BBTV

It's better that way. No need to have things moving or flashing at you all the time.

Maybe I look at it differently since I live in a city, but parking spots are valuable real estate that has more demand than supply. Also charging for parking encourages use of pt which benefits everybody.I do get that the situation is different in the coyotes case, and in the west / southwest in general. Also - are sports events really that cheap out there, $40 for a cardinals ticket? $5 for dbacks / suns? I am not particularly well-versed in this area, but parking among land developers is generally considered a pretty big waste of land, particularly where land is valuable. In terms of land value in urban areas parking is one of the most under-priced services in America. I have yet to read the below book and have been meaning to... But that lack of parking spots caused buy the value of the real estate just makes what few spots around very valuable. I lease a spot now for around $300 / month. Deeded spots can range from 100k to 40k depending on location (but are usually tied to condo towers). When I give up my spot in a few days (since I'm moving) I'm pretty sure it will get taken within a day or two. In Phila, the stadiums are kinda in the middle of nowhere, on huge lots of land without other businesses around other than a few warehouses and food distribution centers so I don't know how valuable that land really is, but still the demand / supply ratio calls for it to be priced what it is. PT is pretty easy to and from the games if you live in the city. It's still not bad from the burbs, but a lot of philly burbs people have no idea how to read a transit map or wont arrive to the game in anything other than their oversized gas guzzling Lexus tank.

Wait the royals had a chance to move to the NL and DECLINED? What the hell were they thinking??

Maybe I look at it differently since I live in a city, but parking spots are valuable real estate that has more demand than supply. Also charging for parking encourages use of pt which benefits everybody. I do get that the situation is different in the coyotes case, and in the west / southwest in general. Also - are sports events really that cheap out there, $40 for a cardinals ticket? $5 for dbacks / suns?

Is this a serious post? I swear, people just look at cities that have other major teams, and just automatically assume that they're big flourishing cities. There are a lot of cities that if the leagues were starting up today, wouldn't have teams. Nothing against those cities, but the economic climate was different back in the day before some industries either left town or other things happened to cause them to lose population and affluence. Buffalo seems to do a fine job supporting the Bills and Sabers (at least when they're good) but there's no way it's a candidate for another team. If we were starting from scratch, the Bills probably wouldn't even be there.

So, you didn't want to use relevant facts to back up something you said. Makes sense.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/01/3537432/marlins-attendance-reverts-to.html http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/02/3538576/an-interactive-look-at-the-marlins.html

I always wondered why the Cubs seemed to be the team that most people both locally and nationally had a romantic infatuation with as opposed to the White Sox. Up until 1990 or 91, they both had really old stadiums (though I don't know if Comisky had the same kind of appeal that Wrigley did / does), were really old teams, and were both perennial losers. It just seemed like the Cubs were always on NBC or CBS, always in the movies (Ferris Buhler for example), and Wrigley was always the stadium that everyone wanted to go see. Is it just that the White Sox play in a less-attractive / rougher part of the city? Is it that the Cubs have maintained a consistent identity while the White Sox have changed their colors and uniforms up seemingly hundreds of times?

Seems like I totally didn't miss his point at all. Anything else? Seems like I totally didn't miss his point at all. Anything else? Yeah I'm pretty sure you missed his point.

Where he starts a new club known as the Parts Unknown Ultimate Warriors, with Papa Shango as coach.

You totally missed his point. He's asking if 90 mins was a record for shortest time on the boards before being banned. If anything he's prasing the quick response time (though I have no idea who he's referring to.)

But they're using the modern logo for 1980? That's just a rendering. No idea what it will actually look like.

The Eagles will be hanging retired number and championship banners from the roof of the Linc when the renovations are completed next year. http://events.lincolnfinancialfield.com/stadium-reno/index.html#project-gallery

I had the newspaper with that picture back in 1994! Behind McMahon, I believe, is TE Steve Jordan...wearing Reebok Pumps! Most notable moment of Steve Jordan's career:

Chellios cheap shot on Brian Propp in '89 playoffs: Ron Hextall's revenge:

OK, that explaination makes sense. Didn't realize that "not Phoenix" was a big selling factor. To the point about "Glendale Coyotes" though, I'd think that if non Phoexians(?) are turned off by references to Phoenix, non Glendaliens would be turned off by references to Glendale, and there's a lot more non Glendalians than there are non Phoetians. So the least limiting names in order would be Arizona > Phoenix > Arizona (but not Phoenix!) > Glendale

If for some insane reason the Cubs DID move to a new park out in Rosemont, should they be renamed the Rosemont Cubs? Hell no. Now obviously the Cubs have much more history than the Coyotes, but it's the same basic situation; it's a suburb. Carries little-to-no marketing value. No offense to Glendale, but it's just a location within the market to place an arena. Much like Fremont would've been for the A's. Not to speak for him, but I believe you're missing his point. The point is, why rename them to anything different if it's not Glendale? Does "Arizona Coyotes" help Glendale? I'd argue that the absolute only reason for this is to "get" or "spite" Phoenix, since there's no benefit. Phoenix is the metro area, and it's not like people in other parts of Arizona feel disenfranchised from clubs that use that local. On the flip side, marketing "Phoenix" does have a benefit to Glendale, since as more people are attracted to the Phoenix metro area, the more that will spill into Glendale. When the center of the metro area does well, the surrounding areas tend to do well also. I would argue that they're (in only a very small way - I'm not getting carried away here) shooting themselves in the foot with this move. It'd be one thing if they started out that way from the start with the state name, but to change it now is rather silly. Every area is a little different though, so while I am tempted to say that this is how I feel about all wide-spanning location names, it's certainly something that needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

This is amazing. They'll have no time to sell season ticket packages, hire an event staff, move the existing employees or hire new ones, etc. It's not like the Winnipeg situation where they were essentially trading a minor team for a major one and had most of the pieces in place to at least get by. I guess Quebec might have the same problem, but at least it seems like they've been preparing for longer and probably have a plan ready to hit the ground with on day 1.

I agree that using a stadium in your own city is preferable. The reason I picked a bunch of college stadiums (and I suspect, the reason that Detroit also did for their Winter Classic) was historic significance and spectacle (not to mention the fact that the Wolverines already proved what a success it could be with the Big Chill). I also don't think once a year is too often if they make it into a spectacle, like bowl season is for NCAA football. Anyway, the point of using Penn State would be that it happens to be somewhat equidistant from both Philly and Pitt - roughly in the center of the state. Google Maps tells me it is a 2.5 hour drive from Pittsburgh, and 3.5 hours' drive from Philadelphia. (I realize that NHL teams take planes to cities further than 100 km away, but I'm just illustrating). 2.5 hours or 3.5 hours is a lot better on both teams than having to travel 6 hours to one city, and 6 hours to the other for the back-to-back. It also could put Penn State back on the national stage in a positive light...so there's that... Penn State is really considered "western PA". Other than college kids who happen to come from Philadelphia area, there's not really any reason to make Flyers fans drive 4 hrs to go to a game. I get it for a true "neutral site" game, but it doesn't make sense under your system where each team "hosts" a game. Not sure if the Eagles would ever let the Linc be used for hockey, but it worked pretty well at Citizens Bank Park, or... they could always bring back the vet.

Comparing Quebec to Green Bay is silly, since the NFL has a completely different revenue model and the packers are a huge TV draw Comparing Quebec to Green Bay is silly, since the NFL has a completely different revenue model and the packers are a huge TV draw

How can anyone post the word "confirmed" with a straight face anymore? I watched that "hot stove" link, and while it's true that I'm ignorant to who those people are and what they know, I feel pretty confident in saying that nobody outside of Gary bettman and whoever runs Glendale really has any idea what's really happening.

So I realize that many city-owned arenas hire 3rd parties to manage the operations. And I realize that costs money (I have no idea how much.) I also understand that many teams have their own arena management divisions and can handle the operations for events other than just their own (I worked for one.) What I don't understand, is how a team doesn't need to pay to lease the arena for their games, and at the same time collects a fee to manage it. Does the city get anything out of this deal? I don't care about the arguments that a pro team brings business and tax dollars in, because that's debatable, and the Coyotes aren't exactly a top draw. I've been following this thread since the beginning, but kind of lost track, with all the "deadlines" that have passed, all the elections and votes, and everything else that gets posted every day but in reality means absolutely nothing. Please tell me that I'm missing a big part of this picture, and that Glendale isn't really doing this. Also, are they still paying millions to cover losses?

Going dark is not an option unless the league made some unheard of concessions to the players affected. The union would flip. They'd have to declare the Coyotes players free agents, expand rosters for a season, and grant salary cap exemptions so that the number of players with jobs (and who pay union dues) doesn't decrease. Then they'd have an expansion draft or something in a year or whenever the team comes back on-line. Actually now that I type that out, that actually could be a possibility.

That helmet looks like it's 2 sizes too small for him lol! Minister of hate. The world is a better place without him in it.

3001-02 SCF - Phoenix Coyotes of Glenndale vs Death Star Bruins. Sucks the Bs had to move after that fiasco in 2763.