- Thread starter
- #9,421
dash
Newly appointed fentanyl czar
Flames could use a new goalie coach as well, that's for sure. Jordan Sigalet sure seems like a nice enough guy, but this is a results driven business and the results aren't there.
LOL and you think that Ottawa's cheap owner wants to "hand over" a game. These teams are making money off of this.
So you say it's a bad idea to market Karlsson and Landeskog because they're already known in Sweden; yet you then go on to list the most popular teams among Swedish fans? So they should go over there and play so Swedes can see the Sedins, Lundqvist or Zetterberg? They already know those guys too!! But even morer!! HAHAHA even more stupider. LOL.
LUUULZ. What a dumb idea!!!
The point that I've made is that the teams were obviously picked from a short list that had Swedish stars as their captain.
The point that your making is.....???
I think you are entirely missing the point.
Not sure if it's the lack of being able to look at this from a business sense due to a lack of economic knowledge or if you are just steamed because I made a point that no one watches the Senators...
Flames could use a new goalie coach as well, that's for sure. Jordan Sigalet sure seems like a nice enough guy, but this is a results driven business and the results aren't there.
Okay. I have no business sense. What economic detriments are there to Colorado and Ottawa playing 2 games in Sweden?
Not gonna bother.
I'll let you think you are right, bud.
Awww. Someone just realized they had no point to make on this topic.
Go back under your bridge.
I shouldn't need to "make a point" about common sense.
I'm not good at dumbing things down.
Awesome. Because you didn't make a single coherent point today. Well done!!
As said, common sense shouldn't need to be made (1).
The "do no wrong" NHL(2) will market their big clubs with "young swedish captains" from Kanata and Denver (3) and it's entirely based on "young Swedish captains".
lol.
1) This doesn't really mean anything. Common sense refers to making a logical conclusion from from a situation. I'm not here to make your conclusions for you.
2) Strawman. I've never said this. Why is this a talking point right now?
3) Naming the location of the team's arenas is pretty pointless.
I've asked you why you think this is a bad idea. I've given you a valid reason (a 2-time Norris winner and one of the youngest captains in NHL history) as to why they chose to market these teams in Sweden. I'm still waiting for you tell me why it's a bad idea.You know with your great economic acuity that is.
I never said it was a bad idea. In my post that got you all twisted in the knickers, I even pointed out that it's good the NHL took two teams that people don't really care about and aren't watching...
Exactly like I said about the NFL and the Jaguars...
Ahh, I see. Yet you rattled on (out of nowhere) about how bad the NHL is at making decisions because you thought this was a good idea? I think maybe you should practice "not dumbing things down" a bit. As is the case with 90% of your posts that added nothing and made no real sense.
But thanks for clearing that up for me.
I'll try and dumb it down...try.
Taking home revenue away any team in a gate driven league is never a good idea. So, taking a team that is extremely popular in Sweden like Detroit, Broadway and Vancouver who sell out all the time isn't going to happen. Selling 100% of your tickets is more revenue than selling 80% of it. Having 100% of the people capable of buying $9 sodas and foam fingers is more revenue than having 80% of people capable of buying these things.
So, instead the NHL sent two teams that aren't driving gate and aren't going to have the networks bat an eyelash to losing a game.
Future Considerations on the move again![]()
Future Considerations on the move again![]()