HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Are Fans of Big Market Teams Annoyed At the Money-Losing Teams?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-07-2012, 01:23 PM
  #76
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by veganhunter View Post
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.
If WWW were still alive, Chicago would STILL be struggling - and no way they would have won the Cup a few years ago.

At best they would be a playoff bubble team (hey, they were just this last year)

Butch 19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 01:25 PM
  #77
veganhunter
Mexico City Coyotes!
 
veganhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetalGodAOD View Post
I think you made his point.
What are you talking about lol Chicago is a proven market and a proven moneymaker that has been around since 1926 and had a downturn in attendance that in no way has any relative comparison to a team like Phoenix that has never turned a profit. Nobody is talking about teams that have had a few rough years they are talking about perpetual money loser who have never shown the ability to draw sellouts to Wednesday night regular season game ever or sell tickets at a sustainable price. If Phoenix for example was selling out games for years at reasonable ticket prices and then had a few years of horrible attendance it's a completely different story but that's not the case is it?

veganhunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 01:26 PM
  #78
Gotaf7
Registered User
 
Gotaf7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Winterpeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 553
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfroThunder396 View Post
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.
Better recheck your numbers!

Gotaf7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 01:28 PM
  #79
zytz
lumberjack
 
zytz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by veganhunter View Post
What are you talking about lol Chicago is a proven market and a proven moneymaker that has been around since 1926 and had a downturn in attendance that in no way has any relative comparison to a team like Phoenix that has never turned a profit. Nobody is talking about teams that have had a few rough years they are talking about perpetual money loser who have never shown the ability to draw sellouts to Wednesday night regular season game ever or sell tickets at a sustainable price. If Phoenix for example was selling out games for years at reasonable ticket prices and then had a few years of horrible attendance it's a completely different story but that's not the case is it?
leadership in Chicago claims they're still losing money.

zytz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 01:29 PM
  #80
mighty all the way
Registered User
 
mighty all the way's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
This thread is so biased. Every fan of the rich teams(except Pitt) say they don't like the poor teams, and all the poor team fans have to defend their team.

If we put all the teams in "solid hockey markets" how are you going to grow the game? If the league stopped caring or never cared about the "small hockey market" then Gretzky would never had gone to LA.

I already get tired of people saying "there's a lockout?" and saying things like they've never heard of hockey. If we try to grow the sport it will help in the LONG run. Why have a bunch of teams in Canada when there's 300 million people in the united states and most of them just need to experience the game and they'll be hooked.

mighty all the way is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 01:29 PM
  #81
Howard Beale
Registered User
 
Howard Beale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Airlines View Post
^ Your poor attempt at putting down the Canadian franchises is entirely invalid. The Canadian dollar was worth 50 cents US fifteen years ago. That will NEVER happen again. Today, the Canadian franchises are the only reason the NHL is a viable business. You could put a team in Yellowknife and it would sell out every night, plus turn a profit. Can't even say that for most major cities in the US.


Remind me again of all this profit the Preds are making

They signed Weber to the offer sheet because they had no other choice. The team wouldn't even be semi-competitive without him, and even fewer people would go to games.
Making absurd exaggerations doesn't help your case. Yellowknife has a population under 20,000.

The Canadian dollar never went below 60 cents, and was worth about 70 cents US fifteen years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Airlines View Post

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.
As fun as it must be to make guarantees about hypothetical situations that won't actually happen, it doesn't prove anything. So let's consider some of the actual facts you neglected to mention:

First off, the Saskatoon metropolitan area is about 260,000. That's about 1/3 of Winnipeg's market.

Also, it's much easier for fans to travel to a football game when there's only 9 home games and they're once every 2 weeks, almost entirely on weekends. Hockey has 41 home games a year, many of which will be on weekdays. A lot less people will consistently travel from afar for weeknight hockey games, than for a once-every-2-week football game on the weekend.

Additionally, you blatantly lied about the Riders' attendance. Average attendance this year is 32,772. Nowhere close to the 60,000+ you claimed. Don't use the words "in fact" when making a completely false statement.

http://stats.cfldb.ca/team/saskatchewan-roughriders/

Howard Beale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 01:29 PM
  #82
EpicGingy
Registered User
 
EpicGingy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,072
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfroThunder396 View Post
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.
lolwut? The team didn't even qualify for revenue sharing! Is it just because Bettman has a conspiracy to take away Winnipeg again?

That's likely

EpicGingy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 01:31 PM
  #83
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,663
vCash: 500
I have to say, hockey is the only sport where I see fans attacking each other in earnest over profit margins. Not attendance, not bandwagonism, but actual bottom-line profits that used to only matter to guys wearing monocles and diamond tie pins.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 01:38 PM
  #84
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by veganhunter View Post
What are you talking about lol Chicago is a proven market and a proven moneymaker that has been around since 1926 and had a downturn in attendance that in no way has any relative comparison to a team like Phoenix that has never turned a profit. Nobody is talking about teams that have had a few rough years they are talking about perpetual money loser who have never shown the ability to draw sellouts to Wednesday night regular season game ever or sell tickets at a sustainable price. If Phoenix for example was selling out games for years at reasonable ticket prices and then had a few years of horrible attendance it's a completely different story but that's not the case is it?
You managed to completely miss the point.

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 01:39 PM
  #85
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henrik To Daniel View Post
if it were up to me i would only have a league full of big market teams
So a modern-day Lake Wobegon?

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 01:40 PM
  #86
Angelus
Smile Time!
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Edmonton was under 80% for three years
.....almost twenty years ago and now sell out every game for a team that drafted 1st overall for consecutive years.

Quote:
and was saved by the NHL setting aside its own ownership rules to prevent a move to Houston.
Is there a source for this? I keep seeing this repeated here like it's gospel but nobody has been able to provide a valid source when I ask for proof that the NHL "set aside its ownership rules".

Quote:
In addition, the Canadian Assistance Plan subsidized the difference between the two currencies, and kept those two teams (plus Ottawa and Vancouver) at least kicking for a few more years.
How much subsidy did these teams receive and how is it comparable to teams who lose millions of dollars a season?

The EIG mostly broke even but did manage a profit a few times during their penny-pinching tenure so the comparison of the Canadian Assistance Plan to todays struggling hockey markets is kinda irrelevant.

Angelus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 01:42 PM
  #87
Ominous Grey
Registered User
 
Ominous Grey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 2,971
vCash: 500
I'm angry at the Council in Glendale and the league's insistence to keep that team. I also disagree with the strategy of creating so many "southern-expansion" teams. (Raleigh, Anaheim, Tampa Bay, Sunrise)

I can't help but think Glendale should've been cut years ago, and the league would be millions of dollars healthier for it. I think hockey in Phoenix has a chance to work, but it's time to move on for a good while.


All that said, I am certainly not upset with any of the fanbases, and I pray their teams don't leave. That wouldn't be right. I just think this idea of Bettman as a visionary is a crock of ****.

Ominous Grey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 01:44 PM
  #88
veganhunter
Mexico City Coyotes!
 
veganhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zytz View Post
leadership in Chicago claims they're still losing money.
So they claim right before right before a lockout......


Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty all the way View Post
This thread is so biased. Every fan of the rich teams(except Pitt) say they don't like the poor teams, and all the poor team fans have to defend their team.

If we put all the teams in "solid hockey markets" how are you going to grow the game? If the league stopped caring or never cared about the "small hockey market" then Gretzky would never had gone to LA.

I already get tired of people saying "there's a lockout?" and saying things like they've never heard of hockey. If we try to grow the sport it will help in the LONG run. Why have a bunch of teams in Canada when there's 300 million people in the united states and most of them just need to experience the game and they'll be hooked.

Bolded I don't think so.

I agree you have to grow the game some non traditional markets have been very successful and that's great for the game and I think we should continue to explore some new ones in the future.While some have shown almost 0 signs of life in there existence and I think there comes a point where you just gotta pull the plug. There is no reason why all the solid markets shouldn't have team though.

veganhunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 01:45 PM
  #89
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by veganhunter View Post
Hmmmmm I wonder why the owners locked out the players........

One of the best markets in the entire league....

That is not true and I'd love to see those #'s
Just go to www.forbes.com

It's a decent site for comparing this and that but the numbers have be taken with a big grain of salt. NHL teams do not open their books. Forbes does not have access to what teams are earning or losing or anything else for that matter. They make educated guesses and as with most US-based sites, they do it rather poorly.

To answer the question posed by the OP, I don't see why fans of big market teams should have much angst towards money-losing teams. The reality is that the majority of teams that are making money now, were losing money sometime in the past. Its kind of a hollow argument.

I also think the amount of teams that are really struggling are a lot less than what the average fan may believe. I count 3-4, total: Florida, Columbus, New York (Islanders), and Phoenix. Out of these, all but Phoenix are probably salvageable markets (some argue Phoenix is as well but I just don't see it. It was one of the weakest markets in the league before bankruptcy, let alone after three years of ownership troubles and a lockout).

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 01:56 PM
  #90
tsujimoto74
Registered User
 
tsujimoto74's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 8,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetalGodAOD View Post
How did Washington, Boston, and Pitts do when they were losing 5-10 years ago?
This is irrelevant because those are "good" markets.

tsujimoto74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 02:03 PM
  #91
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty all the way View Post
This thread is so biased. Every fan of the rich teams(except Pitt) say they don't like the poor teams, and all the poor team fans have to defend their team.

If we put all the teams in "solid hockey markets" how are you going to grow the game? If the league stopped caring or never cared about the "small hockey market" then Gretzky would never had gone to LA.

I already get tired of people saying "there's a lockout?" and saying things like they've never heard of hockey. If we try to grow the sport it will help in the LONG run. Why have a bunch of teams in Canada when there's 300 million people in the united states and most of them just need to experience the game and they'll be hooked.
And the equivalent to that statement would be... why have a bunch of teams in the Sunbelt when the people there would rather watch cars driving around in circles?

I know the "Grow the Game!" argument is popular among Sunbelt fans (for obvious reasons) but it is no less based in emotion than "Canadian Game!" argument that we so often around here. It is based in selfishness and entitlement rather than facts.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 02:07 PM
  #92
veganhunter
Mexico City Coyotes!
 
veganhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Just go to www.forbes.com

It's a decent site for comparing this and that but the numbers have be taken with a big grain of salt. NHL teams do not open their books. Forbes does not have access to what teams are earning or losing or anything else for that matter. They make educated guesses and as with most US-based sites, they do it rather poorly.

To answer the question posed by the OP, I don't see why fans of big market teams should have much angst towards money-losing teams. The reality is that the majority of teams that are making money now, were losing money sometime in the past. Its kind of a hollow argument.

I also think the amount of teams that are really struggling are a lot less than what the average fan may believe. I count 3-4, total: Florida, Columbus, New York (Islanders), and Phoenix. Out of these, all but Phoenix are probably salvageable markets (some argue Phoenix is as well but I just don't see it. It was one of the weakest markets in the league before bankruptcy, let alone after three years of ownership troubles and a lockout).
They used the numbers from Atlanta in the most recent one. The one that comes out for this year will be using the numbers from this year in Winnipeg.

They most definitely are salvageable especially Columbus (never really had a competitive team) and NYI (new building would do wonders). In Florida the team itself doesn't turn a profit but the owners do from other parts of the operation and Tampa does well so who knows I guess we will find out as their team improves. I agree that Phoenix is a lost cause though.

veganhunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 02:17 PM
  #93
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER
GO LEAFS GO
 
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfroThunder396 View Post
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.
I can't remember if this was among all 30 teams or just the Canadian teams but Winnipeg did rank #1 in terms of merchandise sold and it makes sense since their fans would want to purchase jerseys, hats, shirts and etc. So based on that fact alone there is no way Winnipeg could rank 3rd last in total revenue.

LEAFS FAN 4 EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 02:17 PM
  #94
veganhunter
Mexico City Coyotes!
 
veganhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsujimoto74 View Post
This is irrelevant because those are "good" markets.
No it's irrelevant because they sold out and turned profits in the past and they are again. Phoenix for example has never turned a profit in their existence where is the comparison there? If San Jose for example had a couple of years in the toilet attendance wise nobody would be saying it's a horrible market even though it's non traditional, nobody is clamouring for the NHL to move Dallas to Hamilton. It's not about traditional or non traditional or what is perceived as a "good" market or a "bad" market it's about markets that have proven they can work and markets that have proven they don't.

veganhunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 02:37 PM
  #95
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by veganhunter View Post
Phoenix for example has never turned a profit in their existence where is the comparison there?
You keep saying that. Do you have numbers to back it up?

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 03:17 PM
  #96
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
You keep saying that. Do you have numbers to back it up?
It's been stated in the media almost weekly since this whole soap opera began.


http://m.espn.go.com/nhl/story?storyId=4616786

It was revealed during their bankruptcy hearing in 09 since then they certainly haven't made money. They've been losing 25-35 million a year.

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 03:23 PM
  #97
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
It's been stated in the media almost weekly since this whole soap opera began.


http://m.espn.go.com/nhl/story?storyId=4616786

It was revealed during their bankruptcy hearing in 09 since then they certainly haven't made money. They've been losing 25-35 million a year.
Interesting - thanks!

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 03:23 PM
  #98
Islanderfan17
Registered User
 
Islanderfan17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sour Shoes View Post
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.
Thank you! My thoughts exactly

Islanderfan17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 03:25 PM
  #99
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sour Shoes View Post
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.
This isn't true at all.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 03:31 PM
  #100
BruinsBtn
HFBoards Sponsor
 
BruinsBtn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,543
vCash: 500
There are some wickedly hypocritical fans in Canada.

The last lockout saved Canadian franchises that 'couldn't compet and should be moved'. Now that Canada is rich on oil and fake housing-fuelled wealth, those same people aren't sticking up for the fans in the small-market US teams.

It's disgusting.

BruinsBtn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:58 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.