HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Bettman shares thoughts on Thrashers ownership

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-08-2010, 08:51 PM
  #26
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telfo View Post
people leave out the fact that there are many sunbelt franchises that are successful. San Jose, Dallas, Carolina, Anaheim, Tampa(up until the last few years).

notice anything different about those teams compared to the ones not doing so well (Atlanta, Florida, etc).

WINNING

none of the teams doing poorly have done enough winning to really build enough of a fan base to get them through the tough years.
Tell me....do the tickets in Atlanta say 'National Hockey League game' or do they say 'Thrashers win'??

You don't pay to see the home team win....you pay to see the game. The product is professional hockey, not home team wins. If a team can't be in at least a break even point without being in the top 8 in their conference...that is problematic.

Eastern Conference teams ranked by current standings:
1- Washington 2- New Jersey 3- Buffalo 4- Pittsburgh 5- Ottawa 6- Montreal 7- Tampa Bay 8-Philadelphia 9- Boston 10-NYR 11-Atlanta 12- Florida 13-NYI 14- Carolina 15- Toronto

Eastern Conference teams ranked by current avg. attendance:
1- Montreal 2- Philadelphia 3-Toronto 4- Buffalo 5- Washington 6- NYR 7- Ottawa 8- Boston 9- Pittsburgh 10- New Jersey 11- Florida 12- Tampa Bay 13- Carolina 14- Atlanta 15- NYI

I don't see that much correlation there. The second best team in the east is 10th in attendance. The worst team in the East is 3rd in attendance (100% capacity), Tampa is in a playoff spot and are 12th of 15 in attendance....if winning means fans...shouldn't they be higher? Ottawa hasn't had a very good playoff record and still average 18,000 a game...and that is low for them.

There are more examples than the East....in the West all you have to do is look at Phoenix and Colorado. Both teams are doing great. They are 5th and 6th respectively in the West...yet they are 27th and 30th (respectively) in the league when it comes to attendance.

Winning doesn't equal fans. Tampa Bay has won a Stanley Cup...they are in a playoff spot right now....they are 24th in the league in attendance...averaging under 15,000 a game (reported not paid).

If you need to have a winning team for a long period of time to be financially stable when you aren't winning...you are destined for failure. Winning isn't easy....re-building happens. Re-building can be nearly a decade of sub-par performances.....if a team can't depend on the market to pay to see NHL games during that time....it's failure waiting to happen. The good thing about the NHL is...even when colossal failure does happen, the league will still get their shin pads on and service the market anyway. Lukewarm fans have ZERO motivation to go support their team...because they know that no matter how bad it gets...the NHL will fight tooth and nail to keep the team there. A perfect example is Phoenix, they were in court because a rich guy wanted to move them....the league fought to prevent that...the team is in the hands of the NHL trying to hammer out a sale to a group that will keep the team there. Isn't that motivation to show support for your team? To show these prospective owners they can depend on the market? To show the NHL they were right in saving the market? To show the threat of relocation was undeserved?
What do they do in response? They struggle to average over 10,000 a game...a game only a week or two ago barely had 9,000 in attendance, again...reported not paid. Way to prove your worthy of NHL hockey! Way to stick up for your team! But that's right...they don't have to...the NHL will keep the team there regardless (supposedly).

Send a wake-up call...support your team or it's gone. Pay to see the highest calibre hockey on earth because you enjoy the game...if enough people in these markets can't do that...they shouldn't be NHL markets.

Jeffrey93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 07:11 AM
  #27
AtlantaWhaler
Moderator
Thrash/Preds/Sabres
 
AtlantaWhaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 12,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
Those teams have been around for like 85 years. I'm pretty sure that market has proven itself long long ago. THAT was mis-management in Chicago when Wirtz blacked out home games and alienated their fan base. The market QUICKLY rebounded showing that it is a very strong hockey market.
Chicago is a good example of the point the article and I am tying to make. For a number of years, Chicago had poor attendance because they were sick of paying $$ for a crappy product being put out by crappy ownership. When the ownership showed they care and put a competitive team on the ice, the fans came back and now Chicago is a great franchise with a great fan base.

The only difference between Chicago and Atlanta is that Chicago had decades to build a fan base. Atlanta has had poor management from the start. The article even states that attendance averaged over 17,000 when the franchise started, but 10 years and 0 playoff wins later, this has now dropped by 4,000. Fans just aren't buying into the crap the ownership is spewing and neither would most markets.

AtlantaWhaler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 07:35 AM
  #28
TCNorthstars
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Traverse City, MI
Posts: 1,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IslesDude View Post

Bottom line is that these teams are built with leftovers from other teams. Original six teams and more established franchises will have the first pick when choosing management. The guys running new teams tend to be very inexperienced.
You make a very good arguement for CONTRACTION. I don't think the NHL should be moving these teams. They need to get rid of them all together.

TCNorthstars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 09:42 AM
  #29
ATHF
Go Jets Go!
 
ATHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 845
vCash: 500
For all of the people who are talking about ownership, who is to say that if Atlanta Spirit sells the team to someone else that they would rent the building to the hockey team? There's nothing written in stone that they would allow a new ownership group to rent out the building and if they're able to renegotiate the naming rights as there have been rumblings that they are doing, where would that leave the Thrashers?

Atlanta Spirit gets to own the building and the Atlanta Hawks, while probably bringing in a supplemental deal to allow the WNBA team to pick up second anchor status in a newly negotiated naming rights deal. They get to have more dates to fill with concerts that make money rather than hockey games that are seemingly a break-even proposition at best right now and into the forseeable future.

I'm not saying that they have to move, but it's not as simple a situation as it appears to be in that a new ownership group wouldn't somehow be the cure-all for everything that is wrong with the franchise.

ATHF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 10:44 AM
  #30
AtlantaWhaler
Moderator
Thrash/Preds/Sabres
 
AtlantaWhaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 12,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATHF View Post
For all of the people who are talking about ownership, who is to say that if Atlanta Spirit sells the team to someone else that they would rent the building to the hockey team? There's nothing written in stone that they would allow a new ownership group to rent out the building and if they're able to renegotiate the naming rights as there have been rumblings that they are doing, where would that leave the Thrashers?

Atlanta Spirit gets to own the building and the Atlanta Hawks, while probably bringing in a supplemental deal to allow the WNBA team to pick up second anchor status in a newly negotiated naming rights deal. They get to have more dates to fill with concerts that make money rather than hockey games that are seemingly a break-even proposition at best right now and into the forseeable future.

I'm not saying that they have to move, but it's not as simple a situation as it appears to be in that a new ownership group wouldn't somehow be the cure-all for everything that is wrong with the franchise.
I understand they can rent it out to whomever they want, but why would they sell the team to someone who wouldn't keep the team in the building they own? That's crazy. Plus...the WNBA's Atlanta team averages 7,700 attendance. I know the Thrashers are in a lot of attendance jokes here, but come on.

If they were to sell the team, I would imagine it would be in their best interest to have an agreement in place to keep the team in the building for a long time.

AtlantaWhaler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 11:08 AM
  #31
ATHF
Go Jets Go!
 
ATHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlantaWhaler View Post
I understand they can rent it out to whomever they want, but why would they sell the team to someone who wouldn't keep the team in the building they own? That's crazy. Plus...the WNBA's Atlanta team averages 7,700 attendance. I know the Thrashers are in a lot of attendance jokes here, but come on.

If they were to sell the team, I would imagine it would be in their best interest to have an agreement in place to keep the team in the building for a long time.
If they're wanting to get the team off of the books in terms of the losses for operating the franchise, they could just as easily decide that they don't want to be involved in having other losses from having the team as a tenant in the building if there are more lucrative opportunities out there with concerts or the like.

It's not just about whether there are dates filled for the building, but whether those dates can make money. While Spirit wouldn't be on the hook for the running of the franchise, they would still be on the hook for paying all of the expenses of operating the arena for the games. If it's not enough of a benefit to them and they could make more money elsewhere, I could easily see them wanting to get out of the hockey business altogether.

I wasn't trying to make a dig on the attendance of the Thrashers, I was just saying that if they have a way to make more money by selling the Thrashers and having more dates filled with more lucrative events, would they be willing to give up that extra money?

It may not ultimately be the way that it goes down, but I'm merely pointing out that getting a new owner wouldn't be the total solution to the problem that some feel it might be.

ATHF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 11:17 AM
  #32
GetPucksDeep
Registered User
 
GetPucksDeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the other Duluth
Country: United States
Posts: 3,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATHF View Post
If they're wanting to get the team off of the books in terms of the losses for operating the franchise, they could just as easily decide that they don't want to be involved in having other losses from having the team as a tenant in the building if there are more lucrative opportunities out there with concerts or the like.

It's not just about whether there are dates filled for the building, but whether those dates can make money. While Spirit wouldn't be on the hook for the running of the franchise, they would still be on the hook for paying all of the expenses of operating the arena for the games. If it's not enough of a benefit to them and they could make more money elsewhere, I could easily see them wanting to get out of the hockey business altogether.

I wasn't trying to make a dig on the attendance of the Thrashers, I was just saying that if they have a way to make more money by selling the Thrashers and having more dates filled with more lucrative events, would they be willing to give up that extra money?

It may not ultimately be the way that it goes down, but I'm merely pointing out that getting a new owner wouldn't be the total solution to the problem that some feel it might be.
How are you going to fill more dates? There aren't that many concert tours. There are 365 days a year - and hockey uses what, 45? Spirit is making good money on the arena now. They would make less on the arena with no hockey team. Their best business plan is to have winning hockey and basketball. Philips is already consistently voted at the top of arena concert venues in the country. It's plenty booked for that purpose.

GetPucksDeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 11:51 AM
  #33
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 13,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetNoneIn View Post
How are you going to fill more dates? There aren't that many concert tours. There are 365 days a year - and hockey uses what, 45? Spirit is making good money on the arena now. They would make less on the arena with no hockey team. Their best business plan is to have winning hockey and basketball. Philips is already consistently voted at the top of arena concert venues in the country. It's plenty booked for that purpose.
Correct.

Even with their 13K avg attendance per game, the Thrashers account for more tickets sold than EVERY non-sporting event (concerts, ice-shows, circus, etc) at the Philips Arena combined - and Philips is already the #10 concert venue in the world (based on Pollstar's counts of non-sporting event tickets sold).

There is no way ASG could double the number of events at Philips (and certainly not at anywhere near NHL prices) if the Thrashers left.

If there were concert events out there that they could book, they would be booking them now. It is not just an issue of open dates - the Staples Center hosted five professional sports teams (2 NBA, 1 NHL, 1 WNBA, 1 AFL (now defunct)) and still drew more concert traffic than Philips.

Cut-and-pasting from yet another arena thead:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caeldan View Post
I wonder though, on a given night for an arena venue... which results in higher profit margins typically for a building owner: a concert or a sports franchise (in this case NHL).

I mean, ticket sales - you'd be guaranteed 41 nights of 18k+ at a variety of prices (which generally on average are higher than that of a concert ticket - but a concert can squeeze in some more fans cause of floor seating too). However you have the cost of the ice upkeep vs that of the set being built, and then you also need to pay the band and their riders.

So then it comes down to, do you make more money off a second team in the building or by running 41 concerts?
The problem is, there is not enough extra concert traffic to book those 41+ dates.

A single pro-team at sellout capacity likely exceeds the entire annual number of tickest sold to ALL non-sporting events combined.

Cut-and-pasting from another multi-tenant arena thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOST
True, ACC could host a second NHL team, but it would have to sacrifice some key dates for concerts and the ACC is already one of the busiest venues in the world for non-sporting events according to Pollstar.

GHOST
So is the Staples Center.

According to the 2008 Pollstar Numbers:

http://www.greaterbaltimore.org/Port...lboard2009.pdf

Quote:
TOP 100 WORLDWIDE Arena Venues

2008 YEAR END TICKET SALES
1. O2 Arena London, UNITED KINGDOM 1,806,447
2. Madison Square Garden Arena New York, NY 1,161,035
3. Manchester Evening News Arena Manchester, UNITED KINGDOM 1,157,892
4. Sportpaleis Antwerpen Merksem, BELGIUM 889,137
5. Air Canada Centre Toronto, CANADA 723,469
6. Bell Centre Montreal, CANADA 723,256
7. Arena Monterrey Monterrey, MEXICO 633,635
8. Staples Center Los Angeles, CA 534,278
9. Acer Arena Sydney, AUSTRALIA 522,696
10. Philips Arena Atlanta, GA 521,958

All figures are for tickets sold worldwide as reported to POLLSTAR for shows played between 1/1/08 and 12/31/08.
The ACC currently draws ~189K more non-sporting tickets sold than the Staples Center (723K vs 534K) - a number that would be dwarfed by another 40+ NHL games (41 regular season games @ ACC = 41 x 18.8K = 770K tickets). A second team in the ACC would likely sell more tickets than all of the current non-sporting events combined. For comparison, the lowly Clippers sold ~647K tickets at the Staples center in '08-'09.
You can be sure that if ASG sold the Thrashers and kept them on as a tenant, that they would still make money on those NHL dates, between lease payments, percentages of concessions & parking, sponsorships & advertising, incremental luxury suite revenue, etc.

A bigger question would be whether there would be any group willing to buy the Thrashers and keep them in Atlanta where their revenues (under any lease agreement) would be lower than they are now, expenses comparable (unless they take the Clippers model and operate with near minimum payroll), and without profits from arena operations to bouy the bottom line.


Last edited by kdb209: 02-09-2010 at 12:01 PM.
kdb209 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 12:08 PM
  #34
cptjeff
[insert joke here]
 
cptjeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Washington, DC.
Country: United States
Posts: 8,941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian91 View Post
Actually Mr. Bettman, you have moved several teams from perfectly good Canadian markets into unstable American markets with not enough fan or media support. All of the struggling American markets (or SAM, if you will) are currently drawing worse than all the Canadian teams that you moved down. So why not bring those struggling teams back up north?

It's your ignorance, and complete lack of respect that gives you a bad reputation.
Yaddy yaddy yah...

Bettman tried to keep the teams there. Winnipeg was bleeding money, and they couldn't find a new owner. At all. Nobody wanted to touch the toxic asset that was the Jets. So they sold it to somebody who would move the team.

And Quebec- They just came to a complete impasse in terms of arena. The team insisted on a new one becuase they couldn't make money in the old one, and the city wouldn't build it or give them the kind of deal Denver would.

But when other Canadian franchises were facing relocation, like the Flames, Oilers and Sens, guess who succeeded in keeping them there. His name is begins with a B and is 7 letters long.

If you were right about Bettman hating Canada we'd be talking about the Houston Oilers and Kansas City Flames right now.

cptjeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 12:24 PM
  #35
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,891
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcspence View Post
Let me make it simple for the few, but persistent, cold climate fans who just don't get it.

Canadian interest in the NHL is arguably at a peak. That market is saturated. Moving a "failed" southern franchise to Hamil-Que-Winn-ifax does nothing to grow the league or the sport.

There is a potential hockey market an order of magnitude bigger than Canada's in the country immediately to the south, and it just happens to be the richest nation on the planet. The league would be asinine to ignore that reality.

If you want to argue that the NHL/Bettman have done a poor job of marketing, selecting owners, etc., that's perfectly valid. Criticizing the very existence of southern teams, and insulting their fans at every opportunity, is short sighted and foolish.
How is keeping a failing franchise in a market that's completely indifferent to it going to do good for the league or the sport?

I would much rather see league revenues grow with the addition of a couple more Canadian teams, than to see half-empty buildings in markets like Atlanta, Florida, Phoenix, Tampa Bay, Nashville, etc.

And it doesn't even necessarily have to be Canadian cities (although I think we all agree that Winnipeg, Quebec, Hamilton could all support their teams better than any of those US cities I just mentioned). Cities like Seattle and Portland would do a damn good job of supporting their team!

As in any business, it's completely assinine to try to grow when you don't even have a solid enough foundation to grow off of.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 12:32 PM
  #36
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcspence View Post
Let me make it simple for the few, but persistent, cold climate fans who just don't get it.

Canadian interest in the NHL is arguably at a peak. That market is saturated. Moving a "failed" southern franchise to Hamil-Que-Winn-ifax does nothing to grow the league or the sport.

There is a potential hockey market an order of magnitude bigger than Canada's in the country immediately to the south, and it just happens to be the richest nation on the planet. The league would be asinine to ignore that reality.

If you want to argue that the NHL/Bettman have done a poor job of marketing, selecting owners, etc., that's perfectly valid. Criticizing the very existence of southern teams, and insulting their fans at every opportunity, is short sighted and foolish.
You critisize cold weather fans for being unwilling to accept the possibility of a southern team being successful, but then state that Canadian interest in hockey is at its peak and the market is saturated. It seems to me that it is possible that two wrongs don't make a right. Perhaps it is not only the cold weather fans that don't get it.

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 12:43 PM
  #37
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlantaWhaler View Post
Chicago is a good example of the point the article and I am tying to make. For a number of years, Chicago had poor attendance because they were sick of paying $$ for a crappy product being put out by crappy ownership. When the ownership showed they care and put a competitive team on the ice, the fans came back and now Chicago is a great franchise with a great fan base.

The only difference between Chicago and Atlanta is that Chicago had decades to build a fan base. Atlanta has had poor management from the start. The article even states that attendance averaged over 17,000 when the franchise started, but 10 years and 0 playoff wins later, this has now dropped by 4,000. Fans just aren't buying into the crap the ownership is spewing and neither would most markets.
Chicago had really bad attendance for 3 years. There was an awful lot more going on in Chicago than just mediocre results on the ice. Local blackouts didn't help to keep the fan base interested in the team. It was a brief period of Ownership jerking the fans around.

Atlanta averaged over 17,000 fans once....their first season. They had an awful lot of time to drum up ticket sales for a single season, after that...it plummeted and has stayed there ever since. You act as if the Thrashers drew strong crowds for the first 8 years and then the strong fan base got fed up with the team's results. Not so. They have had 1 good year of attendance...their first year. That's it.
Their ticket prices have also been steadily dropping since that first season.
The Thrashers put together 2 strong years after the lockout (recently) making the playoffs once...the ticket sales didn't see much of a response. Attendance rose slightly for a year and then dropped back down.

Jeffrey93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 12:48 PM
  #38
GetPucksDeep
Registered User
 
GetPucksDeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the other Duluth
Country: United States
Posts: 3,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
...
Their ticket prices have also been steadily dropping since that first season.
...

false.
Ticket prices have gone steadily higher.

GetPucksDeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 12:56 PM
  #39
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,891
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetNoneIn View Post
false.
Ticket prices have gone steadily higher.
false.

Ticket prices had steadily dropped since their first season, then spiked up after the lockout, then dropped again, then spiked up again, and have been constant for 2 seasons now.

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 12:59 PM
  #40
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcspence View Post
Let me make it simple for the few, but persistent, cold climate fans who just don't get it.

Canadian interest in the NHL is arguably at a peak. That market is saturated. Moving a "failed" southern franchise to Hamil-Que-Winn-ifax does nothing to grow the league or the sport.

There is a potential hockey market an order of magnitude bigger than Canada's in the country immediately to the south, and it just happens to be the richest nation on the planet. The league would be asinine to ignore that reality.

If you want to argue that the NHL/Bettman have done a poor job of marketing, selecting owners, etc., that's perfectly valid. Criticizing the very existence of southern teams, and insulting their fans at every opportunity, is short sighted and foolish.
Short sighted? How long has this little southern experiment been going on for?
Getting 'new fans' is fine...I get that argument, but it doesn't justify firing 8 teams into the southern US in 7 years.
The league needs full arenas to increase their revenue and to give evidence for a tv deal. Who on earth would pay to broadcast NHL games nationally when some of those games will be on their network when 10,700 fans are in the arena?!?
This argument of 'growing the game' is a solid one, but the path the NHL took to do it was too much too soon.
Nobody is insulting the fans of these poorly supported teams, they are insulting the millions and millions of non-fans in the same market. Each of these failing teams has great fans, they just don't have enough of them.

Jeffrey93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 01:00 PM
  #41
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetNoneIn View Post
false.
Ticket prices have gone steadily higher.
Ummm....no, no they haven't.

Jeffrey93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 01:02 PM
  #42
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 14,137
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cptjeff View Post
Yaddy yaddy yah...

Bettman tried to keep the teams there. Winnipeg was bleeding money, and they couldn't find a new owner. At all. Nobody wanted to touch the toxic asset that was the Jets. So they sold it to somebody who would move the team.

And Quebec- They just came to a complete impasse in terms of arena. The team insisted on a new one becuase they couldn't make money in the old one, and the city wouldn't build it or give them the kind of deal Denver would.

But when other Canadian franchises were facing relocation, like the Flames, Oilers and Sens, guess who succeeded in keeping them there. His name is begins with a B and is 7 letters long.

If you were right about Bettman hating Canada we'd be talking about the Houston Oilers and Kansas City Flames right now.
Question: If Winnipeg was "bleeding money" then what is Phoenix doing right now? Because if Winnipeg was "bleeding money" then is there a term you would use to describe losing 3x as much money?

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 01:08 PM
  #43
AtlantaWhaler
Moderator
Thrash/Preds/Sabres
 
AtlantaWhaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 12,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauser View Post
false.

Ticket prices had steadily dropped since their first season, then spiked up after the lockout, then dropped again, then spiked up again, and have been constant for 2 seasons now.
This is true.

...

The fact that decisions like trading our future for Tkachuk for half a season and putting Eric Christensen and Jason Williams on the first line because they are battling a court case and won't spend any cash is why fans don't want to spend money for the product. Atlanta can and will be a great hockey town once ownership gets their heads out of their arses and puts together a decent product (Waddell still has a job!!!).

AtlantaWhaler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 01:10 PM
  #44
cptjeff
[insert joke here]
 
cptjeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Washington, DC.
Country: United States
Posts: 8,941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Question: If Winnipeg was "bleeding money" then what is Phoenix doing right now? Because if Winnipeg was "bleeding money" then is there a term you would use to describe losing 3x as much money?
Bleeding money (though a lot of those numbers were Moyes putting his other business losses on the books of the team) in a market with drastically more room for growth.

cptjeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 01:11 PM
  #45
KevFist
is best pony
 
KevFist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Birmingham, AL
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 5,100
vCash: 500
Hockey fans crack me up. They seem to be the only sports fans who enjoy seeing franchises fail and the popularity of their sport not be give nthe chance to spread.

KevFist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 01:25 PM
  #46
Telfo
THRASHERS
 
Telfo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneel View Post
Hockey fans crack me up. They seem to be the only sports fans who enjoy seeing franchises fail and the popularity of their sport not be give nthe chance to spread.
and the only ones who take attendance so personally

Telfo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 01:25 PM
  #47
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlantaWhaler View Post
This is true.

...

The fact that decisions like trading our future for Tkachuk for half a season and putting Eric Christensen and Jason Williams on the first line because they are battling a court case and won't spend any cash is why fans don't want to spend money for the product. Atlanta can and will be a great hockey town once ownership gets their heads out of their arses and puts together a decent product (Waddell still has a job!!!).
What evidence do you have to support this? Actually...forget evidence...what makes you think this?

Jeffrey93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 02:17 PM
  #48
He Lied to Mario
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
I'm getting pretty tired of the same ol' things....

1 - Bettman stating he (the NHL) is 'committed to the market'
2 - Treating relocation as a sickness instead of a cure
3 - People giving the market a pass because of "mis-management"

Remember when the Penguins were having a hard time getting a new arena.....Bettman wasn't so "committed" then was he? He uses that card of being committed when it best suits the league and only the league, not the franchise in question, the players or the fans.
Doing everything you can to not relocate isn't always something to brag about. Look at the other major leagues...they have all relocated teams that needed to be relocated. The difference, the NHL relocated or expanded to awful markets that would most likely be relocated already if they weren't selected by the league. If the Coyotes had been part of the WHA and joined the NHL....they'd be long gone by now. Because the league chose to relocate there...they feel they can't re-relocate the franchise. Why, I dunno.
Mis-management is nothing new to sports. That is no excuse. The product is NHL hockey, if you can't get a decent minimum amount of support when ownership is boggling things up....your market doesn't like they sport...they like winning teams. Those markets deserve to have several Harlem Globetrotter games a year, not an NHL franchise. Every team that seems to struggle in their market has it blamed on mis-management.....either the NHL is full of millionaire and billionaires that don't have a clue about running a business...or it's being used too often as an excuse for weak support in the market.
Where were you when Bettman was fighting for the Penguins to stay in Pittsburgh? Bettman worked on the Penguins situation, kept saying they needed a new arena and forced the hand of the Pennsylvania government to finally fund the arena. Bettman met with the governor Ed Rendell and different mayors of Pittsburgh. What part of that doesn't show "commitment".

He Lied to Mario is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 02:24 PM
  #49
Pegger5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
I am stealing this from another board but everyone needs to realize this. (from WPGISNHL)

"The Atlanta Spirit own the building, the NBA Hawks and the NHL Thrashers. They are getting all revenues from all streams. To sell off only the Thrashers to "local ownership" is not appealing and will never be appealing as those new owners would then have to come to some agreement with Spirit as "renters" regarding the facility they play out of and would have, at best, limited % access to very needed and necessary revenue streams. There is no doubt that Spirit is going to purge the Thrashers...their (speculated) standard NHL "seven years in a market" requirement will be fulfilled on Sept 21, 2010 which is prior to the start of next season...and the only question is...when is the purge going to happen?

The Phoenix Coyotes are one step forward (in a bad way) of the Atlanta situation in that all of the team owners to date have come to eventually realize that the team itself will never ever work. The building owners (Glendale) are continually being pressed into giving up major major concessions to these past and potential future team owners (ie: subsidize them) to preserve their one and only major tenant in the building. Glendale is being blackmailed into something at the public's cost. If they choose not to succumb to this pressure, expect Phoenix to move to....KC(?)...or ??

The Atlanta Spirit can purge their "money loser" very easily at a specific point in time...is it this year or next? This is what makes all the little rumours and rumblings so interesting!"

my thoughts


The NHL has NO control over Atlanta Thrashers owners because they own the arena. (the only NHL ready arena in Atlanta) This is not a similiar situation at all to Phoenix... The NHL can not force the "Spirit" to not sell the Thrashers to people that would keep the team in Atlanta. Nor can the NHL take over the team. The Spirit could evict an NHL owned team from Phillips arena.. The NHL are helpless because the Spirit group would not negotiate with any new local NHL team owners.. or it would be a bad negotiation for a new owner.

Basically the NHL has no control as to what happens in Atlanta except to approve the sale to new owners and a new NHL approved city.. This is the only thing the NHL has control of.
This will happen sooner than later. Sorry Atlanta fans.

Pegger5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2010, 03:04 PM
  #50
Canadian91
Registered User
 
Canadian91's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cptjeff View Post
Yaddy yaddy yah...

Bettman tried to keep the teams there. Winnipeg was bleeding money, and they couldn't find a new owner. At all. Nobody wanted to touch the toxic asset that was the Jets. So they sold it to somebody who would move the team.

And Quebec- They just came to a complete impasse in terms of arena. The team insisted on a new one becuase they couldn't make money in the old one, and the city wouldn't build it or give them the kind of deal Denver would.

But when other Canadian franchises were facing relocation, like the Flames, Oilers and Sens, guess who succeeded in keeping them there. His name is begins with a B and is 7 letters long.

If you were right about Bettman hating Canada we'd be talking about the Houston Oilers and Kansas City Flames right now.
Would you look at that... Bettman isn't the only one who is ignorant.

If Winnipeg was "bleeding money" as you call it, then what are Phoenix, Atlanta, Carolina, Colorado, Tampa Bay and NYI doing???

Yes, Canadian franchises have had some trouble in the past, but they've fixed themselves because they are natural hockey markets, and have the fan and media support, we don't know if the SAM's will rebound from their downward spiral, because they have little fan support and no media coverage.

Canadian91 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 06:51 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.