Jump to content

return of Nordiques to NHL


Recommended Posts

I don't know...I would watch hockey more often if the Leafs were always the marquee telecast.

Lets face it, if the Flames are playing New York, and the leafs are playing the worst team in the league, not only would Toronto lose, they would also be telecast.

Why this is I do not know, but I believe they could get better ratings if they had a programmer who knew the hockey audience, and given HNiC history....they don't.

I think the leafs are the worst team in the league as far as the standings go...

The point is Canadians are watching hockey. The NHL knows that and likes that. I think the ratings for HNIC are pretty consistent.

The problem now is cracking the US, which has been painstakingly slow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't know...I would watch hockey more often if the Leafs were always the marquee telecast.

Lets face it, if the Flames are playing New York, and the leafs are playing the worst team in the league, not only would Toronto lose, they would also be telecast.

Why this is I do not know, but I believe they could get better ratings if they had a programmer who knew the hockey audience, and given HNiC history....they don't.

The money is in Canada. 6 Canadian teams account for 31% of revenue in a 30 team league. Do the math.

A lot of people in Southern Ontario would gladly buy hockey tickets, if there was another team. Leafs games are all sold out and very expensive. My guess is teams in Hamilton and Toronto would both sell out their games.

The market is not completely tapped as you suggest it is. Its just not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had the judge ruled in favor of Balsillie, it would have been very likely that they would have been punted from the league.

Balsillies bid was doomed from the day he made it, speculation on what happens after is just silly. He could have offered eighty nine bajillion dollars and still would not have been sold the franchise by the bankruptcy court judge.

The reason is very simple: his offer was conditional, and the condition was a whopper: that he would buy the team if he could move it to Hamilton. The judge cannot and could not and did not have the authority to order the NHL to permit a franchise wherever Balsillie or anybody else chose, he recognized the exclusive right of the NHL to control their own franchises.

End of story, end of game for Balsillie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad the other 28 governors also understand Toronto and Buffalo's predicament. They voted unanimously 29-0 of Balsillie and his move to hamilton even though he could have sold the rink out every home game. Also of note that 23 of 29 owners would have to agree on balsillie's purchase and 16 of 29 would have to agree on relocation. Toronto's area is as big as it sees fit, same as Buffalo's, and if somebody threatens that market, then they take their case to the board of governors and surprise surprise they win. The NHL board of governors consist of business men who know how to make money. Setting up shop in Canada would hurt the established team's revenues. The board wants to see how the cap era NHL is going to play out, with parity in the league there will be more competitive teams which could draw crowds in. San Jose is not a traditional hockey market yet they still do well. Hell even the cup run in Carolina brought fans in. By your logic, the majority of major league baseball teams would be in constant danger of relocation because of few fans in the stands.

And yet Tim Hortons has put the kibosh on Canadian expansion. And rightly so, the franchisee has rights to the territory, and Tim Hortons corporate who has people who know the franchise system works know the Canadian market is saturated. Yet Tim Hortons corporate is on a mission to expand to the US, and their stores down there are half empty. Why do they expand down there? Growth.

Says who that they need to be moved? The Board of Governors has seen NHL revenues increase from 400 million dollars to 2.2 billion dollars in the span of ten years. That's phenomenal growth. 3 of the Canadian franchises were on the revenue sharing program that Gary Bettman brought in, should they have been moved as well? From a financial point of view, the move down south has been fairly successful.

They voted unanimously 29-0 of Balsillie and his move to hamilton even though he could have sold the rink out every home game.

Stop trotting out this red herring. They voted against the strategy Balsillie was trying to use. Not the concept of another team in southern Ontario.

Toronto's area is as big as it sees fit, same as Buffalo's, and if somebody threatens that market, then they take their case to the board of governors and surprise surprise they win

No sorry thats just plain false. No franchise determines its own boundaries. Theyre either enshrined in legal documents, or determined by the franchiser.

Says who that they need to be moved? The Board of Governors has seen NHL revenues increase from 400 million dollars to 2.2 billion dollars in the span of ten years.

The revenue increases mostly came from Canadian cities. All the American teams I mentioned are losing revenue or are revenue-flat. Businesses that dont make money relocate or go bankrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toronto's area is as big as it sees fit, same as Buffalo's, and if somebody threatens that market, then they take their case to the board of governors and surprise surprise they win

Nope, the NHL has been asked and answered that question.

Southern Onatrio is the one market that may get $200-$250 million in a big fat franchise fee, 6.5 to $8 million cash money to each owner, and likely not necessary to share it with the players. The 'threat' would be accompanied with a big windfall cheque, the only one they are ever likley to get of that size. If anybody just moves a franchise to Hamilton a la Balsillie, the other owners get nothing, zero. That is why they have voted against Balsillie, it will cost them a fortune to move the Coyotes or anybody else into Hamilton, they want and will get an 'expansion' team eventually.

Toronto and Buffalo Bill Daly can blubber all they like, NHL VP Daly says that any approval of a franchise with a massive fee in Hamilton requires a simple majority of owners voting in favour, which would be a slam dunk: the vote would be 28-2 , with Toronto and buffalo opposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The money is in Canada. 6 Canadian teams account for 31% of revenue in a 30 team league. Do the math.

A lot of people in Southern Ontario would gladly buy hockey tickets, if there was another team. Leafs games are all sold out and very expensive. My guess is teams in Hamilton and Toronto would both sell out their games.

The market is not completely tapped as you suggest it is. Its just not true.

Sorry M.Dancer, I meant to reply to blue bloods post not yours. Keep hitting the buttons above instead of below.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The judge already made his decision, and because of it they did survive. Moyes was a victim of the recession, as was the entire Phoenix area (I'd say hit harder than most). Had the judge ruled in favor of Balsillie, it would have been very likely that they would have been punted from the league.

Phoenix has also been unlucky, they haven't put a good team on ice for quite some time. That hurts attendance. With the cap coming in, that should fix that. I can see the league waiting for the economy to turn around and see what happens after that.

I don't know about that. The judge's decision is not done yet. The league might have to pony up quite a bit this year. I don't know that the NHL has a long term plan for the city.

As far as the TV market goes, I'd say Canada is already tapped. There is no room for growth in the Canadian TV market. The US on the other hand...

I don't know that it is true that the Canadian market still doesn't have some growth to it.

I don't disagree that the U.S. needs growth. It just ain't happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop trotting out this red herring. They voted against the strategy Balsillie was trying to use. Not the concept of another team in southern Ontario.

Then why isn't a team fast tracked to Southern Ontario? The board of governors are successful businessmen who know what they are doing. They won't go into Southern Ontario unless they can be assured that the American thing won't work. Not enough time has passed to make that determination. It will probably take a decade to sift through the results of how the cap era is working. The NHL is almost a hundred years old, it could be around for another hundred years, even more. The board of governors can bide their time. It makes far more sense to grow the market than to milk it dry. This is why the CFL is a basket case.

No sorry thats just plain false. No franchise determines its own boundaries. Theyre either enshrined in legal documents, or determined by the franchiser.

Given that Toronto has a seat on the Board, it has a say in what its boundaries are. Same with Buffalo. The board (with T.O. Buffalo et. al) set the boundaries.

The revenue increases mostly came from Canadian cities. All the American teams I mentioned are losing revenue or are revenue-flat. Businesses that dont make money relocate or go bankrupt.

And New York and Dallas didn't have anything to do with that, they have more revenue and profit than Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, and Ottawa combined.

The franchises need time to develop with the new constraints of the game. Cripes should a franchisee of a Tim Hortons have his franchise taken away from him because he is losing money in the first few years??? By your logic, we should have moved Ottawa, Edmonton, and Calgary because they were all at one point losing a ton of money. This is why people like you are not on any professional sports league board of directors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, the NHL has been asked and answered that question.

Southern Onatrio is the one market that may get $200-$250 million in a big fat franchise fee, 6.5 to $8 million cash money to each owner, and likely not necessary to share it with the players. The 'threat' would be accompanied with a big windfall cheque, the only one they are ever likley to get of that size. If anybody just moves a franchise to Hamilton a la Balsillie, the other owners get nothing, zero. That is why they have voted against Balsillie, it will cost them a fortune to move the Coyotes or anybody else into Hamilton, they want and will get an 'expansion' team eventually.

Toronto and Buffalo Bill Daly can blubber all they like, NHL VP Daly says that any approval of a franchise with a massive fee in Hamilton requires a simple majority of owners voting in favour, which would be a slam dunk: the vote would be 28-2 , with Toronto and buffalo opposed.

The board has no intention of expansion, and Bettman has hammered that point home. In order for a team to move to Southern Ontario, one will have to be relocated (fat chance of that because of the lack of new franchise fee), the other option is blowing up a franchise then "expanding" into Southern Ontario. Given that the numbers are a little dodgy for Southern Ontario and the whole MLSE/sabres kerfuffle, Winnipeg, Kansas City (not bad considering there is no NBA franchise there), and maybe Quebec City.

The last thing I want to see is franchises moving all over the place on a whim because of the danger of the NHL alienating its American audience and the American TV deals, could likely turn into the basket case that is the CFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Toronto Maple Leafs consistently sell out every game no matter who they play. The same goes for teams in the Northern States and Western Canada. Heck San Jose sells out as well. The rivalry = more dollars is a myth and non starter.
You think so? Then tell me why it is the usually 30% empty buildings in NJ and Long Island mysteriously sell out when the Rangers come to town.

Rivalries sell the sport and increase interest from fringe fans. What is the harder ticket to get: Toronto v. Montreal, or Toronto v. Anaheim?

The NHL is a franchise system, the Tim Hortons analogy works perfectly. The NHL sells hockey games, Tim Hortons sells coffee.
It doesn't work because a new Timmy's across the street is not going to get more people interested in Coffee and Doughnuts. A new NHL team across town, creates a rivalry and does generate more interst from the casual fan of the game.
The league is at 30 teams. 3 of 4 leagues are at 30 teams, the NFL has 32. That seems to be the magic number. If expansion to more teams was such a good idea, why hasn't it happened yet? The board who knows far more about business, marketing, revenue etc. than you or I doesn't think expansion into a saturated market is a good idea.
I don't know how you get the idea that one team for 8 million people is a "saturated market".
Not a chance, that's far too close to T.O. and Buffalo. 3 teams is barely working in New York which has far more population than the T.O. Buffalo corridor. Then there is the fact that a large majority of the board has to approve expansion/relocation to that area, which would set a precedent for other owners to set up shop right nearby other franchises.

Two teams could easily be supported in the GTA. You also have to remember that on a per capita basis there are far more canadian hockey fans thanthere are in the US.

And based on how popular a Hamilton team would be, ticket prices would be sky high as well. The Toronto Maple Leafs would have a fit. They want fans lined up and their rink sold out for ridiculous high ticket prices. They want the monopoly on TV and merchandising in that area. Why would they want someone to set up shop right beside and take all that money away from them?
Well I don't think Hamilton is the place for the team, but at any rate they are drawing from roughly 1/6 of the number of people that the Leafs do so I doubt demand would be close to what the Leafs have. You need to keep in perspective that Toronto is the best franchise in the league from a revenue generating standpoint and only Montreal and New York Ranger can come close.
Detroit and Colorado have a great rivalry and they are 1000 miles apart.
Um, that would be HAD, a great rivalry, there has been nothing of note between them for a couple of years now.
Having two Timmy's across the street takes revenue away from the one that was there in the first place.
And you have finally seen why the Timmy's comparison doesn't work. Check out Sabres ticket prices. Why is is that when the Leafs come to town the ticket prices jump through the roof? Hmm.... A Rivalry maybe?
Yes there has been teams taking a bath where they were located within a perceived boundary, also what you don't realize is that the board has to approve of that as well, and the board won't approve of that unless there is a solid business plan in place. The board probably has taken a look at Hamilton and other Canadian cities, crunched the numbers, and has figured that it is better to hold the line.
As I said earlier, there are owners on the board who are losing money who don't want to see a financially successful team in Canada because it will raise the cap and cause them to lose more money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why isn't a team fast tracked to Southern Ontario? The board of governors are successful businessmen who know what they are doing. They won't go into Southern Ontario unless they can be assured that the American thing won't work. Not enough time has passed to make that determination. It will probably take a decade to sift through the results of how the cap era is working. The NHL is almost a hundred years old, it could be around for another hundred years, even more. The board of governors can bide their time. It makes far more sense to grow the market than to milk it dry. This is why the CFL is a basket case.

A team isn't being fast tracked to Southern Ontario because the Leagueisn't ready for expansion yet. There is a huge difference between a relocation fee and a new franchise fee. No team will ever be relocated to Southern Ontario because the expansion fee will be the biggest in league history by a wide margin.

Given that Toronto has a seat on the Board, it has a say in what its boundaries are. Same with Buffalo. The board (with T.O. Buffalo et. al) set the boundaries.
So, that is just 2 votes out of 30.
And New York and Dallas didn't have anything to do with that, they have more revenue and profit than Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, and Ottawa combined.
NY and DAL also have about 3 times the combine populations of the canadian cities aswell. Not to mention they are generating revenues in American dollars as opposed to getting paid in Canadian dollars and paying out American.

But regardless of that your assertion about revenuesis completely wrong. NYR and Dallas generated 242M in revenues 2007-08.

Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton, and Ottawa generated 385M in revenue during the same period.

The franchises need time to develop with the new constraints of the game. Cripes should a franchisee of a Tim Hortons have his franchise taken away from him because he is losing money in the first few years??? By your logic, we should have moved Ottawa, Edmonton, and Calgary because they were all at one point losing a ton of money. This is why people like you are not on any professional sports league board of directors.

Again with the Timmy's analogy. Here's a clue, IT DOESN'T WORK.

Edited by Who's Doing What?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The board has no intention of expansion, and Bettman has hammered that point home. In order for a team to move to Southern Ontario, one will have to be relocated (fat chance of that because of the lack of new franchise fee), the other option is blowing up a franchise then "expanding" into Southern Ontario. Given that the numbers are a little dodgy for Southern Ontario and the whole MLSE/sabres kerfuffle, Winnipeg, Kansas City (not bad considering there is no NBA franchise there), and maybe Quebec City.

The last thing I want to see is franchises moving all over the place on a whim because of the danger of the NHL alienating its American audience and the American TV deals, could likely turn into the basket case that is the CFL.

There is no plans for expansion... yet.

With all the young talent in the league right now and players who could still be playing in the NHL going over to Russia to play, due to cap restraints etc., it won't be long before the league starts tossing around the idea of expansion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think so? Then tell me why it is the usually 30% empty buildings in NJ and Long Island mysteriously sell out when the Rangers come to town.

Rivalries sell the sport and increase interest from fringe fans. What is the harder ticket to get: Toronto v. Montreal, or Toronto v. Anaheim?

You have a problem understanding why the league has gone expansion in the US in the first place. It's better for the sport to have a rivalry like Edmonton vs. Dallas rather than Toronto vs. Hamilton. If rivalries sell the sport like you say, why not have the rivalries where one team is an expanding market that can get new fans to the game. People from Hamilton are already hockey fans, they watch hockey on TV, buy hockey crap, and go to games. There is more money to be made by selling the game south of the border. One of the best things for hockey was the salary cap that allowed Chicago to build its team and become competitive again.

It doesn't work because a new Timmy's across the street is not going to get more people interested in Coffee and Doughnuts. A new NHL team across town, creates a rivalry and does generate more interst from the casual fan of the game.

Except that franchises don't care about the casual fan/customer, they want growth. That's a contradictory statement. The NHL wants new fans and to grow, yet you are saying a new team across the street is going to make the NHL more money? The sooner you realize the viewers watching the game on TV are more important than fans in the rink we can get past this ridiculousness. A Timmy's across the street hurts the previously established owner, same goes for franchises in sports.

I don't know how you get the idea that one team for 8 million people is a "saturated market".

That would be 2 teams, the Sabres are in that area as well. New York has good hockey fans yet can only support 2 maybe 3 teams in that area with much more population.

Two teams could easily be supported in the GTA. You also have to remember that on a per capita basis there are far more canadian hockey fans thanthere are in the US.

Tell that to the Maple Leafs and Sabres. Yet with all these Canadian hockey fans, 3 teams in the 90's were in deep financial trouble, what's to say that wouldn't happen again. Also there is more new fans in the US. The NHL wants fans watching hockey, doesn't matter what team. The amount of people in Canada watching hockey on TV has plateaued, whereas there is room for growth in the US.

Um, that would be HAD, a great rivalry, there has been nothing of note between them for a couple of years now.

So, they had a rivalry even those cities were a thousand miles apart. Pittsburgh and Washington have a rivalry, are they 60 miles apart?

And you have finally seen why the Timmy's comparison doesn't work. Check out Sabres ticket prices. Why is is that when the Leafs come to town the ticket prices jump through the roof? Hmm.... A Rivalry maybe?

That's what 3-4 games a year. Wow the Sabres made a fortune with that rivalry. :rolleyes:

Or is it leaf fans making the 1.5-2 hr. drive to go watch cheap hockey. Attendance is not the be all and end all of revenues for a hockey team. If the leafs sell out every game they cannot afford to pay their players, let alone the multitude of other costs. The area can barely support 2 hockey teams, if you put in a third, those leaf fans going to buffalo for cheap hockey probably won't go. If the Timmy's comparison doesn't work, why would MLSE and the Sabres be so vehemently opposed to another organization in their territory.

Well I don't think Hamilton is the place for the team, but at any rate they are drawing from roughly 1/6 of the number of people that the Leafs do so I doubt demand would be close to what the Leafs have. You need to keep in perspective that Toronto is the best franchise in the league from a revenue generating standpoint and only Montreal and New York Ranger can come close.

Which is why Kansas City, Winnipeg, and Quebec City (in that order) would be the next places for franchises to go. KC would have the biggest chance for growth.

As I said earlier, there are owners on the board who are losing money who don't want to see a financially successful team in Canada because it will raise the cap and cause them to lose more money.

Moyes from the Phoenix coyotes didn't lose his shirt with hockey, he lost it because of the recession. The board wants to grow the game from an expanded fan base, that's why they don't want to put a hockey team in Canada because there are already hockey fans there supporting teams. They want more hockey fans.

----------------------

Let me be clear, I am not anti Canadian, what I want out of the NHL is a league that is competitive with the NFL, Champions League soccer in Europe, MLB, the NBA, and NASCAR. By loading up the league with too many Canadian cities hinders growth big time. Why go after 100 dollars when you can go after 1000 dollars? What I don't want is another CFL that is only supported by a few rabid fans, has low TV ratings, no room for growth, and has to be force fed to fans. The NHL needs the Americans, their money, and their huge population. Moving teams because they happen to be losing money is ridiculous, if our way of thinking was to shut down something because it is initially losing money, Canada would be an economic basket case. Those American teams are like mines, they lose money, a lot of money off the bat, but over time it will eventually be worth it. The NHL board of governors know what they are doing and know what will make them money, they are millionaires after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a problem understanding why the league has gone expansion in the US in the first place. It's better for the sport to have a rivalry like Edmonton vs. Dallas rather than Toronto vs. Hamilton. If rivalries sell the sport like you say, why not have the rivalries where one team is an expanding market that can get new fans to the game. People from Hamilton are already hockey fans, they watch hockey on TV, buy hockey crap, and go to games. There is more money to be made by selling the game south of the border. One of the best things for hockey was the salary cap that allowed Chicago to build its team and become competitive again.
LMAO You have no clue whatsoever. First of all being crappy for several years and getting lots of high draft picks is what turned around the Blackhawks. Not only the Blackhawks, but the Caps, Pens, Blues and Kings.

You completely miss the point that putting a team into a market like Phoenix is a longshot, whereas putting a team in Canada is a sure bet for success.

I understand perfectly well why the NHL expanded into the sunbelt. They wanted to get a huge US TV deal like the NFL has, and to do that they needed to be popular across the country. I'll enlighten you further below.

Except that franchises don't care about the casual fan/customer, they want growth. That's a contradictory statement. The NHL wants new fans and to grow, yet you are saying a new team across the street is going to make the NHL more money? The sooner you realize the viewers watching the game on TV are more important than fans in the rink we can get past this ridiculousness. A Timmy's across the street hurts the previously established owner, same goes for franchises in sports.
Again your logic is laughable. The casual fan is the one the league wants to hook. The league wants the guy who might check the scores and standings in the paper on the weekend to get excited enough about the game to go out and buy tickets, hats etc. A rivalry grows the game, especially geographic rivalries.

You keep bringing up viewers on TV. Do you have any idea what the NHL deal is with NBC? The NHL TV rights were given to NBC for their game of the week for zero dollars. Get it? NBC wasn't willing to fork over a single red cent to get the broadcast rights for their game of the week. The deal is entirely dependant on sharing the revenues generated by advertizing.

The NHL deal with Versus is only seen in a small number of US households since to get the channel you have to be in the highend of the cable packages.

Bottom line is the NHL is the US isn't worth very much.

That would be 2 teams, the Sabres are in that area as well. New York has good hockey fans yet can only support 2 maybe 3 teams in that area with much more population.
LMAO again. Your level of understanding in this matter is a joke. Per capita New York has fewer hockey fans than the GTA. They have 2 NFL teams, 2 MLB teams, and counting the Nets 2 NBA teams. All of those sports are way ahead of the NHL when it comes to the # of fans.
Tell that to the Maple Leafs and Sabres. Yet with all these Canadian hockey fans, 3 teams in the 90's were in deep financial trouble, what's to say that wouldn't happen again. Also there is more new fans in the US. The NHL wants fans watching hockey, doesn't matter what team. The amount of people in Canada watching hockey on TV has plateaued, whereas there is room for growth in the US.
Again you have no understanding of the situation. The dollar was low, around $0.60US iirc, there was no revenue sharing, and teams that had money were jacking up players salaries so fast smaller market teams couldn't compete.

Sure there are more NEW NHL fans in the US but that is because thewre were so few to begin with. Almost every fan is a NEW fan.

Canadian veiwership has plateaued? Give me a break. You have absolutly no evidence to back that up. You know where the NHL ranks in US TV ratings? Last year Arena football had more veiwers. I think figure skating beat it aswell.

So, they had a rivalry even those cities were a thousand miles apart. Pittsburgh and Washington have a rivalry, are they 60 miles apart?
Good grief! Pit and Was are rivals because they are two of the elite teams in the league with the three brightest stars in the game between them. A great playoff series last year added more fuel to the rivalry. This is totally different from a geographic or even divisional rivalry.
That's what 3-4 games a year. Wow the Sabres made a fortune with that rivalry. :rolleyes:

Or is it leaf fans making the 1.5-2 hr. drive to go watch cheap hockey.

It is 3 games a year and it is not that much cheaper to go to Buffalo after they have jacked up the tickets. Their rivalries with other divisional teams, and their State rivals aswell as teams like Pitts and Wash are all more expensive to go see.

Attendance is not the be all and end all of revenues for a hockey team. If the leafs sell out every game they cannot afford to pay their players, let alone the multitude of other costs. The area can barely support 2 hockey teams, if you put in a third, those leaf fans going to buffalo for cheap hockey probably won't go. If the Timmy's comparison doesn't work, why would MLSE and the Sabres be so vehemently opposed to another organization in their territory.
Sorry but with the lack of a huge US TV deal gate revenues are a huge part of any team.

From The Toronto Star May 30 2008:

Atop the list of income winners is the Maple Leafs, who nudged out the Montreal Canadiens to lead the league this past season with $1.9 million worth of ticket revenue per game. Based on 41 home games, that's $77.9 million a year – not counting revenue from pre-season games. A year ago, the Leafs generated $1.5 million a game, according the report obtained by the Star from several league sources.

So tell me again how the ticket revenue won't cover the 56M in salary cap.

The Sabres don't want a team in Hamilton because they get 3000-4000 Canadians coming across the border for each game. I don't think the team should go in Hamilton anyways. MLSE just loves it's monopoly on Southern Ontario.

Which is why Kansas City, Winnipeg, and Quebec City (in that order) would be the next places for franchises to go. KC would have the biggest chance for growth.

Moyes from the Phoenix coyotes didn't lose his shirt with hockey, he lost it because of the recession. The board wants to grow the game from an expanded fan base, that's why they don't want to put a hockey team in Canada because there are already hockey fans there supporting teams. They want more hockey fans.

:rolleyes: Oy Vey! Depending on who you believe Moyes lost between 30 and 70 million per year in Phoenix. That maybe pocket change to you, but to us here in reality it's a fortune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with much of what Who's doing says but not this

Bottom line is the NHL is the US isn't worth very much.

The value of teams in the US depends on where it is located. Rangers, Flyers, Hawks , Wings and a few others are doing OK and will continue to do OK.

But several others will ultimately fail, and the league will and must contract by a few teams: Phoenix, both Florida teams, Nashville, Atlanta. At that point, the opportunity will be there for a new team with big fat franchise fees in Southern Ontario,

I really doubt Quebec or Winnipeg will ever see their teams back as relocations. Kansas zCity and Las Vegas are about the only real possibilities and I doubt KC would be anything but another Phoenix.

Las Vegas might do OK, but right now the economy in Las Vegas is absolutely brutal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moyes from the Phoenix coyotes didn't lose his shirt with hockey, he lost it because of the recession.

Phoenix has never made money in Phoenix. Never. It has been millions in the hole every year, year after year. That much was clear from the bankruptcy proceedings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really doubt Quebec or Winnipeg will ever see their teams back as relocations.

Quebec will need its new arena first. It might have helped them be on the priority list if they had at least maintained an AHL for the last years as well.

Winnipeg has a new arena and maintained an AHL team since 1996. The arena is expandable although has enough seats that it could still be in the top half of the NHL in attendance if at capacity. The arena is also partly owned by the richest man in Canada.

If an NHL owner is looking to move, Winnipeg is the only city ready to go with both the arena and long term fan base in the country. There is simply no other city.

Kansas zCity

Has the arena but no indication they even have a fan base for hockey after so many years of no team of any kind.

and Las Vegas are about the only real possibilities and I doubt KC would be anything but another Phoenix.

Has a small arena but a successful ECHL hockey team.

The city is notorious for not having any major league sports teams. Any attempt to get anything other than minor leagues has resulted in failure.

Las Vegas might do OK, but right now the economy in Las Vegas is absolutely brutal.

The economy is another reason why trying to get money to build a large arena and a new team might not be in the cards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the Quebec arena announcement.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianp...f_nnm7A8un_UYJw

Labeaume said he expects the arena to cost about $400 million - and that the city would put up $50 million.

He wants the federal and provincial governments to pony up $175 million each under infrastructure programs.

He said that Ottawa and the Quebec government have spent hundreds of millions to help other cities build sports and culture infrastructure.

Holy crap that is a lot of money.

If Winnipeg had received that amount of money from the Feds, a whole arena could have been built. The total public money from all three levels of government for the MTS Centre was $40 million. The private sector paid $93 million.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things going from bad to worse in Phoenix?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091016/...coyotes_tickets

The NHL team unveiled a promotion Friday that will see it give away tickets if it wins on certain nights. The first such game comes on Oct. 24 against Los Angeles - one of five this season that includes a Dec. 5 game against Ottawa.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Quebecor steps up as a potential buyer for a team and private partner for the arena, it very well could happen.

They were going hard after the habs, but could do well with Quebec as well. The fact that they are the media monopoly in the province opens up many possibilities for them. Exclusive broadcast rights, sports shows, sports colums, sports publications, variety specials with NHL players... Potentially the new arena would become the center for cultural events in eastern / northern Quebec and they would be at the center of the action.

In fact one of their TV stations, TVA, currently has a sitcom about the Canadiens-Nordiques rivalry and draws 1 million plus audiences.

There is also a bigger potential fan-base in Quebec / Winnipeg than in Hamilton. Being so close to Toronto, many people in the area will remains leafs fans. I live in Ottawa and there as many blue shirts at the Scotia Bank place as red ones when the leafs are in town. Ditto for when the habs come (fewer shirts maybe, but they are louder!!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Quebecor steps up

Steps up how?

By agreeing to move into a brand new $400 million arena paid for by taxpayers where they will demand all revenues go to their team?

What a ridiculous concept, spending that kind of money in a small place to gratify the egos of locals.

Next step: the cry of RACISM AGAINST QUEBEC if taxpayers fail to leap behind this cause.

Question for Winnipeg and Quebec: will your market support the purchase of 18,000 tickets priced $70 t0 $250 for 41 homes games and four exhibition games every year, indefinitely? That means a pair of season tickets will cost around $6000 to $20000 every year, win or lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question for Winnipeg and Quebec: will your market support the purchase of 18,000 tickets priced $70 t0 $250 for 41 homes games and four exhibition games every year, indefinitely? That means a pair of season tickets will cost around $6000 to $20000 every year, win or lose.

Probably not. Quite a few teams in the league don't pay those prices either.

The question is: How many of the teams who charge that amount want their profits to go to Phoenix and other cities who give away free tickets?

The economics of the league are out of whack.

Winnipeg can afford to wait till the league bleeds money from the rich teams until they feel it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not. Quite a few teams in the league don't pay those prices either.

The question is: How many of the teams who charge that amount want their profits to go to Phoenix and other cities who give away free tickets?

The economics of the league are out of whack.

Winnipeg can afford to wait till the league bleeds money from the rich teams until they feel it.

If you cannot answer that question with an enthusiastic 'yes' then Winnipeg and Quebec will have problems surviving.

If your team is successful, you can and do charge those numbers. If you are Phoenix, you charge ten dollars, as they did on opening night and sold out. Now they have gone back to their regular(low) prices and are drawing 7,000.

In a league given by the gate and a payroll in the $55 million range per team, you have to sell out lots of expensive tickets to make a dime.

I just do not see markets like Winnipeg and Quebec doing that for long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are Phoenix, you charge ten dollars, as they did on opening night and sold out. Now they have gone back to their regular(low) prices and are drawing 7,000.

In a league given by the gate and a payroll in the $55 million range per team, you have to sell out lots of expensive tickets to make a dime.

I just do not see markets like Winnipeg and Quebec doing that for long.

I think you are raising a profound and good point regarding almost all entertainment. When entertainment is priced reasonably it sells out. When it costs a family of four like mine $600 for a night at a hockey game and dinner, you think twice about going.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are raising a profound and good point regarding almost all entertainment. When entertainment is priced reasonably it sells out. When it costs a family of four like mine $600 for a night at a hockey game and dinner, you think twice about going.

That was not my point and I do not agree with what you said, it does not apply to all entertainment. The other 'major sports(though hockey is nowhere near as big as baseball, football or basketball) have other sources of revenue, mainly monster national TV contracts, merchandising and lucrative local TV/radio deals. Hockey is the exception, every team relies heavily on their gate plus parking/food/beer sales. You have to sell all the tickets all the time at high prices to break even.

Hockey fans in all six existing Canadiain markets do just that, there are suffcient fans and corporate money to make that happen. But.... I question if that is sustainable in smaller markets like Winnipeg and Quebec.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...