The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
But they were just sold: The NHL could have made their vote on this matter part of the sale. (I.E. This sale will only be approved if you vote FOR an expansion team in Toronto).
Same thing just happened in baseball, in order to buy the Houston Astros, the owner had to accept being realigned into the AL West.
That could be true, but I look at it from a different pov:
A second team in the GTA would previously only take away from what the Leafs' owners (Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan) could earn. Now, a second team in the area is a license to print money for two of Canada's largest media corporations.
The expansion fees are going to be a gold mind for the league.
I do fully expect them to want a 32 team league though.
I am in support of moving a team to seattle.
No one is arguing that it won't be a gold mine.
Not only is there no benefit, it would be worse for the league to contract the two teams. The league will obviously bring in more revenue with two more teams than they would without them.
__________________
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
"I don't even understand what the point of all this arguing is. Are you guys hoping that the other side is going to have an epiphany and go 'Oh, OH! You're right, we ARE going to lose this series!'" -Crease
Not only is there no benefit, it would be worse for the league to contract the two teams. The league will obviously bring in more revenue with two more teams than they would without them.
It's not about revenue, it's about profit (the NHL is proving this in the current labour battle):
Phoenix loses 25 mil a year, and the Atlanta Thrashers lost an average of 20 million dollars from 2005 to the date of their relocation ( http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=6046305 ). By simply eliminating those two teams the NHL has 45 million more dollars than it had before.
It's not about revenue, it's about profit (the NHL is proving this in the current labour battle):
Phoenix loses 25 mil a year, and the Atlanta Thrashers lost an average of 20 million dollars from 2005 to the date of their relocation ( http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=6046305 ). By simply eliminating those two teams the NHL has 45 million more dollars than it had before.
you're ignoring the other side of the equation.
if you eliminate the two teams with the lowest revenue, average revenue goes up, so the average payroll will go up.
so now, instead of sucker x in atlanta and sucker y in phoenix losing that 45M a year, it gets distributed among the other 28 owners. So you have every other team being hurt by that and you end up with a 28 team league that may limit your exposure/future growth potential, not to mention the massive hit franchise values take once investors realize that teams can, indeed, be contracted.
... yes, this is a good point. A smaller, leaner and more "exclusive" as opposed to "inclusive" league many would argue will in fact be even more profitable. And you'd be looking at a lot fewer than 28 teams.
Nevermind its pretty much guaranteeing (IMO) the next US tv contract being a whole lot less by contracting two teams. Relocating one of those struggling teams to Seattle will do more than just get the Seattle market you increase awareness of the league to the surrounding regions in the northwest and Alaska and that is a good thing.
if you eliminate the two teams with the lowest revenue, average revenue goes up, so the average payroll will go up.
so now, instead of sucker x in atlanta and sucker y in phoenix losing that 45M a year, it gets distributed among the other 28 owners. So you have every other team being hurt by that and you end up with a 28 team league that may limit your exposure/future growth potential, not to mention the massive hit franchise values take once investors realize that teams can, indeed, be contracted.
And seeing as how the players make a mandated percentage of the revenue, that means nothing: The NHL already has a system in place that controls this. The other NHL owners can't be hurt by this at all: The NHL is still very much a gate-driven league,
and the 17K + people in Boston are going to be there whether or not the NHL has a team in Atlanta.
It's not "limiting your exposure" it's "living with-in your means". I like when leagues that play on OLN talk about "limiting exposure", too .
Investors don't have to "realize" that franchises can be contracted: It's a reality in any business.
Nevermind its pretty much guaranteeing (IMO) the next US tv contract being a whole lot less by contracting two teams. Relocating one of those struggling teams to Seattle will do more than just get the Seattle market you increase awareness of the league to the surrounding regions in the northwest and Alaska and that is a good thing.
Too add more while we may only get 17.5k in attendance for Seattle hockey but its the revenue generating outside of the arena that will be huge for the league. Merchandise sales for NHL gear through out the northwest and Alaska will be huge.
Example just within a year after MLS came to Seattle jersey sales were in the millions.
....Seattle will do more than just get the Seattle market, you increase awareness of the league to the surrounding regions in the northwest and Alaska and that is a good thing.
... sure, Id love to see teams out here on the Westcoast in Seattle, another in
Portland. Two excellent markets for a whole host of reasons. Bring it on already.
Too add more while you only get 17.5k in attendance for Seattle hockey but its the revenue generating outside of the arena that will be huge for the league. Merchandise sales for NHL gear through out the northwest and Alaska will be huge.
Example just within a year after MLS came to Seattle jersey sales were in the millions.
Hell, my wife and I bought jerseys for our juniors team the Thunderbirds and my sister-in-law bought one when we were at the game last week. Get an NHL team in here and we'll have jerseys within an hour of them hitting the shelf.
... sure, Id love to see teams out here on the Westcoast in Seattle, another in
Portland. Two excellent markets for a whole host of reasons. Bring it on already.
Definitely Portland at some point we hate each other in soccer bring it to hockey.
The massive TV contract covering several states for Seattle hockey will be great for the league. I'm not even sure there is a team that exist right now where the tv market covers that many states.
Definitely Portland at some point we hate each other in soccer bring it to hockey. The massive TV contract covering several states for Seattle hockey will be great for the league.
... well certainly I think the NHL has long salivated over the potential of both Seattle & Portland, the demographics (age/income etc) are excellent, the region has deep roots in the game and has been extremely supportive of both Major Junior & of course earlier Minor Pro etc. A Seattle and or Portland team would be a natural rivalry North-South with Vancouver & San Jose/LA/AN and with Colorado; go far in making NBC & sponsors extremely happy (never mind the fans ).
Definitely Portland at some point we hate each other in soccer bring it to hockey.
The massive TV contract covering several states for Seattle hockey will be great for the league. I'm not even sure there is a team that exist right now where the tv market covers that many states.
The T-Birds biggest rival? The Portland Winterhawks.
The T-Birds biggest rival? The Portland Winterhawks.
... ya, a Portland Team would be huge, and I do believe that if Seattle does manage to secure a franchise Paul Allen just might finally crack & follow suit. He's got some ex-NHL guys working for him in executive capacities, only natural to assume/hope that we might see a return of the Rosebuds. Make for one double H hockey sticks of a rivalry with most notably Seattle & to a lesser extent Vancouver; with Silicon Valley to the south.
Well, there might just be a plan to make Portland NHL material, but it sure won't happen tomorrow.
As of now, there is an eminent shortage of rinks in this area, and I doubt they (the NHL) will be moving any franchises from one struggeling market to another possible "small" market in Portland.
PDX is comfortably supporting the Winterhawks, but the NHL requires a bigger suit, and whereas wishes and dreams of old times and tradition are all exciting and limitless in opportunity, the reality is that the generation X and later in Portland have little to none hockey culture, so my guess is that they better get more rinks built in Portland, quickly, and find a way to drop the prices to play and get more kids and parents interested quickly.... then, they might have a pool big enough to support an NHL franchise.
Right now, there is little to none reinvestment in the public interest for hockey although two of the three rinks in the metro area actually generates positive profits.
It's not about revenue, it's about profit (the NHL is proving this in the current labour battle):
Phoenix loses 25 mil a year, and the Atlanta Thrashers lost an average of 20 million dollars from 2005 to the date of their relocation ( http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=6046305 ). By simply eliminating those two teams the NHL has 45 million more dollars than it had before.
You don't think they would make profit if they played elsewhere?
If Phoenix moved to Seattle, you don't think they would make a profit? Obviously I'm no psychic, but I highly doubt they would lose $25MM.
Contracting teams is ****ing stupid, no matter how anyone looks at it. It's so much easier and more profitable to move a team instead of just folding.
They will relocate before they fold. This shouldn't even be a discussion.
Why not just move those two teams then? It would be much more profitable to move those two struggling teams to Seattle and lets say Milwaukee than to just let them fold.
I've read expansion fees could be anywhere from $200m-$500m per franchise.
That could be true, but I look at it from a different pov:
A second team in the GTA would previously only take away from what the Leafs' owners (Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan) could earn. Now, a second team in the area is a license to print money for two of Canada's largest media corporations.
If there is going to be a 2nd NHL. team in southern Ontario its going to be west of the GTA. most likely Hamilton because MLSE. will fight tooth nail to keep another NHL. team from playing in there yard . Do to the fact that another NHL. team in the GTA. would hurt not only the leafs but the raptors & marlies as well in which MLSE. also owns . So in my opinion if MLSE. can not have a monopoly in southern ontario they will want at least a monopoly in the GTA. & that I belive MLSE. will support an NHL. team in Hamilton just to keep another NHL. team out of GTA. & they got the power to do it & with global spectum takking over running Copps in the spring it is only a matter of time before the NHL. is in Hamilton .
A cynic would believe that the nhl was planning to expand back then...creating a system of unequal conferences which could then be "fixed" by adding 2 more teams in the east. Of course we know the nhl would never do something so backhanded.
You don't think they would make profit if they played elsewhere?
If Phoenix moved to Seattle, you don't think they would make a profit? Obviously I'm no psychic, but I highly doubt they would lose $25MM.
Contracting teams is ****ing stupid, no matter how anyone looks at it. It's so much easier and more profitable to move a team instead of just folding.
They will relocate before they fold. This shouldn't even be a discussion.
Seattle needs an owner, as does KC: If the NHL wants an easy solution to a problem that's been dragged out far longer than it should've been then they can just fold the team.
It may not be the best solution, but hey we're talking about a league that put a team in Atlanta twice and then threatened a crowd that's guaranteed to be sold-out for three years in Winnipeg.
A cynic would believe that the nhl was planning to expand back then...creating a system of unequal conferences which could then be "fixed" by adding 2 more teams in the east. Of course we know the nhl would never do something so backhanded.
What Conference gets Hamilton and which one gets QC though?
If there is going to be a 2nd NHL. team in southern Ontario its going to be west of the GTA. most likely Hamilton because MLSE. will fight tooth nail to keep another NHL. team from playing in there yard . Do to the fact that another NHL. team in the GTA. would hurt not only the leafs but the raptors & marlies as well in which MLSE. also owns . So in my opinion if MLSE. can not have a monopoly in southern ontario they will want at least a monopoly in the GTA. & that I belive MLSE. will support an NHL. team in Hamilton just to keep another NHL. team out of GTA. & they got the power to do it & with global spectum takking over running Copps in the spring it is only a matter of time before the NHL. is in Hamilton .
Years of disappointment have lead me to believe that even though the NHL should have a team in Hamilton, they won't ever put one there.
I don't get the Spec anymore so I wasn't sure if the decision had been finalized.
Last edited by DyerMaker66: 10-22-2012 at 12:03 PM.
.
).
