And there's the inverse of that, so many people have played soccer, but the sport doesn't catch on.
And that is using the strictest deffinition of the highly variable term "nontraditional market"Doctor No said:
Did Bettman try and save the Jets?
- Thread starter timmy12
- Start date
Bear of Bad News
Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
- Sep 27, 2005
- 13,549
- 27,109
I was in Winnipeg late last year and had been told that the Coyotes wanted to wear Jets uniforms for their exhibition game in Winnipeg and the league vetoed the idea...it seems like it would have been a no-brainer...anybody know why the idea was kaboshed?
saskganesh
Registered User
That would have been incredibly offensive. the Coyotes are not the Jets.
More Oiler than Dog fans in Winnipeg these days.
More Oiler than Dog fans in Winnipeg these days.
I was under the impression that most people thought it would have been pretty cool to see the Jets uniforms flying around the ice one more time.
True that their aren't many coyote fans though, it's pretty much oilers/flames country now. And of course all the old timers still cheer for either the leafs or habs from before even the Jets were around.
True that their aren't many coyote fans though, it's pretty much oilers/flames country now. And of course all the old timers still cheer for either the leafs or habs from before even the Jets were around.
5 of the top 9 highest attendance figures belong to canadian teams. the 6th canadian team, edmonton, is 16th in total attendance, and 13th in percent of capacity at 98.5%.
the defending cup champion, carolina, is 15th in league attendance, and 17th in percent of capacity. not exactly the numbers expected of a cup champion - (see tampa bay for a cup-winning success story, or san jose for a non cup-winning success story).
another team in canada is inevitable.
the defending cup champion, carolina, is 15th in league attendance, and 17th in percent of capacity. not exactly the numbers expected of a cup champion - (see tampa bay for a cup-winning success story, or san jose for a non cup-winning success story).
another team in canada is inevitable.
Why? The Avalanche went to Quebec CIty and wore Nordiques jerseys. At least Sakic did.
Gamefreak
Bee.
Capacity for Rexall is 16839. You didn't use ESPN figures for attendance, did you? Where it shows the capacity for Rexall at 17099, a number it hasn't been since 02-03?
This is the very epitome of your posts, Hawker. You assume that Canada supports hockey uniformly because it is Canada. You try to lump in mega-markets like Toronto and semi-mega-markets like Montreal and Vancouver and get some rub from them for a miniscule market like Winnipeg. That is clearly ludicrous. Even trying to get the rub from markets in the middle of the hottest economy in NA (Calgary and Edmonton) is a stretch. The Canadian markets do well at present because of a number of factors which are unrelated to the fact that they are in Canada, which is the only characteristic they share with Winnipeg.
You really need to get it through your head - being in Canada does not ensure automatic success. As well, you would be well served to understand the corollary - not everyone in Canada is a hockey fan. In fact, THE VAST MAJORITY of Canadians are not hockey fans. Tens of millions of Canadians never played hockey, not even once. Tens of millions have never even set foot inside an arena, not even once.
If you want stats, by the way, here are some stats that are actually relevant. Ranked by revenue, Canadian teams are 1st (TO), 3rd (MON), 11th (VAN), 12th (OTT), T13th (EDM) and 18th (CAL). Other than TOR and MON, the other four teams are average revenue teams (VAN just a little bit higher, CAL significantly lower).
Another Canadian team will happen when the market conditions FOR THAT PARTICULAR MARKET dictates it, and not a second sooner. It will not be dictated by the simple fact that a city is located in Canada. Hockey fans buying tickets in Toronto or Montreal or any other Canadian city will not support that effort. If the money is there in THAT MARKET, and the corporate support is there IN THAT MARKET, and the tickets/boxes/sponsorships are assured of being bought IN THAT MARKET, there will in all likelihood be a team IN THAT MARKET.
Personally, I do not see any more markets capable of fitting that criteria. I have read nothing to convince me otherwise, despite begging for evidence.
Last edited by a moderator:
Northern Dancer
The future ain't what it used to be.
Attendance means dick !!! It is revenue that counts. Winnipeg and Quebec City did NOT lose there franchises over attendance. Focus on corporate sponsorship, suites, seat licensces, ticket prices, TV revenue, radio revenue, marketing revenue, etc.
Been thru this a million times but a 42 million dollar payroll (below the cap by the way) means a team needs to make one MILLION dollars PROFIT EVERY home game just to pay the bufoons on the ice. (that is about 1.2 MILLION Cdn)
That works out to an AVERAGE ticket price of $63.00 per seat per game (Cdn based on 19,000 capacity). AND THAT STILL ONLY PAYS THE IDIOTS ON THE ICE !!
Will people stop talking attendance !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Trizent
Registered User
For some reason, they are using wrong number for the capacity in Edmonton and have been for a couple years. 16, 839 is capacity. Edmonton has sold out all games this year.
http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/NHL-Business/05-06forbes.htm
Although the Forbes profit numbers are deeply suspect (as they should be), and the NHL has certainly rejected them, I have not heard any objections from the NHL or anyone else to the revenue numbers, and they do add up correctly, it would appear. Given ticket prices, concession prices and TV deal revenues, one should be able to get a reasonable bead on the revenue side of the equation. It is the private numbers (operating costs) that Forbes would not have a clue about.
To the extent that the numbers are off, I would suspect (though it is only an opinion)
that the rankings would be pretty close.
Plus, as far as I can see, it's all we have to go on.
I see, I thought you may have had another source. Bettman actually mentioned the Forbes list during the all-star break, citing, as you say, that they have no access to some of the numbers so how could they possible know. The only thing else he mentioned was that he felt the numbers were in fact, low.
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,258
- 8,686
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't "profit" include paying for expenses like player salaries to begin with? Also, wouldn't a team get money from things like luxury boxes, club seating, merchandise sales, radio/TV broadcast fees, and so forth and so on (all of which you're omitting)?
Besides, $42 million doesn't necessarily mean $42 million at the end of the season - if the players' salaries exceeds the percentage they're guaranteed, the owners would get escrow back to make up the overage. That would have to be accounted for as well.
Northern Dancer
The future ain't what it used to be.
Irish Blues, I was only trying to state that basing arguements on attendance alone proves absolutely nothing. It is revenue that counts. I am fully aware that my example was nowhere near complete. I am fully cognizant that teams have other sources of revenue than ticket prices (they also have other expenses).
When I said profit of 1.2 million per game to pay the players, I meant gate revenue minus all game day expenses ( rent or interest payments, game day staff etc).
I am a painter not an artist, was painting a barn door not a portrait.
Do you not agree that attendance alone as a barometer of a team's financial viability is wrong?
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,258
- 8,686
You mean ... just because a team draws 12,500 once it doesn't mean that it's a poor market, the team is going broke, and the league should either contract the team now or move it to Canada where everyone knows the fans will appreciate and support the team more?
John Belushi
Registered Boozer
This one sentence here just shows how biased and against Canadian hockey you are. You don't deserve to flash that Canadian flag on your profile.
Vancouver 4 spots higher than the median = "a little bit higher" while Calgary at 3 spots lower than the median = "significantly lower?"
If you want to make a good argument, do it from an unbiased and objective perspective. Stuff like that really detracts from your point.
Bear of Bad News
Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
- Sep 27, 2005
- 13,549
- 27,109
Maybe he's looking at the actual revenue numbers while writing his statement, and not just the ordinal ranking of the teams.
kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
He's not.
Vancouver ($80M in Forbe's revenues in '05-'06) is 5 spots and $8.5M above the median ($71.5 - #15 Carolina at $72M and #16 Minnesots at $71M). Calgary ($68M) is 4 spots and only $2.5M below the median.
<insert standard Forbes numbers disclaimer here>, but those were the numbers he was using.
http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/NHL-Business/05-06forbes.htm
PHP:
Forbes NHL Report
2005-06
(In Millions of Dollars)
Rank Team Value Revenues Operating Income
1 Toronto Maple Leafs 332 119 41.5
2 New York Rangers 306 109 17.7
3 Detroit Red Wings 258 89 5.8
4 Dallas Stars 248 89 10.0
5 Philadelphia Flyers 246 88 0.9
6 Boston Bruins 235 86 4.8
7 Montreal Canadiens 230 90 17.5
8 Colorado Avalanche 219 81 5.9
9 Los Angeles Kings 205 82 7.1
10 Vancouver Canucks 192 80 1.1
11 Tampa Bay Lightning 172 82 5.0
12 Chicago Blackhawks 168 67 3.1
13 Minnesota Wild 163 71 4.7
14 Ottawa Senators 159 76 4.2
15 Anaheim Ducks 157 75 -0.2
16 St Louis Blues 150 66 1.0
17 Buffalo Sabres 149 70 4.6
18 New Jersey Devils 148 62 -6.7
19 Edmonton Oilers 146 75 10.7
20 San Jose Sharks 145 69 1.8
21 Carolina Hurricanes 144 72 0.5
22 Phoenix Coyotes 143 63 -6.0
23 Florida Panthers 142 65 -1.9
24 New York Islanders 140 56 -9.2
25 Columbus Blue Jackets 139 66 -4.0
26 Calgary Flames 135 68 2.3
27 Nashville Predators 134 61 -1.1
28 Pittsburgh Penguins 133 63 4.8
29 Atlanta Thrashers 128 64 -5.4
30 Washington Capitals 127 63 4.6
Totals Avg (180) 2267 125.1
