The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Are Fans of Big Market Teams Annoyed At the Money-Losing Teams?
They must have been obscenely expensive, to justify how Winnipeg never hit 90% in a given year (ever) despite being in the playoffs and having some seriously exciting players.
If you have that information, I'd love to see it. Since I don't, and I know you don't, we have to work with what we have.
There also aren't enough games against "traditional" teams to pad Florida's numbers with. I can't imagine people coming down from Canada in October feeling ecstatic over seeing a three-game homestand against Carolina, Atlanta, and Tampa.
OK...just press pause whenever the Leafs or Habs are in town and see which jerseys largely outnumber the home crowd in the lower bowls (ie: the ones that purchased the more expensive tickets) if you're still not convinced.
Want to adjust those numbers for tickets that were actually paid for? Going and paying to go are entirely different things. See Phoenix's dollar bash promotion with $1 dogs and $1 beers along with giveaway tickets. Those old figures you've pulled up for Edmonton and most others are meaningless relics of a different time. Entirely different set of circumstances that will never again exist, including corrupt owner, end of a 5 cup dynasty, low dollar, and huge public sector cuts by the government.
Might as well discuss the attendance numbers of the 1915 Toronto Maple Leafs while your at it. What? Bad numbers? Almost like all the men were away visiting Europe...
My point is that there are reasons for teams to suddenly have an attendance decline; in some cases a substantial one.
I'm not here simply to unload on certain teams. My point is that EVERY team in the last 30 years with the exception of four (NY Rangers, Philly, Toronto, Montreal) has had some type of circumstances that kept people away. It could be shady ownership. It could be the local economy. It could be years upon years of brutal hockey.
But my point is that there is a massive double standard. "Traditional" teams have hundreds of thousands of apologists who will bend over backwards and make excuses for Chicago having 62% attendance (2006-07), or Pittsburgh being under 12,000 (2003-04), or the Islanders averaging less than 75% overall for the last 22 years....but as soon as a "non-traditional" team has a downturn for any reason, it's because "it's not a hockey market". Excuses are made for every "traditional" team no matter how irrational it may be, but no such leeway is given for anyone else no matter how serious it may be.
That's what pisses off me and every other "non-traditional" fan. All we're asking is for people to at least be honest. I'm sick and tired of being told that I need to apologize for existing.
My point is that there are reasons for teams to suddenly have an attendance decline; in some cases a substantial one.
I'm not here simply to unload on certain teams. My point is that EVERY team in the last 30 years with the exception of four (NY Rangers, Philly, Toronto, Montreal) has had some type of circumstances that kept people away. It could be shady ownership. It could be the local economy. It could be years upon years of brutal hockey.
But my point is that there is a massive double standard. "Traditional" teams have hundreds of thousands of apologists who will bend over backwards and make excuses for Chicago having 62% attendance (2006-07), or Pittsburgh being under 12,000 (2003-04), or the Islanders averaging less than 75% overall for the last 22 years....but as soon as a "non-traditional" team has a downturn for any reason, it's because "it's not a hockey market". Excuses are made for every "traditional" team no matter how irrational it may be, but no such leeway is given for anyone else no matter how serious it may be.
That's what pisses off me and every other "non-traditional" fan.
How many years can a business lose 20 million + each year though? You've given examples of teams strugling financially for 2 or 3 years. Phoenix has been a financial disaster for 15 years.
There's a limit to how long you can exist in that situation. Ottawa, Pittsburgh Buffalo were able to turn it around. At some point Columbus, Anaheim, Florida etc. has to stop the bleeding.
How many years can a business lose 20 million + each year though? You've given examples of teams strugling financially for 2 or 3 years. Phoenix has been a financial disaster for 15 years.
There's a limit to how long you can exist in that situation. Ottawa, Pittsburgh Buffalo were able to turn it around. At some point Columbus, Anaheim, Florida etc. has to stop the bleeding.
So the solution is simply to cut and run? Why should all those other teams be given a chance, but no one else?
So the solution is simply to cut and run? Why should all those other teams be given a chance, but no one else?
How have Anaheim Florida and Columbus not been given a chance? If Ottawa lost that much money over 15 years the NHL would be a lot less forgiving than they were.
These teams are losing too much money over far too long. It's gets to be a point of no return.
There's no way the rich teams can be happy about no hockey being played again.
And yet Jeremy Jacobs of Boston is one of the "hawk" owners who orchestrated the lockout. Even if rich teams are making money, they can always make more by breaking the NHLPA.
Personally, I cannot see why the big market teams that are making money (and in some cases subsidizing the small market teams that are not making money) would bow down to that group of teams that are in trouble when it comes to labour negotiations. Why let a small group run the roost when you are far more powerful than they are? Or maybe it all comes down to the potential for increased profits because they figure that, if things change enough that the teams in trouble are helped, those teams that are already making money will make that much more of it.
Announced attendance is not the actual amount of butts in seats it's tickets distributed whether they were paid for or not or discounted or not. Hard to take those numbers even remotely serious when they announce stuff like that and you can clearly see 2/3's of the arena is empty.
And even selling out every game does not mean that a team is making a profit. If their lease deal is such that they are paying a ton of money to play in their building then they could still lose money, or make very little, despite selling out. Or if they have ridiculous staffing levels at every game and thus have high salary costs, that would eat into their profits no matter how many games they sell out. There are all kinds of other scenarios that could affect the bottom line regardless of how often a team sells out its building. Filling an arena simply does not mean that a team will be profitable.
Personally, I cannot see why the big market teams that are making money (and in some cases subsidizing the small market teams that are not making money) would bow down to that group of teams that are in trouble when it comes to labour negotiations. Why let a small group run the roost when you are far more powerful than they are? Or maybe it all comes down to the potential for increased profits because they figure that, if things change enough that the teams in trouble are helped, those teams that are already making money will make that much more of it.
If the owners can successfully negotiate a reduction in the players share of HRR, then big market teams will be able to increase their profit margins.
Again, where's all this profit? Attendance numbers mean zilch without a profit to show for it.
Every Canadian team (With the exception of Ottawa) has sold out every single game since the last lockout. Can you say that for any American team? Maybe the Rangers, but that's a big NO for every other team.
Perhaps you should explain how Ottawa (2.8M profit in 2012) and Calgary (1.1M profit) are putting up such meager profits despite being Canadian and selling out every game? Those numbers are quite negligible when talking about +100M revenues. In fact, they're smaller than some non-Original 6 American franchises like Colorado and Philadelphia.
Only four of the seven Canadian franchises were top-10 in total revenue last season (Calgary barely making 10th place). Winnipeg was 3rd last in the NHL in total revenue last season, only Phoenix and the Islanders had less. Even New Jersey, a team gushing in +150M of debt, is breaking even or maybe even making a slight profit from hockey operations.
Speaking of debt, in terms of debt/value ratio....three of the bottom 10 teams are Canadian. For reference, Phoenix is 10th best, Calgary and Toronto are the only Canadian teams in better standing when it comes to debt vs. worth.
I think using Chicago (one of the biggest and best markets in the entire league that just so happens to have been around since basically the beginning of the league) is laughable just saying.
I think using Chicago (one of the biggest and best markets in the entire league that just so happens to have been around since basically the beginning of the league) is laughable just saying.
Exactly. You can't leave Chicago no matter what. However, you can drop a Florida team and another California team and one in OHio without blinking.
Perhaps you should explain how Ottawa (2.8M profit in 2012) and Calgary (1.1M profit) are putting up such meager profits despite being Canadian and selling out every game? Those numbers are quite negligible when talking about +100M revenues. In fact, they're smaller than some non-Original 6 American franchises like Colorado and Philadelphia.
Only four of the seven Canadian franchises were top-10 in total revenue last season (Calgary barely making 10th place). Winnipeg was 3rd last in the NHL in total revenue last season, only Phoenix and the Islanders had less. Even New Jersey, a team gushing in +150M of debt, is breaking even or maybe even making a slight profit from hockey operations.
Speaking of debt, in terms of debt/value ratio....three of the bottom 10 teams are Canadian. For reference, Phoenix is 10th best, Calgary and Toronto are the only Canadian teams in better standing when it comes to debt vs. worth.
Hmmmmm I wonder why the owners locked out the players........
But my point is that there is a massive double standard. "Traditional" teams have hundreds of thousands of apologists who will bend over backwards and make excuses for Chicago having 62% attendance (2006-07), or Pittsburgh being under 12,000 (2003-04), or the Islanders averaging less than 75% overall for the last 22 years....but as soon as a "non-traditional" team has a downturn for any reason, it's because "it's not a hockey market". Excuses are made for every "traditional" team no matter how irrational it may be, but no such leeway is given for anyone else no matter how serious it may be.
That's what pisses off me and every other "non-traditional" fan. All we're asking is for people to at least be honest. I'm sick and tired of being told that I need to apologize for existing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by veganhunter
I think using Chicago (one of the biggest and best markets in the entire league that just so happens to have been around since basically the beginning of the league) is laughable just saying.
It pisses me off when the owner of a poor team offers a $100M dollar contract just before crying to Bettman to force a lock out on the greedy players.
Finally someone else who thinks the same thing as me. I said it before and I will say it again. Craig Leipold is a hypocrite for agreeing to let Chuck Fletcher sign both Zach Parise and Ryan Suter to those 13 year, $98 million contracts and the next week complain about players making too much money.
Of course, you'll go back to when the Canadian dollar was worthless. Stop with these 100% irrelevant statistics. The last 7 years, and only the last 7 years (As the Canadian dollar will NEVER reach that low again) are what matters.
Teams that have sold out every single home game for the past 7 years:
Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver
Teams that have sold out every single home game since relocation from a failing market:
Winnipeg
Just keep ignoring the facts, bud. Yes, I DID seriously say Saskatoon. I guarantee you that a franchise in Saskatoon would sell out every single game for a very long time. They could easily accomplish what Winnipeg STH's accomplished. A building the size of (or slightly bigger than) Winnipeg's would be very viable in Saskatoon. Disagree? Just look at what the Roughriders accomplish in Regina. Fans travel from all over the province to see every Riders game; 60,000+ fans, in fact. Also note that Saskatchewan is about to hit a MAJOR oil boom. Saskatoon has already had a major population increase, and is expected to continue to do that for quite a while.
You can't use Roughriders statistics for this, totally differet situation. Not only are their tickets cheaper, there's like what, 8-10 home games a season? Also considering that a lot of fans come from a few hours out in the summer, you can't guarantee them doing that for 41 home games in the middle of a prarie winter, it just wouldn't happen, Saskatoon can't support an NHL team right now.
Nashville is a better market than Saskatoon right now, IMO. I guess the NHL should've ditched Nashville, Pittsburgh, Washington, Boston and Chicago during their lean years, eh?
I hate how some of my country men think anywhere in Canada>USA. Nashville's going to continue to grow, and so will some of the other Southern markets.
a semi-trained monkey could own a team in new york, and get 18k out a population of 20 mil + / - to sell out the garden. fickle fans in this market are masked by the huge population. smaller cities don't have this luxury. so when the correlation between on ice success and fan support is exposed, you get pompous fans piling on. as a fan of a small market team, i don't give 2 ****s if big market fans are annoyed.
