Can Hockey Survive in Que/Htf/Win with new CBA

[triggrman]

So this team gets a pass because they're owner isn't the best, this team gets a pass because their arena may not have the nicest jumbotron, this team gets a pass because the times have changed.

Let's narrow this down to only the teams that support your arguement.

Just FYI, Nashville sold more season tickets after the playoffs last year than they ever have, so their attendance would have been back up around the mid 16k mark again, like it was their first couple of seasons.

I could also make the arguement Nashville's ticket sales dipped because of poor marketing (remember the Playoff Pledge) as well as not meeting the expectations the owner set out (5 year plan).

Washington did struggle with 9k, 11k, 10k in the 80's.

You have to give a non-traditional market time to grow it's fan base.

Minnasota knows what it's like to lose a team, they're not going to let that happen again.

 

[Sotnos]

Tampa's attendance dropped like a stone after their fourth year, despite beating Ottawa to the playoffs.

And do you have any idea WHY that happened? Of course not, because it's a team in a market you don't like therefore you don't care.

In your post after this one, you make excuse after excuse for attendance problems with teams in the "right" markets (Boston, Buffalo, Chicago) while failing to acknowledge that teams in the "wrong" markets had similar issues.

If you want to compare apples to apples, as you say, why don't you do just that.

 

[jamiebez]

So this team gets a pass because they're owner isn't the best, this team gets a pass because their arena may not have the nicest jumbotron, this team gets a pass because the times have changed.

Let's narrow this down to only the teams that support your arguement.

I'm not making excuses. I'm looking at all teams over the last 15 years. If you go back further than that, you're talking about a 21-team league with payrolls averaging around $6M US. Almost every team in the league has built or renovated their arenas since then. Anything before 1990 is hardly a representative comparison to today.

Here are the teams that support my argument (mediocre or bad teams drawing consistently well in a "good" market):
Edmonton
Calgary
Buffalo
LA
San Jose
Montreal
Boston
Washington
St. Louis
Ottawa
Vancouver
Toronto (no cups in 37 years = mediocre to me)

Teams that don't:
NY Islanders
Chicago
Pittsburgh

You have to give a non-traditional market time to grow it's fan base.

I agree, but how much time? Look, I'm not even knocking Nashville here. They've done great at the gates considering what they've done on the ice. Ditto Tampa (pre-Cup). Minnesota and Columbus have been unqualified successes as expansion teams. Dallas and Colorado have been great additions to the league.

But Carolina? They won 2 division titles and went to the finals once since moving and can't draw flies.
Phoenix inherited a playoff team from Winnipeg and their attendance dropped every year before moving into their new arena. Will their new fans come back after a long lockout?
Florida can't make money with a $20M payroll.
Anaheim's attendance was spiralling out of control before their Cup run, despite having stars like Selanne and Kariya.

I don't think the fan base in those cities is going to be strong enough to support a team in the long run, unless they're winning the Cup every year. Unfortunately, there's only one to go around.

 

[jamiebez]

And do you have any idea WHY that happened? Of course not, because it's a team in a market you don't like therefore you don't care.

In your post after this one, you make excuse after excuse for attendance problems with teams in the "right" markets (Boston, Buffalo, Chicago) while failing to acknowledge that teams in the "wrong" markets had similar issues.

If you want to compare apples to apples, as you say, why don't you do just that.

See my above post. All I did was look at the attendance numbers vs. a team's performance over the last 15 years. There are exceptions (like Chicago), but many more teams fit the theory.

And for what it's worth, I think Tampa has done pretty well at the gate, which is why I didn't mention them as a "bad" market (despite that one shot in the previous post)

 

[triggrman]

I was defending Nashville because of your statement

Atlanta, Nashville, Anaheim, nor Florida can say that. Their attendance in their "bad-to-mediocre" years all dropped considerably. With the exception of Anaheim, none of those teams could get to the 15k level like Ottawa. Tampa's attendance dropped like a stone after their fourth year, despite beating Ottawa to the playoffs.

When Nashville's average attendance since becoming a franchise is right around the 15k mark (14990), add the playoffs to that and we exceed the 15k mark.

 

[WC Handy*]

This is all true, but a more traditional hockey market (notice I'm not saying Canadian) will support a team by turning out at the gates even when they aren't winning - that's the difference.

Look at the average attendance of comparable teams: in Ottawa's first three expansion years, they sold out the 10,500 seat Civic Centre despite being the worst team in recent memory. When they moved to the Corel Centre in their fourth year (even before the team took off on the ice), their attendance was around 15-16k before they got really good.

Atlanta, Nashville, Anaheim, nor Florida can say that. Their attendance in their "bad-to-mediocre" years all dropped considerably. With the exception of Anaheim, none of those teams could get to the 15k level like Ottawa. Tampa's attendance dropped like a stone after their fourth year, despite beating Ottawa to the playoffs.

San Jose, Ottawa, Minnesota and Columbus, however, were able to maintain their attendance levels even before their teams took off (and Columbus is still waiting for that, unfortunately). Why? Strong markets!

Of Atlanta's 5 seasons in the league they've averaged over 15,000 in 3 of them including thir innaugural season where they averaged over 17,000. They haven't made the playoffs yet.

Nashville average 15,800 or higher in their first three season.

Anaheim didn't average under 16,000 until their 6th season in the league.

Florida was a little slower out of the gates averaging around 14,000 in early seasons but since has improved attendance.

The strong markets you speak of haven't really done better.

How about Calgary? Seven years out of the playoffs, their attendance never dropped below 15,000. Ditto with Edmonton since the team's future in Edmonton solidified around 1997, IIRC. Can Carolina, or Phoenix say that (despite being more competitive in their divisions over the same period)? No.

You can't compare the fan bases of franchises that have existed for 3 decades to cities that have had teams for 10 years.

 

[jamiebez]

Of Atlanta's 5 seasons in the league they've averaged over 15,000 in 3 of them including thir innaugural season where they averaged over 17,000. They haven't made the playoffs yet.

Nashville average 15,800 or higher in their first three season.

Anaheim didn't average under 16,000 until their 6th season in the league.

Florida was a little slower out of the gates averaging around 14,000 in early seasons but since has improved attendance.

The strong markets you speak of haven't really done better.

This is my point: All these teams' attendance has declined over time, only going back UP as the team succeeds (Atl gets Heatley and Kovalchuk, Nashville makes the playoffs, Anaheim makes the finals).

Compare to Columbus and Ottawa (even Minnesota to some extent) who sold every seat in the building, despite having some pretty poor teams.

Again, my point is: hockey fans will come out to support their team in a good market, regardless of perfromance.

You can't compare the fan bases of franchises that have existed for 3 decades to cities that have had teams for 10 years.

OK, but how much time is enough? Anaheim and Florida have had teams for 9 seasons now, Phoenix for 8 and Carolina for 7. Three of these teams have made the finals in those cities. What are we waiting for here?

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Minnasota knows what it's like to lose a team, they're not going to let that happen again.

maybe Winnipeg learned from their mistakes too

 

[se7en*]

See? They refuse to accept it. Yeah, part of it was having a bad team, but there were other issues. Particularly with ownership. If it makes you guys feel better to convince yourselves otherwise, have at it.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

...but I thought Canadian fans supported their teams no matter what.

I don't blame fans in Edmonton for not going to games. Who wants to watch a team loose every night?
BTW
I have no idea what it means to support a team (other than buying tickets and t-shirts)

I suppose that rich winning hockey Hurricaine hockey tradition keeps em lined up at the turnstiles...

 

[WC Handy*]

This is my point: All these teams' attendance has declined over time, only going back UP as the team succeeds (Atl gets Heatley and Kovalchuk, Nashville makes the playoffs, Anaheim makes the finals).

Compare to Columbus and Ottawa (even Minnesota to some extent) who sold every seat in the building, despite having some pretty poor teams.

Again, my point is: hockey fans will come out to support their team in a good market, regardless of perfromance.

Your point is wrong. Two of the teams you mentioned (MIN, CLB) haven't even been in the league long enough yet for their honeymoon to end.

Then there is Ottawa who you keep bringing up but proves my point and proves your wrong. Ottawa has the attendance it has because it has been a successful team and it's absurd to suggest that they'd be pulling the same numbers if they weren't.

OK, but how much time is enough? Anaheim and Florida have had teams for 9 seasons now, Phoenix for 8 and Carolina for 7. Three of these teams have made the finals in those cities. What are we waiting for here?

One Cindarella run to the finals doesn't make a successful franchise. The fans of the three teams that you listed have NEVER entered a season thinking they had a shot at the Cup. Maybe these markets aren't good for hockey, but it's impossible to know until they're actually given a reasonable chance to be competitive.

 

[jamiebez]

Your point is wrong. Two of the teams you mentioned (MIN, CLB) haven't even been in the league long enough yet for their honeymoon to end.

Then there is Ottawa who you keep bringing up but proves my point and proves your wrong. Ottawa has the attendance it has because it has been a successful team and it's absurd to suggest that they'd be pulling the same numbers if they weren't.

Minnesota has sold absolutely every single seat for every single game in their first four years. They've shown no signs of the honeymoon ending. Columbus' attendence has declined a bit, so maybe they do belong in the other category. Atlanta and Carolina have better teams than Columbus though, and have seen their attendance drop precipitously over the same time period.

Ottawa finished dead last by a mile their first three seasons and sold out every single game at the Civic Centre. Their first season in Corel was their first year making the playoffs (they moved in January '96), where they lost in the first round. It took at least another three years AFTER THAT (98/99) for them to emerge as an actual contender.

 

[Icey]

Minnesota has sold absolutely every single seat for every single game in their first four years. They've shown no signs of the honeymoon ending.

But yet they couldn't sell out the world cup games last summer. Explain that one?

 

[WC Handy*]

Minnesota has sold absolutely every single seat for every single game in their first four years. They've shown no signs of the honeymoon ending. Columbus' attendence has declined a bit, so maybe they do belong in the other category. Atlanta and Carolina have better teams than Columbus though, and have seen their attendance drop precipitously over the same time period.

Minnesota is unique because they are a hockey mad area, but just like every other market, if they don't start winning they're going to stop selling out games.

Ottawa finished dead last by a mile their first three seasons and sold out every single game at the Civic Centre.

First of all, that's not true. They're third season in the Civic center they averaged under 10,000 per game while they averaged about 10,400 in the first three seasons. Secondly, selling out a 10,000 seat arena is nothing to brag about. In fact, Ottawa is one of only two teams to average under 10,000 in a season since the early 80's with the other being Carolina when they were in Greensborough their first two years.

Their first season in Corel was their first year making the playoffs (they moved in January '96), where they lost in the first round. It took at least another three years AFTER THAT (98/99) for them to emerge as an actual contender.

Their 2nd full season in their new arena they had a 100+ point season.

Again... Ottawa only proves my point that attendance will drop unless a team starts winning.

 

[jamiebez]

First of all, the size of the arena is not something fans can control. I could just as easily mention that tickets at the Civic Centre were more expensive, too, but I'm not going to debate about arena sizes here.

Here's Ottawa's attendance vs. their performance:
92/93: 10,485 (Civic) Pts: 24 - last in league
93/94: 10,391 (Civic) Pts: 37 - last in league
94/95: 9,879 (Civic) Pts: 23 - last in league
95/96: 13,245 (split) Pts: 41 - last in league
96/97: 15,377 (Corel) Pts: 77 - 7th in East, out in 1st rd
97/98: 16,751 (Corel) Pts: 83 - 8th in East, out in 2nd rd
98/99: 17,219 (Corel) Pts: 103 - 2nd in East, out in 1st round

So, Ottawa's attendance dropped by 600 people after they finished dead last, and rose as the team got better. This doesn't actually support either argument, since my point is that the market would have been more immune had they continued to suck (which they didn't) and yours is that attendance will continue to drop unless a team starts winning, which didn't happen for seven years with Ottawa, yet their attendance still rose.

Unfortunately, Ottawa is a bad test case because they moved to a new and much bigger building right around the time they started getting much better, so I'll concede the point.

This will be my last post on the topic, but I stand by my argument: A strong market is one where the fans show up consistently regardless of the team's performance on the ice. We can debate all day about who belongs in what category, but there are a few obvious examples of fans ditching losers. I hope for the sake of the real fans in Atlanta, Carolina, Phoenix, etc, that they can draw enough fair-weather fans in to support their teams in the long run, but time will tell.

 

[ALF AmericanLionsFan]

But yet they couldn't sell out the world cup games last summer. Explain that one?

Not to but in or anything(even though I am) prices for the World Cup were insane.

 

[Drake1588]

This argument assumes, of course, that the league considers raw attendance figures to be paramount. It's important, no doubt, but it's not all encompassing. A vibrant and largish city with sponsorship opportunities, if not today than at some point in future when the team becomes more successful, could be more attractive to the league than a smallish city that averaged 15,000 but which will never have the same pull with corporate sponsors.

Love it or hate, and I think most of us share a certain amount of distaste for the emphasis today, but corporate draw is a key attribute in the NHL today. The game tries to lure families to games and corporate sponsorship to the team's activities, billboards, jumbotron, etc. The traditional hockey fan still makes up the NHL's core, its base, but that traditional fan is not the focus of NHL marketing efforts.

This is something that the raw number crunching may miss when evaluating the attraction of various markets to the NHL brain trust. Shrug. Not taking any particular side in this, but it's a thought. Vegas could be a heck of a lot more appealing than, say, Winnipeg, regardless of the fact that there are a ton more fans of the game in Winnipeg than there are in Vegas today or would be, hypothetically, in its first ten years of operations. The potential money from such markets may well be what lures the league to a given destination, or drives it away. Not the numbers of established hockey fans.

The same may also be true when looking at the Raleigh triangle and Winnipeg. No one denies that the fans aren't coming out to see the 'Canes... but if the team does turn it around someday, there is a lot of money in the region to attract to that team. Would success necessarily generate the same in Winnipeg? Again, it may not be about how many core hockey fans you draw to each game, through thick and thin. We as fairly hardcore fans often disparage the slick suited exec talking on his cell phone in the lower level/box seats during the playoffs ... but the NHL likely sees only the dollars that exec represents. Presumed latent potential in a market is huge for the NHL.

 

[tinyzombies]

I don't see why all of these scenarios can't happen. First of all, I would not pull out of the south, I think hockey has a real chance to catch on down there. I've been to games in Carolina and Florida. I've also been to games in Phoenix and many games in San Jose.

You have to keep in mind that if the league is to grow at all, it must do so in the major TV markets if they ever want to get a national TV contract. That is still on the table and I'm guessing the salary cap is more geared towards making everyone competitive and stable until they can get to that TV contract.

People move all over the place these days, there are tons of easterners and even Canadians in the southern states and southwest. It's ignorant to write those places off.

Also, I don't see why Quebec, Winnipeg or Hartford could not get their teams back under a viable salary cap. Sure, other teams will make a bigger profit, but a cap would determine how much of it could be spent. Those three would have to make a minimum of 25mil in salary, which is very doable. It would also presumeably make them more competitive, or at least the possibility of it would be there. That's all the fans want or need to show up. Under the old situation, that didn't exist, so there was no hope.

It's like the Expos when they had a chance to compete, the fans showed up. When it was obvious the system would not let them compete, they did not and even voted down funds for a stadium.

 

[jb**]

I would LOVE to see NHL teams moved back to Quebec, Winnipeg and Hartford or to Manitoba or somewhere else deeply rooted in hockey tradition. I think the game needs that right now for many different reasons. IMO, some teams in southern markets will never recover from this lockout.
Personally, I think the idea is very real of moving teams north of the border because of the new CBA. I think it's a venture that owners of teams in southern markets will explore with this new linkage system in place.

Do you all think this is a very real possibility with the new CBA in place? I know there have been many threads about where to move new NHL teams but in this thread I would like to talk about Canada and the New England area.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!

 

[tinyzombies]

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!

Is that your philosophy for running a business?

 

[jb**]

Is that your philosophy for running a business?

Depends on the scenario.

 

[Le Golie]

I'm not going to get into the discussion here but I simply must comment on the statement passed on by some as fact, that the MTS Centre in Winnipeg is too small. This 'fact' is not a fact, it is innacurate.

Firstly, the True North Group (owners of the Moose and the MTS Centre) met with the NHL to ensure that an arena with just over 15,000 would still be considered viable and the NHL agreed that it is.

Secondly, the ownership group has made it known that their business strategy is built around creating a very strong demand for their product. After the new rink's opening night, they curtained off the entire upper bowl for the rest of the regular season even though they easily could have sold it out for several games. They want to make a Moose ticket hard to come by and they want families to feel like attending is a real treat. It is obviously working as a Moose ticket was the hottest entertainment choice in Canada (NY Times article in Jan or Feb).

This shows that a small rink with extremely high demand is every bit as viable as a big rink that doesn't sell out. This ownership group probably realized long before any of us did or ever will, that the size of the rink is actually perfect for a city the size of Winnipeg. While it would hurt come playoff time, and NHL team in the MTS Centre would sell out regular season games for several seasons.

 

[WC Handy*]

This shows that a small rink with extremely high demand is every bit as viable as a big rink that doesn't sell out. This ownership group probably realized long before any of us did or ever will, that the size of the rink is actually perfect for a city the size of Winnipeg. While it would hurt come playoff time, and NHL team in the MTS Centre would sell out regular season games for several seasons.

The viability of a market goes well beyond the capacity of their arena and while 15,000 may be sufficient, it certainly isn't ideal. I'm not saying whether it is or not, but it's possible that many factors may not be sufficient... local television revenue, number of luxury boxes, corporate sponsorships, ticket prices they can charge.

Also, you must take into consideration that to attract a team, they must not only be sufficient, they must be the most attractive option. If an owner views Houston as a better destination, it doesn't matter if 15,000 seats are sufficient.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

No, I have no idea what's been going on for the last 235 days.

Like I said in my post, I don't think even with the new CBA that SOME southern (or western teams as you like to call them) will be able to be "healthy" because I don't think they can recover the small fan base they have in the first place. I think it makes more sense to move them to a city that actually likes hockey and can allow the team to afford paying the $25 million floor the new CBA will see. If they can be profitable where they are then why move? But my point was when Phoenix still can't make money under the new CBA, do you think they can in Win/Que/Htf.

The Jets and Nordiques left for larger markets south of the border in 1996 and 1995. I don't have any hard data, but I bet the team average salary was less than half of what it was last year in 2004. I don't think that these markets have enough size to support an NHL franchise, even with a new CBA.

I think that you have to give the new markets time to develop. I don't think you develop hard-core sports markets in 5-10 year, unless a team is a consistent contender. I'm not sure how long it will take, but it's a long term process IMO.

 

[Le Golie]

The viability of a market goes well beyond the capacity of their arena and while 15,000 may be sufficient, it certainly isn't ideal. I'm not saying whether it is or not, but it's possible that many factors may not be sufficient... local television revenue, number of luxury boxes, corporate sponsorships, ticket prices they can charge.

Also, you must take into consideration that to attract a team, they must not only be sufficient, they must be the most attractive option. If an owner views Houston as a better destination, it doesn't matter if 15,000 seats are sufficient.

Two points, firstly on the topic of attracting a team. Winnipeg's best and possibly only chance is local ownership. The key in my mind is the Asper family (one of the richest families in Canada, owners of Global TV and several other media operations). If the Asper family is interested in owning an NHL team (David Asper is majority owner of Winnipeg's CFL team) they won't be looking anywhere other than Winnipeg. That goes hand in hand with the television revenue stream as Global would be an excellent connection. Also, they have the capacity to set up and market PPV events.

Secondly, while 15,000 seats is certainly not ideal in most markets, I think that in terms of long term viability 15,000 is probably close to ideal for this market.