HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Markham Arena II

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-05-2012, 10:15 PM
  #526
0123456789*
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMROWE View Post
I am getting sick & tirerd of people from Toronto (GTA.) comparring Toronto to New York , Los Angeles & Chicago to make there case for a 2nd NHL. team for the city . Let me tell you somthing the reason New York , Los Angeles & Chicago can support multiple teams in the same league & sport is because they have population base to support 2 teams just take a look .

New York - 19 million
Los Angeles - 13 million
Chicago - 9 million

When you add up the population of thoses 3 cities it adds to around 41 million more than the entire country of Canada .
Your numbers are misleading as you are looking at the land area of a small country. America uses CMA's and crazy standard to determine what is part of them.

Your New York number looks at 30,700sq km's
Your LA number looks at 12,500sq km's
Your Chicago number looks at 28,160sq km's

Toronto metro on the other hand looks at 7,125sq km's.
If you look at the golden horseshoe area, you will get over 9mill in 30,000sq km. That puts it in the same category as Chicago, half the size of New York and little more then half the size of LA.

0123456789* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 10:18 PM
  #527
WhereIsIt
#gift
 
WhereIsIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,802
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frkinator View Post
Your numbers are misleading as you are looking at the land area of a small country. America uses CMA's and crazy standard to determine what is part of them.

Your New York number looks at 30,700sq km's
Your LA number looks at 12,500sq km's
Your Chicago number looks at 28,160sq km's

Toronto metro on the other hand looks at 7,125sq km's.
If you look at the golden horseshoe area, you will get over 9mill in 30,000sq km. That puts it in the same category as Chicago, half the size of New York and little more then half the size of LA.
Great post, did not know this.

WhereIsIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 06:00 AM
  #528
Ryan34222
Registered User
 
Ryan34222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frkinator View Post
Your numbers are misleading as you are looking at the land area of a small country. America uses CMA's and crazy standard to determine what is part of them.

Your New York number looks at 30,700sq km's
Your LA number looks at 12,500sq km's
Your Chicago number looks at 28,160sq km's

Toronto metro on the other hand looks at 7,125sq km's.
If you look at the golden horseshoe area, you will get over 9mill in 30,000sq km. That puts it in the same category as Chicago, half the size of New York and little more then half the size of LA.
At the end of the day MR Rowe is still correct.. Chicago and its suburbs is still has more people than Toronto and its Suburbs.. calling the Golden Horseshoe as part of Toronto's "metro" is silly..
If that's the case Grimsby has a case to be bigger than Chicago...

Ryan34222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 08:30 AM
  #529
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan34222 View Post
At the end of the day MR Rowe is still correct.. Chicago and its suburbs is still has more people than Toronto and its Suburbs.. calling the Golden Horseshoe as part of Toronto's "metro" is silly..
If that's the case Grimsby has a case to be bigger than Chicago...
That's not right either. Urban Area =/= Metro Area.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 08:31 AM
  #530
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
No, you can't conclusively prove it. The NHL did do a market study though, which supported the poster's general assertion.

Brought forward during the Phoenix Coyotes bankruptcy case, the study estimated that there were 25% more hockey fans in Southern Ontario than Metropolitan New York and that a second team in the area would very likely be a top 5 revenue generator for the league.
But the majority of people don't like sports, which was his point. There's not way the majority of people are hockey fans anywhere. Sports is not that important to some imo.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 10:13 AM
  #531
Ryan34222
Registered User
 
Ryan34222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
That's not right either. Urban Area =/= Metro Area.
what part isnt right, admittedly im a little fuzzy on the definition between Urban and Metro..

Ryan34222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 06:30 PM
  #532
saffronleaf
Registered User
 
saffronleaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country:
Posts: 3,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMROWE View Post
I am getting sick & tirerd of people from Toronto (GTA.) comparring Toronto to New York , Los Angeles & Chicago to make there case for a 2nd NHL. team for the city . Let me tell you somthing the reason New York , Los Angeles & Chicago can support multiple teams in the same league & sport is because they have population base to support 2 teams just take a look .

New York - 19 million
Los Angeles - 13 million
Chicago - 9 million

When you add up the population of thoses 3 cities it adds to around 41 million more than the entire country of Canada .
Let's compare Chicago with Toronto.

Chicago has 9.4 million people in a metro area of 28,160 km^2.

Note that Canada and the US draw their census boundaries differently; Canada does not use the CSA (Combined Statistical Area) measurement.

Toronto has 5.5 million people in a metro area of 7,125 km^2.

The differences in area calculation render the comparison moot; Chicago's area is almost 4x larger. To get a fairer comparison, it would be reasonable to look at a similar urban agglomeration in Southern Ontario -- the Golden Horseshoe.

The Golden Horseshoe has a population of 8.7 million people in an area of 31,561 km^2.

The the difference boils down to:
Chicago -- 9.4 million in 28,160 km^2
Toronto -- 8.7 million in 31,561 km^2

Chicago has two MLB teams, an NHL team, an NBA team and an NFL team.

Are you saying that the difference in 0.7 million people in an area that is approximately 3,000 km^2 larger renders Toronto incapable of handling a second NHL team? Especially when Toronto doesn't even have an NFL team?

I don't know, man.

saffronleaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 06:43 PM
  #533
saffronleaf
Registered User
 
saffronleaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country:
Posts: 3,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan34222 View Post
At the end of the day MR Rowe is still correct.. Chicago and its suburbs is still has more people than Toronto and its Suburbs.. calling the Golden Horseshoe as part of Toronto's "metro" is silly..
If that's the case Grimsby has a case to be bigger than Chicago...
That's not accurate. You should study the differences between CMAs and CSAs, etc., and differences in how the US and the rest of the world calculate their city populations.

It's well accepted. Among city enthusiasts (yes, there are city enthusiasts), the US is often criticized for how it calculates its populations. Most countries, including Canada, have strict commuter measurements when determining whether or not one town can be calculated as belonging to the metropolitan area of a city.

In addition to this, Canada has the added restriction in that it has never stripped a city of its CMA title. In relation to Toronto, what this means, for example, is that Hamilton cannot be subsumed into the GTA because Hamilton had been accorded CMA status. Regardless, because of how integrated Hamilton is into the GTA (especially because of the rapid growth of Peel, Halton, etc. -- the area in between Toronto city and Hamilton city), most municipality councillors use the term GTHA (Greater Toronto - Hamilton Area) because of its utility. See, for example, Metrolinx discussions in municipalities in the GTHA.

The US has not dispensed of these calculations that the rest of the world uses, with respect to measuring commuter populations to include a town in city population figures. However, the US has added, somewhat to the chagrin of city enthusiasts because of how it can be misleading and how the utility of it is unclear, a measurement called the CSA -- the Combined Statistical Area.

This is what allows the US to have, say, New York City - Newark as one metropolitan area, or Dallas - Fort Worth as one metropolitan area.

See, what happens in many metropolitan areas is that when it gets big enough, it begins to become multi-polar. Newark and Fort Worth are good examples. Even Mississauga, with the development of the Mississauga City Center and how it has been courting businesses, is starting to gain more commuters than lose commuters. This is another factor to consider.

I'm not saying I have an entirely detailed understanding of the calculation nuances between the US and the rest of the world and Canada, but there's a lot more to it.

What seems rather clear though, is that the Golden Horseshoe would most likely be considered a CSA in the US. Moreover, the GTHA would be considered a CMA.

saffronleaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 08:08 PM
  #534
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Most people don't even like sports so I have to agree with this.

I don't know if this makes sense, but I know people who were Habs fans but not NHL fans. If there was no Montreal they would not like hockey.
That's because for many people the Habs is hockey. Being a fan of a dynasty is the easiest thing, you don't have to know that much about the sport, about history since that dynasty whether it's the Habs or Yankees has all the history you need to know. You don't have to know the other stars since for a long time they had stacked teams, they were almost an all star team. And when you're a fan of these teams, it's more about winning games, it's being part of an adventure, it's more than sport.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 08:10 PM
  #535
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Hamilton fell for the "build it and they will come" business model. No harm in trying, but it just didn't work out for them. Winnipeg built the MTS Centre for $135M, but did not build it to get an NHL team. It was built for the sole reason Winnipeg needed an new arena no matter what. It was only after it was built and was successful that TNSE went looking for a team. And if they hadn't gotten the Thrashers, they still would have had the 3rd busiest arena in Canada.

It's risky for Markham to build an arena on the hopes of getting an NHL team. If you need an arena and have a business plan that works without an NHL team, then fine, build it. But if it will only work with an NHL team... I don't know... would you trust the NHL to send a team your way? And this goes for QC as well.
Quebec is a whole new ball game, they have a Media empire waiting for a NHL team to add to their product.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 08:55 PM
  #536
Swarez
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 584
vCash: 500
Why don't people ever bring in the EPL as another comparison, Manchester for example has under 3 Million in its metro area and has two major EPL teams. London has 6 EPL teams with varying importance. No idea what the economics are for the EPL (TV vs Gate) but point is passion has to be part of looking at cities that could support a team.

Anyone who thinks Toronto couldn't support a 2nd hockey team probably isn't looking at it objectively. This is from someone who hates the current Markham arena deal for the people of the city.

Swarez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2012, 12:22 PM
  #537
AtlantaWhaler
Moderator
Thrash/Preds/Sabres
 
AtlantaWhaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 11,144
vCash: 500
Question for the business folks taken from the general NHL forum. Based on this posted thread,

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1280433

I asked this question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlantaWhaler View Post
OK...so I get that Toronto is a Leafs town and I wouldn't question for a second that's it's a hockey market, but aren't these all arguments against putting a second team there (Markham)?
Basically, the thread (OP and posts by others) is pertaining to lower attendance in some of Toronto's minor league teams. Many are saying it's because it's a Leafs town only. Thoughts?

AtlantaWhaler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2012, 12:42 PM
  #538
Semantics
Registered User
 
Semantics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
And to add to this what is JMROWE's excuse for Philly which had 2 ball teams or San Francisco which has 2 ball teams and 2 NFL teams 10 miles from each other.

And Toronto has 6.5 million people. San Francisco 7.4 million.
And that 7.4 million is spread across twice the land area (18,000 km^2). It stretches from Santa Rosa, to Fairfield, to Gilroy, which are over 200 km apart. This is roughly equivalent to including Kitchener/Waterloo in Toronto's population.

I grew up in Toronto and has lived in the SF bay area for the last 10 years, and from my perspective there's no doubt that the GTA is slightly bigger in population than the bay area, and significantly denser. It certainly "feels" much bigger (for what little that's worth).

Semantics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2012, 12:43 PM
  #539
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlantaWhaler View Post
Question for the business folks taken from the general NHL forum. Based on this posted thread,

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1280433

I asked this question:



Basically, the thread (OP and posts by others) is pertaining to lower attendance in some of Toronto's minor league teams. Many are saying it's because it's a Leafs town only. Thoughts?
Toronto is just not a minor league supporting sports town... Another NHL team is a no-brainer. People confuse this with being a Leafs only town, truth is lots of people support other NHL teams other than the Leafs (45 years of futility I guess)... there arew lots of free agent non-Leafs fans to fill a building maybe even yet 2 other buildings to boot...

MarkhamNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2012, 01:15 PM
  #540
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,686
vCash: 350
http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey...y-universe-cox

In Markham, politicians seem to be coming to their senses regarding the folly of an arena proposal that would require $325 million of public financing without any guarantee of an anchor tenant and no indication the NHL is even slightly interested in putting a team there.

But even if the NHL did, all the evidence at hand makes you wonder whether it would work. Those who swear up and down that it would simply argue that the GTA is rich and people support the Leafs despite their losing ways and therefore would support any NHL alternative, good or bad.

The GTHL is a massive, popular operation, and the Leafs have done great business for decades. But in between those ends of the hockey spectrum as the Battalion seem to be saying as the moving trucks back up to their doors in Brampton there is very real uncertainty as to the viability of any for-profit hockey team in the GTA.

cbcwpg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2012, 01:53 PM
  #541
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlantaWhaler View Post
Question for the business folks taken from the general NHL forum. Based on this posted thread,

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1280433

I asked this question:

Basically, the thread (OP and posts by others) is pertaining to lower attendance in some of Toronto's minor league teams. Many are saying it's because it's a Leafs town only. Thoughts?
I don't think one can draw any conclusions from the relocation of the Battalion, no more than one could draw anything from the relative success of the Generals on the other side of town.

Major Junior tends to do well in small and medium sized cities, but has traditionally struggled in major centres like Montreal and Toronto. It isn't hard to list off reasons why that might be from competition against other entertainment options (including major league sports), to less media attention, to relatively new franchises having difficultly carving out a niche in the market.

A second NHL team in the Toronto market would no doubt face similar challenges but they would have a lot more resources at hand to face them. Larger advertising budgets, more media recognition, more corporate support, TV deals that broadcast all 82+ games, all things that come along with both the cache of being an NHL team and larger pockets backing the enterprise.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2012, 04:51 PM
  #542
Ryan34222
Registered User
 
Ryan34222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
That's not accurate. You should study the differences between CMAs and CSAs, etc., and differences in how the US and the rest of the world calculate their city populations.

.
i'll pass but i think i get what you are saying..

Ryan34222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 04:25 PM
  #543
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,703
vCash: 500
i heard 8 of 13 councilors are now against the arena deal. anyone else hear this?

GuelphStormer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 04:32 PM
  #544
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
i heard 8 of 13 councilors are now against the arena deal. anyone else hear this?
... yes, I read that in I think The Star, along with the Deputy Mayor being "against". Unravelling like a cheap suit.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 06:01 PM
  #545
Mightygoose
Registered User
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,267
vCash: 514
Probably a good thing that the city is rethinking this. Used to live in Markham 8 years ago. No question that the city is in good shape and there is more than ample of a corporate presence nearby to make it work IF the NHL arrives.

IMO, the city should go back to the drawing board with this. If the NHL is the end game, state that up front. Really don't want to see the city have the 'build it and they will come' approach.

I've always liked Seattle's model (or a similar approach). Approve the funding model but don't break ground until the anchor tenant is secured.

That's my 2 cents on this

Mightygoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 08:29 PM
  #546
JMROWE
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hamilton Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
I am glad to hear that Markham city council is starting to come to its senses because buliding an arena with no garentee of landing an NHL. team dose make good business sense has Hamilton found out the hard way in 1986 when Copps Coliseum was bulit & you also got to consider that MLSE. might have steped in & said save your money because an 2nd NHL. team in the GTA. ain't happening .

JMROWE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 06:57 AM
  #547
Hamilton Tigers
Registered User
 
Hamilton Tigers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Since the mayor has been forced to reveal more information on the proposed Markham arena, it is now clear Markham taxpayers are the ones who will bear the full financial risk.
Despite the mayor’s statement that the developer must repay half the loan over 20 years, it is Markham, not the developer, that is borrowing the whole $325 million.
It is Markham, not the developer, that is responsible for repaying the whole amount of the loan, whether the developer eventually repays anything or not.
Why Markham and not the developer? Because it is now evident the banks wouldn’t lend to the developer since the project is not financially viable.
Quote:
if voters had all the facts, they would have concluded, as many of us now have, if this were a financially sound project, the private sector would be lining up both to build and finance it.
http://www.yorkregion.com/opinion/le...nks-won-t-lend

Quote:
As the truth slowly came forward, it appears that there was no NHL team coming but council is still talking about building the arena.

That’s like continuing to plan the wedding even though that gorgeous woman of our dreams just said no and left the country.
Copps Coliseum was seduced by the possibility of getting an NHL team. They rushed in head long and, today, they are stuck with a headache and the bills as a result of trying to woo that courtesan known as the NHL.
Let’s be grateful we exposed this hussy before we paid for dinner, bought the drinks and committed Markham to $325 million.
http://www.yorkregion.com/opinion/le...e-femme-fatale



Quote:
A small band of activists is behind the eroding support for plans to build an NHL-ready arena in the Toronto suburb of Markham, according to the Canadian businessman who has been leading the project.

Seven members of Markham city council — a majority — have confirmed their opposition to the financial plans for the 20,000-seat arena. Graeme Roustan, the former chair of Bauer Performance Sports Ltd., is the public face behind the project, and dismissed the shift to pressure applied by a small, vocal, minority.
http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/...ists-promoter/

Quote:
deputy mayor Jack Heath, for example. He recently added his name to the list of those who will turn down the financial proposal because, among other things, there is no guarantee the building would attract an NHL team. That’s fine, but there’s a curious change of mind here. That’s because it was Heath who organized a meeting with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and deputy commissioner Bill Daly to discuss the possibility of Markham getting an NHL team. He was also in attendance at the meeting in which Bettman made it crystal clear that if Markham did go ahead with the project, it would do so with absolutely no guarantees that an NHL team would ever play there.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/markham...0036--nhl.html


Last edited by Hamilton Tigers: 11-16-2012 at 07:04 AM.
Hamilton Tigers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 01:57 AM
  #548
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,596
vCash: 500
You should be careful in quoting what are essentially letters to the editor, written by ordinary citizens who are have a vested interest in pushing or opposing the arena and do not have a full understanding of the project.

Take the first link:
Quote:
Why Markham and not the developer? Because it is now evident the banks wouldn’t lend to the developer since the project is not financially viable.
It is possible that banks refused to fund the project. Far more likely though is that the municipality is doing the borrowing because it can do it at far lower interest rates than an individual investor.

Or the second:
Quote:
As the truth slowly came forward, it appears that there was no NHL team coming but council is still talking about building the arena.
Ignoring the fact that both Bettman and Roustan said as much, anybody with an understanding of how pro sport leagues work knew this. The NHL expects cities to take a 'build it and they will come' mentality. If Markham wants to lure an NHL team, they'll have to build the arena first and then hope for a team to become available.


Last edited by htpwn: 11-17-2012 at 02:06 AM.
htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 10:10 AM
  #549
Hamilton Tigers
Registered User
 
Hamilton Tigers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
You should be careful in quoting what are essentially letters to the editor, written by ordinary citizens who are have a vested interest in pushing or opposing the arena and do not have a full understanding of the project.
True, I thought about that, but also thought it might be a little revealing about the nature of of an angle, or agenda that a local paper pushes which can drive public opinion too. This seems kinda reflective of the recent reports of city council's wavering support.

Hamilton Tigers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2012, 08:16 PM
  #550
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,460
vCash: 500
Interesting tidbit, it was the city that approached the developer several years ago about building the arena.
http://www.yorkregion.com/news/artic...idea-developer

Confucius 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 05:01 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.