nfreeman Posted September 17, 2008 Report Posted September 17, 2008 Some interesting news as we wait for camp and Pominville is still unsigned... Check it out. "There is an issue with ownership in Buffalo and Toronto," Mr. Gretzky said in a question-and-answer session after a speech to the Economic Club of Toronto. The 47-year-old hockey executive explained that the Leafs and Sabres have territorial rights, and haven't been afraid to use them. Mr. Gretzky, who hails from Brantford, Ont., said he would like to see another NHL team in Southern Ontario, adding that Hamilton or Kitchener could support a franchise. But he said he doesn't expect to see the league in either city in the "foreseeable future." I'm glad the Leafs are on our side on this one.
X. Benedict Posted September 17, 2008 Report Posted September 17, 2008 Hockey in Vegas? http://mirtle.blogspot.com/2008/09/nhl-inc...r-to-vegas.html
FogBat Posted September 17, 2008 Report Posted September 17, 2008 Some interesting news as we wait for camp and Pominville is still unsigned... Check it out. I'm glad the Leafs are on our side on this one. For once. The Buffalo/Toronto metroplex is not like NYC Tri-State by any means. The only way this could possibly happen is if our population between the two cities went up fourfold, and that just cannot happen overnight.
Bmwolf21 Posted September 17, 2008 Report Posted September 17, 2008 Hockey in Vegas? http://mirtle.blogspot.com/2008/09/nhl-inc...r-to-vegas.html It wouldn't surprise me one bit to see the NHL break the "Vegas barrier" and put a team in Sin City. It also wouldn't surprise me to see Rick Tocchet volunteer to be the head coach and Janet Gretzky buy season tickets, either.
That Aud Smell Posted September 17, 2008 Report Posted September 17, 2008 hmm. if they were talking about moving one of those under-performing franchises in a non-traditional market to vegas, then i'd be in favor. (can you say "road trip?" shoot, probably 1/2 of that team's home games would be taken over by traveling fans of the visiting team (if it happens in florida, d.c. and phoenix, you can be sure it'd happen in vegas.) one problem being: i don't think the vegas team would develop a loyal, hometown following -- but that's hardly buttboy's concern -- this is a straight kigash grab. but they are clearly talking about this as an expansion move. we have enough franchises as it is that are putting enough marginal talent on the ice -- the league should be looking at contraction, not expansion. and given that vegas would make for 31 franchises, it also makes me think that there'd be another shoe to drop ... gretzky says it won't happen in southern ontario, but i would have concerns in that regard. although, i'd certainly support a 32nd team being located somewhere else in canada (not sure what candidates there are beyond winnipeg).
Two or less Posted September 17, 2008 Report Posted September 17, 2008 Putting the NHL in Vegas would only be genius. I hope the NHL do it. Once one league does it, it'll only be 3-4 years before 2 of the other 3 top leagues jump in too....
shrader Posted September 17, 2008 Report Posted September 17, 2008 I'm glad the Leafs are on our side on this one. Our side? They're looking out for the Maple Leafs and no one else.
carpandean Posted September 17, 2008 Report Posted September 17, 2008 Our side? They're looking out for the Maple Leafs and no one else. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
FogBat Posted September 17, 2008 Report Posted September 17, 2008 The enemy of my enemy is my friend. :lol:
FogBat Posted September 17, 2008 Report Posted September 17, 2008 Putting the NHL in Vegas would only be genius. I hope the NHL do it. Once one league does it, it'll only be 3-4 years before 2 of the other 3 top leagues jump in too.... Yeah, once Vegas recovers from the subprime mortgage crisis. That town got hit really hard with that debacle.
shrader Posted September 17, 2008 Report Posted September 17, 2008 The enemy of my enemy is my friend. So would this mean that the proposed new Southern Ontario team would be our friend? :o
carpandean Posted September 17, 2008 Report Posted September 17, 2008 So would this mean that the proposed new Southern Ontario team would be our friend? :o You are crossing fields of battle. When it comes to our continued existence as a franchise, a Southern Ontario team would be our enemy, not Toronto. So, there, Toronto is the enemy of our enemy. In hockey, they would both be our enemy as they would likely be in our division. This nullifies that rule. However, if you consider our Toronto to be our big rival (enemy), then rooting for the Southern Ontario team when they play Toronto would be an example of that rule.
shrader Posted September 17, 2008 Report Posted September 17, 2008 You are crossing fields of battle. When it comes to our continued existence as a franchise, a Southern Ontario team would be our enemy, not Toronto. So, there, Toronto is the enemy of our enemy. In hockey, they would both be our enemy as they would likely be in our division. This nullifies that rule. However, if you consider our Toronto to be our big rival (enemy), then rooting for the Southern Ontario team when they play Toronto would be an example of that rule. And in Rand McNally, hamburgers eat people.
nfreeman Posted September 17, 2008 Author Report Posted September 17, 2008 And in Rand McNally, hamburgers eat people. OK, boys, time to put him down. Tragic, really. All this sun has baked a previously fine hockey mind.
carpandean Posted September 17, 2008 Report Posted September 17, 2008 And in Rand McNally, hamburgers eat people. And people wear hats on their feet.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.