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, 03:37 PM
  #101
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 BruinsBtn View Post
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.
Prior to the 2004-2005 lockout the smaller Canadian markets such as Edmonton were still selling out, they just couldn't compete with the bigger market teams for signing UFA's. Today some markets such as Phoenix and Florida can't get people to attend their games, even though both those teams have had recent sucess making the Playoffs.

LEAFS FAN 4 EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 03:44 PM
  #102
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEAFS FAN 4 EVER View Post
Today some markets such as Phoenix and Florida can't get people to attend their games, even though both those teams have had recent sucess making the Playoffs.
Florida hasn't even played a single game since participating in their first playoff series since 2000.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 03:49 PM
  #103
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 tarheelhockey View Post
Florida hasn't even played a single game since participating in their first playoff series since 2000.
During the 2011-2012 regular season when it was obvious that they were finally going to make the Playoffs I still noticed a lot of empty seats at their home games. I have seen the argument that if the teams in the Southern United States are competitive it will get people out to watch their games and I didn't see that with the Panthers fans.

LEAFS FAN 4 EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 03:51 PM
  #104
Fordy
the kid signify
 
Fordy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 13,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEAFS FAN 4 EVER View Post
During the 2011-2012 regular season when it was obvious that they were finally going to make the Playoffs I still noticed a lot of empty seats at their home games. I have seen the argument that if the teams in the Southern United States are competitive it will get people out to watch their games and I didn't see that with the Panthers fans.
This might be a shocker to you but it can take more than a month for a team to start selling out.

Fordy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 03:51 PM
  #105
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
More annoyed at the owners and league for placing teams in locations where it would be difficult to consistently draw enough fans. Lets take Atlanta for example, there just isnt enough interest there (unless the team was a constant winner) and they should have known that prior to their selection. Also, more annoyed at the boring brand of hockey we have today. If the game had more offense and physical play, it would be easier to have an entertaining product. Most games are done by the 2nd period. In other sports, its easier to come from behind.

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 03:52 PM
  #106
Jigger77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,940
vCash: 500
Short answer, yes. But saddened is probably a better word than annoyed in my case. I miss the old NHL a lot.

But it's not because of this lockout. This just brings it to the forefront for me.

For me there is the NHL before Quebec and Winnipeg were moved (and to a degree before Gretzky was traded but I was pretty young then) and the NHL now. I have never really felt the same about hockey since then. I've kept watching and following, but it's never really been the same. Also coincides with Roy being traded from the Habs, so being a Habs fan who is old enough to have lived through that might have a lot to do with it too.

I don't like NHL hockey with empty arenas. I find watching games against teams where the arenas are empty (or filled with Habs fans which happens a lot in the East) is extremely boring compared to watching a game against Toronto, Boston or back in the day, Quebec. And watching Tampa Bay win the cup and have half as many people in the streets celebrating as there were in the losing city Calgary never sat well with me either. Just like I don't truly "get" basketball, baseball and football, I find people in those cities don't and never will really "get" what hockey truly is really about.

Call me bitter, call me what you want, I hate the expansion and I hate Gary Bettman. For me hockey was never about revenue and growth. It was just a part of life. What team you are a fan of in the NHL is part of your identity up here.


Last edited by Jigger77: 10-07-2012 at 04:00 PM.
Jigger77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:00 PM
  #107
Rob
Registered User
 
Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,946
vCash: 500
I am mad at the rich owners too. If they agreed to more revenue sharing we would be playing hockey right now.

Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:07 PM
  #108
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
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.
I think they're thinly veiled attacks on a certain group of fans & teams by another group of fans & teams from a certain country that hasn't won a championship in 20 years.

"Look how much money we're spending and how much we looooove hockey, we're literally supporting the entire league - we (at least one of us!) DESERVE to win!"

Butch 19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:08 PM
  #109
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruinsBtn View Post
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.
That doesn't apply at all to Montreal and Ottawa, and indirectly-at-best applies to Toronto and Vancouver...

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:10 PM
  #110
Roof Daddy
Registered User
 
Roof Daddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,314
vCash: 500
As a fan of a team in the middle (I believe the Oil were ranked 15th in the last Forbes list, turning a profit of 8 million), I'm fine with a season long lockout if it can level the playing field. I remember going to games in the early-mid 90's and seeing only 9-10,000 in Northlands at the time of a 67 cent Canadian dollar. Anyone who acts like we weren't in serious jeopardy of losing our franchise is either too young to remember or just plain ignorant. IIRC, Les Alexander was going to get the opportunity to buy and move the team to Houston if not for the EIG who were given every opportunity by the NHL to step up and save the Franchise. Even then it came down to the 11th hour, and had we not had the championship banners hanging from the rafters, it may not have been deemed as damaging to move the team and the Oil would be south of the border.

Heck, we had to have ticket drives just to get to 13,000 in order to qualify for the subsidy program, and a provincial lottery program just to break even/suffer minimal losses. Say what you will about "traditional" hockey markets, but when our team sold off its stars and the local economy was in a downturn, we were no different than PHX is currently. The fans of those markets deserve every chance to stabilize it as we did 15 years ago. How it gets resolved is the bigger speed bump, but it will take both parties making some concessions. The players 57 % share of revenues is higher than any other major NA sport, and should drop to about 52%. If the players accepted that 5% hit on the condition the entire 5% went to revenue sharing for non-profit teams (thus growing the game and increasing overall revenues), maybe we'd save the season. Just my 2 cents.

Roof Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:11 PM
  #111
Rob
Registered User
 
Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
I think they're thinly veiled attacks on a certain group of fans & teams by another group of fans & teams from a certain country that hasn't won a championship in 20 years.

"Look how much money we're spending and how much we looooove hockey, we're literally supporting the entire league - we (at least one of us!) DESERVE to win!"
Nope. We are mad because there is a lockout right now due in large part to the failings of teams in a certain region.

Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:11 PM
  #112
habitue*
 
habitue*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
It seems like Bettman really caters to them in these negotiations. There's no way the rich teams can behappy about no hockey being played again. They open their doors and make money. There are teams losing less money by not playing.

A lot of the teams losing the most money are teams Bettman brought in via expansion in the 90's. He can't have these teams fold. It will make him look like a huge failure.

The fact is, the reason revenues are up is because the Canadian dollar has skyrocketed since the last lockout, as well as big market teams like Chicago and Boston doing so much better and raking-in much more revenue.

The revenues aren't up because Columbus, Nashville, Florida, Anaheim are making more money. Nothing has changed for these teams at all.

This "Revenues are up" argument is a mirage. It's still about helping the same teams as it was 7 years ago.
90% true ! The Canadian dollar was like 70 cents in 2004-05 and now it is at par (slighltly stronger) than the US dollar. With Winnipeg coming aboard and all these Canadian arenas almost always 100% filled, it is normal taht the revenue figures jumped. The Habs and Molson never have never frozen the price of their tickets, beer, etc...And many other teams in Canada are like that.

habitue* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:12 PM
  #113
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roof Daddy View Post
As a fan of a team in the middle (I believe the Oil were ranked 15th in the last Forbes list, turning a profit of 8 million), I'm fine with a season long lockout if it can level the playing field. I remember going to games in the early-mid 90's and seeing only 9-10,000 in Northlandswitt the time of a 67 cent Canadian dollar. Anyone who acts like we weren't in serious jeopardy of losing our franchise is either too young to remember or just plain ignorant. IIRC, Les Alexander was going to get the opportunity to buy and move the team to Houston if not for the EIG who were given every opportunity by the NHL to step up and save the Franchise. Even then it came down to the 11th hour, and had we not had the championship banners hanging from the rafters, it may not have been deemed as damaging to move the team and the Oil would be south of the border.

Heck, we had to have ticket drives just to get to 13,000 in order to qualify for the subsidy program, and a provincial lottery program just to break even/suffer minimal losses. Say what you will about "traditional" hockey markets, but when our team sold off its stars and the local economy was in a downturn, we were no different than PHX is currently. The fans of those markets deserve every chance to stabilize it as we did 15 years ago. How it gets resolved is the bigger speed bump, but it will take both parties making some concessions. The players 57 % share of revenues is higher than any other major NA sport, and should drop to about 52%. If the players accepted that 5% hit on the condition the entire 5% went to revenue sharing for non-profit teams (thus growing the game and increasing overall revenues), maybe we'd save the season. Just my 2 cents.
I sortof agree with that (even though I'm a fan of, let's say, of the Top-3 healthiest franchises).

Only one thing though -- the NHL shouldn't act stubbornly where the game CLEARLY doesn't work. Phoenix is such a place. But it works, at least decently, in Nashville and Columbus (especially in Columbus, actually).

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:13 PM
  #114
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 6,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEAFS FAN 4 EVER View Post
During the 2011-2012 regular season when it was obvious that they were finally going to make the Playoffs I still noticed a lot of empty seats at their home games. I have seen the argument that if the teams in the Southern United States are competitive it will get people out to watch their games and I didn't see that with the Panthers fans.
It wasn't obvious until the very end of the season. Holy revisionist history batman!

bluesfan94 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:16 PM
  #115
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
It seems like Bettman really caters to them in these negotiations. There's no way the rich teams can behappy about no hockey being played again. They open their doors and make money. There are teams losing less money by not playing.

A lot of the teams losing the most money are teams Bettman brought in via expansion in the 90's. He can't have these teams fold. It will make him look like a huge failure.

The fact is, the reason revenues are up is because the Canadian dollar has skyrocketed since the last lockout, as well as big market teams like Chicago and Boston doing so much better and raking-in much more revenue.

The revenues aren't up because Columbus, Nashville, Florida, Anaheim are making more money. Nothing has changed for these teams at all.

This "Revenues are up" argument is a mirage. It's still about helping the same teams as it was 7 years ago.

How do you then explain that most of the hardest line owners in the lockout represent large market teams?

By all accounts, the most hawkish of them all is Boston's Jeremy Jacobs.

hmmm.... it's way too simplistic to blame the little guys. Look at the NHL Executive Committee- that's where you'll find the hard line owners. Jacobs, Ed Snider, Craig Leopold, Lou Lamoriello, Tim Leiweke

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:17 PM
  #116
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesfan94 View Post
It wasn't obvious until the very end of the season. Holy revisionist history batman!
Hey, they finished six points on the right side of the playoff line. Obviously, fans should have known in October how obvious it was going to be.

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:18 PM
  #117
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 6,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
How do you then explain that most of the hardest line owners in the lockout represent large market teams?

By all accounts, the most hawkish of them all is Boston's Jeremy Jacobs.

hmmm.... it's way too simplistic to blame the little guys. Look at the NHL Executive Committee- that's where you'll find the hard line owners. Jacobs, Ed Snider, Craig Leopold, Lou Lamoriello, Tim Leiweke
Lou Lam isn't the owner, but that's just nitpicking

bluesfan94 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:21 PM
  #118
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEAFS FAN 4 EVER View Post
During the 2011-2012 regular season when it was obvious that they were finally going to make the Playoffs I still noticed a lot of empty seats at their home games. I have seen the argument that if the teams in the Southern United States are competitive it will get people out to watch their games and I didn't see that with the Panthers fans.
Nice of you to give them such a reasonable timeframe.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:23 PM
  #119
Kloparren
Hth
 
Kloparren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
10 years ago, the teams in trouble were Edmonton, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and Ottawa.

Should the NHL have sat up and said, "The hell with them. They've had long enough, and if they're not profitable in the markets they're in, then they need to either move somewhere where they'll be profitable or else just go away"?
There is a difference between those teams and phx or fla or cbj. Those other teams had a fan base at least and earned profit at some point. These other ones though have never consistently been able to contribute and are losing money over the long term. At best they will break even within 10m. With the other ones at least u knew they could bounce back and were succesful at some point.

I'm a fan of a mid market team and I am tired of them and if they have to exist then fine but the floor better be so low that they arent relying on high amts of rev sharing. If fla is lising money then them going on an fa binge is ridiculous. cbj was spending more last yr than my own team.

Kloparren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:25 PM
  #120
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
There is a difference between those teams and phx or fla or cbj. Those other teams had a fan base at least and earned profit at some point. These other ones though have never consistently been able to contribute and are losing money over the long term. At best they will break even within 10m. With the other ones at least u knew they could bounce back and were succesful at some point.
So if we'd had this discussion back when the Red Wings (for instance) were a newer struggling team, you'd have voted for the axe?

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:26 PM
  #121
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
There is a difference between those teams and phx or fla or cbj. Those other teams had a fan base at least and earned profit at some point. These other ones though have never consistently been able to contribute and are losing money over the long term. At best they will break even within 10m. With the other ones at least u knew they could bounce back and were succesful at some point.

I'm a fan of a mid market team and I am tired of them and if they have to exist then fine but the floor better be so low that they arent relying on high amts of rev sharing. If fla is lising money then them going on an fa binge is ridiculous. cbj was spending more last yr than my own team.
The CBJ turned a profit every year until the last lockout, then turned a profit for the next couple of years as well.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:29 PM
  #122
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
A lot of the teams losing the most money are teams Bettman brought in via expansion in the 90's. He can't have these teams fold. It will make him look like a huge failure.
Winnipeg is doing quite well, actually.

Nashville is breaking even, last I heard.

If Minnesota is having financial problems, they've yet to hit the news.

Columbus has just had their finances restructured, and should be fine going forward.

What are you talking about again?

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:29 PM
  #123
candyman82
Registered User
 
candyman82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 2,387
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
There is a difference between those teams and phx or fla or cbj. Those other teams had a fan base at least and earned profit at some point. These other ones though have never consistently been able to contribute and are losing money over the long term. At best they will break even within 10m. With the other ones at least u knew they could bounce back and were succesful at some point.

I'm a fan of a mid market team and I am tired of them and if they have to exist then fine but the floor better be so low that they arent relying on high amts of rev sharing. If fla is lising money then them going on an fa binge is ridiculous. cbj was spending more last yr than my own team.
Florida went on that binge to hit the cap floor. The Jackets payed way more than they usually do, a gamble which did not pay off.

candyman82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:35 PM
  #124
kingpest19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
How do you then explain that most of the hardest line owners in the lockout represent large market teams?

By all accounts, the most hawkish of them all is Boston's Jeremy Jacobs.

hmmm.... it's way too simplistic to blame the little guys. Look at the NHL Executive Committee- that's where you'll find the hard line owners. Jacobs, Ed Snider, Craig Leopold, Lou Lamoriello, Tim Leiweke
Leiweke isn't an owner.

kingpest19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:45 PM
  #125
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpest19 View Post
Leiweke isn't an owner.
Nor is Lou Lam, but both represent their organizations on the executive committee. Phil Anschutz delegates this to him.

TaketheCannoli 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 02:22 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.