much greater. If we matched T.O. in population we
could play all our games at commonwealth ;o)
>
> > Any Hockey league that can't sustain a team in a market like
> > Edmonton or Calgary is pretty screwed up IMO. Should we be rewarded with
our
> > current product? Obviously I'd fix it with a firm salary cap, clear
> > penalties, close the loopholes, get absolute owner commitment etc. kind
of
> > like other successful pro-leagues are doing or looking at.
> > A tenfold increase in salaries in say 20 years is insane, high time for
a
> > correction how much has your wage gone up in that time?
> >
>
> I'm just saying that the Leafs' payroll isn't some grand conspiracy,
> it's the result of huge fan interest and faithfulness, and although I
> want some sort of salary cap ro create parity (which, IMO, is the
> greatest asset of the NFL), there should be room for rewarding fan
> support. Forget Edmonton vs. Totonto, compare Toronto vs. Florida.
> Should Florida be rewarded with a salary cap for less fan support?

Actually its the result of corporate and public Largesse that keeps these
bloated, gourged pro-sports teams afloat. No pro team anywhere in the modern
era is economically viable without the huge subsidies, tax concessions,
lottery funds, public financing of facilities etc. Do you think your tickets
and beer $ actually financed the brand new spiffy A.C.C.? Its gone far
beyond that now.
>
> How about this: if you sell out your building every night, you can
> spend X, if you sell out 90% of your games, you can spend Y, etc..
> Actually, that sounds totally fair to me.

All buildings have different capacities- maybe you could base it on a
proportion of 20,000 tickets sold/game.
>
>
> >>Ummm...how would you describe it then? Sure, let's fix it, but the root
> >>cause is the relative size or our markets. Sorry that bothers you, but
> >>it's reality.
> >
> >
> > Well in the current unrestricted hockey *marketplace* where an insane
owner
> > like Leonsis follows untenable business practice only to succeed in
> > eventually falling flat on his face any stupid thing is possible. The
NHL
> > should be run like a business, with owners who intend to make money.
>
> Some high salary teams make alot of money...like the Leafs.
>
> > They should not rely heavily on corporate or public largesse to float
their boat
> > etc. The root cause is poor business practice, not small markets.
> > I am interested in your opinion, did we shrink, become smaller, we were
big
> > enough before to get into the league , now too small hmmmm why? I wonder
> > what you would say about this if the NHL was a world league played only
in
> > the largest of cities and T.O. couldn't pull it off because your market
is
> > too *small*.
>
> I think the game got too big for itself. Your previous owner probably
> had as much to do with it as anyone: selling Gretzky to LA was a big
> part of it. The American, market jumped all over hockey as if it was in
> the same category as the other major sports, but hockey wasn't ready for
it.

Agreed
>
> It's as simple as this: selling a small town game in big city markets.
> Salaries were bound to approach that of their counterparts in the
> other major sports. But the traditional markets were no more ready to
> absorb this than before.

Hockey is NOT a major sport in the USA, we like to think it is hmmm- nice TV
deal <S>. We dont even approach revenue streams of the other sports. The
NHLPA in their wet dreams felt a hockey player should earn as much as other
athletes, went for it and the owners stupidly fell for it.
>
>
> > This sounds like so much your house is bigger than mine etc to
> > me. The logical extension of the only the strongest markets survive is
going
> > back to a very constricted league eventually. How many teams do you
think
> > should be in the league and who are they?
> >
>
> Agreed. To be clear: I want a league where Edmonton has every
> advantage Toronto has. I just don't think Florida should have the
> advantages Toronto has, until (fat chance) their fans support their team
> the way Toronto's (and Edmonton's) fans do.

Agreed
>
> >>You've lost me entirely now. How do you fix a problem by ignoring it?
> >>If Edmonton's problems aren't due to a small market size, pray tell me:
> >> what are they caused by?
> >
> >
> > Youve lost me. If you call Edmonton a small Hockey market you are really
> > calling half the league a small market. Small market does not mean size
of
> > city it means size the market of potential customers. This is the
critical
> > point that escapes you and many others.
>
> It's far more than that. It's money generating ability, and clearly
> Edmonton is at the low end of the scale in this regard.

OK, I just know attendance figures, some revenue stream data but gee pawn if
you have all accurate revenue data of the respective teams then I think you
should share this with Mr's Bettman and Goodenough as nobody knows or
believes what the revenues are. Given this how can you comment on Edmontons
revenue stream being lower than most teams? Are you even accounting for the
Heritage Classic cash flow? Basically you are just guessing at this right?

If it was
> attendance only, Edmonton would have a payroll like the Leafs, right?
> But like I said above, I personally believe fan support, and
> particularly attendance, should be the measuring stick.

No. The league has not been operating consistent with prudent business or
accounting principles. All of the salaries, and all of the spending in the
league *probably* correlates greater with relative financial picture of the
owner rather than the mere revenue stream. The fat owners like Leonsis and
his ilk have gone on spending orgies fairly regardless of the revenue
stream. If we had an idiot Billionaire owner like Leonsis who wanted to lose
countless millions every year we would have your payroll. Wouldn't make any
sense but could occur. Oilers are in the financial state not because of fan
base, but because Edmonton is not a Corporate player and we do not have as
many filthy rich prospective owners around here.
>
> > Any business conducts business and
> > sets up shop on the basis of an evaluation of potential customers for
their
> > product(s), not population size or whatever variable you are using to
label
> > us. Understand totally that if we were talking Baseball, NFL football,
> > Basketball, tiddlywinks etc you would be absolutely right, we would be a
> > small market.
>
> For whatever reason, other similar sized US markets generate more
> revenue.

Again , you know this how? Nobody , I mean NOBODY agrees on revenue. Full,
acccurate, revenue disclosure has NOT occurred. Don't bother posting any
hypothetical figures as their has not been any full-scale significant third
party audit of the NHL member teams revenue streams that I am aware of. Did
you think this was going to get by me? Come on! ;o)

And you're ignoring what this (me) humble former Albertan
> knows: Edmonton's population is Edmonton's population: i.e., whatever
> it really is. Toronto's, in addition to what is advertized, includes
> dozens of municipalities outside of Toronto. I don't know if you've
> ever been to the Toronto area, but I personally couldn't get over it
> when I first moved here: people live everywhere. There are 10 million
> people living between Niagra Falls and Oshawa (a distance about half of
> the distance between Calgary and Edmonton, or Lethbridge and Calgary).
> You have nothing to compare it to, no matter how big Edson is. ;^)

Yes I've been to Toronto- and the population potential draw is perhaps
4-5X(a lot of people in the southern Ontario area would not support a
Toronto team just on principle) that of Edmonton. I also know that Edmonton
supports other sports better than Toronto. Care to comment on the hopeless
CFL market in Toronto? Its really about interest as much as population. A
canadian market of more than 1 million people ought to be considered viable
enough to support a north american pro hockey franchise.
>
>
> > But we are not relatively speaking in hockey terms a small
> > market until the vast majority of member franchises are bigger than us.
We
> > are actually a *Medium* market. Their are more potential hockey
customers
> > here than in half the cities in the league which attendence, gate,
revenue
> > streams etc. so fully bears out. I hope this is somewhat more clear,
bout
> > as clear as I can get right now ;o)
> >
>
> I think you see yourself as bigger than you are. The average hockey
> team in the 'States (in an area of similar population) has advantages
> Edmonton can only dream of.

Only potential, unrealized, advantages. You confuse, still the sixe/Pop. of
the urban market with actual real market which is based on actual consumers.
How many hockey consumers really exist in California? In Florida? Is
Honolulu the next location? Any league that consistently chooses to turn
its nose at Canadian markets over 1 million is doing so at the very risk
that they lose a significant niche that another league may realize is a
viable market in which to do business. Losing half the Canadian market will
have untold consequences on NHL operations. Losing Calgary, Edmonton,
Ottawa, combined with Winnipeg, Quebec, easily opens up a niche for another
league.
You can't tell me there are 30 North American NHL HOCKEY markets better than
Edmonton. Well you could try but you'd have no proof. Demographics data is
not enough.
Sorry about the delay, I am interested in your response.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Oiler NHL Team 

pawn wrote:
> fug yue wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> St. Francis 1983-84
>>> Catholic Central HS 1985-1987
>>
>>
>> SON!?!?!?
>
>
> That's quite the "trip to the store" you took in 1989.

Yeh well, your Mother and I had a disagreement. I thought it was well
past the time for her to stop trying to potty train you. Plus the
university thought her two hourly breast feeding sessions were way to
disruptive to the rest of your classmates.
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Oiler NHL Team 

pawn wrote:
> Buff wrote:
>
>> pawn wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm. There is a small possibility that we knew each other, once upon
>> a time. What schools did you go to in Lethbridge?
>
>
> St. Francis 1983-84
> Catholic Central HS 1985-1987
>

I'm quite certain we don't know each other. I didn't come to Lethbridge
until 85 and I was in the public school system... and a few years behind
you.
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Oiler NHL Team 

Buff wrote:
> pawn wrote:
>>
>> St. Francis 1983-84
>> Catholic Central HS 1985-1987
>
> I'm quite certain we don't know each other. I didn't come to Lethbridge
> until 85 and I was in the public school system... and a few years behind
> you.

Maybe I took your lunch money.
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Oiler NHL Team 

Mario R wrote:
> pawn <pawn DeleteThis @hanneng.com> wrote in message
>
> Well fine but you were the one with the 80% figure that you so obviously
> plucked out of your head. If you do that expect to be challenged on it
> that's all.
>

No problem. And I'll continue not doing the same to you.


>>You can paint it like that if it makes you feel right about it. I can't
>>imagine anyone in the world thinking that a board of directors
>>responsible for Canada's largest pension fund, valued in the 10's of
>>billions of dollars, would for some inexplicable reason continue to sink
>>their money in a bad investment, especially given the media scrutiny of
>>this investment and the pressure exerted on these fund managers by fans
>>and media outlets alike to drop Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment from
>>their portfolio and their repeated refusal to do so due to their claims
>>of an excellent return on their money, but fine. I guess they're just a
>>bunch of idiots without real data and numbers like me.
>
>
> Maybe the fund managers are just as skilled<S> as many others which is
> currently resulting in their respective companies being hauled to court for
> greviously poor investments resulting in poor or, no pensions. Just so you
> know companies are being strongly advised not to have a pension fund anymore
> as companies are potentially liable for non-performance of the pension. This
> has only become an issue due to so many pensions being poorly run and
> yielding questionable or even negative growth(lost funds).
>

If it was any other investment, I'd agree. But this one has been
scrutinized by every Toronto media zealot looking for any reason at all
to smear the Leafs name, how they're dragging down the teacher's pension
fund, blah, blah, blah. If *any* evidence existed to support what
you're suggesting, it would have been outed a hundred times over. You
are really, really wrong on this one.



>>Wrong - I won't concede this. The more the Leafs spend, the more they
>>make. If you want to say it's not good for the league, I agree. If you
>>want to say it is a primary reason for the finacial woes of Edmonton's
>>team, I agree. If you say they've strayed from fiscal common sense, you
>>obvious don't understand the situation in Toronto. For every dollar
>>they increase the salary budget, they increase two-fold in ticket
>>prices, concessions and merchandise costs.
>
>
> Groan, and you know this how? two fold huh, sure it isn't three? It would
> sound way better.
>

Ummm...because they publish the average ticket price increase every
year, and they analyze it to death every year in the media? Without
even warming the google, I can say it was 3% this year (with an
unchanged salary budget), and it was 10% each of the last two years.
Care to argue it? Or should I put that google on the burner?

> And the fans keep coming.
>
>>That 20 year waiting list for season's tickets hasn't shrunk recently
>>either. I know it makes you feel better to think that Toronto is
>>spending itself into oblivion,
>
>
> NO US, and most other teams
>

You didn't say this? :

"The only reason we are having this discourse is that some teams like
yours have strayed away from fiscal common sense"

Unless Toronto has finally done what the rest of Canada wants and left
the country, I'm pretty sure we're not a US city. Again, Maple Leaf
Sports and Entertainment has done nothing of the kind, unless you
consider, "increasing profit", straying from fiscal common sense.


> but the facts are utterly and
>
>>indisputably against you. They are amongst the most profitable teams in
>>the league, regardless of the Canadian Dollar disadvantage, and despite
>>a routine annual increase in salary budget.
>
>
> The facts are against me again, oh darn, you sure! <G>
> Just joking, of course Toronto is among the more profitable. Thats not what
> I disputed.
>
> Deal with it.
>
>
> OH OK,
>
> It's
>
>>absolute fact that the Leafs are as profitable today, if not more so,
>>than they have ever been.
>
>
> Another absolute fact, is this one more absolute than your 80% figure? Just
> wondering. Regardless maybe the Leafs would like to eliminate all the
> opposition financially in their quest for the holy grail which they might
> win if they were the only team in the league. ;o) JUST JOKING!!!
>

Your jokes are getting less and less funny. Are you seriously
questioning what almost anyone would accept as self evident? You don't
follow the Leafs very closely, do you? You need me to prove 2+2=4 as well?

>
>>>and are paying some players as much as $10,000,000/season- again why?
>>>Why the 10 fold increase in salaries in 20years? Do you question any of
>>>this? No good answers right?
>>
>>Read above. Nobody is saying it's a good situation for the league. On
>>the contrary, I think it's bad, because it puts a small market like
>>Edmonton at a disadvantage.
>
>
> Bingo!, Glad you realize it.
>
> And I say what defines you as a small
>
>>market is your population.
>
>
> We are back to that, despite you earlier conceding its population X
> interest?

Correct, and the only thing that makes you a small market compared to
Toronto is your smaller population, unless you want to continue pursuing
your zany conspiracy about Canada's crown corporations recklessly
propping up the Leafs.

>
> You seem to have a problem with this
>
>>opinion, which is the impass. Please don't try to turn it into
>>something it's not.
>
>
> Not my problem, only the Oilers and many other teams problem. I just happen
> to be a fan who can find some other sport or team to be a fan of.
>

Not me. It'll be hockey to the end.


>>
>>Well, I could challenge you to provide numbers and concrete evidence,
>>but since I conceded that entirely, I don't care.
>
>
> Well it was me who rightfully challenged whether any valid #'s exist so you
> asking me to research invalid #'s that I have no interest in would be
> strange to say the least..............
>

You don't think you've made blanket claims, that I have just accepted
for the purpose of discussion, without proof or numbers? You really
need to go back and read your posts. The only difference is I don't
point them out to you, since, if I did, I'm sure we wouldn't still be
having this pleasant conversation.


>
> Starting with your proposal for how the
>
>>Leafs should be rewarded for it's overwheling fan support (for whatever
>>reason) but within the confines of a healthy league.
>
>
> Since when do we award overwhelming fan support. Is there a recent trophy
> addition I don't know about?

It's certainly rewarded now: with the fiscal means to either acquire
talented players, or keep the talent they have. Unlike how the Oilers
lose their talent when they become (U or R)FA's.

This isn't a good example though. A better one is the Leafs vs.
Florida. Why should a team that has virtually no fan support be
rewarded with a system that normalizes the talent level team to team?
What motivation has Toronto to participate in such a deal?

> Seems to me the high payroll *game* is all
> about some fatcat teams being tired of losing and loading up on talent to
> try to buy a cup that they can't otherwise obtain through drafting,
> development etc. Oh look who's doing it the most in Canada- Toronto, oh my
> what a surprise!

Hmmmm...when I hear responses like this, I feel less and less sorry for
small market teams. And you clearly aren't apprised of the current
makeup and direction of the Leafs...

Home grown Leafs that have played this season (just what I can recall
off the top of my head):

Stajan (regular), Telqvist, Antropov (regular), Wilm, Colaiacovo,
Kaberle (regular), Pilar (regular),
Leeb, Ponikarovsky (regular), Hedin, Wellwood.

Players that were acquired through trade (which has nothing to do with
your "buying a Cup" silliness):

McCabe, Sundin, Berg, Nolan, Tucker, Renberg, Reichel, Domi, others.

Gee, that's a roster made up of 14 regulars, and 19 total players
acquired through nothing more than drafting, development and astute
trades. Gee, I guess the Leafs *can* do it "otherwise". BTW, some of
the players in the Leafs system would be regulars on many NHL teams, but
just can't crack the Leafs' roster.


> I proposed the
>
>>idea of a salary cap based on attendance percentage. Any other ideas?
>
>
> A fair playing field for member teams like we had before. I'm done.
>

Those days are gone no matter what and this isn't helpful.

P.S.: I invite you to use your, ha ha ha, "just joking" routine about
any of the information I have presented. I haven't googled anyone into
mushy pulp in a few weeks.
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Oiler NHL Team 

pawn <pawn.RemoveThis@hanneng.com> wrote in message
news:401F05E8.6090306@hanneng.com...
> Mario R wrote:
> > pawn <pawn.RemoveThis@hanneng.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Well fine but you were the one with the 80% figure that you so obviously
> > plucked out of your head. If you do that expect to be challenged on it
> > that's all.
> >
>
> No problem. And I'll continue not doing the same to you.

and I''ll continue to not make up #'s-fair enough?
>
>
> >>You can paint it like that if it makes you feel right about it. I can't
> >>imagine anyone in the world thinking that a board of directors
> >>responsible for Canada's largest pension fund, valued in the 10's of
> >>billions of dollars, would for some inexplicable reason continue to sink
> >>their money in a bad investment, especially given the media scrutiny of
> >>this investment and the pressure exerted on these fund managers by fans
> >>and media outlets alike to drop Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment from
> >>their portfolio and their repeated refusal to do so due to their claims
> >>of an excellent return on their money, but fine. I guess they're just a
> >>bunch of idiots without real data and numbers like me.
> >
> >
> > Maybe the fund managers are just as skilled<S> as many others which is
> > currently resulting in their respective companies being hauled to court
for
> > greviously poor investments resulting in poor or, no pensions. Just so
you
> > know companies are being strongly advised not to have a pension fund
anymore
> > as companies are potentially liable for non-performance of the pension.
This
> > has only become an issue due to so many pensions being poorly run and
> > yielding questionable or even negative growth(lost funds).
> >
>
> If it was any other investment, I'd agree. But this one has been
> scrutinized by every Toronto media zealot looking for any reason at all
> to smear the Leafs name, how they're dragging down the teacher's pension
> fund, blah, blah, blah. If *any* evidence existed to support what
> you're suggesting, it would have been outed a hundred times over. You
> are really, really wrong on this one.

For the sake of discussion I'll concede that- I dont feel like googling it
to death.
>
>
>
> >>Wrong - I won't concede this. The more the Leafs spend, the more they
> >>make. If you want to say it's not good for the league, I agree. If you
> >>want to say it is a primary reason for the finacial woes of Edmonton's
> >>team, I agree. If you say they've strayed from fiscal common sense, you
> >>obvious don't understand the situation in Toronto. For every dollar
> >>they increase the salary budget, they increase two-fold in ticket
> >>prices, concessions and merchandise costs.
> >
> >
> > Groan, and you know this how? two fold huh, sure it isn't three? It
would
> > sound way better.
> >
>
> Ummm...because they publish the average ticket price increase every
> year, and they analyze it to death every year in the media? Without
> even warming the google, I can say it was 3% this year (with an
> unchanged salary budget), and it was 10% each of the last two years.
> Care to argue it? Or should I put that google on the burner?

No, you win, You don't mind the increases?
>
> > And the fans keep coming.

Why?
> >
> >>That 20 year waiting list for season's tickets hasn't shrunk recently
> >>either. I know it makes you feel better to think that Toronto is
> >>spending itself into oblivion,

Hard to understand the loyalty. Honestly.
> >
> >
> > NO US, and most other teams (meant to read us not US or USA) sorry about
the confusion.
> >
>
> You didn't say this? :
>
> "The only reason we are having this discourse is that some teams like
> yours have strayed away from fiscal common sense"
>
> Unless Toronto has finally done what the rest of Canada wants and left
> the country, I'm pretty sure we're not a US city. Again, Maple Leaf
> Sports and Entertainment has done nothing of the kind, unless you
> consider, "increasing profit", straying from fiscal common sense.

Ask yourself why they need any corporate or public backing if they are so
fiscally healthy.
>
>
> > but the facts are utterly and
> >
> >>indisputably against you. They are amongst the most profitable teams in
> >>the league, regardless of the Canadian Dollar disadvantage, and despite
> >>a routine annual increase in salary budget.
> >
> >
> > The facts are against me again, oh darn, you sure! <G>
> > Just joking, of course Toronto is among the more profitable. Thats not
what
> > I disputed.
> >
> > Deal with it.
> >
> >
> > OH OK,
> >
> > It's
> >
> >>absolute fact that the Leafs are as profitable today, if not more so,
> >>than they have ever been.
> >
> >
> > Another absolute fact, is this one more absolute than your 80% figure?
Just
> > wondering. Regardless maybe the Leafs would like to eliminate all the
> > opposition financially in their quest for the holy grail which they
might
> > win if they were the only team in the league. ;o) JUST JOKING!!!
> >
>
> Your jokes are getting less and less funny. Are you seriously
> questioning what almost anyone would accept as self evident? You don't
> follow the Leafs very closely, do you? You need me to prove 2+2=4 as
well?

Your stating things in absolute terms which you seem to do often combined
with imaginary #'s gets very tiring as well.
>
> >
> >>>and are paying some players as much as $10,000,000/season- again why?
> >>>Why the 10 fold increase in salaries in 20years? Do you question any of
> >>>this? No good answers right?
> >>
> >>Read above. Nobody is saying it's a good situation for the league. On
> >>the contrary, I think it's bad, because it puts a small market like
> >>Edmonton at a disadvantage.
> >
> >
> > Bingo!, Glad you realize it.
> >
> > And I say what defines you as a small
> >
> >>market is your population.
> >
> >
> > We are back to that, despite you earlier conceding its population X
> > interest?
>
> Correct, and the only thing that makes you a small market compared to
> Toronto is your smaller population, unless you want to continue pursuing
> your zany conspiracy about Canada's crown corporations recklessly
> propping up the Leafs.

$40,000,000 of tax money spent to support your team. I must have just made
it up right? hint: ACC
>
> >
> > You seem to have a problem with this
> >
> >>opinion, which is the impass. Please don't try to turn it into
> >>something it's not.
> >
> >
> > Not my problem, only the Oilers and many other teams problem. I just
happen
> > to be a fan who can find some other sport or team to be a fan of.
> >
>
> Not me. It'll be hockey to the end.

I'm near done with all pro sports its all about $ not competition anymore.
>
>
> >>
> >>Well, I could challenge you to provide numbers and concrete evidence,
> >>but since I conceded that entirely, I don't care.
> >
> >
> > Well it was me who rightfully challenged whether any valid #'s exist so
you
> > asking me to research invalid #'s that I have no interest in would be
> > strange to say the least..............
> >
>
> You don't think you've made blanket claims, that I have just accepted
> for the purpose of discussion, without proof or numbers?

Blanket claims, sure, we all use some in creating, or emphasizing a point-
guilty as charged. I save you the trouble of pinning them down by admitting
it but I have not MADE UP false #'s to support my sometimes exagerated
propositions. To me theres a difference. One is drawing, creating a picture
with emphasis for effect while the other is outright lying or deceit using
#'s that are contrived #'s. Not sure if you see it this way.

You really
> need to go back and read your posts. The only difference is I don't
> point them out to you, since, if I did, I'm sure we wouldn't still be
> having this pleasant conversation.

You could say whatever you'd like and believe me I've held back too. I do
prefer to keep it friendly as it continues the discussion. My problem isn't
with you as much as its your a fan of a team most everybody in this market
or other canadian markets despises which you correctly pointed out.
>
> >
> > Starting with your proposal for how the
> >
> >>Leafs should be rewarded for it's overwheling fan support (for whatever
> >>reason) but within the confines of a healthy league.
> >
> >
> > Since when do we award overwhelming fan support. Is there a recent
trophy
> > addition I don't know about?
>
> It's certainly rewarded now:

Sure but nobody decided it was going to suddenly work this way agreements
were quietly trampled on, deals made to backload contracts, personal
services contracts etc.that all circumvented past CBA agreeement. Should
talent disparity be so absolute? Should ten teams in a 30 team league
possess the vast majority of the talent? A bit too much stratification IMO.

with the fiscal means to either acquire
> talented players, or keep the talent they have. Unlike how the Oilers
> lose their talent when they become (U or R)FA's.

No actually its just fiscal outlay, just revenue, just $. Understand that if
a team has say 5million fans that cant afford to go to the game they do not
get rewarded.(kids for instance) Only paying fans. Its just $ pumped back,
reinvested.
The trouble I have is that not all of those $ come from fans anyway. I have
a big problem with using the public purse for corporate welfare. If the
Leafs want to be a business, and if they are a big successful business then
fine be one , but without ANY handouts.
>
> This isn't a good example though. A better one is the Leafs vs.
> Florida. Why should a team that has virtually no fan support be
> rewarded with a system that normalizes the talent level team to team?

To create interest in that market. Sports market research says equity and
parity is the way to creating growth, and new viable teams.
If you don't believe me google the rationale for our draft system.

> What motivation has Toronto to participate in such a deal?

Survival of the league? Survival of the NHL in Canada? Come on this is
supposed to be sports but its getting to the point where their is no reason
to even play the games anymore. Do you really like to watch the leafs play
the AHL Oilers? I hope not. The Stanley Cup is now decided by market
conditions and not org.ability. The draft was introduced to create a level
playing field. The thinking used to be its good to have parity and the
research on creating sports interest revealed that its good to create
conditions that cause parity. You are talking about something else entirely
that some teams should be decidedly more equal than others. The current
unrestricted market in which owners have actively circumvented and found
loopholes to evade past agreements has resulted in an unlevel playing field
where usually the rich win.
Do you ever feel you are cheering for economics rather than sport? To me
thats how exciting pro-sports have become. Of course this is major sour
grapes coming from a fan that has lost Gretz, Mess, Coffey, Anderson. Cujo,
Weight, Guerin etc. and ALWAYS to $.

about some fatcat teams being tired of losing and loading up on talent to
> > try to buy a cup that they can't otherwise obtain through drafting,
> > development etc. Oh look who's doing it the most in Canada- Toronto, oh
my
> > what a surprise!
>
> Hmmmm...when I hear responses like this, I feel less and less sorry for
> small market teams. And you clearly aren't apprised of the current
> makeup and direction of the Leafs...

Its Cujo angst just as an example. Its really not fun being a feeder team
for real NHL teams with $ and yes the frustration does leaks out.
>
> Home grown Leafs that have played this season (just what I can recall
> off the top of my head):
>
> Stajan (regular), Telqvist, Antropov (regular), Wilm, Colaiacovo,
> Kaberle (regular), Pilar (regular),
> Leeb, Ponikarovsky (regular), Hedin, Wellwood.

and honestly with those type of guys and nothing else you are worse than the
oilers.
>
> Players that were acquired through trade (which has nothing to do with
> your "buying a Cup" silliness):
>
> McCabe, Sundin, Berg, Nolan, Tucker, Renberg, Reichel, Domi, others.

.. > Gee, that's a roster made up of 14 regulars, and 19 total players
> acquired through nothing more than drafting, development and astute
> trades.

Silliness? the team is held together only with the 62million required to
pay for their services. Twice what we pay in payroll. This is the highest
payroll in Canada by 20 million and the fifth highest in the league. Thats
what I meant in commenting on T.O. buying a team. Sorry you don't follow
this.

Gee, I guess the Leafs *can* do it "otherwise". BTW, some of
> the players in the Leafs system would be regulars on many NHL teams, but
> just can't crack the Leafs' roster.

Exactly and that stinks IMO. WE paid for an NHL team, not an AHL one and you
have better players in your system than we have at Rexall. Try to understand
some of this frustration.

>
> > I proposed the
> >
> >>idea of a salary cap based on attendance percentage. Any other ideas?
> >
> >
> > A fair playing field for member teams like we had before. I'm done.
> >
>
> Those days are gone no matter what and this isn't helpful.
>
> P.S.: I invite you to use your, ha ha ha, "just joking" routine about
> any of the information I have presented. I haven't googled anyone into
> mushy pulp in a few weeks.

and I really don't care to. The difference is you would have to google to
find some of my embellishments where your ventures into fantasyland are
immediately recognizable. Hey I'm just pointing out what I see as a major
deficit in your posting style, you can ignore it, think I'm an ass, whatever
you want but you may want to stop specifically making up the #'s people can
spot that a mile away.

You can carry on if you feel you must but again I'm about done on this I
don't know that we can come to any better understanding of our relative
teams/positions etc. Not trying to piss you off but my vitriol is present,
and almost a given considering the your team and my team dynamics. Its not
about you its about frustration with the teams that love to buy our talent
away from us. The frustrtion with the leafs is paramount because its a
Canadian team that should care about how its spending effects the other
canadian teams.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Oiler NHL Team 

Mario R wrote:

> pawn <pawn.RemoveThis@hanneng.com> wrote in message
> news:p3iovb.auk.ln@gandalf.hanneng.com...
>>>$40,000,000 of tax money spent to support your team. I must have just
>
> made
>
>>>it up right? hint: ACC
>>>
>>
>>Huh? That is just loony. It's called AN INVESTMENT. What...you think
>>if Air Canada didn't win out on the naming rights to the ACC, nobody
>>else would have wanted it? I guess the same logic applies to every team
>>in the league, right? Boy, I'm not kidding, that's really, really silly.
>
>
> AN INVESTMENT should properly be made by a business, not a money losing, tax
> supported venture that continually quacks like a crown corporation.
> If you want, explain how Air Canada ought to be donating my tax $ to a team
> that apparently as you say does not need it? Explain how its an investment?


So, basically you're saying Air Canada is not entitled to reinvest any
income, on advertising, etc., until they are profitable? I'm glad you
haven't been retained to salvage Air Canada. <--- BTW 5th unrelated
issue you're prattling on about now.


> This type of investment does not necessarily expand their market. Do they
> think they don't have NAME recognition already- they do, I read about them
> everytime their getting another handout. FWIW I don't fly Air Canada just on
> principal and this type of INVESTMENT just contributes to my concerns.
>

Literally hundreds of thousands of people a day pass within 50 feet of a
giant A I R C A N A D A sign. You don't see that as good advertising?
BTW, I have no idea where you ghot the $40M figure, but unlike you, I'll
take you at your word.


>>So to be clear, you're claiming that Air Canada is somehow falsely
>>propping up Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment as a devious form of
>>giving tax dollars to the Leafs? Boy, I knew the West had loony
>>conspiracy theories about Ontario and Toronto, but this is the best one
>>of all time.
>
>
> Just an example- you were convinced remember that there were none- called my
> idea loony, silly , zany etc. and all that while you were the one "playing
> nice" in your mind. It should be clear to you that I don't care if an actual
> business donates er invests $.


I haven't been playing nice for a while now. Ever since you started
spiralling down the loony path.


> I just don't want it to be tax $ which Air
> Canada is always stuffing in their pockets.
>

You opinion on Air Canada has absolutely nothing to do with the Leafs.
Go argue with a fan of Air Canada.


>
>>>fine be one , but without ANY handouts.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Back on this again? This is truly the stupidest criticism I have ever
>>heard of the Leafs. I mean, I know other Canadian teams are jealous,
>>but there really needs to be some sanity. Please keep posting this
>>idiocy, because it's a good chuckle for me at work.
>
>
> and all this from a person who prefaces a comment with: "Of Course I have no
> clue" That was definitely good reading. Share that one with people at work.
>

Good for you pal. Oh, BTW, go look up the phrase "non sequitur" while
you're at it.


>>>
>>
>>We seem to keep putting the onus on me for proving both of our points,
>>don't we?
>
>
> How so?- I consistently use real #'s 62million payroll, 40 million from Air
> Canada in addition to correcting all your uh...80% figures and all the rest
> of your ABSOLUTE knowlege.


So, let me get this straight, your numbers, that you provide no backup
for, are "real" numbers? I get it now.


> I don't argue it either way, but it's really a contrast with
>
>>your zany corporate welfare theory. So, let me get this straight, the
>>Leafs' organization is blessed with fan support, wealth and intangibles
>>that have given them advantages teams like the Oilers can't dream of,
>>but for whatever ludicrous reason, the government of Canada (I guess
>>this is what you're claiming), use Air Canada to endow the Leafs' with
>>more money? Is that it? Truly strange.
>
>
> Air Canada shouldn't be giving it, especially to the one team that is least
> in need in the country. Sorry you don't follow this.
>

You really aren't getting this, but I want to help you, so listen up.
Whatever Air Canada does with their money has nothing to do with Maple
Leaf Sports and Entertainment, period. If AC didn't spend that money
(for whatever their reasons are), someone else would have. Get it? And
your repeated reference to it not only has nothing to do with the
discussion, but it clearly shows you have a deranged ax to grind, that
has nothing to do with reality, and weakens everything else you have to
say. In fact, I am only responding now out of enjoyment, as a father
might playfully wrestle with a 4 year old boy.


>>
>>No, but there is wiggle room you know. I mean, it's not all or nothing.
>> Teams like the Leafs are going to find the best deal for them, within
>>the confines of what is best for the league. Or are you suggesting the
>>Leafs should just roll over and do exactly what's best for Edmonton,
>>regardless of what's best for the Leafs?
>
>
> I'm saying that symbiotically whats good for us is best for the leafs unless
> you want to be the only canadian team playing in a 10 team american league.
>


No doubt about it. However you seem to think that only the Leafs need
to change their way of business. You are wrong, as usual.

(everything else snipped since you had nothing to offer. Not even zany,
loony, criminally insane Leafs-receiving-corporate-welfare conspiracy
theories, which, at the least, were good for a laugh)

/EOT
 >> Stay informed about: Worst Oiler NHL Team