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.

Seattle IV: The Money Will Roll Right In

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-01-2013, 12:39 PM
  #351
Mightygoose
Registered User
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
Agreed. To those arguing about Hamilton v. Seattle wanting to here more in terms of dollars seem to be looking mainly at the franchise level and not the league level,.particularly the US market. No question Hamilton may be the more successful franchise particularly in the beginning. The potential Seattle franchise, as you keep pointing out, cannot be looked at in such black and white terms. Obviously with rumored interest in the Seattle market by the NHL, they see a real potential to 'grow' the NHL in the US which 'could' translate to higher TV revenue for the league as a whole. Hamilton offers nothing to the NHL in that regard IMHO.
That's a fair comment.

In terms of growth to the league and I'm referring to more national TV revenue, having a preference in Seattle would bring the biggest bump for the next US TV/Media contract IMO.

Likewise, Hamilton or GTA2 in general would provide the biggest bump in future Canadian TV/media rights which is just as valuable to the league.

But yes, it seems the league is more motivated to go the Seattle route which I don't blame them. It's overdue

Mightygoose is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 12:45 PM
  #352
nwhockeyfan
Pens Fan since '67
 
nwhockeyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 3,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
That's a fair comment.

In terms of growth to the league and I'm referring to more national TV revenue, having a preference in Seattle would bring the biggest bump for the next US TV/Media contract IMO.

Likewise, Hamilton or GTA2 in general would provide the biggest bump in future Canadian TV/media rights which is just as valuable to the league.

But yes, it seems the league is more motivated to go the Seattle route which I don't blame them. It's overdue
I think Seattle offers the NHL not only a potential bump in TV revenue but also stop the 'Southern Strategy' failure, perceived or real, as it relates to the NHL in the US.

nwhockeyfan is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 12:54 PM
  #353
nwhockeyfan
Pens Fan since '67
 
nwhockeyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 3,950
vCash: 500
I think the perception that we here in Seattle are being cautious in our estimation of franchise value comes from many things. First there is probably only a very cautious optimism by most of us that an NHL team will ever be in Seattle. Second, and more importantly, most of us realize that nothing is for certain in terms of success from the outset. We realize that it will take time for a franchise, particularly an expansion team to be successful both on and off the ice. That is the reality that those in the Hamilton area or Canada for that matter may not have to or want to consider.

That being said there is no doubt in my mind that Seattle would be very successful with an NHL team.


Last edited by nwhockeyfan: 11-01-2013 at 01:01 PM.
nwhockeyfan is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:10 PM
  #354
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
Agreed. To those arguing about Hamilton v. Seattle wanting to here more in terms of dollars seem to be looking mainly at the franchise level and not the league level,.particularly the US market. No question Hamilton may be the more successful franchise particularly in the beginning. The potential Seattle franchise, as you keep pointing out, cannot be looked at in such black and white terms. Obviously with rumored interest in the Seattle market by the NHL, they see a real potential to 'grow' the NHL in the US which 'could' translate to higher TV revenue for the league as a whole. Hamilton offers nothing to the NHL in that regard IMHO.
absolutely. i agree.

my question however is this: who is supposed to pay the cost of this sort of long-term strategy? surely, putting a franchise in a place where there is a need to grow the game will cost a great deal more than in a place that is already established because while operating expenses would be comparable, it will earn a lot less. it is beyond argument that a franchise in seattle WILL lose money for the first few years, especially if it must play in the old Key for years because local politicians are scared to act now and build the arena without assurances.

so, that begs the question: is the new potential seattle owner willing and capable of covering these losses. very non-trivial losses too, totaling tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of dollars before it moves into the black (or gray, I guess) years from now. yes, there was some statement that were the yotes to have ended up at key this season, the owners were prepared to foot some of the bill for reno. but do we know how deep their pockets are and how much of a loss they can cover over the long term while they grow the game? moreover, how willing would current owners be to want to help defray those long-term, "grow the game" costs associated with needing to support another welfare team?

the simplest way to ensure seattle gets a team and that it can do well is for the league to ask for a $50M expansion fee in seattle and a $250M fee in quebec ... that way, seattle pays $50M now and covers its own losses of $200M over the next 10 years (yes, i pulled those #'s out of my ass as an example). ... but i just dont see that happening.

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:11 PM
  #355
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
I think the perception that we here in Seattle are being cautious in our estimation of franchise value comes from many things. First there is probably only a very cautious optimism by most of us that an NHL team will ever be in Seattle. Second, and more importantly, most of us realize that nothing is for certain in terms of success from the outset. We realize that it will take time for a franchise, particularly an expansion team to be successful both on and off the ice. That is the reality that those in the Hamilton area or Canada for that matter may not have to or want to consider.

That being said there is no doubt in my mind that Seattle would be very successful with an NHL team.
Agreed and that is what i am doing being cautious on rather or the Seattle market would be fine with above NHL average prices especially on an expansion team that will take 2-3 maybe 4 years to get that roster to be where the team is a contender never-mind potentially playing in key arena for a year or two.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:15 PM
  #356
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
absolutely. i agree.

my question however is this: who is supposed to pay the cost of this sort of long-term strategy? surely, putting a franchise in a place where there is a need to grow the game will cost a great deal more than in a place that is already established because while operating expenses would be comparable, it will earn a lot less. it is beyond argument that a franchise in seattle WILL lose money for the first few years, especially if it must play in the old Key for years because local politicians are scared to act now and build the arena without assurances.

so, that begs the question: is the new potential seattle owner willing and capable of covering these losses. very non-trivial losses too, totaling tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of dollars before it moves into the black (or gray, I guess) years from now. yes, there was some statement that were the yotes to have ended up at key this season, the owners were prepared to foot some of the bill for reno. but do we know how deep their pockets are and how much of a loss they can cover over the long term while they grow the game? moreover, how willing would current owners be to want to help defray those long-term, "grow the game" costs associated with needing to support another welfare team?

the simplest way to ensure seattle gets a team and that it can do well is for the league to ask for a $50M expansion fee in seattle and a $250M fee in quebec ... that way, seattle pays $50M now and covers its own losses of $200M over the next 10 years (yes, i pulled those #'s out of my ass as an example). ... but i just dont see that happening.
The potential Seattle ownership group is worth billions that is not a problem.

Just stop with the welfare team cause you have no idea what a team in Seattle will provide the league. And Seattle is not your usual typical trouble market.

Seattle happens to be only 1 of two pro sport cities in the entire pacific northwest (alaska, oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana)
Portland Oregon is that other one. National tv contract wise it must larger for NHL cause they would get the entire pacific northwest seattle, portland and the smaller markets in the region that would watch Seattle NHL hockey.

Heck give Portland a team and it gets even better.

50m really for #13 in the US tv market that is expected to be #11 at some point? That's just undervaluing the market. The rumor price was 275m


Last edited by gstommylee: 11-01-2013 at 01:24 PM.
gstommylee is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:23 PM
  #357
Doan Jidion*
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 212
vCash: 500
Montana is neither Pacific nor Northwest.

Doan Jidion* is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:23 PM
  #358
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
The potential Seattle ownership group is worth billions that is not a problem.

Just stop with the welfare team cause you have no idea what a team in Seattle will provide the league.
yes, and people worth billions tend not to like to throw money away ... but that wasn't my question ...

absolutely. seattle WILL be a welfare team for the first several years of its existence. there is no metric whatsoever that can possibly indicate that seattle would be anything other than that. seattle WILL be a drain on overall league resources. i am interested in better understanding how long it would take for that to not be the case. how much would that cost? and who will pay?

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:25 PM
  #359
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doan Jidion View Post
Montana is neither Pacific nor Northwest.
Root sports covers Montana so they are included.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:26 PM
  #360
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
yes, and people worth billions tend not to like to throw money away ... but that wasn't my question ...

absolutely. seattle WILL be a welfare team for the first several years of its existence. there is no metric whatsoever that can possibly indicate that seattle would be anything other than that. seattle WILL be a drain on overall league resources. i am interested in better understanding how long it would take for that to not be the case. how much would that cost? and who will pay?
So NHL shouldn't give seattle they wanted for years just cause of short term issues? Give me a break.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:27 PM
  #361
nwhockeyfan
Pens Fan since '67
 
nwhockeyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 3,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
absolutely. i agree.

my question however is this: who is supposed to pay the cost of this sort of long-term strategy? surely, putting a franchise in a place where there is a need to grow the game will cost a great deal more than in a place that is already established because while operating expenses would be comparable, it will earn a lot less. it is beyond argument that a franchise in seattle WILL lose money for the first few years, especially if it must play in the old Key for years because local politicians are scared to act now and build the arena without assurances.

so, that begs the question: is the new potential seattle owner willing and capable of covering these losses. very non-trivial losses too, totaling tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of dollars before it moves into the black (or gray, I guess) years from now. yes, there was some statement that were the yotes to have ended up at key this season, the owners were prepared to foot some of the bill for reno. but do we know how deep their pockets are and how much of a loss they can cover over the long term while they grow the game? moreover, how willing would current owners be to want to help defray those long-term, "grow the game" costs associated with needing to support another welfare team?

the simplest way to ensure seattle gets a team and that it can do well is for the league to ask for a $50M expansion fee in seattle and a $250M fee in quebec ... that way, seattle pays $50M now and covers its own losses of $200M over the next 10 years (yes, i pulled those #'s out of my ass as an example). ... but i just dont see that happening.
These questions you ask seem to be directed just at Seattle and I am not sure why. Any expansion team that would potentially be granted would face the same concerns and requirements of an owner. I am quite sure any potential owner of a team here in Seattle will be fully aware (and capable of dealing with them) of the risks and also be able to work with the NHL if the league wants a team in this market which it appears to.

nwhockeyfan is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:28 PM
  #362
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob1321 View Post
2 teams... they stay one year in 1919-1920...
A proof is a proof, man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Seattle is not canada its also not a traditional hockey market. Seattle is an unknown market at the moment. Until NHL places a franchise in Seattle and after the new smell goes away then we'll have an idea on what the fan base is willing to pay and not willing to pay. We do not know how the owners will market the team either what age group family orientated? etc

Until that happens no one can assume the Seattle market will pay for typical NHL ticket prices. The team has to grow the fan base and i don't think it would be wise to set high NHL prices while the team plays at Key arena given the seat capacity.

although what they can do is look at other non traditional hockey market teams and see what they charge over the years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
sounds like a classic put up or shut up situation then. if as you suggest folks in seattle cannot at least afford to pay average league prices then there is absolutely no point in considering that city for a franchise. no point whatsoever. and any incremental polish added to the broadcast content situation by having seattle games on TV would be dwarfed by just another city that simply cannot sell tickets. yet, people in the trenches sure seem to disagree as seattle keeps being discussed.

i would suggest that having a team in hamilton would increase overall television viewership more than having a team in seattle AND hamilton would easily sell near the top of the league in gate. if we are talking pure revenue numbers here, hamilton is far superior to seattle. so, why would the league want to create just another welfare case in seattle? i can only think that everyone involved in this has every reason to believe that a team in seattle CAN sell tix above league average prices. it would have to if there is to be any chance of financial success here. strangely, i think this may be the only situation where im more positive on seattle than you are, tommy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Seattle is FAR FAR better option then hamilton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
I never said they can not afford. I said can't assume at this point given that the market is an unknown. The issue is you can't over charge the new market that has never had a team before right off the bat. new franchise is a very new market and expect to pay well above average NHL prices?

So GuelphStormer you suggest then NHL should go 14/18 then cause i am being cautious here? That is not going to happen. We don't even know that quebec city is actually a front runner with Seattle as it may very well be Portland that is the expansion partner with Seattle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
you keep saying that but provide little empricial evidence to support it. so, please do so.

gate? hamilton. no doubt whatsoever. notwithstanding the complication of a team adding TOO much gate revenue to HRR and affecting salary floors, hamilton is clearly the better option. it would contribute to revenue sharing.

grow the game? seattle. but please explain how that would work, be measured, and translate into dollars.

tv broadcast content? new viewers? seattle, because people in hamilton already watch hockey. net viewers? i would suggest that would favour hamilton. are they new viewers? no. are they viewers? yes. there would be a great deal more people watching hamilton games than seattle games. and that's what advertisers care about. broadcasters and advertisers do not care if the guy watching has already watched another hockey game the night before when they show him a car commercial. i would suggest that a team in hamilton would result in a larger net gain on a canadian tv contract than a team in seattle would have on a us tv contract. CBC, SN and TSN would pay the league incrementally more for a contract that included hamilton games than NBC would pay the league for a contract that included seattle game.

what else is there?

in terms of net overall revenues for the league, hamilton is a FAR FAR better option than seattle. so, unless you can point to some other revenue generating benefit, that leaves 'grow the game' ... please explain exactly how that would work and translate into more dollars in the pockets of the owners and why then seattle would be favoured?

Tommy you sold Seattle short first. You claimed they could not handle regular prices. Of course guelph will question that. You and people like you have to have 100% faith. Seattle is about as non traditional as Denver and Chicago.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:29 PM
  #363
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
yes, and people worth billions tend not to like to throw money away ... but that wasn't my question ...

absolutely. seattle WILL be a welfare team for the first several years of its existence. there is no metric whatsoever that can possibly indicate that seattle would be anything other than that. seattle WILL be a drain on overall league resources. i am interested in better understanding how long it would take for that to not be the case. how much would that cost? and who will pay?
Seattle won't be a welfare team if they do it right.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:36 PM
  #364
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
A proof is a proof, man.












Tommy you sold Seattle short first. You claimed they could not handle regular prices. Of course guelph will question that. You and people like you have to have 100% faith. Seattle is about as non traditional as Denver and Chicago.
I am being cautious which is within my right to be.

New expansion team in a very very new market to the NHL which team could stink for a few years and some expect them to pay well above NHL prices. Fresh new smell only takes you so far.

You may every well be right in the end one seattle gets a team that they will pay well above average prices.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:42 PM
  #365
Doan Jidion*
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 212
vCash: 500
What did Columbus and Minnesota spectators pay to watch their awful new expansion teams? They had great attendance.

Doan Jidion* is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:43 PM
  #366
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,651
vCash: 500
What the NHL would love to see is the seattle NHL franchise pull a sounders FC here.

Success right off the bat of course that would be kinda hard while playing in key arena for a year or 2. But having that momentum leading into opening of the new sodo arena though.

What our NHL team needs is Hanuer GM type person thats a hockey guy and the marketing capabilities similar to the seahawks. That is the reason why the sounders are a success as they are today.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:44 PM
  #367
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doan Jidion View Post
What did Columbus and Minnesota spectators pay to watch their awful new expansion teams? They had great attendance.
Great question to ask. I'm curious to know in regards to previous expansion in terms of prices the first year.

Although Minnesota did have a prior NHL team with the North Stars before the team moved to Dallas.


Last edited by gstommylee: 11-01-2013 at 01:50 PM.
gstommylee is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:53 PM
  #368
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doan Jidion View Post
What did Columbus and Minnesota spectators pay to watch their awful new expansion teams? They had great attendance.
Exactly. Columbus had good attendance their first history.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:55 PM
  #369
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Exactly. Columbus had good attendance their first history.
What arena did Columbus play in the first year?

gstommylee is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:55 PM
  #370
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,397
vCash: 500
It would have to be spectacular for the NHL to mess Seattle up.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:56 PM
  #371
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
What arena did Columbus play in the first year?
Not sure.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:57 PM
  #372
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
These questions you ask seem to be directed just at Seattle and I am not sure why. Any expansion team that would potentially be granted would face the same concerns and requirements of an owner. I am quite sure any potential owner of a team here in Seattle will be fully aware (and capable of dealing with them) of the risks and also be able to work with the NHL if the league wants a team in this market which it appears to.
again, i agree. but the conversation here has an implied comparative with other locations that would become instant successes ... ie., hamilton, quebec, GTA2. and my point underscores response to the silly idea that keeps getting floated that the league would rather see teams in seattle AND portland over quebec or hamilton or GTA2. double expansion into the PNW would be doubly disastrous simply for the costs i note. costs that seem to be either ignored or trivialized by others advocating that wholesale PNW expansion ... expansion, as best as I can figure, also largely being suggested because of the equally silly idea that realignment would be more difficult than expansion placement.

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:57 PM
  #373
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Not sure.
Perhaps i should rephrase was the arena they play in consider an already NHL ready arena.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 01:58 PM
  #374
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
again, i agree. but the conversation here has an implied comparative with other locations that would become instant successes ... ie., hamilton, quebec, GTA2. and my point underscores response to the silly idea that keeps getting floated that the league would rather see teams in seattle AND portland over quebec or hamilton or GTA2. double expansion into the PNW would be doubly disastrous simply for the costs i note. costs that seem to be either ignored or trivialized by others advocating that wholesale PNW expansion ... expansion, as best as I can figure, also largely being suggested because of the equally silly idea that realignment would be more difficult than expansion placement.
Let see here 16/16 or 15/17 or 14/18? And it deals a lot with the owners especially with the 14 current western teams and 1 or 2 current eastern teams that may have to move back.

Now if the only two choices are seattle and quebec city that's different but if Portland wants in the mix which gets that seattle-portland rivalry going in another sport it may not be as certain for Quebec city. Of course there is still the unknown future of the coyotes but that 5 years from now.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
11-01-2013, 02:02 PM
  #375
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
again, i agree. but the conversation here has an implied comparative with other locations that would become instant successes ... ie., hamilton, quebec, GTA2. and my point underscores response to the silly idea that keeps getting floated that the league would rather see teams in seattle AND portland over quebec or hamilton or GTA2. double expansion into the PNW would be doubly disastrous simply for the costs i note. costs that seem to be either ignored or trivialized by others advocating that wholesale PNW expansion ... expansion, as best as I can figure, also largely being suggested because of the equally silly idea that realignment would be more difficult than expansion placement.
PNW is not florida. Portland and Seattle should be mid market at least within 3 years. If it ends up like Phoenix is because the NHL didn't do their homework again.

Melrose Munch 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 05:16 AM.

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.