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.

Shoalts on Expansion: At least 3 years away; Imbalance favors Seattle, Vegas

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-18-2014, 02:14 PM
  #201
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMROWE View Post
I believe within the next 15 years we are going to see a 34 team NHL. that will include both relocation & expansion . This is how I think its going to happen we will see the Coyotes & Panthers relocate along with 4 expansion teams .

Hamilton
Seattle
Portland
Quebec City
Houston
Kansas City

You probably notice I left Las Vegas off the list for good reason because believe an NHL. team in Las Vegas won't work & is disaster waiting to happen & lets not forget Las Vegas is a Basketball town & if they are building an arena its to get an NBA. team not an NHL. team .
If there was a ownership group interested in KC they would have a team by now. I doubt that will change anytime soon.

Seattle may or may not be getting a team in the next 15 years. It is very very uncertain seattle will ever get that arena built and yes i am going beyond Hansen's arena proposal as to that is currently not going to happen unless NBA gives us a team. unless of course we get a ownership group that's willing to eat majority of the arena costs to City of seattle's liking to get hansen's MOU modified to allow a NHL team to build it.

The only way i see Seattle with a NHL team if the league gives us a team and allows them to play in Key arena for 2-3 maybe 4 years allowing them time to get something going on that arena front.


Last edited by gstommylee: 04-18-2014 at 02:20 PM.
gstommylee is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 02:24 PM
  #202
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Confucius View Post
How could they ever develop a fan base, when all the tickets are given to Guests of the Casinos who stay a week or less? Melnyk thinks Ottawa atmosphere is bad for the home team when the Leaf fans take over his building. Why would a casino pay to take people away from the tables? The magic acts, the singers are one thing since they keep patrons in the building and for the most part can only be seen in Vegas. Backing a hockey team would be akin to offering free trips to the Grand Canyon and Hoover dam.
Every time someone brings up Vegas, people make over-generalizations like this. It wouldn't be ALL of the tickets given away to tourists. It would be some. IF Vegas had the same sized fan base as Phoenix (and again, 4-team market vs 1-team market; Vegas would probably be higher), then "giving away" some of the cheap seats to get people in the building and hitting the concession stand is a pretty solid idea. Also, there's a massive group of people who'd love to take in a hockey game while they're in Vegas. They're called "dudes."

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
you honestly think that the league would prefer two vulnerable franchises in the PNW before it decides to reach down and pick up some of the billion dollars it has left on the table in hamilton/gta2? one maybe, but not two. its seattle or portland, not both. that would achieve nothing. and seattle's dreams got dumped with a big nba bucket of very cold lake michigan water this week.
I wouldn't consider Seattle "vulnerable"
There's a very strong chance that Hamilton/GTA2 royally screws the bottom 2/3 of the league by inflating the "midpoint"
Most the league wants E-W balance

But other than that… order of entry into the NHL doesn't have a damned thing to do with "which market is better." In the case of those six, that order is perfect. Keep in mind they'd enter two-by-two:


First Seattle & Vegas. People kind of expect this already. Vegas is breaking ground on an arena on May 1st. The NHL wants to be first to Vegas. The league looks like it's ready for two more teams, and it looks like they should be slotted in the West (Colorado slides to Central).

Second, Quebec & Portland. Quebec is ready to roll. These two teams make for 34, 17-17, which is a bizarre number. But the NHL will say "ringing the Nordiques home is the right thing to do… and since Seattle's doing so well…"

Third, Houston and (Southern Ontario). Both those markets have additional circumstances holding up the works. Les Alexander in Houston; territory rights in S.O.

But in any other order, the question comes up: "Why add Portland & Las Vegas" and "the anticipated success of Southern Ontario jacking up the midpoint, combined with the desire for geographic balance in our alignment" is not a very sexy answer.

Houston and S.O. are your cleanup hitters. Portland and Vegas really just allow you to get Quebec, SO and Houston without jacking up the average revenue. And they're also large untapped markets (that's 15 million people in those six cities, plus their extended TV viewing areas). Combined those six check off every wish of an expansion.

KevFu is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 02:30 PM
  #203
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
First Seattle & Vegas. People kind of expect this already. Vegas is breaking ground on an arena on May 1st. The NHL wants to be first to Vegas. The league looks like it's ready for two more teams, and it looks like they should be slotted in the West (Colorado slides to Central).

At this point given the unknown of will Seattle be getting a NBA team in the near future before the end of 2017, The only way Seattle is first on expansion block is NHL accepts Key arena for a longer time use while the group gets the new arena figured out.

If not then imo it should be vegas and Quebec being first as both are getting arena's built

gstommylee is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 02:33 PM
  #204
Acesolid
The Illusive Bettman
 
Acesolid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post

First Seattle & Vegas. People kind of expect this already. Vegas is breaking ground on an arena on May 1st. The NHL wants to be first to Vegas. The league looks like it's ready for two more teams, and it looks like they should be slotted in the West (Colorado slides to Central).

Second, Quebec & Portland. Quebec is ready to roll. These two teams make for 34, 17-17, which is a bizarre number. But the NHL will say "ringing the Nordiques home is the right thing to do… and since Seattle's doing so well…"
Sorry, but I really dont see Québec being ignored once expansion is given the go ahead.

I mean... our building has almost finished being built. While we are still speaking of theoretical arenas in Las Vegas and Seattle (and of a very, very hypothetical one in Seattle).

I truly believe that once expansion will be given the go ahead (and that could be in a few years), Québec will be part of the ''first batch''.

Acesolid is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 02:34 PM
  #205
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesolid View Post
Sorry, but I really dont see Québec being ignored once expansion is given the go ahead.

I mean... our building has almost finished being built. While we are still speaking of theoretical arenas in Las Vegas and Seattle (and of a very, very hypothetical one in Seattle).

I truly believe that once expansion will be given the go ahead (and that could be in a few years), Québec will be part of the ''first batch''.
At this rate it'll be quebec and Vegas unless NBA decides to play nice with seattle and give them an expansion team.

My huge concern is if Hansen's arena doesn't happen and he walks away any future arena proposal will most likely to have to be 100% private and most likely to be built on the possibility of it being empty. There is a reason why that has yet happened here cause so far no one is willing to come forward to pay for the entire thing or is willing to built it to be empty hence the NBA team requirement for Hansen's arena proposal

gstommylee is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 02:38 PM
  #206
Acesolid
The Illusive Bettman
 
Acesolid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
At this rate it'll be quebec and Vegas unless NBA decides to play nice with seattle and give them an expansion team.
If that were the case, I wouldn't even be mad. A risky Southbelt expansion being coupled with a sure thing in Québec makes sense. (if it comes to the worst, we'll be able to pay revenue sharing to prop it up)

But it'd just be a slap to the face to ignore the new, giant temple of hockey in Québec and give a team to two risky markets. With one of them over-saturated with sports and no arena.

Acesolid is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 02:44 PM
  #207
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,842
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
I wouldn't consider Seattle "vulnerable"
There's a very strong chance that Hamilton/GTA2 royally screws the bottom 2/3 of the league by inflating the "midpoint"
Most the league wants E-W balance

But other than that… order of entry into the NHL doesn't have a damned thing to do with "which market is better." In the case of those six, that order is perfect. Keep in mind they'd enter two-by-two:


First Seattle & Vegas. People kind of expect this already. Vegas is breaking ground on an arena on May 1st. The NHL wants to be first to Vegas. The league looks like it's ready for two more teams, and it looks like they should be slotted in the West (Colorado slides to Central).

Second, Quebec & Portland. Quebec is ready to roll. These two teams make for 34, 17-17, which is a bizarre number. But the NHL will say "ringing the Nordiques home is the right thing to do… and since Seattle's doing so well…"

Third, Houston and (Southern Ontario). Both those markets have additional circumstances holding up the works. Les Alexander in Houston; territory rights in S.O.

But in any other order, the question comes up: "Why add Portland & Las Vegas" and "the anticipated success of Southern Ontario jacking up the midpoint, combined with the desire for geographic balance in our alignment" is not a very sexy answer.

Houston and S.O. are your cleanup hitters. Portland and Vegas really just allow you to get Quebec, SO and Houston without jacking up the average revenue. And they're also large untapped markets (that's 15 million people in those six cities, plus their extended TV viewing areas). Combined those six check off every wish of an expansion.
i cant disagree with most of what you say here. if the objective is to get to 36, then yes, your approach makes sense. 'cleanup hitter' is a nice way to say it.

but is 36 the objective? does that number achieve something in particular? if it doesnt, then maybe 32 is the optimal number which would makes which cities and when much different, as well as why.

i dunno. i really have no idea what their magic number is and why and what it achieves. maybe they dont even really know. and maybe opportunity begins to trump strategic order.

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 02:44 PM
  #208
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesolid View Post
If that were the case, I wouldn't even be mad. A risky Southbelt expansion being coupled with a sure thing in Québec makes sense. (if it comes to the worst, we'll be able to pay revenue sharing to prop it up)

But it'd just be a slap to the face to ignore the new, giant temple of hockey in Québec and give a team to two risky markets. With one of them over-saturated with sports and no arena.
I wouldn't be calling Seattle's a risky market as if it wasn't the issue of the arena we would have a team right now. Seattle isn't over-saturated.

What's risky is NHL giving a team to play in key arena on the hopes of a new one being built.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 02:45 PM
  #209
IceAce
HEY BUD, LETS PARTY!
 
IceAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 3,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesolid View Post
Sorry, but I really dont see Québec being ignored once expansion is given the go ahead.

I mean... our building has almost finished being built. While we are still speaking of theoretical arenas in Las Vegas and Seattle (and of a very, very hypothetical one in Seattle).

I truly believe that once expansion will be given the go ahead (and that could be in a few years), Québec will be part of the ''first batch''.
Quebec, if anything, would be a "relo savior" for a franchise in trouble, similar to how Atlanta went to Winnipeg. I can't see the NHL actively targeting a small, hockey-saturated market for an expansion team, but YMMV.

IceAce is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 02:51 PM
  #210
Acesolid
The Illusive Bettman
 
Acesolid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAce View Post
Quebec, if anything, would be a "relo savior" for a franchise in trouble, similar to how Atlanta went to Winnipeg. I can't see the NHL actively targeting a small, hockey-saturated market for an expansion team, but YMMV.
Hockey saturated? With what, major junior?

No, I believed the proper word is ''unserved'' and ''money left on the table'' markets. Like Hamilton, or Hartford (who I hope will have the courage to build a modern arena someday like we did).

The NHL is taking none of our money (other then in the TV deals), while we'd give it to them if they asked.

Acesolid is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 03:08 PM
  #211
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
PCSPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stchamp98 View Post
I'm not sure what you mean, can you explain please?
Seattle is what any given NBA team can point to and say "we will move there unless YOU build us an arena" right now, just because of the threat of an arena in place.

Las Vegas will be that for the NHL, except the league will probably never actually go there.

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 03:12 PM
  #212
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesolid View Post
Sorry, but I really dont see Québec being ignored once expansion is given the go ahead.

I mean... our building has almost finished being built. While we are still speaking of theoretical arenas in Las Vegas and Seattle (and of a very, very hypothetical one in Seattle).

I truly believe that once expansion will be given the go ahead (and that could be in a few years), Québec will be part of the ''first batch''.
Nor do I see Quebec being ignored. That's also not to say that teams 1-4 on that list aren't ALL "the first batch"

There's going to be owners not to keen on expanding to 32 with 17 ETZ teams for obvious reasons. And Quebec is ready NOW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
i cant disagree with most of what you say here. if the objective is to get to 36, then yes, your approach makes sense. 'cleanup hitter' is a nice way to say it.

but is 36 the objective? does that number achieve something in particular? if it doesnt, then maybe 32 is the optimal number which would makes which cities and when much different, as well as why.

i dunno. i really have no idea what their magic number is and why and what it achieves. maybe they dont even really know. and maybe opportunity begins to trump strategic order.
I think 36 makes perfect sense. It DOES achieve something in particular:
-- it adds boatloads of TV sets and opens up new territory to the league in Pacific Northwest, Las Vegas and Texas.
-- it adds teams in underserved markets (QUE, SO, PNW, Texas)
-- it gets Quebec back.
-- it balances slam-dunk revenue-generating franchises with "experimental" markets to keep the average revenue midpoint from rising
-- it creates East/West balance
-- it gives Dallas a rival; it gives Vancouver a rival; and improves everyone's travel situation.
-- It allows for the east to have a better geographic alignment (TB, FLA, CAR, WAS, PIT, PHI, NJ, NYR, NYI | BOS, MON, OTT, QUE, TOR, SO/GTA2, BUF, DET, CBJ) than this FLA/TB with the Canadian teams model.
-- it creates a PR buzz (Vegas? Quebec! Second Toronto Team!)
-- it reinforces "if you build it, they will come" in Quebec, Seattle, etc.

KevFu is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 03:13 PM
  #213
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCSPounder View Post
Seattle is what any given NBA team can point to and say "we will move there unless YOU build us an arena" right now, just because of the threat of an arena in place.

Las Vegas will be that for the NHL, except the league will probably never actually go there.
in regards to the bucks, Milwaukee, county and the state don't quite understand that concept since they have yet to approve any proposal and so far they only come out against a multi-county tax plan.

Of course there is always the possibility of the new owners moving the team else where than Seattle. Plus NBA doesn't need to use Seattle as that threat anymore. They can just use Vegas as the threat as they are actually building that arena.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 03:15 PM
  #214
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
-- it reinforces "if you build it, they will come" in Quebec, Seattle, etc.
Seattle shouldn't be listed there as currently its give us a team before we will build it. Well technically give us a team and hope NBA gives us one before we built it.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 03:22 PM
  #215
AllezlesBleus
Registered User
 
AllezlesBleus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 11
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesolid View Post
Hockey saturated? With what, major junior?

No, I believed the proper word is ''unserved'' and ''money left on the table'' markets. Like Hamilton, or Hartford (who I hope will have the courage to build a modern arena someday like we did).

The NHL is taking none of our money (other then in the TV deals), while we'd give it to them if they asked.
So from what you're saying, from Trois-Rivières up to Gaspésie passing by Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean and the Quebec City area, no one is spending money on NHL products? Hats, shirts, jerseys, publicity, trips to american cities to watch games are not the kind of things that people from the eastern part of the Quebec province are buying? Why? Because Les Canadiens are only Montréal's team?

We must admit it. The whole province of Quebec is a market for Les Canadiens. People not interested in hockey (as scarce as they may be) are customers to get. Of course, not all the Quebecers are fans of La Sainte-Flanelle but they are, most certainly, fans of another team (Toronto, Boston, Phildelphia, etc.) So in the eye of the NHL those non-Canadiens fans are spending money on NHL products.

For the NHL as an business, Quebec is a won market. The girl already said yes before you even started to flirt with her. She will do anything to have you. Bettman and Daly knows that. In my opinion, and I agree with SolidAce, Quebec is just going to get diner's rests. When a team will need to be relocated, we will get a team. Our burning desire for hockey is our worst enemy, in a way.

Plus, even though Geoff Molson mentionned that the rivival of Les Nordiques would not be something that Les Canadiens will go against, I barely believe him. Any sport team is a business. Last thing you want, in your market, is a direct competitor that will split the pie. Hockey fans from Quebec are already spending a lot of money on Montréal's team and/or on other NHL products. Any new american city in the NHL family would be more appealing. They will represent new markets to conquer, new customers to get, new money to be taken.

I'm not saying this in disdain of Quebec City. In fact, I'm following the Nordiques 2.0 saga since 1995. But I think that when you look at the numbers and the other competitors, Quebec is not a done deal. It's NHL's plan B.

AllezlesBleus is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 03:24 PM
  #216
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllezlesBleus View Post
I'm not saying this in disdain of Quebec City. In fact, I'm following the Nordiques 2.0 saga since 1995. But I think that when you look at the numbers and the other competitor, Quebec is not a done deal. It's NHL's plan B.
If Quebec is a plan B and seattle doesn't get the arena figured out. Wouldn't it just be easy to relocate a team to quebec and avoid expansion completely?

gstommylee is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 03:25 PM
  #217
QcBlizzard
Regis-tered fan
 
QcBlizzard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Saguenay, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Every time someone brings up Vegas, people make over-generalizations like this. It wouldn't be ALL of the tickets given away to tourists. It would be some. IF Vegas had the same sized fan base as Phoenix (and again, 4-team market vs 1-team market; Vegas would probably be higher), then "giving away" some of the cheap seats to get people in the building and hitting the concession stand is a pretty solid idea. Also, there's a massive group of people who'd love to take in a hockey game while they're in Vegas. They're called "dudes."



I wouldn't consider Seattle "vulnerable"
There's a very strong chance that Hamilton/GTA2 royally screws the bottom 2/3 of the league by inflating the "midpoint"
Most the league wants E-W balance

But other than that… order of entry into the NHL doesn't have a damned thing to do with "which market is better." In the case of those six, that order is perfect. Keep in mind they'd enter two-by-two:


First Seattle & Vegas. People kind of expect this already. Vegas is breaking ground on an arena on May 1st. The NHL wants to be first to Vegas. The league looks like it's ready for two more teams, and it looks like they should be slotted in the West (Colorado slides to Central).

Second, Quebec & Portland. Quebec is ready to roll. These two teams make for 34, 17-17, which is a bizarre number. But the NHL will say "ringing the Nordiques home is the right thing to do… and since Seattle's doing so well…"

Third, Houston and (Southern Ontario). Both those markets have additional circumstances holding up the works. Les Alexander in Houston; territory rights in S.O.

But in any other order, the question comes up: "Why add Portland & Las Vegas" and "the anticipated success of Southern Ontario jacking up the midpoint, combined with the desire for geographic balance in our alignment" is not a very sexy answer.

Houston and S.O. are your cleanup hitters. Portland and Vegas really just allow you to get Quebec, SO and Houston without jacking up the average revenue. And they're also large untapped markets (that's 15 million people in those six cities, plus their extended TV viewing areas). Combined those six check off every wish of an expansion.
I am still not convinced at all. We have any clear evidence?

QcBlizzard is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 03:45 PM
  #218
AllezlesBleus
Registered User
 
AllezlesBleus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 11
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
If Quebec is a plan B and seattle doesn't get the arena figured out. Wouldn't it just be easy to relocate a team to quebec and avoid expansion completely?
Of course, if, and only if, there is such team in financial difficulties. I would bet my money on the Florida Panthers. Maybe this team will need to move in a couple of years.

Expansion was considered as long as Seattle was in the cards. Now that it's gone, I can't imagine a reason (city) to sustain the thoery of expansion. Of course, this would bring 250-300 millions in NHL's bank account. But Daly and Bettman want new american markets with good population numbers to get more arguments when dealing with USA's sports channels.

My take is that the NHL is trying to get more credit on the national level in the US. NFL, NBA, MLB and College football are still more popular than NHL hockey. Plus, Bettman must keep an eye on MLS since it's getting more popular each year amongst the young americans that are playing soccer. All those competitors are fighting for the ''leasure dollars'' and that's why NHL as been so agressive with outdoors games (espacially this year with the Stadium Series).

They want people to talk about the game and to get interested in it. If one thing, the NHL only hope that hockey may, at last, not only be Canadian's sport but America's sport.

AllezlesBleus is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 03:57 PM
  #219
Acesolid
The Illusive Bettman
 
Acesolid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllezlesBleus View Post
So from what you're saying, from Trois-Rivières up to Gaspésie passing by Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean and the Quebec City area, no one is spending money on NHL products? Hats, shirts, jerseys, publicity, trips to american cities to watch games are not the kind of things that people from the eastern part of the Quebec province are buying? Why? Because Les Canadiens are only Montréal's team?

We must admit it. The whole province of Quebec is a market for Les Canadiens. People not interested in hockey (as scarce as they may be) are customers to get. Of course, not all the Quebecers are fans of La Sainte-Flanelle but they are, most certainly, fans of another team (Toronto, Boston, Phildelphia, etc.) So in the eye of the NHL those non-Canadiens fans are spending money on NHL products.

For the NHL as an business, Quebec is a won market. The girl already said yes before you even started to flirt with her. She will do anything to have you. Bettman and Daly knows that. In my opinion, and I agree with SolidAce, Quebec is just going to get diner's rests. When a team will need to be relocated, we will get a team. Our burning desire for hockey is our worst enemy, in a way.

Plus, even though Geoff Molson mentionned that the rivival of Les Nordiques would not be something that Les Canadiens will go against, I barely believe him. Any sport team is a business. Last thing you want, in your market, is a direct competitor that will split the pie. Hockey fans from Quebec are already spending a lot of money on Montréal's team and/or on other NHL products. Any new american city in the NHL family would be more appealing. They will represent new markets to conquer, new customers to get, new money to be taken.

I'm not saying this in disdain of Quebec City. In fact, I'm following the Nordiques 2.0 saga since 1995. But I think that when you look at the numbers and the other competitors, Quebec is not a done deal. It's NHL's plan B.

What you are saying makes no logical sense.

Sure, people are going to Boston Pizzas during the playoffs. And maybe buying a cap or shirt every 5 years. That's what? Maybe 30$ per person, in the NHL's pocket?

Do you have ANY idea how much money the NHL would make with 18 000 new season tickets at 200$ each per seat per game, PLUS two new local TV deals (in english and french) at an insanely high price, PLUS a whole new line of Nordiques merchandise, PLUS a whole new fanbase that hated Montreal before?

The NHL is currently leaving Tens of Millions on the table, maybe more then a hundred millions in NEW revenue per year! (and 300 millions right now from an expansion fee!). Money they could get immediately if they just announced an expansion. At NO RISK!

Your argument is ridiculous. Sure, we in Québec LOVE the NHL. But they DO NOT take our money! At all! It goes to the LHJMQ and to Sports Bars right now!

Don't you see how insane that is?

Acesolid is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 03:57 PM
  #220
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,842
vCash: 500
you present a very convincing argument, KevFu

this is the juicy bit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
-- it balances slam-dunk revenue-generating franchises with "experimental" markets to keep the average revenue midpoint from rising.
a macro approach. i like it. but it implies these experimental markets would need to continue to lose money. not withstanding revenue sharing, its a pretty ballsy thing for the nhl to say to a potential experimental owner that not only does he need to cough up $220M, maybe $300M or more, but then he will need to finance a money pit ... unless he can come to some sort of agreement with an understanding local gov't.

do you think buyers in vegas, portland, seattle and houston want to pay to lose money?

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 04:28 PM
  #221
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
you present a very convincing argument, KevFu

this is the juicy bit:



a macro approach. i like it. but it implies these experimental markets would need to continue to lose money. not withstanding revenue sharing, its a pretty ballsy thing for the nhl to say to a potential experimental owner that not only does he need to cough up $220M, maybe $300M or more, but then he will need to finance a money pit ... unless he can come to some sort of agreement with an understanding local gov't.

do you think buyers in vegas, portland, seattle and houston want to pay to lose money?
No way in hell seattle would want to be in there. Not only they pay the fee for the team but also the potential of paying for the arena too if it comes to the point of HAVING too modify the seattle's MOU.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 04:41 PM
  #222
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
you present a very convincing argument, KevFu

this is the juicy bit:

a macro approach. i like it. but it implies these experimental markets would need to continue to lose money. not withstanding revenue sharing, its a pretty ballsy thing for the nhl to say to a potential experimental owner that not only does he need to cough up $220M, maybe $300M or more, but then he will need to finance a money pit ... unless he can come to some sort of agreement with an understanding local gov't.

do you think buyers in vegas, portland, seattle and houston want to pay to lose money?
Profit/Loss has nothing to do with the midpoint. It's average revenues.

The "average" falls between teams #11 & #12 in revenues, thanks to mega-revenues from TOR, MON, NYR.

There are very few teams with revenues around the average, and the majority of teams are below average.

You need to grow the middle class of the league and have the number of super rich = the number of poor teams.

Seattle, Portland, Houston, Quebec are going to be around the middle of the league in revenues.

Vegas has the potential to be in the upper half, but probably going to be in the middle third; but being the only team in town, in a decent sized market, and being bankrolled by a relatively recession proof industry (casinos), with a lease that's probably going to be quite favorable since the owner is willing to have a loss leader for the arena/casino.

Here's an underrated aspect of Vegas: They will lead the league in mid-week home games. That's their unique niche. They'd be the only franchise who'd WANT them because they'd be the only market in any league that would probably have more locals show up on a Tuesday than a Saturday.

KevFu is offline  
Old
04-18-2014, 04:45 PM
  #223
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flukeshot View Post
For what it's worth, on the Toronto FAN590 Bob McCown and a guest both spoke about how the Las Vegas and Seattle rumours won't go away and that they felt it was a "sooner than later" scenario. Again both acknowledged the NHLs denial that expansion discussions were seriously taking place.
Also, for what it's worth, Bill Daly was on the Rangers radio broadcast last night and said that there are a number of interested parties, and they will eventually take it to the ownership group, but they haven't as of yet.

We knew that though, so for us here on BoH, it's a "status quo" sort of statement.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
04-24-2014, 04:07 PM
  #224
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
Private Equity
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 1,901
vCash: 500
Bump (Head's up)

Folks...

I moved the last couple of days worth of discussion to the Seattle thread.


http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...605559&page=34

The link above should get you to where most of the crossover began so you can pick up where it was left off.

The majority of the posts (about 90%) were about Seattle so to eliminate the crossover that was occurring, it was decided that the following would be best:

* Move the Seattle discussion its pre-existing thread.

* Close this thread until there's more of a shotgun-spread news item pertaining to expansion (greater than one market - each suspected market has its own thread here)

Major4Boarding 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 05:08 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.