Mac the Knife
-
Posts
12,776 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Mac the Knife
-
-
MLSE's not going to give up a monopoly on one of the most hockey crazed regions in the world if they don't have to.
Or unless it makes financial sense to do so. If someone comes in and says I'll pay $100 million as a "territory infringement fee," they'd come to the realization that they can cover almost 10% of the price they paid for the club just by allowing Hamilton to have a franchise... at virtually no risk to them. That's a deal that gets made in a heartbeat under those conditions.
I don't think the NHL is that worried about playing second fiddle to the Newpersonics, though. They probably figure they can carve out their niche either way. I mean, the league let a team move to Raleigh conceding fourth place to Wake Forest basketball.
WTF are you talking about?
-
Houston has an NHL-caliber arena, but no local major sports ownership has expressed serious interest in bringing NHL hockey to town.
Hartford doesn't have a suitable arena (smaller than Winnipeg's and 30 years older), nor does it have anyone with the necessary funding interested in any form of sports ownership in the market. All it has is a minor-league-caliber owner trying to ride a wave of nostalgia for all it's worth.
Houston did have an ownership group interested at one time, and I'm sure that if the NHL showed any inclination at all, those who backed the Houston Aeros would find a way.
Hartford's issues, as well as Hamilton's and Seattle's, are territorial... Hartford would cut into either the Bruins or Rangers territory (or both), Hamilton cuts into Toronto's (though with new ownership in place that hurdle could be less high than it was), and Seattle would cut into Vancouver's territorial rights (which may or may not be an insurmountable hurdle, as no one's broached the subject).
Quebec is by far the most viable option right now. Hamilton would be second if not for the territorial issue. But I could see a number of cities getting the NHL before Hartford got it back.
-
Actually, expansion to 32 markets would be fine - if all the teams were in the right 32 markets. Houston, Kansas City, Quebec City and Hamilton each have groups interested in bringing the NHL to their area. So move Phoenix to one of them, move another struggling franchise to another, and expand to the other two. It's not necessarily a perfect solution, but it could still work.
There is more than one other struggling franchise than the Coyotes i.e. Columbus, Florida, NY Islanders to name a few.
You really think of all the 'right' places to put a team and you say Houston and Kansas City, really? Quebec City is top of the list by a country mile, but Hamilton won't even get a look in with the Maple Leafs throwing there weight around and whilst Gary Bettman and his his clan of anti-canadians are in charge! Hamilton is dead in the water and it probably will never get a team, I think a more realistic place would be Connecticut, which is a proven hockey market and has potential owners sniffing around and planing for new arenas.
Um... yes, I'm more than aware of that. Which is why I advocate moving Phoenix to one of the markets I mentioned, another struggling franchise to another of the markets (say, Florida), and so forth.
And apparently you're 2 for 2 on not understanding my post. I wasn't listing Houston and Kansas City ahead of Quebec City - merely listing them as among the markets who have groups interested in bringing the NHL to their cities, and which have markets of sufficient size (and/or facilities) to support an NHL club. Connecticut isn't viable without a brand-new arena (or an iron-clad commitment for one) plus an ownership group with sufficient resources to bring a team there; it currently has neither.
-
Actually, expansion to 32 markets would be fine - if all the teams were in the right 32 markets. Houston, Kansas City, Quebec City and Hamilton each have groups interested in bringing the NHL to their area. So move Phoenix to one of them, move another struggling franchise to another, and expand to the other two. It's not necessarily a perfect solution, but it could still work.
-
This is the death of the Big East. With Pitt and Syracuse going to the ACC and Boston College already there, look for UConn and one other school to apply to the ACC to create a 16-school 'superconference.' There's no way the conference survives that.
-
Come now. While you may not be passing others off as shareholders, you are facilitating the claim. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
And I never claimed you were making a profit. I've seen your ad before; I know you're looking to break even at best with a barter. Nor did I claim that you were violating any rules or bylaws.
My choice of words was deliberate. While it may not be illegal or prohibited, I'm not sure that it's particularly cool to do so. We paid for our shares, and therefore the right to certain (precious few) benefits that accompany them. Selling those benefits to others just seems... wrong.
But perhaps that's all just me. Frankly, I hesitated mentioning it in the past, and only through repeated observances thought it merited at least a quick note. I don't think I need mention it again.
Nah, I understand; to most Packer fan/shareholders, I suspect it might.
I just don't place the same sacrosanctity (whether that's a word or not, I'm using it) on holding shares in the Packers as others do. Most folks bought their share(s) because they were fans; others are such fans that they wish they were shareholders, I guess. I bought mine for other purposes (not that this was among them) and don't place the level of personal prestige, if you will, or value in that holding as true fans of the team do (at least as evidenced by the Packers shareholder site on FB; some of those people are downright scary).
That said, my investment has paid off quite handsomely, and well before Super Bowl XLV. The amount of information I've obtained about the NFL, its teams, its business units and its operating practices has, at least IMHO, provided a return well beyond the $200/share I paid 14 years ago.
-
Here's the font for "NFLEndzoneSansCondMed". Just had to dig through some code to find the file:
was gonna post the same...i went through and downloaded all 4 different faces they use there on NFL.com.
Conrad, I was only able to get the one. Could you e-mail me the others?
-
Mac, I'm not sure it's particularly cool to be selling shareholder rings.
(1) They aren't sold at a profit by me. I'm not looking to make a buck off of them (though, in theory, I could). The only benefit I ask is that, in exchange for my access, they purchase on my behalf a lesser-valued item. So I guess I'm prostituting myself more than anything else. LOL
(2) I'm not making any misrepresentations; I'm a shareholder. I'm not claiming that anyone else is. If someone buys a shareholder ring and they're not a shareholder, well, that's on them.
(3) There is nothing in the Articles of Incorporation nor Bylaws of Green Bay Packers, Inc. that would prevent me from profiting through transactions such as these; I'm prohibited from making money on the sale of the shares (in fact, I can't sell them at all), I'm prohibited from gambling on professional football, and I'm bound by appropriate laws not to infringe on the Packers logos and marks (as is true with anyone else). What I'm offering to do in no way violates the law of any state, nor the aforementioned documents/covenants.
(4) If someone does make such a claim, how does that benefit/harm anyone making such a misrepresentation?
-
Wow even at $2400 that's a good deal.
I still have a few (smaller) items I wouldn't mind having. So, I'm still taking orders...
-
And mine, received today, though the photos are a little on the grainy side...
-
Anyone have any ideas what font NFL.com's using in their 2011 update? Looks pretty crisp, kinda like DynaGrotesk, but it's not exact.
-
If anyone would like this vector, I'll give it to you in exchange for a vector resource that I don't already have. Just shoot me a PM if you're interested...
I think you owe me a few for the stuff I sent you a few months ago, so I'll take a copy from you.
-
But "National Champions"?!
Yeah, they won the interleague game/series/publicity gimmick between the PCL and IL.
That said, their new logo sucks compared to their older ones.
-
Yeah. I bought my shares in the 1997 offering.
Green Bay Packers, Inc. is unique, at least by many states' standards. It's a non-profit stock corporation, whereas most non-profits have members rather than shareholders. I don't know if it's unique to Wisconsin or not, but I wish we had something similar here where I live, in North Carolina.
The 1950 shareholders got a 1,000:1 stock split in 1997, so if you got in back then you now have 1,000 times the voting power as us "new guys." We vote for the Board of Directors each year (which gave me the privilege several years ago of voting against Bud Selig, who was a director), and they have a big annual shareholders meeting (lately held at Lambeau) each July. The 1997 offering was done to raise money to pay for Lambeau renovations.
-
Why go from six divisions of five to four divisions, some of seven, some of eight teams, when you could go to five divisions of six?
Atlantic:
Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, New Jersey, New York Islanders, New York Rangers.
Eastern:
Columbus, Ottawa, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Toronto, Washington.
Southern:
Carolina, Dallas, Florida, Nashville, St. Louis, Tampa.
Central:
Chicago, Colorado, Detroit, Minnesota, Phoenix, Winnipeg.
Pacific:
Anaheim, Calgary, Edmongton, Los Angeles, San Jose, Vancouver.
Each team plays the five opponents in its division 6 times, for 30 games. They then play home-and-home with the other 25 teams in the league, for 50 games. The last two games would be against non-divisional opponents, one at home, one on the road, with the opposition chosen at random, based on past rivalries, etc.
-
No, you're not the only shareholder here.
Good! I thought I was!
-
As I'm apparently the only Green Bay Packers shareholder here on the CCSLC, and having just finished doing so for another member here, I thought I'd extend an offer to you guys.
I was asked to acquire some "shareholder exclusive" Packer championship merchandise for a CCSLC'er. Half-jokingly I said I'd do so in exchange for him buying me a similar (albeit significantly less expensive) piece, and surprisingly, he agreed. We've subsequently made the order, and hopefully as a result we'll both have nice, customized Green Bay Packer championship rings as a result.
I was leery to conduct this transaction, but now that I've found how easy doing so actually proved to be, I'd like to extend this offer to anyone who wants to acquire some "shareholder exclusive" Packer championship merchandise... as I see some other "swag" which I wouldn't mind having.
We could work out the particulars of the transaction via PM, but all I'd ask for in return is that (i) you purchase an item of equal or lesser cost for me, and then (ii) when you receive it, you actually send it my way. I would generate no profit from these purchases (only the free swag), and as I value my reputation on the CCSLC far more than I would your money, you could rest assured that doing so would be an "up and up" transaction.
So if you're interested, check out the shareholder Super Bowl XLV merchandise section of Packers.com, then PM me and we could get the process going!
-
Shareholder Ring
How much would I have to pay a shareholder to get one of these?
Buy mine and I'll make it happen.
-
The ring I posted is one of several styles (each at different price points) shareholders can buy. I'm trying to find good images of the others but haven't as yet.
And yes, to be a shareholder you need to wait until they have another offering, if/when they ever do. I got in during the '97 offering for $1,000, buying at $200 per share, just so that, as the part-owner of one of the clubs, I could make a legal claim of interest in asking for certain documents/information from the NFL league office. I feel I've more than got my $1,000 back in the inside information and also the camaraderie among Packer fans worldwide to justify it.
-
Shareholder Ring
-
Kansas 2010-11 Basketball Big 12 Championship ring.
Sadly, I know from the design (i) who designed that ring, and (ii) approximately, what it cost. KU's a bunch of cheap mofo's.
-
Agreed. The word "hideous" is too gentle to be applied to that thing.
-
Not on the laptop I use nowadays. I've posted pics of them here somewhere previously though, back from when I used my desktop (now a doorstop). I can tell you which ones they are though: the three Raider rings, plus the 49ers ring from SB XXIII.
-
I'd love to own some championship rings. Would be a great thing to collect if I had a lot more money. But I don't think I'd wear one I did not earn.
I did when I was single, had the kind of physique that allowed me to pass for a football player, and wanted to pick up women. I never lied about how I got the ring, but women drunk off their ass rarely ask.
Nowadays, they're locked away. I may sell them someday, as like most material possessions they mean far less to me now than they did when I got them.
NHL Anti-Thread: Bad Business Decision Aggregator
in Sports In General
Posted
Um...
Raleigh, North Carolina 2010 census data:
Population - 403,892.
57.5% White
29.3% Black
11.3% Hispanic
4.3% Asian
4.5% Other
Raleigh has similar demographics, is one-fifth the size of Houston, has a population that wasn't well-versed in hockey prior to the NHL's arrival but had a popular local minor-league team (the ECHL IceCaps), and the team today draws close to 15,000 fans every home date for a team that sucks wind.
Houston, Texas 2010 census data:
Population - 2,099,451.
49.3% White
25.3% Black
5.3% Asian
16.5% Other
37% Hispanic (or multi-racial)
The demographics are rather similar. The population is staggering by comparison. If I had to pick whether to put a franchise in Raleigh or Houston... I'dve picked Houston.