Coyotes to lose 30M?

undraftedstlouis

Registered User
Sep 11, 2004
668
0
I'd love to see how many people aren't following a pro sports team for reasons like this. I'll be vastly impressed if anyone can find 5.


I certainly hope you don't follow MLB (162 games) or the NBA (82 games); I wonder how many games in a season suddenly becomes a "significant commitment" - 50? 40? 35? 30? 16?

Not that I think you're making your reasons up for not following the sport/team, but I have never heard another person cite those reasons for not following a sport/team. Never. If those are really your reasons, ... :rolleyes: do you think you could quit staring at the couple fallen trees and still enjoy the rest of the forest?

In MLB and NBA the playoffs are about all I'll ever watch.

The leagues I watch the most are soccer - MLS, English Premier League, and Champions League (30, 38, and roughly 13 games respectively for each, with 13 teams, 20 teams, and for the knockout part 16 teams respectively).

In North America, if your team isn't viable, it usually will eventually be folded/moved (or not be competitive - Montreal Expos, San Jose Earthquakes, Tampa Bay Mutiny for the former, Tampa Bay Devil Rays for the latter).

I like hockey. I like the Lightning. I'm actually here looking for a reason to watch 80+ Lightning games a year. I check the news and see the team might be for sale (with the Devil Rays I know how much ownership matters). I see recent reports the team may go under the cap next year. Over the last few years I haven't gone out of my way to watch hockey. As a result I've heard next to nothing about who the star players are anymore (Crosby and some players in Nashville, Atlanta?). I get criticism for my reasons. But I'm not get much offered on why I SHOULD care? What is the NHL doing to win over the US fans? And if they don't care, why are they mosting most of the teams here???
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,855
8,110
So ... let me get this straight - you like hockey, you like the Lightning, but you need the NHL to give you a reason to follow the sport? You need the team to (A) spend to the cap, and (B) say they're on solid financial ground, before you'll bother getting interested.

*wow* How about, "I like the sport, I can motivate myself to find a reason to follow the game even if the league can't" instead of expecting someone else to generate your interest for you?
 

undraftedstlouis

Registered User
Sep 11, 2004
668
0
So ... let me get this straight - you like hockey, you like the Lightning, but you need the NHL to give you a reason to follow the sport? You need the team to (A) spend to the cap, and (B) say they're on solid financial ground, before you'll bother getting interested.

*wow* How about, "I like the sport, I can motivate myself to find a reason to follow the game even if the league can't" instead of expecting someone else to generate your interest for you?

So the NHL should count on all the fans motivating themselves to follow the league. Brilliant.

Actually when I follow a league, I want to know all the players. I think your spreadsheet is awesome. I do similar things to keep track of the leagues I follow. I haven't had much free time for entertainment the last few years. So I basically cut the NHL out. If you don't think the NHL should do anything to try and get my interest again, fine, that's their right. Now as I check in 8-10 years later, I'm disappointed with the structure of the NHL. I think the salary cap has potential, so I'm checking back in, but just finding it harder to get into things that I expected. I'll leave the rest of this thread to discussion about the Coyotes losses.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Hey gscarpenter2002!

That's maybe true of the urban areas of southern Ontario where the weather is not really that cooperative for outdoor rinks, but not so much the case in northern Ontario, much of Quebec and western Canada outside the coastal BC area. It certainly wasn't the case where I grew up in Winnipeg: every boy in my elementary school had hockey equipment by grade 4. We'd play for fun on outdoor rinks (sans full equipment) after school almost every day in the winter. Not everyone played in formal leagues, but those of us that did would play games/hold practices in the indoor rinks at least a few hours each week at no huge cost. It's the same today when I visit the city. The amount of community and private outdoor rinks on the praries as well as indoor/covered rinks is mind boggling and makes playing/practicing relatively cheap whether you are a recreational or register players. So, maybe true for T.O. and environs, but to say that "most Canadian hockey fans" have not actually played much hockey is a gross exaggeration! It was actually a compulsory part of my PhysEd class at school for heaven sakes!

Regarding the numbers of those playing organized/competitive hockey, there are some interesting international comparative statistics available. Here are the IIHF 2004-2005 registration numbers, covered rinks and country population for the top 10 hockey producing countries:

1. Canada 543,390 Registered players, 3000 covered rinks, 32.8 Million pop.
2. USA, 435,737 Registered players, 2500 covered rinks, 295.7 Million pop.
3. Czech Rep. 83,589 Registered players, 136 rinks, 10.2 Million pop.
4. Russia 77, 202 Registered players, 142 rinks, 143.4 Million pop.
5. Sweden 67,747 Registered players, 301 rinks, 9.0 Million pop.
6. Finland 62,886 Registered players, 222 rinks, 5.2 Million pop.
7. Germany 30,334 Registered players, 153 rinks, 82.4 Million pop.
8. Switzerland, 25,106 Registered players, 70 rinks, 7.4 million pop.
9. Japan 20,540 Registered players, 117 rinks, 127.4 Million pop.
10. France 15,261 Registered players, 128 rinks, 60.6 Million pop.

Source:
http://www.iihf.com/iihf/member/Survey of players.pdf


Registered player per population, eg., 1 registered player per X persons:

1. Canada 60.4
2. Finland 82.7
3. Czech Republic 122.0
4. Sweden 132.8
5. Switzerland 294.8
6. USA 678.6
7. Russia 1857.5
8. Germany 2716.4
9. France 3970.9
10. Japan 6202.5

The comparison between the USA as a whole and Canada is not really fair as hockey is still a regional sport. For USA figures by state, see this site.

http://www.usahockey.com/membership/main_site/main/membership/0405_final_member/

BTW, here's the "Players Per Indoor Rink" ranking:

1. France - 119
2. USA - 174
3. Japan - 176
4. Canada - 181
5. Germany - 198
6. Sweden - 225
7. Finland - 283
8. Switzerland - 359
9. Russia - 544
10. Czech Rep. – 614

I guess all aspiring hockey players that hate the freezing cold should head for France!! :)

GHOST
Thanks for demonstrating my point (even assuming the accuracy of those stats, which I find extremely high).

I grew up n New Brunswick myself and had no shortage of ice time either. Mind you, I would never make such a sweeping statement as "every boy in my school"; apparently nobody in your school was unathletic or a "nerd" or simply not into sports? I highly doubt even half played hockey, especially as kids get older and the physical gap widens to as to weed out the less talented and smaller. Even growing up in a simpler time and a more hockey-available area like I did, I knew lots of guys who did play hockey, and lots of guys who did not play hockey.
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
I check the news and see the team might be for sale
This is why I just gave up on you. :) You didn't read what I posted, and heck, you didn't even read what YOU posted. The Team President said the team's not for sale, stuff we BOTH posted said it. Does it get much clearer than that?

As a result I've heard next to nothing about who the star players are anymore (Crosby and some players in Nashville, Atlanta?).
A Lightning fan who can't figure out who the stars in the League are? :huh:

<------ There's a couple right there. Call me crazy, but those two are MORE than enough reason to follow the team for me.
 

MAROONSRoad

f/k/a Ghost
Feb 24, 2007
4,067
0
Maroons Rd.
Thanks for demonstrating my point (even assuming the accuracy of those stats, which I find extremely high).

I grew up n New Brunswick myself and had no shortage of ice time either. Mind you, I would never make such a sweeping statement as "every boy in my school"; apparently nobody in your school was unathletic or a "nerd" or simply not into sports? I highly doubt even half played hockey, especially as kids get older and the physical gap widens to as to weed out the less talented and smaller. Even growing up in a simpler time and a more hockey-available area like I did, I knew lots of guys who did play hockey, and lots of guys who did not play hockey.

As I wrote, "It was actually a compulsory part of my PhysEd class at school for heaven sakes!" Full gear too.

Also in the community as a whole, the guys ("nerds" as you call them) that did not play hockey, were not typically hockey fans; while almost every hockey fan I knew, played at least some recreational hockey -- contrary to your original point. And that is my main point.

Cheers,


GHOST
 
Last edited:

undraftedstlouis

Registered User
Sep 11, 2004
668
0
This is why I just gave up on you. :) You didn't read what I posted, and heck, you didn't even read what YOU posted. The Team President said the team's not for sale, stuff we BOTH posted said it. Does it get much clearer than that?


A Lightning fan who can't figure out who the stars in the League are? :huh:

<------ There's a couple right there. Call me crazy, but those two are MORE than enough reason to follow the team for me.


I don't blindly believe everything the "Team President" says. An old guy in Detroit owns a team losing over $5 million a year. Orders come down to cut costs. A consultant is hired to maximize franchise value. Team is near the tops of attendance yet might not be able to afford to spend the cap.

I'm talking about stars on the other side. I don't watch a team as if there is no opponent. Right now it's enough for me to tune in come playoff time. This year I might be in town and actually get the games on TV. I'll go to the arena if I get free tickets again for those games (like in 2005).
 

Injektilo

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
2,516
0
Taiwan
Hey kdb, here is a dirty little secret for you, but you have to promise not to tell anyone else here on the boards, okay?

Here it is: with the price of playing hockey having been what it is for many many years, most of my fellow Canadian hockey fans have not actually played much hockey, either. I have, although I was fortunate to grow up in an earlier, less expensive time, with access to ponds. It might surprise some to know that there are not exactly a huge amount of ponds in the centre of the hoceky universe here in southern Ontario. Hockey is pretty much restricted such that, unless you are middle class or upper middle class or higher, you are pretty well out of luck.


That's not entirely true. Certainly, more Canadians don't play hockey than do play hockey, of course that's the case. But the cost of organized hockey isn't prohibitive if it's at the lower level, I coached minor hockey last year in Waterloo and the anual fee for house league hockey was $170-370 depending on the age. For AAA travel teams, it's certainly much more expensive. But for house league, it's certainly affordable. Equipment is expensive, but there's plenty of hand-me-down stuff to go around. If you're lower class it'll be a stretch to play, sure, but what portion of the population is that exactly?

A bigger reason for the decline in (male) hockey players (as female and older players keep growing in number) would be the additional distractions available that might not have been around twenty years ago.

And there are ponds and outdoor rinks to be found in Southern Ontario, I never had much problem with that. Last year stunk cause of the warm weather, but we had a rink in our backyard all through the 90's. Toronto has 40+ outdoor rinks which you can skate on even above freezing temps. Waterloo has a number (20 or so) outdoor rinks which are run by volunteers every year, I worked on one for a year. You just have to know where to look.


Certainly, the majority of Canadians have never played hockey (except in gym class or the like) but I wouldn't say it's for the reasons you've given.
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
I don't blindly believe everything the "Team President" says.
That's fine, it just sounded like you were going off rumor instead of any actual fact gathering.

Sounds to me like you're a casual fan, nothing wrong with that, but expecting a bunch of die-hards to understand you is asking a lot. If you're looking for a reason to watch, go watch some of the exciting videos on the NHL board. :dunno:
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
That's not entirely true. Certainly, more Canadians don't play hockey than do play hockey, of course that's the case. But the cost of organized hockey isn't prohibitive if it's at the lower level, I coached minor hockey last year in Waterloo and the anual fee for house league hockey was $170-370 depending on the age. For AAA travel teams, it's certainly much more expensive. But for house league, it's certainly affordable. Equipment is expensive, but there's plenty of hand-me-down stuff to go around. If you're lower class it'll be a stretch to play, sure, but what portion of the population is that exactly?

Quite a lot, actually. I am sure Statscan has the numbers.

A bigger reason for the decline in (male) hockey players (as female and older players keep growing in number) would be the additional distractions available that might not have been around twenty years ago.

I did not mean to suggest that the reasons that I enumerated was an exhaustive list. As you correctly point out, it is not. My point is more that there is a pervasive attitude around HF - especially when it comes to denigrating the US market - that EVERYONE in Canada is a hockey fan. You know the type - the old "hockey is in the Canadian DNA" rubbish. Most people are not even sports fans, let alone hockey fans.

And there are ponds and outdoor rinks to be found in Southern Ontario, I never had much problem with that. Last year stunk cause of the warm weather, but we had a rink in our backyard all through the 90's. Toronto has 40+ outdoor rinks which you can skate on even above freezing temps. Waterloo has a number (20 or so) outdoor rinks which are run by volunteers every year, I worked on one for a year. You just have to know where to look.

I am sure there are some. However, by dint of your very participation in this Board, you pretty well identify yourself as a strong fan of the game. Obviously you will participate in these endeavours in the community, as will other hockey fans. My point is - again - that, unlike the picture painted around here by some for our US friends, Canada is also made up of a vast number of people - FAR outnumbering hockey fans - who could not give the slightest care about hockey.

Certainly, the majority of Canadians have never played hockey (except in gym class or the like) but I wouldn't say it's for the reasons you've given.

No disagreement from me, although I would go far beyond characterizing it as a mere majority.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
As I wrote, "It was actually a compulsory part of my PhysEd class at school for heaven sakes!" Full gear too.

Also in the community as a whole, the guys ("nerds" as you call them) that did not play hockey, were not typically hockey fans; while almost every hockey fan I knew, played at least some recreational hockey -- contrary to your original point. And that is my main point.

Cheers,


GHOST

I missed your statement about your phys ed class. I have never heard of that in my life. Not in the 70's and 80's when I and my friends were in school in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and not in the 90's and this century when my kids have been in school here in Ontario. I will take you at your word, but you must have lived in a singularly unique area, friend.

My point in the earlier post about "nerds" (which i did not equate to non-hockey fans, as in "if you were not a hockey fan you must be a nerd" - an incorrect statement) was to point out the fact that you were making statements that were overly broad. "Every kid" played hockey. Baloney. When I was growing up, and today when my children are growing up, "every kid" could not/cannot even skate, much less play hockey.

As well, I would point out that the areas that you referenced are among the more sparsely populated areas in the country. Hockey fandom is arguably more predominantly congregated (in sheer numbers, at least) in the
major population centres, where there s less opportunity to play. As well, your position ignores the immigrant poopulation, many of whom would have an even more reduced opportunity to play.

More to the point, see above for the REAL context of my point, which more relates to the "hockey is in the Canadian DNA" line of crapola.
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
here's an outlandish claim. (just a note: the author of the site left his position at the winnipeg free press due to allegations of plagerism a few years ago. he writes a weekly column for the national post. )

Meanwhile, the Arizona Republic has reported that the Phoenix Coyotes will lose at least $30 million on operations this season. The Coyotes have lost more than $500 million for three different ownership groups since moving from Winnipeg to the Desert in 1996.

http://scotttaylorsports.com/contents/index.php?page=home.htm
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
Posting a link to a newspaper article is an insult? In that case:

:p: http://www.tbo.com/sports/MGBOCS3AZYE.html :p:

:sarcasm:
First off, thanks for contributing to the topic at hand. Your posts contributed just as much as the thread starter did, which was my original point.

Secondly, if you had some skills at reading comprehension, you'd see that what I was responding to was someone accusing someone else of inciting flaming. Starting this thread by posting a link (one with info that's not very well substantiated either) that is obviously going to start a heated discussion and putting exactly ZERO into the subsequent discussion indicates to me that someone's trying to start ****. I know it when I see it around here, believe me.

Kinda like...your post!
 

Injektilo

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
2,516
0
Taiwan
Quite a lot, actually. I am sure Statscan has the numbers.



I did not mean to suggest that the reasons that I enumerated was an exhaustive list. As you correctly point out, it is not. My point is more that there is a pervasive attitude around HF - especially when it comes to denigrating the US market - that EVERYONE in Canada is a hockey fan. You know the type - the old "hockey is in the Canadian DNA" rubbish. Most people are not even sports fans, let alone hockey fans.



I am sure there are some. However, by dint of your very participation in this Board, you pretty well identify yourself as a strong fan of the game. Obviously you will participate in these endeavours in the community, as will other hockey fans. My point is - again - that, unlike the picture painted around here by some for our US friends, Canada is also made up of a vast number of people - FAR outnumbering hockey fans - who could not give the slightest care about hockey.



No disagreement from me, although I would go far beyond characterizing it as a mere majority.


Eh, majority vs mere majority, what sort of income you need to support a child playing house league hockey, etc etc is just silly quibbling.

My only contention with your point is that people are avoiding hockey in Canada because they can't afford it and frozen ponds are hard to find.


I would agree that there are far more non-hockey fans than hockey fans out there, but I'd also argue that there are few things that actually CAN bind Canadians together like hockey can. The 2002 Olympic win brought people out into the streets like nothing I've ever seen before. The only things I can think to compare it to in modern times might be the No-side rally in Montreal in 1995, and that was a pretty big event, we're talking the possible break-up of the nation big event. That hockey is on par with that sorta says something to me.
 

Guy Legend

Registered User
Jun 2, 2005
2,534
1
St. Louis
Well, the Coyotes' CEO says that they are losing $30 million this year in this article posted today....

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0309coyotesred0309-ON.html

The Phoenix Coyotes are seeing red this season. Lots of it.

CEO Jeff Shumway said Friday that the hockey franchise is expected to hemorrhage about $30 million this year, compounding severe financial losses the team has suffered in recent years.
 

MAROONSRoad

f/k/a Ghost
Feb 24, 2007
4,067
0
Maroons Rd.
Well, the Coyotes' CEO says that they are losing $30 million this year in this article posted today....

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0309coyotesred0309-ON.html

So let me get this straight. They bought the team for 127 million in 2001. And as of earlier reports they had already lost around 100 million since then. And the City of Glendale recently paid 180 million to construct a new arena for the Coyotes and they are still going to lose around 30 million this season when all is said and done??

Sound like the 'Yotes are a tremendous success in the Desert.

How many hundreds of millions of dollars did the previous two owners lose??

And the yotes' AHL team is terrible and their prospects are ranked in the bottom 1/3rd of the league.

My, oh my...

GHOST
 
Last edited:

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,855
8,110
So the NHL should count on all the fans motivating themselves to follow the league. Brilliant.
No, you admit you'd otherwise follow the game, but you want the league to apparently reach out to you personally and give you a reason to watch. If you're already interested, what more does the league need to do? Their job needs to be marketing to the average guy/gal who otherwise wouldn't follow the sport.

That's not you. You've admitted you'd follow, except you've dug up straw men arguments to help justify you not following. The fact is, the league doesn't owe you anything, much like they don't owe anyone else here who's followed the game for 15+ years anything. They don't owe you an explanation on how all 30 teams are going to become stable, or an explanation of how they're going to better market the players, or anything else you feel like they should be personally giving you.

So ... if you don't want to follow the sport, fine - don't follow it. But don't come in and say, "I'd follow the NHL, but they didn't give me the extra personal attention I think I deserve" and use that as the justification for why you're not following the sport. That's a load of (insert your favorite noun here).
 

MAROONSRoad

f/k/a Ghost
Feb 24, 2007
4,067
0
Maroons Rd.
Coyotes' CEO confirms losses ""in the neighborhood"" of $30 million

So where'd y'all go now? To the street called denial? :)

Quote: "CEO Jeff Shumway said Friday that the hockey franchise is expected to hemorrhage about $30 million this year, compounding severe financial losses the team has suffered in recent years."

Quote: "Moyes, a Glendale trucking magnate, teamed up with developer Steve Ellman and former NHL great Wayne Gretzky to buy the team in 2001 for $127 million. Over the next several years, the Coyotes tallied at least $100million in total operating losses, according to earlier reports."


Before all you whiny elitists up in Canada start salivating and calling for the team to be moved or any other such nonsense, the "report" was already denied by the Coyotes front office. John Gambodoro is known in the Phoenix area as being by far the worst sports writer in the city and constantly has his facts completely wrong.

Scott Wong and Carrie Watters are the reporters this time. Are they also the worst sports writers in the city?

I highly doubt that these claims are true. There's a salary cap now, and that makes all 30 teams financially healthy.

:shakehead

Yep, the salary cap seems to be working wonders for the Coyotes. At least they are getting revenue sharing to minimize their loses.

Phoenix has a ton of corporate support. Jerry Moyes, owner of Swift Transportation, owns the team and subsequently their plane they fly on. No, concessions are actually a little high but not too bad. We actually have the best lease in the NHL and get all hockey related revenue from the arena. There is NO way they stand to lose 30 million. Gambodoro is a moron and consistently gets everything he reports wrong. He is the AZ Republic version of Eklund or Garrioch. A monkey could whisper in his ear that Gretzky will play and he would report it as the holy gospel truth.

Plus, Wayne has come out and said they will be players in the free agent market, even after this 30 million loss claim. Quite frankly I'm getting tired of sore Winnipegers and Canadian elitists who think that hockey doesn't belong here or anywhere in the lower 48.

Are Scott Wong and Carrie Watters also morons that consistently get everything they report wrong? I'm sure Phoenix gets great corporate support and that the players enjoy flying around the continent on Moyes' plane. I guess it's a good thing that the Coyotes' had the city of Glendale pay 180 million for their new arena and gave them one of the best leases in the NHL. It sure looks like they need that given their huge loses.

Forbes shows that the Coyotes lost $6 million last season. I highly doubt that the 30 million number we see here is even remotely accurate.

:biglaugh:

If you believe the Forbes numbers (they have no access to the NHL franchises' books as far as I'm aware), I got a few good .com IPO stock tips for you.

GHOST
 
Last edited:

undraftedstlouis

Registered User
Sep 11, 2004
668
0
No, you admit you'd otherwise follow the game, but you want the league to apparently reach out to you personally and give you a reason to watch. If you're already interested, what more does the league need to do? Their job needs to be marketing to the average guy/gal who otherwise wouldn't follow the sport.

That's not you. You've admitted you'd follow, except you've dug up straw men arguments to help justify you not following. The fact is, the league doesn't owe you anything, much like they don't owe anyone else here who's followed the game for 15+ years anything. They don't owe you an explanation on how all 30 teams are going to become stable, or an explanation of how they're going to better market the players, or anything else you feel like they should be personally giving you.

So ... if you don't want to follow the sport, fine - don't follow it. But don't come in and say, "I'd follow the NHL, but they didn't give me the extra personal attention I think I deserve" and use that as the justification for why you're not following the sport. That's a load of (insert your favorite noun here).

well I think you don't quite understand my point (or probably I didn't clearly express it). I used to watch NHL games when I had 50 cable channels and no ability to watch sports over the internet. Now I have 400 channels and a high speed internet connection with more entertainment options that I have time for. I don't think I quite admitted I'd follow the NHL if they did x, y, or z. I was just trying to point out why I think I have lost interest in the NHL from 10 years ago (maybe it's cause I don't play NHL '96 daily anymore).

It seems to me like the NHL was built up in the 90s to be a part of the US sports culture. Built to get TV revenue as a signficant source of funding player salaries. So I think quite a few average (or not so average) US sports fans have lost (or failed to gain) interest in the NHL compared to the expectations of NHL owners. If you don't care to hear my reasons, fine. I find it hard to casually follow hockey the way things are now. Your right the NHL doesn't owe me anything. I don't expect it to owe me anything. But likewise I can and probably will focus my attention on other entertainment options.

But as a sports fan with some interest in hockey, I think your wrong that it's not the NHL's job to market to me. At least I don't see how they've set up an economic model (or at least I figure is the current one) that will persist otherwise. I basically wanted to see the hardcore hockey fans take on this subject. I think we've accomplished that.
 
Last edited:

razorsedge

Registered User
Oct 19, 2006
5,142
4,566
How can anybody honestly argue that Phoenix is a better NHL market than Winnipeg is? How can anybody honestly believe a move from Winnipeg to Phoenix was the right one? There was atleast couple better location that the Jets could have moved to instead of the dessert. What a joke.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->