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.

Are Fans of Big Market Teams Annoyed At the Money-Losing Teams?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-09-2012, 10:09 PM
  #426
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
If a team in New York can't compete in the current economic system, it's not the market, it's the system.



Another BS argument, since every single one of those teams has a higher attendance average during their entire history than the capacity of Winnipeg's arena. You can't use an attendance metric, it's a horsecrap measurement. You can't use yearly profit/loss, it's a horsecrap measurement. You can't use revenue streams to measure a market (Not when #2, #15 and #30 in revenues share the same market).

It's not a market issue, it's a set of about a half dozen to two dozen circumstances for each franchise. Most of which can be fixed by taking the best facets of sports CBAs and putting them in the right mixture.

Median revenues, not average revenues.
More revenue sharing to all teams.
Expansion to restore Quebec.
A master plan for future growth that includes Hamilton/Toronto
YA Use the NY/NJ market as an example.

The Isles were great and can be again but with the stalled devellopment Wang is not going to see profits again for a while.

Using the Isles as an example is just wrong. They have everything going against them. Old arena, bad Management, poor on ice performance.

NJ is another sad example. #15 in the league with the 2nd most successful franchise of the last 20yrs. With their record the building should be jammed every night with rabid fans. I've seen empty seats in the playoffs. Hell they do their Cup Parade in a freaking parking lot.

NOw as for the future.

I think revenues are going to have to be defined in stone before we can start arguing over median or average.
I agree with revenue sharing , but markets that bleed 30M a year need to go.
I agree the league needs to go back to Quebec.
The 2nd southern ONtario team should be in the GTA not Hamilton. If it is going to be the new Markham arena or maybe north of Mississauga, Either one eliminates the loss of Sabre supporter from the Hamilton area.

charliolemieux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2012, 10:31 PM
  #427
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Now wait a minute, I'm confused. I have one person telling me that attendance numbers mean nothing because the revenues might be too low, and I have another saying that the revenue means nothing because the attendance and viewership is too low.

Which is it?
Depends what you're trying to measure.
Do you want to use attendance to measure interest? That's one way.

I don't see how television revenue means much, as I am sure that if a network is paying big bucks for a sport that gets them 3,000 a broadcast is reconsidering their purchase.

I5 years of NHL hockey you're average 3,000 television watchers per game, that's a really tough number to digest.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2012, 10:33 PM
  #428
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWings19405 View Post
Milwaukee does not have this culture, I live here CB, trust me I know what I am talking about. I go to a lot of Admirals games and have talked to people that have worked for the organization. NHL in Milwaukee is still fantasy, in fact it has been turned down by Milwaukee ownership groups when approached in by the NHL. There are fans just not a sustainable market, the Madison area and upper part of the state are much more into the game. There you fight with the Badgers and Packers. Also curious if Chicago would be thrilled about them dropping in a team so close.

I am actually curious why Omaha is never thrown out, I guess because Columbus hasn't worked out, but I have always found that an interesting market with plenty of dollars to get a building and owner in place. Of course attracting players would be hard, but I think it is a market that would work. The upper plains are very into hockey on both the college and USHL level.
I'll take your words under advisement, but I'm not sold on what you're saying.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2012, 10:35 PM
  #429
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Even if Tampa's only got 3,000 TV viewers, every market you yanke is fewer people watching hockey on TV, buying NHL tickets and going to the arena, and fewer people being a fan of the league.


The idea that the niche could be STRONGER by axing markets doesn't wash with me. I understand the financial aspect of it (But it would require a totally new CBA. As I've illustrated dozens of times, the current setup tethering HRR to payroll always creates poor teams out of those who can't keep pace with the revenue growth at the top), but look at it this way:

Winnipeg is full of die hard fans who will support their team in good times and bad, and pay larger prices to do so.

Wouldn't Florida, Columbus, Phoenix, or Long Island fans all qualify as die-hards by default? Their franchises have been in disarray for a long time and they still have the fans they do have. Those markets also have a ton of people to gain as bandwagoners when those teams succeed. (Winnipeg doesn't have bandwagon fans to gain, because they're all die-hards).

So, a "Stronger" niche means what exactly? People who put hockey ahead of everything else? Those markets in the south have those. Just not enough of them. But they have an excess of potential people who can become those fans if they win.

I don't see how there's an increase in strength by axing markets. I think publically any market "failed" is a stain on your league. For a league to tout "Hockey Is For Everyone" and then go back and say "Yeah, we were wrong, hockey's for the North" would be an epic disaster. It would kill any potential growth of the sport for generations.

We're this far down the path of "growing the game" and it HAS grown. To say it hasn't grown enough to be worth it is fair, but to rip out those roots would be a horrendous business move on a wide scale.

I see two markets that worry me as "I really don't think hockey could flourish there" and that's Phoenix and Miami. Miami because I don't think enough of their population is going to give it a chance, and Phoenix because the last three years have pissed off so many people.

However, given Florida's lease and the fact that vacating Miami, Phoenix and Atlanta in a 2-4 year stretch would lead to "The experiment failed" stories, it would be very bad.

I think you stay the course in the South and you move Phoenix when Houston's ready, so they move ACROSS the South, not out of it.
I don't think you're grasping how horrid 3,000/game is.

That's a damn joke.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2012, 10:36 PM
  #430
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Woodballs View Post
Once again, 95% capacity doesnt mean anything when the tickets go for 20 bucks
And you're only get 3 to 10,000 on tv

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2012, 10:55 PM
  #431
King Woodballs
MVP! MVP! MVP!
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 33,458
vCash: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
And you're only get 3 to 10,000 on tv
Exactly.

King Woodballs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2012, 11:41 PM
  #432
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
I don't think you're grasping how horrid 3,000/game is.

That's a damn joke.
Hey, that number is 40% HIGHER than it was a year ago... if these trends continue....



KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 12:15 AM
  #433
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Depends what you're trying to measure.
Do you want to use attendance to measure interest? That's one way.

I don't see how television revenue means much, as I am sure that if a network is paying big bucks for a sport that gets them 3,000 a broadcast is reconsidering their purchase.

I5 years of NHL hockey you're average 3,000 television watchers per game, that's a really tough number to digest.
You're looking at it through "traditional" lenses. Whereas most "traditional" teams have all 82 games broadcast, plus preseason, consider the average "non-traditional" team's situation.

Most of these teams are broadcast on local cable channels. Most of them do not have all games broadcast, and until about three or four years ago, getting even half of a season on TV was like pulling teeth. Preseason is never broadcast.

In addition, most of these networks have contracts with other teams and programs, and programming time is reliant on that set priority. In the last year, tuning into Fox Sports Ohio to watch a CBJ game, I've seen:
- A Cleveland Browns weekly show, usually spotlighting a player
- A Cleveland Cavaliers game
- A Cleveland Cavaliers pregame show
- A Cleveland Cavaliers soft news show
- A blank screen
- Cincinnati Reds "classic games" being re-broadcast
- Cincinnati Reds spring training focus

Now, mind you, this is when the broadcast schedule says "Columbus Blue Jackets hockey". Sometimes it cuts to the game in the 2nd period, sometimes the 3rd, sometimes not at all. Occasionally it's on Fox Sports Cincinnati, which has its own priority list (and is not anywhere close to the availability of FSO). But it's different based on cable provider, region, and priority. I was never able to find a CBJ game while visiting the in-laws (Akron/Canton/Massillon area), and people across Northeast Ohio have had the same problems. People in Southwest Ohio have the same problems. Even people in Central Ohio have problems depending on their cable provider. We maintain a thread about it on the CBJ board.

Now, that's just us. We're no strangers to hockey. So imagine what Florida goes through, which has fewer games on TV and probably gets bumped for all sorts of other crap. This isn't what happens in a lot of other markets. So no, low TV ratings don't shock me. You know what we have? A 25-station radio network...which also can be bumped (as has been widely reported).

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 12:34 AM
  #434
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
You're looking at it through "traditional" lenses. Whereas most "traditional" teams have all 82 games broadcast, plus preseason, consider the average "non-traditional" team's situation.

Most of these teams are broadcast on local cable channels. Most of them do not have all games broadcast, and until about three or four years ago, getting even half of a season on TV was like pulling teeth. Preseason is never broadcast.

In addition, most of these networks have contracts with other teams and programs, and programming time is reliant on that set priority. In the last year, tuning into Fox Sports Ohio to watch a CBJ game, I've seen:
- A Cleveland Browns weekly show, usually spotlighting a player
- A Cleveland Cavaliers game
- A Cleveland Cavaliers pregame show
- A Cleveland Cavaliers soft news show
- A blank screen
- Cincinnati Reds "classic games" being re-broadcast
- Cincinnati Reds spring training focus

Now, mind you, this is when the broadcast schedule says "Columbus Blue Jackets hockey". Sometimes it cuts to the game in the 2nd period, sometimes the 3rd, sometimes not at all. Occasionally it's on Fox Sports Cincinnati, which has its own priority list (and is not anywhere close to the availability of FSO). But it's different based on cable provider, region, and priority. I was never able to find a CBJ game while visiting the in-laws (Akron/Canton/Massillon area), and people across Northeast Ohio have had the same problems. People in Southwest Ohio have the same problems. Even people in Central Ohio have problems depending on their cable provider. We maintain a thread about it on the CBJ board.

Now, that's just us. We're no strangers to hockey. So imagine what Florida goes through, which has fewer games on TV and probably gets bumped for all sorts of other crap. This isn't what happens in a lot of other markets. So no, low TV ratings don't shock me. You know what we have? A 25-station radio network...which also can be bumped (as has been widely reported).
I'm not sure why we're arguing.
They're not penetrating the market. And it sounds like there is no hope of penetrating the market.

So why are we there? For a national tv deal that pays chump change?

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 12:37 AM
  #435
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
You're looking at it through "traditional" lenses. Whereas most "traditional" teams have all 82 games broadcast, plus preseason, consider the average "non-traditional" team's situation.
Now that is just wrong. I grew up hoping to see Wed. and Sat. hockey. If lucky I might get a Mon. or Tue. game.

Now ya, sure if I want to pay the money I can see all 82 of my teams games.

But the only reason I have to PAY EXTRA to see all 82 is because it is in a top market.


Quote:
Most of these teams are broadcast on local cable channels. Most of them do not have all games broadcast, and until about three or four years ago, getting even half of a season on TV was like pulling teeth. Preseason is never broadcast.

In addition, most of these networks have contracts with other teams and programs, and programming time is reliant on that set priority. In the last year, tuning into Fox Sports Ohio to watch a CBJ game, I've seen:
- A Cleveland Browns weekly show, usually spotlighting a player
- A Cleveland Cavaliers game
- A Cleveland Cavaliers pregame show
- A Cleveland Cavaliers soft news show
- A blank screen
- Cincinnati Reds "classic games" being re-broadcast
- Cincinnati Reds spring training focus
That is sad. Now I understand sports in the US and that Hockey just doesn't draw.

BUt I think HD TV is going to change that.

Remember how FOX though if they could help people see the puck they would like the game more? I think they were right but the glowing puck was a failure.

With HD the puck is easily visible compared to regular TV. I watch old LEafs games now and I just take thier word for it if htey say someone scored.

NOw if CLB can't get on in Cleveland then that is the sales department. Coupled with other issues.

CLB is not on my list because they should have succeeded. They were succeeding.
Zherdev, Brule, Filatov have had bigger parts why that franchise isn't turning a profit than the fans.


Quote:
Now, mind you, this is when the broadcast schedule says "Columbus Blue Jackets hockey". Sometimes it cuts to the game in the 2nd period, sometimes the 3rd, sometimes not at all. Occasionally it's on Fox Sports Cincinnati, which has its own priority list (and is not anywhere close to the availability of FSO). But it's different based on cable provider, region, and priority. I was never able to find a CBJ game while visiting the in-laws (Akron/Canton/Massillon area), and people across Northeast Ohio have had the same problems. People in Southwest Ohio have the same problems. Even people in Central Ohio have problems depending on their cable provider. We maintain a thread about it on the CBJ board.

Now, that's just us. We're no strangers to hockey. So imagine what Florida goes through, which has fewer games on TV and probably gets bumped for all sorts of other crap. This isn't what happens in a lot of other markets. So no, low TV ratings don't shock me. You know what we have? A 25-station radio network...which also can be bumped (as has been widely reported).
In Florida I would bet they would get bumped locally for HIghschool sports.

charliolemieux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 12:40 AM
  #436
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
I'm not sure why we're arguing.
They're not penetrating the market. And it sounds like there is no hope of penetrating the market.

So why are we there? For a national tv deal that pays chump change?
That's a pretty sizable jump to make there.

In each of these markets, the number of games broadcast has increased in the last few years. But the network isn't able to hold a gun to anyone's head to force them to show something that people want to see (instead of yet another tour of Josh Cribbs' house).

Neither one of us has any idea what the immediate future holds for TV broadcasting, or streaming, or anything else. So to base decisions of team placement because Cleveland (two hours away) would rather show a Cavs home game than a CBJ road game is idiotic.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 12:43 AM
  #437
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliolemieux View Post
That is sad. Now I understand sports in the US and that Hockey just doesn't draw.

BUt I think HD TV is going to change that.

Remember how FOX though if they could help people see the puck they would like the game more? I think they were right but the glowing puck was a failure.

With HD the puck is easily visible compared to regular TV. I watch old LEafs games now and I just take thier word for it if htey say someone scored.

NOw if CLB can't get on in Cleveland then that is the sales department. Coupled with other issues.

CLB is not on my list because they should have succeeded. They were succeeding.
Zherdev, Brule, Filatov have had bigger parts why that franchise isn't turning a profit than the fans.
Quit writing the eulogy. Columbus isn't going anywhere.

I'm curious to see if the a la carte cable packaging gains traction. The importance of that in sports broadcasting will have monumental and historical fallout if it ends up being enacted, and would put the NHL on nearly equal footing as every other league.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 01:46 AM
  #438
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 13,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
I think that your lack of knowledge of NFL history is showing badly. The arguments for/against what happened in the 1930s were the same as what's happening now. George Preston Marshall wasn't some well-respected stalwart, he was the new kid in the room. Men like Curly Lambeau and George Halas not only had owned teams for over a dozen years when Marshall arrived, they had played in the NFL when it was still the APFA.

Marshall got an expansion team (Boston Braves) in 1932. In the league meetings after that season, he came to the table with these giants of pro football, pulled out a notebook, and went down the list of rule changes that he wanted to see implemented. A few owners tried to cut him off, and it was Halas and Mara who let him speak and then addressed the proposals on the merit of the idea rather than on who was making them. They supported Marshall's ideas, the rules became law, and suddenly the NFL had a very entertaining product on their hands.

That's the difference between the two leagues. The NFL, from the very beginning, had progressive-minded individuals who recognized that "tradition" and "history" meant absolutely nothing if the league itself couldn't survive. Look at the cities that had teams in the very beginning, and how many of them were gone to larger ones within 15 years. I can drive two hours in any direction from where I live and find the place where an NFL team from the 1920s or 1930s played....Marion, Akron, Canton, Cleveland, Massillon, Portsmouth, Dayton...

What did the NHL have? A bunch of self-serving fools who were content to line their own pockets today even if it meant that the league would never grow. The NFL aggressively expanded and kept an eye on the future, the NHL regarded expansion as blasphemy.
Your right. I was speaking out of ignorance. I know little about the NFL and couldn't care less about the sport of gridiron football in general. I find it incredibly boring especially when compared to its sister sports of Aussie Rules and Rugby.

That all said, "the NFL agreed on pooling TV revenues in the 1930s" is not an explanation on why the NHL would agree to do the same today. Different times, different owners, different dollar figures involved.

Further, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you would advocate so-called "progressive thinking" on the NHL. It seems like a perfectly American thing to do. Disregard the history, disregard tradition, chase the almighty dollar, because at the end of the day, that's all that matters.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 02:03 AM
  #439
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 13,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
This isn't 1942 either. A six team league in 2012 is a MINOR league. Do you think the millionaire players want to play for chump change in a minor league? More to the point, leagues that fold teams lose credibility with the sports consumer. That happened with the WHA. It happened with the USFL. Having credibility with the fans is a necessity if you want to be a major league.
Except, I am not advocating a six-team league. My whole argument was that a select group of clubs could survive the NHL collapsing. Essentially, the Maple Leafs brand is bigger than the NHL's in the City of Toronto. The Canadiens brand is bigger than the NHL in the City of Montreal. Where these marquee teams are, the top-level league is.

It is besides the point though. For the third time, nobody is advocating folding a significant amount of clubs. Those that are for relocation want a select group of teams to move from weak markets to stable ones. Those that are for contraction want to just remove those teams. 19 teams have relocated since the NHL was founded, the 20th or 21st will not lead to the league folding.

Quote:
I think if the current crop of owners are smart they will. The NFL is the most successful business model in the history of sports. There's a reason they rake in the mega-bucks and it starts with the decision they made a long time ago that they were one business that they were all partnered in and they would all be better off in the long run getting a smaller portion of a huge and growing pie than a couple of teams getting a huge chunk of a small and static pie. One benefit of pooling the resources like that is the league office took over marketing and sold the LEAGUE to the public. That's growing the economic pie. And btw, the NFL was a "niche sport" back then too. Operating as a single economic entity ENABLED them to bring pro football from a niche sport into the big time.

A more pertinent question would be "Why would Molson give hoot about owning the Canadiens if the NHL collapses and team winds up a minor league outfit merged into the AHL?" They wouldn't of course.

The bottom-line is that the reason the NFL has gotten to be as big as they are is because of their business model. It's business model that gave the league stability and credibility and enabled them to take advantage of opportunities to grow their fiscal pie in ways that would otherwise be closed to them. Whether Geoff Molson or Larry Tanenbaum gets that is immaterial. The point is if they were smart they'd realize that they'd be better off in the long run following the NFL's model. Afterall, it's the one sports business model that's been PROVEN to be a success.
You seem to be of the belief that the NHL is struggling, that 2/3 of the member teams are on the brink of collapse. That just isn't the case.

The vast majority of NHL clubs are stable. Only a group of 3 or 4 truly have financial troubles and many of them are salvageable with some good management. The total revenue pie is one of the largest in the world and growing exponentially since the 2005 lockout.

There is just no incentive for any of the large market owners to pool their revenues with the rest of the league. Just because the NFL did it in the 1930's, does not mean the NHL can on something like that today.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 02:16 AM
  #440
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Except, I am not advocating a six-team league. My whole argument was that a select group of clubs could survive the NHL collapsing. Essentially, the Maple Leafs brand is bigger than the NHL's in the City of Toronto. The Canadiens brand is bigger than the NHL in the City of Montreal. Where these marquee teams are, the top-level league is.

It is besides the point though. For the third time, nobody is advocating folding a significant amount of clubs. Those that are for relocation want a select group of teams to move from weak markets to stable ones. Those that are for contraction want to just remove those teams. 19 teams have relocated since the NHL was founded, the 20th or 21st will not lead to the league folding.



You seem to be of the belief that the NHL is struggling, that 2/3 of the member teams are on the brink of collapse. That just isn't the case.

The vast majority of NHL clubs are stable. Only a group of 3 or 4 truly have financial troubles and many of them are salvageable with some good management. The total revenue pie is one of the largest in the world and growing exponentially since the 2005 lockout.

There is just no incentive for any of the large market owners to pool their revenues with the rest of the league. Just because the NFL did it in the 1930's, does not mean the NHL can on something like that today.
Yeah, the NFL is only the most successful business model in the history of professional sports......no reason at all why somebody would want to follow that example. Successful business model vs dysfunctional business model.

And btw, the NFL started pooling their television revenue in 1960. In the decade that followed that just so happened to be when the NFL took off as a booming enterprise.

Oh, and also, the Canadiens are no longer a "marquee" team.....and haven't been since they traded Roy. The Maple Leafs haven't been relevant since before I was born. People outside of Montreal and Toronto don't generally genuflect at their altar. I hate to break it to you but the world does NOT revolve around Montreal and Toronto.....despite what the denizens of those cities like to flatter themselves thinking.

Have a nice day!

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 02:16 AM
  #441
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
That's a pretty sizable jump to make there.

In each of these markets, the number of games broadcast has increased in the last few years. But the network isn't able to hold a gun to anyone's head to force them to show something that people want to see (instead of yet another tour of Josh Cribbs' house).

Neither one of us has any idea what the immediate future holds for TV broadcasting, or streaming, or anything else. So to base decisions of team placement because Cleveland (two hours away) would rather show a Cavs home game than a CBJ road game is idiotic.
What is the league supposed to do, though? Wait around for Columbus to find a good local TV deal?
I've been to Nationwide Arena. I love the arena district. I had high hopes for the franchise. But how much handholding are they supposed to get?

Why do we need to shut down a league because teams make bad arena deals and make bad tv deals and can't generate enough revenue to make a go of it?

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 02:18 AM
  #442
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Quit writing the eulogy. Columbus isn't going anywhere.

I'm curious to see if the a la carte cable packaging gains traction. The importance of that in sports broadcasting will have monumental and historical fallout if it ends up being enacted, and would put the NHL on nearly equal footing as every other league.
yeah, it's time for pay-per-view everything as far as I am concerned. I am tired of paying $100+ a month just to watch 15 hockey games.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 02:26 AM
  #443
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,998
vCash: 500
You also have to realize that Fox Sports being a regional affiliate network, they have Fox Sports Ohio that services the entire state.

And you have Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland in the state who are all top 40 markets. The problem isn't the "demand" for the Jackets, I lived in SW Ohio for six years and the problem was: What they said was going to be on wasn't ever on.

The only reliable content was baseball in the summer. It was Cincinnati for me, I imagine the east side of the state got the Indians.

In the winter, it would be the Cavs when it was supposed to be the Jackets AND VICE VERSA.

If Fox Sports created Fox Sports Cincinnati, and Fox Sports Cleveland and put the Jackets on BOTH, problem solved. CBJ could easily schedule around the Cavs.

The other aspect of CBJ's ratings is that they play 71% of their road games outside their time zone. No wonder they lose the head-to-head time slots to the Cavs, who have 22 road games in their time zone (and for a while, had LeBron James).

You can aide a lot of the financial issues for teams via scheduling and alignment.
#1 - Putting TB and FLA with BOS, MON, TOR in the four-division alignment would give them six more big draws at home.
#2 - Moving CBJ to the East and give them 9 road games outside their time zone instead of 29.
#3 - Get Dallas into the division with CTZ.
#4 - ANA, PHX into a division with VAN, EDM, CAL, COL.
All these things help their TV deals.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 02:29 AM
  #444
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
You also have to realize that Fox Sports being a regional affiliate network, they have Fox Sports Ohio that services the entire state.

And you have Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland in the state who are all top 40 markets. The problem isn't the "demand" for the Jackets, I lived in SW Ohio for six years and the problem was: What they said was going to be on wasn't ever on.

The only reliable content was baseball in the summer. It was Cincinnati for me, I imagine the east side of the state got the Indians.

In the winter, it would be the Cavs when it was supposed to be the Jackets AND VICE VERSA.

If Fox Sports created Fox Sports Cincinnati, and Fox Sports Cleveland and put the Jackets on BOTH, problem solved. CBJ could easily schedule around the Cavs.

The other aspect of CBJ's ratings is that they play 71% of their road games outside their time zone. No wonder they lose the head-to-head time slots to the Cavs, who have 22 road games in their time zone (and for a while, had LeBron James).

You can aide a lot of the financial issues for teams via scheduling and alignment.
#1 - Putting TB and FLA with BOS, MON, TOR in the four-division alignment would give them six more big draws at home.
#2 - Moving CBJ to the East and give them 9 road games outside their time zone instead of 29.
#3 - Get Dallas into the division with CTZ.
#4 - ANA, PHX into a division with VAN, EDM, CAL, COL.
All these things help their TV deals.
The new realignment went a long way towards common-sense divisional groupings but, of course, it got shot down by Fehr.....

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 03:04 AM
  #445
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,710
vCash: 500
re some of the forbes talk.

yes, there should be a disclaimer on forbes numbers. Revenues are estimates based on ticket prices/attendance, some sort of estimated advertising revenue, public knowledge of tv deals and league-wide revenue, and maybe revenue sharing (some have brought up the islanders vs yotes revenue discrepancies as evidence to this - but shared revenue may or may not be accurate and/or double counted). I was working on a spreadsheet a few months ago on aggregate forbes revenues vs actual estimated league-wide revenue (which is relatively easy to calculate based on cap numbers and mouser's escrow numbers, though there is the issue of benefits), never really finished it, but IIRC forbes revenues overstated league-wide revenues in 2009-10 by around 5%. I plan on finishing and posting this information at some point when i get time to finish it.

I have no idea what forbes uses to calculate their costs, though i suspect it is simply payroll + a standard 'non-hockey-costs' number used for every team.

On winnipeg, yes, there is no forbes data on them yet. The last year's data is thrasher's data. Forbes business of hockey 2011-12 should be available around november 20th this year.

for winnipeg 2011-12, someone with a better memory will have to add, but iirc chipman or someone else at TNSE made comments about them being in the 10-15 group last season - no revenue sharing in or out. I also suspect there is some sort of internal agreement that should they fall below the 15th place, they will not be eligible for revenue sharing for the first x years in winnipeg as part of their agreement to relocate the thrashers, though i cant recall if this was some random hfposters ramblings or some real report that came out last summer.

danishh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 03:15 AM
  #446
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
The Eternal Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
for winnipeg 2011-12, someone with a better memory will have to add, but iirc chipman or someone else at TNSE made comments about them being in the 10-15 group last season - no revenue sharing in or out. I also suspect there is some sort of internal agreement that should they fall below the 15th place, they will not be eligible for revenue sharing for the first x years in winnipeg as part of their agreement to relocate the thrashers, though i cant recall if this was some random hfposters ramblings or some real report that came out last summer.
Chipman did say that Winnipeg will not receive revenue sharing this year.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports/...service=mobile

I have not heard that they will not pay into revenue sharing.

I think that 10-12 is probably where they slotted for revenue this year. I expect that to drop to 14-18 in future years, but that's my speculation.

Have not heard anything about that nonsense with regards to WPG being ineligible for revenue sharing, and looking at Chipman's quote in that article, I find it hard to believe since he believed that they would be a team getting revenue sharing. That is random hf poster ramblings, if you heard it anywhere, IMO. It just doesn't make any sense. They already paid a 50 million dollar relocation fee, that's more than enough repayment to the NHL for moving the team.

Holden Caulfield is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 03:18 AM
  #447
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
re some of the forbes talk.

yes, there should be a disclaimer on forbes numbers. Revenues are estimates based on ticket prices/attendance, some sort of estimated advertising revenue, public knowledge of tv deals and league-wide revenue, and maybe revenue sharing (some have brought up the islanders vs yotes revenue discrepancies as evidence to this - but shared revenue may or may not be accurate and/or double counted). I was working on a spreadsheet a few months ago on aggregate forbes revenues vs actual estimated league-wide revenue (which is relatively easy to calculate based on cap numbers and mouser's escrow numbers, though there is the issue of benefits), never really finished it, but IIRC forbes revenues overstated league-wide revenues in 2009-10 by around 5%. I plan on finishing and posting this information at some point when i get time to finish it.

I have no idea what forbes uses to calculate their costs, though i suspect it is simply payroll + a standard 'non-hockey-costs' number used for every team.

On winnipeg, yes, there is no forbes data on them yet. The last year's data is thrasher's data. Forbes business of hockey 2011-12 should be available around november 20th this year.

for winnipeg 2011-12, someone with a better memory will have to add, but iirc chipman or someone else at TNSE made comments about them being in the 10-15 group last season - no revenue sharing in or out. I also suspect there is some sort of internal agreement that should they fall below the 15th place, they will not be eligible for revenue sharing for the first x years in winnipeg as part of their agreement to relocate the thrashers, though i cant recall if this was some random hfposters ramblings or some real report that came out last summer.
That was me bringing up the Islanders/Coyotes disparity.

The Jets owner was quoted as saying they would not be a revenue sharing recipient because of their revenues.

The figure of $100 million is being thrown out there because of the Winnipeg Free Press article:
Quote:
Winnipeg Jets co-owner and governor Mark Chipman dropped a bombshell at a press conference today, announcing the Jets will not be a revenue-sharing team for 2011-12.

The assumption far and wide -- including by the team until very recently -- was that the Jets, playing in the NHL's smallest building and in its smallest market, would need to participate in the league's welfare system to make a go of it.

True North Sports and Entertainment won’t know for absolute certain until the league’s revenues and finances are audited after the playoffs are over, but Chipman’s actual point was that revenues for the NHL’s first season back in Winnipeg have exceeded expectations to the point the Jets could well be in the league’s top 15 of revenue.

If they’re not, they’ll be close to that, and any revenue-sharing amount that would come to them would be negligible.

Chipman wouldn’t disclose the Jets’ number for 2011-12, but given his statements it’s likely just less than $100 million.
One would assume the author made the "just less than $100 million" claim based on Forbes 2011 numbers:

13 NJ $100m
14 MIN $97m
15 EDM $96m
---------------------------
16 SJ $96m
17 WAS $94m

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 06:27 AM
  #448
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 13,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Yeah, the NFL is only the most successful business model in the history of professional sports......no reason at all why somebody would want to follow that example. Successful business model vs dysfunctional business model.

And btw, the NFL started pooling their television revenue in 1960. In the decade that followed that just so happened to be when the NFL took off as a booming enterprise.
I think we are pretty much at a stalemate here, no?

You: NFL most successful league in the world. NHL should emulate it.
Me: Cannot envision NFL model being possible in today's league and even if implemented, no guarantee of comparable success.

Quote:
Oh, and also, the Canadiens are no longer a "marquee" team.....and haven't been since they traded Roy. The Maple Leafs haven't been relevant since before I was born. People outside of Montreal and Toronto don't generally genuflect at their altar. I hate to break it to you but the world does NOT revolve around Montreal and Toronto.....despite what the denizens of those cities like to flatter themselves thinking.

Have a nice day!
Clearly our definitions on marquee teams vary.

The Dallas Cowboys haven't won a Super Bowl since 1995, are they not one of the NFL's marquee teams?
The Chicago Cubs haven't won a World Series in over 100 years, are they not one of the MLB's marquee teams?

When a team has the amount of history both Toronto and Montreal, a fan base that covers the world and back, and are cultural icons, I simply don't see how they can be anything but marquee teams, whether they're successful on-ice or not.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 06:32 AM
  #449
KEEROLE Vatanen
Failures Of Fenwick
 
KEEROLE Vatanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 20,133
vCash: 500
this post is funny, because two of the driving forces behind this lockout are Jeremy Jacobs and Ed Snider....ye of large markets.

KEEROLE Vatanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 07:57 AM
  #450
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Oh, and also, the Canadiens are no longer a "marquee" team.....and haven't been since they traded Roy. The Maple Leafs haven't been relevant since before I was born. People outside of Montreal and Toronto don't generally genuflect at their altar. I hate to break it to you but the world does NOT revolve around Montreal and Toronto.....despite what the denizens of those cities like to flatter themselves thinking.
You've a horribly misinformed outlook. The Canadiens and the Leafs each perennially rank amongst the top three in league revenue; they've local and national television numbers that absolutely dwarf all others, and arguably easily possess the largest fan-bases in the league - and those fans can also be found far and wide.

Each meet the very definition of the term marquee, FYI.

Quote:
Marquee Asset - A particularly valuable or important asset that a company owns. For example, a car manufacturer's three best producing factories may be considered its marquee assets. A marquee asset is also called a trophy asset. See also: Crown jewel.
http://financial-dictionary.thefreed.../Marquee+Asset
Quote:
marquee - adjective: having or associated with the name recognition and attraction of one whose name appears on a marquee : big-name, star <marquee athletes> <marquee events>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marquee

Gump Hasek 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 05:49 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.