HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

New Sharks Owner - You cannot make money with a hockey team!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-01-2013, 10:38 PM
  #26
matCH penalty
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanthersHockey1 View Post
so then the reason QC and hartford and Winnipeg lost their teams the first time around was?
If you're not trolling, your knowledge of the state of the NHL in the 90s is astonishingly poor.

matCH penalty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 10:49 PM
  #27
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,652
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by matCH penalty View Post
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.

__________________
RIP Kev.
danishh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 10:52 PM
  #28
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
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.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 10:54 PM
  #29
Hawker14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanthersHockey1 View Post
so then the reason QC and hartford and Winnipeg lost their teams the first time around was?
Pretty in depth explanations are needed, but to briefly summarize I'd suggest the main reason as:

Nords/Jets - US/Cdn currency issues
Whalers - stolen from the market by a liar (imo)

Hawker14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 10:59 PM
  #30
matCH penalty
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
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.

matCH penalty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 11:03 PM
  #31
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,652
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by matCH penalty View Post
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".

danishh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 11:23 PM
  #32
matCH penalty
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
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.

matCH penalty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2013, 05:36 AM
  #33
Smokey McCanucks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,698
vCash: 500
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.

Smokey McCanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2013, 06:07 AM
  #34
Mightygoose
Registered User
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,142
vCash: 514
Well this headline won't convince many to invest in an in-named franchise in the same division.

Mightygoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2013, 06:33 AM
  #35
EbencoyE
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 1,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
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.

EbencoyE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2013, 07:20 AM
  #36
Shrimper
WinItFor#58
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 62,148
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanthersHockey1 View Post
so then the reason QC and hartford and Winnipeg lost their teams the first time around was?

Much different being in a non traditional market and the collapse of the economy that they couldn't control.

You can make money in the right franchises and fan base areas.

Shrimper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2013, 07:30 AM
  #37
Tough Guy
Registered User
 
Tough Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 849
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
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".

Tough Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2013, 07:34 AM
  #38
smitty10
Registered User
 
smitty10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey McCanucks View Post
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.

smitty10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2013, 07:39 AM
  #39
smitty10
Registered User
 
smitty10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by G Dawg View Post
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".
They likely would lose some revenue because with 10 less teams it's almost certain that they'd play less games.

smitty10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2013, 09:02 AM
  #40
Ace Rothstein
Systems of Football
 
Ace Rothstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty10 View Post
They likely would lose some revenue because with 10 less teams it's almost certain that they'd play less games.
The NHL went to an 80 game schedule in 74-75 with an 18 team league.

Ace Rothstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2013, 09:25 AM
  #41
jigglysquishy
Registered User
 
jigglysquishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,274
vCash: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanthersHockey1 View Post
so then the reason QC and hartford and Winnipeg lost their teams the first time around was?
Well the Canadian dollar was at a 200 year low and QC never actually lost money.

jigglysquishy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2013, 09:38 AM
  #42
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by G Dawg View Post
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 View Post
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.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2013, 09:55 AM
  #43
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
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.

Halibut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2013, 09:58 AM
  #44
Jakey53
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coramoor View Post
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?

Jakey53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2013, 10:01 AM
  #45
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,917
vCash: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty10 View Post
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.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...nnipeg+revenue


Last edited by Puckschmuck*: 02-02-2013 at 10:18 AM.
Puckschmuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2013, 10:04 AM
  #46
Shakey Rustie
1L
 
Shakey Rustie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Western Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,809
vCash: 1077
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty10 View Post
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.

Shakey Rustie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2013, 10:24 AM
  #47
HugoSimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 169
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakey53 View Post
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.

HugoSimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2013, 10:48 AM
  #48
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,427
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty10 View Post
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.

cbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2013, 11:45 AM
  #49
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
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.

Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2013, 12:35 PM
  #50
WWAD
Registered User
 
WWAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
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.

WWAD 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 10:37 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.