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.

Successful teams that might lose fans/money if they struggle on the ice too long

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-05-2012, 01:51 PM
  #26
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishhead View Post
Nah. The Kings won, and it's LA. Season ticket sales had to be cut off already (sold over 15K) and that's not taking into account partial ticket holders. There are only 2,500 available to the public per game, and they will have no issue selling those. The Kings will consistently sell out until the wheels fall off.
Southern California sports fans only show up when a team is trendy - for ALL sports. Sadly, It doesn't take the wheels falling off, it just takes not being the dominant "in" thing.

Ducks DVM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 02:51 PM
  #27
Colin226
NJ Devils STH
 
Colin226's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Flemington, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
Was under the impression NJ has been able to fend off the banks thanks to the extra revenue from their unexpected trip to the finals.

It,s been a struggle filling the building during their best years. Hate to see what happens once they enter a long rebuilding phase.
Yeah the whole bank situation has been remedied for at least a couple years but a few solid years of bottom 5 play could be rough attendance-wise..

That said, we had 2,200 new season ticket holders sign up the summer following our worst season in 20 years.. Another 1,900 signed up after this postseason run and sold out the entire upper bowl behind Marty and most of the bowl behind the other side.. New variable ticket pricing should also help financially and at the gate since we can capitalize on Ranger game and sell more for Panthers games

It will be interesting to see, but the Devils success over the past 20 years has yielded a lot of young, energized fans who are just starting to be able to afford the steeper prices that a NY/NJ team demands.. No more waiting for mom and dad to buy tickets lol (as was my case)

Colin226 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 03:16 PM
  #28
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,911
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
How many fans were there in the mid 90s? I remember Van wasn't doing so hot back then.

I agree with the above poster... there's actually very few teams who can support a massive attendance when the on-ice product sucks.
At some point you have to build up the fanbase. Vancouver attendance was rather lousy at the time, but through it's first 3 decades the franchise only had a half a dozen or so successful seasons.

Success breeds new fans, the more success you have and the longer it's maintained the greater your core fanbase becomes. Vancouver now has a decade and counting of a successful on ice product creating an entirely new generation of die hard fans. It would take a rather long string of losing seasons for the constant sellout support to stop, and considering that the cities population has grown as well attendance level should never return to those bad 90's level.

Right now Vancouver should be in the second tier behind Toronto/Montreal/New York in being able to sustain fans/money with a losing team. Considering population, current demand to season tickets with a huge wait list, and ticket prices, it would take a long stretch of hopelessness to put enough of a dent in that to the point where they start losing money.

And despite the OP putting them together that distinction of losing money vs losing fans really needs to be made. You will always lose fans with a bad team. The real question is whether or not you have enough of an established support base to maintain a high ticket price and sellout crowds so that you don't even notice the lost fans.

Unless you want to suggest that bandwagon fans don't exist in certain cities...

RandV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 03:21 PM
  #29
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV View Post
Unless you want to suggest that bandwagon fans don't exist in certain cities...
Or that they don't exist in all sports.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 04:39 PM
  #30
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV View Post
At some point you have to build up the fanbase. Vancouver attendance was rather lousy at the time, but through it's first 3 decades the franchise only had a half a dozen or so successful seasons.

And despite the OP putting them together that distinction of losing money vs losing fans really needs to be made. You will always lose fans with a bad team. The real question is whether or not you have enough of an established support base to maintain a high ticket price and sellout crowds so that you don't even notice the lost fans.
I guess my question would be if after 3 years of a piss poor onice product, would they still sellout? My guess would be no.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 05:56 PM
  #31
Mr. Fancy Pants
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gifu
Country: Japan
Posts: 207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV View Post
Right now Vancouver should be in the second tier behind Toronto/Montreal/New York in being able to sustain fans/money with a losing team. Considering population, current demand to season tickets with a huge wait list, and ticket prices, it would take a long stretch of hopelessness to put enough of a dent in that to the point where they start losing money.
No way, things come and go in cycles. The OP wasn't asking about right now but what franchises would be safe for a long time. Vancouver had trouble drawing fans before when the weren't winning and the same would happen if Vancouver missed the playoffs for a few years. The Canucks missed the playoffs from 96-2000 and look at the drop off in attendance (according to hockeydb.com):

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendan...h.php?tmi=8756

1995-96: 17796
1996-97: 17320
1997-98: 16957
1998-99: 15802
1999-00: 14641

It was easy to get tickets during those years. I remember being in Vancouver with a friend on the day of a Leafs game and on a whim, we were able to get walk-up tickets to the game. That would be unthinkable now.

Before 1996, the Canucks had made the playoffs 6 years in a row including past the first round 4 times and a trip to the Stanley Cup final. Even with that recent success they still started losing fans quickly. Today, I think Vancouver's sellouts would end if they missed the playoffs two years in a row.


Last edited by Mr. Fancy Pants: 12-05-2012 at 06:20 PM.
Mr. Fancy Pants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 08:33 PM
  #32
wgknestrick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Fancy Pants View Post
No way, things come and go in cycles. The OP wasn't asking about right now but what franchises would be safe for a long time. Vancouver had trouble drawing fans before when the weren't winning and the same would happen if Vancouver missed the playoffs for a few years. The Canucks missed the playoffs from 96-2000 and look at the drop off in attendance (according to hockeydb.com):

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendan...h.php?tmi=8756

1995-96: 17796
1996-97: 17320
1997-98: 16957
1998-99: 15802
1999-00: 14641

It was easy to get tickets during those years. I remember being in Vancouver with a friend on the day of a Leafs game and on a whim, we were able to get walk-up tickets to the game. That would be unthinkable now.

Before 1996, the Canucks had made the playoffs 6 years in a row including past the first round 4 times and a trip to the Stanley Cup final. Even with that recent success they still started losing fans quickly. Today, I think Vancouver's sellouts would end if they missed the playoffs two years in a row.
Every team has trouble when their entertainment sucks. TOR, PHI, and NYR are only less immune to this than other teams due to their immense population of their respective cities and relative popularity of hockey there (as opposed to LA).

Paying around $100 / ticket to see a team stink it up burns pretty good. There aren't too many people that can sustain that "burn" multiple times, hence they stop buying the product.

wgknestrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 08:51 PM
  #33
ToursLepantoVienna
Registered User
 
ToursLepantoVienna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country:
Posts: 2,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Fancy Pants View Post
...

It was easy to get tickets during those years. I remember being in Vancouver with a friend on the day of a Leafs game and on a whim, we were able to get walk-up tickets to the game. That would be unthinkable now.

...
Yup. Attended a Leafs game in Vancouver in 1999, IIRC. I'd say GM Place was 2-3,000 short of capacity.

No franchise, except Toronto, and maybe the Rangers, can avoid attendance woes given the right circumstances.

ToursLepantoVienna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 09:34 PM
  #34
canuckster19
Former CDC Mod
 
canuckster19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Gothenburg Sweden
Country: Canada
Posts: 812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Fancy Pants View Post
No way, things come and go in cycles. The OP wasn't asking about right now but what franchises would be safe for a long time. Vancouver had trouble drawing fans before when the weren't winning and the same would happen if Vancouver missed the playoffs for a few years. The Canucks missed the playoffs from 96-2000 and look at the drop off in attendance (according to hockeydb.com):

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendan...h.php?tmi=8756

1995-96: 17796
1996-97: 17320
1997-98: 16957
1998-99: 15802
1999-00: 14641

It was easy to get tickets during those years. I remember being in Vancouver with a friend on the day of a Leafs game and on a whim, we were able to get walk-up tickets to the game. That would be unthinkable now.

Before 1996, the Canucks had made the playoffs 6 years in a row including past the first round 4 times and a trip to the Stanley Cup final. Even with that recent success they still started losing fans quickly. Today, I think Vancouver's sellouts would end if they missed the playoffs two years in a row.
You're not painting the entire picture, even when the Canucks were successful in the early 90s it was easy to get tickets and there was no such thing as a season ticket waiting list, you're comparing the current situation to something completely different.

Lets put it this way, why are people agreeing that Tor Mon and NYR are the best bets in this scenario?

I said before, the huge waiting list is enough to scare people into keeping their tickets in hope for better times, plus with the salary cap the Canucks have become one of the leagues top spenders, of course $$$ != success but it helps.


One thing places like Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver have now as well is a new generation with disposable income. The generations that were born at the time of these teams entry into the league are at that age with income to spend and I believe is one of the reasons behind the massive increase in support. I can't comment on Calgary or Edmonton, but in Vancouver there is huge immigrant population born in the 80s and 90s that grew up on watching hockey who couldn't support the team financially as children for whatever reason, perhaps their parents didn't care for it or whatever, I don't want to say something that will get me in trouble.


Last edited by canuckster19: 12-07-2012 at 09:45 PM.
canuckster19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:56 PM
  #35
Kmshrkx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 97
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabbyfan View Post
San Jose. AFAIK the Sharks rely on getting to at least the 2nd round, if not the conference finals, to break even on any given year. Also, sports fans like winners. Hockey is growing greatly in the Bay Area, but if the Giants/A's/Warriors/Niners all continue to be good and get better like they have shown and the Sharks fall into a downward trend, which it isn't unreasonable to think they will, the Sharks will begin to feel it a bit. The same likely goes for any NTM that is generally a pretty good team.
The Sharks have never had a significant downturn in attendance. I think this will end after this entire lockout issue is over. It may not be much, maybe 2 or 3 thousand a game less. I have been a Sharks fan since the beginning and have seen many exciting games, but the cost of going to games anymore is too much money in return for games that are not that great anymore. $26 to sit in last row, $20 for parking and at least $20 for food and drinks. I would much rather watch on TV so I can at least change the channel when the Sharks are stinking.

Kmshrkx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:04 AM
  #36
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kmshrkx View Post
The Sharks have never had a significant downturn in attendance. I think this will end after this entire lockout issue is over. It may not be much, maybe 2 or 3 thousand a game less. I have been a Sharks fan since the beginning and have seen many exciting games, but the cost of going to games anymore is too much money in return for games that are not that great anymore. $26 to sit in last row, $20 for parking and at least $20 for food and drinks. I would much rather watch on TV so I can at least change the channel when the Sharks are stinking.
During the one downturn the Sharks had, after the complete debacle of '02-'03 - miss the playoffs for the first time in 6 years, fire the coach, fire the GM, trade the captain and face of the franchise - the Sharks attendance dropped by ~1500, due primarily to a drop in the STH base during the off-season due to low expectations.

The ironic thing is, the Sharks lowest attendance came in a season that was what was up till then the Sharks best year ever on the ice (104 pts, win the division, make it to the WCF).


kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 01:31 AM
  #37
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckster19 View Post


One thing places like Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver have now as well is a new generation with disposable income.
This is true for all 7 of the Canadian markets, not just the ones you mentionned.

Puckschmuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 03:10 AM
  #38
VanCanucks14
Registered User
 
VanCanucks14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToursLepantoVienna View Post
Yup. Attended a Leafs game in Vancouver in 1999, IIRC. I'd say GM Place was 2-3,000 short of capacity.

No franchise, except Toronto, and maybe the Rangers, can avoid attendance woes given the right circumstances.
For reasons already stated above, I don't think it's fair to use statistics from a decade ago and apply them to this situation. Vancouver has changed rapidly over the last 10 years alone. The Canucks have had time to grow generations of fans that wasn't there in the 80's. They now have the longest sellout streak in the NHL and 4th in all North American sports. Not to mention the Canucks have missed the playoffs a couple of times during that streak and they have never won a cup.
While Toronto is a sure bet to always sell out and is in a league of it's own, I do think people are underestimating Vancouver as a hockey market. Really all of the Canadian markets would be fine if they struggled for a years with the exception of Ottawa.

VanCanucks14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 06:56 AM
  #39
Nabokov20
Karlsson for Chuck
 
Nabokov20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
I believe there are only three teams that can succeed financially in the face of a decade of failure. Toronto, Montreal, and NYR. Edmonton's recent run might suggest that given the current valuation of the canadian dollar, any other canadian team might be able to survive as well (assuming they cut payroll accordingly as edmonton has done), but i believe that to be temporary as i dont see the canadian dollar maintaining it's current valuation long-term.
Huh? The greenback is a worthless inflated currency. Currencies are commodities and the only reason the USD hasn't tanked is because the majority still consider it the world reserve. Wait until the debt bubble bursts and the American's printing press goes to work...not that it already hasn't. Basically, its valuation is too high to begin with. Hedge your risks

Nabokov20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 10:17 AM
  #40
gordie
Registered User
 
gordie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,311
vCash: 500
Boston without question. Just a few years ago Montreal fans filled TD Garden for playoff games.

gordie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 10:33 AM
  #41
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
During the one downturn the Sharks had, after the complete debacle of '02-'03 - miss the playoffs for the first time in 6 years, fire the coach, fire the GM, trade the captain and face of the franchise - the Sharks attendance dropped by ~1500, due primarily to a drop in the STH base during the off-season due to low expectations.

The ironic thing is, the Sharks lowest attendance came in a season that was what was up till then the Sharks best year ever on the ice (104 pts, win the division, make it to the WCF).

At some point, I'm going to link my two major spreadsheets. The first is attendance over time, and the second is performance versus expectations. Using San Jose as the inspiration, I expect to find that a team that underperforms by...say, 10 points or more will suffer a corresponding drop in attendance the next year, regardless of how the team actually performs during that next year. The obvious question, of course, is determining the actual mathematical expectation versus mere fan expectation.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 02:45 PM
  #42
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Vancouver Canucks had 9,000 per night and were on the verge of moving in the late 80s. Vancouver sports fans are a very fickle bunch.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 04:01 PM
  #43
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Vancouver and Pittsburgh for starters. Neither has been that great without have 2 top 15 players in the game at some position. In fact Vancouver had many sub 10k nights, which is disappointing for the 3rd largest city in Canada.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 04:04 PM
  #44
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by edog37 View Post
As you know was edog will tell us Pittsburgh is the only team to have had ownership issues .

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 04:07 PM
  #45
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DynamoAO View Post
This question is tailor made for the Nation's capital...

The Redskins have "their Ovechkin" in RGIII.
The Nats are starting to suck a lot less and are actually looking at spending money.
Basketball is stupid, but it's a more popular sport than hockey.
NBA is playing and the NHL is not. Who's stupid.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 04:13 PM
  #46
Angelus
Smile Time!
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
(assuming they cut payroll accordingly as edmonton has done)
It's typical that you can't post something positive about the Oilers without turning it into a backhanded compliment, they were near the cap in the worst season in franchise history in 2010 yet still sold out every game and were more than healthy financially. I guess that year was abberation or a figment of my imagination....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Philadelphia, NY Rangers, Montreal, and Toronto. That's basically the extent of the list.
Edmonton just drafted 1st overall for three straight years and missed the playoffs for the last six and still sell out every game.

I know you're just itching to bring up our drop in attendance in the mid 90s but that's irrelevant now.


Last edited by Angelus: 12-09-2012 at 04:19 PM.
Angelus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 04:17 PM
  #47
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelus View Post
Edmonton just drafted 1st overall for three straight years and missed the playoffs for the last six and still sell out every game.

I know you're just itching to bring up our drop in attendance in the mid 90s but that's irrelevant now.
It's not. There's no time limit. Clearly Toronto is a better hockey market than Edmonton.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 04:21 PM
  #48
Angelus
Smile Time!
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
It's not. There's no time limit. Clearly Toronto is a better hockey market than Edmonton.
Show me where I mentioned Toronto or even debated that Edmonton was a better market? Way to take my post out of context, I meant Edmonton should be considered a top-tier market that sells out every game regardless of the product on the ice. They've just proven that, I don't care about the mid-90s.

Angelus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 04:47 PM
  #49
krudmonk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 5,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabbyfan View Post
San Jose. AFAIK the Sharks rely on getting to at least the 2nd round, if not the conference finals, to break even on any given year. Also, sports fans like winners. Hockey is growing greatly in the Bay Area, but if the Giants/A's/Warriors/Niners all continue to be good and get better like they have shown and the Sharks fall into a downward trend, which it isn't unreasonable to think they will, the Sharks will begin to feel it a bit. The same likely goes for any NTM that is generally a pretty good team.
The A's and Warriors will not impact the Sharks by competing for the same entertainment dollar, and 49ers tickets are about to become much more expensive.

krudmonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 04:57 PM
  #50
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,911
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckster19 View Post
You're not painting the entire picture, even when the Canucks were successful in the early 90s it was easy to get tickets and there was no such thing as a season ticket waiting list, you're comparing the current situation to something completely different.
Yes let's paint the entire picture:

86-87 10406 (franchise lowpoint)
87-88 11002
88-89 13772
89-90 15417
90-91 15150
91-92 15768
92-93 15418
93-94 15140
94-95 13920
95-96 17796 (moved to the larger GM place)
96-97 17320
97-98 16957
98-99 15802
99-00 14641
00-01 17026
01-02 17712
02-03 18396
03-04 18630
04+ Sellout streak ongoing

If I went farther back the attendance was actually quite good in the 70's, it was through the 80's that things went south, and even when things were going good in the early 90's this generation of fans couldn't sell out on a consistent basis.

Like someone else said a lot of the current success is a new generation of fans that now have the disposable income to buy tickets. In my opinion the generation gap is significant, largely due to the increased exposure of the game. Consider what the ones with disposable income through the 80's-90's didn't have:

- Constant broadcasts
- hockey video games
- instant hockey news and discussion through the internet

I'm old enough to remember a time when not every game was televised, but young enough to have filled that gap playing the old EA sports games on Genesis/SNES. The generation before me hockey was essential Hockey Night in Canada, The Hockey News, and call in radio shows. Now you have every game televised, instant connection to news and discussion, and video games to help get the kids hooked and/or learn about the league and it's players.

With Canada being so focused on hockey this will give any of our NHL cities a huge defense boost against a bad team ratings plummet. American teams will have a tougher time because if the local hockey team declines they always have Football/Basketball/Baseball to turn to.

RandV 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 06:42 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.