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.

Phoenix LXXII: Send in the Clowns

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-16-2013, 05:16 PM
  #201
Faltorvo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacial View Post
Very interesting. I would have thought there would be a market clamoring for a more affordable/accessible team (given all the talk of Leafs ticket prices and the issue with getting tickets) and with the Leafs being big rollers like the Yankees but lacking the trail of championship trophies to match, people would be willing to try a 2nd team or have a 2nd team make the Leafs shape up.

I'm trying to think of parallels (2nd team arriving after a long established first)...
- Kings & Ducks. Ducks arrived ~25 years later, but tried to follow the same pattern as Dodgers/Angels. Maybe a LA area hockey fan can provide more insight into team dynamics/support in the area pre/post Ducks.

- Rangers go way back, but there was that other NY team that the NHL screwed over (the temporary hiatus which quietly became a permanent fold). The Islanders seemed to target suburban long island (similar position as the Ducks & Angels). Devils were tied to Jersey. Hmm, anyone know more of the Islanders backstory, how the team was pitched back when it was created?

- Yankees & Mets. Mets arrived in Queens, trying to replace the Dodgers that exited Brooklyn & Giants that exited Manhattan (Yankees based out of the Bronx). They went from 3 teams to 1. The Mets had to be created as the lynchpin of thwarting a rival league from forming. Doesn't quite seem to parallel. The Giants were fairly successful early on, though the Yankees eclipsed them by the 1920s.

- Dodgers & Angels. Dodgers only preceeded the Angels in LA by 3 seasons. Angels settled in Orange County. There was also NL/AL rivalry. Remember, before 1968, the Angels were the only AL team in California. They seemed to market themselves as a statewide team, thus their name for many years, the California Angels.

- Giants & A's. Giants had 10 years, but the Bay Area is famously fragmented (only shared MLB market where the teams have different territory). IIRC, 49ers and Raiders was the NFL vs. AFL situation. Same went for Giants & Jets. There's no rival league involved in Toronto. It'll be all NHL.

- White Sox arrived ~30 years after the Cubs but that was over a century ago. Phillies were only around 20 years when the Athletics arrived and same goes for Cardinals & Browns in St. Louis (Browns became the Orioles). Same for the Red Sox & the Braves.

I'm not seeing any close parallels except Kings/Ducks.


Or would it be a case where many are indifferent about a theoretical 2nd GTA team but when one actually arrives, they'll change their tune?
There is no real clamor here in the GTA for a #2, has a lot to do with the belief that MLSE would never allow it to happen. Ya YA i know it's a grey area if they can stop it or not.

This is truly a "believe it when i see it" deal here.

Faltorvo is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 05:39 PM
  #202
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faltorvo View Post
There is no real clamor here in the GTA for a #2, has a lot to do with the belief that MLSE would never allow it to happen. Ya YA i know it's a grey area if they can stop it or not.

This is truly a "believe it when i see it" deal here.
An idea (not mine) suggested before by others that one day Bell/Rogers would split up, and possibly one of them would be on the forefront of bringing the 2nd team to Toronto, so they each have a team.

I would think if there was some sort of arrangement between Bell/Rogers (whoever owns the Leafs themselves), would push for another team in TO.

I still think the biggest kerfuffle won't come from MLSE/Bell/Rogers, but from the Sabres.

Tinalera is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 06:23 PM
  #203
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
An idea (not mine) suggested before by others that one day Bell/Rogers would split up, and possibly one of them would be on the forefront of bringing the 2nd team to Toronto, so they each have a team.

I would think if there was some sort of arrangement between Bell/Rogers (whoever owns the Leafs themselves), would push for another team in TO.

I still think the biggest kerfuffle won't come from MLSE/Bell/Rogers, but from the Sabres.
Glad I'm not the only one....

I notice there is a heck of a lot of NHL hockey on the tube this year. I think there were games everyday for the last 2 weeks on TV in the GTA. I used to say another local team would increase viewership for Rogers, Bell, CBC etc. I'm sort of torn watching the out of town teams because I don't want to give the powers that be the impression we'll watch just anybody and it doesn't necessarily have to be a second GTA team. Sort of like falling into the Hamilton / Sabres trap. Other teams may claim they will no longer get the broadcast money from airing games in the GTA. Talk about paranoid

Interesting that I've watched Pens/Jets and Pens/Sens but no Buffalo games and they're the ones that were apparently trying to get permission to broadcast games here.


Last edited by Confucius: 02-16-2013 at 06:36 PM.
Confucius is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 06:24 PM
  #204
Mightygoose
I Am Groot
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
An idea (not mine) suggested before by others that one day Bell/Rogers would split up, and possibly one of them would be on the forefront of bringing the 2nd team to Toronto, so they each have a team.

I would think if there was some sort of arrangement between Bell/Rogers (whoever owns the Leafs themselves), would push for another team in TO.

I still think the biggest kerfuffle won't come from MLSE/Bell/Rogers, but from the Sabres.
I've heard it throw around as well that conceptually Bell and Rogers and split and one own Toronto II for combined media rights.

Don,t think Buffalo and or will have much say but don,t think and 2nd GTA team would hurt them either

Mightygoose is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 07:15 PM
  #205
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
I've heard it throw around as well that conceptually Bell and Rogers and split and one own Toronto II for combined media rights.

Don,t think Buffalo and or will have much say but don,t think and 2nd GTA team would hurt them either
Quote:
Glad I'm not the only one....

I notice there is a heck of a lot of NHL hockey on the tube this year. I think there were games everyday for the last 2 weeks on TV in the GTA. I used to say another local team would increase viewership for Rogers, Bell, CBC etc. I'm sort of torn watching the out of town teams because I don't want to give the powers that be the impression we'll watch just anybody and it doesn't necessarily have to be a second GTA team. Sort of like falling into the Hamilton / Sabres trap. Other teams may claim they will no longer get the broadcast money from airing games in the GTA. Talk about paranoid

Interesting that I've watched Pens/Jets and Pens/Sens but no Buffalo games and they're the ones that were apparently trying to get permission to broadcast games here.
I've heard the suggestion that the worry is about ST holders from Ontario in Buffalo-but I really don't know how many would "drop" Buffalo, a team I would assume they've come to support, to support TO 2.

From a curiosity standpoint, if TO 2 happens, IMO it will more likely be expansion-which means expansion draft-worthy team for the first few years-which means some struggling. I think it would truly test the "Toronto is a hockey market or a Maple Leaf Market" idea.

Now if/when the TO 2 team started getting some serious success, then we could see quite a rivalry develop, especially if TO 2 won a cup before the Leafs.

Tinalera is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 07:32 PM
  #206
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,472
vCash: 500
If the team was north of Toronto (Markham/Vaughn etc) Buffalo wouldn't be effected much. Its doubtful people north of Toronto go to many Sabres games unless they are rooting for the visiting team. Hamilton would be more of a concern to Buffalo than GTA2.

That being said I think to some degree MLSE would be more concerned about the impact on the Marlies, Raptors, and to a lesser degree Toronto FC. Rogers between MLSE and the Jays, Rogers has a lock on all sports entertainment in the GTA.

aqib is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 07:38 PM
  #207
will5059
Registered User
 
will5059's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Madison CT
Country: United States
Posts: 75
vCash: 500
To answer the question on how the Islanders came to be in the NHL back in the early 70's when the Nassau coliseum got the go ahead to be built the wha jumped at the chance to put a team there. The NHL then pushed forward the 72 expansion and place the isles there to beat them to the punch.

will5059 is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 10:10 PM
  #208
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
PCSPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSGJ View Post
What I've read regarding Florida is that losses are nowhere near as bad as reported. They do some accounting voodoo to make it look like they lose tons of money. The company that owns the Panthers and run the arena is profitable, largely due to a favorable arena deal. I'm sure there's someone here on the forum who knows more about this.
The chances that this is true of more of the league than we think we know are pretty good.

The league that claims it's doing well across the board is the one really desperate to show strength that's not necessarily there. Just saying.

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
02-17-2013, 10:12 AM
  #209
ajmidd12
Know-It-All
 
ajmidd12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Hungover
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,553
vCash: 500
All don't forget, the league is in a very weak position right now. The economy crash of the US hurt quite a few teams in weaker markets.

With that said expansion won't take place for 5-10 years at the earliest and that is all contingent on what condition the current markets are in. IMO a 30 team league with 5-6 of those teams losing money isn't something to be proud of, contraction or relocation is more of an option.

GTA won't get a second team while there is Seattle and Quebec open, neither will Hamilton/Markham. It isn't a shot at those communities it is just the cold hard facts.

In order to thrive the NHL needs to focus on the markets they currently have instead of expanding.

ajmidd12 is offline  
Old
02-17-2013, 05:16 PM
  #210
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmidd12 View Post
All don't forget, the league is in a very weak position right now. The economy crash of the US hurt quite a few teams in weaker markets.

With that said expansion won't take place for 5-10 years at the earliest and that is all contingent on what condition the current markets are in. IMO a 30 team league with 5-6 of those teams losing money isn't something to be proud of, contraction or relocation is more of an option.
Well if its only 5-6, we have QC, Markham, Hamilton, Seattle, and Portland to take them. 6th one can give KC a shot.

aqib is offline  
Old
02-17-2013, 07:27 PM
  #211
Mightygoose
I Am Groot
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,466
vCash: 500
Anyone know if any of the prospective/phantom buyers are poking around during the home games?

Highly doubt Jamison would show his face in sight though

Mightygoose is offline  
Old
02-17-2013, 07:45 PM
  #212
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
Anyone know if any of the prospective/phantom buyers are poking around during the home games?

Highly doubt Jamison would show his face in sight though
It's not going to happen locally, no way the league announces anything before the end of the season. We're just killing time now. Actually that's good news, I've been spending more time on the Leaf board now.

Confucius is offline  
Old
02-17-2013, 08:04 PM
  #213
Mightygoose
I Am Groot
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
It's not going to happen locally, no way the league announces anything before the end of the season. We're just killing time now. Actually that's good news, I've been spending more time on the Leaf board now.
Too bad Jamison can't make one more appearence. Just for old times sake.

It can give give the fans a chance to run him out of the building. Makes for a good give away night. First 10,000 fans in the house gets a torch and pitchfork

Who needs a bobblehead anyways!

Mightygoose is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 11:05 AM
  #214
AllByDesign
Thomas who?
 
AllByDesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Location, Location!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Hawk View Post
I said 4 to 8k. IF you look at the history, they drew like 5k a couple years ago and if you want to use attendance figures, you can go to the bankruptcy data. Also, even this year they are at only 6-7k for non Saturday games and they went to the conference finals last year.
Tommy, you are too intelligent to be throwing your hat into the attendance trap. Let alone throwing out numbers from your tailpipe.

Of course fans boasting about the good attendance nights are equally as useless.

The arena could be full or completely vacant. It will not impact the outcome.

AllByDesign is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 11:51 AM
  #215
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 9,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllByDesign View Post
Tommy, you are too intelligent to be throwing your hat into the attendance trap. Let alone throwing out numbers from your tailpipe.

Of course fans boasting about the good attendance nights are equally as useless.

The arena could be full or completely vacant. It will not impact the outcome.
I don't like commenting on attendance, but I think your last sentence is probably a bit off base. From all accounts the NHL is asking the same price for the Coyotes as they negotiated for the sale of the Thrashers (around $170 million). Without debating the exact numbers, it seems likely that the current annual ticket revenue in Winnipeg is at least $30 million more per year than in Glendale. Adding in suites and other sources of revenue, the difference is likely considerably more. So, if the NHL couldn't get more than $170 million for the Thrashers, it makes one wonder how they think that an owner will pay that same amount for the Coyotes, even with a multi-million dollar subsidy from Glendale on the table.

Whileee is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 11:59 AM
  #216
Gotaf7
Registered User
 
Gotaf7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Winterpeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 590
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
I don't like commenting on attendance, but I think your last sentence is probably a bit off base. From all accounts the NHL is asking the same price for the Coyotes as they negotiated for the sale of the Thrashers (around $170 million). Without debating the exact numbers, it seems likely that the current annual ticket revenue in Winnipeg is at least $30 million more per year than in Glendale. Adding in suites and other sources of revenue, the difference is likely considerably more. So, if the NHL couldn't get more than $170 million for the Thrashers, it makes one wonder how they think that an owner will pay that same amount for the Coyotes, even with a multi-million dollar subsidy from Glendale on the table.
The other 29 owners have sunk north of 170 mil into this team! Hypothetically speaking if you were an owner and you were assured that buying this team out of BK you would get your money back, would you be ok with letting them go for 110 mil? This team could go for 75 mil yet they would still lose money, time to leave!

Gotaf7 is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 12:25 PM
  #217
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
Private Equity
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 1,930
vCash: 500
Not jumping onto the attendance killing field here, as I really don't give a **** about attendance at this time, but it is understood that ESPN's attendance figures are pulled from the NHL's event summaries. It's a Forbes-esque type one-stop-shop for "numbers".

Hardly the be all, end all. Thumbnail sketch? Like Forbes? Yes


Last edited by Major4Boarding: 02-18-2013 at 12:36 PM.
Major4Boarding is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 01:03 PM
  #218
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Serbia
Posts: 2,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotaf7 View Post
The other 29 owners have sunk north of 170 mil into this team! Hypothetically speaking if you were an owner and you were assured that buying this team out of BK you would get your money back, would you be ok with letting them go for 110 mil? This team could go for 75 mil yet they would still lose money, time to leave!
Hey, those owners don't have a single right to cry. All we hear is that Gary Bettman does not lead the NHL and that he has 29 bosses. Well those bosses paid for getting Coyotes out of BK, then those same owners decided it was cool to continue to pay $40M per year (for the last 4 years) for losses. The team could have been sold to Hamilton, Winnipeg or even Quebec in the last 4 years.

Now, it's either that those owners knew what they were doing and decided to burn some of their money or there is one guy named Gary Bettman who has much more power inside the NHL than anyone could think of. And by that I mean, that if Bettman decided that lets say Leafs move south of the border, it definitely WOULD happen.

I am not saying something like that will happen, but if Gary broke a bubble and decided it's what gonna happen, no matter how much of a suicidal move it would be, it still would get done just because Gary has 29 strings in his hands and moves them left and right how he needs them to be.

powerstuck is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 01:41 PM
  #219
NHLfan4life
Who is PKP???
 
NHLfan4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Glendale
Country: United States
Posts: 688
vCash: 500
This just in...

http://i.imgur.com/7tnLBoH.jpg



back on topic

NHLfan4life is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 01:52 PM
  #220
AllByDesign
Thomas who?
 
AllByDesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Location, Location!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
I don't like commenting on attendance, but I think your last sentence is probably a bit off base. From all accounts the NHL is asking the same price for the Coyotes as they negotiated for the sale of the Thrashers (around $170 million).
We all agree that the selling price is asinine. We have also witnessed that is not negotiable. We have seen a change in council from a pro-subsidy stance to anti-subsidy.

Where do you go from there? What possibility could present itself?

17k in attendance.... 10k, 8k, all moot.

There are only two choices

1. Relocate

2. Drop the price by 60mil.

Since they could have closed the deal with Jamison by dropping the selling price, and took a pass. Looks like there is only one choice to me.

AllByDesign is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 01:59 PM
  #221
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllByDesign View Post
We all agree that the selling price is asinine. We have also witnessed that is not negotiable. We have seen a change in council from a pro-subsidy stance to anti-subsidy.

Where do you go from there? What possibility could present itself?

17k in attendance.... 10k, 8k, all moot.

There are only two choices

1. Relocate

2. Drop the price by 60mil.

Since they could have closed the deal with Jamison by dropping the selling price, and took a pass. Looks like there is only one choice to me.
Agreed. Playing out the string. Nice to see decent crowds given most of the fans understand this is likely the last season. Should be a nice crowd tonight for the Flames game. Lots of Flames fans will be present too.

I wish the NHL would just announce the relocation already so the fans that have stuck with the team over the past years would have a chance to say goodbye. But being honest with the fans doesn't serve the NHL's bottomline.

goyotes is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 03:00 PM
  #222
OthmarAmmann
Money making machine
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,574
vCash: 500
I suppose I'll wade into the attendance morass.

We have no idea whether the price cut was or was not already presented to the BoG. Perhaps it was and they voted against it.

Now, would the governors be more or less accommodative on price if attendance was averaging, say, more than 15,000? I think it wouldn't matter, but who knows?

OthmarAmmann is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 03:15 PM
  #223
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,059
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
Too bad Jamison can't make one more appearence. Just for old times sake.

It can give give the fans a chance to run him out of the building. Makes for a good give away night. First 10,000 fans in the house gets a torch and pitchfork

Who needs a bobblehead anyways!
Greg Jamsion won a signed Jets jersey last night at the Jets vs. Bruins game.

blues10 is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 03:34 PM
  #224
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas L View Post
I suppose I'll wade into the attendance morass.

We have no idea whether the price cut was or was not already presented to the BoG. Perhaps it was and they voted against it.

Now, would the governors be more or less accommodative on price if attendance was averaging, say, more than 15,000? I think it wouldn't matter, but who knows?
I think if they were averaging 15,000 fans at anything close to NHL prices you would see more buyers interested and at the very least get close to the $170 million price.

aqib is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 03:48 PM
  #225
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goyotes View Post
Agreed. Playing out the string. Nice to see decent crowds given most of the fans understand this is likely the last season. Should be a nice crowd tonight for the Flames game. Lots of Flames fans will be present too.

I wish the NHL would just announce the relocation already so the fans that have stuck with the team over the past years would have a chance to say goodbye. But being honest with the fans doesn't serve the NHL's bottomline.
This is the worst part IMO. Let's assume the team has already been sold or is about to be sold to an out-of-towner and will be moving as soon as the season is over. I fully understand the NHL reluctance to make the annoucement now in that their thinking is they will lose more money because attendance will drop, but let's look at that.

So far this year the team has pulled in the following approx. ticket revenue:

9 games X 12,690 avg. attendance X $38 avg ticket price = $4,339,980

After Monday they will have 14 games left:

14 games X 12,690 avg. attendance X $38 avg ticket price = $6,751,080

I'm not trying to show a specific value here, but just to back up my point, and that is even if the NHL came out right after the Calgary game and announced the team was moving ( so the fans could say a proper goodbye ) it's not like they are going to lose a ton of money in the grand scheme of things. There will still will be people going to the games and buying food etc, so its not like attendance is going to drop to zero. And even if it did, so what...

I'm just saying, even if it costs a couple of million, stop screwing the fans of the team over. If its moving.... say so.


Last edited by cbcwpg: 02-18-2013 at 03:54 PM.
cbcwpg 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 01:12 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.