Las Vegas NHL Expansion

[TheRatPack]

1 hour ago, sparky chewbarky said:

 

Right here MEANS...from NHL.com...https://www.nhl.com/news/winnipeg-jets-unveil-new-logo/c-569909

 

"True North Sports & Entertainment was also grateful to the Department of National Defense for their assistance in the process."

You'd probably know better than me what that "assistance" was, but the point was that the RCAF was involved in the process in some way...Unlike, apparently, the development of the Vegas identity with the Golden Knights.

 

Certainly a different situation. Just read an article that said Army has their legal team now looking into it.

[BrianLion]

30 minutes ago, TheRatPack said:

 

Certainly a different situation. Just read an article that said Army has their legal team now looking into it.

 

"You knew what you were doing Mr. Foley, didn't you???!??"

 

 

(and yes, I'm aware it was Marines in the movie)

[TheRatPack]

25 minutes ago, BrianLion said:

 

"You knew what you were doing Mr. Foley, didn't you???!??"

 

 

(and yes, I'm aware it was Marines in the movie)

 

 

Ok someone needs to make a meme of Foleys head on Jack Nicholsns body saying "you cant handle the truth, Knight"

 

 

[The_Admiral]

You want the video? I can't handle the video!

[BeerGuyJordan]

So a member, who shall remain nameless, messaged me basically saying, "Calm down with the legal stuff, it's just a nickname. The Army doesn't officially use it."

 

Yes, they do, they've just never trademarked it. And it isn't just a military regiment, team or group. It's one of the Army's biggest, most expensive, and most prestigious recruiting tools (and is actually part of the Marketing and Resource group, a subdivision of Recruiting Command). That's why they might get a bit tetchy about it being co-opted for such high-profile moneymaking.

 

www.armygoldenknights.com

[2001mark]

Las Vegas CFL Stallions

[Thomas]

10 hours ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

So a member, who shall remain nameless, messaged me basically saying, "Calm down with the legal stuff, it's just a nickname. The Army doesn't officially use it."

 

Yes, they do, they've just never trademarked it. And it isn't just a military regiment, team or group. It's one of the Army's biggest, most expensive, and most prestigious recruiting tools (and is actually part of the Marketing and Resource group, a subdivision of Recruiting Command). That's why they might get a bit tetchy about it being co-opted for such high-profile moneymaking.

 

www.armygoldenknights.com

I am all for killing the enemy and :censored:, but do you really need a cool name while doing it? Isn't the deed reward enough by itself?  

[TheRatPack]

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2016/12/02/u-s-army-objects-golden-knights-name-new-las-vegas-nhl-team/

 

Trumps man is on it lol

[The Giant Pacific Octopus]

21 hours ago, Gothamite said:

It's not about location,

 

LOL. Good one Goth.

 

I got a pretty funny joke too.

 

Get it? Tentacles? Bwaaa haaaa ha.

 

[IceCap]

2 hours ago, The Giant Pacific Octopus said:

 

LOL. Good one Goth.

 

I got a pretty funny joke too.

 

Get it? Tentacles? Bwaaa haaaa ha.

 

So you still can't muster a defence for the LV ownership group completely flubbing this? Only offer vague "if things were different they'd be different" accusations?

[SFGiants58]

Here's how to sum up the past few pages of the thread:

 

 

The Mighty Golden Knights of Vegas will be a lovely source of entertainment, it seems.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

18 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Here's how to sum up the past few pages of the thread:

 

 

The Mighty Golden Knights of Vegas will be a lovely source of entertainment, it seems.

 

At least they'll be good for something. And getting our respective favorite teams a few extra points a year.

[IceCap]

On 2016-12-01 at 11:03 AM, the admiral said:

TNSE needed no RCAF permission to be called the Winnipeg Jets; the NHL owned the intellectual property and handed it over to True North when it became clear there was no public desire for Manitoba Moose, Falcons, or Polar Bears. They requested and received permission from the RCAF to use the logo they designed, and requested and received permission from the Maple Leafs to, uh, put a maple leaf in it. As they always have, True North went about things in a measured and thoughtful manner, while Foley has been too busy waving his dick around to make sure anyone can run goddamn Windows Media Player.

The Jets even managed to have a military-tie in unveiling (at a RCAF base) without implying their players were RCAF Airmen. 

Meanwhile in Las Vegas...

 

Battle red= Passion and the readiness to serve!

[IceCap]

On 2016-12-01 at 8:42 AM, BeerGuyJordan said:

Yeah, that wasn't an "I'm shocked they don't have this."

 

More of a "With the league's history, regarding new ownership, you'd think they'd assign new owners a mandatory babysitter/handler, for the first three years."

 

The NHL opted on Vegas, essentially shunning Quebec, in the process. Foley has taken a questionable business decision and turned it into an embarassment. 

 

I'll admit that I was wrong in saying, "Hey guys, lets give Vegas a chance." Not really for the reasons everyone was worried about, though. We haven't even gotten to the point where those concerns have even had a chance to play out. Foley has destroyed any faith I had in this team being run efficiently enough to survive. They've secured enough season ticket deposits to garuantee fiscal solvency for 5 years, minimum. Without an Army lawsuit, I give 'em 14 years. With it, likely much sooner. Hockey can't thrive with bad management, in a non-traditional market, just limp on, like Phoenix or Raleigh.

The MC at the unveiling described him as a "hands on owner." I can't think of a "hands on owner" in the big four that's managed any sort of long-term success. It's usually a term associated with owners who won't get out of the way. 

This mess with the unveiling and identity certainly bares that out.

 

I suspect they'll manage to hang on for fourteen years or so due to a combination of the money pledged for season tickets and the league's willingness to keep failed sunbelt teams in place to avoid egg on their face. 

Still? If the arena is embarrassingly empty each night and Foley ends up needing to sell the team to keep from losing too much? I can see them leaving earlier.

 

Also Mark Davis told the rest of the NFL's owners he plans to apply for relocation to  Las Vegas in January. 

So that'll be fun I'm sure.

[WavePunter]

Octopuses still don't have tentacles..

[tp49]

On 12/2/2016 at 0:33 PM, Ice_Cap said:

The MC at the unveiling described him as a "hands on owner." I can't think of a "hands on owner" in the big four that's managed any sort of long-term success. It's usually a term associated with owners who won't get out of the way. 

This mess with the unveiling and identity certainly bares that out.

 

I suspect they'll manage to hang on for fourteen years or so due to a combination of the money pledged for season tickets and the league's willingness to keep failed sunbelt teams in place to avoid egg on their face. 

Still? If the arena is embarrassingly empty each night and Foley ends up needing to sell the team to keep from losing too much? I can see them leaving earlier.

 

Also Mark Davis told the rest of the NFL's owners he plans to apply for relocation to  Las Vegas in January. 

So that'll be fun I'm sure.

The only "hands on owner" I can think of off the top of my head who had any long term success was George Steinbrenner.  However, the foundation of that long term success was seeded during his suspension for associating with known gamblers.  

 

As to the point about Foley losing too much and being forced to sell, I'm guessing that Foley realizes he might not be profitable but would look to use the losses from the team (if they aren't within an uncomfortable range) as a tax break for his other business interests.  I will say that the ineptitude shown throughout the process by Foley and company doesn't bode well for the success of the franchise.

 

 

[goforbroke]

On 12/2/2016 at 9:05 PM, WavePunter said:

Octopuses still don't have tentacles..

 

Only on the internet would someone criticize the accuracy of a joke meant for 4 year olds.    

[spartacat_12]

On 12/2/2016 at 3:33 PM, Ice_Cap said:

The MC at the unveiling described him as a "hands on owner." I can't think of a "hands on owner" in the big four that's managed any sort of long-term success. It's usually a term associated with owners who won't get out of the way. 

This mess with the unveiling and identity certainly bares that out.

 

I suspect they'll manage to hang on for fourteen years or so due to a combination of the money pledged for season tickets and the league's willingness to keep failed sunbelt teams in place to avoid egg on their face. 

Still? If the arena is embarrassingly empty each night and Foley ends up needing to sell the team to keep from losing too much? I can see them leaving earlier.

 

Also Mark Davis told the rest of the NFL's owners he plans to apply for relocation to  Las Vegas in January. 

So that'll be fun I'm sure.

Dallas has a couple of hands on owners who have had a good amount of success. 

[IceCap]

2 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

Dallas has a couple of hands on owners who have had a good amount of success. 

I think we all know the Cowboys' success is inspite of Jerry and not because of him

[VegasBound]

Well we will know soon if Army disputed the mark because as of today the trademark applications went from Awaiting examination to Under examination. All 3 of them so Foley is hedging his bet.

 

Now I imagine the Army is aware of this so any battle starts now if it is.