HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Montreal Canadiens (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   31% of NHL ticket revenue from Canadian teams (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=520562)

Player 61 05-30-2008 01:55 PM

31% of NHL ticket revenue from Canadian teams
 
6 out of 30 teams accounts for 31%. Tell me why again that Bettman is blocking moves & expansion here...

link
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...es-canada.html

Habs10Habs 05-30-2008 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atwater Ghost (Post 14256046)
6 out of 30 teams accounts for 31%. Tell me why again that Bettman is blocking moves & expansion here...

link
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...es-canada.html


I knew the percentage was high, but not 31%.

Galchenyuk x 27 05-30-2008 02:00 PM

"let's expand more in the States...we need to to cathc up to that 31%" - Gary Buttman

:shakehead

i still dont understand what they are waiting for to come to Canada.

HabsoluteFate 05-30-2008 02:20 PM

It would also be interesting to see the percentage of revenues from TV Deals...

Mont Royale 05-30-2008 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atwater Ghost (Post 14256046)
6 out of 30 teams accounts for 31%. Tell me why again that Bettman is blocking moves & expansion here...

link
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...es-canada.html

Not sure if this is completely correct, but here's a theory: Without Canadian teams, the article says league revenues are increasing only 2%. More Canadian teams would mean more league-wide revenue, causing a salary cap increase of, say, 5-10% (as we've seen the last few years as the Cdn dollar appreciated). So, the majority of owners (the ones in the U.S.) are only growing revenue 2%, but can expect a much greater increase in costs by accepting Canadian teams. The Canadian owners either don't care about more Canadian teams, or are against it if one will be in their territory (Leafs). Bettman is taking his orders from the majority of owners.

AD 05-30-2008 03:10 PM

These numbers have to be slightly weighted down to take account for the 15% (or so) rise in the Canadian dollar.

Dan K 05-30-2008 03:16 PM

So if my rudimentary calculations are to be trusted...

6 Canadian teams of 30 = 20% of the league.

Them earning 31% of revenues would mean the average Canadian team makes 1.5 times the average American team in ticket revenues.

That doesn't sound that huge. But what drives the point home even further is that the 6 Canadian teams are in the top 7 overall of team per game ticket revenues, with only the NY Rangers sneaking in the middle.

The Canadiens are 2nd, by the way, to the Leafs, with an average of $1.7M per game to Toronto's $1.9M.

Habitant#1 05-30-2008 03:25 PM

The reason they want to expand in the US is that the Canadian market is almost saturated. Sure we could sustain a couple more teams, but if you can develop interest in hockey in the US, you have the potantial to make a lot more money.

The US is an opportunity for growth and is, ultimately, where the big money is.

Player 61 05-30-2008 03:28 PM

Original article with more data from The Star.

Link
http://www.thestar.com/Sports/Hockey/article/433906

David_99 05-30-2008 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Habitant#1 (Post 14256958)
The reason they want to expand in the US is that the Canadian market is almost saturated. Sure we could sustain a couple more teams, but if you can develop interest in hockey in the US, you have the potantial to make a lot more money.

The US is an opportunity for growth and is, ultimately, where the big money is.

I think they just over expanding in too short a time in the States. Florida is still struggling and they were added in the early 90s. San Jose, Tampa, Anaheim and Ottawa have all done well in that time. Returning to Minnesota was smart. Columbus was a nice surprise(despite on ice performance). Atlanta = big market but risky. Nashville was a mistake. We should have had a max of 28 teams by now, letting them find themselves before testing the risky markets.

Soundwave 05-30-2008 03:45 PM

The fact is also that the Oilers and Flames probably should be making a lot more revenue because they're playing in older buildings than a lot of US teams. They both should have new arenas in the next 5-10 years.

Transported Upstater 05-30-2008 03:53 PM

Jim Balsillie ruined it for himself. Not Bettman.

He tried to manipulate the whole process and pissed off a chunk of the league's ownership body. He never even made a formal offer for the Predators in the first place, either. He alone ****ed up.

He handled it like a spoiled hockey fan, not like a prospective big business owner. Don't blame Bettman for Balsillie's incompetence.

Habs8517 05-30-2008 03:56 PM

well now maybe the nhl will put more teams in canada
6 vs 24 doesnt sound right :rant:
oh and eat **** buttman :laugh:

Transported Upstater 05-30-2008 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Habs8517 (Post 14257261)
well now maybe the nhl will put more teams in canada
6 vs 24 doesnt sound right :rant:
oh and eat **** buttman :laugh:

Here's what would need to happen:

1) An American team would have to be willing to sell, and I can't think of many, if any, that would be willing to sell in the next 5 years unless a truly ridiculous offer was made.

2) A Canadian city would have to have the following in place:
- new arena, up to present-day NHL standards or better, complete with luxury boxes, etc
- strong corporate base
- many other factors

3) The proposal by the Canadian city would have to beat out American cities like Houston, Portland, Seattle, Kansas City and Las Vegas.

4) The remaining owners would have to vote on approving the sale to the Canadian owner in question (which they would likely do, IMO, if the owner went about the sale correctly and the business plan put forth by the prospective Canadian owner is sound.)

Transported Upstater 05-30-2008 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Habitant#1 (Post 14256958)
The reason they want to expand in the US is that the Canadian market is almost saturated. Sure we could sustain a couple more teams, but if you can develop interest in hockey in the US, you have the potantial to make a lot more money.

The US is an opportunity for growth and is, ultimately, where the big money is.

Bingo. We have at least 9 times the people that Canada does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David_99 (Post 14257171)
I think they just over expanding in too short a time in the States. Florida is still struggling and they were added in the early 90s. San Jose, Tampa, Anaheim and Ottawa have all done well in that time. Returning to Minnesota was smart. Columbus was a nice surprise(despite on ice performance). Atlanta = big market but risky. Nashville was a mistake. We should have had a max of 28 teams by now, letting them find themselves before testing the risky markets.

I don't disagree at all, really. Good post.

CorpseFX 05-30-2008 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Habitant#1 (Post 14256958)
The reason they want to expand in the US is that the Canadian market is almost saturated. Sure we could sustain a couple more teams, but if you can develop interest in hockey in the US, you have the potantial to make a lot more money.

The US is an opportunity for growth and is, ultimately, where the big money is.

would you rather have a stable league of Canadian teams with tons of economic uncertainty in the united states? or would rather have a solid economic base starting in Canada as your main revenue (where the dollar is stronger and will be for a long time)? the fact that the NHL doesnt build "safe" and is hoping for "growth", as you project, in the US (BULLCRAP) is a laugh - you have a moron running the league.

People who believe that the US is "untapped" dollars because there is more people is fooling themselves with romantic visions of some boardroom magically brainwashing the populace of the US. its never going to happen unless an ice age hits again and you somehow have the technical apparatus intact to distribute a hockey league. as of the present, you cant out compete NASCAR, NFL, MLB and the NBA so you build where your economic demographic is STRONG. it doesnt take a genius to figure that out. if you want a strong base for the NHL, you get all the Canadian dollars you can.

building on FAITH is for idiots.

David_99 05-30-2008 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CorpseFX (Post 14257561)
would you rather have a stable league of Canadian teams with tons of economic uncertainty in the united states? or would rather have a solid economic base starting in Canada as your main revenue (where the dollar is stronger and will be for a long time)? the fact that the NHL doesnt build "safe" and is hoping for "growth", as you project, in the US (BULLCRAP) - you have a moron running the league.

There's nothing wrong with 20-24 american teams. I just think a few were put in the wrong place. Seattle, Portland & Milwaukee would be great cities for the NHL (Whether Milwaukee could support the Bucks, Brewers and an NHL franchise, I can't say. You'd probably have a better idea).

How many players come from the "Tri-State area" of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota? This is a great area for hockey yet only 2 teams are currently in the area. (Winnipeg not too far away either)

Seattle and/or Portland would be a great presence on the west coast and a great rival for poor, lonely VanCity.

Instead of Houston, Las Vegas and Kansas City, the previously mentioned 3 cities should be heavily considered along with a couple Canadian locations. Hockey would boom. No more empty seats (Detroit's current state of attendance not withstanding)

Transported Upstater 05-30-2008 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CorpseFX (Post 14257561)
would you rather have a stable league of Canadian teams with tons of economic uncertainty in the united states? or would rather have a solid economic base starting in Canada as your main revenue (where the dollar is stronger and will be for a long time)? the fact that the NHL doesnt build "safe" and is hoping for "growth", as you project, in the US (BULLCRAP) is a laugh - you have a moron running the league.

Please don't tell me that you think Canada is recession-proof. :laugh:

Remember the days when your dollar was complete **** compared to ours? I think the Canadian dollar will settle in at about $0.90 USD long-term.

Quote:

People who believe that the US is "untapped" dollars because there is more people is fooling themselves with romantic visions of some boardroom magically brainwashing the populace of the US. its never going to happen unless an ice age hits again and you somehow have the technical apparatus intact to distribute a hockey league. as of the present, you cant out compete NASCAR, NFL, MLB and the NBA so you build where your economic demographic is STRONG. it doesnt take a genius to figure that out. if you want a strong base for the NHL, you get all the Canadian dollars you can.

building on FAITH is for idiots.
Stable league of Canadian teams? At most, Canada could add two long-term financially viable teams, IMO. Sounds like you're doing a bit of dreaming yourself, which is EXACTLY what you accuse us of doing.

Personally, I liked the league of 24 teams, with Canada having 8. But that's not going to happen because it's completely unrealistic, so stop letting emotion get in the way and think realistically.

Transported Upstater 05-30-2008 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David_99 (Post 14257689)
There's nothing wrong with 20-24 american teams. I just think a few were put in the wrong place. Seattle, Portland & Milwaukee would be great cities for the NHL (Whether Milwaukee could support the Bucks, Brewers and an NHL franchise, I can't say. You'd probably have a better idea).

How many players come from the "Tri-State area" of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota? This is a great area for hockey yet only 2 teams are currently in the area. (Winnipeg not too far away either)

Seattle and/or Portland would be a great presence on the west coast and a great rival for poor, lonely VanCity.

Instead of Houston, Las Vegas and Kansas City, the previously mentioned 3 cities should be heavily considered along with a couple Canadian locations. Hockey would boom. No more empty seats (Detroit's current state of attendance not withstanding)

Milwaukee would not be a good place for the NHL. Not to mention Chicago probably wouldn't be down with it.

Seattle and Portland, OTOH...would be good spots. Portland has better sports fans IMO, but Seattle's bigger and richer. If any team moves, and it goes to an American city, I want Seattle or Portland, no question.

Houston is the 4th biggest city in America, and it's easily bigger than any Canadian city not named Toronto. And there's TONS, TONS, of money in Houston. Do I think it would be a good spot for the NHL? Not necessarily. But it's definitely the type of place the league will think about.

Player 61 05-30-2008 04:51 PM

I was shocked to see just how much Phoenix is losing( more than 30 Millions!!!!) & I'm also disturbed to see Chicago on that list of bottom dwellers.

I know there are huge obstacles in Hamilton with Toronto/Buffalo claiming the territory, but you would have to think they would generate top 10 revenue. Quebec & Winnipeg just don't have the venue at the moment. Winnipeg's Arena is new, but they built it too small(whether or not it's expandable? I don't know).

David_99 05-30-2008 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transported Upstater (Post 14257758)
Milwaukee would not be a good place for the NHL.

No? I heard a lot of good things, but I guess not enough good things ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transported Upstater (Post 14257758)
Houston is the 4th biggest city in America, and it's easily bigger than any Canadian city not named Toronto. And there's TONS, TONS, of money in Houston. Do I think it would be a good spot for the NHL? Not particularly.

Yeah, I didn't say it but that's what I meant. If any team moved, I wouldn't mind a Nashville or Phoenix(though I know they are staying put) going to Houston. I know they like their hockey in Texas. It would be a tragedy though, if an Edmonton or Buffalo moved there.

Isn't Atlanta also one of the biggest cities? Hasn't helped them much lol

Transported Upstater 05-30-2008 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atwater Ghost (Post 14257770)
I was shocked to see just how much Phoenix is losing( more than 30 Millions!!!!) & I'm also disturbed to see Chicago on that list of bottom dwellers.

It's going to take years for Chicago to recover from having probably the second-worst owner in NHL history. Chicago is arguably the best sports city in America; they support their teams and have good hockey fans, believe me.

Phoenix can lose all the money they want, and nothing will happen. Why? Because if they move, they owe the arena people many hundreds of millions of dollars for breaking the arena lease, and that's not going to happen.

Quote:

I know there are huge obstacles in Hamilton with Toronto/Buffalo claiming the territory, but you would have to think they would generate top 10 revenue. Quebec & Winnipeg just don't have the venue at the moment. Winnipeg's Arena is new, but they built it too small(whether or not it's expandable? I don't know).
I'll be honest: there's no city in North America that I'd more like to see the NHL come to than Quebec. Look at my avatar for god sakes. But they have to have a new arena first before anything can move forward...and they also have to find a team willing to sell.

Winnipeg Arena is really the wrong size: It's too big for AHL hockey, but not what the NHL would be looking for in terms of a relocation site.

Transported Upstater 05-30-2008 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David_99 (Post 14257817)
No? I heard a lot of good things, but I guess not enough good things ;)

It's not big enough and doesn't really have the population base to draw from, IMO. Wisconsin is a NCAA and NFL state, and the rise of the Blackhawks should begin to re-solidify the Milwaukee area as pro-Hawks, IMO.

Quote:

Yeah, I didn't say it but that's what I meant. If any team moved, I wouldn't mind a Nashville or Phoenix(though I know they are staying put) going to Houston. I know they like their hockey in Texas. It would be a tragedy though, if an Edmonton or Buffalo moved there.
I was born and raised in Central New York. I said at the time, very clearly and repeatedly, that I'd rather see Buffalo and Pittsburgh keep their teams than have the Leafs win a Stanley Cup. And I meant every word. Both are terrific hockey cities.

I'm extremely happy that Katz is going to finally bring some well-deserved stability to the Edmonton ownership situation, and I expect nothing but bright futures for them ahead. Edmonton, of all places, losing an NHL team would have made the NHL a complete joke.

Quote:

Isn't Atlanta also one of the biggest cities? Hasn't helped them much lol
Atlanta's owners are cheap *******s that don't know how to run a team to save their lives, and possibly don't even care. Atlanta is one city that is steadily growing, and the corporate base is pretty solid and improving. Traffic is a nightmare, though...worst in the country per-capita, easily. :help:

Also, Atlanta is another team tied to their arena lease, so there's no prayer of them leaving, either.

Transported Upstater 05-30-2008 05:08 PM

Here are two references for American cities (I know, Wikipedia, lol.)

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population
This is strictly the size of the city proper, NOT the metro area.

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...opolitan_areas
This is the size of metro areas, which is enlightening, especially for cities like Miami which are outside of the downtown core almost entirely suburban sprawl, and are completely impossible to gauge if you look at the city proper.

Player 61 05-30-2008 05:10 PM

By no means would I really want to steal someones team(this is a last resort). I hated it when it happened to the Expo's. But, if they are serious about one more expansion to Las Vegas or Oklahoma City or Houston or where ever, one of those teams needs to be in Canada. Although I'm not exactly thrilled with a 32 team league.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 PM.

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.