View Single Post
Old
04-17-2013, 02:32 AM
  #85
DevilChuk*
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Actually, the sell-out reasoning works quite well. Involving the Devils and the Islanders here, we both know that the games would be sell-outs or close to them for those teams. Yet having them in the WC, then, makes up for all the other non-sellouts those two teams will have during the year. So yeah, it actually does make sense. But on a broader scale than one game.
I don't really get your point considering you really didn't say anything outright and that middle sentence doesn't make any sense at all to me. I think you're trying to say that the increased revenue generated by the game would help the Devils/Islanders 'cover-up' their otherwise lack of revenue from selling out all their other home games?

If that's the case, it absolutely makes zero sense considering the home team doesn't take a cent home from the gate sales for an outdoor game/Winter-classic. The NHL reimburses the home team the amount of money they typically make from a regular-season sellout and they keep the rest. There's no direct financial advantage in hosting such an event.

EDIT: This article on Puck Daddy talks about how revenue from the WC is split and I'd assume these outdoor events would follow the same model. Obviously both teams benefit financially from being in the game but more through merchandising than gate revenue (all goes to the league). The only financial incentive for a team to host such an event would be the increased revenue generated in the host city: http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puc...rn=nhl,wp22962


Last edited by DevilChuk*: 04-17-2013 at 02:44 AM.
DevilChuk* is offline