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.

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-07-2012, 09:56 PM
  #151
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
And how many ticket sales are from Canadian snowbirds, how many were given away, and how many are just dirt cheap. It's the price of tickets that are more important, not how many butts are in the seat.
Who gives a crap who buys the tickets? If it's people with Canadian accents who retired in Florida, that's all the more reason to put teams all around the country and not just in a tiny little pockets of our two countries. It's a great game. People everywhere love it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sour Shoes View Post
a semi-trained monkey could own a team in new york, and get 18k out a population of 20 mil + / - to sell out the garden. fickle fans in this market are masked by the huge population. smaller cities don't have this luxury. so when the correlation between on ice success and fan support is exposed, you get pompous fans piling on. as a fan of a small market team, i don't give 2 ****s if big market fans are annoyed.
Provided you had an arena giving you modern revenue streams, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jigger77 View Post
Short answer, yes. But saddened is probably a better word than annoyed in my case. I miss the old NHL a lot. But it's not because of this lockout. This just brings it to the forefront for me.

For me there is the NHL before Quebec and Winnipeg were moved (and to a degree before Gretzky was traded but I was pretty young then) and the NHL now.

I don't like NHL hockey with empty arenas. I find watching games against teams where the arenas are empty (or filled with Habs fans which happens a lot in the East) is extremely boring compared to watching a game against Toronto, Boston or back in the day, Quebec. And watching Tampa Bay win the cup and have half as many people in the streets celebrating as there were in the losing city Calgary never sat well with me either. Just like I don't truly "get" basketball, baseball and football, I find people in those cities don't and never will really "get" what hockey truly is really about.

Call me bitter, call me what you want, I hate the expansion and I hate Gary Bettman. For me hockey was never about revenue and growth. It was just a part of life. What team you are a fan of in the NHL is part of your identity up here.
I agree with a lot of that. And that's really the point: We need a CBA that protects markets with great, loyal, passionate fans that might not be able to match the revenue of TOR, NY, MON, CHI and DET.

In the 1990s, that included Winnipeg, Quebec, Hartford and Minnesota.
Now, it's a few teams in the South, NYI, and STL.
In the future, we don't know who it will be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Omnimaga View Post
Columbus has a pass, though. They may not be a market as great as the ones in the north, but they are the worst on-ice disaster to ever happen in the history of mankind and I am surprised they don't average at less than 6000 fans a game by now.
CBJ won marketing/promotion awards for their game atmosphere/in-game presentation. They could be a very solid market, but they have been so god-awful on the ice. The fact they're "only" in the shape they are in and haven't hemmoraged money considering how bad their team and lease has been is actually quite impressive.

Also, Columbus is in the North. The Blue Jackets fought against the South in the US Civil War. The city is north of Washington DC, St. Louis and Denver; By latitude, their arena is north of Philadelphia's arena.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charliolemieux View Post
I'm totally pissed at the small market teams right now. They are holding us all hostage because they can't generate enough revenue to pay their bills.

You are not a traditional market. Yet it is these same damn teams that are causing us to miss another season of hockey because they can't survive under the current economic structure.

Well get out. Move somewhere that can afford to have a team.

Holding us hostage because they lose less money with an empty arena than if there is hockey is just disgusting in my books.
Which team is last in revenues? My team. We're 30th. D.M.F.L.

I have two responses to the idea that teams who can't afford to pay their bills "are not tradition markets."

The first is:


[mod delete]


Last edited by mouser: 10-07-2012 at 10:11 PM. Reason: not necessary
KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 09:58 PM
  #152
Mant*
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob View Post
Holy strawman argument Batman!
I'm not putting any words into anyone's mouths other than the Canadians who have been saying exactly that for many years now. Don't even pretend it's a made up sentiment.

Mant* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 10:01 PM
  #153
PanthersHockey1
Avs Bandwagon
 
PanthersHockey1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UF & Boca Raton
Country: United States
Posts: 5,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
No one does. But we do know tickets are very, very cheap to see Panthers games.
Thanks for cutting to chase. This is what youre annoyed about and honestly I can't blame you. It must bug you to no end that on a 75 F degree night in January I can buy a 20 ticket at a Panther game 10 rows from the ice. It irritates you further that these teams experience success while your traditional Organization fails. You could care less about funding and ownership. It has no relevance at all to your pocket. I can blame you, however, for covering up your frustration with playing the anti-expansion team card.

I have some really difficult news to share with you. Whether the Panthers or Coyotes exist bares absolutely no significance on the price of Toronto Maple Leafs tickets. If you sulk about having to shell out 200 for the same seat I can get for 20. Tough. There is at least 10 Torontonians who are rich enough and willing enough to pay that 200.


These rich big market organization were royally compensated to have these expansion teams exist in the first place.

I also believe if every organization had a 100 years of history like the leafs than they would be successful too.

I suggest you and your like minded Canadian Pals seriously consider retiring to Florida. Maybe you can lose the animosity and take advantage of our cheap tickets and awesome weather too!


Last edited by PanthersHockey1: 10-07-2012 at 10:10 PM.
PanthersHockey1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 10:05 PM
  #154
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 10,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
So a modern-day Lake Wobegon?
Pretty much. Why can't everyone be above average?

Mod note: this thread is going to find itself closed very quickly if posters can't be civil to each other.


Last edited by mouser: 10-07-2012 at 10:15 PM.
mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 10:08 PM
  #155
PanthersHockey1
Avs Bandwagon
 
PanthersHockey1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UF & Boca Raton
Country: United States
Posts: 5,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEAFS FAN 4 EVER View Post
During the 2011-2012 regular season when it was obvious that they were finally going to make the Playoffs I still noticed a lot of empty seats at their home games. I have seen the argument that if the teams in the Southern United States are competitive it will get people out to watch their games and I didn't see that with the Panthers fans.
You werent looking hard enough. I cant believe these statisticians who judge strength of a fanbase by seeing the number of full seats on one side of a lower bowl of an arena.

Clearly you also missed our home playoff games against New Jersey as well.

PanthersHockey1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 10:09 PM
  #156
PanthersHockey1
Avs Bandwagon
 
PanthersHockey1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UF & Boca Raton
Country: United States
Posts: 5,389
vCash: 500
I don't know but im sure some old timers would confirm but adjusting for inflation I'd imagine leaf tickets in 1960 were equally as outrageous as they are today?

PanthersHockey1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 10:10 PM
  #157
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mant View Post
I'm not putting any words into anyone's mouths other than the Canadians who have been saying exactly that for many years now. Don't even pretend it's a made up sentiment.
So Canadian fans have been saying that Chicago, Detroit, Philly, Pittsburgh, NYR, Boston, etc. should not be in the NHL? Paint with a sweeping brushing will only result in being made to eat paint...

Lobotomizer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 10:10 PM
  #158
Prussian_Blue
Registered User
 
Prussian_Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Country: Germany
Posts: 7,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliolemieux View Post
I'm totally pissed at the small market teams right now. They are holding us all hostage because they can't generate enough revenue to pay their bills.

Now you can talk all you want about sellouts and consecutive years of 90% capacity but when you're giving away tickets with the purchase of an oil change, or have a "Family Pack" consisting of tickets, parking, 4 hotdogs and 4 pop for under $50- YOU ARE A JOKE!

You are not a traditional market. Yet it is these same damn teams that are causing us to miss another season of hockey because they can't survive under the current economic structure.

Well get out. Move somewhere that can afford to have a team.

Holding us hostage because they lose less money with an empty arena than if there is hockey is just disgusting in my books.
There are a lot of brainless and misinformed comments in this thread, but this one takes the prize. Congratulations.

Prussian_Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 10:16 PM
  #159
Mant*
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobotomizer View Post
So Canadian fans have been saying that Chicago, Detroit, Philly, Pittsburgh, NYR, Boston, etc. should not be in the NHL? Paint with a sweeping brushing will only result in being made to eat paint...
You've never seen the "take back Canada's game" people? They don't want the NHL to exist outside of Canada.

Mant* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 10:18 PM
  #160
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mant View Post
You've never seen the "take back Canada's game" people? They don't want the NHL to exist outside of Canada.
You've never really paid attention to what is going on when it comes to Canadians opinion of hockey in the States...too bad. You might realize how assinine your comments are.

Lobotomizer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 10:36 PM
  #161
Viqsi
"They're back."
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 20,061
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob View Post
Holy strawman argument Batman!
It may be a strawman, but it still manages to accurately describe the sentiments of a sizable number of highly vocal problem people, and also the motivations behind the creation of this thread.

The obvious worry would be if this were extrapolated to, y'know, all Canadian hockey fans, which is of course garbage as the vast majority of hockey fans (Canadian and elsewhere) understand, among many other things, the concept of basic human empathy and its application. And thank G-d for that.


In twenty or thirty years, we'll be a traditional market. So long as the haters are never placed in charge of anything more complicated than their own lives, I can wait.

__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards

Thanks, Howson, for cleaning up MacLean's toxic waste. Welcome, Kekalainen; let's get good things built!
Viqsi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 10:45 PM
  #162
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
In twenty or thirty years, we'll be a traditional market. So long as the haters are never placed in charge of anything more complicated than their own lives, I can wait.

... great post Viqsi. Got your back on those sentiments.... just kidding. I really do.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 11:04 PM
  #163
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanthersHockey1 View Post

I also believe if every organization had a 100 years of history like the leafs than they would be successful too.

I suggest you and your like minded Canadian Pals seriously consider retiring to Florida. Maybe you can lose the animosity and take advantage of our cheap tickets and awesome weather too!
The Leafs may have some history but it has bred little success over the past 45 years. There are few people alive younger than 50 years old who remember the Leafs in the Cup finals and that 5 year old has a good memory!

It is the passion for the game that breeds financial success, not necessarily the history of the franchise. People's passion often shows through their wallets. Just ask TNSE owners of the Winnipeg Jets. The Jets history is sporadic at best 72- 79 WHA, 79-96 NHL, 2011 -present. Only 17 years of NHL history in Winnipeg. It is the passion of the fanbase for hockey that shows through not necesssarily the history. In fact, most of Winnipeg's hockey history officially resides in Arizona.

The Leafs have had their moments since 1967 but nothing compared to the on ice success of these southern based teams. It is passion for the game of hockey that drives revenues.

Panthers- Cup final 1996
Lightning - Stanley cup Champs 2004
Huricanes - Cup final 2002, champs 2006

If owners want to lose money in some markets who cares. It is just nice to be in the club.

blues10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 11:09 PM
  #164
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanthersHockey1 View Post
You werent looking hard enough. I cant believe these statisticians who judge strength of a fanbase by seeing the number of full seats on one side of a lower bowl of an arena.

Clearly you also missed our home playoff games against New Jersey as well.
Isn't the number of bodies in the seats the way you judge fan support? The owners do. Ask Phoenix.

Lobotomizer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 11:16 PM
  #165
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 6,732
vCash: 1350
Isn't this a business forum? Emotional arguments and rhetoric should have no place here.

Most I know that have problems with certain markets feel this way simply because those markets (that currently happen to be in the US) aren't keeping up with even the league median... despite their taxing of other markets that can. They don't want to steal your team; they want to see a stronger league with a foothold in markets where the sport is most popular versus trying to sell it in areas where cheap tickets are a must just to get even casual fans into the building.

The argument is oft repeated here that with more revenue sharing somehow everything would be magically fixed, yet from an economics perspective that is simply the wrong viewpoint as additional taxation is never a long-term solution to economic disparity. The solution is a more free market. Rather than further taxing teams the league should instead look at moving a few of its largest revenue drains to "sure thing" markets like Quebec City and GTA. The resultant boost to HRR would surely please both the owners and players.

Why not let economic forces come more into play versus protecting the false markets they are trying to create? Allow the markets to be the arbiter.... versus simple taxation. Drop the cap floor as well and then we'll see just how solid some of the marginal US markets truly are when they struggle to compete on the ice.

Gump Hasek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 11:34 PM
  #166
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobotomizer View Post
Isn't the number of bodies in the seats the way you judge fan support? The owners do. Ask Phoenix.
Save that argument for some other thread.

The financial success of a franchise is partially dependent on the $$$$ those butts paid to sit in the seats. In a primarily gate driven league it is the price the fans pay that counts.

I could care less if some owners charge peanuts for tickets and the building is full or not full. It is their business plan and the price to pay to be in the club.

blues10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 11:41 PM
  #167
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=blues10;54839001]Save that argument for some other thread.

The financial success of a franchise is partially dependent on the $$$$ those butts paid to sit in the seats. In a primarily gate driven league it is the price the fans pay that counts.

I could care less if some owners charge peanuts for tickets and the building is full or not full. It is their business plan and the price to pay to be in the club.[/QUOTE]

Have fun with that argument...last time I checked monetary income is the only thing that matters to the owners, and that includes butts in the seats who have actually paid for their tickets.

No fans - no gate. The highlighted part of your response is laughable - no team will exist with your plan. But keep arguing the rest of the crap you brought up.

Lobotomizer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 12:10 AM
  #168
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Airlines View Post
^ Your poor attempt at putting down the Canadian franchises is entirely invalid. The Canadian dollar was worth 50 cents US fifteen years ago. That will NEVER happen again. Today, the Canadian franchises are the only reason the NHL is a viable business. You could put a team in Yellowknife and it would sell out every night, plus turn a profit. Can't even say that for most major cities in the US.


Remind me again of all this profit the Preds are making

They signed Weber to the offer sheet because they had no other choice. The team wouldn't even be semi-competitive without him, and even fewer people would go to games.
"Original" Six: Four American teams, two Canadian teams
"Next" Six: Six American teams, zero Canadian teams
1970 expansion: One American team, one Canadian team

Total after two rounds of expansion over forty years ago?

Three teams in Canada
Eleven teams in the USA

Would you please tell me more about how places like Saskatoon and Yellowknife can support NHL franchises better than Raleigh, Nashville, and Dallas?

bluemandan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 12:13 AM
  #169
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
Isn't this a business forum? Emotional arguments and rhetoric should have no place here.

Most I know that have problems with certain markets feel this way simply because those markets (that currently happen to be in the US) aren't keeping up with even the league median... despite their taxing of other markets that can. They don't want to steal your team; they want to see a stronger league with a foothold in markets where the sport is most popular versus trying to sell it in areas where cheap tickets are a must just to get even casual fans into the building.
It's funny to me how generalizations are made about "certain" markets, and then when we bring up individual markets to discuss, it comes back to "well, Phoenix."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
The argument is oft repeated here that with more revenue sharing somehow everything would be magically fixed, yet from an economics perspective that is simply the wrong viewpoint as additional taxation is never a long-term solution to economic disparity.
Sound Republican rhetoric here, but that's not how sports works at all. Everything COULD be magically fixed with enough revenue sharing, the issue is that the rich owners don't want that (even though all the other sports leagues have gone to it).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
The solution is a more free market. Rather than further taxing teams the league should instead look at moving a few of its largest revenue drains to "sure thing" markets like Quebec City and GTA. The resultant boost to HRR would surely please both the owners and players.

Why not let economic forces come more into play versus protecting the false markets they are trying to create? Allow the markets to be the arbiter.... versus simple taxation. Drop the cap floor as well and then we'll see just how solid some of the marginal US markets truly are when they struggle to compete on the ice.
That is a recipe for an ever-shrinking league. The CBA would whittle down teams who couldn't keep pace with the 30% of the league growing revenues at a large rate. That growth at the top only works for the league if it's improving the situation for everyone. It's not. It makes it worse for the rest of the league. Toronto going NY Mets/LA Dodgers and being crippled financially would be the best thing to ever happen to the "Struggling markets." That's (yet another) sign that the system is broken.

A rising tide can raise all boats, but you want to throw people overboard to drown.


Last edited by KevFu: 10-08-2012 at 12:29 AM.
KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 12:59 AM
  #170
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,990
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Lobotomizer;54839107]
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
Save that argument for some other thread.

The financial success of a franchise is partially dependent on the $$$$ those butts paid to sit in the seats. In a primarily gate driven league it is the price the fans pay that counts.

I could care less if some owners charge peanuts for tickets and the building is full or not full. It is their business plan and the price to pay to be in the club.[/QUOTE]

Have fun with that argument...last time I checked monetary income is the only thing that matters to the owners, and that includes butts in the seats who have actually paid for their tickets.

No fans - no gate. The highlighted part of your response is laughable - no team will exist with your plan. But keep arguing the rest of the crap you brought up.
The Coyotes exist.

The NHL welfare ward Coyotes lead the way. Many teams charge too little and it doesn't matter if the building is full the revenues generated are too low.

It is the price the fans pay that creates the gate. Underpriced tickets = revenue losses.


Perhaps teams that are charging too little for tickets should increase ticket prices. Until then I could care less what these owners do or don't in generating perpetual losses.

Winnipeg is a good base line for ticket revenues. 15 000 seats at the Jets ticket prices is what a team needs to work out. Li'll Gary said as much. Any team not generating ticket revenues equal to the Jets is not going to be financially successful. Unless you get a nice TV contract to make up the lost ticket revenues.

I coulld care less if some owners charge ticket prices that don't come close to a break even proposition nor could the league. Big Macs cost the same all over the continental USA, hockey tickets don't.

Kudos to the owners who walk down the path of red ink each year. Brave souls that they are. That is the price that they pay to be in the club. Sometimes it is as much about ego to some owners as it is to making money. It is very evident that some teams may never turn a profit no matter how generous revenue sharing is.

I guess getting rid of the salary cap floor would help some teams bottom line. I can only imagine what the on ice product would look like.

So in short as a fan of some big market teams I could care less about the money losers that is what this thread is about. Enjoy those cheap tickets around the league.

blues10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 01:07 AM
  #171
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=blues10;54839903]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobotomizer View Post

The Coyotes exist.

The NHL welfare ward Coyotes lead the way. Many teams charge too little and it doesn't matter if the building is full the revenues generated are too low.

It is the price the fans pay that creates the gate. Underpriced tickets = revenue losses.


Perhaps teams that are charging too little for tickets should increase ticket prices. Until then I could care less what these owners do or don't in generating perpetual losses.

Winnipeg is a good base line for ticket revenues. 15 000 seats at the Jets ticket prices is what a team needs to work out. Li'll Gary said as much. Any team not generating ticket revenues equal to the Jets is not going to be financially successful. Unless you get a nice TV contract to make up the lost ticket revenues.

I coulld care less if some owners charge ticket prices that don't come close to a break even proposition nor could the league. Big Macs cost the same all over the continental USA, hockey tickets don't.

Kudos to the owners who walk down the path of red ink each year. Brave souls that they are. That is the price that they pay to be in the club. Sometimes it is as much about ego to some owners as it is to making money. It is very evident that some teams may never turn a profit no matter how generous revenue sharing is.

I guess getting rid of the salary cap floor would help some teams bottom line. I can only imagine what the on ice product would look like.

So in short as a fan of some big market teams I could care less about the money losers that is what this thread is about. Enjoy those cheap tickets around the league.
The fact that you "could care less" has nothing to do with how teams gain revenue. As a fan of a big market team you really have no clue at how the teams that have little income from tickets are suffering. Those "cheap tickets" are why we are in a lockout.

Lobotomizer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 02:24 AM
  #172
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 6,732
vCash: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Sound Republican rhetoric here, but that's not how sports works at all. Everything COULD be magically fixed with enough revenue sharing, the issue is that the rich owners don't want that (even though all the other sports leagues have gone to it).
Actually, it is sound economics. You conversely are arguing on behalf of taxing others to prop up money losing businesses rather than advocating on behalf of placing franchises in areas where the demand is the highest.

This is a business forum, FYI.

Gump Hasek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 02:25 AM
  #173
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,652
vCash: 50
Certain ownership groups sold the idea to outside investors to pay them money for the privilege of losing money and increasing the profit margins of these certain teams.

If any blame is to be laid on these small-markets, its the fact that their original ownership groups were stupid enough to fall for it and the fact that their current ownership groups fail to wield their power to fix the situation.

danishh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 02:36 AM
  #174
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,748
vCash: 67
Some teams will never be big market. And some teams will always find themselves losing money at some point. I think it's because they can't experience winter.

In Canada, and likely northern American teams, the fans are able to relate to the game. Every winter my local rink is full of families, hockey sticks and memories from sunrise to sunset each and every day. And it's just an outdoor community rink that's completely volunteer supported.

When a child is able to experience something first hand on an affordable level, they're likely to grow up to appreciate and respect the game. They'll grow up to support the game.



A child under the sunbelt region throws the pigskin all year, throws a baseball, and bounces a basketball for a very affordable price. To experience hockey, and therefore respect the game first hand, they have to go to an expensive indoor arena, if there's any around. The environment doesn't foster the game to be marketable.

When Winnipeg was without their NHL team, the fans weren't gone. The skating rinks were full. From Novice to Beer leagues, the fan base was evident. Just because the club was struggling or the local economy wasn't good, doesn't mean it wasn't a hockey market, it just means it wasn't a business market.

Sometimes sports can't be sold on T.V, they got to be sold at the grassroots. There's a reason why soccer is the number one sport in the world: every community, family, and child on this planet has the access to love the game in it's truest form - when it's played. Hockey is no different.

A community needs to have hockey's basic market before it's able to be a big hockey market in my opinion. You know you're in a hockey market is when the driver training needs to include the hazard of kids playing in the street. You know you're in a hockey market when a mom sleeps with a coach to help her son be captain of the team. Or when a father won't even let his little girl in ballet, instead she's got to be a goalie. You know you're in a hockey market when a teacher fudges grades to keep you on the local team.

It's these things that have the inherent ability to make big market teams, because it's only depending on the economic market and not on things like winning games, building an audience, or getting that T.V endoresement. If the game is good enough, it should sell itself. And hockey is a damn good game.


Last edited by MarkGio: 10-08-2012 at 02:49 AM.
MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 03:47 AM
  #175
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,652
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Some teams will never be big market. And some teams will always find themselves losing money at some point. I think it's because they can't experience winter.

In Canada, and likely northern American teams, the fans are able to relate to the game. Every winter my local rink is full of families, hockey sticks and memories from sunrise to sunset each and every day. And it's just an outdoor community rink that's completely volunteer supported.

When a child is able to experience something first hand on an affordable level, they're likely to grow up to appreciate and respect the game. They'll grow up to support the game.



A child under the sunbelt region throws the pigskin all year, throws a baseball, and bounces a basketball for a very affordable price. To experience hockey, and therefore respect the game first hand, they have to go to an expensive indoor arena, if there's any around. The environment doesn't foster the game to be marketable.

When Winnipeg was without their NHL team, the fans weren't gone. The skating rinks were full. From Novice to Beer leagues, the fan base was evident. Just because the club was struggling or the local economy wasn't good, doesn't mean it wasn't a hockey market, it just means it wasn't a business market.

Sometimes sports can't be sold on T.V, they got to be sold at the grassroots. There's a reason why soccer is the number one sport in the world: every community, family, and child on this planet has the access to love the game in it's truest form - when it's played. Hockey is no different.

A community needs to have hockey's basic market before it's able to be a big hockey market in my opinion. You know you're in a hockey market is when the driver training needs to include the hazard of kids playing in the street. You know you're in a hockey market when a mom sleeps with a coach to help her son be captain of the team. Or when a father won't even let his little girl in ballet, instead she's got to be a goalie. You know you're in a hockey market when a teacher fudges grades to keep you on the local team.

It's these things that have the inherent ability to make big market teams, because it's only depending on the economic market and not on things like winning games, building an audience, or getting that T.V endoresement. If the game is good enough, it should sell itself. And hockey is a damn good game.
this isnt a canada vs america thing.

there are plenty of canadian markets, ottawa-winnipeg-edmonton(well, if their ownership decides to actually spend money on payroll rather than profit off a crappy team)-calgary, for example, who are in the same predicament as the mid-level US markets.

this is 8-10 big markets against the rest. The economics prove it. But the real players would love it if you bought into the idea that this was about some idea of nationality or deservedness of the game.

__________________
RIP Kev.
danishh 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 09:26 AM.

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

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