>That's a harder sell; besides, Gretzky has not entirely conquered
>California which is a better infiltration point for the game, 'cos
>taking the rest of California (the north) will go a longer way in
>forcing the game down the throats of people on the rest of the West
>Coast and Rockies region, and ultimately the rest of the U.S.
>I don't deny that San Jose would also be a good location for Lindros,
>but Gretzky, in a sense, has already broken hockey in California.
>People say Gretzky is big in California? While I don't have first
>hand knowledge, he probably does pretty well in the L.A. market. But
>excepting those Bo knows pieces (big deal, Sonny Bono is them to)
>I've seen none of his commercials in northern California.
of northern California hockey; maybe it will change with the Sharks,
but they need a star. While Gretzky has access to 60%+ of California
by being in the south, a market roughly under the size of Canada, the
entire mass of California has not been hit and thus no media steam-
roller to couple with the Northeast and inundate the rest of the U.S.
The only other Gretzky commercial I've seen around here is the Easton
adverts for hockey gear, and that's on SCA's "The Hockey Show". So
contrary to Gerald's thesis of putting Lindros in Washington, it's
more crucial to have Eric in the Bay Area to build on what Gretzky
has started. The conquest of California is not yet a fait accompli
and it could whither quite quickly with 99's retirement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare Trumps Split! (p.1) - NY Post,