SPHL Gains One Team Then Loses Another
- Thread starter SASRACE
- Start date
JMCx4
Censorship is the Sincerest Form of Flattery
The SPHL is starting to rival the FHL in franchise stability.
I don't know, all the leagues have been adding then losing teams and swapping markets. From my perspective the FHL has a long way to go before it can even be compared to the SPHL. The FHL is like rotten apples to oranges. I am surprised the FHL Thunderbirds don't try and get themselves into the SPHL.
crimsonace
Registered User
I lost track of the comings and goings of a lot of AA minor pro teams during the decade Indy was in the USHL, but the RiverKings were a model franchise in the old CHL around 2000 ... then the Mid-South Coliseum closed and they had to move to Southaven and it never seems to have been the same.
from what I'M hearing/reading Southhaven hasn't been marketing either the Riverkings or the Hustle (and that's since the Hustle came to Southhaven)
CrazyEddie20
Hey RuZZia - Cut Your Losses and Go Home.
They started going down hill with the name change. They were one of the top drawing teams in the CHL, when they dropped the Memphis name and took Mississippi that is what I think started it.
CrazyEddie20
Hey RuZZia - Cut Your Losses and Go Home.
Yeah, no.
Attendance had been in the toilet before the name change.
The last season (2006-07) they played as the Memphis RiverKings, they were 11th in a 15 team league drawing 3,545/game. Not a bad figure, not great, but not terrible. The season before, they drew 2,997/game. Any team drawing under 4,000/game in any league is at risk of suspending operations, some just last longer than others.
Attendance did steadily drop, but so did the marketing budget and the quality of the product.
In a metro area with a major league team, no one is going to pay to see unaffiliated minor league hockey unless you market the shit out of it. The RiverKings haven't done that since the 90s.
Attendance had been in the toilet before the name change.
The last season (2006-07) they played as the Memphis RiverKings, they were 11th in a 15 team league drawing 3,545/game. Not a bad figure, not great, but not terrible. The season before, they drew 2,997/game. Any team drawing under 4,000/game in any league is at risk of suspending operations, some just last longer than others.
Attendance did steadily drop, but so did the marketing budget and the quality of the product.
In a metro area with a major league team, no one is going to pay to see unaffiliated minor league hockey unless you market the shit out of it. The RiverKings haven't done that since the 90s.
Theoriginalalex
@3in3hockey
The SPHL is starting to rival the FHL in franchise stability.
Not even close. Did a quick history check over at hockeyDB.
In 14 seasons the SPHL has had ONE team fold mid-year, the 06-07 Florida Seals.
Meanwhile, the FHL has at least 1 team fold mid-year in 5 of their 8 seasons, and has NEVER had a season end with every team playing an equal number of games.
Not saying the SPHL is the most stable league, but any equation of the league’s business or quality of play to the FHL is not factual. It’s a miles better operation, I’d compare it to High-A baseball vs. short season A.
So the American League's Bridgeport, Utica, Rockford, Binghamton, Stockton, Bellville, and a good portion of the ECHL is at risk of suspending operations? That's a pretty broad assertion when you probably don't have a solid picture of the overall financials. Utica cannot draw anymore then they already do so their additional revenues come from other then ticket sales. I feel its irresponsible to suggest any team drawing less the 4000 regardless of the league is at risk of suspending or folding without knowledge of the big picture, not going to convince me otherwise.
CrazyEddie20
Hey RuZZia - Cut Your Losses and Go Home.
4,000 fans per night at $20 per ticket for 40 dates is $3.2 million in ticket revenue.
Too bad the figure generally given to operate an AHL team is $4.5 million a season.
In the ECHL, that number is roughly half that, but then, how many teams are drawing less than 4,000 per game?
The fewer fans you draw, the lower your sponsorship revenue is going to be, because no one is going to pay big bucks to advertise in front of empty seats.
Use your brain and take off the fanboy glasses. Hockey is a tough business.
Too bad the figure generally given to operate an AHL team is $4.5 million a season.
In the ECHL, that number is roughly half that, but then, how many teams are drawing less than 4,000 per game?
The fewer fans you draw, the lower your sponsorship revenue is going to be, because no one is going to pay big bucks to advertise in front of empty seats.
Use your brain and take off the fanboy glasses. Hockey is a tough business.
The SPHL just lost a team that was in the heart of their geographic footprint, and replaced it with one that is going to make travel more expensive for most every team in the league. For a league that was formulated on maintaining lower operational costs, this isn't the direction they should be moving.
The SPHL's decision to jump on Quad City does indicate a certain level of desperation. Of course, Quad City was desperate to keep pro hockey, which is why they're joining this league in such a hasty manner. I don't think the subtraction of Mississippi and the addition of QC can be considered an even trade for the SPHL. It's a step backwards, IMO.
The SPHL's decision to jump on Quad City does indicate a certain level of desperation. Of course, Quad City was desperate to keep pro hockey, which is why they're joining this league in such a hasty manner. I don't think the subtraction of Mississippi and the addition of QC can be considered an even trade for the SPHL. It's a step backwards, IMO.
tell that to the fans in QC.... THEY'VE STARTED A PETITION to keep the Mallards name alive, for whatever good that has ever done, even when they've been essentially told the name cannot be used
JMCx4
Censorship is the Sincerest Form of Flattery
That haste was no doubt encouraged by the League, who knew Mississippi was about to suspend ops (with their announcement conveniently delayed to the day after the new unnamed team was introduced). Under those circumstances, the inclusion of QDC for the coming season could be considered an "even trade" from a higher level perspective: (1) it keeps the League @ 10 teams, making scheduling slightly simpler while they continue to pursue other markets for expansion (or at least stability); (2) it sustains the notion - for the time being, anyway- that the Midwest is fertile ground for Single A expansion (see (1)).
crimsonace
Registered User
There are a LOT more revenue streams than ticket sales. Sponsorship is a bigger piece of the pie than it was several years ago because there are more avenues - ribbon boards, the boards in the rink, arena naming rights.
Not only that, but assume ECHL op costs are $2.5 million, SPHL $1.75-2 million. Even 3,500 at an average of $25/seat (corp season tickets & premium seats push that average up) makes a team profitable on ticket sales alone.
It is a tough business, but we obsess too much over attendance. The baseline is revenue, not attendance.
Bloomington didn't fare too well in the SPHL during their one season, and if you look at Evansville's attendance figures, they are having the same doldrums. Sadly, I think Quad City will be in the 2500-and-under category once the initial curiosity phase wanes. If the SPHL is hoping that QC will become another Peoria, they should brace for some crushing disappointment.
CrazyEddie20
Hey RuZZia - Cut Your Losses and Go Home.
Sponsorship is a bigger piece of revenue, yes, but if we're talking about the SPHL, please name for us two arenas with ribbon boards.
Also, arena naming rights and ads on the boards aren't always 100 percent team revenue. Often times, naming rights fees all go to the arena. Same with scoreboard ads, and often a percentage of dashers and in-arena advertising signage.
Likewise, it's extraordinarily difficult to know how a team's overall revenue is. It is, however, pretty easy to take a stab at their attendance revenue, hence why everyone points to it.
Also, arena naming rights and ads on the boards aren't always 100 percent team revenue. Often times, naming rights fees all go to the arena. Same with scoreboard ads, and often a percentage of dashers and in-arena advertising signage.
Likewise, it's extraordinarily difficult to know how a team's overall revenue is. It is, however, pretty easy to take a stab at their attendance revenue, hence why everyone points to it.
JMCx4
Censorship is the Sincerest Form of Flattery
Evansville's Ford Center, and Landers Center in Southaven (R.I.P.) but now replaced by TaxSlayer Center in Moline. Phew, just under the wire. But I concur with your observation that minor pro hockey revenues are difficult for fans to judge.
Great article. Thanks for sharing. I have fond memories of Memphis in both versions of the CHL.
The new Quad City hockey team will be called the Storm:
New Quad-City hockey team will be called the Quad-City Storm
Obviously, we'll have to wait for Chrdanhutch to verify this news with his top-secret sources, but it appears the new SPHL team will be the Quad City Storm. Hate to say it, but this has "one and done" written all over it.
New Quad-City hockey team will be called the Quad-City Storm
Obviously, we'll have to wait for Chrdanhutch to verify this news with his top-secret sources, but it appears the new SPHL team will be the Quad City Storm. Hate to say it, but this has "one and done" written all over it.
no, your beat writer within Q-C nailed it.... this to me, isn't a one and done..... what the issue is being adamant that a hockey team MUST be a tenant in any arena..... or steal another team from another fanbase who have supported said team, this attitude of yours makes me think QC should have no professional franchises in any pro league.... might as well start the moving vans for pro baseball effectively ASAP, SO QC has absolutely nothing to do entertainment-wise
so apparently you hate the QC River Bandits too, fine, quit posting here, so we don't need your incessant negative slant on pro sports in the QC, SIR.
GindyDraws
I will not disable my Adblock, HF
As I said on Twitter, that's an ugly logo. Too much going on in it, which makes things distracting.
JMCx4
Censorship is the Sincerest Form of Flattery
Hockey as an entertainment product is all about distraction these days, so I'd say the Storm logo fits right in. Besides, if you find ugly with too much going on to be distracting, you'll never get back on track (so to speak) after you see the logo of the Storm's opponents in Roanoke, VA ...
uh, JM, you DO know the history of Roanoke hockey, correct...... Roanoke was one of the few markets who were adamant to say the least about reentering pro hockey at any level, junior or pro, just as Norfolk and Richmond had/have their history, Roanoke was a part of that with the Express (think the Railers HC logo was a bit derived from that one when you looked at it).... Roanoke was the first market anyone knew of that shunned any attempt to place a team in the arena, much less the Civic Center there..... there are still hopes to get Richmond back in to hockey now that the Coliseum aka "The Freezer" is set to be replaced, even though the heyday of the Renegades in both the ECHL/SPHL has already been tried....Hockey as an entertainment product is all about distraction these days, so I'd say the Storm logo fits right in. Besides, if you find ugly with too much going on to be distracting, you'll never get back on track (so to speak) after you see the logo of the Storm's opponents in Roanoke, VA ...
Roanoke then is lot like what Elmira ended up becoming if not for the history of the Jackals and that history surrounding the ultimate end of that franchise.
