HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-08-2012, 01:04 PM
  #201
Shwag33
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckschmuck View Post
I have no hate for those who buy tickets. They like the product so they buy into it.

Again, it is what it is. I did not miss the point.


I think you did, you're complaining that you cant go see a NHL hockey game in your town for $50 bucks. Well because there are people willing to pay much more than that, they are the reason the tickets are that high.

Shwag33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 01:07 PM
  #202
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
So you can see how letting more teams cut into the big market territory helps everyone. Supply and demand, problem solved.
Yes, it would certainly make sense if southern Ontario had another team. But somehow people need to find a way to force MLSE to let it happen. And also the Islanders need to find a way to get competitive again on Long Island.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 01:07 PM
  #203
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 7,231
vCash: 500
I have no problem with the Sunblelt expansion but I do have a problem with their being almost 1/3 of the league down there when there's other markets crying for NHL hockey. The sunbelt expansion didn't completely fail but it was too much too fast. They're are people in Québec and Hamilton, Markham...etc waiting to sell out arenas at top dollar and the league clings to Phoenix like its the last franchise on earth when they're losing 10's of millions a year after 16 years in the league. That annoys me.

The NHL is the only major sports league that for whatever reason doesn't cater to its top supporters. From a business standpoint this is completely backwards. What successful business succeeds by attempting to shove their product down the throat of people who genuinely don't care rather than appease the people who are absolutely rabid about your product.

MessierII is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 01:14 PM
  #204
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by czwalga View Post
I think you did, you're complaining that you cant go see a NHL hockey game in your town for $50 bucks. Well because there are people willing to pay much more than that, they are the reason the tickets are that high.
Oh, FFS. Do you need reading comprehension 101? For the last time, I AM NOT COMPLAINING. Do you need me to repeat it again for you? You probably do, so here I go: I AM NOT COMPLAINING. They pay what they pay, as do I. It's what happens when you have strong markets and piss-poor markets in a league. Simple fact of life.

It is what it is, until something drastic changes it.

Puckschmuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 01:15 PM
  #205
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 44,056
vCash: 500
quebec lost its team. it was not taken away. right? they have not had an nhl level arena for all or most of the time since. is a new arena up yet? i heard something about maybe building one. iirc the pittsburgh penguins were to the point of exploring other market options if pittsburgh didnt pony up for a new arena and the same situation exists on long island. its not singular to quebec.

minnesota lost its nhl team to dallas. it was not taken away. minnesota decided they wanted an nhl team and put the proper package together and got one. losing a team doesnt mean its forever, but it does require the right work.

txpd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 01:23 PM
  #206
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Yes, it would certainly make sense if southern Ontario had another team. But somehow people need to find a way to force MLSE to let it happen. And also the Islanders need to find a way to get competitive again on Long Island.
The league can put pressure on mlse. charge them 50 million per year for rev sharing, if they allow a 2nd team the ref sharing drops to 25 million apiece.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 01:26 PM
  #207
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
I have no problem with the Sunblelt expansion but I do have a problem with their being almost 1/3 of the league down there when there's other markets crying for NHL hockey. The sunbelt expansion didn't completely fail but it was too much too fast. They're are people in Québec and Hamilton, Markham...etc waiting to sell out arenas at top dollar and the league clings to Phoenix like its the last franchise on earth when they're losing 10's of millions a year after 16 years in the league. That annoys me.
It all has to do with what I'm sure you already know... Population dynamics.

Canada with 7 teams
- California, 3 teams and more population than the whole of Canada.
- Arizona and Colorado, 2 teams, and with a combined population equaling 1/3 of Canada.
- Florida, North Carolina, and Tennessee, 4 teams, and with a combined population greater than the whole of Canada.
- Texas, 1 team, but with a total population not very much less than the total population of Canada.

The numbers speak for themselves, or at least for why the NHL has made the effort to have representative teams in those places.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 01:27 PM
  #208
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
The league can put pressure on mlse. charge them 50 million per year for rev sharing, if they allow a 2nd team the ref sharing drops to 25 million apiece.
Sounds good!

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 01:27 PM
  #209
The Zetterberg Era
Moderator
RIP Octopi
 
The Zetterberg Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ft. Myers, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 23,639
vCash: 500
No, I am annoyed that the Big Market teams are not willing to share a little more. Yes some of these markets need to be gone (sorry Phoenix) but better revenue sharing could really help a lot of these markets.

The Zetterberg Era is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 01:36 PM
  #210
Faltorvo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13,775
vCash: 500
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.
What #s are you using as fact? Forbes best guesses?

I guess for me it's, are you comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges?

Creative accounting could answer some questions.

My first question would be, are we measuring total revs on just the 82 reg season games? Should we ignore the PO revs and how those skew the numbers?

Somehow i think thats not the case.

So apples and oranges really.

TV contracts have any say in total revs?

Show me the gates for each teams 41 home games and what those gates grossed and you will have a better sense of what is a healthy franchise.

I don't see how they can have the Jets at just 71m rev.

15,000 is a sell out, at a average of $82 a seat, second highest in the whole of Canada. Quick calc is 50m , just for the 41 home reg season dates.

I'm to believe that they only raked in 21m from every other source combined?


Last edited by Faltorvo: 10-08-2012 at 01:52 PM.
Faltorvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 01:41 PM
  #211
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWings19405 View Post
No, I am annoyed that the Big Market teams are not willing to share a little more. Yes some of these markets need to be gone (sorry Phoenix) but better revenue sharing could really help a lot of these markets.
I see no real problem with certain teams raking in huge profits, even after revenue sharing has been calculated in. If the League wants to more greatly cut into what it might see as tremendous revenue excess then, as some posters above were suggesting, the League can promote the dividing up of those markets with more teams in those areas.

What I have a problem with is a system of calculating the economic costs that all teams must participate in, but that doesn't realistically take into consideration the economic capability of a huge portion of the League's teams. A 30-team league should take the 'median' of what those 30 teams can afford to spend, Not the 'average', which in the case of the NHL is heavily skewed to the high side because a 1/5 of the League which can afford to pay out vastly more in salaries than what the rest of the League is capable of.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 01:43 PM
  #212
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 23,552
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
If it's not worth having to buy season tickets for 5 grand or more. It's certainly not worth moving for.

Nothing wrong wanting to see the game on a game by game basis for 50 bucks a game though.
Perhaps, but elaborate outlandish fantasies about some team that you don't care about somehow abruptly showing up in the GTA and dropping ticket prices won't actually make it easier for you to go see a game any more than my elaborate outlandish fantasies about Cam Atkinson somehow breaking Punch Broadbent's consecutive games with goals scored record will make us any more likely to win the Cup. Neither is particularly feasible, both are kind of silly when you think about it, and even if they did happen neither actually guarantees the desired fantasy results and in fact may have zero impact of significance on same.

__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards_____________________________
Joining The Battle as We Fight, We March With Us Carrying The Hardcore Hockey Flag All Out All Season 'cause you Gotta See It Ignite The Night Live at Jackets Time
Viqsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 01:45 PM
  #213
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 23,552
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I see no real problem with certain teams raking in huge profits, even after revenue sharing has been calculated in. If the League wants to more greatly cut into what it might see as tremendous revenue excess then, as some posters above were suggesting, the League can promote the dividing up of those markets with more teams in those areas.

What I have a problem with is a system of calculating the economic costs that all teams must participate in, but that doesn't realistically take into consideration the economic capability of a huge portion of the League's teams. A 30-team league should take the 'median' of what those 30 teams can afford to spend, Not the 'average', which in the case of the NHL is heavily skewed to the high side because a 1/5 of the League which can afford to pay out vastly more in salaries than what the rest of the League is capable of.
I think of it as simply put: if you're going to mandate a cap floor, put up enough revenue sharing cash to make it not be a suicide pact.

Viqsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 01:50 PM
  #214
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
I think of it as simply put: if you're going to mandate a cap floor, put up enough revenue sharing cash to make it not be a suicide pact.
Sounds reasonable to me, Viqsi. But I do firmly believe that a Cap Floor is necessary, and one that's reasonably in range of the Ceiling in order for teams to be able to stay competitive on-ice. But as you say, whatever that $ value is, it needs to be something that the great majority of the League is capable sustaining. The League can't be outcosting the potential of 1/2 of its members.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 01:55 PM
  #215
Faltorvo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Sounds reasonable to me, Viqsi. But I do firmly believe that a Cap Floor is necessary, and one that's reasonably in range of the Ceiling in order for teams to be able to stay competitive on-ice. But as you say, whatever that $ value is, it needs to be something that the great majority of the League is capable sustaining. The League can't be outcosting the potential of 1/2 of its members.
I agree we need a cap floor and more rev sharing needs to be done.

I don't agree tho that the floor has to be as close to the cap as it is, for competitive reasons.,

Faltorvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 02:00 PM
  #216
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faltorvo View Post
I agree we need a cap floor and more rev sharing needs to be done.

I don't agree tho that the floor has to be as close to the cap as it is, for competitive reasons.,
I would say that you argue that because you don't want the Cap Ceiling to be lower.

You can't reasonably argue that a significantly lower Cap Floor wouldn't make teams that need to reduce their spending to that level be less competitive. And whether those teams struggle economically now because they can't afford the Cap Floor, or whether they struggle economically latter because fans lose interest in a team that can't compete... It's all the same in the end.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 02:02 PM
  #217
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
KingsFan7824's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
The league can put pressure on mlse. charge them 50 million per year for rev sharing, if they allow a 2nd team the ref sharing drops to 25 million apiece.
Could the league do that? Something like that would have to be agreed to in a CBA right? I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't sound like it would work.

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 02:10 PM
  #218
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 7,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
It all has to do with what I'm sure you already know... Population dynamics.

Canada with 7 teams
- California, 3 teams and more population than the whole of Canada.
- Arizona and Colorado, 2 teams, and with a combined population equaling 1/3 of Canada.
- Florida, North Carolina, and Tennessee, 4 teams, and with a combined population greater than the whole of Canada.
- Texas, 1 team, but with a total population not very much less than the total population of Canada.

The numbers speak for themselves, or at least for why the NHL has made the effort to have representative teams in those places.
I'm aware of the population dynamics the thing is it clearly hasn't worked Phoenix has what 4.5 million people? They can't sell out a rink with the cheapest tickets and free purks and promotions. It doesn't matter if there's 4.5 million people in a city when you have maybe 25,000 hockey fans where as in Winnipeg you only have 700 000 people but probably 400 000 hockey fans. I get trying to reach those markets and its worked in some places look at San Jose. I just don't see why they went to San Jose, Anaheim, Dallas, Phoenix, Florida, Tampa Bay, Atlanta and Carolina all within a 8 year period. They overextended themselves and its now biting them in the behind.

One of the main reasons we have a lockout right now is because revenues have skyrocketed while the cap skyrockets hence the cap floor skyrockets and the teams losing money lose even more having to spend to the 50 million floor. It all comes back to the overextension during the sunbelt expansion.

MessierII is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 02:22 PM
  #219
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
Could the league do that? Something like that would have to be agreed to in a CBA right? I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't sound like it would work.
I don't see why they can't. How did they arrive at the 15 million dollar figure or whatever it is the Leafs currently pay. The 30 teams get together and vote, the highest revenue generating team must contribute x dollars. If there are two teams and they want to split the rev sharing commitment, fine. If the Leafs want to take it on, on their own, fine. Maybe in a few years the BofG votes again......

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 02:27 PM
  #220
Alexdaman
Ferret Lover/Master
 
Alexdaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Pominville, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,178
vCash: 50
I'm not annoyed with the small markets team it's just not their fault. But I'm annoyed with the way the league and obviously Bettman are doubling down on impossible markets such has Phoenix.

And also their lack of finding ways to promote the sport in the States by not striking tv contracts with ESPN.

Alexdaman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 02:47 PM
  #221
Gormo
Holupchi
 
Gormo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 1,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
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.
Dont be ridiculous, you have nothing to apologize for.

The main problem in markets that hemmorage money has never been the fans that they do have, its the fans that they dont have, and the resulting massive disparity in supply/demand for ticket prices this creates.

Gormo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 02:55 PM
  #222
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
KingsFan7824's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
I don't see why they can't. How did they arrive at the 15 million dollar figure or whatever it is the Leafs currently pay. The 30 teams get together and vote, the highest revenue generating team must contribute x dollars. If there are two teams and they want to split the rev sharing commitment, fine. If the Leafs want to take it on, on their own, fine. Maybe in a few years the BofG votes again......
I thought you meant the league single out Toronto for a higher amount of money, in order to pressure the ownership to let another team into the area. You mean all the owners get together and vote to make Toronto pay more. That would be interesting to see.

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 03:14 PM
  #223
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
I thought you meant the league single out Toronto for a higher amount of money, in order to pressure the ownership to let another team into the area. You mean all the owners get together and vote to make Toronto pay more. That would be interesting to see.
I'd think the league would have to address the problem by stating we need x number of dollars from s. Ontario X number from New York State, X number from B.C. etc. Then based on what teams are located in those areas and how much each team makes determines what their contribution to rev sharing should be. So if a team like the Leafs want all of S. Ontario for themselves they pay the price. Where as NY area may have 3 or 4 teams to share their contribution. If a team is in a profitable area but the team itself makes no profit maybe they don't pay into rev sharing but they receive no rev sharing as their location may not be the problem.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 03:35 PM
  #224
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Geographical Oddity
Country: United States
Posts: 10,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexdaman View Post
I'm not annoyed with the small markets team it's just not their fault. But I'm annoyed with the way the league and obviously Bettman are doubling down on impossible markets such has Phoenix.

And also their lack of finding ways to promote the sport in the States by not striking tv contracts with ESPN.
Coming out of the last lockout, ESPN offered the NHL 0 dollars to broadcast the NHL - that's ZERO dollars - fees to be paid only based on ratings, which we all know are miniscule in the US.

Do you think the NHLPA's actions (not approving NHL's final offer) resulting in the last lockout helped or hurt the NHL's value? They drove the ship right into the ground - making their TV product literally worthless on the US sports scene.

The NHL (& NHLPA) was just lucky that OLN / VS / NBCSN threw them a bone to get on any cable channel.

And it appears that the NHLPA is doing the EXACT same thing again, acting like they are more important than the game itself. If they are actually contemplating asking to get rid of the cap...?? what planet are they on?! - they're even dumber than I first thought.

Phx is a pretty big problem (I think they should move today to QC), but the NHLPA certainly hasn't helped the situation at all.

Butch 19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 03:36 PM
  #225
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,842
vCash: 500
Check out this link from another thread: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...nclick_check=1

Wonder if Fehr & players include the taxpayer sheep as part of the ownership? Over $100MM from taxpayers since 1997? Total sickness.

DuklaNation 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 12:00 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.