The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Hamilton II: The City, The League, and The Coliseum
What purpose does a 80km/50mi territorial zone serve then? Just an area that a team is permitted to charge an exorbitant fee to allow another team to enter?
The problem is, there is no real proof that the NHL has had any kind of agreement with Toronto. There really isn't any proof that the reason a team stays out of Hamilton is because Toronto can veto. Notice when teams are kept away from Hamilton, the NHL tries to make excuses that exclude any Toronto interference. If Balsillie would have waited until today to purchase the Thrashers for way more than True North and move them to Hamilton with no prior involvement with the NHL they would still find a way to deny them.
My memory is hazy on this, however, I seem to re-call that their was at one time in the NHL's franchise agreements / by-laws a clause that a member club did have the right of veto within a 50 mile (as the Crow flies) radius. It was either removed entirely or amended in order to skirt anti-competition legislation at some point over the past decade. Balsillie turned up a letter from MLSE Council to the NHL which I believe was dated 2006 or 7 that stated quite clearly that they felt they did indeed hold veto rights over Hamilton & would push the issue should any attempt be made by the league & or a 3rd party to relo or expand into "their" market.
Its really hard to say/speculate what MLSE position is on the issue today as the whole enchilada's up for sale. Maybe they change their tune & grab as much as they can in indemnification fee's before selling the Leafs, Marlies, Raptors & TFC etc. Its possible. Maybe the new owners permit it & grab the cash in order to paydown their purchase & debt load of MLSE. Maybe whoever buys MLSE off-loads TFC, the Marlies & Raptors?. There are just all kinds of things that could dramatically alter the dynamic & balance in Hamiltons favor pursuant the pending sale of MLSE; while at the same time, we have a new owner in Buffalo who has yet to make any definitive statements about the issue, maybe could use the dough, is realistic about the truly lack of harm a team in Hamilton would cause the Sabres and gives it a green light for the right price.
If we turned on the Way Back Machine, pretending Balsillie didnt do what he did through Pitts-Nash-Phx & was in good standing with the NHL, bid (against TNSE, thus upping the ante for ASG) on the Thrashers with a desire to move them to Copps, the path might be clear as he'd be paying the relo fee PLUS a large sum indemnifying Toronto & Buffalo. With Winnipeg its strictly the relo fee. A new wrinkle btw as no teams ever been charged one of those before, Jersey paying indemnification to the NYR/Isles & Philly over broadcast rights; Anaheim paying McNall $25M of its $50M expansion fee (though rumored he only collected $12.5M). There seems to be a fair amount of things in play at the moment, and I for one remain hopeful & optimistic that Hamilton will win the day on this one. It'd be fabulous for the city itself, helping to spur on the rejuvenation of its downtown amongst a whole host of other positives.....
There is plenty wrong with 2nd team in Toronto the reason being after 20+ years Hamilton of fighting to get what was promised to them by the NHL. & Toronto all of sudden just comes & scoops 2nd NHL. team for themselves MLSE. alows it which they won't is wrong & selfish but what do you expect from Toronto they think there the center of the universe & have a me , my self & I Attitude about them .
What makes you think that Quebec City deserves an NHL. team ahead of Hamilton is it because you said so because Hamilton is ready to go right now reason being is they can renovate Copps on the fly without closing the arena down for construction & Hamilton makes more business sense anybody that thinks Quebec City is better for the NHL. than Hamilton has been smoking somthing ferice because the NHL. + Hamilton = alot more of this $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ than Winnipeg & Quebec City combined & don't get me wrong I think Quebec City deserves to have NHL. team back there just not ahead of Hamilton because we have been waiting longer for a team & are ready right now & as for that F\S code excuse shows you that bettman is getting to the bottom of the excuse barrel when it comes to Hamilton so Munch on that Melrose .
You really need to quit making such outlandish claims. When did the NHL ever promise Hamilton a team? I challenge you to find me an article ever stating this.
Hamilton would make more money than Winnipeg and Quebec City COMBINED?!?! Yes, let's exaggerate a little, shall we? BY making this statement, you are insinuating that a team in Hamilton would be bringing in revenue in the neighbourhood of $150 - $170 million. Only Toronto brings in this type of revenue. Fat chance that Hamilton would do the same.
Much has been made of how lucrative the Hamilton market would be given the critical mass of population within a hour's drive and the corresponding corporate presence to go along with it. Top 5 NHL revenue-earner some say. History with other sporting events would suggest otherwise..........
1. The Hamilton Tiger-Cats - They have averaged about 20,000 over the last 30 years in the CFL - dead last in the CFL - and have bled money profusely for as long as I can remember. Of particular not, in 1998 and 1999, back-to-back appearances in the Grey Cup no less, the Ti-Cats averaged less than 20,000 per game. IF the corporate presence is so substantial, why has the attendance not been significantly better?
2. The Hamilton BullDogs - Year after year this team has iced competitive teams that have challenged for the league championship and yet they are always in the bottom half of the league in attendance. The attendance issue is excacerbated in the playoffs - 2,000 per game in the Conference Finals...pathetic!
3. 1996 Grey Cup - Another financial disaster for the franchise. Tim Hortons purchasing thousands of seats prior to game time still could not mask the scene of thousands of empty seats in the stands. I believe this event lost the franchise money. The Grey Cup has not been back in Hamilton since. Again, if corporations are so prevalent in the area why did they not step and buy the tickets to the the Grey Cup, a once-in-a-decade affair?
4. 2007 Brier - 107, 199. That was the grand attendance total for Canada's most prestigious curling event..............the worst in 30 years. The lone exception being Brandon, which in 1982 drew 106,394 persons,.............in a city of 40,000 people. Curlers complained all week about the lack of atmosphere in the arena. Safe to say, the Brier will not be returning to the Hammer for a long time..........if ever again.
This city has proven time and again it is not much of a sports town and if the corporate presence was as strong as some here would suggest, I would have expected these various events to have been well-attended. As it is, I suspect an NHL team in Hamilton could do quite well, but not top-5 revenue well.......more like top 10-12 overall in the league.
You really need to quit making such outlandish claims. As it is, I suspect an NHL team in Hamilton could do quite well, but not top-5 revenue well.......more like top 10-12 overall in the league.
I agree. Could be anywhere from top 9-15. There are challenges. Hamilton itself is not exactly a bastion of head offices & corporate weight. The corporate sector so neccessary to sustainability in todays NHL would have to be solicited from far & wide. Travel-time could become an issue for many who after initially and enthusiastically buying suites, blocks of tickets etc find the commute problematical. Its far from the Bed of Roses' many assume it to be, but at the same time, IMO, the only logical locale for a 2nd team in S.O..
You really need to quit making such outlandish claims. When did the NHL ever promise Hamilton a team? I challenge you to find me an article ever stating this.
Hamilton would make more money than Winnipeg and Quebec City COMBINED?!?! Yes, let's exaggerate a little, shall we? BY making this statement, you are insinuating that a team in Hamilton would be bringing in revenue in the neighbourhood of $150 - $170 million. Only Toronto brings in this type of revenue. Fat chance that Hamilton would do the same.
Much has been made of how lucrative the Hamilton market would be given the critical mass of population within a hour's drive and the corresponding corporate presence to go along with it. Top 5 NHL revenue-earner some say. History with other sporting events would suggest otherwise..........
1. The Hamilton Tiger-Cats - They have averaged about 20,000 over the last 30 years in the CFL - dead last in the CFL - and have bled money profusely for as long as I can remember. Of particular not, in 1998 and 1999, back-to-back appearances in the Grey Cup no less, the Ti-Cats averaged less than 20,000 per game. IF the corporate presence is so substantial, why has the attendance not been significantly better?
2. The Hamilton BullDogs - Year after year this team has iced competitive teams that have challenged for the league championship and yet they are always in the bottom half of the league in attendance. The attendance issue is excacerbated in the playoffs - 2,000 per game in the Conference Finals...pathetic!
3. 1996 Grey Cup - Another financial disaster for the franchise. Tim Hortons purchasing thousands of seats prior to game time still could not mask the scene of thousands of empty seats in the stands. I believe this event lost the franchise money. The Grey Cup has not been back in Hamilton since. Again, if corporations are so prevalent in the area why did they not step and buy the tickets to the the Grey Cup, a once-in-a-decade affair?
4. 2007 Brier - 107, 199. That was the grand attendance total for Canada's most prestigious curling event..............the worst in 30 years. The lone exception being Brandon, which in 1982 drew 106,394 persons,.............in a city of 40,000 people. Curlers complained all week about the lack of atmosphere in the arena. Safe to say, the Brier will not be returning to the Hammer for a long time..........if ever again.
This city has proven time and again it is not much of a sports town and if the corporate presence was as strong as some here would suggest, I would have expected these various events to have been well-attended. As it is, I suspect an NHL team in Hamilton could do quite well, but not top-5 revenue well.......more like top 10-12 overall in the league.
1. First of all that was 12 years ago when the Tiger Cats where poorly runned & poorly marketed since Bob Young has taken over the avg. attendence has been between 23.000 - 25.000 depending on the who they where playing & that is pretty good for stadium tha seats 28.000 - 30.000 .
2. Bulldogs attendence has been droping since about 2006 around the same time Jim Balsille burst on to the seen trying to bring an NHL. team to city not to mention the team is poorly marketed it self well to out linning areas such as London , Kitchener\Waterloo , Niagara area , ect. plus the people in this city are getting sick of allways setteling for a minor league team in major city & want the best in the NHL. not 2nd best in the AHL.
3. The 1996 Grey Cup 2 words Toronto Argonauts ruined it not by playing or winning the game but hardley any of fans showed up for the game & I should know I was there .
4. Curling really who cares of a sport for janitors .
The fact is that Hamilton was promised an NHL. team if they built an arena we did & had prospective owner in Ron Joyce corprate sponsers all set up but where stabed in the back by the leafs , the knox family who owned the Sabres & last but not least John Ziegler who was the one who promised the team in the first place made the final plunge with knife by saying Hamilton will never get NHL. team as long as he lives so in that case I hope he is dead & rooting hell with his buddies Ballard & Knox .
It was Gary Bettman that said durring the coyotes fiasco that Hamilton would be 5th largest market in the league .
You really need to quit making such outlandish claims. When did the NHL ever promise Hamilton a team? I challenge you to find me an article ever stating this.
Hamilton would make more money than Winnipeg and Quebec City COMBINED?!?! Yes, let's exaggerate a little, shall we? BY making this statement, you are insinuating that a team in Hamilton would be bringing in revenue in the neighbourhood of $150 - $170 million. Only Toronto brings in this type of revenue. Fat chance that Hamilton would do the same.
Much has been made of how lucrative the Hamilton market would be given the critical mass of population within a hour's drive and the corresponding corporate presence to go along with it. Top 5 NHL revenue-earner some say. History with other sporting events would suggest otherwise..........
1. The Hamilton Tiger-Cats - They have averaged about 20,000 over the last 30 years in the CFL - dead last in the CFL - and have bled money profusely for as long as I can remember. Of particular not, in 1998 and 1999, back-to-back appearances in the Grey Cup no less, the Ti-Cats averaged less than 20,000 per game. IF the corporate presence is so substantial, why has the attendance not been significantly better?
2. The Hamilton BullDogs - Year after year this team has iced competitive teams that have challenged for the league championship and yet they are always in the bottom half of the league in attendance. The attendance issue is excacerbated in the playoffs - 2,000 per game in the Conference Finals...pathetic!
3. 1996 Grey Cup - Another financial disaster for the franchise. Tim Hortons purchasing thousands of seats prior to game time still could not mask the scene of thousands of empty seats in the stands. I believe this event lost the franchise money. The Grey Cup has not been back in Hamilton since. Again, if corporations are so prevalent in the area why did they not step and buy the tickets to the the Grey Cup, a once-in-a-decade affair?
4. 2007 Brier - 107, 199. That was the grand attendance total for Canada's most prestigious curling event..............the worst in 30 years. The lone exception being Brandon, which in 1982 drew 106,394 persons,.............in a city of 40,000 people. Curlers complained all week about the lack of atmosphere in the arena. Safe to say, the Brier will not be returning to the Hammer for a long time..........if ever again.
This city has proven time and again it is not much of a sports town and if the corporate presence was as strong as some here would suggest, I would have expected these various events to have been well-attended. As it is, I suspect an NHL team in Hamilton could do quite well, but not top-5 revenue well.......more like top 10-12 overall in the league.
You could pretty much point these same arguments to Toronto.
Basically what you're saying is Hamilton doesn't care about the CFL, AHL and curling. That doesn't mean anything in relation to an NHL team.
Its really hard to say/speculate what MLSE position is on the issue today as the whole enchilada's up for sale. Maybe they change their tune & grab as much as they can in indemnification fee's before selling the Leafs, Marlies, Raptors & TFC etc. Its possible. Maybe the new owners permit it & grab the cash in order to paydown their purchase & debt load of MLSE. Maybe whoever buys MLSE off-loads TFC, the Marlies & Raptors?. There are just all kinds of things that could dramatically alter the dynamic & balance in Hamiltons favor pursuant the pending sale of MLSE; while at the same time, we have a new owner in Buffalo who has yet to make any definitive statements about the issue, maybe could use the dough, is realistic about the truly lack of harm a team in Hamilton would cause the Sabres and gives it a green light for the right price.
Maybe a group comes together to buy MLSE, maybe they have an agreement among themselves, to build a 2nd arena in Markham. At the same time they try and get a 2nd team, if successful the group splits and they each have a Toronto team. Sorry Hamilton..
1. First of all that was 12 years ago when the Tiger Cats where poorly runned & poorly marketed since Bob Young has taken over the avg. attendence has been between 23.000 - 25.000 depending on the who they where playing & that is pretty good for stadium tha seats 28.000 - 30.000 .
2. Bulldogs attendence has been droping since about 2006 around the same time Jim Balsille burst on to the seen trying to bring an NHL. team to city not to mention the team is poorly marketed it self well to out linning areas such as London , Kitchener\Waterloo , Niagara area , ect. plus the people in this city are getting sick of allways setteling for a minor league team in major city & want the best in the NHL. not 2nd best in the AHL.
3. The 1996 Grey Cup 2 words Toronto Argonauts ruined it not by playing or winning the game but hardley any of fans showed up for the game & I should know I was there .
4. Curling really who cares of a sport for janitors .
The fact is that Hamilton was promised an NHL. team if they built an arena we did & had prospective owner in Ron Joyce corprate sponsers all set up but where stabed in the back by the leafs , the knox family who owned the Sabres & last but not least John Ziegler who was the one who promised the team in the first place made the final plunge with knife by saying Hamilton will never get NHL. team as long as he lives so in that case I hope he is dead & rooting hell with his buddies Ballard & Knox .
It was Gary Bettman that said durring the coyotes fiasco that Hamilton would be 5th largest market in the league .
1. Hamilton is still dead-last or near dead-last when it comes to attendance as it stands right now.
2. I'm sure most AHL teams are poorly marketed. Yet several average more than 5,000 per game. To average less than 2,000 per game in the playoffs is inexecusable. Winnipeg averages 8,000 + per game in the AHL and sells out all its suites.....and we HAD the NHL here at one point. IF anything, Winnipeg should be the ones upset with settling for a "minor league team" as you put it, yet the team probably pulls in the most revenue of any AHL team. What's Hamilton's excuse? They never had an NHL team to begin with so it's not like they had to learn to settle for less.
3. Toronto being in the game "ruined it"? Not sure I follow......
4. Who cares about curling? Apparently not the good people of Hamilton. The rest of Canada however............
You could pretty much point these same arguments to Toronto.
Basically what you're saying is Hamilton doesn't care about the CFL, AHL and curling. That doesn't mean anything in relation to an NHL team.
I'm saying the support for these various sports has been less than ideal and should cause some to question the financial slam-dunk that would the NHL's Hamilton whatevers.
Toronto has had some great years of CFL support plus all the corporate head offices. Something Hamilton doesn't have. Heck, Winnipeg has more corporate head offices than hamilton.
This idea that Hamilton wouldn't be a slam dunk for a NHL team is downright silly.
The Leafs have the hockey mad 8 million person Southern Ontario market all to themselves. Arguably that market could sustain 4 NHL teams. The NHL is seriously hurting revenues by leaving this market under served. And they probably know this. I would shocked not to see at least one additional NHL team in that market in the next 5 years.
Maybe a group comes together to buy MLSE, maybe they have an agreement among themselves, to build a 2nd arena in Markham. At the same time they try and get a 2nd team, if successful the group splits and they each have a Toronto team. Sorry Hamilton..
You are dreaming the NHL. has know intrest in putting 2nd team in Toronto if there is going to be 2nd team in southern Ontario it won't be in the GTA. it will be in south western ontario places like Hamilton , Kitchener , Cambridge , Aldershot thoses are unserved NHL. markets Balsille was talking about not the GTA. . As who will buy MLSE. it is pretty clear that rogers is the front runner & will not tolerate another arena nevermind a 2nd NHL. team in there yard .
How would a Vancouver "fan" know about some insider handshake deal that happened 6 years ago between the NHL and the Toronto Maple Leafs? highly, highly dubious.
Ya, I certainly have to agree with you on that one. First time Id heard about some "insider's handshake" amongst the Leafs, Wings etc, the financial heavyweights in the league collectively voting in favor of the Cap & the Lockout in order to protect their territorial rights. As far as Conspiracy Theories go, its a Doozy. Realistically, I do believe the Leafs feel they have a veto, and really they should have the right within the GTA proper, but I do question it when talking Hamilton, which is barely within the 50mile range (I think its like 48.2miles, maybe a bit less)..... They are entitled to indemnification over Broadcast Rights. No doubt about it.
This idea that Hamilton wouldn't be a slam dunk for a NHL team is downright silly.
The Leafs have the hockey mad 8 million person Southern Ontario market all to themselves. Arguably that market could sustain 4 NHL teams. The NHL is seriously hurting revenues by leaving this market under served. And they probably know this. I would shocked not to see at least one additional NHL team in that market in the next 5 years.
I absouloutly agree there will an NHL. team in southwestern ontario within the next 5 years wethier it is in a renovated Copps Coliseum or in new arena ethier in Hamilton , Cambridge , Aldershot or Kitchener . Southwestern Ontario is the true unserved market NHL. market in southern ontario not the GTA where they think they are the center of the universe .
No. MLSE does not have a Veto. They should not, in theory, be able to block a team in Hamilton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr
What purpose does a 80km/50mi territorial zone serve then? Just an area that a team is permitted to charge an exorbitant fee to allow another team to enter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion
My memory is hazy on this, however, I seem to re-call that their was at one time in the NHL's franchise agreements / by-laws a clause that a member club did have the right of veto within a 50 mile (as the Crow flies) radius. It was either removed entirely or amended in order to skirt anti-competition legislation at some point over the past decade. Balsillie turned up a letter from MLSE Council to the NHL which I believe was dated 2006 or 7 that stated quite clearly that they felt they did indeed hold veto rights over Hamilton & would push the issue should any attempt be made by the league & or a 3rd party to relo or expand into "their" market.
The NHL was quite aware that the single team veto was very likely to be rejected on anti-trust grounds in the wake of the Raiders decision. As a result, they approved a new By-Law (By-Law 36), which, among other things like specifying the criteria for approving/rejecting a relocation, removed the single team veto w.r.t. relocation if the League deemed it was in violation of anti-trust law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by By-Law 36.4(c)
(c) A proposed transfer of location receiving the affirmative votes of a majority of the Member Clubs present and voting shall be deemed to have been consented to by the League in the event that the prohibition on transfers recited in Section 4.2 of the Constitution is determined by counsel to the League specially retained for this purpose, based on all relevant factors, to be unlawful with respect to that proposed transfer.
The Leagues position is that the single team veto exists for expansion, but not relocation - that relocation requires only a simple majority. This position was the basis for the CCB ruling that the NHL's relocation restrictions did not violate the Competition Act.
Note also, that public statements by the Leafs during the Phoenix soap opera dispute that position - still claiming the right to veto with the implied threat of legal action against the League.
.....removed the single team veto w.r.t. relocation if the League deemed it was in violation of anti-trust law.
Thanks kdb. I couldnt remember the details so I wasnt able to link it or post it. Do you know when they introduced this new By-Law (36)?. Im thinking it was around 04-06. And technically are not all 30 clubs supposed to vote unanimously for the creation of any new By-Law or does majority carry the day?.
Thanks kdb. I couldnt remember the details so I wasnt able to link it or post it. Do you know when they introduced this new By-Law (36)?. Im thinking it was around 04-06. And technically are not all 30 clubs supposed to vote unanimously for the creation of any new By-Law or does majority carry the day?.
By-Law 36 was adopted in 1993.
From the CCB advisory ruling:
Quote:
The Bureau found no instance where a "veto" was exercised by an incumbent team to protect its local territory from entry by a competing franchise. Since at least 1993, no franchise has been permitted to exercise a veto to prevent a team from entering into its local territory. Further, under the NHL's rules and procedures, in respect of the proposed relocation of a franchise to Southern Ontario, the NHL would not permit any single team to exercise a veto, but would only require a majority vote. The Bureau may have concerns under the Act if a single team were entitled to exercise a veto to prevent a franchise from entering into its local region within Canada, but such concerns would have to be evaluated having regard to the facts and law applicable at the time such an event occurred.
By-Laws require a 2/3's vote to adopt.
The question then is whether this is a By-Law or a defacto amendment to the NHL Constitution - amendments require a 3/4's vote, however amendments to Article III (Membership), IV (Territorial Rights), IX (Dues and Assessments) , and XII (Amendments) require unanimous consent.
By-Law 36 was adopted in 1993......The question then is whether this is a By-Law or a defacto amendment to the NHL Constitution - amendments require a 3/4's vote, however amendments to Article III (Membership), IV (Territorial Rights), IX (Dues and Assessments) , and XII (Amendments) require unanimous consent.
Im a decade late, though some say 2 or 4. At anyrate, whats your interpretation of it?. A By-Law or Amendment to the Constitution?. It would appear to fall under Artcle IV, Territorial Rights and therefore required a unanimous vote, In 1993 if Im not mistaken, wasnt Steve Stavros at the helm in Toronto?. I cant imagine he'd have instructed Fletcher or whomever it was representing the Leafs at that BOG meeting to vote "yay" on that little nugget. This too wouldve' been pre-Bettman no?. Or very early in his tenure. Looks like we may have to call in the LawSquad on this one.
Im a decade late, though some say 2 or 4. At anyrate, whats your interpretation of it?. A By-Law or Amendment to the Constitution?. It would appear to fall under Artcle IV, Territorial Rights and therefore required a unanimous vote, In 1993 if Im not mistaken, wasnt Steve Stavros at the helm in Toronto?. I cant imagine he'd have instructed Fletcher or whomever it was representing the Leafs at that BOG meeting to vote "yay" on that little nugget. This too wouldve' been pre-Bettman no?. Or very early in his tenure. Looks like we may have to call in the LawSquad on this one.
I would guess that the NHL's position is that it is not an amendment, since it is only in force if the relocation restrictions are, in the League's opinion, illegal and thus unenforceable.
The other card the League has is the power of the Commissioner to interpret the League Rules (which include the NHL Constitution).
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHL Constitution Article 6.3(d)
(d) Interpretation of League Rules. The Commissioner shall have the authority to interpret, and from time to time establish policies and procedures regarding, the provisions of the Constitution, the By-Laws, and League Rules and resolutions, and their application and enforcement. Any determination made by the Commissioner with respect to any such matter shall be final and binding and shall not be subject to any review.
You really need to quit making such outlandish claims. When did the NHL ever promise Hamilton a team? I challenge you to find me an article ever stating this.
Hamilton would make more money than Winnipeg and Quebec City COMBINED?!?! Yes, let's exaggerate a little, shall we? BY making this statement, you are insinuating that a team in Hamilton would be bringing in revenue in the neighbourhood of $150 - $170 million. Only Toronto brings in this type of revenue. Fat chance that Hamilton would do the same.
Much has been made of how lucrative the Hamilton market would be given the critical mass of population within a hour's drive and the corresponding corporate presence to go along with it. Top 5 NHL revenue-earner some say. History with other sporting events would suggest otherwise..........
1. The Hamilton Tiger-Cats - They have averaged about 20,000 over the last 30 years in the CFL - dead last in the CFL - and have bled money profusely for as long as I can remember. Of particular not, in 1998 and 1999, back-to-back appearances in the Grey Cup no less, the Ti-Cats averaged less than 20,000 per game. IF the corporate presence is so substantial, why has the attendance not been significantly better?
2. The Hamilton BullDogs - Year after year this team has iced competitive teams that have challenged for the league championship and yet they are always in the bottom half of the league in attendance. The attendance issue is excacerbated in the playoffs - 2,000 per game in the Conference Finals...pathetic!
3. 1996 Grey Cup - Another financial disaster for the franchise. Tim Hortons purchasing thousands of seats prior to game time still could not mask the scene of thousands of empty seats in the stands. I believe this event lost the franchise money. The Grey Cup has not been back in Hamilton since. Again, if corporations are so prevalent in the area why did they not step and buy the tickets to the the Grey Cup, a once-in-a-decade affair?
4. 2007 Brier - 107, 199. That was the grand attendance total for Canada's most prestigious curling event..............the worst in 30 years. The lone exception being Brandon, which in 1982 drew 106,394 persons,.............in a city of 40,000 people. Curlers complained all week about the lack of atmosphere in the arena. Safe to say, the Brier will not be returning to the Hammer for a long time..........if ever again.
This city has proven time and again it is not much of a sports town and if the corporate presence was as strong as some here would suggest, I would have expected these various events to have been well-attended. As it is, I suspect an NHL team in Hamilton could do quite well, but not top-5 revenue well.......more like top 10-12 overall in the league.
ohhh I've got a few to add to...
Memorial Cup attendance in 1990 I believe is still a record
Largest crowd for an AHL game. Over 17000
Oops sorry I miss understood the game, you are just cherry picking the bad and useless stuff.. My bad
I would guess that the NHL's position is that it is not an amendment, since it is only in force if the relocation restrictions are, in the League's opinion, illegal and thus unenforceable.
Im sorry, youve' kind of lost me here. Either its a By-Law or its an Amendment to & now part of the NHL Constitution. Your suggesting its neither, something in the middle grays, to be applied & enforced by the Commissioner at his discretion as it applies on a case by case basis dependent upon jurisdictional law?. Thats creative....
Now that I'm back from going down $60 at Casino Niagara I thought I would get back into this discussion to put things into a proper perspective.
The Ti-Cat point isn't valid, because Hamilton does just fine now for attendance.
The AHL point is still ridiculous and always will be, because it's the AHL.
Hamilton is a very blue collar city with many Hockey fans, not curling fans.
And my final and most relevant point, the NHL admitted even when trying to keep a franchise out of Hamilton, that it would be a top 5 most profited franchise.
interesting read from a article last year heres a snippet .
Quote:
"Our work with the Katz Group in Hamilton is a natural expansion of our relationship," said Bob Newman, AEG Facilities Chief Operating Officer. "We strongly believe the greater Hamilton marketplace has the potential of becoming one of the region's most active sports and entertainment markets. We look forward to working ith the City and stakeholders in creating this new state of the art venue."
Hamilton market becoming one the most active Sports and Entertainment markets in the region? State of the art Venue ? ....hmm....... with the Bulldogs as the main tenant? Wow
Note:The President of AEG Tim Leiweke Is also Chairman of the NHL Expansion & Relocation committee.
Only Toronto brings in this type of revenue. Fat chance that Hamilton would do the same.
