The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Interesting tidbit, it was the city that approached the developer several years ago about building the arena.
... huh. Interesting article. Frankly, I dont think thats a bad thing at all. Markham needs an anchor, a new City Centre if you will, and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that WITH an NHL franchise they'll be successful. Great idea & plan. Service the underserved northeastern sector of the city. Its not Rocket Science, and to my way of thinking, more than enough room (and money) to satiate the thirsts in both the Eastern & Western Sectors with Hamilton. Not a case of one or the other, gimme both. Im a lifelong Leaf fan, doesnt really mean a Hill of Beans to me either way, not about to swap allegiances. But for cryin out loud already; just get on with it. Cant wait to see us kick the snot out of these upstarts.
Markham arena: Bratty ‘hugely disappointed’ with reaction to project
Quote:
The letter said other GTA municipalities have approached Remington about similar projects but noted the company would not consider it anywhere except Markham.
Bratty added in the letter that Remington would continue to work with Markham council but noted it did not agree with tying up its lands for an “undefined period of time.”
When Graham Dewar, one of more than 100 residents at the lively meeting, asked whether that meant Remington was ready to pull out of the project, Peddigrew appeared noncommittal.
Councillor Colin Campbell said although Bratty has been a valuable developer for Markham, the project should not proceed further under the current funding formula.
“It’s just not there,” he said regarding enough city support. “The way I see it, Markham is taking all the risks. If we don’t get an NHL team, there are no rewards.”
Plans for an NHL-ready arena in Markham appeared to suffer a crucial setback this week as a city committee voted to merely receive a report on the site plan for the 20,000-seat, $325-million facility, rather than approve it or seek further information.
The matter will now go to a meeting in January that could potentially see the proposal put on ice once and for all.
Funny the Markham thread is full of Hamiltonians telling everyone that Markham has no chance. Then look in the Hamilton thread and not a single hater supporting Markham.
Funny the Markham thread is full of Hamiltonians telling everyone that Markham has no chance. Then look in the Hamilton thread and not a single hater supporting Markham.
I hope that crow in Hamilton tastes good.
i know someone that hasnt read the whole Hamilton thread......
Hamilton>Markham by default of atleast having a building to play in
wasteland this fantasy thread
And, in the NHL's mind, it's probably Seattle > Quebec City > Houston > Kansas City > Portland (#1 if Paul Allen's involved) > Hamilton > Markham, so it's a moot point regardless.
Funny the Markham thread is full of Hamiltonians telling everyone that Markham has no chance. Then look in the Hamilton thread and not a single hater supporting Markham.
I hope that crow in Hamilton tastes good.
This Hamiltonian is not doing what you claim. I'm linking articles pretty much without comment.
I like to follow this simply because another arena in southern Ontario has an affect on Hamilton's NHL's chances. Surely anyone can see that.
And, in the NHL's mind, it's probably Seattle > Quebec City > Houston > Kansas City > Portland (#1 if Paul Allen's involved) > Hamilton > Markham, so it's a moot point regardless.
could be, who knows what the braintrust at HQ is thinking. im wondering if bettman et al. have actually done a real comparative cost benefit analysis of this sort of thing and ranked markets. gates? tv? merch? sucker councils? yessir suitors? venues? there were some economic analyses done by the league and balsillie and presented during phoenix BK if i recall which both clearly demonstrated significant money was being left on the table in hamilton and differed only in the amount. so, are these other markets worth more than the hammer? surely if the owners are willing to lose tens, maybe hundreds, of millions during a poisoned lockout, they would presumably have a big-picture reason for similarly ignoring hamilton these past few years. is assuaging gary's hurt feelings worth forfeiting hamilton? ... and quebec? ... and winnipeg until last year? if these cashcow cities were south of 49 would they have been left at the alter for this long? or maybe its a complex revenue algorith too sophisticated for us rubes to understand? or maybe a few shakes of the magic eight ball? fortune cookies? chickens on a twister sheet? really, what is driving these contradictoray, puzzling and seemingly self-defeating decisions?
could be, who knows what the braintrust at HQ is thinking. im wondering if bettman et al. have actually done a real comparative cost benefit analysis of this sort of thing and ranked markets. gates? tv? merch? sucker councils? yessir suitors? venues? there were some economic analyses done by the league and balsillie and presented during phoenix BK if i recall which both clearly demonstrated significant money was being left on the table in hamilton and differed only in the amount. so, are these other markets worth more than the hammer? surely if the owners are willing to lose tens, maybe hundreds, of millions during a poisoned lockout, they would presumably have a big-picture reason for similarly ignoring hamilton these past few years. is assuaging gary's hurt feelings worth forfeiting hamilton? ... and quebec? ... and winnipeg until last year? if these cashcow cities were south of 49 would they have been left at the alter for this long? or maybe its a complex revenue algorith too sophisticated for us rubes to understand? or maybe a few shakes of the magic eight ball? fortune cookies? chickens on a twister sheet? really, what is driving these contradictoray, puzzling and seemingly self-defeating decisions?
could be, who knows what the braintrust at HQ is thinking. im wondering if bettman et al. have actually done a real comparative cost benefit analysis of this sort of thing and ranked markets. gates? tv? merch? sucker councils? yessir suitors? venues? there were some economic analyses done by the league and balsillie and presented during phoenix BK if i recall which both clearly demonstrated significant money was being left on the table in hamilton and differed only in the amount. so, are these other markets worth more than the hammer? surely if the owners are willing to lose tens, maybe hundreds, of millions during a poisoned lockout, they would presumably have a big-picture reason for similarly ignoring hamilton these past few years. is assuaging gary's hurt feelings worth forfeiting hamilton? ... and quebec? ... and winnipeg until last year? if these cashcow cities were south of 49 would they have been left at the alter for this long? or maybe its a complex revenue algorith too sophisticated for us rubes to understand? or maybe a few shakes of the magic eight ball? fortune cookies? chickens on a twister sheet? really, what is driving these contradictoray, puzzling and seemingly self-defeating decisions?
Part of the issue, which Bettman does have a point on is that when arenas get built they ask for significant upfront investments from the cities and for the league to leave a city early in the arena's life will make it harder for other deals in the future. Thats partly why you saw him make an effort to keep the team in Nashville where the arena was 10 years old when Balisille tried to buy the Preds and Phoenix where the arena is still only 9 years old. Atlanta was different because that arena was getting built for the Hawks regardless of the NHL coming or not.
The other issue is trying to grow the game and get more fans. He wrongly thought all you had to do was introduce southern fans to hockey and they will take up the game. It hasn't worked out that way
The other issue is trying to grow the game and get more fans. He wrongly thought all you had to do was introduce southern fans to hockey and they will take up the game. It hasn't worked out that way
to be fair he wasn't wrong in theory, it was the way the went about it, Whenever I talk to southerners they all love hockey once they see a game live the problem is a NHL team is expensive, tickets are expensive and so its hard to grow a fan base, Basically they tried to transplant a giant tree into an unknown environment and expected that because the tree did well elsewhere it would do fine there, what they should have done is taken a more long term view and put in minor league teams all through out the south and give it a few years and see which markets took to hockey and which ones didn't and then put in NHL teams.
If you look at the "successful" southern markets like Nashville and Tampa, their sucess has been recent but it took 10 years of struggling to get there, but what if instead of a NHL team struggling there they had put an AHL team there to help grow the hockey market so you instantly have an established local fan base
Markham taxpayers are furious about a survey the city approved to be sent out to assess public support of the controversial arena project.
After months of debate, discussion and numerous public meetings on the controversial NHL-size arena project in Markham, a select number of residents received an email survey this week on the $325-million project masked as a “consumer goods” questionnaire.
The survey, administered by AskingCanadians, asked three general questions on the 20,000-seat arena project that has consumed much of the city’s time since the financial framework was approved in April.
According to one Markham resident who took the survey, the three questions simply asked if they knew about the arena project; if there was support for an arena that would not increase taxes; and if residents would still support the project if it was funded through a mixture of public-private funds.
just on a matter of principle, i fully support cities conducting this sort of public opinion research. the cost of doing this isnt a lot, and its invaluable in the decision-making process to have some sense as to what the public thinks, rather than what you might assume they think. this one seems odd tho, dubious methodology, likely not commissioned by the city but by someone else yet to be determined, and it sounds a bit sketchy too. but yeah, if i were a councillor, i'd wanna know what people think about such an expensive project. i would hope my city would do more of this.
Last edited by GuelphStormer: 12-07-2012 at 04:58 PM.
just on a matter of principle, i fully support cities conducting this sort of public opinion research. the cost of doing this isnt a lot, and its invaluable in the decision-making process to have some sense as to what the public thinks, rather than what you might assume they think. this one seems odd tho, dubious methodology, likely not commissioned by the city but by someone else yet to be determined, and it sounds a bit sketchy too. but yeah, if i were a councillor, i'd wanna know what people think about such an expensive project. i would hope my city would do more of this.
Creative polling...
Question; What's the level of public support for (insert latest megaproject)?
Answer; What do you want it to be?
The guys behind the poll will probably promise that the arena can no more raise taxes than a man can have a baby.
And of course, they'll follow the hair-splitting technicalities of the Canadian Copyright Board when they wanted a copy tax on camera SD cards... It's not a tax, it's a levy. See, we didn't raise taxes.
If you look at the "successful" southern markets like Nashville and Tampa, their sucess has been recent but it took 10 years of struggling to get there, but what if instead of a NHL team struggling there they had put an AHL team there to help grow the hockey market so you instantly have an established local fan base
Nashville and the Tampa area had minor league teams as far back as the 1960s and 70s. In most cases, they were held back by the size of available facilities.
