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, 01:21 PM
  #301
BigFatCat999
I love GoOoOlD
 
BigFatCat999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Campbell, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchemist42 View Post
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.
Milwaukee is 90 miles from Chicago and they would scream about territorial rights.

BigFatCat999 is online now  
Old
10-12-2012, 01:40 PM
  #302
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,151
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
So? Not the better european players. Guys like Malkin, Ovechkin, Chara, will be back in a second.
I agree with Habstineu, and I believe this season and quite likely as much as 1/2 of next years will be a complete write-off. The enmities being engendered by the NHL within the rank & file with its completely obtuse position will force players, who's average best before date expires on average to within 4.5-6yrs into making some rather drastic decisions. If Im Medvedev, Fasel or any number of the elite leagues I'm rubbing my hands in glee, rolling out the red carpet. Shorter season, far less taxes, an actually far superior lifestyle in many respects, my turnstyles fit to bust as fans fill my building to watch a superior brand of hockey. Richer sponsorship & broadcast contracts as a result, even more money to go around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordieHoweHatTrick View Post
I believe Markham (Greater Toronto Area) would get a team before Hamilton
If it was up to me, Id kill two birds with one stone, dropping teams into both Markham & Hamilton simultaneously, get it over & done with in one fell swoop.

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.
Thats clearly the problem alrighty. A Seattle franchise could wind up in the same completely untenable position as the Coyotes did in Phoenix playing out of the AWA, which at that time had only been open for a few years, Gary Bettmans old Buddy from his NBA days Jerry Colangelo taking advantage of neophytes Burke & Gluckstern with a one sided Lease. Great deal for Jerry, lousy deal for the franchise & the fans (obstructed seating, wonky sightlines etc). Some serious accommodations, flexibility & ground given by Hansen otherwise forget about it.

Killion is online now  
Old
10-12-2012, 01:46 PM
  #303
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pondnorth View Post
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?
http://seattle.gov/council/attachmen...0120924mou.pdf

The agreement says that the city/county will buy the arena/land from Hansen. Part of 200m in public funds will be for purchasing the land/building from Hansen at an apprised value (TBD) but with a cap at 100m. NBA only the public investment is at 120m (115 city 5 county) and Hansen covers the 80m difference. NBA/NHL its at 120 city 80m county.

The rent will go towards paying off the public debt which will be either 120 or 200m depending on when the NHL team arrives.

Mods- you want the Seattle discussion to be taken to the Seattle thread or is it okay being talked about here?

gstommylee is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 01:48 PM
  #304
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Thats clearly the problem alrighty. A Seattle franchise could wind up in the same completely untenable position as the Coyotes did in Phoenix playing out of the AWA, which at that time had only been open for a few years, Gary Bettmans old Buddy from his NBA days Jerry Colangelo taking advantage of neophytes Burke & Gluckstern with a one sided Lease. Great deal for Jerry, lousy deal for the franchise & the fans (obstructed seating, wonky sightlines etc). Some serious accommodations, flexibility & ground given by Hansen otherwise forget about it.
The sodo arena will be built for NHL regardless if we get a team or not. That won't be an issue. I'm sure there will be some sort of agreement among the two groups regarding revenue from the arena.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 01:58 PM
  #305
Ryan34222
Registered User
 
Ryan34222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by roccerfeller View Post
TheFan590....


Didn't they also say Winnipeg would never get an NHL team?
actually they said Winnipeg would get a team, only as a stop over to move later to Toronto.. lol

Ryan34222 is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 02:05 PM
  #306
Ryan34222
Registered User
 
Ryan34222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nogger View Post
I always lol when I hear about another team in Ontario, who would actually cheer for them?
Hamiltonians if its in Hamilton but thats about it imo. the rest of SOntario would flock back to TML if they are one day doing well**..

**fiction but whatever.

Ryan34222 is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 02:06 PM
  #307
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Well looks like we won't be getting that arena any time soon the port union is suing try to block the arena cause they want the EIS done first.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 02:34 PM
  #308
buggs
get off my lawn
 
buggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: flatlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,130
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
If it was up to me, Id kill two birds with one stone, dropping teams into both Markham & Hamilton simultaneously, get it over & done with in one fell swoop.
Would Buffalo survive that happening?

buggs is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 02:34 PM
  #309
Habsfan18
Registered User
 
Habsfan18's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,470
vCash: 500
Just got this issue of THN. It's an article by Adam Proteau and it quotes a "veteran player agent."

__________________
Interested in checking out 50+ years worth of covers from "The Hockey News?" Check out my collection here: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1382901
Habsfan18 is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 02:45 PM
  #310
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Much smarter to open a new Tim Horton's in dowtown Edmonton than dowtown El Paso.
I like your analogy, because it blows up all your points at once: Tim Horton's would make money in El Paso. Probably not as much, but like hockey, it works anywhere because it's delicious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by njdevil26 View Post
Huh? Yankees were here first... Mets are a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chardo View Post
Not to get completely off topic here, but NY has never been more of a Mets town. There were a few years where Mets had higher attendance, and fan support seemed louder (winning/losing drive both of these factors), but there have always been vastly more Yankees fans. NY will always be a Yankees town, but there's still plenty of room for the Mets to be successful.

FYI, Islanders attendance peaked in 1985, and was near sellout until the late '80s. Wasn't until the late 80's and early 90's when they sucked and had unbelievable ownership issues that attendance started to decline.
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.
Ok, ok, ok. I think this is one of those times that two people are arguing and both are right.

There are more Yankees fans in New York than any other team.
When the Mets came around in 1962, then Shea opened in 1964, the Mets blew the Yankees out of the water in attendance.

Not because the Mets had more fans, but because the Mets were drawing the old Brooklyn Dodgers fans, the old NY Giants fans and people in Queens who finally had their own team. The Mets also had a brand new stadium and Yankee Stadium was 40 years old. When the Mets newness started to wear off, the Mets won the 1969 World Series and the 1973 NL pennant. Then the YANKEES played two seasons in Shea when Yankee Stadium was being renovated.

The Mets were good from 1984-1989, and they were the kind of team that was exactly like the 80s Wall Street culture: Greed, excess, arrogance, coke binges. The Mets embodied that, and were extremely popular. Throw in the fact that Steinbrenner had run the Yankees franchise into the ground and his banishment from the game for a year was what allowed the Yankees to build their dynasty from 1994-2001 (and success until the present).

Over time, the kids and grandkids of the old Giants and Dodgers fans gradually became Yankee fans because the Yankees are better and those kids/grandkids never went to Ebbets/Polo Grounds.

The Mets have a large following of people who's families were NL baseball fans as kids in 50s, and THEN had kids in the late 70s (so they watched the 80s Mets), and of course, people from Queens. All the other fans in New York and New Jersey from all the other time periods are Yankees fans.

New York belongs to the Yankees. And as a Mets fan, it kills me to say it. But it's true.

Applying this to Toronto:
There really is not a good comparison for the dynamics of a second TOR franchise.

New York doesn't work as comparison, because of the Yankees vs Dodgers/Giants/Mets and the AL/NL dynamic. A new TOR team isn't inheriting dormant fan bases. The Islanders are "Long Island's team." The Devils entered the market with TWO teams already there, so that doesn't work.

Los Angeles with the Dodgers/Angels, Kings/Ducks and Lakers/Clippers doesn't work because the geographic dynamic of Anaheim vs Los Angeles, and because the Dodgers/Angels and Clippers/Lakers showed up only a few years apart. (Same with Chicago and the Sox/Cubs).

KevFu is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 02:47 PM
  #311
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buggs View Post
Would Buffalo survive that happening?
.... absolutely, and contrary to the rusty old saw being played that a team in Hamilton would be the "death of the Sabres" I take the complete opposite view. It would be an absolute boon to their franchise. A natural rival increasing interest, gate & broadcast revenues. I dispute that their even entitled to receiving indemnification from a Hamilton franchise but sure, why not I suppose seeing as how this is the way the NHL plays its deceitful little game. Give them a $25M kiss while in perpetuity their revenues & wealth, franchise value actually increases as a direct result of the Hamilton teams creation & existence.

Killion is online now  
Old
10-12-2012, 02:56 PM
  #312
Faidh ar Rud Eigin
Modhnóirí Claonta
 
Faidh ar Rud Eigin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Transcendent
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 16,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
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.
And I'd say a few of those teams are fudging numbers. Boston definitely didn't fill every seat all year.

Faidh ar Rud Eigin is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 03:00 PM
  #313
tp71
Enjoy every sandwich
 
tp71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faidh ar Rud Eigin View Post
And I'd say a few of those teams are fudging numbers. Boston definitely didn't fill every seat all year.
Just because you don't fill the seat doesn't mean it isn't sold.

tp71 is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 03:02 PM
  #314
Faidh ar Rud Eigin
Modhnóirí Claonta
 
Faidh ar Rud Eigin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Transcendent
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 16,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tp71 View Post
Just because you don't fill the seat doesn't mean it isn't sold.
That's really irrelevant to attendence, but anyways that's not the case anyway. In previous years it was very difficult to get Boston tickets if you planned on it, this year you could walk up and get them, that was the story being told from Boston all year this year.

Faidh ar Rud Eigin is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 03:06 PM
  #315
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tp71 View Post
Just because you don't fill the seat doesn't mean it isn't sold.
... yepp. And many ways to go about it of course, though my favourite is the Legendary Jerry Reinsdorf's seat tax scam.
Empty or unsold? No problem.

Killion is online now  
Old
10-12-2012, 03:18 PM
  #316
pondnorth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
http://seattle.gov/council/attachmen...0120924mou.pdf

The agreement says that the city/county will buy the arena/land from Hansen. Part of 200m in public funds will be for purchasing the land/building from Hansen at an apprised value (TBD) but with a cap at 100m. NBA only the public investment is at 120m (115 city 5 county) and Hansen covers the 80m difference. NBA/NHL its at 120 city 80m county.

The rent will go towards paying off the public debt which will be either 120 or 200m depending on when the NHL team arrives.

Mods- you want the Seattle discussion to be taken to the Seattle thread or is it okay being talked about here?
Thanks and good luck with new arena.Just a side note,had a nephew who played for Victoria in the WHL. Most of the teams in his division were in or near the pacific northwest area of Seattle.He mentioned many times that it was a great hockey market.

pondnorth is online now  
Old
10-12-2012, 03:29 PM
  #317
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,778
vCash: 1709
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
I like your analogy, because it blows up all your points at once: Tim Horton's would make money in El Paso. Probably not as much, but like hockey, it works anywhere because it's delicious.
I'm quite sure that was intended to be an offhand remark, but, NHL hockey very clearly doesn't just work in any old location, given the financial losses of some of the marginal US franchises; Doug MacLean of Hockey Central on Fan 590 this past week cited annual losses in both Tampa (during an interview with Cristodero) and Columbus (during an interview with Rimer) of $25 million and of course additionally Phoenix is widely reported as losing north of $35 million annually as well.

It clearly makes more sense to sell the sport where it is popular and to reap the resultant financial gains versus trying to sell it where it where the sole financial returns have proven revenue sharing taxes against profitable franchises to cover losses elsewhere.

Gump Hasek is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 03:31 PM
  #318
Blue Warriors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 53
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cws View Post
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.

.
The NHL cannot afford to do one or the other, they have to do both. The NHL needs two more teams in Canada and has to continue to grow elite pro hockey in the U.S. With the lockout, they are doing neither and that's a shame.

Blue Warriors is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 03:45 PM
  #319
Retail1LO
Registered User
 
Retail1LO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SE Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 5,240
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Retail1LO Send a message via AIM to Retail1LO Send a message via MSN to Retail1LO
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
See you don't get it. Putting hockey teams where people already like hockey doesn't create more fans. Putting teams where people don't follow, understand, or even like the sport thats what creates more fans. So you put teams in areas with a lot of people, hope the team wins and that creates a lot of new fans. so forget about teams in QC or Toronto and get on board with Mexico City
What does "more fans" do, realistically? There are "fans" all over the country in places that don't have teams. Putting a team some place without fans of the games, doesn't create fans all by itself. Trying to make something out of nothing seems stupid. Go where people love the game.

In Toronto, only "x" number of people can see the game. Were it possible, 2 or 3x would go see the game. You don't need to build the game. It's already there! But you're losing out on a ton of money if there's no game for them to attend. Give them another avenue. Toronto is the single most logical market for two teams to coexist in all of hockey. Even moreso than New York.

The creation of fans isn't nearly as important as giving the fans that exist an avenue with which to spend their money and exhibit their enthusiasm for the sport. I can't see expanding into experimental markets until you've maximized proven markets. Regardless of the potential pitfalls of exchange rates, etc., Canda is the biggest hockey hotbed on earth. Tap the **** out of it.

Retail1LO is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 03:49 PM
  #320
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 5,305
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
You can't rely on people travelling a total of 9+ hours to see a game
Never said they would buy season tickets and that wasn't my main point anyways. My point was challenging the post that Seattle/Washington residents don't like hockey and no one would watch an NHL team.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 04:00 PM
  #321
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
People do drive from the east side to go see the sporting games in seattle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
You can't rely on people travelling a total of 9+ hours to see a game
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
That's besides the point i'm just saying people will drive to see a game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralsFan24 View Post
Never said they would buy season tickets and that wasn't my main point anyways. My point was challenging the post that Seattle/Washington residents don't like hockey and no one would watch an NHL team.
Seattle hasn't seen NHL hockey (in state, regular season/playoffs) in more than a century.

Heck, SJ wasn't a guaranteed turnout, even if there had been hockey NHL 30 minutes away 20 years before.

I don't think any team (save once/week sport like NFL) can count on Spokane fans coming **regularly** to games (especially mid-week).

I would discount (but not ignore) that area for marketing, promotions. I would put more effort into folks within 1 hour of arena.

Has anyone done survey in around Seattle (and Tacoma, and all the other cities around the Sound) in the past five years about interest in sports? (That's been made public?)

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 04:04 PM
  #322
Inf4mous0ne
Registered User
 
Inf4mous0ne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,552
vCash: 500
Quebec and Markham would be my guess (Markham has almost got plans approved to start building a NHL quality rink, much like QC). As to if it would succeed, people from the general area (plus people further north of TO) would probably start to follow them. If the team started to make the playoffs while the leafs continued to fail, the typical Ontarians who just say they are leafs "fans" would probably migrate to that team. The biggest factor would be if ticket prices were much cheaper. Markham fans would love the lower ticket prices, and Toronto fans could save hundreds of dollars waiting a few weeks to see Toronto vs. Markham in Markham rather than going to see the leafs play some other team in TO.

Inf4mous0ne is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 04:29 PM
  #323
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cws View Post
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.
Agreed.
The problem is, why should players suffer for the league's "growth' projects. Why aren't the rich owners willing to pay the freight?

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 04:34 PM
  #324
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
.... absolutely, and contrary to the rusty old saw being played that a team in Hamilton would be the "death of the Sabres" I take the complete opposite view. It would be an absolute boon to their franchise. A natural rival increasing interest, gate & broadcast revenues. I dispute that their even entitled to receiving indemnification from a Hamilton franchise but sure, why not I suppose seeing as how this is the way the NHL plays its deceitful little game. Give them a $25M kiss while in perpetuity watching their wealth increase as a direct result of the Hamilton franchises very existence.
I don't think it would be the death of the Sabres. I do think it would hurt more than help.

I'd disagree on the "boon" part because
#1 - Buffalo doesn't need rivals. They have had TOR, MON, BOS as rivals for 40 years.
#2 - Buffalo is gate driven. Buffalo has sold 99.6% of their tickets for the last six years.
-- In a PHX to HAM scenario, Buffalo would have three games on the schedule against HAM instead of two vs ATL and one vs BOS. Well they sell out against BOS, and did vs WIN last year and ATL the year before that.
-- In an expansion, 4x8 scenario, they'd add 2 home dates vs HAM, 1 vs DET, and 12 vs the West to replace 1 each vs the entire Eastern Conference. So they'd be trading sellouts vs TOR and BOS for sellouts vs HAM.

#3 - What the Sabres actually need is corporate dollars. If they lost a sponsor to Hamilton, they'd see actual losses and no real substantial gains.


Last edited by KevFu: 10-12-2012 at 04:48 PM.
KevFu is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 04:48 PM
  #325
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faidh ar Rud Eigin View Post
That's really irrelevant to attendence, but anyways that's not the case anyway. In previous years it was very difficult to get Boston tickets if you planned on it, this year you could walk up and get them, that was the story being told from Boston all year this year.
For a long time, the NL and AL had different measure of attendance. One did paid, the other did turnstile.

Boston sold all their tickets. Who cares if they actually showed up? This is the BUSINESS forum, not the ATMOSPHERE forum (yes, I realize it's the "-- OF HOCKEY" forum, but comparing cross-league is pertinent to the discussion).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
I'm quite sure that was intended to be an offhand remark, but, NHL hockey very clearly doesn't just work in any old location, given the financial losses of some of the marginal US franchises; Doug MacLean of Hockey Central on Fan 590 this past week cited annual losses in both Tampa (during an interview with Cristodero) and Columbus (during an interview with Rimer) of $25 million and of course additionally Phoenix is widely reported as losing north of $35 million annually as well.

It clearly makes more sense to sell the sport where it is popular and to reap the resultant financial gains versus trying to sell it where it where the sole financial returns have proven revenue sharing taxes against profitable franchises to cover losses elsewhere.
And yet again, year-to-year profit and loss is meaningless to whether or not hockey "works" in these markets.

Tons of good markets have had long periods of losses in bad times (NYI, PIT, BUF, STL, DET, CHI)
A lot of teams in GOOD MARKETS have periods of losses in GOOD TIMES (Detroit spending $70 million on payroll before the cap, for example).
Tons of teams in "non-traditional markets" show consistent profit and have a nice population base. Hockey is "working" in Tampa, even if they have periods with losses.
Tons of teams show losses on purpose to hide revenue.
And most teams fluctuate between large profits and large losses.

And of course, accounting practices vary widely (depreciating the value of assets over time is an acceptable accounting practice; and it's frequently applied to PLAYERS as an accounting practice). This is why Forbes has estimates: To try and provide an estimate of each team using consistent accounting practices.

They listed Phoenix's losses at $9.7 million the year before the bankruptcy, and $24.1 million in 2011. How's the situation getting worse? Maybe the fact that PHX has lost 3,000 fans per game since Moyes declared bankruptcy. The debacle it's become has pissed off the fan base. Let's see who comes back when the team actually has an owner.

Not that I'm advocating the health of teams in PHX or wherever. Merely pointing out the flaw of that as a metric. Hockey works just fine in Long Island; they just need a new arena. So their 20 years of losses can't be used to say the market is a failure.

KevFu 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 11:59 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.