|
Post by BenCurtis on Jul 13, 2010 11:45:59 GMT -4
One thing is different Price, this is Halifax not Moncton. That's my point, Moncton's attendance history has had less dropoff in down years. Thanks for agreeing with me. Is that so? You should first get numbers to prove your point.... After our big run at the Prez Cup in 07-08 our attendance dropped 11.5% the following year and 17.62% the year after that. If you go inclusive thats a 27% drop from our big run. After your big run at the Prez Cup in 05-06 your attendance dropped 18.16% the following year and 15.33% the year after that. Inclusive, thats a 31% drop from your big run. Add to that our point totals dropped by 48.31% and 28.26% for a total of 63% during those years. Your points dropped 21.49% and 32.14% for a total of 47%. So let me get this straight, Halifax's point totals dropped more than Moncton's, but Halifax's attendance dropped less... Who doesn't support who?
|
|
|
Post by Gman on Jul 13, 2010 11:54:23 GMT -4
Isn't it obvious? Billy doesn't support facts.
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Jul 13, 2010 12:31:43 GMT -4
That's my point, Moncton's attendance history has had less dropoff in down years. Thanks for agreeing with me. Is that so? You should first get numbers to prove your point.... After our big run at the Prez Cup in 07-08 our attendance dropped 11.5% the following year and 17.62% the year after that. If you go inclusive thats a 27% drop from our big run. After your big run at the Prez Cup in 05-06 your attendance dropped 18.16% the following year and 15.33% the year after that. Inclusive, thats a 31% drop from your big run. Add to that our point totals dropped by 48.31% and 28.26% for a total of 63% during those years. Your points dropped 21.49% and 32.14% for a total of 47%. So let me get this straight, Halifax's point totals dropped more than Moncton's, but Halifax's attendance dropped less... Who doesn't support who? Also worth noting, our "big year" was a catastrophe that left a terrible feeling in many fans mouths, quickly followed by a new contract for those in charge which pissed off even more fans. Their big year was a Q title where everyone was happy. So considering our franchise was a mess and the fan base was never more unhappy, while Monctons should have been at its happiest, those numbers are even more surprising...
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Jul 13, 2010 13:02:50 GMT -4
That's my point, Moncton's attendance history has had less dropoff in down years. Thanks for agreeing with me. Is that so? You should first get numbers to prove your point.... After our big run at the Prez Cup in 07-08 our attendance dropped 11.5% the following year and 17.62% the year after that. If you go inclusive thats a 27% drop from our big run. After your big run at the Prez Cup in 05-06 your attendance dropped 18.16% the following year and 15.33% the year after that. Inclusive, thats a 31% drop from your big run. Add to that our point totals dropped by 48.31% and 28.26% for a total of 63% during those years. Your points dropped 21.49% and 32.14% for a total of 47%. So let me get this straight, Halifax's point totals dropped more than Moncton's, but Halifax's attendance dropped less... Who doesn't support who? I'm not taking either side ... but do the same analysis with the actual change in attendance ... counting seats instead of percentages ... and it shows a different picture. Using a percentage analysis when the two operate off a different attendance base is not a clear analysis ... combining the two methods would give a better picture. Since there is a dollar value attached to each seat ... the financial opportunity loss is the best indicator. Each Q franchise has similar base costs ... some add more frills than others to bump that bottom line (Moncton and Halifax being two) ... some have better lease agreements ... some have smaller staffs ... some spare no expense at getting better. But our teams likely face roughly the same expenses on an annual basis ... although Halifax would have a higher travel costs due to location. So the loss to the bottom line by both teams is the best comparison ... and Halifax's loss was much more significant ... more seats became empty. Just sayin' ...
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Jul 13, 2010 13:25:44 GMT -4
Moncton's 05/06 attendance stats were inflated due to it being a Memorial Cup host season - a record number of season tickets were sold as people wanted to secure access to Mem Cup tickets ... it wasn't really the exact same situation as a regular contending year, rendering the comparison even more flawed.
|
|
|
Post by BenCurtis on Jul 13, 2010 13:57:12 GMT -4
Is that so? You should first get numbers to prove your point.... After our big run at the Prez Cup in 07-08 our attendance dropped 11.5% the following year and 17.62% the year after that. If you go inclusive thats a 27% drop from our big run. After your big run at the Prez Cup in 05-06 your attendance dropped 18.16% the following year and 15.33% the year after that. Inclusive, thats a 31% drop from your big run. Add to that our point totals dropped by 48.31% and 28.26% for a total of 63% during those years. Your points dropped 21.49% and 32.14% for a total of 47%. So let me get this straight, Halifax's point totals dropped more than Moncton's, but Halifax's attendance dropped less... Who doesn't support who? I'm not taking either side ... but do the same analysis with the actual change in attendance ... counting seats instead of percentages ... and it shows a different picture. Using a percentage analysis when the two operate off a different attendance base is not a clear analysis ... combining the two methods would give a better picture. Since there is a dollar value attached to each seat ... the financial opportunity loss is the best indicator. Each Q franchise has similar base costs ... some add more frills than others to bump that bottom line (Moncton and Halifax being two) ... some have better lease agreements ... some have smaller staffs ... some spare no expense at getting better. But our teams likely face roughly the same expenses on an annual basis ... although Halifax would have a higher travel costs due to location. So the loss to the bottom line by both teams is the best comparison ... and Halifax's loss was much more significant ... more seats became empty. Just sayin' ... Using your words... "face roughly the same expenses on an annual basis"... Halifax would have had between 100,000 - 150,000 more seats sold than Moncton during two down years. I'd take that... Just sayin' ...
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Jul 13, 2010 14:01:31 GMT -4
That's my point, Moncton's attendance history has had less dropoff in down years. Thanks for agreeing with me. Is that so? You should first get numbers to prove your point.... After our big run at the Prez Cup in 07-08 our attendance dropped 11.5% the following year and 17.62% the year after that. If you go inclusive thats a 27% drop from our big run. After your big run at the Prez Cup in 05-06 your attendance dropped 18.16% the following year and 15.33% the year after that. Inclusive, thats a 31% drop from your big run. Add to that our point totals dropped by 48.31% and 28.26% for a total of 63% during those years. Your points dropped 21.49% and 32.14% for a total of 47%. So let me get this straight, Halifax's point totals dropped more than Moncton's, but Halifax's attendance dropped less... Who doesn't support who? The reason there was a big drop after 2005-2006 was because of the Memorial Cup. Season tickets were double I think from the season before due to people wanting Memorial Cup tickets, some were from out of town, even out of province in some cases. That season skews the numbers, if you look at most of the last 10 years, no huge spikes from best years to worst ones. Even the 2 non playoff years attendance was only down 6-700.
|
|
|
Post by BenCurtis on Jul 13, 2010 14:14:03 GMT -4
Moncton's 05/06 attendance stats were inflated due to it being a Memorial Cup host season - a record number of season tickets were sold as people wanted to secure access to Mem Cup tickets ... it wasn't really the exact same situation as a regular contending year, rendering the comparison even more flawed. I was using the info that was available to me. The last time Moncton had two down years after a run (like we've had) was that period. The Q-site only goes back to 03 or something like that. Even if you take that out it still shows the same thing.. Moncton went from 84 points to 57. Thats a sizeable down year. Attendance dropped 15% Halifax went from 89 points to 46. Thats a bigger down year. Attendance dropped 11%. My main point was that Billy once again spews garbage without having the facts. Atleast Gman got it.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Jul 13, 2010 15:46:01 GMT -4
I'm not taking either side ... but do the same analysis with the actual change in attendance ... counting seats instead of percentages ... and it shows a different picture. Using a percentage analysis when the two operate off a different attendance base is not a clear analysis ... combining the two methods would give a better picture. Since there is a dollar value attached to each seat ... the financial opportunity loss is the best indicator. Each Q franchise has similar base costs ... some add more frills than others to bump that bottom line (Moncton and Halifax being two) ... some have better lease agreements ... some have smaller staffs ... some spare no expense at getting better. But our teams likely face roughly the same expenses on an annual basis ... although Halifax would have a higher travel costs due to location. So the loss to the bottom line by both teams is the best comparison ... and Halifax's loss was much more significant ... more seats became empty. Just sayin' ... Using your words... "face roughly the same expenses on an annual basis"... Halifax would have had between 100,000 - 150,000 more seats sold than Moncton during two down years. I'd take that... Just sayin' ... I would to ... I'm not dumping on Halifax ... I doubt they lost any money in their few off years they have just come through ... 5000 a night is a money maker in any market. It is simply an opportunity cost that is lost ... not a real financial loss. Another way to look at it is that they set the bar very high with a succession of strong seasons ... and you just can't do that year after year in Jr hockey ... sooner or later you have to step back and build it back up. When it is all said and done ... Halifax will likely average 6-7000 through the 5 year period that includes the last 2 seasons.
|
|
|
Post by canbeer on Jul 14, 2010 23:16:42 GMT -4
I don't think too many Moose fans are confusing their excitement for the young talent and positive future with big expectations for the team's performance this year. I think best case within reason is a 9-11 finish with the reality probably being more in the 12-14 range.
Defensively I hoping for solid progression from the young defensive core... show some great improvement that you would expect from a D with four returning 18 year olds. If Abeltshauser and Amyot stay together I think they can be a great pairing for the team and in the East... they were 6th and 7th in team scoring last year, both have great size and they played great down the stretch last year. Clarke if things come together could be one of the leaders physically and at both ends of the ice. Not sure if Gillard is the guy he plays with as both are lefties and Hannay and Bishop are righthanded. Add in Lewis and I'm hoping the 3rd pairing gets lots of icetime. What I'd really like to see is that after Amyot, Clarke and Abeltshauser that a couple of the other guys really progress and step up.
With some good potential in nets, improved experience on D, some very solid defensive forwards and hopefully only a fraction of the breakaways and odd-man-rushes against that we seen last year goals against should be a great improvement. Their scoring certainly won't be in the top half, the team won't likey find their way into the top half but they could be better than average in goals against.
Up front things will be tougher in finding scoring. I think minus Knotek both Randall and Grant would do well if they could improve even slightly on last year... hopefully Frk is there and gels well with them. Andrew started producing a bit more a time went on last year and with Gelinas and some more offense in Ashley vs. Lemieux that second line could be ok with 3 guys around 15-20 goals and 40-50 points. The 3rd line has potential and the 4th line has some skill but is young. 200 goals scored would be 4th from the bottom but it would still be more than a decent improvement over last year... hopefully they have some solid scoring from the backend.
Overall if this team can be somewhat effective offensively/find a bit of scoring by committee then they will be a lot of fun to watch and it should be a positive season.
|
|
|
Post by eastcoastfan on Jul 15, 2010 9:53:15 GMT -4
I don't think too many Moose fans are confusing their excitement for the young talent and positive future with big expectations for the team's performance this year. I think best case within reason is a 9-11 finish with the reality probably being more in the 12-14 range. Defensively I hoping for solid progression from the young defensive core... show some great improvement that you would expect from a D with four returning 18 year olds. If Abeltshauser and Amyot stay together I think they can be a great pairing for the team and in the East... they were 6th and 7th in team scoring last year, both have great size and they played great down the stretch last year. Clarke if things come together could be one of the leaders physically and at both ends of the ice. Not sure if Gillard is the guy he plays with as both are lefties and Hannay and Bishop are righthanded. Add in Lewis and I'm hoping the 3rd pairing gets lots of icetime. What I'd really like to see is that after Amyot, Clarke and Abeltshauser that a couple of the other guys really progress and step up. With some good potential in nets, improved experience on D, some very solid defensive forwards and hopefully only a fraction of the breakaways and odd-man-rushes against that we seen last year goals against should be a great improvement. Their scoring certainly won't be in the top half, the team won't likey find their way into the top half but they could be better than average in goals against. Up front things will be tougher in finding scoring. I think minus Knotek both Randall and Grant would do well if they could improve even slightly on last year... hopefully Frk is there and gels well with them. Andrew started producing a bit more a time went on last year and with Gelinas and some more offense in Ashley vs. Lemieux that second line could be ok with 3 guys around 15-20 goals and 40-50 points. The 3rd line has potential and the 4th line has some skill but is young. 200 goals scored would be 4th from the bottom but it would still be more than a decent improvement over last year... hopefully they have some solid scoring from the backend. Overall if this team can be somewhat effective offensively/find a bit of scoring by committee then they will be a lot of fun to watch and it should be a positive season. Good assessment, canbeer!
|
|
Qfan69
Blue-Chip Prospect
Posts: 461
|
Post by Qfan69 on Jul 21, 2010 8:57:09 GMT -4
We got away from this board with out really ever hitting the points that I was hoping to cross. Things like leading scorer of the team, goal out put from players and how the PP might look. Things like that. Let's see what people think.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Jul 21, 2010 9:01:29 GMT -4
We got away from this board with out really ever hitting the points that I was hoping to cross. Things like leading scorer of the team, goal out put from players and how the PP might look. Things like that. Let's see what people think. Go ahead ... you first.
|
|
|
Post by hfxfan09 on Jul 21, 2010 12:42:36 GMT -4
I think our leading scorer may be Konrad, I can see Clarke(if he behaves) being very productive, Sawyer Hannah, I wouldn't be surprised to see Brent Andrews light it up this year.
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Strap on Jul 21, 2010 13:06:46 GMT -4
I think our leading scorer may be Konrad, I can see Clarke(if he behaves) being very productive, Sawyer Hannah, I wouldn't be surprised to see Brent Andrews light it up this year. I would be a little scared if Konrad or Clarke are our leading scorer.....and Hannay?....Are u sure u are not talking about our top scoring defenseman?
|
|