Buffalo, not so much, MSG got that market after the collapse of Adelphia, voyageur, which is why Golisano came in to stabilize the franchise after Rigas was excommunicated the same way Moyes was in Arizona, that's why Pegula came in and added the Bills after the passing of Ralph Wilson, and Rochester's Americans were added officially in 2009, remember, there were issues between the Sabres and Rochester around 2006, and it almost cost Rochester their franchise in their silver anniversary season, as the Americans are the 2nd oldest continually operating franchise (1956)behind Hershey, who trails only the NHL o6 & the AHL itself, in terms of age, as this is Hershey's 8th decade under a trust decree.
Has Quebec City been priced out of the NHL?
- Thread starter Fenway
- Start date
- Status
Buffalo, not so much, MSG got that market after the collapse of Adelphia, voyageur, which is why Golisano came in to stabilize the franchise after Rigas was excommunicated the same way Moyes was in Arizona, that's why Pegula came in and added the Bills after the passing of Ralph Wilson, and Rochester's Americans were added officially in 2009, remember, there were issues between the Sabres and Rochester around 2006, and it almost cost Rochester their franchise in their silver anniversary season, as the Americans are the 2nd oldest continually operating franchise (1956)behind Hershey, who trails only the NHL o6 & the AHL itself, in terms of age, as this is Hershey's 8th decade under a trust decree.
Does anyone know the answers to these questions ?
1) When a new franchise is sold --say to Seattle for $ 600 million --do "all" existing NHL teams get a percentage % cut of this sale ? If the answer is yes --what percentage of the sale for a "new franchise" does each team get ??
2) When the NHL has a TV broadcast contract with a large carrier--like NBC, CBS or whomever--does the "team that's being broadcast" get any or all of those revenues, and if yes what percentage ??-- or does the NHL get all of the revenues for TV broadcast ?
I'm just trying to understand how these hockey franchises are making money --and not just off their gate attendance and merchandise sales-- but in every area. If anybody knows the answers to my questions, I'd really appreciate you reply --thanks.
I'm really trying to make sense of these franchises like Florida, Arizona, Buffalo, and Carolina cope financially -- with such low attendance, and huge financial losses ?
1) When a new franchise is sold --say to Seattle for $ 600 million --do "all" existing NHL teams get a percentage % cut of this sale ? If the answer is yes --what percentage of the sale for a "new franchise" does each team get ??
2) When the NHL has a TV broadcast contract with a large carrier--like NBC, CBS or whomever--does the "team that's being broadcast" get any or all of those revenues, and if yes what percentage ??-- or does the NHL get all of the revenues for TV broadcast ?
I'm just trying to understand how these hockey franchises are making money --and not just off their gate attendance and merchandise sales-- but in every area. If anybody knows the answers to my questions, I'd really appreciate you reply --thanks.
I'm really trying to make sense of these franchises like Florida, Arizona, Buffalo, and Carolina cope financially -- with such low attendance, and huge financial losses ?
^^^Expansion: The fee is cut evenly between all the other teams.
TV: Nationwide contracts are cut evenly between teams. It doesn't matter who is playing any particular game. The exception to this is that the Canada contract pays more to the Canadian teams.
As for the mentioned teams:
Carolina is easiest to figure: The team gets most of the profit from everything that happens in their arena.
Florida: They have a sweet deal with Broward County, who owns the arena, and pays them a subsidy to play there. This subsidy is scheduled to decrease year-by-year, starting fairly soon, however.
Buffalo: I've never seen anything indicating Sabres are in trouble. I'm assuming their ticket $$ is very good.
Arizona: See the multitude of threads on this topic on this site. In short, it seems that the recent increase in franchise values, pushed mainly by Ballmer paying 2B for the LA Clippers NBA team, has covered the year to year losses of the Coyotes'ownership. How long that can actually last, with losses still being incurred, remains to be seen.
TV: Nationwide contracts are cut evenly between teams. It doesn't matter who is playing any particular game. The exception to this is that the Canada contract pays more to the Canadian teams.
As for the mentioned teams:
Carolina is easiest to figure: The team gets most of the profit from everything that happens in their arena.
Florida: They have a sweet deal with Broward County, who owns the arena, and pays them a subsidy to play there. This subsidy is scheduled to decrease year-by-year, starting fairly soon, however.
Buffalo: I've never seen anything indicating Sabres are in trouble. I'm assuming their ticket $$ is very good.
Arizona: See the multitude of threads on this topic on this site. In short, it seems that the recent increase in franchise values, pushed mainly by Ballmer paying 2B for the LA Clippers NBA team, has covered the year to year losses of the Coyotes'ownership. How long that can actually last, with losses still being incurred, remains to be seen.
powerstuck
Nordiques Hopes Lies
To add what MNN said...
Teams also generate revenue thru local TV deal. Contrary to the National deal that is split evenly among all teams, local deals are 100% to teams but also vary from a few (less than 5) millions a year to $41M (Leafs) a year.
League also splits the revenues generated by merchandise sale (the league usually gets a % of all sales and manufacturer+store get the big chunk - something like 10% league, 5% store, 85% Adidas) but they also split all licencing deals (Adidas pays NHL to be the exclusive manufacturer of jerseys for example).
Then, you add in the league share pot that top dogs (top 10 revenue generating teams) pay into and that bottom teams can get part of as help.
It is also worthy to note that on paper NHL is a non profit organisation. The way it work is that the league has its functioning costs covered by all ''profits'' made and then they redistribute everything back to teams. So while individual teams are looking-for-profit organisations, the NHL itself is not.
Teams also generate revenue thru local TV deal. Contrary to the National deal that is split evenly among all teams, local deals are 100% to teams but also vary from a few (less than 5) millions a year to $41M (Leafs) a year.
League also splits the revenues generated by merchandise sale (the league usually gets a % of all sales and manufacturer+store get the big chunk - something like 10% league, 5% store, 85% Adidas) but they also split all licencing deals (Adidas pays NHL to be the exclusive manufacturer of jerseys for example).
Then, you add in the league share pot that top dogs (top 10 revenue generating teams) pay into and that bottom teams can get part of as help.
It is also worthy to note that on paper NHL is a non profit organisation. The way it work is that the league has its functioning costs covered by all ''profits'' made and then they redistribute everything back to teams. So while individual teams are looking-for-profit organisations, the NHL itself is not.
Hal1971
Registered User
The lastest poll in quebec tells that only 14% still believe that the Nordiques will be back before 5 years, 32% between 5-10 years, 14% more than 10 years and 31% never
L'espoir de revoir les Nordiques à Québec en chute libre | ICI.Radio-Canada.ca
L'espoir de revoir les Nordiques à Québec en chute libre | ICI.Radio-Canada.ca
powerstuck
Nordiques Hopes Lies
But we still hockey crazy like no other. At some point I wish someone would do a research on us...figure out this mental issue we have and give it a name.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
you guys dont have a "mental issue" or a "problem".... the League does.
Yes, I am aware. But, what I meant was (as they are in the same metro as the Isles and Rangers) would't they have an issue being taken out of the same division?
The only way I feel Quebec gets a team is it gets really ugly in Ottawa and Lebranton Flats does not happen.
I could see Melynk moving the team. Don Cherry was pushing that idea on Coaches Corner
I could see Melynk moving the team. Don Cherry was pushing that idea on Coaches Corner
Quebec should have been the expansion team in stead of Vegas.
Why? It does nothing other than make the league more unbalanced conference wise. They had no interest in going 15/17 yet alone 14/17.
I don't know if there is any other place in Canada where they would throw so much money into a world class arena based only on a wing and a prayer. That's the main issue here. Irresponsible use of tax payer funds, imo. If people in Quebec are disappointed, they only have their government to blame.
LadyStanley
Registered User
I'm a Lyft driver in Las Vegas. Picked up a couple this morning from QC who arrived for Saturday's VGK game (they might try for Friday's game as well). They commented how QC seems to have been forgotten by NHL. I suggested that they might be the home for a relocated EC team. That didn't placate them.
Blue Warriors
Registered User
Yes, unfortunately for us the NHL doesn’t want to fix the imbalance in Canada ( 4 teams in the West and 3 in the East). Conspicuously, they didn’t care about this « balance » when Columbus, Florida, Tampa, Atlanta , Carolina and New Jersey were awarded teams.
Last edited:
since when was New Jersey awarded a franchise, Blue, New Jersey was in two previous cities/states before landing there in 1982
I have always believed the biggest issue for Quebec will be getting a team when there are other worthy, untapped markets available.
As it stands, how many Quebec fans are just not fans of the NHL at all? I'd guess a very small portion. I am assuming that almost all these fans have other teams they cheer, support and in some way give money to.
The NHL is going to do its best to expand into new markets and gain new fans. Until this has been exhausted (and it hasn't yet), Quebec will not get a team.
As it stands, how many Quebec fans are just not fans of the NHL at all? I'd guess a very small portion. I am assuming that almost all these fans have other teams they cheer, support and in some way give money to.
The NHL is going to do its best to expand into new markets and gain new fans. Until this has been exhausted (and it hasn't yet), Quebec will not get a team.
Channelcat
Unhinged user
We're going to have to see a few teams crash and burn before its even a possibility. Maybe the next market crash will bring the league back down to earth.
Blue Warriors
Registered User
I know they were the Colorado Rockies/ KC Scouts before. It didn’t matter then to the NHL to allow a move from a Western market to an Eastern one while the imbalance was even worse . I believe it’s the first time in the history of the league that this « we have to balance the conferences » argument is used, and they created this knowingly by moving Detroit and Columbus to the Eastern Conference.
DowntownBooster
Registered User
The Colorado Rockies moved to New Jersey in 1982 which was well before Gary Bettman becoming commissioner of the NHL. Things were done in a more haphazard way back in those days and the way the divisions were set up didn't matter as much to those in charge.
Balancing the Canadian teams out makes no sense unless they create a Canadian only conference......which would never happen.
Blue Warriors
Registered User
I agree with you guys. My point is that the NHL can set up the divisions and conferences any way they like. The alignment can be changed and previously was changed after new teams and markets joined the league, including Winnipeg . The present alignment is built this way simply because Jacobs and others want teams in Seattle, Vegas and Houston( if Arizona has to move). Of course they present it in a seemingly logical way, with the time zones and geography, but you still have one conference that has to deal with 3 time zones. How is that fair? The BoG could think ‘outside the box’ to fix this ( especially if they want to change the playoffs format), but it fits their agenda . I believe this is the first time the alignment has been designed to include future desirable markets.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
Game 3 New York Rangers @ Washington Capitals - New York Rangers leads series 2-0Wagers: 9Staked: $4,682.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-