HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Other Leagues > ECHL, NWHL, and other Minor Pro Leagues
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2

UHL Chicago Hounds

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-24-2006, 10:02 AM
  #26
AdmiralPred
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeynut47 View Post
You're probably right about that. I will try to do better. I am very passionate about certain things and that happens to be one of them. I guess I should understand about teams and failure because I have been on the other end of the stick where a team folded mid year. Not fun....... Anyway, didn't mean to start anything, I just could not understand all the negativity. I guess I just did not know the big picture. Hopefully this player will make up his mind where he wants to sign soon.
I think the negativity towards the Hound's success is linked to the "oversaturated market" argument as pelts pointed out as well as the "history of the owner" argument that has also been pointed out by those that follow such matters around here. However, there are plenty of pros to balance out those cons.

AdmiralPred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2006, 03:50 PM
  #27
Dr Hook
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: East Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 458
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dr Hook
What I want to know is how the UHL teams survive on the pitiful attendance figures they show (Komets aside)? I know a lot DON'T make it, but the ones that keep coming back year in and year out That said, how many people live in Chiacgoland? Is it unrealistic to expect the Hounds to manage 3000-4000 fans a night in a metro area that large?

Dr Hook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2006, 04:11 PM
  #28
AdmiralPred
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Hook View Post
What I want to know is how the UHL teams survive on the pitiful attendance figures they show (Komets aside)? I know a lot DON'T make it, but the ones that keep coming back year in and year out That said, how many people live in Chiacgoland? Is it unrealistic to expect the Hounds to manage 3000-4000 fans a night in a metro area that large?
Operating costs in the U should be pretty low, even lower still this upcomming season without the outlying teams. Not sure what they get in terms of arena leases which is a major cost for most all minor league teams. I thought I had read somewhere that about $6,000 per home game was standard. $216,000 for the season plus travel costs plus accomodations, promotions, the $275,000 max for player salaries, etc. I would think breakeven in the U should be about 3,000 or 3,500 per night.

Assuming an even distribution of seating the Rockford Ice Hogs ticket prices average $16.40. Also assuming an average of 3,000 fans per 38 home games and the team brought in $1,869,600 in revenue figuring that concession and parking probably went to the arena and/or the supplier of the parking.

Anyone get a breakdown of minor league expenses? I just read that the Greenville Grrrowl paid $5,000 rent per home game in the ECHL.

Haven't seen the Dr Hook handle in a while, are you still researching for EHM?


Last edited by AdmiralPred: 07-26-2006 at 04:47 PM.
AdmiralPred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2006, 09:39 PM
  #29
Dr Hook
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: East Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 458
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dr Hook
Yep still plugging away with EHM, getting things in line for the new version which should be out in a couple months or so. Lots of great new features in it. I have been completely impressed so far. Research wise I've been handed the UHL for a spell while we look for a new researcher to handle it

re: UHl attendances, I know that the Mudbugs operating costs run about 1.6 mil year. Taking that into account I estimated that the a CHL team would need about 3k-3.2k a home game average to break even so that seems right for the UHL. OF course, teams that don't do better than that fold, a la San Angelo. If you check pointstreak attendances for the UHL it seems most of the clubs are around that break even point. I suppose that for many of the owners it is just a pleasant diversion from their real money-making endeavors

Dr Hook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2006, 05:37 PM
  #30
AdmiralPred
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,922
vCash: 500
As to the attendance in the UHL, the more sound franchises should be all right. Fort Wayne - the same family has owned the team for some time, since the IHL days I beleive. They are, locally, a rather prominent family in the community. Same with Flint, and the Flint owner is on record (Google it) as saying that as long as the fans want hockey and will continue to come to the games he'd keep the Generals around. Rockford has/had an official deal with Nashville and Milwaukee this past season and is run pretty tight from what I read. Plus they have Stve Martinson around for a few more years. The guy has yet to win fewer than 45 games per season as a head coach.

On the overall the UHL is garnering a less than desireable reputation, moreso after these past few months. Hopefully stability is on the horizon now that this invasion of outlying geographical territories is behind them. After all, there are a few prominent minor hockey owners that remain the core of the UHL. The league-wide problems stem from the league office and through some of the ownership groups that represent all that minor hockey ownership shouldn't be.

AdmiralPred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2006, 06:25 PM
  #31
pelts35.com
Registered User
 
pelts35.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 11,612
vCash: 500
A league name change might not be a bad idea to try to change how the league is perceived. Being known as the U-Haul league is not exactly a positive nickname.

pelts35.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2006, 12:19 PM
  #32
Dr Hook
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: East Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 458
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dr Hook
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralPred View Post
As to the attendance in the UHL, the more sound franchises should be all right. Fort Wayne - the same family has owned the team for some time, since the IHL days I beleive. They are, locally, a rather prominent family in the community. Same with Flint, and the Flint owner is on record (Google it) as saying that as long as the fans want hockey and will continue to come to the games he'd keep the Generals around. Rockford has/had an official deal with Nashville and Milwaukee this past season and is run pretty tight from what I read. Plus they have Stve Martinson around for a few more years. The guy has yet to win fewer than 45 games per season as a head coach.

On the overall the UHL is garnering a less than desireable reputation, moreso after these past few months. Hopefully stability is on the horizon now that this invasion of outlying geographical territories is behind them. After all, there are a few prominent minor hockey owners that remain the core of the UHL. The league-wide problems stem from the league office and through some of the ownership groups that represent all that minor hockey ownership shouldn't be.
I read the Flint Generals release. It sounds to me like a committment AND an ultimatum. As in, if you want to come support the club, I'll continue to finance it, but if fans don't come to the games, I'lm out because there isn't enough support. I can't remember where I read it, maybe on MLive, that this was a make or break year for the Gens as far as current ownership is concerned.

I agree about Ft. Wayne, Rockford, and QC. Elmira seems stable as well, but now they are all about massive travel costs- I wonder if they'll try to jump to the ECHL?

Here are the official attendance averages from pointstreak. Obviously the top teams are still viable, with Richmond moving to the SPHL and its lower salary and probably cheaper travel should keep the Renegades going. OUtside Richmond it looks like 5 teams were probably turning a profit. In a 14 team league that is no good.


TEAM YESTERDAY TOTAL GAMES AVERAGE Fort Wayne 282,031 38 7,421 Rockford 150,548 38 3,961 Richmond 140,210 38 3,689 Quad City 134,620 38 3,542 Kalamazoo 129,812 38 3,416 Muskegon 117,903 38 3,102 Elmira 102,310 38 2,692 Missouri 92,975 38 2,446 Flint 92,065 38 2,422 Adirondack 91,971 38 2,420 Danbury 91,512 38 2,408 Port Huron 90,743 38 2,387 Motor City 60,898 38 1,602 Roanoke 57,820 38 1,521

Dr Hook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 01:20 PM
  #33
hockeynut47
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Atlanta GA
Country: United States
Posts: 22
vCash: 500
Just heard that the player that was thinking about signing with the Hounds is signing with someone else. OH well, I guess I am out of here now. Good luck with the season and the new team!!!!

hockeynut47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 02:33 PM
  #34
AdmiralPred
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hook
I read the Flint Generals release. It sounds to me like a committment AND an ultimatum. As in, if you want to come support the club, I'll continue to finance it, but if fans don't come to the games, I'lm out because there isn't enough support. I can't remember where I read it, maybe on MLive, that this was a make or break year for the Gens as far as current ownership is concerned.
That was the impression that I got as well, but he must want to keep hockey around, otherwise why even post an ultimatum? Especially when it would be easy to just pulled the plug as so many minor hockey owners do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hook
I agree about Ft. Wayne, Rockford, and QC. Elmira seems stable as well, but now they are all about massive travel costs- I wonder if they'll try to jump to the ECHL?
I may have to provide a little insight as to the Elmira situation, at least as an outsider looking in. The team is owned by Mostafa Afr and run by his son Tamer. They were behind the Louisville Panther debacle in the AHL about 5 years ago and have pretty much been blacklisted by the ECHL (the league has flat out said they do not wish to deal with the Afrs) so I am not sure that the Jackyls are in good hands nor be making any league jumps with their current ownership. I really do not see them surviving beyond the 06-07 season given the current state of the UHL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hook
Here are the official attendance averages from pointstreak. Obviously the top teams are still viable, with Richmond moving to the SPHL and its lower salary and probably cheaper travel should keep the Renegades going. OUtside Richmond it looks like 5 teams were probably turning a profit. In a 14 team league that is no good.
As you can see those teams from Elmira on down are either gone or surrounded by question marks. Those Richmond attendance figures still baffle me. With so much negativity surrounding the UHL team this past season I would have expected a lower figure. Now the revived Renegades are in a new league with a new owner, who had the ECHL version in Richmond in the 90s, and should have lower operating costs as you've stated. The SPHL is also making decent strides in establishing itself as opposed to the predecessor leagues of the Southeast U.S.

AdmiralPred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2006, 12:48 PM
  #35
gadeswin
Registered User
 
gadeswin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 78
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to gadeswin Send a message via MSN to gadeswin Send a message via Yahoo to gadeswin
As a Richmond fan,I'm just ecstatic that someone other than us has to deal with those ******* owners.Good riddence.It is also refreshing to be out of the UHL where you had teams sometimes 2 and 3 times over the salary cap and all the UHL management could do was shrug their shoulders.I guess they are probably hockeys version of the UN.WORTHLESS!!!.
Its a shame that Danbury went down as you could use their trash trucks to chauffer Action and Margeneau around.A worthy ride for them.
I'm a die hard hockey fan but after the last couple of years you couldnt GIVE me a ticket to a UHL game.Will the SPHL be better? I dont know,but I do know what the UHL is about.

just my two cents

gadeswin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 10:43 AM
  #36
AdmiralPred
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gadeswin View Post
As a Richmond fan,I'm just ecstatic that someone other than us has to deal with those ******* owners.Good riddence.It is also refreshing to be out of the UHL where you had teams sometimes 2 and 3 times over the salary cap and all the UHL management could do was shrug their shoulders.I guess they are probably hockeys version of the UN.WORTHLESS!!!.
Its a shame that Danbury went down as you could use their trash trucks to chauffer Action and Margeneau around.A worthy ride for them.
I'm a die hard hockey fan but after the last couple of years you couldnt GIVE me a ticket to a UHL game.Will the SPHL be better? I dont know,but I do know what the UHL is about.

just my two cents
I'll be an appologist for just a short while, although the UHL does have its merits. While Margeneau may be the focus of your two cents he pretty much took control of the team in the final year of a lease with no intention of returning to Richmond as, I speculate, he knew he (or anyone) could not economically operate a UHL team as an outlier. The trail behind Margeneau in minor pro sports is both good and not so good. He took over (was given the franchise by the league) a team from a far less than desirable owner in Glen Morelli who failed to meet payments and was supposedly in debt to the league for anywhere from $50k-$200k, a debt I think the league cancelled out with the transfer of the franchise.

The SPHL should be a better fit economically for their new owner and especially geographically as the UHL expansion can officially be considered a failure. The UHL should be better off with a contracted, conceise league and with prunning a few of the less-than-desirable owners from its trunk.

AdmiralPred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2006, 07:39 AM
  #37
gadeswin
Registered User
 
gadeswin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 78
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to gadeswin Send a message via MSN to gadeswin Send a message via Yahoo to gadeswin
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralPred View Post
I'll be an appologist for just a short while, although the UHL does have its merits. While Margeneau may be the focus of your two cents he pretty much took control of the team in the final year of a lease with no intention of returning to Richmond as, I speculate, he knew he (or anyone) could not economically operate a UHL team as an outlier. The trail behind Margeneau in minor pro sports is both good and not so good. He took over (was given the franchise by the league) a team from a far less than desirable owner in Glen Morelli who failed to meet payments and was supposedly in debt to the league for anywhere from $50k-$200k, a debt I think the league cancelled out with the transfer of the franchise.

The SPHL should be a better fit economically for their new owner and especially geographically as the UHL expansion can officially be considered a failure. The UHL should be better off with a contracted, conceise league and with prunning a few of the less-than-desirable owners from its trunk.

You are correct in saying that he took over a team from "another" less than desirable owner in the last year of the lease.I also feel that you are probably accurate in saying that he had no intentions of returning with the team to Richmond from the get go.What I saw was management making roster moves that could only be explained as sabotaging the team in order to further prove to SMG that the team was losing money.Richmond had dropped far from playoff contention when Coach Nichols got them rolling and back into the hunt.After fighting back to within 3pts of the last playoff spot,management decided that Coach Nichols needed to be move to Chicago to get the "expansion team" started leaving us with a coach with no experience in Coach Waltz.Coach Waltz did a fantastic job in this situation starting out 6-0 as coach.Thats when some more odd player moves began taking place which left the team playing often with 13-14 players.In other words it appears from what I and others saw that management was doing everything in their power to make sure that the team did not succeed that year.
This is all fine and dandy with what you stated,but I am someone that spent over $1,000 in season tickets and drove 65 miles one way to the games.I have a perfectly good right along with anyone else who spent their hard earned money for this very irrate over this fiasco..Many of the other season ticket holders feel the same way in this.WE WERE RIPPED OF BY SCUM!!!.
Of course there is a chance this could happen again with the new team coming,but they will have my trust until they prove otherwise.As far as the UHL,Action and Margeneau? They have shown their true colors and I have no doubt they would pull that mess again. Regardless,none of them will ever have their sticky little hands in my pocket again.
The UHL itself may be more regionally cost affective,but they still have the problem of being run by people who turn a blind eye to cap violations,and we aren't talking about small cap violations.We are talking a cap being exceeded 2 and 3 fold.Just go look at what the Danbury Trashers were allowed to get away with.The UHL either had to be stupid,incompetent or crooked.Which is it?Again not a situation I would ever want to pay to see again.I can go waste my time watching WWF for free rather than that.
The one bright side of this is that we are no longer part of that circus.I will gladly support any hockey team that tried to make it work in Richmond,but you can bet that if Margeneau or Action have anything to do with it,I will stay home,and if our only option someday became the UHL then my decision would be to stay home and not waste my time or my money.Check around Richmond,and I will be willing to bet that I'm not alone in this.

gadeswin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2006, 12:54 AM
  #38
lehtsrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Elgin, Illinois
Country: United States
Posts: 367
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to lehtsrock Send a message via MSN to lehtsrock Send a message via Yahoo to lehtsrock
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralPred View Post
In terms of markets, this may be different than Columbus. The Hoffmann Estates Arena is literally a few (10-ish) miles down the road from All-States where the Wolves play but, there is a lot going on in the far NW suburbs - Schaumberg, Barrington, Elgin, and the Fox River towns with a lot of wealthy communities. I don't know, maybe the UHL is getting smart and concentrating teams in the Great Lakes/Midwest with the recent addition of Bloomington, IL as well.
I disagree. I'm in Elgin, and the Allstate is only about 20-30 minutes (east-ish) from me (and I'm a STH for the Wolves). Rockford is also about 30-40 minutes west of me. The Sears Center is about 10 minutes away (east-ish). So, I'd say I'm pretty much in the middle of it all. There is no 'burb close to the Sears Center that is too far to go to the Wolves, or to Rockford.

Now, I honestly don't care that the UHL brought another team here (hey, more hockey! what's to not like!?)... I'm just simply saying that they're not appealing to any fans that are thinking "Hey, the Wolves are too far, Rockford is too far, let's go to the Hounds."

Not to mention the Hounds' prices are match, if not higher, than Wolves prices. They're not helping themselves there, either.

lehtsrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2006, 08:08 AM
  #39
pelts35.com
Registered User
 
pelts35.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 11,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lehtsrock View Post
I disagree. I'm in Elgin, and the Allstate is only about 20-30 minutes (east-ish) from me (and I'm a STH for the Wolves). Rockford is also about 30-40 minutes west of me. The Sears Center is about 10 minutes away (east-ish). So, I'd say I'm pretty much in the middle of it all. There is no 'burb close to the Sears Center that is too far to go to the Wolves, or to Rockford.

Now, I honestly don't care that the UHL brought another team here (hey, more hockey! what's to not like!?)... I'm just simply saying that they're not appealing to any fans that are thinking "Hey, the Wolves are too far, Rockford is too far, let's go to the Hounds."

Not to mention the Hounds' prices are match, if not higher, than Wolves prices. They're not helping themselves there, either.
Wow, I just looked at the Hounds' site for ticket prices and couldn't believe what I saw....

VIP Glass Seat $45
Lower Level Rows 2-5 $31
Lower Level Side Rows 6-19 $26
Lower Level End $20
Terrace Level Rows 2-4 $20
Terrace Level Rows 5-9 $14

They have shot themselves in the foot already with those prices.

pelts35.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2006, 08:10 AM
  #40
AdmiralPred
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lehtsrock View Post
I disagree. I'm in Elgin, and the Allstate is only about 20-30 minutes (east-ish) from me (and I'm a STH for the Wolves). Rockford is also about 30-40 minutes west of me. The Sears Center is about 10 minutes away (east-ish). So, I'd say I'm pretty much in the middle of it all. There is no 'burb close to the Sears Center that is too far to go to the Wolves, or to Rockford.

Now, I honestly don't care that the UHL brought another team here (hey, more hockey! what's to not like!?)... I'm just simply saying that they're not appealing to any fans that are thinking "Hey, the Wolves are too far, Rockford is too far, let's go to the Hounds."

Not to mention the Hounds' prices are match, if not higher, than Wolves prices. They're not helping themselves there, either.
What were you disagreeing with? I posted that over two months ago in response to people immediately putting the ki-bosh on the Hounds. I don't think that the proximity of the arenas to a fan is going to be any deciding factor over where to watch a hockey game. I'm just saying that there is a large enough fan base to potentially draw from.

EDIT: Pelts, those prices look comparable to Wolves tickets. A quick glance at the UHL site (may not reflect actual ticket prices), and I don't see too many teams' prices above $20-$25.


Last edited by AdmiralPred: 08-18-2006 at 08:17 AM.
AdmiralPred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2006, 08:34 AM
  #41
pelts35.com
Registered User
 
pelts35.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 11,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralPred View Post
What were you disagreeing with? I posted that over two months ago in response to people immediately putting the ki-bosh on the Hounds. I don't think that the proximity of the arenas to a fan is going to be any deciding factor over where to watch a hockey game. I'm just saying that there is a large enough fan base to potentially draw from.

EDIT: Pelts, those prices look comparable to Wolves tickets. A quick glance at the UHL site (may not reflect actual ticket prices), and I don't see too many teams' prices above $20-$25.
That's my point. A new team in a market that has so many Wolves fans isn't going to attract fans (of a significantly lesser product) by charging the same (more for some seats) prices as the Wolves.

pelts35.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2006, 09:27 AM
  #42
AdmiralPred
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelts35.com View Post
That's my point. A new team in a market that has so many Wolves fans isn't going to attract fans (of a significantly lesser product) by charging the same (more for some seats) prices as the Wolves.
Agreed. I was just commenting to reinforce your point, the prices look rather high for UHL hockey, and as a frequent visitor to the area I'll probably opt for a Wolves game at those prices. However, to argue the other way, it may be what the market will bear.

AdmiralPred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2006, 01:16 PM
  #43
pelts35.com
Registered User
 
pelts35.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 11,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralPred View Post
Agreed. I was just commenting to reinforce your point, the prices look rather high for UHL hockey, and as a frequent visitor to the area I'll probably opt for a Wolves game at those prices. However, to argue the other way, it may be what the market will bear.
Just making sure we are on the same page.

Regarding your last comment, I just can't see people paying the same price for a lesser product.

pelts35.com 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 07:42 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.