HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

31% of NHL ticket revenue from Canadian teams

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-30-2008, 01:55 PM
  #1
Player 61
#Winning
 
Player 61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,122
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Player 61
31% of NHL ticket revenue from Canadian teams

6 out of 30 teams accounts for 31%. Tell me why again that Bettman is blocking moves & expansion here...

link
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...es-canada.html

Player 61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 01:57 PM
  #2
Habs10Habs
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Habs10Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 52,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atwater Ghost View Post
6 out of 30 teams accounts for 31%. Tell me why again that Bettman is blocking moves & expansion here...

link
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...es-canada.html

I knew the percentage was high, but not 31%.

__________________
To me, Desharnais is like pop/radio music. No matter how hard I try, I just can't like him. - PyrettaBlaze
Habs10Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 02:00 PM
  #3
Galchenyuk x 27
Registered User
 
Galchenyuk x 27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,590
vCash: 50
"let's expand more in the States...we need to to cathc up to that 31%" - Gary Buttman



i still dont understand what they are waiting for to come to Canada.

Galchenyuk x 27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 02:20 PM
  #4
HabsoluteFate
Registered User
 
HabsoluteFate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,870
vCash: 500
It would also be interesting to see the percentage of revenues from TV Deals...

HabsoluteFate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 02:22 PM
  #5
Mont Royale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atwater Ghost View Post
6 out of 30 teams accounts for 31%. Tell me why again that Bettman is blocking moves & expansion here...

link
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...es-canada.html
Not sure if this is completely correct, but here's a theory: Without Canadian teams, the article says league revenues are increasing only 2%. More Canadian teams would mean more league-wide revenue, causing a salary cap increase of, say, 5-10% (as we've seen the last few years as the Cdn dollar appreciated). So, the majority of owners (the ones in the U.S.) are only growing revenue 2%, but can expect a much greater increase in costs by accepting Canadian teams. The Canadian owners either don't care about more Canadian teams, or are against it if one will be in their territory (Leafs). Bettman is taking his orders from the majority of owners.

Mont Royale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 03:10 PM
  #6
AD
Registered User
 
AD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bigassofficetower
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 14,579
vCash: 500
These numbers have to be slightly weighted down to take account for the 15% (or so) rise in the Canadian dollar.

AD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 03:16 PM
  #7
Dan K
HFBoards Partner
 
Dan K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,176
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dan K
So if my rudimentary calculations are to be trusted...

6 Canadian teams of 30 = 20% of the league.

Them earning 31% of revenues would mean the average Canadian team makes 1.5 times the average American team in ticket revenues.

That doesn't sound that huge. But what drives the point home even further is that the 6 Canadian teams are in the top 7 overall of team per game ticket revenues, with only the NY Rangers sneaking in the middle.

The Canadiens are 2nd, by the way, to the Leafs, with an average of $1.7M per game to Toronto's $1.9M.

Dan K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 03:25 PM
  #8
Habitant#1
Registered User
 
Habitant#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Posts: 1,336
vCash: 500
The reason they want to expand in the US is that the Canadian market is almost saturated. Sure we could sustain a couple more teams, but if you can develop interest in hockey in the US, you have the potantial to make a lot more money.

The US is an opportunity for growth and is, ultimately, where the big money is.

Habitant#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 03:28 PM
  #9
Player 61
#Winning
 
Player 61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,122
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Player 61
Original article with more data from The Star.

Link
http://www.thestar.com/Sports/Hockey/article/433906

Player 61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 03:45 PM
  #10
David_99
Registered User
 
David_99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Moncton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habitant#1 View Post
The reason they want to expand in the US is that the Canadian market is almost saturated. Sure we could sustain a couple more teams, but if you can develop interest in hockey in the US, you have the potantial to make a lot more money.

The US is an opportunity for growth and is, ultimately, where the big money is.
I think they just over expanding in too short a time in the States. Florida is still struggling and they were added in the early 90s. San Jose, Tampa, Anaheim and Ottawa have all done well in that time. Returning to Minnesota was smart. Columbus was a nice surprise(despite on ice performance). Atlanta = big market but risky. Nashville was a mistake. We should have had a max of 28 teams by now, letting them find themselves before testing the risky markets.

David_99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 03:45 PM
  #11
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,863
vCash: 500
The fact is also that the Oilers and Flames probably should be making a lot more revenue because they're playing in older buildings than a lot of US teams. They both should have new arenas in the next 5-10 years.

Soundwave is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 03:53 PM
  #12
Transported Upstater
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Take care, all. :)
Country: United States
Posts: 22,984
vCash: 500
Jim Balsillie ruined it for himself. Not Bettman.

He tried to manipulate the whole process and pissed off a chunk of the league's ownership body. He never even made a formal offer for the Predators in the first place, either. He alone ****ed up.

He handled it like a spoiled hockey fan, not like a prospective big business owner. Don't blame Bettman for Balsillie's incompetence.

Transported Upstater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 03:56 PM
  #13
Habs8517
Registered User
 
Habs8517's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,162
vCash: 500
well now maybe the nhl will put more teams in canada
6 vs 24 doesnt sound right
oh and eat **** buttman

Habs8517 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 04:03 PM
  #14
Transported Upstater
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Take care, all. :)
Country: United States
Posts: 22,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs8517 View Post
well now maybe the nhl will put more teams in canada
6 vs 24 doesnt sound right
oh and eat **** buttman
Here's what would need to happen:

1) An American team would have to be willing to sell, and I can't think of many, if any, that would be willing to sell in the next 5 years unless a truly ridiculous offer was made.

2) A Canadian city would have to have the following in place:
- new arena, up to present-day NHL standards or better, complete with luxury boxes, etc
- strong corporate base
- many other factors

3) The proposal by the Canadian city would have to beat out American cities like Houston, Portland, Seattle, Kansas City and Las Vegas.

4) The remaining owners would have to vote on approving the sale to the Canadian owner in question (which they would likely do, IMO, if the owner went about the sale correctly and the business plan put forth by the prospective Canadian owner is sound.)

Transported Upstater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 04:07 PM
  #15
Transported Upstater
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Take care, all. :)
Country: United States
Posts: 22,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habitant#1 View Post
The reason they want to expand in the US is that the Canadian market is almost saturated. Sure we could sustain a couple more teams, but if you can develop interest in hockey in the US, you have the potantial to make a lot more money.

The US is an opportunity for growth and is, ultimately, where the big money is.
Bingo. We have at least 9 times the people that Canada does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_99 View Post
I think they just over expanding in too short a time in the States. Florida is still struggling and they were added in the early 90s. San Jose, Tampa, Anaheim and Ottawa have all done well in that time. Returning to Minnesota was smart. Columbus was a nice surprise(despite on ice performance). Atlanta = big market but risky. Nashville was a mistake. We should have had a max of 28 teams by now, letting them find themselves before testing the risky markets.
I don't disagree at all, really. Good post.

Transported Upstater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 04:28 PM
  #16
CorpseFX
Registered User
 
CorpseFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Milwaukee
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 7,645
vCash: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habitant#1 View Post
The reason they want to expand in the US is that the Canadian market is almost saturated. Sure we could sustain a couple more teams, but if you can develop interest in hockey in the US, you have the potantial to make a lot more money.

The US is an opportunity for growth and is, ultimately, where the big money is.
would you rather have a stable league of Canadian teams with tons of economic uncertainty in the united states? or would rather have a solid economic base starting in Canada as your main revenue (where the dollar is stronger and will be for a long time)? the fact that the NHL doesnt build "safe" and is hoping for "growth", as you project, in the US (BULLCRAP) is a laugh - you have a moron running the league.

People who believe that the US is "untapped" dollars because there is more people is fooling themselves with romantic visions of some boardroom magically brainwashing the populace of the US. its never going to happen unless an ice age hits again and you somehow have the technical apparatus intact to distribute a hockey league. as of the present, you cant out compete NASCAR, NFL, MLB and the NBA so you build where your economic demographic is STRONG. it doesnt take a genius to figure that out. if you want a strong base for the NHL, you get all the Canadian dollars you can.

building on FAITH is for idiots.


Last edited by CorpseFX: 05-30-2008 at 04:33 PM.
CorpseFX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 04:43 PM
  #17
David_99
Registered User
 
David_99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Moncton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorpseFX View Post
would you rather have a stable league of Canadian teams with tons of economic uncertainty in the united states? or would rather have a solid economic base starting in Canada as your main revenue (where the dollar is stronger and will be for a long time)? the fact that the NHL doesnt build "safe" and is hoping for "growth", as you project, in the US (BULLCRAP) - you have a moron running the league.
There's nothing wrong with 20-24 american teams. I just think a few were put in the wrong place. Seattle, Portland & Milwaukee would be great cities for the NHL (Whether Milwaukee could support the Bucks, Brewers and an NHL franchise, I can't say. You'd probably have a better idea).

How many players come from the "Tri-State area" of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota? This is a great area for hockey yet only 2 teams are currently in the area. (Winnipeg not too far away either)

Seattle and/or Portland would be a great presence on the west coast and a great rival for poor, lonely VanCity.

Instead of Houston, Las Vegas and Kansas City, the previously mentioned 3 cities should be heavily considered along with a couple Canadian locations. Hockey would boom. No more empty seats (Detroit's current state of attendance not withstanding)

David_99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 04:46 PM
  #18
Transported Upstater
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Take care, all. :)
Country: United States
Posts: 22,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorpseFX View Post
would you rather have a stable league of Canadian teams with tons of economic uncertainty in the united states? or would rather have a solid economic base starting in Canada as your main revenue (where the dollar is stronger and will be for a long time)? the fact that the NHL doesnt build "safe" and is hoping for "growth", as you project, in the US (BULLCRAP) is a laugh - you have a moron running the league.
Please don't tell me that you think Canada is recession-proof.

Remember the days when your dollar was complete **** compared to ours? I think the Canadian dollar will settle in at about $0.90 USD long-term.

Quote:
People who believe that the US is "untapped" dollars because there is more people is fooling themselves with romantic visions of some boardroom magically brainwashing the populace of the US. its never going to happen unless an ice age hits again and you somehow have the technical apparatus intact to distribute a hockey league. as of the present, you cant out compete NASCAR, NFL, MLB and the NBA so you build where your economic demographic is STRONG. it doesnt take a genius to figure that out. if you want a strong base for the NHL, you get all the Canadian dollars you can.

building on FAITH is for idiots.
Stable league of Canadian teams? At most, Canada could add two long-term financially viable teams, IMO. Sounds like you're doing a bit of dreaming yourself, which is EXACTLY what you accuse us of doing.

Personally, I liked the league of 24 teams, with Canada having 8. But that's not going to happen because it's completely unrealistic, so stop letting emotion get in the way and think realistically.

Transported Upstater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 04:50 PM
  #19
Transported Upstater
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Take care, all. :)
Country: United States
Posts: 22,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_99 View Post
There's nothing wrong with 20-24 american teams. I just think a few were put in the wrong place. Seattle, Portland & Milwaukee would be great cities for the NHL (Whether Milwaukee could support the Bucks, Brewers and an NHL franchise, I can't say. You'd probably have a better idea).

How many players come from the "Tri-State area" of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota? This is a great area for hockey yet only 2 teams are currently in the area. (Winnipeg not too far away either)

Seattle and/or Portland would be a great presence on the west coast and a great rival for poor, lonely VanCity.

Instead of Houston, Las Vegas and Kansas City, the previously mentioned 3 cities should be heavily considered along with a couple Canadian locations. Hockey would boom. No more empty seats (Detroit's current state of attendance not withstanding)
Milwaukee would not be a good place for the NHL. Not to mention Chicago probably wouldn't be down with it.

Seattle and Portland, OTOH...would be good spots. Portland has better sports fans IMO, but Seattle's bigger and richer. If any team moves, and it goes to an American city, I want Seattle or Portland, no question.

Houston is the 4th biggest city in America, and it's easily bigger than any Canadian city not named Toronto. And there's TONS, TONS, of money in Houston. Do I think it would be a good spot for the NHL? Not necessarily. But it's definitely the type of place the league will think about.

Transported Upstater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 04:51 PM
  #20
Player 61
#Winning
 
Player 61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,122
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Player 61
I was shocked to see just how much Phoenix is losing( more than 30 Millions!!!!) & I'm also disturbed to see Chicago on that list of bottom dwellers.

I know there are huge obstacles in Hamilton with Toronto/Buffalo claiming the territory, but you would have to think they would generate top 10 revenue. Quebec & Winnipeg just don't have the venue at the moment. Winnipeg's Arena is new, but they built it too small(whether or not it's expandable? I don't know).

Player 61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 04:55 PM
  #21
David_99
Registered User
 
David_99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Moncton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transported Upstater View Post
Milwaukee would not be a good place for the NHL.
No? I heard a lot of good things, but I guess not enough good things

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transported Upstater View Post
Houston is the 4th biggest city in America, and it's easily bigger than any Canadian city not named Toronto. And there's TONS, TONS, of money in Houston. Do I think it would be a good spot for the NHL? Not particularly.
Yeah, I didn't say it but that's what I meant. If any team moved, I wouldn't mind a Nashville or Phoenix(though I know they are staying put) going to Houston. I know they like their hockey in Texas. It would be a tragedy though, if an Edmonton or Buffalo moved there.

Isn't Atlanta also one of the biggest cities? Hasn't helped them much lol

David_99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 04:57 PM
  #22
Transported Upstater
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Take care, all. :)
Country: United States
Posts: 22,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atwater Ghost View Post
I was shocked to see just how much Phoenix is losing( more than 30 Millions!!!!) & I'm also disturbed to see Chicago on that list of bottom dwellers.
It's going to take years for Chicago to recover from having probably the second-worst owner in NHL history. Chicago is arguably the best sports city in America; they support their teams and have good hockey fans, believe me.

Phoenix can lose all the money they want, and nothing will happen. Why? Because if they move, they owe the arena people many hundreds of millions of dollars for breaking the arena lease, and that's not going to happen.

Quote:
I know there are huge obstacles in Hamilton with Toronto/Buffalo claiming the territory, but you would have to think they would generate top 10 revenue. Quebec & Winnipeg just don't have the venue at the moment. Winnipeg's Arena is new, but they built it too small(whether or not it's expandable? I don't know).
I'll be honest: there's no city in North America that I'd more like to see the NHL come to than Quebec. Look at my avatar for god sakes. But they have to have a new arena first before anything can move forward...and they also have to find a team willing to sell.

Winnipeg Arena is really the wrong size: It's too big for AHL hockey, but not what the NHL would be looking for in terms of a relocation site.

Transported Upstater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 05:04 PM
  #23
Transported Upstater
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Take care, all. :)
Country: United States
Posts: 22,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_99 View Post
No? I heard a lot of good things, but I guess not enough good things
It's not big enough and doesn't really have the population base to draw from, IMO. Wisconsin is a NCAA and NFL state, and the rise of the Blackhawks should begin to re-solidify the Milwaukee area as pro-Hawks, IMO.

Quote:
Yeah, I didn't say it but that's what I meant. If any team moved, I wouldn't mind a Nashville or Phoenix(though I know they are staying put) going to Houston. I know they like their hockey in Texas. It would be a tragedy though, if an Edmonton or Buffalo moved there.
I was born and raised in Central New York. I said at the time, very clearly and repeatedly, that I'd rather see Buffalo and Pittsburgh keep their teams than have the Leafs win a Stanley Cup. And I meant every word. Both are terrific hockey cities.

I'm extremely happy that Katz is going to finally bring some well-deserved stability to the Edmonton ownership situation, and I expect nothing but bright futures for them ahead. Edmonton, of all places, losing an NHL team would have made the NHL a complete joke.

Quote:
Isn't Atlanta also one of the biggest cities? Hasn't helped them much lol
Atlanta's owners are cheap *******s that don't know how to run a team to save their lives, and possibly don't even care. Atlanta is one city that is steadily growing, and the corporate base is pretty solid and improving. Traffic is a nightmare, though...worst in the country per-capita, easily.

Also, Atlanta is another team tied to their arena lease, so there's no prayer of them leaving, either.

Transported Upstater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 05:08 PM
  #24
Transported Upstater
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Take care, all. :)
Country: United States
Posts: 22,984
vCash: 500
Here are two references for American cities (I know, Wikipedia, lol.)

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population
This is strictly the size of the city proper, NOT the metro area.

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...opolitan_areas
This is the size of metro areas, which is enlightening, especially for cities like Miami which are outside of the downtown core almost entirely suburban sprawl, and are completely impossible to gauge if you look at the city proper.

Transported Upstater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 05:10 PM
  #25
Player 61
#Winning
 
Player 61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,122
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Player 61
By no means would I really want to steal someones team(this is a last resort). I hated it when it happened to the Expo's. But, if they are serious about one more expansion to Las Vegas or Oklahoma City or Houston or where ever, one of those teams needs to be in Canada. Although I'm not exactly thrilled with a 32 team league.

Player 61 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 11:07 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.