HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   What if...(mod: relocation proposal, subsequent effect on HRR) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1315767)

DontToewzMeBro 01-04-2013 01:28 AM

What if...(mod: relocation proposal, subsequent effect on HRR)
 
Lets just say you turned

Columbus into Quebec City
(Sells out every night)

Phoenix into Seattle
Sells 85-90% every night

Panthers into Toronto x 2
(Sells out every night)


How much more money would the league make? HRR would be much better just by switching these 3 correct?

Morgoth Bauglir 01-04-2013 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DontToewzMeBro (Post 57089793)
Lets just say you turned

Columbus into Quebec City
(Sells out every night)

Phoenix into Seattle
Sells 85-90% every night

Panthers into Toronto x 2
(Sells out every night)


How much more money would the league make? HRR would be much better just by switching these 3 correct?

MOD

Regardless of where you move Phoenix, any rise in the HRR that comes from the move will raise the cap and floor level and create problems for a team or teams that are fine now.

cbcwpg 01-04-2013 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DontToewzMeBro (Post 57089793)
Lets just say you turned

Columbus into Quebec City
(Sells out every night)

Phoenix into Seattle
Sells 85-90% every night

Panthers into Toronto x 2
(Sells out every night)


How much more money would the league make? HRR would be much better just by switching these 3 correct?

Unlike some who look at it as " OMG someone wants to move my team ", I will look at it in the intent it was meant and give MO.

Moving these 3 teams to the markets suggested would result in more revenue for the league. The problem is that just moving teams doesn't solve the NHL's problems ( assuming the current CBA is still being used). It's all connected and linked.... revenue goes up... the cap goes up... the players salaries go up... all that happens is you end up with new teams that become your bottom 3 financially struggling markets. The problem doesn't get fixed just by moving teams, it's a lot more complicated than that.

BLONG7 01-04-2013 07:50 AM

During this next CBA the league will look at it's weakest links, it did a good job gettting Atlanta out and turned it into Winnipeg...fantastic move for the league and the players....

The owners of those 3 you mention would love to have more revenue, but not sure if they want to move their teams...a winning team and a marketing plan would go along way no matter where the team is located....

sandysan 01-04-2013 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 (Post 57090161)

Regardless of where you move Phoenix, any rise in the HRR that comes from the move will raise the cap and floor level and create problems for a team or teams that are fine now.

39 million is not the anchor you think it is.

cutchemist42 01-04-2013 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbcwpg (Post 57092447)
Unlike some who look at it as " OMG someone wants to move my team ", I will look at it in the intent it was meant and give MO.

Moving these 3 teams to the markets suggested would result in more revenue for the league. The problem is that just moving teams doesn't solve the NHL's problems ( assuming the current CBA is still being used). It's all connected and linked.... revenue goes up... the cap goes up... the players salaries go up... all that happens is you end up with new teams that become your bottom 3 financially struggling markets. The problem doesn't get fixed just by moving teams, it's a lot more complicated than that.

Why not just have the cap lower then going into the future? I still say in that situation, you remove 3 teams who's markets are more sensitive to losses then the other 27. (Although the argument over most sensitive markets could be a whole other thread....)

Buck Aki Berg 01-04-2013 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DontToewzMeBro (Post 57089793)
Lets just say you turned

Columbus into Quebec City
(Sells out every night)

Phoenix into Seattle
Sells 85-90% every night

Panthers into Toronto x 2
(Sells out every night)


How much more money would the league make? HRR would be much better just by switching these 3 correct?

Let's say we up and relocated your favourite team to some place other people felt was "more deserving". How much of a crap would you give about HRR?

Mayor Bee 01-04-2013 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DontToewzMeBro (Post 57089793)
Lets just say you turned

Columbus into Quebec City
(Sells out every night)

Phoenix into Seattle
Sells 85-90% every night

Panthers into Toronto x 2
(Sells out every night)


How much more money would the league make? HRR would be much better just by switching these 3 correct?

HRR would have been much better by moving Chicago in 2006-07 as well.

sandysan 01-04-2013 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayor Bee (Post 57093919)
HRR would have been much better by moving Chicago in 2006-07 as well.

Is the argument that an established team in a cyclical industry ( who in the past did just fine) is the same as a franchise that has never turned a dime and can only do so underr the rosiests of predictions?

cutchemist42 01-04-2013 09:23 AM

An ok spreadhseet I've posted in the past. I do think Seattle with an NBA team would be a tighter market then Portland.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...&rm=full#gid=0

Wingsfan2965* 01-04-2013 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandysan (Post 57094019)
Is the argument that an established team in a cyclical industry ( who in the past did just fine) is the same as a franchise that has never turned a dime and can only do so underr the rosiests of predictions?

I don't blame people for not showing up to Columbus games. The team has made the playoffs once... And they got swept.

Give them a halfway decent team and they'll get a following.

MOD

jumptheshark 01-04-2013 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DontToewzMeBro (Post 57089793)
Lets just say you turned

Columbus into Quebec City
(Sells out every night)

Phoenix into Seattle
Sells 85-90% every night

Panthers into Toronto x 2
(Sells out every night)


How much more money would the league make? HRR would be much better just by switching these 3 correct?

Would TO support a second team not called the leafs? People assume they wull--but in talking with people from the TO area and the erea in Onterio being mentioned--they say they are leaf fans and would not supporty another team.

Why not move the blues? Horrible attendance right now?

Mayor Bee 01-04-2013 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandysan (Post 57094019)
Is the argument that an established team in a cyclical industry ( who in the past did just fine) is the same as a franchise that has never turned a dime and can only do so underr the rosiests of predictions?

Did fine...when? When the team was contending, and then stopped showing up when the team was struggling?

Tell you what. Tell me what years Columbus has contended and also had poor attendance.

cheswick 01-04-2013 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DontToewzMeBro (Post 57089793)
Lets just say you turned

Columbus into Quebec City
(Sells out every night)

Phoenix into Seattle
Sells 85-90% every night

Panthers into Toronto x 2
(Sells out every night)


How much more money would the league make? HRR would be much better just by switching these 3 correct?

I think your overestimating the effect it would have on overall HRR. HRR is largely driven by the top 5 or so teams. Moving a bottom team and replacing it with a mid-level team won't have that great of an effect. Outside of thesecond Toronto team, which may or may not be a huge success, the other moves would have a marginal effect.

sandysan 01-04-2013 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayor Bee (Post 57094385)
Did fine...when? When the team was contending, and then stopped showing up when the team was struggling?

Tell you what. Tell me what years Columbus has contended and also had poor attendance.

Attendance is a red herring, the weak sisters are not suffering from an attendance deficit they are suffering from a revenue deficit.

The hawks, like all teams, have their ups and downs. Focusing on the down times and saying " our team is down, chicago and pittsburg were down and they turned it around" is not a plan that instills confidence. How long can these teams persist on " we might turn it around, eventually ?"

By every available metric chicago is a better market long term than columbus . that isn't to say that it will always be a better market but over the long hall ( which I agree is based on predictions) I dont see that changing.

sandysan 01-04-2013 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jumptheshark (Post 57094327)
Would TO support a second team not called the leafs? People assume they wull--but in talking with people from the TO area and the erea in Onterio being mentioned--they say they are leaf fans and would not supporty another team.

Why not move the blues? Horrible attendance right now?

The answer is yes, they would support a second team. The team would likely instantaneously and persistently be top 5 in revenues.

I dont think that that toronto is monolithically behind the leafs, there are a lot of fans who are tired of their lack of success, there are a lot of transplants from other cities. Even the leafs fans ( not the leafs themselves) want another team because that is likely the only thing that might be able to reduce demand such that leafs tickets arent 25% more than the second most expensive team in the league.

I honestly cannot understand how anyone would question the viability of toronto 2. Would they be as profitable as the leafs, not initially and mabey never. Will they be another altanta or phoenix, no.

sandysan 01-04-2013 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 (Post 57094161)
I don't blame people for not showing up to Columbus games. The team has made the playoffs once... And they got swept.

Give them a halfway decent team and they'll get a following..

Drawing fans when things are good is not the sign of a good market. Drawing fans when things are good, not so good and bad, is.
having fans willing to suffer through the low times and not bolt ( so as to voice their displeasure to management) is what provides teams with a solid footing. I see this in many places, but not all.

If columbus' viability is pegged on them making the second round of the playoffs every year going forward, thats gonna be a tough road.

Mayor Bee 01-04-2013 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandysan (Post 57094747)
By every available metric chicago is a better market long term than columbus . that isn't to say that it will always be a better market but over the long hall ( which I agree is based on predictions) I dont see that changing.

I would hope that a metro area with four times the population and an extra 70 years of history with the NHL would be "a better long-term market".

Wingsfan2965* 01-04-2013 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandysan (Post 57094997)
Drawing fans when things are good is not the sign of a good market. Drawing fans when things are good, not so good and bad, is.
having fans willing to suffer through the low times and not bolt ( so as to voice their displeasure to management) is what provides teams with a solid footing. I see this in many places, but not all.

If columbus' viability is pegged on them making the second round of the playoffs every year going forward, thats gonna be a tough road.

Guess we should've moved Pittsburgh and Washington back in 2005.

You can't start a team off brand new, have them suck for 15 years, and still expect the fan base to grow. It takes a period of success to build a generation of lifelong fans who will stick around. If you want to get rid of every team that has had a down time in their fan base in the last 20 years, then let's get rid of everybody except the Canadian teams, Detroit, NYR, and Philly.

There are Southern markets that have shown they're willing to support their teams. Yes, it takes good years to start that, but if they're willing to show that they can grow into a hockey market, I have no problem with a part of my team's revenue going into upholding them until at some point, they're hopefully successful enough that they can uphold themselves.

There's teams like Nashville, Colorado, Dallas, and Tampa that have shown that. Phoenix, on the other hand, has shown that even when their team is successful, they still wont show up. That's unacceptable. Then you have Columbus, who has never been successful. I'm not willing to move them until I've seen the potential they have when they are. Unfortunately, they've been cursed with management that seems hell-bent on never ushering them into any era of success.

sandysan 01-04-2013 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayor Bee (Post 57095105)
I would hope that a metro area with four times the population and an extra 70 years of history with the NHL would be "a better long-term market".

then why the presumption that if chicago or the pens could do it then the jackets could ?

Could they ? sure. They could also go bust.

when I genuinely ask why it is people believe that columbus has the stuff to be a long term contributing member of the league, 90% of the responses invoke other teams and their successes. if people believe that they can make a go of it, why don't they want to implement performance metrics ? If you are so sure that columbus has the stuff to make it, then tell me when you think they will make it. you can put out any number you want. On these boards I've heard 50 years. But the majority of people never will because as each performance metric they fail to pass they all fall back on the same excuses " we have bad management, we are turning it around, we are a new market, the canadian teams are killing us by being good markets, we need more time".

If you think that the purpose of RS is to temporarily help struggling teams ( and thats my interpretation) you might be willing to say, ok fine but how much more time are you going to need. The answer is invariably simply " more".

sandysan 01-04-2013 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 (Post 57095419)
Guess we should've moved Pittsburgh and Washington back in 2005.

You can't start a team off brand new, have them suck for 15 years, and still expect the fan base to grow. It takes a period of success to build a generation of lifelong fans who will stick around. If you want to get rid of every team that has had a down time in their fan base in the last 20 years, then let's get rid of everybody except the Canadian teams, Detroit, NYR, and Philly.

There are Southern markets that have shown they're willing to support their teams. Yes, it takes good years to start that, but if they're willing to show that they can grow into a hockey market, I have no problem with a part of my team's revenue going into upholding them until at some point, they're hopefully successful enough that they can uphold themselves.

There's teams like Nashville, Colorado, Dallas, and Tampa that have shown that. Phoenix, on the other hand, has shown that even when their team is successful, they still wont show up. That's unacceptable. Then you have Columbus, who has never been successful. I'm not willing to move them until I've seen the potential they have when they are. Unfortunately, they've been cursed with management that seems hell-bent on never ushering them into any era of success.

I must be prescient because there are the exact excuses I predicted people would use.

Perhaps what the league should do is stack the cards, and subsidize the entire columbus roster off the cap to ensure that they are successful on the ice and then stop. Sort of a stress test for the team. You seems to think they could weather it, I've not seen any evidence to support this assertion.

so you are okay with your team propping them up, whats your cut off date ? its longer than 15 years, is it 25 ? is it 50 ?

for the people who think that columbus is a viable market, what precisely would have to happen for you to conclude your are wrong and the market is a bust ? Is there anything that could happen that you would reconsider the viability of a market ?

Wingsfan2965* 01-04-2013 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandysan (Post 57095651)
I must be prescient because there are the exact excuses I predicted people would use.

Perhaps what the league should do is stack the cards, and subsidize the entire columbus roster off the cap to ensure that they are successful on the ice and then stop. Sort of a stress test for the team. You seems to think they could weather it, I've not seen any evidence to support this assertion.

so you are okay with your team propping them up, whats your cut off date ? its longer than 15 years, is it 25 ? is it 50 ?

for the people who think that columbus is a viable market, what precisely would have to happen for you to conclude your are wrong and the market is a bust ? Is there anything that could happen that you would reconsider the viability of a market ?



Until they're as successful as Phoenix has been and still draw garbage numbers.

sandysan 01-04-2013 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 (Post 57095919)
[/b]

Until they're as successful as Phoenix has been and still draw garbage numbers.

Its not draw, its revenues. If Columbus wanted to draw more advertise your selling beer at cost and giving away a car between periods. you would literally be turning them away at the doors. But that does not translate into revenues which is what they need.

So the new metric of success is being marginally better off than an unmitigated disaster? Why not use Atlanta as the barometer? Since they went poof, if the team factually exists, it must mean that it is a success.

The way some people act reminds me of Jake blues staring down the barrel of a gun.

MoreOrr 01-04-2013 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DontToewzMeBro (Post 57089793)
Lets just say you turned

Columbus into Quebec City
(Sells out every night)

Phoenix into Seattle
Sells 85-90% every night

Panthers into Toronto x 2
(Sells out every night)


How much more money would the league make? HRR would be much better just by switching these 3 correct?

I'm answering your question rather than arguing your hypothetical:

Carolina, Tampa Bay, Nashville, and who knows about the Islanders in their new digs,... but 3 of them would replace the 3 teams you relocated, as revenues push higher and stretch to compete with increasing salaries cause those teams to be in very similar dire straits as the teams you first chose to relocate.

Mayor Bee 01-04-2013 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandysan (Post 57095651)
I must be prescient because there are the exact excuses I predicted people would use.

Perhaps what the league should do is stack the cards, and subsidize the entire columbus roster off the cap to ensure that they are successful on the ice and then stop. Sort of a stress test for the team. You seems to think they could weather it, I've not seen any evidence to support this assertion.

so you are okay with your team propping them up, whats your cut off date ? its longer than 15 years, is it 25 ? is it 50 ?

for the people who think that columbus is a viable market, what precisely would have to happen for you to conclude your are wrong and the market is a bust ? Is there anything that could happen that you would reconsider the viability of a market ?

MOD

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. When you personally are losing money due to the existence of Columbus (or any other team), feel free to play the white knight "saving" hockey. Until then, you don't have the slightest clue of what hockey (not just the NHL) in Columbus looks like.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:22 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.