View Single Post
07-31-2013, 05:54 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,334
vCash: 500
Just discussing the other side of the coin...
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
I think it depends on the club. You choose Toronto... What about a team like LA, or Carolina? The gate likely covers at least 60% of most teams income.
Who knows, exactly? We can only go by Forbes estimates, unless there are others that share their reports publicly. The best data I can give is from this report from
Of course, ticket sales form a big chunk of the hockey-related revenues that owners and players are currently fighting over. Earlier this year, the Toronto Star received leaked financial data and found that ticket revenues totaled US$1.2 billion for the 2010-11 season, or about 41 per cent of overall revenues, assuming a reported $2.9 billion intake.
And that's before the new US TV deal, as well as a couple of local TV deals and a massive sponsorship deal over the past few years.

The point here is that a CBA is negotiated so that teams must spend to a percentage of League-wide revenue that there are many other ways to increase that, but as you mention, if the product isn't supported because of horrible business decisions (see "Dollar Bill" Wirtz, or better yet, the Atlanta Spirit Group), it poses a very large problem.

Regarding my take on rivalries:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
That's because Philly has a massive rivalry with both of those teams. As a Pens fan, my ideal trip to make for a hockey game would be a home and home in Philly and Pittsburgh to watch a pair of games. Or games 2 & 3 (or 4 & 5) in the playoffs. Neither teams want to lose those games, and as a fan, I want to see those games. Same goes for Edmonton and Calgary and countless others. Yes new rivalries will be born... but there's no reason to lose the ones you already have.
Of course there isn't. Because those teams with numerous rivals don't want to lose the passion of their fans, specifically because it can help their revenues.
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Those anchor teams, also have a long standing history, and a very solid group of hockey following and supporting fans. They also have success on the ice. What would happen if Columbus could put forth a competitive team and make the playoffs for 10 straight years while occasionally going deep? Their fan support and thus their revenue and value would see a marketable improvement.
The flipside is if you can't get rivals and are perenially bad (Columbus, Florida, Tampa Bay to a point recently) then you see what happens. Columbus was dealt a bad hand from the get-go, originally slated to be in the Eastern Conference for a few years, until unseated by the Leafs. Leafs revenues go up and up and up; Columbus can't get anything generated, and both teams have had similar standings.

You need to fix the alignment so there is a chance at better rivalries for perennial bottom-dwellers.
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Some teams will undoubtedly have issues. If you can't fill the building, and sell tickets at a decent price, then perhaps this isn't the league/location for you. But most teams have the chance to be successful... as long as things go right for them.
And that's my point. This year, the "relocation crowd" is clamoring to move the low revenue teams (except the Blues for some reason). Move those low-revenue teams and there will be a new call from the "relocation crowd" for a new set of revenue bottom-dwellers.

The funny part is directly after the 2005 lockout, those low-revenue teams were Chicago, Washington and Pittsburgh. The pro-relocation crowd hardly talked about them. A couple loaded drafts later, they're leading their conferences and doing well in revenue.

Grudy0 is offline