NHL's return to Winnipeg certain says analyst

[Squiddy*]

It's his right, I feel the same way about NAFTA.

America pretty much benefits from all the natural resources from canada so do you really feel the same way about nafta?

 

[Resolute]

Not really....

Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa have all demonstrated last season that they can sustain $35-40M payrolls and break even (at least), without a dime of revenue sharing. Granted, revenues will likely be down this year for those teams, but it's far from unreasonable to suggest that Winnipeg can't sustain a $30M payroll before we even need to talk about revenue sharing.

I agree with you that the building needs to be at 100% capacity every night, but that should be the least of anyone's concern. This team drew well over 13k in 1981/82 when they only won 9 games!

The only legitimate roadblocks I see are the availability of franchises, and the competition from other potential relocation sites.

PS: I am stunned this thread is still going on... Hockey's back - don't we all have better things to talk about

Actually, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa all received $3 million in revenue sharing from the currency equalization program. Edmonton needed the Heritage Classic to break even, while it took Calgary two playoff rounds. Ottawa's situation last year I am unsure of.

All three will actually be ahead in revenue this year, as all three are playing to 100% capacity, something they werent last season.

Could Winnipeg support a $30 million payroll? Probably. If they sell out. But dont kid yourself, Winnipeg will not sellout in the long term if/when they start losing. Winnipeg is not that special a market. No more so than Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, etc, all of which lost fans in down years.

Also, the salary cap will rise as years go on. Winnipeg will have to raise ticket prices at a faster rate to compensate for the smaller arena. IMO, Winnipeg would constantly be on shaky ground, even in this CBA.

A ridiculously large TV deal would help it thirve (ala the Green Bay Packers)
A loonie that tanks vs the greenback would kill it.

Again.

 

[Resolute]

It's a shame that Canadian teams have to share revenues with the American teams.

Imagine if eight Canadian cities (including Winnipeg and Quebec City) could keep all of the Canadian television revenue to themselves. The CBC pays what, $60 million per year in rights fees? The going rate for mid-week Leaf games on Sportsnet/TSN was about $400,000 per game, and I think the Habs and Canucks were fetching around $250,000 per game. Two games a week for 25 weeks at an average of $300,000 per game would be another $15 million in revenue.

It's getting pretty close to $10 million per year for each of the eight Canadian-based teams. But we have to give that up in exchange for a 1/30th slice of U.S.
television revenues.

Then there's licensing and merchandising. Imagine how much money each Canadian team could keep for every jersey, flag, and toddler's pyjamas that is sold with the local team's emblem on them. But again, the Calgary's, Edmonton's, Ottawa's etc. sacrifice that chunk of revenue in exchange for a 1/30th share of Nashville's and Washington's and Carolina's merchandising revenue.

What a shame.

That is one of my least favorite arguments, as it is deliberately ridiculous.

Why are you talking about sacrificing our own merchandising revenues for a share of Nashvilles or Carolinas, but not the Rangers, or Flyers, etc?

To the best of my knowledge, Toronto is always #1 in merchandising. Calgary was #2 last year because of the playoff run. Usually, the Flames, and the rest of the Canadian teams are actually lower down. I do not believe that eliminating this form of revenue sharing would net a significant increase in revenue.

 

[Tokyo Bucks]

The Leafs will never allow it because all pro team owners are greedy bastards, but a second team in Toronto is probably the most economically viable option for another NHL team in Canada. That's because the pro hockey market in Toronto must be big enough for 2 NHL teams, if other Canadian teams less than half of Toronto's size can support a team. It would be great for a league, but it will never happen.

 

[Roke]

The Leafs will never allow it because all pro team owners are greedy bastards, but a second team in Toronto is probably the most economically viable option for another NHL team in Canada. That's because the pro hockey market in Toronto must be big enough for 2 NHL teams, if other Canadian teams less than half of Toronto's size can support a team. It would be great for a league, but it will never happen.

The question though would be would Toronto support a team other than the Leafs?

 

[Hockeyfan_86]

I don't think that there are many people in Toronto that would support another team in TO. Maybe they could gather enough of a following tho...if they managed to garner enough interest in disgruntled torontonians, hamiltonians....surrounding places. All I know is I can never see myself switching allegiance so I wouldn't expect the same from other people. I like the idea of the rivalry it could create though.

 

[Squiddy*]

I don't think that there are many people in Toronto that would support another team in TO. Maybe they could gather enough of a following tho...if they managed to garner enough interest in disgruntled torontonians, hamiltonians....surrounding places. All I know is I can never see myself switching allegiance so I wouldn't expect the same from other people. I like the idea of the rivalry it could create though.

Hamilton and Surrounding areas like Oakville, Niagara, etc will probably support the team.

 

[Tokyo Bucks]

People probably said the same thing about the Mets and Angels in baseball, Jets in football, and the Nets in basketball (Clippers are probably a bad example ). It can be done, and is probably more feasible than an even smaller Canadian city. Aren't there any anti-Leaf fans in Toronto?

 

[Squiddy*]

People probably said the same thing about the Mets and Angels in baseball, Jets in football, and the Nets in basketball (Clippers are probably a bad example ). It can be done, and is probably more feasible than an even smaller Canadian city. Aren't there any anti-Leaf fans in Toronto?

Probably, but it aint going to happen anyways. The leafs blocked teams in hamilton for years and they aren't going to stop anytime soon.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Probably, but it aint going to happen anyways. The leafs blocked teams in hamilton for years and they aren't going to stop anytime soon.

The Leafs and Marlies bud are in Toronto in case you haven't been paying attention, Squid, besides the Canadiens own the affiliation in Hamilton

 

[Squiddy*]

The Leafs and Marlies bud are in Toronto in case you haven't been paying attention, Squid, besides the Canadiens own the affiliation in Hamilton

So what? Is their a point to this argument? who cares if the marlies are in toronto and the bulldogs are in Hamilton? INCASE YOU DON'T KNOW... TORONTO IS DEAD SET ON NOT HAVING LOCAL RIVALRIES IN THEIR 50 OR SOMETHING KM RADIUS.

 

[LadyJet26]

I think it's more along the lines that Hamilton would have no fans because the vast majority are Leafs fans and wouldn't change sides.

 

[Jumptheshark]

http://winnipegsun.com/Sports/Hockey/2005/10/05/1248914-sun.html

The fact it is from Winterpeg causes me to shake my head

The peg built a new Arena and the rumours started

I remember HNIC talked about it and every agreed that the peg needed to add a few more thousand seets to the arena(which they did not).

The peg has what I would call faint hope and denial syndrome

Edmonton is barely big enough to have an NHL team

I think you will see Houston and KC having teams before the peg

 

[jamiebez]

Actually, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa all received $3 million in revenue sharing from the currency equalization program. Edmonton needed the Heritage Classic to break even, while it took Calgary two playoff rounds. Ottawa's situation last year I am unsure of.

All three will actually be ahead in revenue this year, as all three are playing to 100% capacity, something they werent last season.

Could Winnipeg support a $30 million payroll? Probably. If they sell out. But dont kid yourself, Winnipeg will not sellout in the long term if/when they start losing. Winnipeg is not that special a market. No more so than Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, etc, all of which lost fans in down years.

Also, the salary cap will rise as years go on. Winnipeg will have to raise ticket prices at a faster rate to compensate for the smaller arena. IMO, Winnipeg would constantly be on shaky ground, even in this CBA.

A ridiculously large TV deal would help it thirve (ala the Green Bay Packers)
A loonie that tanks vs the greenback would kill it.

Again.

If you look at the revenue picture in Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa over the last 2-3 years under the old CBA, they're all able to support about a $30-32M payroll and at least break even without any playoff OR special event revenue (like the Heritage Classic) OR revenue sharing. That's why I'm confident Winnipeg would be able to support at least $30M, without revenue sharing, and assuming a mediocre team.

There's no doubt that a team's performance affects their gate in the long-term, but let's face it - this CBA is structured to spread out the competitive balance of the league. I don't believe you'll see teams being doormats for years and years like the Jets were under the old system. (Granted, that was due to many other factors other than financial reasons). A consistently below-average-to-decent team in a good market will still draw - you have to look no further than Edmonton or Calgary over the last few seasons for proof of that. Even Columbus is going gangbusters at the gate with one of the worst teams in the league.

As far as the cap, it will rise as revenues rise. Not that I think it's healthy for any team to depend on revenue sharing, but it exists for that reason - to spread wealth from the rich teams to the poor. If the cap range is sitting at $35-50M in 3 years, a lot more teams than Winnipeg will be in need of revenue sharing to make ends meet. My expectation is that there are teams out there right now who can't even support a $25M payroll without losing money, but time will tell on that.

Finally, if Winnipeg would be on shaky ground with a 15,000 seat arena and 70 cent Cdn dollar, where does that leave Edmonton with a 16,800 seat arena and the same 70 cent dollar?

 

[jamiebez]

People probably said the same thing about the Mets and Angels in baseball, Jets in football, and the Nets in basketball (Clippers are probably a bad example ). It can be done, and is probably more feasible than an even smaller Canadian city. Aren't there any anti-Leaf fans in Toronto?

Well, I hated them when I was living in Hamilton

The problem with another team in Southern Ontario is that both Buffalo and Toronto have a 75-mile territorial protection zone, and have the right to veto any teams from moving into that area.

The Leafs would basically have to give up a significant portion of their broadcast rights to another Toronto team. This is a VERY large portion of their revenue stream, and I don't think they'd be as anxious to share it. Plus, where would they play? Ricoh is a great building, but it's not really suitable for the NHL - it only has 10,000 seats and about 40 suites.

A team further south (Hamilton) would significantly impact the Sabres attendance, and they're on shaky ground as it is. Plus, they'd need to take a part of the Leafs TV territory (at least Hamilton/St. Cats/Niagara) and again, why would the Leafs want to even give up a small portion of that cash?

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

So what? Is their a point to this argument? who cares if the marlies are in toronto and the bulldogs are in Hamilton? INCASE YOU DON'T KNOW... TORONTO IS DEAD SET ON NOT HAVING LOCAL RIVALRIES IN THEIR 50 OR SOMETHING KM RADIUS.

You are the one who's complaining here that Houston, Winnipeg, etc should be getting an NHL franchise there, Squid, despite what the true fans are saying to you.

BTW, MLSE did not block the Edmonton owned Road Runners from leaving Toronto due to territorial radius that u are whining about, IN fact, MLSE was working to fill the hole created by that decision and Montreal was there to replace the Oilers in Hamilton to fill the franchise void to continue hockey in Hamilton (the old Quebec Citadelles, as a matter of fact, are the current Bulldogs, fyi.)

Edmonton's ownership ie Lyle Abraham couldn't satisfy the lease agreement @ Ricoh Coliseum and that management company overseeing the building tossed the Roadrunners out leaving the Toronto market open, well before the Leafs/MLSE KNEW that the St. John's franchise was entering an option year and was waiting to see if the St. John's team would stay in Newfoundland or fill the void @ Ricoh as the Marlies.

It is a coincidence that the Oilers are back in Hamilton but as a secondary affiliate because Last June (8th) to be accurate, the Road Runners temporarily replaced the Oilers @ Rexall Place due to the lockout, but the decision was made to voluntarily suspend the Oilers' AHL Franchise BUT have yet to announce their plans for 2006-07.

So what are u complaining about, Squid, again get some idea before the next time you have a thought about the territorial rights of the AHL, OK

 

[AdmiralPred]

You are the one who's complaining here that Houston, Winnipeg, etc should be getting an NHL franchise there, Squid, despite what the true fans are saying to you.

BTW, MLSE did not block the Edmonton owned Road Runners from leaving Toronto due to territorial radius that u are whining about, IN fact, MLSE was working to fill the hole created by that decision and Montreal was there to replace the Oilers in Hamilton to fill the franchise void to continue hockey in Hamilton (the old Quebec Citadelles, as a matter of fact, are the current Bulldogs, fyi.)

Edmonton's ownership ie Lyle Abraham couldn't satisfy the lease agreement @ Ricoh Coliseum and that management company overseeing the building tossed the Roadrunners out leaving the Toronto market open, well before the Leafs/MLSE KNEW that the St. John's franchise was entering an option year and was waiting to see if the St. John's team would stay in Newfoundland or fill the void @ Ricoh as the Marlies.

It is a coincidence that the Oilers are back in Hamilton but as a secondary affiliate because Last June (8th) to be accurate, the Road Runners temporarily replaced the Oilers @ Rexall Place due to the lockout, but the decision was made to voluntarily suspend the Oilers' AHL Franchise BUT have yet to announce their plans for 2006-07.

So what are u complaining about, Squid, again get some idea before the next time you have a thought about the territorial rights of the AHL, OK

HUTCH, I think you may have missed Squiddy's point. Toronto doesn't want another NHL team within 50 km creating a rivalry or alternative for fans, particularly in Hamilton. It is the same concept that got the Baltimore Orioles up in arms last year when the Montreal Expos moved to D.C. and 15 years ago when Bill Wirtz had issues with Milwaukee being in the hunt for a NHL team.

Owners of these established franchises didn't want some fresh blood moving into their neighborhood and taking a bite out of the fan base and media revenues.