Relocation?

[Hawker14]

Why go to Winnipeg even if the game is "fixed"?

There are much better places to make profits where there is a large enough population, the team does not start with an automatic 20% disadvantage due to currency, a healthy economy, a corporate sector that can support an NHL team, no confiscatory taxes, etc.

Also putting a team back in Winnipeg will cost the present Canadian teams money from their broadcast agreements with CBC, TSN and SportsNet and it does nothing to help the NHL in its never-ending quest for a national US TV contract.

On so many levels Winnipeg does not make any sense to the NHL.

who cares how big a population is. if a team has to conduct "Hurricane U", the market won't succeed. the nhl isn't windex that every citizen will purchase. gross population has proven not to matter. the nhl is a specialized product that has a narrow fanbase. winnipeg has a larger fanbase than any other proposed city for relocation.

 

[Hawker14]

also, the canadian tv deals are shared equally with US teams, so the argument that canadian teams will lose revenues here is not fact.

 

[Wetcoaster]

also, the canadian tv deals are shared equally with US teams, so the argument that canadian teams will lose revenues here is not fact.

No they are not.

 

[Wetcoaster]

who cares how big a population is. if a team has to conduct "Hurricane U", the market won't succeed. the nhl isn't windex that every citizen will purchase. gross population has proven not to matter. the nhl is a specialized product that has a narrow fanbase. winnipeg has a larger fanbase than any other proposed city for relocation.

The NHL does care about population and Winnipeg does not have the market profile that the NHL seeks.

Joe and Jane Sixpack are way down the list of desirable attributes. Besides they could not pay the freight.

As Gary Bettman finally said on the CBC Townhall after dodging and weaving about the return to Winnipeg - he does not see a return to Winnipeg for the foreseeable future. Allow me to translate lawyerese into plain English. When hell freezes over. The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce in a December interview also said the NHL would not be a candidate to reurn to Winnipeg.

Nice dream - but it will not happen. Winnipeg is an AHL market with an AHL arena and an AHL team. Reality bites.

 

[monkey_00*]

Your argument though seems to indicate that the NHL will fix it's economics...I agree with that.

But with the economics being fixed, why would teams need to relocate in the first place?

craig1........

Well you heard it from Wayne Gretzky himself.........he said that once NHL resumes play the fans will come back to the rinks in places like Toronto and Montreal HOWEVER He's not so sure that the same can be said about places in the South of the United States like his Phoenix Coyotes, Nashville and the Carolinas......

When baseball was on strike it took a while for the fans in the States to come back to the ballparks and they did but not right away and baseball is America's favorite past time........How much longer do you suppose it will take for hockey fans in America; ESPECIALLY the newer hockey markets take for them to come back to the hockey rinks?.........baseball never really recovered fully in Canada after the players' strike with that sport.....Blue Jays don't even draw half the amount that they use to and the Expos no longer play in Montreal........my thinking here is the same thing will happen with NHL hockey except the tables will be turned......the more established clubs will struggle to sellout their Arenas and the newer U.S.teams might be forced to relocate to other places like Winnipeg, Quebec City and Hamilton.

 

[Hawker14]

and the nhl has done a bang up job haven't they. the theory that a large population matters is a failed concept. ie. carolina and nashville.

btw, us & cdn national tv deals are shared equally among all teams,unless something has changed recently. the argument could be made that the cbc contract is actually subsidizing us teams.

 

[monkey_00*]

Why go to Winnipeg even if the game is "fixed"?

There are much better places to make profits where there is a large enough population, the team does not start with an automatic 20% disadvantage due to currency, a healthy economy, a corporate sector that can support an NHL team, no confiscatory taxes, etc.

Also putting a team back in Winnipeg will cost the present Canadian teams money from their broadcast agreements with CBC, TSN and SportsNet and it does nothing to help the NHL in its never-ending quest for a national US TV contract.

On so many levels Winnipeg does not make any sense to the NHL.

Wetcoaster...........

I can give you some classic examples of Sports franchises that don't play in the traditional LARGE TV markets and are doing exceptionally well.....How about the Green Bay Packers of the NFL?........How many people live in Green Bay?......and yet they sellout for every game there too........try even getting yourself season's tickets for Packers games............Let's go to Major League baseball.......How many people live in Cincinatti Ohio?........and yet the REDS have been one of the most storied franchises in major league baseball....remember the Big Red Machine and Pete Rose?...........How about the NBA?.........How many people live in Indianapolis?.........not nearly as much as in places like L.A., New York and Chicago and yet the draw great crowds there for their NBA games.........these teams and others prove right there and there that you don't have to play in a "LARGE" market to run a successful pro-sports franchise.

 

[monkey_00*]

and the nhl has done a bang up job haven't they. the theory that a large population matters is a failed concept. ie. carolina and nashville.

btw, us & cdn national tv deals are shared equally among all teams,unless something has changed recently. the argument could be made that the cbc contract is actually subsidizing us teams.

hawker14..............

You tell em' buddy..........keep your chin up ok.......NHL should have learned their lesson a looong time ago but they are more stuborn than Mules and jackasses.........they shouldn't concern themselves about placing new teams in markets just because it has a LARGE population..........they should instead place new teams in markets where the sport is #1 with the fans..............as well the NHL never really does their howework when handing out new expansion franchises.....as history will show you all one has to do is flash the big buck$ in front of Garry Buttman's face and you are awarded with a new expansion team like was the case with the Tampa Bay Lightning when they were awarded with a new team back in 1990 and HOW many owners had the Tampa Bay Lightning had since they entered the League a little over a decade ago???............

FOUR OWNERS!

...............................I rest my case.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Wetcoaster...........

I can give you some classic examples of Sports franchises that don't play in the traditional LARGE TV markets and are doing exceptionally well.....How about the Green Bay Packers of the NFL?........How many people live in Green Bay?......and yet they sellout for every game there too........try even getting yourself season's tickets for Packers games............Let's go to Major League baseball.......How many people live in Cincinatti Ohio?........and yet the REDS have been one of the most storied franchises in major league baseball....remember the Big Red Machine and Pete Rose?...........How about the NBA?.........How many people live in Indianapolis?.........not nearly as much as in places like L.A., New York and Chicago and yet the draw great crowds there for their NBA games.........these teams and others prove right there and there that you don't have to play in a "LARGE" market to run a successful pro-sports franchise.

How does Green Bay do it?

Forty years ago the NFL realized that small markets were not going to survive without revenue sharing - so they became the most socialistic pro sports league. They share about 70% of their revenues - the NHL shares 9%. The NHL remains opposed to significant revenue sharing.

However as Gene Upshaw has pointed out (supported by New England, Indianapolis, Cincinnatti and Pittsburgh amongst others) the large market teams have been moving too much money out of the shared revenue pool and this needs to change if the NFL's vaunted parity is to survive.

Indianapolis has about 1.7 million population roughly twice that of Winnipeg, Cincinnatti has about the same. Indianapolis has a number of other cities upon which to drw such as Fort Wayne, Gary and South Bend which add another 1.5 million. Winnipeg does not have that possibility.

While Green Bay has only about 250,000 in the city proper they have a number of other cities very close such as Appleton/Ohskosh, Madison and Milwaukee who attend Packers games and push the population base up over 2.5 million.

Also in the NFL you buy seasons tickets for what 8 games? That is a lot less of hit than 40 tickets in the NHL. The NHL has high proced tickets because they market to the corporate sector. They have the highest per capita income per bum in the seats and the highest percentage of corporate ticket holders of any sport. that is the market the NHL targets and it works because they get a much better in arena rate for advertising than the NBA. That is what Bettman markets when he sells expansion franchises.

Winnipeg does not fit the NHL.

 

[Wetcoaster]

hawker14..............
You tell em' buddy..........keep your chin up ok.......NHL should have learned their lesson a looong time ago but they are more stuborn than Mules and jackasses.........they shouldn't concern themselves about placing new teams in markets just because it has a LARGE population..........they should instead place new teams in markets where the sport is #1 with the fans..............as well the NHL never really does their howework when handing out new expansion franchises.....as history will show you all one has to do is flash the big buck$ in front of Garry Buttman's face and you are awarded with a new expansion team like was the case with the Tampa Bay Lightning when they were awarded with a new team back in 1990 and HOW many owners had the Tampa Bay Lightning had since they entered the League a little over a decade ago???I rest my case.

And Tampa has a successful winning team and a Stanley Cup for it rather brief existence in the NHL. Winnipeg has....... no playoff success let alone no Stanley Cup.

 

[monkey_00*]

And Tampa has a successful winning team and a Stanley Cup for it rather brief existence in the NHL. Winnipeg has....... no playoff success let alone no Stanley Cup.

...............and that in a nutshell sums it up right then and there as to what's wrong with today's NHL...........here we both are sitting down at our computers pecking away at our keyboards with no NHL hockey to watch.........tisk tisk tisk...........too bad...............so sad.

 

[Hawker14]

And Tampa has a successful winning team and a Stanley Cup for it rather brief existence in the NHL. Winnipeg has....... no playoff success let alone no Stanley Cup.

Winnipeg Jets Stanley Cups = 0
Vancouver Canucks Stanley Cups = 0

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

When considering relocation of a team to a new city, the NHL is going to look at population base sure. But you know what they're gonna look at moreso...corporate sponsorships. That's right folks its not about what kinda fan support is going to be present in the market but the amount of dollars the market can generate from big businesses. For an example, take the team that is local to where I live (not that I support that team) which is the Florida Panthers. They have a large population base to draw from but more importantly there's plenty of corporate dollars to be thrown around in the area. So any team being relocated to a Canadian city already mentioned seems less than likely because for the simple fact that there are several American cities that would have more corporate dollars to support the team (even if the Canadian dollar's value has improved, the likelihood of it surpassing the American dollar isn't that good).

I'd personally like to see teams in any of the following markets: Portland, Kansas City, Houston, Vegas, Oklahoma City, and either Cleveland or Cincinnati. I think all of those markets could support the team fan wise in addition to the corporate support.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Winnipeg Jets Stanley Cups = 0
Vancouver Canucks Stanley Cups = 0

What do the Canucks have to do with this????

 

[Wetcoaster]

When considering relocation of a team to a new city, the NHL is going to look at population base sure. But you know what they're gonna look at moreso...corporate sponsorships. That's right folks its not about what kinda fan support is going to be present in the market but the amount of dollars the market can generate from big businesses. For an example, take the team that is local to where I live (not that I support that team) which is the Florida Panthers. They have a large population base to draw from but more importantly there's plenty of corporate dollars to be thrown around in the area. So any team being relocated to a Canadian city already mentioned seems less than likely because for the simple fact that there are several American cities that would have more corporate dollars to support the team (even if the Canadian dollar's value has improved, the likelihood of it surpassing the American dollar isn't that good).

I'd personally like to see teams in any of the following markets: Portland, Kansas City, Houston, Vegas, Oklahoma City, and either Cleveland or Cincinnati. I think all of those markets could support the team fan wise in addition to the corporate support.

At least someone seems to understand what the NHL seeks when locating ot re-locating a franchise.

 

[monkey_00*]

When considering relocation of a team to a new city, the NHL is going to look at population base sure. But you know what they're gonna look at moreso...corporate sponsorships. That's right folks its not about what kinda fan support is going to be present in the market but the amount of dollars the market can generate from big businesses. For an example, take the team that is local to where I live (not that I support that team) which is the Florida Panthers. They have a large population base to draw from but more importantly there's plenty of corporate dollars to be thrown around in the area. So any team being relocated to a Canadian city already mentioned seems less than likely because for the simple fact that there are several American cities that would have more corporate dollars to support the team (even if the Canadian dollar's value has improved, the likelihood of it surpassing the American dollar isn't that good).

I'd personally like to see teams in any of the following markets: Portland, Kansas City, Houston, Vegas, Oklahoma City, and either Cleveland or Cincinnati. I think all of those markets could support the team fan wise in addition to the corporate support.

Coolburn............

There's plenty of corporate support in Southern Ontario............that would be one of Hamilton's many strong points.

 

[Wetcoaster]

There's plenty of corporate support in Southern Ontario............that would be one of Hamilton's many strong points.

The problem is that the Leafs and Sabres are not going to agree to Hamilton coming in.

That said Hamilton at least would be viable location - unlike Winnipeg.

 

[Hawker14]

What do the Canucks have to do with this????

about as much as comparing the lightning with the jets

 

[Hawker14]

The problem is that the Leafs and Sabres are not going to agree to Hamilton coming in.

That said Hamilton at least would be viable location - unlike Winnipeg.

keep hating. whatever works for ya

 

[monkey_00*]

The problem is that the Leafs and Sabres are not going to agree to Hamilton coming in.

That said Hamilton at least would be viable location - unlike Winnipeg.

The Leafs and especially Sabres have always been the stumbling block for Team Hamilton HOWEVER, with the cancellation of this past NHL season and lost revenues by both hockey clubs in Toronto and Buffalo, allowing a team to play out of Hamilton means they would both be getting somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $50-to-80 million in territorial fees...maybe even more........It would take someone with DEEP POCKETS to pull it off........someone like SEVERSTAL STEEL from Russia who are looking to take over STELCO STEEL in Hamilton......SEVERSTAL also own a hockey club in the Russian Super League by the same name and have already made it public that they would do everything in their power to help Hamilton land an NHL franchise if they take over STELCO........The owner of SEVERSTAL is worth $4.5-Billion and is the 9th wealthiest person in all of Russia.

 

[Wetcoaster]

keep hating. whatever works for ya

What are you talking about?

I have nothing against Winnipeg and I would like to see a team there but it is not realistic.

 

[Wetcoaster]

about as much as comparing the lightning with the jets

The comparison was relevant to the post - yours is totally irrelevant.

 

[Paisano*]

I'd personally like to see teams in any of the following markets: Portland, Kansas City, Houston, Vegas, Oklahoma City, and either Cleveland or Cincinnati. I think all of those markets could support the team fan wise in addition to the corporate support.

Cleveland had a team and it failed miserably. Every minor league team there has failed also including the one there now who is looking to move. Cleveland has 3 other ML teams and is not interested in hockey. Cincy, maybe. But with Columbus sitting with a season ticket base of 14000 and averaging 18000 per game (at least before the lockout) they are firmly entrenched as Ohio's NHL team. There is no room for another.

 

[NJD Jester]

But with Columbus sitting with a season ticket base of 14000 and averaging 18000 per game (at least before the lockout) they are firmly entrenched as Ohio's NHL team.

Columbus averaged 17,339 in 2003-04.

 

[Tb0ne]

Monkey,

Is the owner you are talking about the same guy who owns Chelsae Football Club in the English Premier League ?