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, expansion and relocation, and NHL revenues.

5 of top 6 teams in ticket Revenue are Canadian...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-03-2012, 10:13 AM
  #51
Shawa666
Registered User
 
Shawa666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Québec, Qc, Ca
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by albatross View Post
You're ignoring the fact that ticket sales for the Lightning are much better now. People in fact have turned out to throw money at the team. I'm sure that the end numbers are going to show a overall loss ($40 million+ in owner paid renos will have a great deal to do with that), but ticket revenue and attendance will be much better for 2011-12 than 2010-11. Over 6,000 new full ST packages sold for this season. Along with partial ticket packages up from 5,000 STH last year to almost 13,000 this season. Not anywhere close to Toronto or NY numbers, but if you don't consider that fans coming out to support a new ownership I don't know what to tell you.

Corporate sponsorships are way up as well. That's progress. I don't think you'll find many Lightning fans that expected everything to turn up roses and rainbows in less than two years of Vinik ownership, but the progress that has been made is as close to a "miracle" as you're going to get
It's still shiny and new.

Shawa666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 10:24 AM
  #52
Gotaf7
Registered User
 
Gotaf7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Winterpeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 866
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by albatross View Post
You're ignoring the fact that ticket sales for the Lightning are much better now. People in fact have turned out to throw money at the team. I'm sure that the end numbers are going to show a overall loss ($40 million+ in owner paid renos will have a great deal to do with that), but ticket revenue and attendance will be much better for 2011-12 than 2010-11. Over 6,000 new full ST packages sold for this season. Along with partial ticket packages up from 5,000 STH last year to almost 13,000 this season. Not anywhere close to Toronto or NY numbers, but if you don't consider that fans coming out to support a new ownership I don't know what to tell you.

Corporate sponsorships are way up as well. That's progress. I don't think you'll find many Lightning fans that expected everything to turn up roses and rainbows in less than two years of Vinik ownership, but the progress that has been made is as close to a "miracle" as you're going to get

What is the average ticket price? You can overfill the building every night but if your gate revenue is not 1 million plus you lose money every year! It is all about ticket prices people.

Gotaf7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 10:32 AM
  #53
ThunderAlleyNomad
Registered User
 
ThunderAlleyNomad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Tampa
Country: United States
Posts: 4,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawa666 View Post
It's still shiny and new.
That it is.

And it's entirely possible that the bloom may come off the rose in few years and attendance swings down again when the shiny wears off. I don't think so, but it's possible.

For now though, without trying to predict the future and guess what the economic situation and what the team will look like in a few years, it's looking fairly decent. Even in my wildest most homerific moments I never forecast a revenue base like the Canadian teams or some of the more established Northern US teams, but that doesn't mean that Tampa Bay cannot be a successful franchise and that they are not improving in a business sense right now.

ThunderAlleyNomad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 10:45 AM
  #54
ThunderAlleyNomad
Registered User
 
ThunderAlleyNomad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Tampa
Country: United States
Posts: 4,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotaf7 View Post
What is the average ticket price? You can overfill the building every night but if your gate revenue is not 1 million plus you lose money every year! It is all about ticket prices people.
I get that about the ticket prices, I really do. But the increase in attendance will mitigate the losses, instead of $440,000 per game, maybe it goes up to the 2007-2008 numbers. And then up a little bit more.
And look back to where I posted that there is no possible way that ownership could have justified raising prices at the moment. For the moment, Vinik will lose money on the team. That was known coming in. He talked about it in every PC he held that he knew what the fans and the city in general were going through. Vinik will make up the loss on other Forum events, and various business dealings, but the Lightning are not going to be a for profit team for at least another two years, IMO.

The outlook is better for this team than it has been for quite some time. Ticket prices will be increased, when the market can bear it. For right now the priority is getting backsides in seats, being a good owner who shows dedication to the team and the market. The Lightning have never ever had that. Even Bill Davidson (may he RIP and thanks for the Cup)did not show the dedication to the Tampa Bay area that Vinik is. It's being noticed and in the long run will pay off.

ThunderAlleyNomad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 10:54 AM
  #55
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 36,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotaf7 View Post
What is the average ticket price? You can overfill the building every night but if your gate revenue is not 1 million plus you lose money every year! It is all about ticket prices people.
Like most NHL franchise owners, a guy like Vinik isn't trying to pay his bills with hockey-related profits. He'll set ticket prices wherever they need to be in the scheme of his personal portfolio of assets.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 11:09 AM
  #56
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,238
vCash: 500
Agreeing in part, dissenting in part...
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
Its a tough spot for the NHL.

For every team they move to Canada, the less money they can get from a National TV deal in the US. Ideally you want as many major markets covered off for US TV. Losing Atlanta for Winnipeg was a massive blow to the league. As would moving Phoenix to Quebec City.
I'm not extremely sure.

Atlanta Spirit Group (ASG) so salted the earth that there was no way to have a team stay in Philips Arena with ASG still running it. I don't think it kills a US TV contract if some of these markets are no longer in the league.

We're talking potential eyeballs versus actual eyeballs when it comes to television contracts. And if the viewership of the playoffs actually increases over the course of the ten-year deal...
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
But you have to be realistic. The NHL will likely never be one of the top 3 or 4 sports in the US on TV. So if they can admit they are a gate driven league, they should be looking for as many Canadian markets as possible.
Bingo. I think the weakened CDN dollar between the early 1990's to the mid-2000's, coupled with some indifference on the part of fans in smaller Canadian markets ended up taking out a couple of Canadian franchises, while almost taking out a few others.

The reality is that between 15 years ago and now, that if you want NHL hockey, put your money where your mouth is. And Atlanta basically just lost their team for that reason (amongst others).

The good news is that the only way to become one of the top 3 or 4 sports is to actually try. And there can be a regression of sorts if there are plans to place teams in "better" markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
Quebec City, a team in Southern Ontario, and maybe even another in Toronto seem like no brainers. Then you get into other options; maybe a 2nd team in Vancouver and/or Montreal? A team on the East Coast, maybe even Saskatchewan.

I dont think we'll see 7 more teams in Canada, but I dont think its out of the question that Canada ends up with 3-5 more teams in the next 5-10 years. Canadians love hockey, they will pay top dollar to go to the games. The fact is, most markets in the US just wont do that.
And there is my point: Canadians will pay top dollar to go to the games, now. The financials have changed over 15 years.

I, too, have no problem with more Canadian teams. I can only foresee teams in Quebec and a second GTA team, for now. And in reality, in terms of fan and ticket support in the US, I can only see Seattle and Houston, with Kansas City as an outside shot since there isn't any competition for the winter sports dollar.


Last edited by Grudy0: 01-03-2012 at 11:20 AM.
Grudy0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 11:37 AM
  #57
Hawkscap
Registered User
 
Hawkscap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,868
vCash: 500
The Blackhawks averaged 21,423 and only had $1.1 mil of ticket revenue?


That would mean a $51.43 average ticket. Seems low.

Hawkscap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 11:39 AM
  #58
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
But i'm saying the team is making a lot of money from the fans while they put a bad product on the ice.
Hey...I'm an Oiler fan. I feel your pain!

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 12:26 PM
  #59
um
Registered User
 
um's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,783
vCash: 500
whats with winnipegs numbers, that cant be right

um is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 01:07 PM
  #60
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by um View Post
whats with winnipegs numbers, that cant be right
These numbers are from the 2110-11 season, while the team was still in Atlanta.

Puckschmuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 04:40 PM
  #61
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 33,302
vCash: 5113
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAROONSRoad View Post
If you don't mind me asking, why? That team had a great deal of trouble finding anyone that had sufficient capital and was willing to run it. There is a reason for that.
I was just under the impression that their profits were increasing, but according to the spreadsheet, it's been cut in half.... at least at the gate, that is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by albatross View Post
It's getting better, but you're not going to see good numbers out of Tampa Bay for at least a couple of years. Important to remember that when Vinik took over, the entire organization was a mess. The team was a disaster as was the building they played in. Fans were treated badly, Forum employees were being laid off in batch lots, the AHL affiliate was about to revolt. And lets not forget that Koules and Barrie ran up a whole lot of debts and bad feelings that Vinik had to repay and fix. None of it was as bad as the Thrashers for example, but it wasn't a pretty picture. We just got a whole lot luckier than Atlanta did.

Tampa Bay has a pretty strong core of die hard hockey fans, but there just aren't as many of them as in more traditional markets. Those numbers are growing as the transplants raise a new generation of Lightning fans, but the very last thing Vinik could do was come in and raise up ticket prices. Not only is the economy in the tank, but the trust level in pro-sports ownership in Tampa Bay is really low. Vinik is doing it the right way.
Dude, you won't find a more adamant defender of southern hockey from a northerner than me, but the fact that they've dropped their at gate profits by about half in a couple years is a horrible sign and absolutely not a sign that things are getting better.

No Fun Shogun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 05:15 PM
  #62
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,725
vCash: 500
A quick note on Tampa...Florida tends to get hammered badly any time that there's a housing market downturn. Five years ago, my father-in-law had the chance to buy a condo in Tampa for $450,000. Today, he could get an entire row of ten for that price. That's not just in that very small area, that's everywhere.

What's often overlooked, forgotten, or intentionally omitted is that the economies of Texas, Arizona, and Florida aren't exactly typical for the rest of North America.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 05:39 PM
  #63
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 31,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
A quick note on Tampa...Florida tends to get hammered badly any time that there's a housing market downturn. Five years ago, my father-in-law had the chance to buy a condo in Tampa for $450,000. Today, he could get an entire row of ten for that price. That's not just in that very small area, that's everywhere.

What's often overlooked, forgotten, or intentionally omitted is that the economies of Texas, Arizona, and Florida aren't exactly typical for the rest of North America.

Meanwhile, Michigan's economy is leading the pack, right MB?

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 05:43 PM
  #64
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
No, the news had been that Canadian markets after the big three can't compete.

I'm actually annoyed by this type of comment. You have cities far larger than Montreal or Toronto that are bringing in as much ticket revenue as the second tier Canadian cities. Yes, Canandians do love hockey so why does everyone argue on this board whenever someone states the obvious?
Two things:

#1 - Gate revenue is basically: [Fan Interest * New Arena for modern revenue streams] - place in standings.
No one disputes the fan interest side of things. It's the sponsorship dollars, suite revenue, and the necessary TV markets for big national contracts.

#2 - There's a difference in stating the obvious and using it to make an insulting conclusion: i.e. - "X City doesn't deserve hockey" or "X City is a failure" (Not saying you made this statement, just in general).

The League needs a variety of markets:
Big Canadian cities with amazing revenue (MON, TOR, VAN)
Big US Northern Cities with good revenues (NYR, CHI, PHI, BOS, DET, WAS, MIN, COL)
Smaller Canadian cities that are gate-driven with a rabid base (EDM, CAL, WIN; QUE)
Big US Non-Northern Cities that maximize TV dollars and capitalize on bandwagon sales (LA, DAL, MIA; HOU)
Medium US cities where hockey is one of the only games in town and can flourish. (BUF, SJ, NASH, TB)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Van Halen View Post
Nobody ever factors in how mismanaged the Islanders have been for 20 years. They just say that 3 teams is too many for NY metro area. If the Islanders had played in any Canadian city for the last 20 years and have been managed the exact same way I think the fans would be in an uproar. All of the financial problems have NOTHING to do with the location of the team. All USA markets are similar in that when a team stinks it up for a long time the fans stop showing up. This would be true for Boston, Philly, Detroit, NYR and Chicago. That's just the way it is. The only thing is that fans of those teams never have to endure years and years of failure. All of those teams are competitive year after year with the occasional bad season now and again. Also they are well managed. I know that hockey is bigger in Canada than in America but everything isn't always what it seems to be.
It's not so much the mismanagement on the hockey side (although that's definitely occurred) as it was the need for a new arena that's been going on for 25 years now, and the horrendous lease locking them into lack of revenue. Check out the revenues when the Islanders made the playoffs FOUR TIMES IN FIVE YEARS: It was abysmal. There's been some concessions in the lease, but once the salary floor was introduced, it was impossible for the Islanders to make money even if they sold out the arena 41 games.

The arena & lease component for each team is a MASSIVE FACTOR in this list. Toronto has the most revenue and is immune to drop offs even if the team is bad? Toronto owns the team and the new arena and is in the fourth-largest market in the league. Of course they're rolling in dough…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Semantics View Post
Well to nitpick a little, there are only two NHL cities that I'd call "far larger" than Toronto (and a third, Chicago, is slightly larger), and one of them has three teams one of which is #4 oo the list, and the other has two teams and is in a warm climate.

It's surprising to me that the revenues aren't higher for the Rangers and Sharks. These are places with a significantly higher cost of living than any Canadian city (especially Manhattan, obviously), so fans can afford very high ticket prices.
I'd like to see the 29 teams ranked from "most favorable arena situation" (Best leases/Newest arenas) and see how well it matches up.

The Rangers probably aren't higher because MSG is a lot older than AAC and doesn't have the same ability to generate revenue despite the fan base.

Dallas, Colorado and New Jersey are just down for the first time in a while despite newer arenas.

Detroit is a lot lower than you'd expect because despite their success, they're in an antiquated building.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 05:53 PM
  #65
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Meanwhile, Michigan's economy is leading the pack, right MB?
Just remember that you're talking to an Ohioan.

In the case of Florida and Arizona, being largely unsettled while places like Ohio and Michigan were among the most-populated states in the country (with some of the most-populated cities), it's a different type of different.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 06:15 PM
  #66
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 31,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Just remember that you're talking to an Ohioan.

In the case of Florida and Arizona, being largely unsettled while places like Ohio and Michigan were among the most-populated states in the country (with some of the most-populated cities), it's a different type of different.
No it's not, Mayor. Detroit and Michigan are losing population, and have among the hardest hit real estate and certainly among the highest unemployment rates. The entire point to justifying expansion to nontraditional markets was because they were a net recipient of population.

The one point you can make is that having used the push versus pull strategy (if you build it, they will come), an economic downturn makes it that much harder to have your seedling take root.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 06:23 PM
  #67
KingJet*
Welcome Back
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,651
vCash: 500
Bet if Winnipeg's capacity was 20,000 we'd be around number one or something like that, the Jets are around 20, but if we had 20,000 we'd be in the top 5, really we are in the top 5 though

KingJet* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 06:58 PM
  #68
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
No it's not, Mayor. Detroit and Michigan are losing population, and have among the hardest hit real estate and certainly among the highest unemployment rates. The entire point to justifying expansion to nontraditional markets was because they were a net recipient of population.

The one point you can make is that having used the push versus pull strategy (if you build it, they will come), an economic downturn makes it that much harder to have your seedling take root.
Net recipient of population, money, power and influence, etc. The only truly botched expansion across the four major leagues was the NFL with Jacksonville.

To your second point, I agree in principle, but since we're still in this midst of this downturn, it's impossible to actually quantify the changes to previously-existing trends. To expound further would mean posting an opinion without hard facts to back it up, and you know how much I hate that.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 06:59 PM
  #69
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingJet View Post
Bet if Winnipeg's capacity was 20,000 we'd be around number one or something like that, the Jets are around 20, but if we had 20,000 we'd be in the top 5, really we are in the top 5 though
One thing with the Jets as with any other team that has 3-5 year Ticket Purchase Agreements is that ticket revenues are basically set for the next half decade. In the case of the Jets, TNSE has reserved the right to increase ST prices by 3% each year for the duration of the TPA signed. I would assume TNSE would use that option each year as they have a waiting list of 8000 people to buy ST. In 5 years the Jets ticket revenues would have risen 15% ++ , as the 3% would increase in dollar value each season.

blues10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 09:16 PM
  #70
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 14,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingJet View Post
Bet if Winnipeg's capacity was 20,000 we'd be around number one or something like that, the Jets are around 20, but if we had 20,000 we'd be in the top 5, really we are in the top 5 though
Top 5 might be possible (similar to Calgary and Edmonton), but I think number 1 would be stretching it. The Leafs and Habs are so far ahead of everyone else.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 11:05 PM
  #71
Rob
Registered User
 
Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,443
vCash: 500
I'm sure Bettman's office will try its best to downplay the report.

Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 11:36 PM
  #72
peter sullivan
Winnipeg
 
peter sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,287
vCash: 500
there are some absolutely shocking numbers in that list.

LA, St. Louis, Nashville, carolina, phoenix, florida, anaheim, columbus, new jersey, colorado, NYI, dallas, atlanta and tampa....thats a really long list of some really bad numbers.

Quebec could make more ticket revenue per game than all 14 of those teams playing in an arena as small as 10 000 seats with the same average ticket price as winnipeg ($82).

the atlanta numbers doesnt really prove out the ASG salted earth theory....$480 in '05, $550 in '07 and $330 last year is pretty consistent over a long period.

peter sullivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2012, 09:48 AM
  #73
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter sullivan View Post
the atlanta numbers doesnt really prove out the ASG salted earth theory....$480 in '05, $550 in '07 and $330 last year is pretty consistent over a long period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Team 2010-2011 single-game ticket revenue 2010-2011 total ticket revenue 2007-2008 single-game ticket revenue Percentage Change
Chicago $1,100,000 $45,100,000 $500,000 120%
Washington $1,000,000 $41,000,000 $550,000 82%
Pittsburgh $1,100,000 $45,100,000 $800,000 37.5%
Boston $1,100,000 $45,100,000 $800,000 37.5%
N.Y. Rangers $1,600,000 $65,600,000 $1,300,000 23%
Vancouver $1,700,000 $69,700,000 $1,400,000 21.4%
Montreal $2,000,000 $82,000,000 $1,700,000 17.6%
San Jose $1,100,000 $45,100,000 $950,000 15.8%
Calgary $1,500,000 $61,500,000 $1,300,000 15.4%
Los Angeles $750,000 $30,750,000 $650,000 15.4%
Detroit $1,100,000 $45,100,000 $1,000,000 10%
Philadelphia $1,100,000 $45,100,000 $1,000,000 10%
Edmonton $1,300,000 $53,300,000 $1,200,000 8.3%
St. Louis $650,000 $26,650,000 $600,000 8.3%
Buffalo $800,000 $32,800,000 $750,000 6.6%
Toronto $2,000,000 $82,000,000 $1,900,000 5.3%
Nashville $575,000 $23,575,000 $600,000 -4.2%
Carolina $660,000 $27,060,000 $700,000 -5.7%
Phoenix $420,000 $17,220,000 $450,000 -6.7%
Florida $460,000 $18,860,000 $500,000 -8%
Ottawa $1,110,000 $45,100,000 $1,200,000 -8.3%
Minnesota $1,000,000 $41,000,000 $1,100,000 -9.1%
Anaheim $750,000 $30,750,000 $900,000 -16.7%
Columbus $660,000 $27,060,000 $800,000 -17.5%
New Jersey $700,000 $28,700,000 $850,000 -17.6%
Colorado $750,000 $30,750,000 $1,000,000 -25%
N.Y. Islanders $392,000 $16,072,000 $550,000 -28.7%
Dallas $660,000 $27,060,000 $950,000 -30.5%
Atlanta $330,000 $13,530,000 $550,000 -40%
Tampa Bay $440,000 $18,040,000 $800,000 -45%
Of course it is consistent with the salted-earth theory.

Tampa Bay drops because of the Koules-Barrie fiasco
Dallas falls as the NHL took control of the day-to-day operations as Hicks goes to bankruptcy
Phoenix somewhat respectable in last place in '07-'08 can't lift up from their ownership problem
Islanders fans long-suffering continues at the gate
Atlanta becomes decimated...

Teams with the same revenues on '07-'08:
Washington, where Leonsis committed to build a winner and signs superstars to long-term contracts
Chicago, who shakes the chains of Dollar Bill as Rocky apparently knows how to run a franchise.

It's funny how those upticks occur with ownership that attempts to field a good team.

Grudy0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2012, 11:04 AM
  #74
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 31,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Semantics View Post
Well to nitpick a little, there are only two NHL cities that I'd call "far larger" than Toronto (and a third, Chicago, is slightly larger), and one of them has three teams one of which is #4 oo the list, and the other has two teams and is in a warm climate.

It's surprising to me that the revenues aren't higher for the Rangers and Sharks. These are places with a significantly higher cost of living than any Canadian city (especially Manhattan, obviously), so fans can afford very high ticket prices.
From a thread last year:

Top Ten Primary Census (+ Cdn teams):
NY-Newark | 22.2 M |
LA
| 17.8 |
Chicago | 9.8 |
Wash DC | 8.4 |
Boston | 7.6 |

San Jose | 7.4 |
Dallas | 6.8 |
Philly | 6.5 |
Houston | 5.9 |
Atlanta | 5.8 |

Next Ten:
Miami | 5.5 |
Toronto | 5.5 |GTA
Detroit | 5.3 |
Phoenix | 4.3 |
Seattle | 4.1 |
Montreal | 3.6 |
Minny | 3.6 |
Denver | 3.1 |
San Diego | 3.0 |
St. Louis | 2.9 |
Cleveland | 2.9 |

Orlando | 2.7 |
Tampa-St. Pete | 2.7 |
Pittsburgh | 2.4 |
Sacramento | 2.4 |
Charlotte | 2.3 |
Portland | 2.2 |
Cincinnati | 2.2 |
Kansas City | 2.1 |

Vancouver | 2.1 |
San Antonio | 2.0 |
Indy | 2.0 |
Columbus | 2.0 |

LasVegas - #31 | 1.9 |
Raleigh Durham - #35 | 1.7 |
Nashville - #37 | 1.67 |
Buffalo - #49 | 1.2 |

Ottawa | 1.1 |
Calgary | 1.08 |
Edmonton | 1.03 |


I get your point, but what I cannot correct for is just how far out a metro area goes. I think the Toronto figure above is comparable to the way these are metro stats for the US have been summarized. This would be the GTA. If the Golden Horseshoe is considered, you're up to 8.8 million, iirc, but that's a large area and not comparable to the way these other stats are compiled, as far as I am aware.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2012, 12:08 PM
  #75
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 14,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I get your point, but what I cannot correct for is just how far out a metro area goes. I think the Toronto figure above is comparable to the way these are metro stats for the US have been summarized. This would be the GTA. If the Golden Horseshoe is considered, you're up to 8.8 million, iirc, but that's a large area and not comparable to the way these other stats are compiled, as far as I am aware.
Actually, I think the Golden Horseshoe would be a much better comparable than the GTA.

The Greater Toronto Area had a 2006 population of 5,555,912, but only covered 2,750.6 sq mi. No metropolitan area above Toronto (New York-Miami) or immediately below (Detroit-Seattle) have an area less than 5,000 sq mi, double what Toronto covers.

The Delaware Valley (Philadelphia) is the smallest (covering (5,118 sq mi), while Phoenix (16,573 sq. mi.) and Los Angeles (33,954 sq mi, larger than Ireland!) are the biggest.

htpwn 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 02:39 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.