Did Bettman try and save the Jets?

[Bear of Bad News]

Fair enough. I sit corrected.

 

[GSC2k2*]

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

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

Actually, gents, I was looking at the AVERAGE revenue, not the median or the ordinal rankings. I was not aware of any protocol requiring that only median revenue be used.

The average revenue is $75.6 million. Vancouver was only $4.4 million higher. Calgary was $7.6 million below average.

Certainly the differential is different using median values.

 

[GSC2k2*]

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.

Exactly who in the hell do you think you are? You are WAY out of line, sir.

As I indicated above, I was using AVERAGE revenue figures, which is precisely what I reference in my post. I am biased in favour of empirical data and thoughtful logical analysis, as opposed to the conventional wisdom or "common sense" that passes for discourse in so many threads around here.

 

[John Belushi]

Maybe he's looking at the actual revenue numbers while writing his statement, and not just the ordinal ranking of the teams.

.

 

[John Belushi]

Exactly who in the hell do you think you are? You are WAY out of line, sir.

As I indicated above, I was using AVERAGE revenue figures, which is precisely what I reference in my post. I am biased in favour of empirical data and thoughtful logical analysis, as opposed to the conventional wisdom or "common sense" that passes for discourse in so many threads around here.

Then why, oh why are you so against expansion in Canada? I support teams in the US, hell, whatever helps the sport but it shouldn't come at our expense. Kitchener, Winnipeg, Quebec, AMONG OTHERS could likely support a team. Why do you think KC could? Oklahoma? Florida, on a consistent basis? The list goes on.

The safest business option would be another Canadian team, not another gamble in the States. The only place I would support expansion to instead of Canada would be to Las Vegas.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Then why, oh why are you so against expansion in Canada? I support teams in the US, hell, whatever helps the sport but it shouldn't come at our expense. Kitchener, Winnipeg, Quebec, AMONG OTHERS could likely support a team. Why do you think KC could? Oklahoma? Florida, on a consistent basis? The list goes on.

The safest business option would be another Canadian team, not another gamble in the States. The only place I would support expansion to instead of Canada would be to Las Vegas.

Firstly, there is no "our expense". That asserts a Cdn vs. US mentality, which I simply do not and will not subscribe to. Hockey fans are hockey fans. I think any assertion that Canadian fans are better than US fans or that Canada "deserves" another team is just so much utter bulls**t. The word "deserves" has absolutely no place whatsoever in the discussion.

Secondly, I am not "against" expansion in any particular place. What I am against is expansion in markets that, in my business judgment, would have an unacceptably high degree of risk of failure. That would be bad for the NHL. Failed franchises are bad for any and every professional sports league. I am also against the location of an NHL franchise in a place where it would have a negative impact on another franchise. It must "add value" to the league. It must be capable of supporting a team both immediately and in the long term offer growth possibilities both for the team and the league.

Thirdly, given that the proper litmus test for the location of an NHL franchise is the probability of success and adding value to the league (that is, not being successful at the expense of cannibalizing an existing franchise), I have looked at the pros and cons of various NHL locations proposed. I am probably more familiar with the Jetties' campaign, since they try so hard they have produced a fair bit of reading material on the subject. For other locations, I have done some research here and there. For still others, I have some personal knowledge (i.e. Hamilton, where I have lived for many years). In my business judgment, there are no Canadian locations that could either support a franchise and/or offer the necessary growth opportunities.

See, the thing that bugs me more thqan anything else is that, when one applies a business mentality to this decision (which is the only way to look at it, since it is a business decision), the question of on what side of the border a particular location is situated is completely irrelevant. While Canada has markets which generate revenues ranging from slightly below average (Calgary/Edmonton) to very solid (Ottawa/Vancouver) to awesome (Montreal/Toronto), there is no uniformity to it. NHL hockey does not sell in Canada everywhere, and particularly not just because we are Canadians. That is a fallacy brought about by the type of simplistic assumptions that many people bring to this board, and to this question in particular. NHL hockey is not just "hockey". It is a high-priced commodity that is dependent upon a huge amount of corporate support and places high demands upon its consumers to fork over ever-increasing amounts of cash for tickets, parking, concessions, sweaters, branded merchandise and the like. The corporate support element is an absolute must; the modern day sports franchise does not exist that can even live without it, much less prosper. Our country has only a few areas of strong corporate presences. Each of them has an NHL franchise. Our country only has so many areas where the populace has the wherewithal to fork over the necessary dollars on a consistent and ever-increasing level. That does not mean Canadians don't like hockey. There are several millions of us who do (although far, far from the majority of Canadians, I feel - another misconception based on the assumption that hockey fans myopically make, that everyone loves hockey like they do), but there are not nearly as many that are prepared to hand over their debit cards to support.

Incidentally, IMO for all the reasons I have stated above, Vegas would have no chance either. I would have my doubts about OK or KC as well; I would have to see what type of corporate community exists there. I know there is some, but I definitely dunno.

I hope that clarifies things.

 

[John Belushi]

I hope that clarifies things.

It does. Thank you.