Quote:
Originally Posted by voyageur
Florida can't fill their rink in winning times, perennially loses money, and attracts 2 000 local viewers to watch its product. Another subsidized dud.
|
They won their division (with 94 points, two more than 8th place), but it's not like on opening night, everyone in Miami knew they had clinched the division. During the year, attendance escalates (hence their 41,000 more for the season, and 1,000 more per game), but the big boost comes the NEXT season. Of course, they'll lose that ground thanks to the lockout.
And it's 3,000 viewers. Not that it's that much better, but let's at least be accurate. Scratch that. Let's at least repeat what the report said.
I read everyone call into questions the data and ask for a "Forbes Disclaimer," but we're accepting TV ratings? Are you kidding me?
0.02183% of the total number of HOUSEHOLDS are monitored.
25,000 people is crappy attendance for a MLB baseball team. It's also the number of households monitored by the Nielsen Ratings. In the entire United States, not Miami.
Based on a percentage of US population, they'll polling those Panthers numbers by asking 431 Miamians what they watch on TV.
Forbes numbers are in the ballpark, Nielsen ratings aren't even remotely close. Remember this is the same system that had Cheers the worst rated show in their debut season and led to the cancellation of Family Guy.
This board could probably raise the Panthers TV ratings to 13,000 by getting ONE Panthers fan in Miami to successfully call Nielsen and get a monitoring box in his house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voyageur
I say give TSN/Bell a reward for its investment in the league by relocating the Coyotes to Hamilton, capitalizing on a strong fan base, and increasing the viewership of hockey from a paltry 7 000 households to hundreds of thousands. The caveat is more money for Buffalo, in indemnities, and greater exposure through the Canadian sports media to offset the loss of some of its steel belt fans.
|
I think part of the Rogers/Bell/Sabres agreement for MLSE, Markham, Hamilton franchise should include a RSN co-owned by the Sabres and Hamilton to broadcast their games on each side. Teams working together on the business side in their mutual best interest. A one-time territorial fee does nothing. The Orioles are a playoff team now. You know what helped turned them around? The joint cable venture between them and the Nationals as part of Expos relocation. Instead of a rights fee, the Nationals are on the RSN owned by the Orioles and they share the revenues from broadcasting both teams in both areas. That increased their scouting budget and enabled them to draft better players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voyageur
I think the Isles need to develop an identity, and as long as they are in the shadow of the Rangers they are in danger. Putting them in the Northeast gives them two attractive geographic rivals in Buffalo and Boston, that the Rangers will be severed from in the new alignment, and also gives New York, instead of Florida the opportunity to cash in on a flood of Canadian hockey tourists, which can't hurt the bottom line on a team that is bleeding red. The Rangers-Isles rivalry isn't sacred, to the extent Philly-Pitt is, especially as I think the Rags-Devils has developed into a much bigger rivalry in recent years.
|
The Islanders identity is Long Island's Team. That identity worked just fine in the 1980s, before video boards, board and on-ice advertising, luxury and club suites. All revenue NVMC doesn't give the Islanders.
They don't need new rivals. The Rangers "Shadow" isn't a problem. Since coming into the League, the Islanders have 27 playoff series wins, 4 Cups vs the Rangers 24 playoff series wins and 1 Stanley Cup.
The problem isn't the "Shadow," it's the venue/lease/revenue. You could put the Islanders in a division with CBJ, FLA, CAR, and TB (not that we're volunteering) and as long as they had a sparkling new NHL arena at the NVMC site, they'd be in the top 10 in revenue overnight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voyageur
I think the NHL can then reasonably put forward a proposal to the NHLPA to balance out the conferences by 2015 by expanding to Québec and Seattle (a good union creates jobs for its membership). I personally would like to see Florida relocate to Wisconsin (Milwaukee or Madison), with Columbus moving East to compete against all its best former players, but Columbus may be in worse financial shape given its arena lease. Still have to believe that hockey is more viable in Ohio than Southern Florida.
For the naysayers, yes revenues will increase under these circumstances, as they should for the health of the league, but the salary cap can be remedied by negotiating a greater disparity between floor and ceiling, maybe $75 mill vs. $45 mill to begin the CBA, allowing most franchises to be profitable, without having to suck massive revenue out of the successful franchises teat.
|
CBJ just renegotiated their lease. (The only teams with a realistic chance of relocating are the Coyotes, Islanders, Oilers and Flames -- the later three solely because their leases are up and they are trying to get new facilities).
Move CBJ. Not to a new market, but to the Eastern Conference to help their TV deal.
QUE and SEA, super. Sign me up. Give the jobs as a trade off for using MEDIAN instead of AVERAGE, increase revenue sharing to levels remotely close to what MLB, NFL, and NBA are doing (in stages, go 10%, 14%, 18%, 22% over the next eight years). By then we get the Rogers/Bell split and add Hamilton, Markham, with Houston and either Milwaukee, Portland, or Salt Lake City for 36 teams.
Then we can go back to arguing about realignment instead of the health of the teams.
