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, and NHL revenues.

Ville de Québec Part VII: Si J'avais les ailes d'un ange

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-09-2012, 01:29 AM
  #176
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Yes, but there's a difference between a small Canadian market and a small NHL market. In terms of likely revenue generation, even smallish Quebec City and Winnipeg will probably bring in more than many significantly larger American markets
There is a difference between small market and small Canadian market. There's a difference between 2-sport, 1-sport, 3-sport, and 4-sport cities as well.

You need to have:
-- A population base that can support the team AND can afford to keep paying increased amounts year after year. (at least 30% every six years)
-- An arena that provides revenue streams equal to the rest of the league
-- A market that isn't oversaturated with sports teams.
-- Good ownership and management commited to winning and staying in the market.

In the 1990s, these things worked AGAINST markets like Winnipeg, Quebec, Minnesota, Hartford, Edmonton, Buffalo; because they did not have arenas capable of generating revenue streams from corporate dollars and the small market size reached diminishing returns when the small population had to pony up more and more dough to keep the team -- not competing, but merely -- alive.

NOW, with everyone having new arenas, with bad management in some places, with saturated sports markets (like, say, LeBron taking his talents to South Beach) in some places, with a salary cap, these factors work FOR places like Winnipeg and Quebec getting teams.

But that isn't to say what made Dallas the #4 valued team in hockey in 2006 wouldn't apply in Houston.

People talk about "The situation of TB, Florida, Phoenix, Atl and others" as if there's something wrong with the Tampa franchise that has multiple seasons averaging 20,000 fans and has their named etched on the Cup. Or Dallas selling over 98% of their tickets for 16 years (including a Cup winning season) until Hicks screwed it up has somehow been bad for the league.

Of course, the main difference between Dallas, Tampa and San Jose (all success stories) and Florida, Phoenix and Atlanta is: their arena leases.

Dallas co-owns their arena. Tampa operates their arena with a cushy lease. San Jose has a very cozy lease.

Houston? Well, an NHL franchise ALREADY has a favorable lease IN PLACE. Their owner (yes, there's only one guy who can own a Houston team) doesn't have the scratch to buy a team.

Houston would be a fine addition to the league if Les Alexander had the money for a franchise. Of course, if he sells his NHL rights to someone else and leases them the Toyota Center, their lease might suck.

But I don't understand why this turned into a "Quebec vs Houston" thing. The league isn't going to go to 31. It's either 30 or 32.

Long term, if the NHL ever hits 36 teams, you can bet that Quebec, Houston and Seattle are three of those six teams.

KevFu is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 12:38 PM
  #177
barneyg
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Of course, the main difference between Dallas, Tampa and San Jose (all success stories) and Florida, Phoenix and Atlanta is: their arena leases.

Dallas co-owns their arena. Tampa operates their arena with a cushy lease. San Jose has a very cozy lease.
I'm puzzled by the bolded sentence. I thought Florida had a great lease? Phoenix has had a great lease the past few years too, obviously we'll see what happens with the GJ deal.

As far as Dallas goes, if they're co-owners of the arena, that's actually a clear financial negative in today's NHL, as illustrated by the Devils' financial issues. The best financial deal would have them operate the arena like Pittsburgh or Nashville (or, I assume, Tampa?), but they wouldn't touch ownership with a 10-foot pole.

barneyg is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 12:45 PM
  #178
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
I'm puzzled by the bolded sentence. I thought Florida had a great lease? Phoenix has had a great lease the past few years too, obviously we'll see what happens with the GJ deal.

As far as Dallas goes, if they're co-owners of the arena, that's actually a clear financial negative in today's NHL, as illustrated by the Devils' financial issues. The best financial deal would have them operate the arena like Pittsburgh or Nashville (or, I assume, Tampa?), but they wouldn't touch ownership with a 10-foot pole.
Phoenix had a great lease? The Islanders didn't get any money from parking, but the Coyotes had to PAY the city for each car that parked at the arena.

KevFu is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 01:09 PM
  #179
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Uh.... no, sorry. It's not a sure bet. Even Winnipeg's not a sure bet. One successful year =/= guaranteed longtime stability. Who knows what'll happen once the new team smell wears off? Pretty logical assumption that they are in for the long haul, but not guaranteed.

Same for Quebec City. It's a fairly safe assumption that the Nordiques2.0 would be a successful franchise, but still an assumption. Perhaps a stronger one than Houston, but an assumption nonetheless.
Well we can say sure it's assumptions until they actually get there. But the Nords were a badly run franchise, they finished 5 years straight last of the whole NHL and they filled the place with people anyway!

Not to mention they're gonna have a brand new arena, not to mention it's a city that does well economically, not to mention you've seen a growing interest of hockey in the last few years. Plus they have a Media giant waiting for them. I would day that Quebec is the safest bet as far as NHL success in North America.

Quote:
And Houston would be good for the NHL just from the fact that it's a massive untapped market and would make for a sensible geographic rivalry for Dallas, which it's never had before.
It's a massive untapped market because of what, because there's a lot of people? How many of them are hockey fans? This goes back to the science-fiction notion of "growing the game". And you can find water from a cactus too. But I won't try finding out.

Quote:
Wow that's a lot of speculations there. Of course, it could all go to hell, but one would have to imagine that if it was intelligently run it would be a successful franchise, much like Dallas was before that went to hell when their old ownership overextended and bought Liverpool and suddenly found out that he didn't have the money necessary to run everything he was involved in.
Dallas has always been a well administred franchise as far as putting a good product on the ice, they've always had competitive teams yet look at the arena, people have stopped showing up. Going to the south is always risky.

Kimota is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 01:20 PM
  #180
barneyg
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Phoenix had a great lease? The Islanders didn't get any money from parking, but the Coyotes had to PAY the city for each car that parked at the arena.
1) Not for the past 2 years.
2) how about you address my points about Florida and Dallas?

barneyg is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 03:33 PM
  #181
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 28,676
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Well we can say sure it's assumptions until they actually get there. But the Nords were a badly run franchise, they finished 5 years straight last of the whole NHL and they filled the place with people anyway!

Not to mention they're gonna have a brand new arena, not to mention it's a city that does well economically, not to mention you've seen a growing interest of hockey in the last few years. Plus they have a Media giant waiting for them. I would day that Quebec is the safest bet as far as NHL success in North America.
Again, you're probably right. Quebec City is probably a good, safe choice for the NHL. But dismissing Houston while praising Quebec City is nonsensical, as both have their positives and negatives attached to them. Houston has less of a hockey culture and smaller proportion of fans of the sport than Quebec City, but it's also got a deeply entrenched and proven sports culture all around, has a huge number of people, and is a centerpiece of a major number of prominent corporations and access to huge amounts of corporate dollars beyond anything that Quebec City could expect in terms of numbers.

Quote:
It's a massive untapped market because of what, because there's a lot of people? How many of them are hockey fans? This goes back to the science-fiction notion of "growing the game". And you can find water from a cactus too. But I won't try finding out.

Dallas has always been a well administred franchise as far as putting a good product on the ice, they've always had competitive teams yet look at the arena, people have stopped showing up. Going to the south is always risky.
Uh... yeah, it's a massive untapped market because of it's size. Not really rocket science to say that. If a Houston NHL team were even remotely popular as a fringe sport down there, it'd likely bring in the type of revenue that Dallas had initially as well.

And what are you talking about in regards to Dallas? Fans stopped showing up because ownership screwed the pooch and the team stopped being competitive. From 2000 to 2009, Dallas was in the top half of the league in attendance, including several years in the top ten, and oftentimes above what several Canadian teams and more established northern American teams drew. It was only since 2009 that they've fallen off the deep end, and that coincided with the ownership ticking everyone off and the team being marked by mediocrity more than anything else.

If the Stars stay down where they are now regardless of what they do, then you might have a point. Until then though, we're just witnessing a team during it's down times, and plenty of non-Southern teams have had similar dry spells that are conveniently ignored once they return to relevancy.

No Fun Shogun is online now  
Old
11-09-2012, 04:36 PM
  #182
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
1) Not for the past 2 years.
2) how about you address my points about Florida and Dallas?
Well, Florida in general, I agree with:
I think the people migrating to Miami are single 18-24 year olds interest in fashion or booze; and the families migrating there are more "escaping Castro" than "escaping snow"

I think that, coupled with not having an NBA team, is what makes Tampa work better than Miami, despite being a smaller market.


As for Dallas, co-owning the arena isn't really an issue. They get all the HRR from the arena, just not the Basketball Related Revenue, and they split outside events.

Yes, it's less revenue than someone who owns both NBA/NHL franchises and the arena, but it's still better than most other NHL teams' situations because because even after splitting event revenue with the Mavericks, AAC is a go-to venue in a very large population center. That's better than someone who might get higher percentage of the revenues the arena generates, but has more venue competition or a smaller population to buy tickets to other events.


It's the same deal in Chicago.

KevFu is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 04:48 PM
  #183
Revo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 390
vCash: 500
@No Fun Shogun

I'm not aware of the details of the Dallas case, so the following may or may not apply to them, it's a general statement.



A given team's performances (short term anyway) isn't an «excuse» for too low attendances, even though it can be an explanation. The reason is simple, there cannot be 30 teams in the top 16. It wouldn't make for a very viable league to have the top 16 be profitable and the rest be at risk of bankruptcy.

For those teams (something along the lines of bandwagon fanbase, to wherever that may apply) to be a sure long term asset, they would need to have a significantly higher chance of being good than teams with more loyal fans, which also doesn't sound like a viable avenue to me.

Revo is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 05:35 PM
  #184
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 28,676
vCash: 1
Yeah, but it seems like when a southern team dips in attendance, the knives are taken out in anticipation of cutting them up for relocation regardless of circumstances. When a Chicago or a Boston or a Colorado or an Edmonton are in the bottom half of attendance though, or even bottom couple for several of them, the concept is much rarely brought up.

Dallas had been a stable franchise for years, a profitable one near the top at that, and it's only when their ownership screwed everything up by overextending with Liverpool that they sunk rapidly. Based on their own past history, one kind of have to assumes that so long as they're competitive (not saying gift them a Stanley Cup or that they need a Deroitesque playoff appearance streak) and ownership isn't clearly cutting corners with fans, they should be fine. If they get better and the fans don't come back, then yes.... Dallas might very well have entered the failed franchise category. But, much like New Jersey (who's problems are arena debt-related, not market- or fanbase-related), there's every expectation that a rebound is possible, if not likely.

No Fun Shogun is online now  
Old
11-09-2012, 05:41 PM
  #185
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
But, much like New Jersey (who's problems are arena debt-related, not market- or fanbase-related), there's every expectation that a rebound is possible, if not likely.
The Dallas and NJ situations are similar in that they also had a long run of success in the 90s and got old at the same time they had the business-related issues. Which added to it.


Also, it's weird how no one EVER mentions St. Louis, who was 26th in revenues in 2011, and remains south of 21 other franchises.

KevFu is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 05:48 PM
  #186
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 28,676
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
The Dallas and NJ situations are similar in that they also had a long run of success in the 90s and got old at the same time they had the business-related issues. Which added to it.


Also, it's weird how no one EVER mentions St. Louis, who was 26th in revenues in 2011, and remains south of 21 other franchises.
Tell that to Saskatoon a few decades ago.

No Fun Shogun is online now  
Old
11-10-2012, 03:10 AM
  #187
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Again, you're probably right. Quebec City is probably a good, safe choice for the NHL. But dismissing Houston while praising Quebec City is nonsensical, as both have their positives and negatives attached to them. Houston has less of a hockey culture and smaller proportion of fans of the sport than Quebec City, but it's also got a deeply entrenched and proven sports culture all around, has a huge number of people, and is a centerpiece of a major number of prominent corporations and access to huge amounts of corporate dollars beyond anything that Quebec City could expect in terms of numbers.
But people said this about Phoenix and Atlanta too that you're saying about Houton.



Quote:
Uh... yeah, it's a massive untapped market because of it's size. Not really rocket science to say that. If a Houston NHL team were even remotely popular as a fringe sport down there, it'd likely bring in the type of revenue that Dallas had initially as well.
It's a massive untapped market because there's a lot of people? That's it? What does this have to do with hockey though? Example abounds showing that going to a place with a lot of people doesn't mean they're gonna be interested. Especially in the south. It would be a huge risk.

Quote:
And what are you talking about in regards to Dallas? Fans stopped showing up because ownership screwed the pooch and the team stopped being competitive. From 2000 to 2009, Dallas was in the top half of the league in attendance, including several years in the top ten, and oftentimes above what several Canadian teams and more established northern American teams drew. It was only since 2009 that they've fallen off the deep end, and that coincided with the ownership ticking everyone off and the team being marked by mediocrity more than anything else.
First the attendance results given by the league are also questionable. There's been times in recent years that they said they certain numbers in certain places and you watch games on tv especially in Florida and New Jersey where it has been nowhere close than that.

And you're saying it took only three years to kill the crowd completly because of ownership issues? Ownership that ultimately never affected the team on the ice?

Quote:
If the Stars stay down where they are now regardless of what they do, then you might have a point. Until then though, we're just witnessing a team during it's down times, and plenty of non-Southern teams have had similar dry spells that are conveniently ignored once they return to relevancy.
Everybody has dry spells but the attendances of recent years feels worse than that. They had nobody in there last year even though they were fighting for a playoff spot. Most of the time if this dry place continues as worse as this we've seen teams going away like Minnesota for instance. The league endured and then they could not anymore. And it's hard to not connect Dallas with the rest of the Southern teams.

That being said, I hope they got out of that funk, and hope it's just a dry spell because it would be bad for the league if they do not succeed in Dallas.

In my opinion what's happening in Dallas has to do with the bad US economy and the fans will be back at some point.


Last edited by Kimota: 11-10-2012 at 03:26 AM.
Kimota is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 03:39 AM
  #188
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
But people said this about Phoenix and Atlanta too that you're saying about Houston.
And they said it about Dallas and San Jose. Dallas was straight up murdering revenues for 15 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
It's a massive untapped market because there's a lot of people? That's it? What does this have to do with hockey though? Example abounds showing that going to a place with a lot of people doesn't mean they're gonna be interested. Especially in the south. It would be a huge risk.
That argument is flawed… Because hockey is awesome. You know it, I know it. Why don't the people of the South know it? Well, it may be because when the NHL raised the minimum payroll $39 million from 2006 to 2011, teams had to cut their marketing budget.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
And you're saying it took only three years to kill the crowd completly because of ownership issues? Ownership that ultimately never affected the team on the ice?
He said three years. But I said (in another thread) it's virtually INSTANT.

It happened in Phoenix when they went into bankruptcy.
It happened in Buffalo when they went into bankruptcy.
It happened in Dallas when they went into bankruptcy.
And in all three cases, teams lost virtually the same in attendance (2500 to 3000 a game).

Nashville had rumors of a Hamilton/KC move just for a couple months in the summer. Their attendance dropped 100 people a night.
When New Jersey was rumored to be going to Nashville, their attendance declined… coming of a Stanley Cup win!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
And it's hard to not connect Dallas with the rest of the Southern teams.
By climate perhaps, certainly not by revenue. Dallas was killin' it for 16 years before the Hicks bankruptcy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
In my opinion what's happening in Dallas has to do with the bad US economy and the fans will be back at some point.
It's Bankruptcy + Cyclical Nature of Sports. US Economy doesn't have anything to do with it (if anything, it's the European economy because buying Liverpool made Hicks negligent on his Stars bills).

The average resident in Dallas doesn't follow this stuff on Business of Hockey message boards like you and I. People see the news that "the Stars" defaulted on $500 million in loans (that Hicks put in their name) and they think "Oh, they're gonna jack up the prices" and don't go.

KevFu is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 04:17 AM
  #189
Undertakerqc
Registered User
 
Undertakerqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
No way in hell Houston getting a team before Québec... with time it would become another failed southern market, like we have plenty in the NHL right now.


Last edited by Undertakerqc: 11-10-2012 at 12:15 PM.
Undertakerqc is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 07:03 AM
  #190
Shawa666
Registered User
 
Shawa666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Québec, Qc, Ca
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
That argument is flawed… Because hockey is awesome. You know it, I know it. Why don't the people of the South know it? Well, it may be because when the NHL raised the minimum payroll $39 million from 2006 to 2011, teams had to cut their marketing budget.
How about Mexico City?

Shawa666 is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 08:43 AM
  #191
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
And they said it about Dallas and San Jose. Dallas was straight up murdering revenues for 15 years.
Nobody ever said that for Dallas and San Jose. I remember the NHL wanted a team in San Jose for years and people were enthousiastic by their coming.

Quote:
That argument is flawed… Because hockey is awesome. You know it, I know it. Why don't the people of the South know it? Well, it may be because when the NHL raised the minimum payroll $39 million from 2006 to 2011, teams had to cut their marketing budget.
Or it's maybe it's not in their culture and they need a winning team to break even? It doesn't mean because Houston has a lot of people that they will like hockey. Going there is akin to closing your eyes and giving your money to whatever person tap you on the shoulder.

Quote:
He said three years. But I said (in another thread) it's virtually INSTANT.
Right.

Quote:
It happened in Phoenix when they went into bankruptcy.
It happened in Buffalo when they went into bankruptcy.
It happened in Dallas when they went into bankruptcy.
And in all three cases, teams lost virtually the same in attendance (2500 to 3000 a game).
Phoenix never had great crowds to begin with. Buffalo always had great crowds. Dallas is a matter of opinion that the low attendances were because of the owner.

Quote:
Nashville had rumors of a Hamilton/KC move just for a couple months in the summer. Their attendance dropped 100 people a night.
When New Jersey was rumored to be going to Nashville, their attendance declined… coming of a Stanley Cup win!
But it's not like Nashville were gangbusters before the sales rumour. Why do you think there were sales rumours to begin with? As for New Jersey, they never had great crowds.

Quote:
By climate perhaps, certainly not by revenue. Dallas was killin' it for 16 years before the Hicks bankruptcy.
I'm talking about attendances. Wich had nothing to do with ownership. Did Dallas stopped making moves during these three years, did they stopped getting players that demanded big dollars? Certainly not. So what's the connection with ownership. Did the people of Dallas read the journals and thought "Holly molley i'm not going the games because my owner is losing money!".

All I can see is that for only 3 years Dallas started sucking a little more than before and people left, along with the problem with the economy.


Quote:
It's Bankruptcy + Cyclical Nature of Sports. US Economy doesn't have anything to do with it (if anything, it's the European economy because buying Liverpool made Hicks negligent on his Stars bills).

The average resident in Dallas doesn't follow this stuff on Business of Hockey message boards like you and I. People see the news that "the Stars" defaulted on $500 million in loans (that Hicks put in their name) and they think "Oh, they're gonna jack up the prices" and don't go.
I see how little people there were in the arena and cannot imagine this just became a cyclical thing because it was pretty damn sudden. It's something far worse I think. It's a mix of apathy and the economy. Wich seeing all the empty seats in the US arenas, we cannot underestimate the bad economy as the cause. Same thing happened in Colorado and all over.


Last edited by Kimota: 11-10-2012 at 09:02 AM.
Kimota is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 03:21 PM
  #192
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 43,696
vCash: 500
Quick question. What kind of gravy is used in authentic poutine? Bird or beef? What should be combined with the drippings, in terms of vegetables, before creating the actual gravy?

__________________
This poster should not be taken seriously under any circumstances.
rt is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 03:53 PM
  #193
Jet
Moderator
Stand by your man
 
Jet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Whipanegg
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,418
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patofqc View Post
No way in hell Houston getting a team before Québec... with time it would become another failed southern market, like we have plenty in the NHL right now.
I am a STRONG supporter of the return of the NHL to QC, but I don't agree with this. Houston has a hockey tradition, and has built in rivalries ready to go. I think a team in Houston would strengthen the NHL markets already in place around it.

However, I do agree that Quebec should get a team first.

__________________
The Olympic Line
Jet is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 03:56 PM
  #194
Jet
Moderator
Stand by your man
 
Jet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Whipanegg
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,418
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Quick question. What kind of gravy is used in authentic poutine? Bird or beef? What should be combined with the drippings, in terms of vegetables, before creating the actual gravy?
I think that traditional poutine is beef gravy, but nowadays, there are so many kinds of poutine. We have a poutinerie here in Winnipeg that has a pretty big menu.

Go hog wild mmmmm pork gravy with swiss mushrooms and bacon!

Jet is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 04:01 PM
  #195
Jet
Moderator
Stand by your man
 
Jet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Whipanegg
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,418
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
People are overrating that stability. Quebec is still a small market and would be one of the smallest in the league. By definition, small markets are not stable. Also by definition, if the Quebec market was stable, the team would not have been in danger of relocation.

If the league shifts as Bettman hopes and predicts it will, and is working towards it becoming, from a gate driven league to a media revenue driven one, Quebec is at a disadvantage almost immediately. They'll fill their barn but if gate receipts are only 30% or so of actual team revenue, the relatively small size of the Quebec market will hamstring any effort by the new Nordiques team to be relevant in any way other than attendance.

In short: Every small market team or fan who wants an expansion into a small market wants to pretend they can be Green Bay, but frankly, that fails far more often than it works. There's a much greater risk of floppage in the Quebec market over the long term than Canadians want to admit. Especially as media revenue becomes an increasingly large piece of the HRR pie. Trying to pretend that the Quebec City media market can keep up with Boston, New York or Toronto is an exercise in delusion.
Bettman has been thinking and hoping this for 15 years. Sometimes when you are a pig you have to realize you are a pig, accept it, embrace it, and oink with all you got!

The NHL needs more revenue generating anchors in order to support the development of the sport in non traditional places. Most people here see it as "Either here OR there" I see it as "Here, to HELP grow there"

Jet is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 04:28 PM
  #196
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patofqc View Post
No way in hell Houston getting a team before Québec... with time it would become another failed southern market, like we have plenty in the NHL right now.
Yeah I agree, the league should wait until the teams in the south right themselves before adding another. Afterall at one time the southern cities that currently have teams must have seemed liked better options than the places down there that didn't get a team.

Confucius is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 09:01 PM
  #197
calmdown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Quick question. What kind of gravy is used in authentic poutine? Bird or beef? What should be combined with the drippings, in terms of vegetables, before creating the actual gravy?
I would say a mix of them (BBQ and hot chicken, plus brown gravy plus pepper sauce), but like Jet said it's just a matter of taste. If you like it, that's it Just for your inspiration, in New-York they even sell some Duck Confit Poutine http://offmetro.com/ny/2010/02/24/po...staurants-nyc/ but I can't tell that OT

calmdown is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 10:03 PM
  #198
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 5,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingKostitsyn View Post


Indeed. Recently launched TVAsports is pretty much destined to show 82 Nordiques game. It would be pretty incredible with their rival RDS showing 82 Habs games.
How would that work when they played each other: Home team rules? Or would they both get to show the game in their own markets?

DyerMaker66 is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 11:53 PM
  #199
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Phoenix never had great crowds to begin with. Buffalo always had great crowds. Dallas is a matter of opinion that the low attendances were because of the owner.
The fact that all three teams that went into bankruptcy saw a 2500 to 3000 drop in attendance per game is statistically significant. That's a trend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
But it's not like Nashville were gangbusters before the sales rumour. Why do you think there were sales rumours to begin with? As for New Jersey, they never had great crowds.
The starting points are insignificant. The important thing is: In each case, the attendance went down. The fact that NJ went down AFTER WINNING THE CUP is borderline unprecedented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
I'm talking about attendances. Wich had nothing to do with ownership.
And I'm telling you that is a false. All of what I posted is evidence that off-ice ownership issues like bankruptcy and relocation rumors effect the gate negatively.

In virtually all cases. Exceptions include: The community essentially becomes the owners (Edmonton) or the team is tearing up the league after drafting the best player to come into the game in a long time (Pittsburgh).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
So what's the connection with ownership. Did the people of Dallas read the journals and thought "Holly molley i'm not going the games because my owner is losing money!".

All I can see is that for only 3 years Dallas started sucking a little more than before and people left, along with the problem with the economy.
No, people ANYWHERE across all sports see "Bankrupt Team" in the paper and think "They're going to suck AND jack up prices. Why go to a game?"

KevFu is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 12:39 AM
  #200
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 43,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
There's no proof that Houston would be great for the NHL though. It's still hockey fans' theories. You don't go into something with theories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calmdown View Post
I would say a mix of them (BBQ and hot chicken, plus brown gravy plus pepper sauce), but like Jet said it's just a matter of taste. If you like it, that's it Just for your inspiration, in New-York they even sell some Duck Confit Poutine http://offmetro.com/ny/2010/02/24/po...staurants-nyc/ but I can't tell that OT
The reason I ask is I've recently found a connection for same day, French style cheese curds. Obviously I can make my own steak fries. I'm known to both roast and smoke entire chickens on a semi regular basis and both my wife and mother are fond of making beef pot roasts. I can most certainly hang onto a bird carcass or two, and boil them (maybe one smoked carcass and one broiled) with some vegetables (standard onion, carrot, and celery) and water, combine with beef roast drippings their and accompanying vegetables(the same standard sort), and blend with flour. Certainly going to make an amzing gravy, but is that authentic, or anywhere near approaching? Maybe add too much pepper?

rt is offline  
Closed Thread

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 07:53 PM.

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.