View Single Post
Old
11-08-2012, 11:19 AM
  #68
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 13,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
Why does Florida lose $7 million with revenues of $81 million, yet Columbus has operating losses of $13.7 million, with similar revenues? (based on Forbes' #'s). I'm really asking because I'm curious, not being a smart-ass.

Would revenue sharing actually do anything to remedy these discrepancies?
The biggest issue with the CBJ has been the arena lease. Without actually living here in central Ohio, it's difficult to capture the entire attitude of the local powers-that-be toward a possible NHL team in the last 20 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
The problem with Columbus is they are terrible, and have been terrible since they came into the league. That's no way to grow a market, I don't think the Canucks would draw well (they didn't in the late 90's) with that kind of team. So, you can keep throwing money at them but it isn't going to work, because it's a poorly run business. I wouldn't give them revenue sharing until they got their **** together.

When you put a terrible product on the ice for 20 years, you're going to lose money. If your owner cannot fund an NHL hockey team I feel bad for you, but that shouldn't qualify him for revenue sharing. Run your business bad, lose money, that's not "novice", that's the way the world works.

Then there would be no incentive for those teams to run a better business.
There is not anywhere close to enough incentive to actually pocket revenue sharing checks without improving the team on the ice. It can happen in MLB, NFL, and NBA simply because of the monstrous TV contracts, but in the NHL, there's still too heavy of a reliance on gate revenue to make this "take the money and run" scenario likely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
No expansion team wins in their first year. You need to look at the early CBJ attendance numbers. They were good. They haven't been good since the fanbase caught on to how badly hockeyops was run. Your argument completely overlooks their early success in attendance. This is very tiresome to hear arguments with faulty premises. The other issue is that there are only a handful of markets (mostly Canadian) that can sustain a poor hockeyops side to the org.
Doug MacLean also padded the attendance numbers in 2005-06 and 2006-07 to cover the fact that more and more people were staying away from the train wreck that he turned the franchise into. When Scott Howson arrived in 2007, one of the first things he did was ban that practice, so since then the only reported number is the actual number.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Why should a team be able to sustain when it's run poorly? What other business could I run poorly and expect to make money?
In a "normal business" atmosphere, market share in a growing industry is vital. If there are 30 plastic extruders in your area and one of them starts to flounder, should the other 29 care? Hell no; that's a greater market share to capture, and presumably a greater pool of qualified employees who will be back in the market in short order.

The NHL is not a "normal business" atmosphere. No North American closed professional league is a "normal business atmosphere". The markets are too spread out, and there's an emotional investment that precludes the idea of simply going to the best. If a plastic extruder closes, others who buy plastics from that now-closed plant are simply going to buy from elsewhere. If an NHL team goes away, there is no guarantee that those fans are going to follow another team, or ever follow another one even if it comes back. Sports is a luxury item.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote