A big market is only the size of the territory of fans you have to draw from. Cities of 2 mil I'd consider mid market. 1 mil like Ottawa is small market. However with a much higher market penetration in Ottawa than say LA, we can maintain similar revenues.
Regardless of the market, if your team just won a Stanley Cup, would you not expect ticket prices in the top quartile?
I know what you're saying, but it it still has to be the only measure of success. Ok for our purposes in an ugly money talk, lets say playoff victories in the last 3 years is a good business proxy for what we are saying. 30 games is great success. 50 playoff gates in 5 years, and the ensuing regular season sellouts and higher ticket prices brings you Colorado revenue. Colorado, who NYR made the Sakic offer sheet to because, well being a small market and having just signed Forsberg, they would not be able to match. When they did, their financial doom was declared. If they didnt go on to win another cup, at least one would have been let go as a UFA. Another sign of the unfairness of the system they would say.
Well .. we've had more playoff victories in the last 5 years than Calgary, just behind Toronto I think, so in that sense we've more successful. But which team is going to become the better team over the next 3 years and have championship success? I tell ya, I saw the Calgary-Ottawa games last year, and they gave us everything we could handle and beat us. And we said then I wouldnt want to meet them in a first round matchup. Their final appearance was no fluke. In that sense, which team has been more successful of putting the nucleus of champion together? Tough call I say.
And using the fact that a team did not make the playoffs for 7 years as a sign of the competitiveness of the system doesnt work for me. Not to mention sos did the other end of the extreme - the Rangers. Obviously money cant be the variable factor. In a league where you develop from 18 yr olds and develop them 9 years, you have a 9 year development window. Once your core is UFA age, if your team isnt successful, no amount of money will get you there. You pull a Rangers, Caps, possibly soon to be Stars. No different than Calgary. When all the players they stole from you get old and retire, they get no more for Weight than Edmonton did. Big picture its not unfair.
Its not easy period. Winning success brings you the economics to maintain a higher than average payroll. No system will be without tough choices. That really seems the issue to me. No one wants to have to make tough choices. Losing Yashin seemed horribly unfair at the time. Every fans ghost roster has a top line spot pegged for an expensive UFA they desire as a missing piece. Its an illusion. Its not the way to do it. IF you need it, you arent ready yet.
Regardless of the market, if your team just won a Stanley Cup, would you not expect ticket prices in the top quartile?
The Iconoclast said:
I know what you're saying, but it it still has to be the only measure of success. Ok for our purposes in an ugly money talk, lets say playoff victories in the last 3 years is a good business proxy for what we are saying. 30 games is great success. 50 playoff gates in 5 years, and the ensuing regular season sellouts and higher ticket prices brings you Colorado revenue. Colorado, who NYR made the Sakic offer sheet to because, well being a small market and having just signed Forsberg, they would not be able to match. When they did, their financial doom was declared. If they didnt go on to win another cup, at least one would have been let go as a UFA. Another sign of the unfairness of the system they would say.
Well .. we've had more playoff victories in the last 5 years than Calgary, just behind Toronto I think, so in that sense we've more successful. But which team is going to become the better team over the next 3 years and have championship success? I tell ya, I saw the Calgary-Ottawa games last year, and they gave us everything we could handle and beat us. And we said then I wouldnt want to meet them in a first round matchup. Their final appearance was no fluke. In that sense, which team has been more successful of putting the nucleus of champion together? Tough call I say.
And using the fact that a team did not make the playoffs for 7 years as a sign of the competitiveness of the system doesnt work for me. Not to mention sos did the other end of the extreme - the Rangers. Obviously money cant be the variable factor. In a league where you develop from 18 yr olds and develop them 9 years, you have a 9 year development window. Once your core is UFA age, if your team isnt successful, no amount of money will get you there. You pull a Rangers, Caps, possibly soon to be Stars. No different than Calgary. When all the players they stole from you get old and retire, they get no more for Weight than Edmonton did. Big picture its not unfair.
Only if money was the cause and not an effect. Come on, in Hockey big spending teams succeed and fail, low spending teams succeed and fail. Its not the deciding factor. Team development is. No non recent champ won a cup by spending. Your first time has to be at the $40mils payroll level in todays terms, not the $60mil level. Taking a $40mil team and spending $20mil thinking it will make you a champ wont work. Ask Wash, NYR, St L, Dal, Tor, pretty much every team that tried. ITs hard to believe but it is.
Its not easy period. Winning success brings you the economics to maintain a higher than average payroll. No system will be without tough choices. That really seems the issue to me. No one wants to have to make tough choices. Losing Yashin seemed horribly unfair at the time. Every fans ghost roster has a top line spot pegged for an expensive UFA they desire as a missing piece. Its an illusion. Its not the way to do it. IF you need it, you arent ready yet.
