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.
New Sharks Owner - You cannot make money with a hockey team!
If you're not trolling, your knowledge of the state of the NHL in the 90s is astonishingly poor.
all he's saying is that being a traditional market isnt a cure-all. A 65c Canadian dollar means that a team like florida is more attractive than a team like ottawa/winnipeg/edmonton/quebec/calgary.
Obviously anyone with basic knowledge of global economics knows that's not a very likely situation going forward, but the point still stands.
all he's saying is that being a traditional market isnt a cure-all. A 65c Canadian dollar means that a team like florida is more attractive than a team like ottawa/winnipeg/edmonton/quebec/calgary.
Obviously anyone with basic knowledge of global economics knows that's not a very likely situation going forward, but the point still stands.
Interesting and I wonder if it is true that the only difference is 35% less live gate revenue for the Canadian cities. Doesn't seem like a lot really.
all he's saying is that being a traditional market isnt a cure-all. A 65c Canadian dollar means that a team like florida is more attractive than a team like ottawa/winnipeg/edmonton/quebec/calgary.
Obviously anyone with basic knowledge of global economics knows that's not a very likely situation going forward, but the point still stands.
It wasn't all the CAD, though. The arenas in Winnipeg and QC were awful, and Edmonton's arena continues to be awful. When you have an acceptable arena (and preferably a team that gets some coin off of events scheduled at their home arena), a salary cap and revenue sharing make surviving bad times easier. It's not like the MTS Centre, the future QC Amphitheatre, or Scotiabank are suddenly going to fall apart in twenty years. They're acceptable now and will largely remain so for the lion's share of our lifetimes.
A Panthers fan should be well aware of the value of a diversified ownership group and well-visited arena, considering the high status of the BB&T Center is not an insignificant reason why the Panthers are a stable franchise which no educated person legitimately considers to be a relocation candidate.
The CAD could drop again, though. To 65 cents I doubt, but 80 or 85 perhaps if something bad happens. Who knows.
The Whalers had an awful arena, an owner losing a ton of money, a poorly organized league, and a municipality unwilling to give it enough money to stay.
It wasn't all the CAD, though. The arenas in Winnipeg and QC were awful, and Edmonton's arena continues to be awful. When you have an acceptable arena (and preferably a team that gets some coin off of events scheduled at their home arena), a salary cap and revenue sharing make surviving bad times easier. It's not like the MTS Centre, the future QC Amphitheatre, or Scotiabank are suddenly going to fall apart in twenty years. They're acceptable now and will largely remain so for the lion's share of our lifetimes.
A Panthers fan should be well aware of the value of a diversified ownership group and well-visited arena, considering the high status of the BB&T Center is not an insignificant reason why the Panthers are a stable franchise which no educated person legitimately considers to be a relocation candidate.
The CAD could drop again, though. To 65 cents I doubt, but 80 or 85 perhaps if something bad happens. Who knows.
The Whalers had an awful arena, an owner losing a ton of money, a poorly organized league, and a municipality unwilling to give it enough money to stay.
The NHL team has to be profitable regardless of what the arena does. If the NHL team loses money every year and the owner makes it back from the arena, there's nothing stopping the owner from simply selling the team to another market and just running the arena at a profit.
Remember, the premise of this thread is "you cant make money on a hockey team", not "you cant make money on a hockey team and ancillary revenues".
The NHL team has to be profitable regardless of what the arena does. If the NHL team loses money every year and the owner makes it back from the arena, there's nothing stopping the owner from simply selling the team to another market and just running the arena at a profit.
Remember, the premise of this thread is "you cant make money on a hockey team", not "you cant make money on a hockey team and ancillary revenues".
In Florida's instance, IIRC they're obligated by the BB&T Center's lease to own the Panthers and keep them in South Florida for thirty or forty years. Is it that bad if an ownership group can make money off managing an arena despite a lease agreement requiring them to maintain a tenant team which loses money? The NHL isn't exactly flush with great situations at the moment. It's certainly not ideal, but it's many leaps and bounds above Phoenix.
Maybe not in San Jose, but Rogers, Bell and the Thompsons don't make losing bets, the very fact that they are owners disproves the statement in the heading.
The NHL team has to be profitable regardless of what the arena does. If the NHL team loses money every year and the owner makes it back from the arena, there's nothing stopping the owner from simply selling the team to another market and just running the arena at a profit.
Remember, the premise of this thread is "you cant make money on a hockey team", not "you cant make money on a hockey team and ancillary revenues".
Why would you sell your biggest money maker? Florida's arena makes most of it's money off of Panthers games. I believe their revenue went down from like 8 Million to 1 Million during the 04-05 lockout.
As long as the wealth of the few keep pushing the cost of competing higher for all. So yes, that's the cost of being part a League. And if that League hadn't grown, then even those wealthy few wouldn't be make the quantities of money that they're making today.
That's debatable. You could get rid of 10 teams and the Leafs and Habs wouldn't make a penny less than they do now.
And absolutely nobody should be in the business of pro sports for "the love of the game".
Maybe not in San Jose, but Rogers, Bell and the Thompsons don't make losing bets, the very fact that they are owners disproves the statement in the heading.
IIRC, Winnipeg is in a situation where the best they can do is break even from the hockey club. I'm sure they can make money in other aspects, but with their small arena and very limited population it's very, very unlikely they can generate enough revenue to create a profit.
That's debatable. You could get rid of 10 teams and the Leafs and Habs wouldn't make a penny less than they do now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Rothstein
The NHL went to an 80 game schedule in 74-75 with an 18 team league.
Yes, but when fans can see the same teams 10 times a year, those fans feel less need to attend so many games because they know they'll have other opportunities to see the same team and the same players.
Now of course, the reverse of that, just to cover the bases, is that too few games against specific teams doesn't allow a rivalry atmosphere to develop.
But back to the topic at hand... More teams, more variety of players, and fans have more diversity to watch, and more teams with which their team could develop that rivalry atmosphere, depending on what transpires from one game to the next.
Nice headline but the full quote was. " “You cannot make money with a hockey team. You cannot make money with a hotel, either, and you cannot make money with a golf club. I have all three of them (laughs).”"
So forget the hockey team for a minute and ask why do people keep building hotels if you cant make money with them? Once you answer that you'll probably have the reason why owning a hockey team makes sense.
Yup, once you add arena management and concessions and parking, etc, you do quite well
Exactly. Alot of people on this board do not understand business and believe everything they hear. The team is just one component of the overall picture. Do you really think these owners want to own a hockey franchise because they love the game or for a hobby?
IIRC, Winnipeg is in a situation where the best they can do is break even from the hockey club. I'm sure they can make money in other aspects, but with their small arena and very limited population it's very, very unlikely they can generate enough revenue to create a profit.
Huh? We were #10 in revenue league-wide last year.
IIRC, Winnipeg is in a situation where the best they can do is break even from the hockey club. I'm sure they can make money in other aspects, but with their small arena and very limited population it's very, very unlikely they can generate enough revenue to create a profit.
Of course now I can't find the article, but during the lockout I read one and it said at its current ticket prices, the Sharks would have to have around 28,000 in attendance every night to equal what the Jets made off revenue from ticket sales.
Exactly. Alot of people on this board do not understand business and believe everything they hear. The team is just one component of the overall picture. Do you really think these owners want to own a hockey franchise because they love the game or for a hobby?
Agreed, this type of talk gets old fast.
The fact is nearly everyone involved with hockey gets payed.
Sure some of the owners loose money on running, the team, but that money typically being lost goes to pay for the arena.
It's an accounting matter.
If done right a team can loose money year after year, and still be able to sell their arena for a profit at the end of the day.
IIRC, Winnipeg is in a situation where the best they can do is break even from the hockey club. I'm sure they can make money in other aspects, but with their small arena and very limited population it's very, very unlikely they can generate enough revenue to create a profit.
The Winnipeg Jets made a profit of $13.3M last season. Not a huge amount, but more profitable than a lot of teams.
Yes, but when fans can see the same teams 10 times a year, those fans feel less need to attend so many games because they know they'll have other opportunities to see the same team and the same players.
Now of course, the reverse of that, just to cover the bases, is that too few games against specific teams doesn't allow a rivalry atmosphere to develop.
But back to the topic at hand... More teams, more variety of players, and fans have more diversity to watch, and more teams with which their team could develop that rivalry atmosphere, depending on what transpires from one game to the next.
That means they can watch on TV. And that means tv revenues ill go up. Remember the NHL wants TV revenue.
Interesting and I wonder if it is true that the only difference is 35% less live gate revenue for the Canadian cities. Doesn't seem like a lot really.
The weak Canadian dollar in the 90's was a double whammy - less money coming in through gate revenues, and then having to pay salaries in American dollars.
