Top Hockey Towns

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,425
14,286
Pittsburgh
These threads are the height of idiocy, first of all because it ain't going to happen and merely ruffles feathers. But even more idiotic from a logic standpoint, they never ever look at the big picture, specifically looking at a snapshot, usually last year. Well duh, the teams on your lists that you compose seem to be mostly ones who are either rebuilding and sucked last year or the last few years or who are in their infancy in their respective markets. How about we look at a list five years from now when your team may be rebuilding? I wonder where your teams will be on the vairous lists.

These threads are perhaps the stupidest subjects to hit these boards, and that really is saying something.
 

regehr

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
747
0
Mars
NYIsles1 said:
The Nassau Coliseum has a management company that takes parking, concessions and a reported eleven percent of ticket revenue from the team. The lease and this contract with Smg run until 2014-2015. The television contract nets them 300m until 2030. Supposedly the upcoming renovation will give the Isles more revenue streams from the building as part of a negotiation to extend the Smg lease until 2025.

Regarding your numbers, lot's of padded attendance numbers in those figures (Msg) also no true source of what a teams real revenue is each year for the last four years unless Forbes estimate was your source.

The NY Post today wrote a story on team revenue, it not in the article but the graph in the article claims the following team revenue and contradicts Forbes.

Toronto 117.3m
Dallas 96.8
Detroit 93.9
Colorado 93.6
Philadelphia 89.8
Rangers 85.3
Montreal 84.4

What's significant is Brooks numbers are different in terms of what revenue teams are making, he claims these were the league reported revenue's in a recent offer, which contradicts the Forbes estimated number, especially on the Rangers by over 33m..

One other thing, what's going to happen to revenue in some of these markets when they can no longer buy their way out of a bad season and are locked into a 40m payroll or less?

They may profit more with lower payroll but overall revenue will decrease.

http://www.nypost.com/sports/40560.htm
SHARING THE CRUMBS

The Post has obtained the heretofore confidential Feb. 9 NHL revenue sharing model, presented to the PA in Toronto as part of the league's "compromise trigger" proposal.


As with all research, you need to look across multiple sources over a given time period. My #s are averages and include ranges. The key is not the absolute value of the revenue but the revenue relative to the other teams in the league.

I agree, recent developments on Long Island may help it's viability. See a previous post where I comment on the Isles.
 

regehr

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
747
0
Mars
CMUMike said:
I'd like to address the misconception that Pittsburgh is one of the worst hockey markets in the US.

Looking at attendance figures over the past 20 years, the Penguins have achieved the following results (as a % Capacity)

3 Years - 83%
5 Years - 88%
10 Years - 89%
15 Years - 91%
20 Years - 90%

In the same time span, the # of High School programs has doubled in size and youth hockey programs have seen similar (more likely exceeding 2X) growth.

Last year was a bad year attendance wise, there are no questions about it. However, the Penguins had the worst team in the league by far. Despite that fact, the home season ended with a sellout and standing ovation for the team.

The Penguins have seiezed these measures of popularity while operating in the 51st largest market in the US.

I'm certainly not implying that Pittsburgh is up there with the Toronto's and Detroit's of the world, but I'm getting a little tired of people just tossing the Penguins aside as one of the teams that should be contracted. There is a good hockey base in Pittsburgh and based on the growth of the youth programs, we can project an increase in that base as time goes on.

The bottom line is that none of the 30 cities deserve to lose their teams.


Of course, nobody wants people to lose their teams. This study looks at the recent past - a four-year window. Pittsburgh would certainly look better if the time frame went further back.
 

regehr

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
747
0
Mars
hockeyscribe22 said:
Divisions:

Adams:

Boston
Montreal
Buffalo
Hartford (Carolina)
Toronto
Quebec (Pittsburgh)

Patrick:

Philly
NJ
NYI
NYR
Columbus
Hamilton (Washington)

Norris

Detroit
Chicago
Ottawa
Minnesota
St. Louis


Smythe

Winnipeg (Phoenix)
Edmonton
Vancouver
Calgary
Colorado


Hartford, Quebec and Winnipeg may survive under a new economic system, but it would be very tough. These cities are very small and would need to be very well supported locally and, in some cases, would require new (subsidized) arenas to compete. Hamilton is an untested case.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,425
14,286
Pittsburgh
regehr said:
Of course, nobody wants people to lose their teams. This study looks at the recent past - a four-year window. Pittsburgh would certainly look better if the time frame went further back.

Pittsburgh has been rebuilding for basically the last four years. What do you expect from a fan base whose team is rebuilding? :dunno: We have done pretty well taking that into consideration. If you examine all teams who have similar levels of support in rebuilding and in playoff years you may as well eliminate half to three quarters of the teams in the league. Over a longer time from the Pens fall right in the middle. And the quarter above them are not that much higher in attendence than the Pens.
 

regehr

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
747
0
Mars
kingsjohn said:
Why are people so obsessed with Eliminating Los Angeles? You do realize they have been in the NHL since 1967? Every year they are in the top 12 in attendance and revenue.
In this model you are eliminating stable anchor franchises and moving teams back to places like Winnepeg that couldn't support a team when they had one. The same applies to SJ, high revenues and attendance. Yet you want to take these franchises away

Explain to me why you eliminate LA and SJ, yet you allow franchises with less revenue and lower attendance to remain.
From your list Columbus, Ottawa, Calgary, Boston, Chicago, NJ, and
Buffalo all have lower revenues and attendance than LA and SJ. But yet you want to eliminate these teams.
Other than East Coast bias, do you have an explanation?


You are right. Los Angeles and San Jose aren't going anywhere - both have strong attendance and revenue track records.
 

regehr

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
747
0
Mars
Hasbro said:
Is attendence based on percentage or tickets sold?

Attendance is based on actual tickets sold. Kingston, Ontario would sell out 99% of the games (in a small arena), but it doesn't mean it can support an NHL franchise. By the numbers, it seems that teams need to have an NHL-caliber arena and be able to sell about 16,000+ tickets a game.
 

regehr

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
747
0
Mars
canes-sth said:
But the "stats" (where did the revenue #s come from and are they accurate to begin with) don't include expenses.

I'm not exactly sure what the framework of this discussion is supposed to be. Fan interest as defined by "revenue" (again, what is the source) and attendance is one thing. Franchise viability (implied by the lines at 20 and 24) in regards to this whole lockout must really include expenses as well.

Most of the variation in expenses is related to player costs. A more important difference is whether teams share concessions, parking, box revenues. With the exception of Edmonton (which has exceptionally low expenses) and NY Rangers (which has exceptionally high expenses), most teams fall somewhere in the $25-$30 million in non-player expenses.
 

regehr

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
747
0
Mars
e-townchamps said:
can't base it solely on attendance...is Dallas a better hockeytown than Edmonton?
given they got the Cowboys, and Mavs there, I think its number 3 on their list. In Edmonton, the Oilers are number 1.
same can be said about Philly...do fans care more about the Flyers or the Eagles?
what about New York? Yankees or Rangers?

Buffalo is more of the hockey town than New Jersey.

You are talking about a subjective observation; my post was an objective, by-the-numbers, look at the recent track record (last 4 years) of attendance and revenues.
 

regehr

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
747
0
Mars
Splatman Phanutier said:
... unfortunatly...

Just to note, I am not in favour of contraction. Yes, I think there are too many teams in the league for the current talent level of the league and yes I think it was a mistake to expand to certain cities, but contraction does nothing to help the game. It can only do harm.

It is a dubious claim to say that contraction does nothing to help the game. By all measures, it probably would help the game, but even that is conjecture. The real "harm" to the game would be the amount the NHL would have to borrow to compensate owners whose teams are contracted - although given the projected benefits of contraction (financially), there would be likely creditors willing to loan the money.
 

regehr

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
747
0
Mars
Jaded-Fan said:
These threads are the height of idiocy, first of all because it ain't going to happen and merely ruffles feathers. But even more idiotic from a logic standpoint, they never ever look at the big picture, specifically looking at a snapshot, usually last year. Well duh, the teams on your lists that you compose seem to be mostly ones who are either rebuilding and sucked last year or the last few years or who are in their infancy in their respective markets. How about we look at a list five years from now when your team may be rebuilding? I wonder where your teams will be on the vairous lists.

These threads are perhaps the stupidest subjects to hit these boards, and that really is saying something.


They are not idiotic; contraction is being discussed in many NHL circles - not because they actually might contract teams, but because whatever form the top professional hockey league in N.A. takes after the labor impasse is played out might just take a different form - one that has fewer teams. So, it really isn't about contraction per se, but what a new league might look like.
 

regehr

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
747
0
Mars
Jaded-Fan said:
Pittsburgh has been rebuilding for basically the last four years. What do you expect from a fan base whose team is rebuilding? :dunno: We have done pretty well taking that into consideration. If you examine all teams who have similar levels of support in rebuilding and in playoff years you may as well eliminate half to three quarters of the teams in the league. Over a longer time from the Pens fall right in the middle. And the quarter above them are not that much higher in attendence than the Pens.

Yes, a longer view would be better. Pittsburgh needs a new arena, like all teams, as a prerequisite to their inclusion in a new NHL.
 

cassius

Registered User
Jul 23, 2004
13,560
706
I don't know whats the deal with peoples obsession with moving teams to Hartford, Winnepeg, and Quebec. The teams left there for a reason. :banghead:
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
regehr said:
It is a dubious claim to say that contraction does nothing to help the game. By all measures, it probably would help the game, but even that is conjecture. The real "harm" to the game would be the amount the NHL would have to borrow to compensate owners whose teams are contracted - although given the projected benefits of contraction (financially), there would be likely creditors willing to loan the money.
The pure humilation of contraction is enough to say that it would only do harm IMO
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,425
14,286
Pittsburgh
regehr said:
They are not idiotic; contraction is being discussed in many NHL circles - not because they actually might contract teams, but because whatever form the top professional hockey league in N.A. takes after the labor impasse is played out might just take a different form - one that has fewer teams. So, it really isn't about contraction per se, but what a new league might look like.

They are not going to contract but may play with fewer teams. Not being smart mouthed here but you totally lost me.
 

regehr

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
747
0
Mars
Splatman Phanutier said:
The pure humilation of contraction is enough to say that it would only do harm IMO

In the short term, yes. But not in the long or even medium term. A smaller, better product will likely generate more interest and better returns than a mediocre product spread thinly into difficult markets. Just my opinion.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
e-townchamps said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by regehr
I did a composite ranking of revenues and attendance (averaged over the past 4 years) - I think this is a pretty good proxy for the top hockey towns:

1. Toronto
1. Philadelphia
3. Detroit
3. NY Rangers
5. Montreal
6. Dallas
7. Colorado
8. Minnesota
9. Vancouver
10. St. Louis
11. Los Angeles
11. San Jose
13. Tampa Bay
13. Ottawa
15. Columbus
16. Boston
17. Calgary
18. Chicago
19. Edmonton
19. New Jersey
---------------------- Above is what a 20-team league might look like
21. Washington
22. Florida
23. Buffalo
24. Atlanta
---------------------- Above is what a 24-team league might look like
24. NY Islanders
26. Pittsburgh
26. Nashville
28. Phoenix
29. Carolina
30. Anaheim
can't base it solely on attendance...is Dallas a better hockeytown than Edmonton?
given they got the Cowboys, and Mavs there, I think its number 3 on their list. In Edmonton, the Oilers are number 1.
same can be said about Philly...do fans care more about the Flyers or the Eagles?
what about New York? Yankees or Rangers?

Buffalo is more of the hockey town than New Jersey.

I think we can stop alot of these arguments by changing the title of this thread from "Top Hockey Towns" to "Top Hockey Markets" which really are two different things.

"Top Hockey Town" is a measure of fan passion.

"Top Hockey Market" is really a measure of economics/demographics modified somewhat by their "Top Hockey Town"-ness

And no I don't think market numbers are a good proxy for top hockey town.

Unfortunately the "Top Hockey Market" rankings are significantly more important in terms of the health and future of the league - contraction, relocation, disparity of revenues, etc.
 

regehr

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
747
0
Mars
Jaded-Fan said:
They are not going to contract but may play with fewer teams. Not being smart mouthed here but you totally lost me.

Contraction implies to take the NHL and you chop teams from it. It could well be that the league is completely re-built from the ground up, with new rules. New teams would join a new league.
 

regehr

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
747
0
Mars
kdb209 said:
I think we can stop alot of these arguments by changing the title of this thread from "Top Hockey Towns" to "Top Hockey Markets" which really are two different things.

"Top Hockey Town" is a measure of fan passion.

"Top Hockey Market" is really a measure of economics/demographics modified somewhat by their "Top Hockey Town"-ness

And no I don't think market numbers are a good proxy for top hockey town.

Unfortunately the "Top Hockey Market" rankings are significantly more important in terms of the health and future of the league - contraction, relocation, disparity of revenues, etc.


OK, fair enough. It depends on what connotations you associate with the terms.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,425
14,286
Pittsburgh
regehr said:
Contraction implies to take the NHL and you chop teams from it. It could well be that the league is completely re-built from the ground up, with new rules. New teams would join a new league.


Yeah, that is going to happen. These are billionaires with large investments and all of them are just going to walk away. I would put my money on the contraction bet before that one. And I would say that there is less than 0% chance of any contraction in the next five years.
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
Jaded-Fan said:
These threads are the height of idiocy, first of all because it ain't going to happen and merely ruffles feathers.
Agreed on all points, but as long as people keep posting them and people keep responding, they're going to stick around unless more people start complaining about them. There just isn't all that much to talk about right now except for fantasy leagues, which is what this is.

I didn't think this was a contraction thread, seemed more like a statistical discussion to me, but I guess I was wrong.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
Jaded-Fan said:
Yeah, that is going to happen. These are billionaires with large investments and all of them are just going to walk away. I would put my money on the contraction bet before that one. And I would say that there is less than 0% chance of any contraction in the next five years.
I think contraction is a very likely possibility depending on how ignorantly stubborn the NHLPA is.

But the teams contracting won't be the ones we think. They will include the Flames and Oilers for sure, likely the Senators, Sabres, Canes, Pens and Preds to name a few.

Still a good idea?
 

ColoradoHockeyFan

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
9,368
0
Denver area
Joe_Strummer said:
yes and the Colorado Rockies became the New Jersey Devils ... so whats your point?

I thought my point was pretty clear, but I guess I can restate it for you: That there exist significant differences between markets in terms of interest in the sport of hockey. And that in examples such as the one raised in this thread, such differences are much bigger determining factors than those the poster offered (e.g., temperature, time of day, notice, etc.), which were in fact common to the situations in the other cities as well.

I wasn't even commenting on this in terms of a critique or a contraction argument or anything of the sort (I don't want to see any contraction, personally... I don't want anyone to lose a franchise). I was simply challenging the poster's use of those factors as being the primary causes of turnout differences in this situation, because I don't believe it is supported by the evidence.

I thought my comments were reasonably stated, certainly not malicious, and at least relevant. Perhaps I should return the question to you, and ask for your point. (Since you're bringing up a nearly quarter-century-old scenario in which an owner purchased a horribly mismanaged team with the sole purpose of moving it, made it clear from the outset that he intended to move it, and then in fact did so.)
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,425
14,286
Pittsburgh
Splatman Phanutier said:
I think contraction is a very likely possibility depending on how ignorantly stubborn the NHLPA is.

But the teams contracting won't be the ones we think. They will include the Flames and Oilers for sure, likely the Senators, Sabres, Canes, Pens and Preds to name a few.

Still a good idea?


I disagree, the owners will protect their investments. Look at MLB and the Expos for an example.

And where did I say that contraction was a good idea? :dunno:

It is a stupid idea, and would relegate the sport to perpetual niche and second (or third or forth) class status.
 

Chaos

And the winner is...
Sep 2, 2003
7,968
18
TX
hockeyscribe22 said:
Divisions:

Adams:

Boston
Montreal
Buffalo
Hartford (Carolina)
Toronto
Quebec (Pittsburgh)

Patrick:

Philly
NJ
NYI
NYR
Columbus
Hamilton (Washington)

Norris

Detroit
Chicago
Ottawa
Minnesota
St. Louis


Smythe

Winnipeg (Phoenix)
Edmonton
Vancouver
Calgary
Colorado

Talk about a bias against southern teams...you leave out 2 of the biggest markets in the US(Dallas and LA), and have teams in cities that couldnt support their teams in the past(Winnipeg, Hartford, Quebec)......yeah that makes a whole lot of sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->