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.

NHL to Expand 2 teams in Canada - THN

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-12-2012, 10:41 AM
  #276
habitue*
 
habitue*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Those leagues are grabbing the lower end-talent (when judging against other pros). Yes, Radulov left, but is he really that big of a loss? Maybe some lower-end 2nd liners head over there to get 1st line money/minutes. However those guys are not that big of a hit for the league.
If the actual lockout lasts the whole season, I think many players - and not only European born players- are gonna stay over there for good.

habitue* is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 10:45 AM
  #277
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habstineu View Post
If the actual lockout lasts the whole season, I think many players - and not only European born players- are gonna stay over there for good.
So? Not the better european players. Guys like Malkin, Ovechkin, Chara, will be back in a second.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 10:45 AM
  #278
JMROWE
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hamilton Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Another reason I think a second team in Toronto could work is because of all the Toronto resident who hates the leafs
PLEASE most if not all Toronto residents are in love with the leafs as much as Toronto is in love with themselves .

JMROWE is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 10:46 AM
  #279
Chardo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 1,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
You do not know what you are talking about when it comes to the Mets/Yankees. They were the bigger team until about 15-16 years ago.

As for the Isles, you might be right on which years they peaked attendance wise. I just remember being surprised that their cup years were not their best. Their attendance started to skid following the 87-88 season, had a few peaks here and there, but has been a problem for the most part for the past 20 years or so.

I would say up until about 98-99ish, the pecking order in this town was

1) Giants
2) Yankees
3) Mets
4) Jets
5) Knicks
6) Rangers
7-9) Isles, Devils, Nets.

Pre-96, you would swap the Mets and Yanks.
Lemme guess, you grew up in the mid 80's, the heyday of the Mets. You seem to forget the rest of NY baseball history. Pre-96, as you put it, included 7 Yankees world series appearances and 3 championships during the Mets' existence (not to mention their legendary history pre-Mets). Only time you could say NY was a Mets town was 69-73, when the Yanks were at their worst and the Mets were the cute new thing. Can we get back to hockey?

Chardo is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 11:13 AM
  #280
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chardo View Post
Lemme guess, you grew up in the mid 80's, the heyday of the Mets. You seem to forget the rest of NY baseball history. Pre-96, as you put it, included 7 Yankees world series appearances and 3 championships during the Mets' existence (not to mention their legendary history pre-Mets). Only time you could say NY was a Mets town was 69-73, when the Yanks were at their worst and the Mets were the cute new thing. Can we get back to hockey?
Yes, I grew up in the 80s and it has been said on WFAN many many many times how this until the past 15 years or so was a National League town and how the Mets were the more popular team as they came into existence. Only time during the Mets existence until 1996, they weren't was the period of 77-82, after they traded Seaver and before Gooden and Strawberry came on.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 11:16 AM
  #281
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralsFan24 View Post
And that doesn't include the 10,000 combined that Spokane and Tri-City pull in outside the Seattle Metro Area.
Spokane is on the other side of the state, a good 4.5+ hour drive.

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 11:21 AM
  #282
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,806
vCash: 10592
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Spokane is on the other side of the state, a good 4.5+ hour drive.
Yeah, lol, they'd be better off "flying in" for the game.

coldsteelonice84 is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 11:24 AM
  #283
GordieHoweHatTrick
Registered User
 
GordieHoweHatTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
que??

They don't even have a new CBA yet so how can they guess this? Also, this assumes Phoenix-->Seattle? BecausE I think Seattle gets a team before another in the Toronto area. Hell even Hamilton before another in the Toronto area.
I believe Markham (Greater Toronto Area) would get a team before Hamilton

GordieHoweHatTrick is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 11:26 AM
  #284
klozge
Avs
 
klozge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Siegen, Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,011
vCash: 500
Two more teams in Canada and a change to 4 conferences would make me forget everything about the lockout pretty quickly, I guess. I would love to have more intense rivalries caused by smaller conferences.

klozge is online now  
Old
10-12-2012, 11:30 AM
  #285
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Spokane is on the other side of the state, a good 4.5+ hour drive.
People do drive from the east side to go see the sporting games in seattle.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
10-12-2012, 11:37 AM
  #286
pondnorth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,150
vCash: 500
If Hanson builds a new arena in Seattle for a NBA team and he controls revenues from parking,concessions and all other events that take place there,how will another tenant,an NHL team, make enough money to be viable? Clearly owning the venue is more important than just owning an NHL franchise.Owning both NBA and NHL teams is the answer but Hanson does not want to own an NHL team.Big gamble for anyone not owning the arena.

pondnorth is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 11:37 AM
  #287
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,054
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
People do drive from the east side to go see the sporting games in seattle.
You can't rely on people travelling a total of 9+ hours to see a game

Krishna is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 11:44 AM
  #288
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,990
vCash: 500
The NHL has also done countless studies for other cities and how well has that worked? Sorry if I don't think much of the NHL's ability to pick markets.

Correct me if wrong, but I think Milwaukee would add more to the league in overall revenues then Phoenix. Columbus, Tampa, Carolina, Newark, and Florida.

cutchemist42 is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 11:48 AM
  #289
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
The Nationals aren't drawing much. They were only about 70 percent attendance..
You can't hold baseball attendance percentages to the same benchmarks as the NHL. Sellouts are the exception in MLB - not the rule. Only 3 teams (Boston, Philly, and the Giants) basically sold out the year. Only 11 teams broke 80%. The Nats came in at #14 (both in attendance, 30K, and %-age, 72.3%) - significantly better than in previous years.

kdb209 is online now  
Old
10-12-2012, 11:49 AM
  #290
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
You can't rely on people travelling a total of 9+ hours to see a game
That's besides the point i'm just saying people will drive to see a game.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
10-12-2012, 11:55 AM
  #291
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pondnorth View Post
If Hanson builds a new arena in Seattle for a NBA team and he controls revenues from parking,concessions and all other events that take place there,how will another tenant,an NHL team, make enough money to be viable? Clearly owning the venue is more important than just owning an NHL franchise.Owning both NBA and NHL teams is the answer but Hanson does not want to own an NHL team.Big gamble for anyone not owning the arena.
BTW the city/county will own the arena. Both groups will be paying rent.

Hansen will have a partner that will own the NHL team. He is not a hockey guy. He was clear that he prefers the owner of said team be a hockey guy.

We need both to make the arena financially viable long term. Hansen is set to get 80m in public bonds from the county if we get a NHL team before the transfer date of the arena.

Its in his best interest to get hockey its just that he won't own it. I'm sure there will be something worked out between the two ownership groups involving revenue

gstommylee is online now  
Old
10-12-2012, 11:56 AM
  #292
Elever
Hth
 
Elever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,459
vCash: 500
Btw does the NHLPA get any say in relocation/expansion in the current CBA?

I would think that the interest of current NHLers is to block the NHL from expanding but allow them to relocate and the sstance of future players is for more jobs (expansion).

Elever is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 11:57 AM
  #293
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
BTW the city/county will own the arena. Both groups will be paying rent.

Hansen will have a partner that will own the NHL team. He is not a hockey guy. He was clear that he prefers the owner of said team be a hockey guy.

We need both to make the arena financially viable long term. Hansen is set to get 80m in public bonds from the county if we get a NHL team before the transfer date of the arena.

Its in his best interest to get hockey its just that he won't own it. I'm sure there will be something worked out between the two ownership groups involving revenue
If they are paying rent, then eventually they will be one of the teams struggling to keep up with the salary floor. Being north of the mason-dixie line doesn't solve that. The real money is in owning the arena and the tv network.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 11:57 AM
  #294
OrangeZebra
Unregistered User
 
OrangeZebra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 3,005
vCash: 500
I would be okay with an NFL style of divisions

OrangeZebra is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 12:00 PM
  #295
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by njdevil26 View Post
Huh? Yankees were here first... Mets are a joke.
And the Mets outdrew the Yankees most years up until the early 90's - albeit they had the advantage of the built in ex-Giants and ex-Dodgers fan bases who loathed the Yankees.

C&P from an earlier thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
The Mets where number 1 in new york for 10 years. The Yankees were not the NYY of today.
Yup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
"Flagship" ... I don't know ... they have always been the red-headed stepchild of the Yankees.
Not always - the Mets outdrew the Yankees from 1964 thru 1976 and from1984 until 1992.

I grew up in New York in the 70s & 80s. The Mets were as or more popular than the Yankees - although there was a significant geographical split in the fanbases.

It wasn't until the Yankees started to win again in the mid-90s that they became the definitive #1 team. Large crowds and sellouts at Yankee Stadium didn't become common until about 10 years ago.

kdb209 is online now  
Old
10-12-2012, 12:02 PM
  #296
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
If they are paying rent, then eventually they will be one of the teams struggling to keep up with the salary floor. Being north of the mason-dixie line doesn't solve that. The real money is in owning the arena and the tv network.
There is a reason why city/county will own the land/arena. We have an initative called I-91 in the city of Seattle that forbids public funds unless it shows a return on the investment based on a 30 year treasure bond.

In order to get public bonds from Seattle the proposal has to meet i-91.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
10-12-2012, 12:02 PM
  #297
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,054
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
Btw does the NHLPA get any say in relocation/expansion in the current CBA?

I would think that the interest of current NHLers is to block the NHL from expanding but allow them to relocate and the sstance of future players is for more jobs (expansion).
I don't believe they have any say in the matters

Krishna is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 12:03 PM
  #298
klozge
Avs
 
klozge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Siegen, Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
Btw does the NHLPA get any say in relocation/expansion in the current CBA?

I would think that the interest of current NHLers is to block the NHL from expanding but allow them to relocate and the sstance of future players is for more jobs (expansion).
I don't think so because more teams would increase the job security of the lesser talented players already in the NHL.

klozge is online now  
Old
10-12-2012, 12:09 PM
  #299
pondnorth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
BTW the city/county will own the arena. Both groups will be paying rent.

Hansen will have a partner that will own the NHL team. He is not a hockey guy. He was clear that he prefers the owner of said team be a hockey guy.

We need both to make the arena financially viable long term. Hansen is set to get 80m in public bonds from the county if we get a NHL team before the transfer date of the arena.

Its in his best interest to get hockey its just that he won't own it. I'm sure there will be something worked out between the two ownership groups involving revenue
Previous reports lead me to belief that Hanson owned the property where the venue was to be built and could purchase more property next to existing,would receive some government funding to build but he would control the venue itself.It also implied that he needed another tenant to make a go of it.Do you have a link or source i can follow up on as to who will control this venue?

pondnorth is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 12:18 PM
  #300
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
In a gate-driven league, why have teams in places where you need to give away free tickets to fill the place? Put teams where people want to pay for the product.

Could Seattle work? Maybe. But we know that Quebec City and Toronto2 will work. What kind of business avoids its strongest markets so they can panhandle for customers in places that don't care?

Much smarter to open a new Tim Horton's in dowtown Edmonton than dowtown El Paso.
I think it comes down to those who want to see the sport grow as much as it can vs. those who believe that it can thrive where it is now (plus maybe another market here or there).

Both do have their merits.
I lost my team soley due to some of the worst (if not the worst) ownership we've seen in our lifetime. So now the growth of the league means little to me; I don't have a dog in the fight anymore. But I still believe that trying to reach into every corner of the US and Canada is the way to grow the sport and make it as viable as possible. This just takes time, a generation + in a new market. Kids who grew up watching the new team will eventually become adults who have their own kids and the money to go to games and buy the merch. Many fans judge the new markets on the others that have been around for 50+ years and/or are in a region where hockey has been ingrained in the culture. They certaintly don't have the patience to see the merits of a long term growth strategy. The current owners of the most established markets might not like this plan either to be honest; their wanting more immediate returns as opposed to a plan that would pay off in a couple decades.

Putting a team in Quebec and another in Toronto would definitely work. The arena's would be packed, at least for the first few years. Merchandise would fly off the shelves. I don't see a problem in that.

In some way, I'm torn between the two schools of thought (mostly because I have no vested interest anymore). But I do know that anyone on either side cannot state with any true certainty that one plan is destined to fail. Too many other factors that can and will change prevent us from knowing (future economy, future demographics, etc). And too much passion with too little rational thought from the fans render just about every argument null and void.

Just sticks in my craw that some think their perspective is the only way. Whether it agrees with what I think is irrelevant.
Most threads would die if the fans thought like this, I know. But it perplexes me how many people believe they can present the same points and perspectives (98% of the time with little facts or just plain lies) in every thread and have an arrogance of how "correct" they are.

cws is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:48 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.