Teams that Lost Money in 2004

[nyr7andcounting]

When Newsday reports only 60,000 homes tune into Ranger games on Msg that's a serious lack of fan attention and even though your not talking about that it's what drives ticket sales. Tell me how is a team with general interest that low with no reporters, radio shows or columnists to drive attention with the public getting anyone to purchase all the seats you think are sold at those high prices?

Because there is 8 MILLION people in NYC, and many more in the metro area, and they are only selling 18,200 tickets...some of which are brought by companies with pocket change? It just doesn't make any sense. If you believe other cities sell tickets with a much much smaller population, pure numbers would have you believe that even if the Rangers have 1/10th of the attention in their market as those other cities, they still have enough people in that 1/10th to fill 18k seats.

And high prices barely make a difference. They aren't that high when you consider how much more expensive everything is in NYC and the fact that half the people that buy the tickets couldn't care less about paying 60 bucks.

I have given you several examples of Hockey coverage in other markets being greater in volume and superior to New York and why. The problem here is unique because other hockey markets do have room for growth while here nothing hockey can do will pull attention from baseball's lock on the public interest
year-round. This was not the case ten or twenty years ago and when the Devils won the cup in today's baseball-driven media market we saw it up close how tough the problem is for hockey in this area.

Ok, your right. And the Rangers still had the 5th highest revenue in the NHL last year. Despite coverage difficiencies, competing pro sports teams (including 2 in their own league), and competing entertainment in NYC...so they are fine, even getting as little attention as they are right now.

My point is they are not better off because win or lose they are the seventh or eighth team with the general public in Manhattan. The Pittsburgh Penguins can be the first team in that market after football season and create excellent media support and interest to drive that market. That will not happen here.

7th in Manhattan nets more revenue than first in Pittsburgh, so again, they are fine.

I'm also not calling for the contraction of any team but today it's a bad idea to have a team inside the Yankees-Mets baseball market. Especially after they cannot get any attention with the highest payrolls in the sport and have such a small demographic of fans following hockey to begin with.

Okay, so you don't want contraction but you think the Rangers and Islanders should move. I dunno, make whatever point you want I just don't think it's going to happen. When your league is struggling for revenues it's hard to move one of your highest revenue teams.

I think a 30-40m dollar successful team with a few franchise players in Nashville, Phoenix, Carolina will get attention and interest in those markets. A lot more than an 80m dollar product in Manhattan has done.

Fine. Attention/Interest and revenues/profits are too completely different things.

 

[NYIsles1*]

Yea, we have already talked about that. Dolan could mess around with NYR's books, and he could go either way with it. You think he understated losses, I think he overstated losses. I think he and his peers have much more to gain right now from overstating them, but you think he is more worried about his image.

What can I write, we agree to disagree. His fellow corporare owners did not claim the losses Dolan did and they could have. I could see him admitting 40.9 million to Levitt as a team losing money. I do not see him being the poster-boy for losing money and admitting he lost 50-60 million which would only bring him more bad publicity.

It is play money, but the bottom line is it's an investment, and that investment is measured by your franchises value. If a cap would help an owners franchise value, logic would tell you he wants that cap.

Hockey investment for Dolan on some of these players is how we may look like a trip to Vegas or Atlantic City. He's spending the money to spend the money and just doubling his bets to win. The investment is made knowing it's likely going to lose money in the end. It's not going to change a thing for his franchise value because that depends on things outside of hockey.

What he has to pay out on the Knicks is completely different matter because he signs players to 100m dollar contracts like Alan Houston.

 

[mooseOAK*]

That makes no sense.

So what your saying is the CBA says only a certain amount of owners can work on their revenues, the rest need to spend as much as they can and lose money? Makes no sense.

Each owner has a different amount of revenues and a different amount of expenses outside of player costs. With that said, every team has a different amount they can spend on players in order to break even. And your telling me that if each owner spends that amount because he doesn't want to lose money, it's collusion? No, we aren't talking about one "budget" league-wide, and we're not talking about a cap. If every team has a different budget to stick to, and they stick to it, there is nothing illegal in that.

If there are scores of NHLPA free agents out there that no one wants to sign at their "market" price and teams replace them withcheaper AHL type players do you think that union isn't going to scream foul and charge the NHL with collusion? Haven't you learned anything from how they have been acting for the last number of years? The NHL would be in a position where they would need to prove that they aren't colluding and if they get the wrong judge they could be in for fines of millions of dollars. The only way that they can effectively and without legal risk control their salary costs is with a cap agreed to under a CBA with the players.

As far as budgets go then what if every team decides that they only wanted to spend 30% of revenues on player salaries? A budget is a budget, right?

 

[Timmy]

1 Sticking to a budget is not collusion, nor would it ever be called collusion by the players.

2 They actually want owners to set a budget and stick to it.

3 That is why there's a lockout.

4 Pittsburgh gutted their team to stick to their budget, I didn't see any collusion charges.

5 The Ducks didn't think Kariya was worth a $10 million qualifying offer, so they turned him loose. No collusion charges.

6 The Rangers dumped payroll and didn't sign any significant free agents last summer

7 Chicago has toiled in mediocrity for years, again, no collusion charges.

1. Actually, a lot of media types were saying exactly that last year when UFA signings levelled off.

2. So when a player says he's insulted, and calls management "cheap", what he means to say is, "Please stick to your budget, and don't actually pay me what I'm demanding."

3. There's a lockout to prevent a couple of idiot owners from screwing the rest of the owners, and to remove built-in inflationary mechanisms that caused salaries to rise faster than revenues and enable the players to enjoy an average income that is higher than the niche sport of hockey would ordinarily warrant.

4. And Pittsburgh sucks.

5. And when Kariya signed "under" market value, he apparently caught holy hell from the union.

6. They must have thought a lockout and/or salary cap was coming or something.

7. Chicago has become the joke of the league, and everyone hates the owner.
Why would one owner's decision to run his team into the ground be considered collusion? It's a non sequiter. With collusion, you need more than one party to act together.

 

[NYIsles1*]

Because there is 8 MILLION people in NYC, and many more in the metro area, and they are only selling 18,200 tickets...some of which are brought by companies with pocket change? It just doesn't make any sense. If you believe other cities sell tickets with a much much smaller population, pure numbers would have you believe that even if the Rangers have 1/10th of the attention in their market as those other cities, they still have enough people in that 1/10th to fill 18k seats.

What doesn't make sense? That people who used to be fans stopped following or attending because a few hundred dollars or more is too expensive to pay to see a hockey game. You have the same problem the Isles and Devils have only the garden has more corporations who also get Knicks tickets and maybe take the Rangers to get a better seat selection.

And of those 8 MILLION people in NYC, only 60,000 homes watched 82 games in 2003-04, that's the New York City hockey market here. Like it or not hockey is a one demographic sport here, it always has been and it's lost the casual fan it used to have years ago and there is nothing to get anyone interested again.

And high prices barely make a difference. They aren't that high when you consider how much more expensive everything is in NYC and the fact that half the people that buy the tickets couldn't care less about paying 60 bucks.

That's why the seats are unsold, casual fans will never spend that kind of money to see a sport they have to be die-hard fans of to even find information about the team. The days of road games on WOR brought fans to the games because they were rarely televised at home and the tickets were reasonable.

Ok, your right. And the Rangers still had the 5th highest revenue in the NHL last year. Despite coverage difficiencies, competing pro sports teams (including 2 in their own league), and competing entertainment in NYC...so they are fine, even getting as little attention as they are right now.

The had to ice an 80m dollar team to generate the 85m in revenue, there is nothing fine about that at all. What's going to happen to Ranger revenue after a work stoppage with at least a ten percent ticket price reduction and no more 80m team of stars to advertise going into the next season? Tell me why after keeping the Mets off Time Warner (which may just last all season) is TW going to put four teams Dolan owns television rights on television next fall?

Cut that number for Ranger telecasts in half, combined with the indifference after being shutdown for a year.

7th in Manhattan nets more revenue than first in Pittsburgh, so again, they are fine.

If Pittsburgh breaks even with less total revenue than the Rangers losing 40.9m to make 85m that is not fine. It's only spending more and making more to lose more. The point is the Rangers are stuck where they are behind the large market teams in New York. Pittsburgh is not and has a minor league team in the AHL with excellent fan support getting attention in the Pittsburgh media outlets.

Okay, so you don't want contraction but you think the Rangers and Islanders should move. I dunno, make whatever point you want I just don't think it's going to happen. When your league is struggling for revenues it's hard to move one of your highest revenue teams.

It's not going to happen (move or contract) but I think the New York hockey market should not have a team on the Yankees or Mets doorsteap anymore because they cannot spend or compete for those fans without media and they are not interested.

The Dragons and Metrostars are setup outside the city to their own fans/media and today I think that is what the hockey market should be.

Fine. Attention/Interest and revenues/profits are too completely different things.

The point is put some of those name-veteran stars that did not make profits in Manhattan in other places and you will have better attention-interest and better revenues/profit which is what this business must be about.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Teams have not made their books public. Only the LA kings made their books available to one particular fan, but the books were never allowed to be made public.

I have been following the CBA issues for a few years now and not once I have ever heard the NHL say "your welcome to come and examine all 30 teams books on your terms. The teams will open their books up to them and they are free to do a thorough examination." And when the NHLPA wanted to go through the levitt report last summer, the NHL accused them of stalling and that it was pointless in the negotiating process.

That's not accurate . . . . The Sharks, Pens, Phoenix, and Chicago (I think Chicago - though it might have been the Blues) have all publicly stated that they offered to open their books to the PA (numerous times) - - their offer was refused (as was the offer to sit with Mr. Levitt and review his numbers).

I think the PA is afraid to really look at the books because the figures just might prove the owners are telling the truth about the dwindling revenue stream.

 

[mooseOAK*]

It's the NHL that's filing a charge against the players every other day, not the other way around. Sticking to a budget is not collusion, nor would it ever be called collusion by the players. Collusion would be a league-wide memo saying "spend no more than $30 million on salaries or else".

Doesn't matter if there is a memo or not. If there are a group of teams that have been spending a lot of money and suddenly decide not then they will have to prove that they haven't been guilty of collusion. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" in this case.

All along the players have wanted their so-called "market" system, meaning the owners pay them what they are worth and what they can afford. No more, no less. They actually want owners to set a budget and stick to it. Despite their business savvy, owners apparently have no ability to do this, so they claim they need an artificially-set number that will physically prevent them from spending more. That is why there's a lockout.

If the players want owners to stay to their budget why didn't they ever offer to get rid of the one sided arbitration system? Truth is the NHLPA's goal was always to milk the system for every penny they could get with not a care as to what it did to the owners' bottom line. Don't be so naive.

And, if they care about the owners' budgets so much then why won't they agree to a reasonable salary cap?

Florida stuck to their budget. Pittsburgh gutted their team to stick to their budget, I didn't see any collusion charges. The Ducks didn't think Kariya was worth a $10 million qualifying offer, so they turned him loose. No collusion charges. The Rangers dumped payroll and didn't sign any significant free agents last summer while Chicago has toiled in mediocrity for years, again, no collusion charges.

All those players were able to find someone else to pay their salaries, so no collusion.

 

[NYIsles1*]

The Rangers dumped payroll and didn't sign any significant free agents last summer

I'm not sure what it says a month before a work-stoppage when the Rangers only spend 9 million for three years on Michael Nylander (with a fourth year option) and it's not considered significant or a bad signing.

 

[Bruwinz37]

i think the fact that the teams have been so successful these last few years makes denver out to be a college hotbed. i live in denver and i can tell you i went to a bunch of DU games this year during a championship season - and most of the games were half empty till the cc games toward the end. cc draws very well, but springs and denver are totally seperate entities - they shouldnt be included in terms of how great a hockey market denver is. CC and the CO eagles live in a different world than the denver scene and dont play in the avs success or failure - they are both about an hour away from denver - and few people would travel from one spot to the other to watch hockey there. if you put an echl team in the raliegh area - i think it would do well, then raleigh would have comparable lower end hockey. just because we have a national champion team and another one close by in CC, doesnt make us north dakota. i spend much of my time reffing/ coaching/playing - very few of the kids who play really follow the sport at all. most kids i know didnt follow the college playoffs at all. denver as a hockey hotbed doesnt fly with me - CO as a hockey state being better than NC i would buy, but thats not the arguement here - we are asking which is a better pro market...denver or raliegh. the CO eagles, cc tigers, and AFA hockey teams dont work as plusses for the denver area - they are all too far away and have no impact on how successful the avs are in denver.

as for the canes market lacking because the fans left only two years after being good - keep in mind the team had only been in raliegh since 99 when making the run. we're talking of three mediocre years to build a following, a cup run which boosted numbers, then falling into suck which lost fans. thats not nearly enough time to develop a strong loyal base of paying followers, and i think much of the same would happen in denver should they suck. i think this true of almost any hockey market in the league. wasnt montreals attendance down when they sucked a few years ago? how about boston the year they earned thorton? espn showed a half empty stadium during every nights highlights. winning = morefans/money. its true just about everywhere.

we agree to respectfully disagree. i just dont see how its clear that denver is a better market. aside from DU, which was barely noticed until the championships by the average joe, hockey has been invisible this year in denver.

Well lets get a few things straight. The Springs is only a 45 minute drive from Denver so when I mentioned it as a hockey hotbed I mentioned it as more of Colorado in general than NC. Sorry I wasnt more clear. I would assume also that there are far more men's and youth leagues than in NC as well. Believe it or not this has a lot to do with kids following the sport.

I would be curious to see how much money Carolina made or lost in the years they made the playoffs. Bottom line is that they lost 28.5 million dollars last year and didnt have a big payroll. Do you think at any point the Avs would be in that predicament?

It seems you are arguing almost that there is no difference between areas in terms of hockey interest and that winning decides everything. To be frank I think that is bunk. Hockey isnt going to survive in Carolina and probably a few other locations even if a cap is installed. It will probably just prolong the inevitable. Colorado, on the other hand, will be around for a loooong time because it is a hockey market in general.

 

[CGG]

Doesn't matter if there is a memo or not. If there are a group of teams that have been spending a lot of money and suddenly decide not then they will have to prove that they haven't been guilty of collusion. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" in this case.

Not that it would ever happen, but if teams lower their payroll, like many do quite often, and for some reason the NHLPA cries collusion and files suits, they have to prove their is collusion. And yes, the owners are in fact innocent until proven guilty. All the owner would have to do is show someone the books, and say we've lost $x million dollars last year, so we cut our payroll by $y million. There's no conspiracy involved.

If the players want owners to stay to their budget why didn't they ever offer to get rid of the one sided arbitration system? Truth is the NHLPA's goal was always to milk the system for every penny they could get with not a care as to what it did to the owners' bottom line. Don't be so naive.

Arbitration has been around for 30 years. Owners used to love it, since it meant for sure they'd have their players in the lineup on opening day. Only recently did Gary declare that arbitration was evil. The players might have offered to get rid of it if the league hadn't extended the CBA twice. And then the players did offer to get rid of one-sided arbitration, and make it two-sided. But that doesn't count, for some reason, because Gary says so.

And, if they care about the owners' budgets so much then why won't they agree to a reasonable salary cap?

Because the Red Wings budget is about $75 million, so a salary cap at $35 million isn't exactly keeping the Red Wings inside a budget, it's cutting their spending by more than half, reducing once powerful teams to the level of the Carolina Hurricanes. And they did agree to a reasonable salary cap, but Gary told the world it wasn't reasonable, I guess it depends on your definition of reasonable.

All those players were able to find someone else to pay their salaries, so no collusion.

Players get bought out, released, and not re-signed all the time. Montreal bought out Czerkawski, McKay and Audette all within a year. They were horribly overpaid. No one else wanted to pay their salaries. Some signed for less elsewhere. But if you're not good enough to be in the NHL, or are trying to hold out for your old salary, you get shown the door. McKay never played in the NHL again. Collusion? Bill Lindsay couldn't even get a job in the AHL so he's in the ECHL, but that's because he sucks, not because 30 owners got together in a deserted alley and all pledged not to sign him. No one will sign Trevor Kidd for over $1 million again, that's just common sense, not collusion.

You are way too paranoid about this. Deciding a player isn't worth what he's making or what he's asking for is not collusion. Neither is reducing your payroll. Or passing on a free agent.

 

[AM]

Not that it would ever happen, but if teams lower their payroll, like many do quite often, and for some reason the NHLPA cries collusion and files suits, they have to prove their is collusion. And yes, the owners are in fact innocent until proven guilty. All the owner would have to do is show someone the books, and say we've lost $x million dollars last year, so we cut our payroll by $y million. There's no conspiracy involved.



Arbitration has been around for 30 years. Owners used to love it, since it meant for sure they'd have their players in the lineup on opening day. Only recently did Gary declare that arbitration was evil. The players might have offered to get rid of it if the league hadn't extended the CBA twice. And then the players did offer to get rid of one-sided arbitration, and make it two-sided. But that doesn't count, for some reason, because Gary says so.



Because the Red Wings budget is about $75 million, so a salary cap at $35 million isn't exactly keeping the Red Wings inside a budget, it's cutting their spending by more than half, reducing once powerful teams to the level of the Carolina Hurricanes. And they did agree to a reasonable salary cap, but Gary told the world it wasn't reasonable, I guess it depends on your definition of reasonable.



Players get bought out, released, and not re-signed all the time. Montreal bought out Czerkawski, McKay and Audette all within a year. They were horribly overpaid. No one else wanted to pay their salaries. Some signed for less elsewhere. But if you're not good enough to be in the NHL, or are trying to hold out for your old salary, you get shown the door. McKay never played in the NHL again. Collusion? Bill Lindsay couldn't even get a job in the AHL so he's in the ECHL, but that's because he sucks, not because 30 owners got together in a deserted alley and all pledged not to sign him. No one will sign Trevor Kidd for over $1 million again, that's just common sense, not collusion.

You are way too paranoid about this. Deciding a player isn't worth what he's making or what he's asking for is not collusion. Neither is reducing your payroll. Or passing on a free agent.

None of the players are worth what they were being paid.... thats what this lockout is all about.

The trick is getting the player but paying less.

Thats where the collusion would come in....

some peoples kids.

 

[bleedgreen]

I would be curious to see how much money Carolina made or lost in the years they made the playoffs. Bottom line is that they lost 28.5 million dollars last year and didnt have a big payroll. Do you think at any point the Avs would be in that predicament?

It seems you are arguing almost that there is no difference between areas in terms of hockey interest and that winning decides everything. To be frank I think that is bunk. Hockey isnt going to survive in Carolina and probably a few other locations even if a cap is installed. It will probably just prolong the inevitable. Colorado, on the other hand, will be around for a loooong time because it is a hockey market in general.

if peter karmanos was running the canes in CO - i think it is possible that the avs would be in the red, its my opinion. its obvious we disagree - i dont think denver is as great a hockey market as you do - fine we disagree. i know what you are saying about springs - but ithink it has no bearing on the avs at all, or denver as a sports market. the two towns are an hour away. when i lived out east, i would drive an hour to go see my team. here in CO, very few people would ever do that. hockey may thrive in springs, but that has little effect on denver.

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

when i lived out east, i would drive an hour to go see my team. here in CO, very few people would ever do that. hockey may thrive in springs, but that has little effect on denver.

Just out of curiosity, regarding this claim that people within, say, an hour radius of Denver are unwilling to drive to games when compared to people elsewhere in the country... are you actually basing this claim on anything substantive? I've talked to, and heard from, lots of people who've been at games and had come from that far south, that far west, that far north. I don't have any data on, say, residences of ticket buyers, so I'm not going to make any claims about the nature of the populace in the area. But since you are making such a claim, I'm wondering what you have that you're basing this on.

 

[bleedgreen]

FWIW, I was referring to my own observations when there were occasional shots up higher, not broadcaster comments. But again, might as well let this go with no-shows (or late arrivers) being an explanation for empty seats you saw.

im saying the entire upper half of the upper bowl on the side across from the media - and both ends. not just seats - rows upon rows.

But again, you're trying to single out Denver for some reason that I can't explain. Every team counts attendance the same way, and every team has more reported paid attendance than literal butts in the seats. Have you ever taken a look at the masses of empties at the ACC? Or at MSG? Or at Joe Louis? Pepsi Center is no different. Empty seats at lots of games, especially at the start of the game (or the end as people start to leave early... especially the corporate types).

im not singling out denver - i never was - you took offense to the fact that i think denver isnt the great market everyone else seems to think it is. i know every city does that with the numbers, YOU said the pioneers are overflowing and used a number to back it up - i replied that those numbers arent true in any situation, and certainly werent true for the DU games. now your saying, well - everywhere fluffs the numbers... i know....thats why i said it. im not picking on them - just stating the facts at what i saw at the games. you keep replying about how the tvs cameras made it look full, the broadcasters say its full, etc..etc..you werent there and your convinced im lying or dont know what im talking about because im picking on denver. i love denver, im just trying to tell the truth.

Again, this is basically what college hockey followings are in almost any market--smaller, devoted followings. And in this case, we're also talking about a small school situated in a four-sport major metro area. Most college hockey games aren't going to dominate the local sports world in an area with this type of saturation... at least until things heat up with special rivalries or post-season developments. Do you think routine games involving the U of Michigan hockey team take over the sports scene in the Detroit area, right up there with the Lions/Tigers/Wings?

no - im not picking on denver, denver was proclaimed a hockey hotbed collegiately, which implies all games are full and its nuts - its not that and thats all i said. i never compared it to anyone else other than north dakota - which im sure does better than denver in terms of attendance. i never said anythi0ng about mich/minny whatever.

The NHL has had little success nationally. Some areas have stood out, however, including this one. And that's been true on many levels... both with and without a local team involved.

fine. they had a .003 share to every other nonhockey cities .001 share prior to 1996 - still not sure how this changes anything, but you win on that one.

you think im trying to knock denver, im not. people tag on raliegh as a bad pro market - its ridiculous...there is just as much money if not more waiting to be spent there. just because DU plays CC a couple of times a year didnt make denver a longtime hockey hotbed. if thats the case, why do people pick on columbus? to get a pro franchise today you need a wealthy area thats growing - both raliegh and denver fit - and a team to put there. everyone gets caught up in the team success, and think its the area thats successful, not the team. well i disagree - i think you can sell winning hockey to any affluent community in america. continous losing hockey doesnt sell anywhere. its that way in all sports. i just got back from the rockies game, i spent 5 bucks on a scalped ticket, and sat behind homeplate. no one was there, and the rockies were twice as popular as the avs a few years ago. i walked in and paid five bucks to sit in the best seat in the house. ive done it with nuggetts more times than i can count...including this year. when the team sucks - denver people, just like people everywhere - stay home. does this mean we dont deserve a baseball or basketball team? wouldnt that make us less of a baseball/basketball market? whats the difference with the avs?

 

[bleedgreen]

Just out of curiosity, regarding this claim that people within, say, an hour radius of Denver are unwilling to drive to games when compared to people elsewhere in the country... are you actually basing this claim on anything substantive? I've talked to, and heard from, lots of people who've been at games and had come from that far south, that far west, that far north. I don't have any data on, say, residences of ticket buyers, so I'm not going to make any claims about the nature of the populace in the area. But since you are making such a claim, I'm wondering what you have that you're basing this on.

i lived in springs. the most ardent avs fans i knew went maybe once a year. when i lived in CT people i knew routinely drove from hartford to boston or msg to see the bruins/redsox/ranger/knicks/yankees/patriots/giants. fort collins is an hour the other way and sells out every night. not one person i know in denver has driven there more than once in two years to go - yet they sell out every night. loveland/ft collins people are eatin it up - without any help from denver. i think this also completely seperate from the avs success. i dont have numbers or data, just a lifetime of personal experience. its a different feel out here. people are less obsessive about their sports out here, its too nice outside. people love the mountains and biking/skiing/boarding....all the reasons people live in CO. when i lived in CT, there seemed to be so much less going on and people lived for their teams more. i know ill get flamed for the sterotypes, but i think its true. i dont think its a negative thing really - im a lot happier out here, but when it comes to sports i feel a difference in general, not just hockey.

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

fine. they had a .003 share to every other nonhockey cities .001 share prior to 1996 - still not sure how this changes anything, but you win on that one.

If you want to make up numbers, that's fine. Sandy Clough had the actual data; the reported difference was substantial. Drop him an email if you like.

well i disagree - i think you can sell winning hockey to any affluent community in america. continous losing hockey doesnt sell anywhere.

I don't actually disagree with this. At all. And nothing I've said contradicts these two statements. (And I have never said that Raleigh couldn't be a legitimate hockey market, by the way.) That doesn't mean, however, that there aren't still differences between markets, even though your two statements here can apply to all such markets. That's all I'm saying. In every market in this country, support/enthusiasm will suffer with a crap team, and support/enthusiasm will increase with success. We agree. All markets (assuming at least adequate population and spending ability) in the country are the same to this extent. If that is all you're claiming, then we're in agreement. Within those same markets, however, there are differences from market to market with respect to overall interest level in hockey, whether it's watching it on TV, attending and following the game at various levels, playing the game at the recreational level, or getting on a lake and playing some pond hockey in the winter. If you're trying to claim that these differences don't exist, and that every single market in the country is exactly the same in every aspect of hockey interest/impact in all of life, then we're not in agreement.

i just got back from the rockies game, i spent 5 bucks on a scalped ticket, and sat behind homeplate. no one was there, and the rockies were twice as popular as the avs a few years ago.

Really? A few years ago? What year was that?

 

[bleedgreen]

If you want to make up numbers, that's fine. Sandy Clough had the actual data; the reported difference was substantial. Drop him an email if you like.

ive said from the start that i dont know a thing about the tv shares - and if the nhl had something like a 2% share last season - im not sure how its an issue. i made a generalization - it was not intended to be taken literally. i just dont feel that because one are watched it on tv more than another area that a successful team would do any better or worse because of these ratings.

I don't actually disagree with this. At all. And nothing I've said contradicts these two statements. (And I have never said that Raleigh couldn't be a legitimate hockey market, by the way.) That doesn't mean, however, that there aren't still differences between markets, even though your two statements here can apply to all such markets. That's all I'm saying. In every market in this country, support/enthusiasm will suffer with a crap team, and support/enthusiasm will increase with success. We agree. All markets (assuming at least adequate population and spending ability) in the country are the same to this extent. If that is all you're claiming, then we're in agreement. Within those same markets, however, there are differences from market to market with respect to overall interest level in hockey, whether it's watching it on TV, attending and following the game at various levels, playing the game at the recreational level, or getting on a lake and playing some pond hockey in the winter. If you're trying to claim that these differences don't exist, and that every single market in the country is exactly the same in every aspect of hockey interest and impact in all of life, then we're not in agreement.[/U

]
we generally are in agreement here. my whole take on quality of a pro market is based on the money available and the will of the people to watch. having said that, i stand by all my previous comments that denver isnt the hardcore hockey area that it seems to be made out to be around here on occasion, and that raliegh is as legit a hockey market as many in the league.


Really? A few years ago? What year was that?

you dont remember how the rockies were popular? it wasnt until the days after hampton and neagle came that the fans really started leaving. i dont have the numbers, but if your actually refuting this point ill go find them. the rockies and the avs are no comparison if your going by their primes. baseball outsells hockey in america, by a lot - im surprised you would think anything different existed around here until the last few seasons.

 

[bleedgreen]

for the record, the worst season for the cO rockies was last year, which was 28 thousand people per game. their best season was a 57 thousand per game average. from looking at the numbers quickly i would guess the average to be in mid 40's per game over the history of the team, its no fair comparing american baseball attendance to american hockey attendence - there is no comparison.

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

having said that, i stand by all my previous comments that denver isnt the hardcore hockey area that it seems to be made out to be around here on occasion

I guess it'll be pretty hard to continue to debate this if we're not really debating anything tangible.

you dont remember how the rockies were popular? it wasnt until the days after hampton and neagle came that the fans really started leaving. i dont have the numbers, but if your actually refuting this point ill go find them. the rockies and the avs are no comparison if your going by their primes. baseball outsells hockey in america, by a lot - im surprised you would think anything different existed around here until the last few seasons.

I remember it being more than a few years ago that they were very popular, but small point. Anyway, yes, of course baseball outsells hockey throughout the US. The universe of baseball fans is larger than the universe of hockey fans throughout the country. And the size of a baseball stadium and relative extreme cheapness of tickets will guarantee greater baseball attendance than hockey attendance. I believe, however, that the Avs have outdrawn--and in most years by more than double, triple?--the Rockies on TV in every single year since... well, going back as far as I can remember at least... I'd have to find the data on the earlier years. That's the only reason your statement gave me pause. I doubt we're having any real disagreement here.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by bleedgreen
i just got back from the rockies game, i spent 5 bucks on a scalped ticket, and sat behind homeplate. no one was there, and the rockies were twice as popular as the avs a few years ago.

Really? A few years ago? What year was that?

After the initial novelty wore off and the team started to suck, the attendance dropped for 8 consecutive years before a slight uptick last year. From 1996 to 2003 attendance dropped by 40% - from 48K/gm to 28.8K/gm. Their tops were their inaugural season in Mile High Stadium - a MLB record of over 55K/gm.

This yr they are averaging less than 25K per game and are on track to fall below 2M. If you throw out the 47K on opening day, they're averaging less than 22K per game.

So is Denver a city that supports its teams (other than the Broncos) when they aren't winners?

SEASON TEAM LEAGUE W L PCT GB ATTENDANCE
1993 Colorado Rockies National League 67 95 .414 37.0 4,483,350
1994 Colorado Rockies National League 53 64 .453 6.5 3,281,511
1995 Colorado Rockies National League 77 67 .535 1.0 3,390,037
1996 Colorado Rockies National League 83 79 .512 8.0 3,891,014
1997 Colorado Rockies National League 83 79 .512 7.0 3,888,453
1998 Colorado Rockies National League 77 85 .475 21.0 3,789,347
1999 Colorado Rockies National League 72 90 .444 28.0 3,481,065
2000 Colorado Rockies National League 82 80 .506 15.0 3,286,773
2001 Colorado Rockies National League 73 89 .451 19.0 3,163,821
2002 Colorado Rockies National League 73 89 .451 25.0 2,740,585
2003 Colorado Rockies National League 74 88 .457 26.5 2,334,175
2004 Colorado Rockies National League 68 94 .420 25.0 2,338,071

 

[bleedgreen]

http://www.kenn.com/sports/baseball/mlb/mlb_col_attendance.html
actually, the second season was the highest - 57,570. no i dont think denver is a city that supports its teams unless they win (broncos excluded). i said that pretty straight forward before. my point earlier was that the rockies at their worst have way better attendance than the avs, because i think its obvious baseball outsells hockey in america. is this what your arguing? i cant see any arguement against that. there is no shame in it - baseball is no1, and hockey is maybe no4.

my point before is that denver is susceptable to losing its fan base just as easily as any other city. and if they sucked for awhile, i think they would have the same attendance problems other teams have. what was your point by your post? im having three arguements at once and im getting lost at which angle youre coming at.

 

[bleedgreen]

That's the only reason your statement gave me pause. I doubt we're having any real disagreement here.

we're not. my point with rockies and the nugs is that the denver market - like most, loses fans when they dont do well and imo that would be true even with the avs. we've already agreed on that - i think. that leads back to the raleigh/ denver comparison in that a winning team like the avs in raliegh would likely do just as well as the avs - and the avs could fall into the same attendance problems as the canes if they really sucked for a few years (that part is my opinion). i think we're fine. some avs fans forget i am a fan and im rooting for the avs/pioneeers - i just have been thru enough as a sports fan to not take it all for granted.

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

my point earlier was that the rockies at their worst have way better attendance than the avs, because i think its obvious baseball outsells hockey in america.

One last point here before I (hopefully) leave this alone. Not really related to the core debate, but there are other obvious factors that will always cause baseball to have much higher attendance than hockey (or basketball). The stadiums hold 50,000 people, the field is huge, and the ticket prices are tiny by comparison.

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

some avs fans forget i am a fan and im rooting for the avs/pioneeers - i just have been thru enough as a sports fan to not take it all for granted.

Lest you think that I've not been through enough, or that I take success for granted, I grew up a North Stars fan.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

If there are scores of NHLPA free agents out there that no one wants to sign at their "market" price and teams replace them withcheaper AHL type players do you think that union isn't going to scream foul and charge the NHL with collusion? Haven't you learned anything from how they have been acting for the last number of years? The NHL would be in a position where they would need to prove that they aren't colluding and if they get the wrong judge they could be in for fines of millions of dollars. The only way that they can effectively and without legal risk control their salary costs is with a cap agreed to under a CBA with the players.

The players could complain about that situation, but they would not have a case. All the NHL has to do is allow the teams books to be public and than any time they decline to sign a free agent they just open the books and say look, we want to break even here we're not signing this guy for $2M or whatever. Your are free to set a budget for your team and stick to it, and if anyone doesn't believe you than simply open your books and say look at this.

As far as budgets go then what if every team decides that they only wanted to spend 30% of revenues on player salaries? A budget is a budget, right?

No no no, you completely missed the point.

As I said..."Each owner has a different amount of revenues and a different amount of expenses outside of player costs. With that said, every team has a different amount they can spend on players in order to break even. And your telling me that if each owner spends that amount because he doesn't want to lose money, it's collusion? No, we aren't talking about one "budget" league-wide, and we're not talking about a cap. If every team has a different budget to stick to, and they stick to it, there is nothing illegal in that."

If the owners sent out a memo saying no owner was to spend more than 30% of their revenues on salaries, yes that would be collusion. But that is clearly not what we are talking about and clearly a much much different situation than each owner sticking to their budget.