2016-17 NHL Uniform and Logo Changes

[sparkychewbarky]

10 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Anyway you're missing the point.

As for me being sure of Vegas being a bust? Well you have a town with a huge shift worker population that's going to be unable to invest in season ticket packages, a huge out of town crowd that's there to see things that have nothing to do with pro sports, and a track record for financial failure when it comes to NHL hockey in the desert.

 

 

3 Shifts applies to the percentage of the workforce that works in the casinos only.

For example, housekeepers work normal hours even though they work in the hotel.

Leisure and "Hospitality" is about 25% of the workforce, and a percentage of that will be shift workers.

Of those shift workers, about 33% will work the night shift, assuming that the entirety of the 25% leisure and hospitality sector is 24 hours, which isn't the case.

The 75% of people in Las Vegas that don't work in leisure and hospitality work in normal jobs like every other city.

So, in essence, if we assume that every single place in hospitality is open 24 hours and that 33% of those people work the night shift, we're talking 100,000 people tops out of a 2.2 million person metro area.

 

When you talk of "failure in the desert" you're of course referring to Phoenix.

The only thing that Vegas has in common with the Phoenix market is the weather.

It's probably more realistic to compare L.V. with Nashville...and they're doing all-right.

 

...And yes...a lot of hockey fans will be making a trip to Vegas to see a hockey game.

[IceCap]

49 minutes ago, sparky chewbarky said:

3 Shifts applies to the percentage of the workforce that works in the casinos only.

For example, housekeepers work normal hours even though they work in the hotel.

Leisure and "Hospitality" is about 25% of the workforce, and a percentage of that will be shift workers.

Of those shift workers, about 33% will work the night shift, assuming that the entirety of the 25% leisure and hospitality sector is 24 hours, which isn't the case.

The 75% of people in Las Vegas that don't work in leisure and hospitality work in normal jobs like every other city.

So, in essence, if we assume that every single place in hospitality is open 24 hours and that 33% of those people work the night shift, we're talking 100,000 people tops out of a 2.2 million person metro area.

It's still a huge percentage of people compared to shift workers in other locales.

And here's the kicker. Those people who work "normal" jobs? They still work those jobs in Las Vegas. A city that was hit pretty damn hard by the 2008 recession. A city that has still yet to recover from that hit. Turns out an economic recession isn't great for a city built around gambling. 

The hotels/casinos? Yeah, they suffer the most. Less interest in gambling means less reservations which means less business. Those shift workers don't make as much. The entire house of cards? Well that starts to wobble and those with "normal" jobs are likewise affected.

 

49 minutes ago, sparky chewbarky said:

When you talk of "failure in the desert" you're of course referring to Phoenix.

It's probably more realistic to compare L.V. with Nashville...and they're doing all-right.

I see a city in the desert, in the same geographical region. Which means the same cultural biases existing within the same local sports scene. The problem is that Phoenix doesn't have the economic juggling act Vegas does. Vegas COULD be a huge asset to the league, but then again? The same could have been said, and was said, for Phoenix in 1996.

 

Again, I don't give a crap about growing the game. That attitude lead to a rush of relocation and experimentation that saddled the league with dead spots like Arizona, South Florida, and G-ddamn Raleigh. Atlanta was one of those markets too, and the man bankrolling TNSE had to financially blackmail the league to get them to approve his highly profitable relocation to Winnipeg. Yes, new markets like Dallas, Tampa, and Nashville turned out great. That just tells me that the game's "grown" as much as it's probably capable of. The goal now shouldn't be to risk things further. It should be to remove the failures from the sunbelt experiment and put them in proven, traditional markets. The sunbelt success stories would still be there.

Sorry if that's too much "tradition" for your balance BeerDude, but take a look at what teams make this league money and what teams are reliant on corporate and league welfare. 

My point is that the NHL cannot even manage to field thirty financially viable franchises. Expansion is foolhardy. If it has to happen? The franchise should have gone to Quebec City. A city with a passionate, eager fanbase ready to spend money on a league that unjustifiably left them in the first place.

Instead they opted for Vegas. Which is a huge gamble, if you'll pardon the pun.

 

Now maybe Vegas does work. It's certainly possible if things break the right way. Why risk what could be another Phoenix though, when you have Quebec City as an option? Oh right. It snows in Quebec City, and G-d forbid this league actually put a new hockey team in a city where it snows unless they're practically forced to.

 

49 minutes ago, sparky chewbarky said:

...And yes...a lot of hockey fans will be making a trip to Vegas to see a hockey game.

Heh. I'm a huge hockey fan. I wouldn't go to Vegas to see a hockey game. I can catch any game I want, from any arena in the league, with the right cable package.

If I'm going to Vegas? I'm seeing shows, or I'm hitting the Blackjack tables. Maybe I'd try to snag some tickets if the Leafs were playing. If it's the Las Vegas Knights vs the Florida Panthers though? Forget that. I have better things to do. Not wasting a night in Vegas on that.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

My wife's been bugging me to go to Vegas for years and I've brushed it off because it's really not my thing. But now that the NHL's coming, I'm thinking I might catch a game when the Habs come to town. 

[IceCap]

2 hours ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

My wife's been bugging me to go to Vegas for years and I've brushed it off because it's really not my thing. But now that the NHL's coming, I'm thinking I might catch a game when the Habs come to town. 

Just gonna say it. You're wasting a night in Las Vegas if you're spending it watching hockey. Trust me.

[BeerGuyJordan]

I never wanted expansion, but since the league is doing it, I figured "when in Rome..."

 

I wanted to see stability to the seven iffy/trouble on the horizon markets:

 

Carolina, Arizona, Florida: If it has to be explained why these are on the list, you haven't been paying attention.

 

Columbus: I think some success on-ice is all they're missing. The numbers, in light of only two first round fast exits in the playoffs, are actually kind of encouraging, but still need to get better.

 

Dallas: sure, this past season was a huge uptick, but have you seen the numbers for the few seasons before that? Hopefully this is true interest, not just a fair weather surge.

 

NJ, NYI: over the past four seasons, the Devils averaged #25 and the Isles #27 in attendance (and not because of capacity limits). Sure these teams have been powerhouses in the past, with championships, but resting on your laurels like that is not a solid argument. Yes, I know that other monetary factors come into play, also. The one that is really worrisome is the Islanders. They're in Barclays rent-free, and the arena gets all the parking/concessions revenue. In a couple of seasons, the novelty will wear off for some of the Brooklyn crowd, and the commute will wear down some of the LI faithful. You can bet that Barclays has an emergency parachute to boot them if the attendance gets too low. They desperately need to do more than a Nets inspired alternate jersy to connect with the new locale.

 

With 4 teams in close proximity, one of the two mentioned NYC area teams would be better off in a different market (I'd love to see it in Toronto/Hamilton, a metro that could see a second team still be really financially successful, but I know it's a pipe dream).

[BeerGuyJordan]

14 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Just gonna say it. You're wasting a night in Las Vegas if you're spending it watching hockey. Trust me.

I've been to Vegas twice, and I strongly disagree. A few hours spent watching your favorite team isn't wasted, if you want to go. If you're staying a couple of nights, especially so.

 

You keep treating your own opinions as fact and other peoples facts/figures like they're weak arguments. You're making some good points, you're also making some that are the same "boo hoo" bitter OTH elitist crap these boards see regurgitated over and over. 

 

Contrary to your belief, we can want to see strong traditional markets and fresh, new, viable ones. I acknowledge that the league could benefit from moving a team or two to more traditional locales, but the Vegas expansion train is leaving the platform, getting on board and wanting to see it viable isn't sacrilegious to the principles of hockey.

 

And guess what, Vegas was unanimous, Quebec wasn't. That means that your [insert beloved Canadian team name here] owner voted for it. I imagine that if they felt that stronly about getting Quebec in, they would have boycotted Vegas.

[CreamSoda]

20 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Just gonna say it. You're wasting a night in Las Vegas if you're spending it watching hockey. Trust me.

 

Meh, disagree buddy.

 

Theres only so much debauchery one should have, so a night at an NHL game is fine.  Plus it gets done around 10pm, and that's still super early in the night for Vegas.

[IceCap]

Just now, BeerGuyJordan said:

I've been to Vegas twice, and I strongly disagree. A few hours spent watching your favorite team isn't wasted, if you want to go. If you're staying a couple of nights, especially so.

I can watch NHL hockey any night of the season. If I'm going to Vegas? I want to spend that time doing what Vegas is known for. World-class shows and some gambling. 

 

You keep treating your own opinions as fact and other peoples facts/figures like they're weak arguments. You're making some good points, you're also making some that are the same "boo hoo" bitter OTH elitist crap these boards see regurgitated over and over.

You keep throwing around "bitter" as if that's going to scare me away from my stance.

No. I am bitter. I admit that. I have every reason to be as a Canadian hockey fan. Your inability to comprehend why I could possibly feel that way only proves my assumptions.

 

Also? Stop projecting. I'll let you in on a secret. This "bitter OTH" attitude you bemoan? 

It exists as a reaction to the attitudes of southern fans who assume any market where it snows deserves only mockery.

It exists to counter the your fellow southern fans who faint at the sight of a road team's sweater at a home game. 

 

Contrary to your belief, we can want to see strong traditional markets and fresh, new, viable ones.

Your position seems to be "I want Quebec to get a team! Totes! Just...not when the opportunity presents itself." It's a very convenient stance to take.

It wouldn't shock me if, come the time when Carolina moves, you're making an impassioned plea for Houston. 

 

I acknowledge that the league could benefit from moving a team or two to more traditional locales...

Let's compare the financial success of the Thrashers in Atlanta compared to the financial success of the Jets in Winnipeg. 

Small prairie town in Western Canada beats out sunbelt metropolis.  

 

...but the Vegas expansion train is leaving the platform, getting on board and wanting to see it viable isn't sacrilegious to the principles of hockey.

Sacreligious? Please. My opposition to LV isn't based on any sort of "hockey gods" nonsense. 

I'm interested in seeing as many stable, financially viable NHL franchises as possible. History and economics point to QC having the edge there. History and economics indicate that traditional markets, by and large, make this league more money than sunbelt experiments. 

Or to put it this way? Let's see how long your Preds last without the Leafs, Habs, and Rangers' revenue streams. 

 

And guess what, Vegas was unanimous, Quebec wasn't. That means that your [insert beloved Canadian team name here] owner voted for it. I imagine that if they felt that stronly about getting Quebec in, they would have boycotted Vegas.

Haha! 

You really don't understand Canadian hockey fans, do you? You don't understand why many of us are frustrated with this league, our own players, or our teams. 

So I'll explain it a bit for you. Acknowledging that our teams' managements do stupid things is nothing new.

Take the Habs. A franchise with a pedigree that rivals any team south of the border. Montreal's GM traded one of the best defencemen in the world to your Preds because he'd rather have a boring white guy on the tail end of his career then a dynamic, exciting player who happens to be black. 

My point being that bad, self-defeating decisions are par for the course when it comes to Canada's hockey teams. You're not striking a nerve. Just emotional scar tissue. 

 

Now again, I'll lay it out for you in tl:dr form. I'm frustrated as a Canadian fan. If you can't understand why? If you can't understand where this "bitter OTH" attitude comes from? Then you're exactly what I thought you were. 

[IceCap]

18 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

 

Meh, disagree buddy.

 

Theres only so much debauchery one should have, so a night at an NHL game is fine.  Plus it gets done around 10pm, and that's still super early in the night for Vegas.

When I'm able to get to Vegas it's for two nights. Two shows, some fun at the casinos. The shows are key, because I can't do that anywhere.

This is just me, but I'm not forgoing one of those to watch a hockey game. I love the sport. I grew up with it. I'll always love it. 

It's not something I want to do in Vegas though.

[BeerGuyJordan]

16 hours ago, Cosmic said:

The Sharks and the Lightning both started out in arenas that only held 11,000.

I'm actually aware of that. I meant to mention it, but didn't know how to account for it, without pulling out a sizable chunk of data. Since both came in a bit under max capacity (more so the Bolts) I just left them in. 

[Cosmic]

5 minutes ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

I'm actually aware of that. I meant to mention it, but didn't know how to account for it, without pulling out a sizable chunk of data. Since both came in a bit under max capacity (more so the Bolts) I just left them in. 

It's a huge folly to assume that a team that draws 11,000 in an arena that seats 11,100 (just using placeholder numbers) would draw 11,000 in an arena that seats 19,000.

[The_Admiral]

Going to Las Vegas to watch the NHL is akin to going to a seafood restaurant and ordering chicken tenders. Why? Why now?

[Cosmic]

16 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Going to Las Vegas to watch the NHL is akin to going to a seafood restaurant and ordering chicken tenders. Why? Why now?

I'm not a huge fan of the Vegas experiment, but that's kinda like telling someone who lives in Vegas, "Why are you eating fish in the middle of the desert? Why don't you fly to Boston for dinner where it will be fresher?" It's not as if the idea of a sports road trip for visiting fans is completely novel, either.

[BeerGuyJordan]

40 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I can watch NHL hockey any night of the season. If I'm going to Vegas? I want to spend that time doing what Vegas is known for. World-class shows and some gambling. 

There are a lot of hockey fans who feel the way you do. Making a trip to Vegas just for hockey is totally asinine. For a lot of fans, though, it's enough to get them off the fence on a trip, or to reschedule their trip to when their team is in town so they can take in a game, too. (Especially if Foley delivers on trying to "show" it up, and with ticket prices being cheaper than the majority of the league).

 

40 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

You keep throwing around "bitter" as if that's going to scare me away from my stance.

No. I am bitter. I admit that. I have every reason to be as a Canadian hockey fan. Your inability to comprehend why I could possibly feel that way only proves my assumptions.

I understand. I readily admit my inability to empathize. That doesn't mean that the bitterness doesn't get tiresome, or the OTHers usually treating any sun belt team like they're automatically an inferior breed becoming irksome. Because I'm a sun belt team fan, it's like I'm the enemy in some new vs. old struggle the league has created and the fans exacerbate.

 

40 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Your position seems to be "I want Quebec to get a team! Totes! Just...not when the opportunity presents itself." It's a very convenient stance to take.

It wouldn't shock me if, come the time when Carolina moves, you're making an impassioned plea for Houston. 

No, I merely try to temper/tailor my opinions with the realities of the league. My hope for expansion was one traditional (ish) market and one for the sake of expanding the game. A balanced expansion, in the west. No eastern team wants to move back west, and that was all the league needed to keep from expanding to a francophone city (that attitude, I admit to not really understanding). Vegas needs to be tempered with a safer choice: Seattle, Milwaukee...maybe Portland. Hell, with Saskatoon's insane growth rate, they could be viable, but no way it happens in the next 15 years.

 

Houston is a potential Atlanta. Their AHL numbers were encouraging, and they look great, on paper, but it's a big risk (with potentially bigger rewards).

 

Quebec is, hands down, the best option for relocation in the east. Followed by Toronto/Hamilton (another pipe dream). Eastern longshot candidates would probably be Indianapolis, Hartford, Norfolk, Halifax and Louisville (in that order) Not really advocating for them, I just built a suitability formula awhile back and that's what the data turned up.

 

40 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Sacreligious? Please. My opposition to LV isn't based on any sort of "hockey gods" nonsense. 

I'm interested in seeing as many stable, financially viable NHL franchises as possible. History and economics point to QC having the edge there. History and economics indicate that traditional markets, by and large, make this league more money than sunbelt experiments. 

Or to put it this way? Let's see how long your Preds last without the Leafs, Habs, and Rangers' revenue streams.  

Quebec was a better candidate, in a vaccuum, I wholly admit that and have never argued otherwise. As soon as the only two applicants were revealed as Vegas and Quebec, I think any fan who understands how the league works knew Quebecor wasn't getting it, conference imbalance alone pretty much did it. The Canadian dollar just made it easier to justify. 

 

You say sunbelt experiments. The problem is that the league shouldn't treat them as such, but they dug in beyond common sense with Arizona. They should have moved the team when they could. Make them go a decade or two without and then consider giving them another chance. (Which is not an easy stance to take, as a native Arizonan preparing to move back). 

 

40 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Haha! 

You really don't understand Canadian hockey fans, do you? You don't understand why many of us are frustrated with this league, our own players, or our teams. 

So I'll explain it a bit for you. Acknowledging that our teams' managements do stupid things is nothing new.

Take the Habs. A franchise with a pedigree that rivals any team south of the border. Montreal's GM traded one of the best defencemen in the world to your Preds because he'd rather have a boring white guy on the tail end of his career then a dynamic, exciting player who happens to be black. 

My point being that bad, self-defeating decisions are par for the course when it comes to Canada's hockey teams. You're not striking a nerve. Just emotional scar tissue. 

I got so swept up with making a point/attempting to me clever that I forgot to make the point I made above:

 

I am not the enemy for being a southern hockey fan. I have developed a low threshold for OTH superiority/bitterness being directed at the southern fans and not back at the league many of us are also frustrated with. 

 

As to the Weber/Subban deal. I hate seeing our captain go, but we got the better end of that trade. I actually hope Weber has a stellar season, maybe he can finally snag a Norris Trophy (something I feel he would have won on a higher profile team). Nashville will also benefit more from the fact that Subban is a media darling than the Habs did.

 

I understand OTH better than you might think (not great, but more than most Preds fans), I live half way between the Jets and Wild. I love how easy it is to find other hockey fans around here, Nashville was a bit sparse. I hate the costs up here, afrer getting used to Nashville. 

 

I don't hate traditional markets, and I want to see expansion, balanced between old and new in a sustainable manner. Like I said before my ideal 32 team league would subtract the Coyotes, Hurricanes, Panthers and Islanders (this week I go back and forth on them and NJ); adding Toronto/Hamilton, Quebec, Seattle, Milwaukee and Houston. Switch Nashville to the East. Does that really sound like someone with something against traditional markets to you?

[BeerGuyJordan]

1 hour ago, Cosmic said:

It's a huge folly to assume that a team that draws 11,000 in an arena that seats 11,100 (just using placeholder numbers) would draw 11,000 in an arena that seats 19,000.

Yes, but when I tried to use cap. %, I had the opposite problem, a team that does 95% of 11,000  shot the figures up. Developing a formula to balance the two could be interesting, but not something I wanted to do, on the fly.

[The_Admiral]

12 minutes ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

I am not the enemy for being a southern hockey fan. I have developed a low threshold for OTH superiority/bitterness being directed at the southern fans and not back at the league many of us are also frustrated with.

 

Uh huh, yeah, sell me that crap during the next lockout when you guys are riding Gary Bettman's dick like a mechanical bull for "protecting emerging markets" as you always do while we all do anything but watch NHL games.

[BeerGuyJordan]

13 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

Uh huh, yeah, sell me that crap during the next lockout when you guys are riding Gary Bettman's dick like a mechanical bull for "protecting emerging markets" as you always do while we all do anything but watch NHL games.

The bottom line is nothing should stop the season. I want to see smaller markets looked out for, but I readily admit that the League takes it too far, trying to artificially create the kinds of franchise turnarounds more commonly seen in football or basketball.

 

I like the cap more than I dislike it, but if teams could simply "buy" Cups, the Maple Leafs would have more of them.

 

Bettman's a mixed bag for me. I don't hate him, but I wouldn't really say I'm a fan, either.

[The_Admiral]

The saddest thing is these guys think Bettman is looking out for their teams' interests with this crap* when he's really looking out for guys like Jeremy Jacobs and the MLSE executives, who rake in millions of dollars every year no matter what but can keep more of it for themselves with the help of Proskauer Rose. Conversely sad is that the most vociferous opposition to additional Canadian teams has traditionally come from the Maple Leafs.

 

*Phoenix, I'll give them

[IceCap]

2 hours ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

 There are a lot of hockey fans who feel the way you do. Making a trip to Vegas just for hockey is totally asinine. For a lot of fans, though, it's enough to get them off the fence on a trip, or to reschedule their trip to when their team is in town so they can take in a game, too. (Especially if Foley delivers on trying to "show" it up, and with ticket prices being cheaper than the majority of the league).

Eveyone's scheduel is different, but for me? Hockey season overlaps with work. So if I'm heading out to Vegas in the fall or winter? Which is when I usually go, due to the weather? I'm going to line my trip up with a break in the school year.

Thanksgiving,Winter, or Family Day (though a few of those will probably be adjusted once I start working in the States in a few months).

Aligning a potential Vegas trip with friends to line up with my free time and their free time can be difficult enough. More so when you try to factor in trying to catch the Leafs in town. 

So I'll probably never make my way out to Vegas to catch a hockey game. If the Leafs happen to be playing? Maybe, yeah. If not? I'm not sacrificing something I can only do in Las Vegas to watch a hockey game. It's not a lack of a love for hockey. It's just not what I'm there for. 

 

As for it being showy, it reminds me of the Mighty Ducks' first season. That started with a Disney on Ice show, and had a Tinker Bell video play every time the Ducks scored at home. Ducks fans didn't like it and it was dropped, because they didn't want their team to just be a punchline. They didn't want to just be "the Disney team." 

I don't think I'm reaching when I say that local LV fans may not want a showy NHL hockey experience. They're going to want their team to be taken seriously. 

I mean the line between silly and fun is really thin when it comes to "sports traditions" so maybe it takes? I donno. It's a fine line that you can't always easily spot. 

 

Quote

I understand. I readily admit my inability to empathize. That doesn't mean that the bitterness doesn't get tiresome, or the OTHers usually treating any sun belt team like they're automatically an inferior breed becoming irksome. Because I'm a sun belt team fan, it's like I'm the enemy in some new vs. old struggle the league has created and the fans exacerbate.

The thing is that from our perspective? It's sunbelt fans who treat any city where it snows with mockery, and sunbelt teams banning opposing teams' sweaters during the playoffs, that leads to a "bitter OTH" attitude. 

 

You say you have a low tolerance for "bitter OTH" attitudes. What you don't realize is that from our perspective? A lot of us have low tolerance for this "sunbelt exceptionalism" attitude that seems to have sprung up. 

 

Quote

No, I merely try to temper/tailor my opinions with the realities of the league. My hope for expansion was one traditional (ish) market and one for the sake of expanding the game. A balanced expansion, in the west. No eastern team wants to move back west...

The problem is that NHL has been a terrible steward for this sport. And has been for a long while now. 

This expansion never should have happened. The realignment that was tailor made to hand-deliver Seattle and Vegas never should have happened. 

The league twisting it's scheduel in knots because the Red Wings couldn't be arsed to play in the West never should have happened. 

There's always the need to keep the league realities in mind. I've known Vegas was coming for months now because of that. 

That doesn't mean I shouldn't call the league out for it's idiocy. Even when it's expected idiocy. This is the best sport in the world, being run by the worst of the worst of pro sports ownership and management. They deserve all the scorn fans across the league shower upon them, and more. 

 

Quote

Quebec is, hands down, the best option for relocation in the east.

It's the best option for a new team, period. 

The fact that we have to hope they get one by cornering embattled Hurricanes ownership while Vegas gets an expansion team and Arizona gets fourth and fifth chances is part of this problem causing all of this frustration among northern hockey fans. 

 

And partly why our tolerance for sunbelt exceptionalism is so low. Our teams make the most money for this dog and pony show, but we feel like we're constantly being jerked around for the benefit of the sunbelt organisations.

 

Quote

You say sunbelt experiments. The problem is that the league shouldn't treat them as such...

That's what they are though. In the most objective sense of the word, they were experiments. 

What I don't get is why so many southern fans freak out if you suggest that maybe not all of them took. 

Look. Dallas, Tampa, Nashville, Anaheim, LA...they all managed to make it work. Suggesting that the league would be better off moving South Florida, Arizona, and Carolina doesn't take away from what's been built in Tampa, Nashville, and Anaheim. 

 

Quote

I am not the enemy for being a southern hockey fan. I have developed a low threshold for OTH superiority/bitterness being directed at the southern fans and not back at the league many of us are also frustrated with.

Again, this works both ways. Northern fans are tired of having our teams and communities mocked and shunned, and our fans turned away for wearing their team's sweaters to your arenas come playoff time. 

 

 

Quote

I don't hate traditional markets, and I want to see expansion, balanced between old and new in a sustainable manner.

I keep going back to Winnipeg vs Atlanta, and I'm left with a blank when I try to think of why this league is so terrified of traditional markets even after a small Canadian prairie city proved it could make everyone more money than a sunbelt metropolis.

The league is definitely stronger because of its successes in the sunbelt, but the fact remains that northern franchises make the most of this league's money. I don't think it's "OTH elitism" to state that fact.

Yet Arizona gets chance after chance and LV gets an expansion team with the league setting it up to succeed right out of the gate. Yet we're all conceding that Quebec City can't get a team unless Quebecor corners Peter K into selling. It's frustrating to see that double standard from this side of the line.

 

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

4 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Just gonna say it. You're wasting a night in Las Vegas if you're spending it watching hockey. Trust me.

 

Honestly though, what else is there to do besides gamble and see shows that I could see here? If it's the warm climate, I'd rather go somewhere with at least a beach.