IceCap

hahahahaha. Between this and the well-worn "Marge v. the Monorail" analogy, this whole thing is the fourth season of The Simpsons. Where's Gabbo?

Is that a joke or is there a real article saying that? There was an article that, more or less, whined about the Jets not making enough of a deal about their time in Atlanta. What's to make a big deal about? The Thrashers sucked, their owners were pathetic, and their fan support was tepid. How would you feel if the Anaheim Kings virtually shunned the team's history in Sacramento? The Thrashers did win a division championship, and a couple players did win some awards that the league hands out annually. It's not like nothing happened. They're a step below what the Kings have been in their time in Sacramento..... It's not an illustrious history, but it is the franchise's history nonetheless. But I don't really care if the Jets consider it their history or not. The thing is that they Jets do honour their history in Atlanta. http://jets.nhl.com/club/gamelog.htm http://jets.nhl.com/club/draftstats.htm http://jets.nhl.com/club/historicalplayers.htm Which is what made the article claiming they didn't so absurd. They don't have that Division Championship banner hanging, but then again it's still the property of the ASG, along with the rest of the Thrashers' intellectual property. They honour their history as the Thrashers to the extent that they're legally allowed to.

They had that bird head that breathed fire. That was kind of cool.

Is that a joke or is there a real article saying that? There was an article that, more or less, whined about the Jets not making enough of a deal about their time in Atlanta.

No! The Jets can't trade the Thrashers' history to the new Quebec team! They're OBLIGATED to honour their illustrious past as the Atlanta Thrashers, damnit! [/whacked out Yahoo Sports rant]

Has the Japanese Mafia ever owned a NBA team? Every league has its share of morons, to be sure. The NHL though? It's a special case.

It wasn't just that, Gilbert wanted to get away from the Lebron look because of the bad taste it left in his mouth. LeBron had nothing to do with the uniform change. It was in the works long before James made it clear he was going to leave Cleveland. The Cavs would still be wearing their current uniforms even if James had resigned with them. Anyhow the current Cavs set is the second best set they've had, only losing out to the James-era look. Both are, far abd way, superior to anything else the team has worn.

Face it, if the red/yellow Hawks had a McDonalds logo across their chest it would look completely normal. Um, no.

People need to stop with the "red and gold equals McDonalds" comparisons.

Trust me, I know all that. I've been around for the numerous forms this thread and discussion has been guised as. And sure, THAT'S why the only reason the pro-Coyotes posters stopped posting in this thread. It has nothing to do with how any pro-Coyotes post was swarmed upon with all the vile the other side could find. It has without question gotten exponentially harder to argue as time has gone by, but there's never been any use in trying to argue it before the horde arrived. Lets take a look at the pattern of the last round of Coyotes (back during their playoff push). They popped in and claimed we were all simply "haters." When presented with facts as to why the Coyotes were no longer viable in their current location and facts to back up why the claim that the Jamison deal was illegal they started calling said facts "biased opinions." When presented with links that confirmed that these facts were, well, facts they left as quickly as they appeared. Were they "swarmed upon with vile?" No, they were simply called out for their inability to counter the facts of the situation with anything other then "you're a hater GO 'YOTES!" So please, don't play the "the poor Coyotes fans can't get a word in edge-wise" card. You've followed this discussion long enough to know that there was quite a substantial pro-Coyotes sentiment when things first broke years ago. That it's shrunken, with the original "lets see if we can make it work in Glendale" supporters either switching sides or simply vanishing from the thread all together points to my central claim. That the pro-Coyotes side of this whole mess becomes less and less defensible with each new revelation. The NHL can keep them there under league ownership as long as the city is willing to bleed itself dry to do so, as long as the NHL values having a team in Arizona above all else. The only way this ends is if the deal is struck down or Glendale literally runs out of money. There's nothing to suggest that this will be "the last go around" as long as the city can keep finding stuff to sell off to make payments. Look Still MIGHTY, you seem like a smart guy. I just don't "get" how anyone can support this, in any way. It boggles my mind. Though, to be perfectly fair, the City of Glendale's dealings with the National Hockey League didn't set that trend in motion. The Glendale-Phoenix Coyotes situation is simply the latest and - to date - most egregious example of a municipality selling its fiduciary "soul" to the pro sports "devil". As much as I hate to say it, I wholeheartedly believe it is not outside the realm of possibility that we will someday see a financial relationship between a local government and a pro sports team that makes the Coyotes' saga in Glendale seem quaint by comparison. *shivers* Good G-d I hope you're proven wrong on that one.

The problem with that is that the league still takes a bath on operating the Coyotes, even with the $25 million a year from Glendale. The league's certainly taking advantage of a very stupid city, but at the end of the day they don't gain anything economically from it. It's hard to say that a man in charge of a multi-million dollar league would base decisions like this simply to appease his ego, but it's (sadly) the one the best explains the league's actions. Only temporarily. Goldwater may this thing killed, in which case the question of public funds for all future potential Coyotes owners will be off the table and the league has to look to buyers who want to relocate. That or the wheels finally come spinning off once Glendale literally has no money to give to the league/team and City Hall is now a combination Taco Bell/KFC. At that point the NHL will give the "well we tried" speech and move them anyway.

Well of course. Why start now? Huh. Look, I've been following this story since the Coyotes' financial troubles first came out and Jim Balsillie was trying to move them to Hamilton. The notion that the pro-keep the team in Arizona side has never been given its fair hearing on these forums is false. Heck, a few posters who were on the "lets make it work on Glendale" side of things back then have switched sides now, and most of those that haven't have since quietly dropped out of the regular conversation. Why is that? Well because as time went on it became clear to pretty much everyone that the lengths Glendale was willing to go to were unreasonable, to sat the least, and that the Coyotes simply worth keeping around if it meant financially destroying a city. This discussion's covered more then just this thread, and has been going on at the CCSLC since the story broke more then three years ago. You don't see any pro-Coyotes posts here because most of the pro-Coyotes posters either decided that the team wasn't worth keeping around at the expense of a city or simply stopped posting because they realized that with each new decision coming from Glendale City Hall their position became less and less defensible. I've never said that I was okay with it. My most recent argument was just to show what some of those actually in Arizona feel in response to "How do the people actually allow this?" I was providing personal experience as one of the few in this discussion that actually deal with the people and within/around the municipality in question. And of course, there's a limit. I'll reiterate one more time. Yes, I would like the Coyotes to stay so I have hockey to watch, but, again I'll reiterate one more time, ONLY if it is legal, reasonable, or responsible. It is clearly none of those things anymore. Clearly. So maybe it's time to take off the "Coyotes Apologist" hat. I live within driving distance of a NHL team that doesn't know up from down, and if I'm lucky I'll be able to score nosebleeds for $150 (on top of paying for parking in downtown Toronto). The Coyotes are a playoff calibre team which had promotions where you got a ticket, a hotdog, beer, and snuggie for under $20 and they still didn't fill the building. I'm not all that broken up by the "plight" of the "real" Coyotes fans. Either the don't exist in large enough numbers or they simply decided not to show up. Either way I'm not terribly concerned. Obviously. Yes. Though strangely I think we're in agreement when it comes to the larger picture. The Coyotes aren't worth keeping around at the expense of a city, so it's time to do the right thing for everyone and move them. I'm just bewildered by the extent "hey sports!" goes towards blinding people (not you necessarily, I'm speaking of those "you don't live here why do you care?" Coyotes fans) when said sports are a determent, not a boon, to the community.

I just don't get it. I don't understand how any Coyotes fan can defend this. Because if you're not a citizen of Glendale, it's really not your problem? I actually got that sense from some of the Coyotes fans I talked to during the Chicago/Nashville series in the playoffs while the ownership negotiations were really going on....I wouldn't put this on the Coyotes fans Not our problem? Well aside from being the last ditch argument from the side clearly on the losing side of the discussion it can be viewed as all of our problems. Practically speaking, if this, all of this, is allowed to happen, it'll set a precedent that teams will point to whenever they're set to negotiate with the locales they play in. If it happens in Glendale it has the potential to happen anywhere else, which is something that anyone not drunk off of the Shane Doan Kool-Aid can see as a bad thing. Now lets talk about the ideological side of things. Whether I'm affected or not, I'm not out of line when I say that cutting millions of dollars and selling off G-ddamn City Hall for the sake of keeping a sports team is destructive, extremely short sighted, reckless, and a clear sign of incompetency on the part of the city's leadership. As for this not being the fault of the Coyotes' fanbase? Well it's not their fault but they're not the innocent angles you paint them out as. You claim that most Coyotes fans aren't from Glendale. If true that makes them downright morally bankrupt as a fanbase. It's easy to say "sure let a city go bankrupt and put its own infrastructure up as collateral as long as I keep my sports team" when you don't actually live in the affected city. Take any of those "well meaning Coyotes fans" and let them talk to one of the civil servants who either lost their job or is about to in the name of keeping the Coyotes and see what they have to say. Trust me, I see and understand all of what you're saying. It's stupid that this has been allowed to go on. I'm just stating an opposing opinion. As I've said numerous times in the thread (and I really don't know why I keep coming back to say it, but here I am), I would like the team to stay for my own personal reasons, but I completely understand why they would (and at this ridiculous point, really should) leave. The thing is, we've past the point where opposing views should be given equal time. This is no longer an issue with shades of grey. A town is cutting millions of dollars, slashing civil services, and putting its own infrastructure up as collateral to keep a sports team that, in a good year, still losses millions of dollars on its own. We're at the point where the "anything to keep the Coyotes" camp has lost all credibility. And I know that your attachment to this team is based around a "hey affordable NHL hockey within driving distance!" sentiment (though really, while I love NHL hockey it's not making me sympathize with you or the Coyotes "faithful," quite the opposite), and when I mentioned the Coyotes fans storming in here ever thirty pages oblivious to the facts posted before their entry I wasn't directing that at you. Still, even as far as your admittedly selfish reasons go there has to be a limit, right? Like those Coyotes fans who you claim shouldn't be vilified, you're willing to put up with a team who's existence is literally destroying a town and the livelihoods of those who live in it just so you can have affordable NHL hockey. You're not from Glendale. You don't have to pay the price for their idiocy, yet you're ok with it because "hey, hockey!" You're not even native to Arizona either. Will you stay in the Phoenix metro area after university? If not it kind of makes it worse. I understand that you admit that your reasoning for wanting the team to stay is selfish. What I'm saying is that we've finally hit the point where that selfishness really starts to get ugly when the we look at what Glendale is doing to itself for the sake of this team. If something happens once, it can, and probably will, happen again. If any of the proposed deals to potential owners (Jamison's proposed deal included) were to happen then it would allow other teams, across all leagues and sports, to point to it and try to leverage as much as they can out of a city, possibly even to the point of determent to that city. You can say that the circumstances in Glendale are unique. I disagree. You'll find no shortage of municipal leaders who can be blinded by the "prestige" of pro sports.

I just don't get it. I don't understand how any Coyotes fan can defend this. Because if you're not a citizen of Glendale, it's really not your problem? I actually got that sense from some of the Coyotes fans I talked to during the Chicago/Nashville series in the playoffs while the ownership negotiations were really going on....I wouldn't put this on the Coyotes fans Not our problem? Well aside from being the last ditch argument from the side clearly on the losing side of the discussion it can be viewed as all of our problems. Practically speaking, if this, all of this, is allowed to happen, it'll set a precedent that teams will point to whenever they're set to negotiate with the locales they play in. If it happens in Glendale it has the potential to happen anywhere else, which is something that anyone not drunk off of the Shane Doan Kool-Aid can see as a bad thing. Now lets talk about the ideological side of things. Whether I'm affected or not, I'm not out of line when I say that cutting millions of dollars and selling off G-ddamn City Hall for the sake of keeping a sports team is destructive, extremely short sighted, reckless, and a clear sign of incompetency on the part of the city's leadership. As for this not being the fault of the Coyotes' fanbase? Well it's not their fault but they're not the innocent angles you paint them out as. You claim that most Coyotes fans aren't from Glendale. If true that makes them downright morally bankrupt as a fanbase. It's easy to say "sure let a city go bankrupt and put its own infrastructure up as collateral as long as I keep my sports team" when you don't actually live in the affected city. Take any of those "well meaning Coyotes fans" and let them talk to one of the civil servants who either lost their job or is about to in the name of keeping the Coyotes and see what they have to say.

I just don't get it. I don't understand how any Coyotes fan can defend this. Just give it a few pages. Soon we'll have the Coyotes faithful in here demanding proof for our "ludicrous" claims that Glendale is literally selling itself to keep this team. This will be because they would not have read the past ten pages (that contain such proof) because they "couldn't bring themselves to read pages of totally not fact-based Coyotes bashing."

The Israelites wandered through the desert for 40 years before reaching the Promised Land; whereas the Phoenix Coyotes bankruptcy and ownership saga is not even 5 years old. It's all relative.

I dislike the Los Angeles Kings' purple and gold colour scheme. Lakers comparisons aside (which, lets be honest, is hard to do), I just never really liked the way it looked on a hockey team. Maybe if they used a simplified, more iconic looking crown it would have clicked with me, but not as it was. My favourite version of the purple and gold would be the 1980-88 set. Even then I think it falls short to the Gretzky era black and silver, and the current black and silver look (even if the current logo leaves a lot to be desired).

The NHL didn't sell the rights to the Jets to TNSE until after they purchased and moved the Thrashers. TNSE didn't want the rights to "Jets" at first, though. True, but even if they did end up going with the Manitoba Moose identity they likely would have wanted the Jets name anyway, for throwback nights and the like. I still don't think we'll see a transfer of the Nordiques intellectual property until after it's announced that Quebecor has bought a team.

While I prefer the red and green look, I can't say I dislike the red and black look. It may not be as unique and geographically fitting, but it does fit the name better then the green. Also, I love the squared off shoulder yokes and number font introduced with the black. Either way, the Devils have always looked good.

The NHL didn't sell the rights to the Jets to TNSE until after they purchased and moved the Thrashers.

Ideally.

It would still be illegal.

The thing you have to understand about NHL ownership is that a good number of ownership groups barely manage to make ends meet, and only survive off of scamming their locales in one way or another. The Glendale deal is way beyond anything else ever attempted, to be sure, but small-time stuff like this goes on in most NHL markets to one degree or another. To paraphrase admiral, NHL ownership is the bottom of the barrel of the sports ownership world. Its ranks, and the ranks it's most likely to recruit from, are generally scam artists, hustlers, and downright thieves. That the Yakuza probably once owned a NHL franchise is pretty telling. That being said, there are those NHL owners that are actually profitable. The power brokers among them are the Molsons (Montreal), MLSE (Toronto), James Dolan (NY Rangers), Mike Ilitch (Detroit), Comcast (Philadelphia), William Wirtz (Chicago), and Jeremy Jacobs (Boston). Any successful revolt against Bettman would require the support of a majority of this group, if not all of them. While they have taken a bath on the Coyotes deal (even with the subsidies being forked over by Glendale) you have to keep in mind that these are very conservative people and groups. Not in a political sense, but in a business sense. They see that they're making money now (shortsightedness has always been a problem for NHL owners, even the legitimately successful ones), so they're content to keep things the way they are. Even if they have to pay for that maintenance of the status quo through collective ownership of the Coyotes. So the very people who have the power to say "enough is enough" are also the people who can afford to pay to keep things the way they are. Now all of that being said, this off-season will be rather interesting. The NHLPA and the owners go back to the bargaining table. If there's another work stoppage it'll be the third under Bettman's watch. The second in under ten years. After a record like that I don't know how they could justify keeping him on.

Well they could trade QUE & WPG... And GWI should 100% definitely be all over this. This whole thing is just sad at this point. Good news is, it does appear they're going to be all over this.