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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Why Paul Kelly thinks expansion would help end NHL lockout

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-07-2012, 02:51 PM
  #126
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
5 recent expansion teams
3 recently relocated teams
2 established teams

It is interesting how that worked out back in 1998.

Or, that one established team will continue to be irrelevant, until one year they sort of just steamroll through the playoffs toward a championship. It can go either way.
I meant no disrespect to any franchise with that breakdown, I just think the NHL put rivalries ahead of assimilation. And that was a bad idea.

Part of what makes having a major league sports team special is joining a select group of elite members in the league that you've been watching for decades.

For example, when Atlanta got the Braves, they joined the Dodgers, Giants, Cubs, Reds, Cardinals, Phillies and Pirates in the National League. These are big league teams who've been playing Major League Baseball for 60 to 80 years. And now Atlanta's playing right along side with them!

It didn't matter that Atlanta's closest division rival for 27 years was three states away in Cincinnati.

Now when Atlanta got the Thrashers, you'd expect kind of the same thing: You jump in with MON, TOR, BOS, CHI, NYR, NYI, EDM, all the traditional NHL teams! And then you look at the standings after the first game and it's a division with Washington… Tampa Bay, Florida, and Carolina. One team who's never won a Cup, and three teams that didn't exist 10 years prior? The hell? Where's the NHL teams? Who are these guys?

It would be like Hamilton getting an NHL team finally and being put in a division with Buffalo, Cleveland, Rochester and Windsor.

You go for rivals AFTER that. "Ok, Tampa's a member of the league for 15 years, they get it. They know what's going on with hockey. But they're lonely down there. Let's add a team in Miami."

Miami could have been watching Tampa the whole time (and you'd know it from TV ratings) and started clamoring for their own team. They'd know what's going on and get hockey from the start. Instead, we said "here ya go, Miami, Tampa, Carolina and Atlanta… figure it out together!"

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2012, 03:31 PM
  #127
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
I meant no disrespect to any franchise with that breakdown, I just think the NHL put rivalries ahead of assimilation. And that was a bad idea.

Part of what makes having a major league sports team special is joining a select group of elite members in the league that you've been watching for decades.

For example, when Atlanta got the Braves, they joined the Dodgers, Giants, Cubs, Reds, Cardinals, Phillies and Pirates in the National League. These are big league teams who've been playing Major League Baseball for 60 to 80 years. And now Atlanta's playing right along side with them!

It didn't matter that Atlanta's closest division rival for 27 years was three states away in Cincinnati.

Now when Atlanta got the Thrashers, you'd expect kind of the same thing: You jump in with MON, TOR, BOS, CHI, NYR, NYI, EDM, all the traditional NHL teams! And then you look at the standings after the first game and it's a division with Washington… Tampa Bay, Florida, and Carolina. One team who's never won a Cup, and three teams that didn't exist 10 years prior? The hell? Where's the NHL teams? Who are these guys?

It would be like Hamilton getting an NHL team finally and being put in a division with Buffalo, Cleveland, Rochester and Windsor.

You go for rivals AFTER that. "Ok, Tampa's a member of the league for 15 years, they get it. They know what's going on with hockey. But they're lonely down there. Let's add a team in Miami."

Miami could have been watching Tampa the whole time (and you'd know it from TV ratings) and started clamoring for their own team. They'd know what's going on and get hockey from the start. Instead, we said "here ya go, Miami, Tampa, Carolina and Atlanta… figure it out together!"
No, certainly, the powers that be did sort of get rid of the teams in a way that nobody really cares about. To make that SE division, and really screw Washington at the same time by taking them away from every Patrick division rival, and give them what used to be the Whalers and 3 new expansion teams, that's a bit much. To throw Dallas under the bus was another great move. The entire Western Conference is a mess(too many problems with 3 divisions, no matter how they get divided up), and the SE division seems to be just a dumping ground for the teams that the northeastern teams don't want to acknowledge as being in the NHL.

I would love to say that being in any specific division doesn't really matter, since the playoffs are based off of conference standings. However, if that was the case, the Flyers and Penguins wouldn't put up such a stink about where they get aligned. The groupings matter, and you're right, some teams were segregated. Even if it wasn't consciously done.

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2012, 07:06 PM
  #128
saffronleaf
Registered User
 
saffronleaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country:
Posts: 3,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Expand to Markham, Quebec, and relocate franchises to Seattle and Regina and you'll see HRR skyrocket.
dude, Regina isn't even the best place in Saskatchewan for an NHL team!

saffronleaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2012, 07:30 PM
  #129
Kimota
CONTROL THE BEAST
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 25,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Last four years, it's down massively, because of the bankruptcy/rebuilding.

Their woes are all on Hicks. It's not an issue with the market at all.
It becomes a market issue when the people that are in Dallas are not interested in spending money for the hockey team. There's nobody there. It has nothing to do with the owner.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 11:53 AM
  #130
Nullus Reverentia
Registered User
 
Nullus Reverentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The Periphery
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 17,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
It becomes a market issue when the people that are in Dallas are not interested in spending money for the hockey team. There's nobody there. It has nothing to do with the owner.
It absolutely does. You can look at Dallas's average attendence after Gaglardi took over, massive boost in attendence. How can you explain (logically) that after being one of the top teams in attendence, their owner went bankrupt and that's when the trouble started and state with a straight face there is no owner issues.

An owner markets the team, pumps money into the team, does work in the community. Hicks did all of that before he made the ill-fated move to buy Manchester, and it went away and of course attendence went down. What is indictive however is that Dallas remained high on revenue, still in the top half of the league. They probably made money last season, and attendence is way up.

It's not a market issue, and this claim has been debunked numerous times.

Nullus Reverentia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 01:34 PM
  #131
Fighter of Foo
Registered User
 
Fighter of Foo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Morristown, NJ
Country: Norway
Posts: 390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
I meant no disrespect to any franchise with that breakdown, I just think the NHL put rivalries ahead of assimilation. And that was a bad idea.

Part of what makes having a major league sports team special is joining a select group of elite members in the league that you've been watching for decades.

For example, when Atlanta got the Braves, they joined the Dodgers, Giants, Cubs, Reds, Cardinals, Phillies and Pirates in the National League. These are big league teams who've been playing Major League Baseball for 60 to 80 years. And now Atlanta's playing right along side with them!

It didn't matter that Atlanta's closest division rival for 27 years was three states away in Cincinnati.

Now when Atlanta got the Thrashers, you'd expect kind of the same thing: You jump in with MON, TOR, BOS, CHI, NYR, NYI, EDM, all the traditional NHL teams! And then you look at the standings after the first game and it's a division with Washington… Tampa Bay, Florida, and Carolina. One team who's never won a Cup, and three teams that didn't exist 10 years prior? The hell? Where's the NHL teams? Who are these guys?

It would be like Hamilton getting an NHL team finally and being put in a division with Buffalo, Cleveland, Rochester and Windsor.

You go for rivals AFTER that. "Ok, Tampa's a member of the league for 15 years, they get it. They know what's going on with hockey. But they're lonely down there. Let's add a team in Miami."

Miami could have been watching Tampa the whole time (and you'd know it from TV ratings) and started clamoring for their own team. They'd know what's going on and get hockey from the start. Instead, we said "here ya go, Miami, Tampa, Carolina and Atlanta… figure it out together!"
Not quite right w/ Atlanta and baseball. The Braves were founded in Boston as a National League team in 1871 and are one of the oldest continuous franchises in pro sports history (and the last team that Babe Ruth ever played for). They moved to Milwaukee in 1953 and were the furthest west team (along w/ St Louis) in all of MLB (this was also back in the days of train travel for pro sports), and finally settled in Atlanta in 1965. Baseball didn't go to divisional play until the expansion of 1969, and since the Braves franchise had history of being a "western" team, was put in the West division w/ SF, LA, San Diego, Houston, and Cincinnatti.

Ever since baseball was established w/ divisions, they attempted to place teams w/ the approximate regional rivals, which was easy as there were only 2 divisions per league. Seattle was in the AL West, Toronto in the AL East, Florida in the NL East, & Colorado in the NL West. When they added Tampa Bay & Arizona, they forced a change to the league structure to allow Arizona to play in the NL West next to their closest rivals (LA & SD) and Milwaukee moved to the NL from the AL. Tampa Bay is on an island when it comes to AL franchise locations, so they were put in the AL East, shifting Detroit to the AL Central.

It seems from inspection that most sports leagues go the regional route than go w/ the "established team" route, but I'm not a huge expert in NBA franchise relocations (there's too damn many of them), and the NFL is it's own beast b/c teams only play once a week, so keeping teams in division that approximate their regions isn't as important.

Fighter of Foo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 03:17 AM
  #132
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo View Post
Not quite right w/ Atlanta and baseball. The Braves were founded in Boston as a National League team in 1871 and are one of the oldest continuous franchises in pro sports history (and the last team that Babe Ruth ever played for). They moved to Milwaukee in 1953 and were the furthest west team (along w/ St Louis) in all of MLB (this was also back in the days of train travel for pro sports), and finally settled in Atlanta in 1965. Baseball didn't go to divisional play until the expansion of 1969, and since the Braves franchise had history of being a "western" team, was put in the West division w/ SF, LA, San Diego, Houston, and Cincinnatti.

Ever since baseball was established w/ divisions, they attempted to place teams w/ the approximate regional rivals, which was easy as there were only 2 divisions per league. Seattle was in the AL West, Toronto in the AL East, Florida in the NL East, & Colorado in the NL West. When they added Tampa Bay & Arizona, they forced a change to the league structure to allow Arizona to play in the NL West next to their closest rivals (LA & SD) and Milwaukee moved to the NL from the AL. Tampa Bay is on an island when it comes to AL franchise locations, so they were put in the AL East, shifting Detroit to the AL Central.

It seems from inspection that most sports leagues go the regional route than go w/ the "established team" route, but I'm not a huge expert in NBA franchise relocations (there's too damn many of them), and the NFL is it's own beast b/c teams only play once a week, so keeping teams in division that approximate their regions isn't as important.
What I meant by the comparison was that when the Braves moved to Atlanta, they were a new MARKET, and they were with all the teams of the National League that their fans knew (back then, no divisions and even when they went to divisions, the schedule was WAY MORE BALANCED).

The FANS in Atlanta saw almost no difference in the league itself, other than the Braves were in their town. Really only 11% of their games were against "new" teams -- the Giants and Dodgers had moved, but were still the Dodgers and Giants, and while the "Mets" were new, they were "New York" still; Only Houston was some new, weird franchise.

When the Thrashers came into the NHL, almost 40% of their games were against teams that didn't exist before 1990.
Now, to say Tampa Bay Lightning, Carolina Hurricanes, etc, etc, is normal.

But imagine waiting for a team for a while, hoping to join the league and all the sudden, you're "in" the league... but with all kinds of new teams joining you.

(You're in Jersey. It's kind of like Memphis and Temple finally getting into the Big East, but when they get there, they're playing UCF, USF, SMU and Houston. They were expecting to play Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College).


Also, here's a fun tidbit of trivia to dazzle your baseball friends with. Ask them why the Braves were in the NL West from 1969-1993. The real reason isn't rivalries or the fact that the Braves had a history of being "Western." (The Cardinals and Cubs were the two most Western teams for 60 years, had rivalries with the Dodgers, Giants, Pirates and Phillies, not the Mets and Expos).

Here's the real reason: Wrigley Field didn't have lights.

If a game in California started at 9 pm CT, the team would leave the ballpark at 1 am CT, and have to play a game in Chicago that started 12 hours later at 1 pm CT. Because of the unbalanced schedule (18 vs your division, 12 vs the other), there aren't enough off-days available to place one before the start of every series that had a team traveling from California to Chicago.

Night games in the Eastern Time Zone end three hours earlier than the Pacific Time Zone; and Chicago is an hour later than the ETZ. The flight is shorter, giving teams ample time to get to Wrigley and play the next afternoon.

Cincinnati and Atlanta are also both Delta hubs. Delta has been MLB's official airline ever since.


Last edited by KevFu: 11-09-2012 at 03:27 AM.
KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:20 PM
  #133
Kimota
CONTROL THE BEAST
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 25,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faidh ar Rud Eigin View Post
It absolutely does. You can look at Dallas's average attendence after Gaglardi took over, massive boost in attendence. How can you explain (logically) that after being one of the top teams in attendence, their owner went bankrupt and that's when the trouble started and state with a straight face there is no owner issues.

An owner markets the team, pumps money into the team, does work in the community. Hicks did all of that before he made the ill-fated move to buy Manchester, and it went away and of course attendence went down. What is indictive however is that Dallas remained high on revenue, still in the top half of the league. They probably made money last season, and attendence is way up.

It's not a market issue, and this claim has been debunked numerous times.
Debunk this, I doubt there's a correlation of Dallas season ticket buyers deciding to not buy tickets anymore because of the owners' trouble. Try establshing that link and comeback.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:28 PM
  #134
Kimota
CONTROL THE BEAST
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 25,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
I meant no disrespect to any franchise with that breakdown, I just think the NHL put rivalries ahead of assimilation. And that was a bad idea.

Part of what makes having a major league sports team special is joining a select group of elite members in the league that you've been watching for decades.

For example, when Atlanta got the Braves, they joined the Dodgers, Giants, Cubs, Reds, Cardinals, Phillies and Pirates in the National League. These are big league teams who've been playing Major League Baseball for 60 to 80 years. And now Atlanta's playing right along side with them!

It didn't matter that Atlanta's closest division rival for 27 years was three states away in Cincinnati.

Now when Atlanta got the Thrashers, you'd expect kind of the same thing: You jump in with MON, TOR, BOS, CHI, NYR, NYI, EDM, all the traditional NHL teams! And then you look at the standings after the first game and it's a division with Washington… Tampa Bay, Florida, and Carolina. One team who's never won a Cup, and three teams that didn't exist 10 years prior? The hell? Where's the NHL teams? Who are these guys?

It would be like Hamilton getting an NHL team finally and being put in a division with Buffalo, Cleveland, Rochester and Windsor.

You go for rivals AFTER that. "Ok, Tampa's a member of the league for 15 years, they get it. They know what's going on with hockey. But they're lonely down there. Let's add a team in Miami."

Miami could have been watching Tampa the whole time (and you'd know it from TV ratings) and started clamoring for their own team. They'd know what's going on and get hockey from the start. Instead, we said "here ya go, Miami, Tampa, Carolina and Atlanta… figure it out together!"
I pretty much agree with that. You have your team being immersed in the league's traditional teams before trying to establish some regional rivalries. I feel that has been a huge problem with southern teams in the NHL. And also if the traditional market teams would have been in the direct division of these southern expansion teams they would have grown to respect them instead of the current views of thinking as them as imposters.

But since the NHL because of the travel issues have to create divisions because of proximities, you cannot escape that.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:29 PM
  #135
Dojji*
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Debunk your doubt? You haven't proven anything. you've just taken an opinion and try to demand someone else disprove it. That's the same argument tactic 9/11 truthers use.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:35 PM
  #136
Kimota
CONTROL THE BEAST
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 25,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Debunk your doubt? You haven't proven anything. you've just taken an opinion and try to demand someone else disprove it. That's the same argument tactic 9/11 truthers use.
He said it's not a market issues for Dallas, that it's been debunked. I've yet seen any argument proving that it's not a market issue. Those that justify the drop of attendance in Dallas always say it's an ownership issue. What's the link?

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:47 PM
  #137
TrillMike
Registered User
 
TrillMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 5,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Debunk this, I doubt there's a correlation of Dallas season ticket buyers deciding to not buy tickets anymore because of the owners' trouble. Try establshing that link and comeback.
No, people aren't buying season tickets because the league is locked out. There's nothing wrong with Stars fans or the city. I don't get what you're trying to prove. Give it up.

TrillMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 02:24 PM
  #138
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Debunk this, I doubt there's a correlation of Dallas season ticket buyers deciding to not buy tickets anymore because of the owners' trouble. Try establshing that link and comeback.
Explain Chicago's plummeting attendance and wild vacillations three times in the last 30 years. Surely a "traditional" market would never have attendance issues as a result of ownership. Or perhaps the Minnesota North Stars would be a better example.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 02:37 PM
  #139
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Debunk this, I doubt there's a correlation of Dallas season ticket buyers deciding to not buy tickets anymore because of the owners' trouble. Try establshing that link and comeback.
Phoenix averaged 15,500 in the five years before the bankruptcy, and 12,500 after it.

Dallas sold 98.3% of tickets for 16 years until Hicks placed the team in bankruptcy, and 86% of tickets since.

Buffalo averaged about 18K for three seasons... until their owner was arrested for embezzlement and the league took over the team while finding an owner. The next season: 13,776. Once the team was sold, their attendance rebounded virtually instantly: Finsihed 2004 at 15,290 and been at about 98% capacity since.

Pittsburgh: 16-17K until declaring bankruptcy in Nov. 1998, attendance fell to 15K, then 14K. Lemiuex buys the team and it goes to 16,300 instantly.

Nashville had relocation rumors to Hamilton and KC over one summer. Their attendance only dipped 300 per game and bounced back completely the following year.

The Devils won the 1995 Cup and their attendance went DOWN the following year... because their owner was demanding a new lease or he'd move the team to Nashville.



So yes, when ownership has bankruptcy or relocation rumors, fewer fans go to games.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 09:43 AM
  #140
Matrix78
Registered User
 
Matrix78's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 396
vCash: 500
NHL expansion option : 2 new teams for 2015 ?

http://www.lapresse.ca/sports/hockey...lexpansion.php

Google Translation :
http://translate.google.com/translat...lexpansion.php

Quebec, Markham, Seattle... same story however, rumors intensify.
There's no smoke without fire

Quote:
[...] One of our sources has also observed that the expansion is also considered to be profitable from the viewpoint television. For adding one - if not two - Canadian teams help raise the stakes for broadcasting contracts in Canada which will mature in 2014.

Matrix78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 10:35 AM
  #141
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13-15
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 41,148
vCash: 50
Well, especially considering that, at least as of last check, Markham's arena plans seem to be swirling down the you know what, I don't think they're much of an option for an NHL team, even in wild fantasyland talk. I think most of us agree that the NHL is strongly thinking about a two-team expansion in the forseeable future, whether we think it's a good idea or not, but until it actually happens I won't believe these sorts of random prognostications, especially as we can't even know for sure when this lockout's going to end and what the long-term ramifications will be.

And a simple glance at the situations of all the relevant markets clearly put Seattle and Quebec City, in some order, as the obvious two frontrunners. Everyone else either has arena issues (and Seattle will fall into this category until they start building a new arena), owner issues, potential fanbase issues, or all three. Hamilton doesn't have an owner lined up and the NHL is clearly not interested in Copps, and might not even be fine with a massive renovation. Houston and KC don't have ownership lined up. And.... um.... is anyone else even on the league's radar at this point?

Also, major props to KevFu for a solid post.

People are very quick to get a holier-than-thou attitude when a southern team starts to have issues, all the while ignoring the very long history of northern teams, both American and Canadian, have had with attendance over the years as well.


Last edited by No Fun Shogun: 12-04-2012 at 10:43 AM.
No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 01:15 PM
  #142
LesHabitants
Registered User
 
LesHabitants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 215
vCash: 500
hmmmm just for jokes, going with the NHL's recent proposal for realignment and possible expansion into QC and Markham lets see how the divisions would look like... (My vision of the divisions with what the NHL was proposing)

Montreal
Toronto
Ottawa
*Quebec City
*Markham
Buffalo
Tampa Bay
Florida

NYR
NYI/Brooklyn
NJD
Boston
Washington
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Carolina

Vancouver
Calgary
Edmonton
Los Angeles
Anaheim
San Jose
Phoenix
Colorado

Detroit
Chicago
Minnesota
Winnipeg
Nashville
Columbus
Dallas
St-Louis

hate to see the Habs/B's rivalry go away but I think it zones the league pretty well and keeps all other rivalries in tact...... I'd move Phoenix to seattle if possible but with the new agreement with Jamison i dont see that happening.....

LesHabitants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 12:46 AM
  #143
Kimota
CONTROL THE BEAST
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 25,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Phoenix averaged 15,500 in the five years before the bankruptcy, and 12,500 after it.

Dallas sold 98.3% of tickets for 16 years until Hicks placed the team in bankruptcy, and 86% of tickets since.

Buffalo averaged about 18K for three seasons... until their owner was arrested for embezzlement and the league took over the team while finding an owner. The next season: 13,776. Once the team was sold, their attendance rebounded virtually instantly: Finsihed 2004 at 15,290 and been at about 98% capacity since.

Pittsburgh: 16-17K until declaring bankruptcy in Nov. 1998, attendance fell to 15K, then 14K. Lemiuex buys the team and it goes to 16,300 instantly.

Nashville had relocation rumors to Hamilton and KC over one summer. Their attendance only dipped 300 per game and bounced back completely the following year.

The Devils won the 1995 Cup and their attendance went DOWN the following year... because their owner was demanding a new lease or he'd move the team to Nashville.



So yes, when ownership has bankruptcy or relocation rumors, fewer fans go to games.
First, there's a huge difference between what happened with these cities and Dallas. Hockey in Dallas has never been that covered in the media. I doubt any ownership problems made any waves. It's just a market than died down because of the US economic problems. As shown by the weakness of most US NHL cities attendances in the last few years.

Now New Jersey never had good attendances. I went there a few times when they were winning cups because it was easier to get tickets there than get MSG tickets for the Rangers. And the place was half full most of the times.

As for Pittsburgh and Nashville, there was danger they could be moved, you think this could not affect the attendances? We're talking more than simple ownership issues here of an owner losing money like in Dallas. Jim Balsille went there a few times and he wanted to buy and move them. A lot of stuff was going on, far more serious and far more covered by the media.

The equivalent to what happened in Dallas is what happened in Anaheim with the financial difficulties of the owners. It never affected the team on the ice. Contrary to Nashville where they had to cut salaries and trade players.

Kimota 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 08:41 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.