Which teams may get contracted?

Status
Not open for further replies.

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,348
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
Nashville isn't in financial trouble and it's troubles at the gate are being solved by the product on the ice, this year the Preds sold more season tickets than they did the first 2.

I would think the first 2 years and the draft (10000+) would give us some cred.

We've never had the 11k average like the Islanders, Carolina, and others have had.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
kingsjohn said:
Try looking at more than 1 year, also sort by PCT , which is % of capacity


Great link . . . :handclap:

I have looked for something like this for a while, found the info but not so well put together before.

PS, if you ignore last year when the Pens play in the first 3/4 of the year destroyed attendence, the average attendence of Pittsburgh for the three prior years was a very respectable 15,578 per game. That is better than many of the teams you never see on any of these lists. Since 1986 the attendence figures have remained very very respectable except for last year. So to those who keep bringing up Pittsburgh, contract yourselves, leave us alone.
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
The Iconoclast said:
What is your problem? I would take it that you are a fan of one of the teams I suggested relocating or foldingand you hoped that a shot at Canadian teams would hurt me or something? Guess again. I'm from Phoenix, one of those teams I suggested relocating. I think about the game as my first priority and my own selfish desires number two. Maybe you should do the same? Every one of the teams listed is a problem in some shape or form. They deserve to be wiped from the NHL road map.

Since you are such a proponent of each of these teams existence, how about you tell us WHY those teams should stick around? What is the benefit for them being in the league in their current location?

because the whole idea of contraction is silly, and anyone that actually knows the game on more than just a surface level is aware of that. people can spout off all they want about "talent dilution" but it simply doesn't exist, as has been proven on these boards over and over. as for "fan support," you have to realize that unless you're the Toronto Maple Leafs or the New York Rangers, if you ice a bad team...your attendance will suffer. Is it just coincidence to you that Pittsburgh's once-great attendance has dwindled...as the on-ice product became practically the joke of the league? People call left and right for them to be moved. Very "what have you done for me lately?" , no? You mentioned Nashville...a team that had great attendance the first couple of years...and by the fourth year of mediocrity, some interest was lost. The team picked it up...made the playoffs..and each of the playoff games sold out as soon as tickets went on sale. Teams like Atlanta...haven't had the success yet, so you feel they should be contracted after a couple of years? All the while, as no one ever seems to want to answer me on...EVERY TEAM IN CANADA with the exception of "the big two" has had problems with attendance in the past. If fans in the so-called mecca of hockey don't support their teams when things are rough...why is it a problem that fans in the "non traditional" markets don't, either? Carolina had great attendance during their cup run...and I'm willing to bet that if they didn't instantly go back to being a terrible team the year after, it would have continued. Sure..Vancouver has great attendance...now...but do me a favor and go look up their numbers from the late 80s. You might be surprised. Instead, some people(not just you, many others on this board as well) would like to yank teams out of markets that could and probably would eventually grow into great hockey towns...simply because they didn't think it could work to begin with. And for what? To put hockey back in a place where the NHL has failed miserably(Winnepeg) or in a small burb with long allegiances to two other teams(Hamilton). I empathize with a lot of the Canadian fans on the board that miss having more Canadian teams, but I draw the line at suggesting that these teams return at the expense of others.

Attendance during the lean years should hardly be a barometer for the success of a team. It's when the fans don't support a winner that you can start talking about contraction or relocation.
 

rt

The Kinder, Gentler Version
May 13, 2004
96,883
45,251
A Rockwellian Pleasantville
Old location - New Location


Edomonton - Provo, Utah

Calgary - Tijuana, Mexico

Montreal - Carson City, Nevada

Toronto - Santa Fe, New Mexico

Boston - Honolulu, Hawaii

New York R. - Little Rock, Arkansas

New York I. - El Paso, Texas

Philadelphia - San Jaun, Peurto Rico

Detroit - Garden Grove, California

Chicago - Oklahoma City

:razz:
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
The Iconoclast said:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

Thanks for playing.

Now here is why I selected the teams, the cities, and the movement choices.

My top six choices for contraction or relocation.

1. Carolina... second worst attendence. Just not a hockey market any way you wish to look at it. Not a natural rival for anyone and likely never will be. Its a great college town and should be able to draw fans, but for some reason the sport just doesn't catch on in the area. The NHL can do better with this franchise.

2. Nashville... third worst attendence. Same reasons as Carolina. The NHL can do much better than having a team in Nashville.

3. Anaheim... eighth worst attendence. Should be a natural rival for Los Angeles, but that hasn't developed. They are Disney on ice and no one takes them seriously. They have an awesome arena to play in, but can't draw flies. There has to be more than a great arena and a funky name to having a sports team.

4. Phoenix... this is painful to say, but my hometown does not deserve a team. The support is minimal and the apathy towards it is huge. The new arena is in the worst spot possible and the support will continue to dwindle IMO. Worst draw on the road in the league. They are the natural rival to no one and beyonf the population and great golfing offer nothing to the NHL.

5. Pittsburgh... worst attendence in the league. They need a new building and Pittsburgh is iffy on whether they get it or not (is it confirmed they are defintiely getting a new arena?). They are not really a big rival for anyone, nor a natural rival. Pittsburgh is blah IMO and outside of Mario Lemieux is a blip.

6. Buffalo... I really like Buffalo, but they never have been a strong franchise. I think that this is a situation where the suport is from outside the metro area more than it is from within the metro area. I think that a move across the lake would a be a good thing for this franchise all around.

My top six cities for consideration for expansion or relocation.

1. Portland... is a hockey market, has a great building and an owner with deep pockets looking for the right opportunity. Has some built in regional rivalries that would add some excitment to the game.

2. Seattle... another hockey market with the same great things Portland has to offer.

3. Houston... a proven hockey market who could really take off with the bitter rivalry between Dallas and Houston.

4. Winnipeg... a hockey market with built in rivals all over the place.

5. Hamilton... see Winnipeg.

6. Kansas City... not a hockey market, which is a huge strike against it. Having said that, the potential is there to exploit some natural rivalries that could assist at the gate and make this a strong franchise.

Finally, the New NHL, one that cuts down on travel for most teams and would leverage the regaional rivalies and get some honest to goodness hate going on again.

Western Conference

Los Angeles, San Jose, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Minnesota, Colorado, Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, Columbus

Eastern Conference

Philadelphia, New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Boston, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Hamilton, Tampa, Miami, Washington, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston

See, there is some method behind the ideas and not just eliminating a team because of some dreamed up bias.

I could point to several financial items that hurt teams like Edmonton and Calgary. Even with excellent attendance, they are/would be hurting. And that's a scarier problem than the mediocre teams struggling with attendance. Do I think those two should be contracted or relocated? Hell no.

For the most part, I agree with the other markets you suggested as possible locations. But chances are we'd be having this same argument five years down the road, and many of those new locations would be in the mix. Maybe it's just me, but I believe that moving or getting rid of several teams would hurt the stability of the league (tender as it is right now). There have been so many moves and new locations in the past decade, the NHL is like a new-born calf struggling to get its feet. Not the best idea to make that task even harder.

None of the target markets you mentioned offer any guarantees. A couple years in the beginning are quite likely to be good, the honeymoon if you will. But after that, it's an unknown. Why continue to provide obstacles to trip over? If a franchise fails where it is right now, so be it. It folds or gets moved. And yes, I'd say that of my Thrashers if that happened. It's just my thought that it's better for the league to give each of these teams that chance.

The process of contraction/relocation is, for lack of a more official term, a bit*h. The time and effort getting rid of a team is enormous. Just on the legal side would be tremendous, not to mention the rest of the process. And there would almost certainly be some sort of backlash from various sponsors, ones that take such moves as a sign of instability. That's certainly a headache the NHL doesn't need.

Unless you think that "U-Haul" would do well as a huge corporate sponsor for the NHL, continual movement of teams isn't in the works.
 

se7en*

Guest
nomorekids said:
It's when the fans don't support a winner that you can start talking about contraction or relocation.

It was much, much more than not supporting a winner in Edmonton in '96. Not supporting a crook, more like.

Jesus people, there are issues bigger than attendance (or in Edmonton and Calgary's case, a year or two of questionable attendance compared to years of empty seats for other teams) when you think a team should be contracted. And No Snow can't be used as an excuse either, sorry,
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
craig1 said:
Well, you've made it quite obvious that you are not Ken Jennings....

Neither have you. In fact you have a lot more in common with Tom Jennings, but that's another story all together.

First, as others have stated, get your attendance figures straight. Use a larger sample size.

That's a fair comment. How about we look at financials as well then? No, we probably don't want to do that as that would look even worse than the attendence.

Second, the Pens are on the cusp of a new arena ......(privately financed by the way)....and have just hired their proverbial ace in the hole to assure it. It would take an unspeakable event to prevent them from acquiring the new slots liscense.

Do they have it yet? No they don't. Nothing is assured in this regard until the ground is broken, and even then its not a guarantee of anything. Just look at Phoenix.

Third, the Pens are rivals with 3 distinct teams. The Capitals, with whom the fans share a mutual disdain for each other. To a lesser degree, the Rangers, whom they have had a rivalry with dating back to the early 1990's, and to a much lesser degree, the Flyers.

Well, you should be proud of that rival with Washington, as they are also a team most brought up for contraction or relocation. Maybe both teams can move and that "natural rivalry" can continue. BTW, when was the last time that the league or fans got all fired up over a Pittsburgh/Washington game? Just curious.

Thank you for trying to come up with ideas out of thin air, but much like a goodnovelist, do some research.

I might recommend you do the same. And while you're at it, also consider the idea while putting your personal feelings about the team you cheer for aside. Learn some objectivity.
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
he might not be objective, but you're making up facts if you think the thrashers OR predators are in any sort of financial trouble. both teams, due to low payrolls\good arena deals\good corporate sponsorship lost a lot less money than you'd think. Craig Leipold, who owns the Predators and is a chairman of the NHL's board of governors, actually reported that they expected to lose far more than they did, quote,

"We lost money in the past season, but that's par for the course, unfortunately. I will say that we had budgeted to lose more than we did, and it's nothing we can't handle."

Why not question a team like St Louis? They were near the top of the league in money lost. You're making the error of associating attendance with financial welfare. That's only one small piece of the pie. If attendance were all it took, you wouldn't have the Edmontons and Calgarys in dire financial straits, hoping for a better CBA.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
nomorekids said:
Why not question a team like St Louis? They were near the top of the league in money lost. You're making the error of associating attendance with financial welfare. That's only one small piece of the pie. If attendance were all it took, you wouldn't have the Edmontons and Calgarys in dire financial straits, hoping for a better CBA.

Because the net worth of Blues owner is something like $10B...He can lose just as much as he wants and it's not even a blip on his economic radar.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
nomorekids said:
because the whole idea of contraction is silly, and anyone that actually knows the game on more than just a surface level is aware of that. people can spout off all they want about "talent dilution" but it simply doesn't exist, as has been proven on these boards over and over. as for "fan support," you have to realize that unless you're the Toronto Maple Leafs or the New York Rangers, if you ice a bad team...your attendance will suffer. Is it just coincidence to you that Pittsburgh's once-great attendance has dwindled...as the on-ice product became practically the joke of the league? People call left and right for them to be moved. Very "what have you done for me lately?" , no? You mentioned Nashville...a team that had great attendance the first couple of years...and by the fourth year of mediocrity, some interest was lost. The team picked it up...made the playoffs..and each of the playoff games sold out as soon as tickets went on sale. Teams like Atlanta...haven't had the success yet, so you feel they should be contracted after a couple of years? All the while, as no one ever seems to want to answer me on...EVERY TEAM IN CANADA with the exception of "the big two" has had problems with attendance in the past. If fans in the so-called mecca of hockey don't support their teams when things are rough...why is it a problem that fans in the "non traditional" markets don't, either? Carolina had great attendance during their cup run...and I'm willing to bet that if they didn't instantly go back to being a terrible team the year after, it would have continued. Sure..Vancouver has great attendance...now...but do me a favor and go look up their numbers from the late 80s. You might be surprised. Instead, some people(not just you, many others on this board as well) would like to yank teams out of markets that could and probably would eventually grow into great hockey towns...simply because they didn't think it could work to begin with. And for what? To put hockey back in a place where the NHL has failed miserably(Winnepeg) or in a small burb with long allegiances to two other teams(Hamilton). I empathize with a lot of the Canadian fans on the board that miss having more Canadian teams, but I draw the line at suggesting that these teams return at the expense of others.

Attendance during the lean years should hardly be a barometer for the success of a team. It's when the fans don't support a winner that you can start talking about contraction or relocation.

Some good comments there. I do find it interesting that you hammer the Canadian situations but don't do the same with the American situations. Why? And yes, I do tend to believe that it is right for the sport to look toward more traditional marketplaces when trying to rebuild the momentum of the game. It only makes sense. If football were in trouble I'd look to Texas and Florida. If Nascar were in touble I'd look to the SE U.S. for support. If poker were in trouble I'd look to Las Vegas. You go where there is the most support from your product from all levels, and that is most important at the grassroots level IMO. I suspect that if some of the American teams had to go through what many of the Canadian teams did with having to sell off their top players for no other reasons than economics that you would see similar results (oh wait, we have already in Long Island, Washington, Pittsburgh, etc.).

The NHL is in trouble and playing in markets where there is no grassroots support is a killer now, and will be worse in the future. If I had to roll the dice of where to get the game healthy again, I'm going to focus on places where I know the game means something and has historically. Nothing against the southern United States, but it just hasn't proven to be a hotbed for hockey.

BTW... the topic was to identify the teams that you thought were best suited for contraction or relocation and I selected the ones I felt would be best for the game. I also explained why. You have not given your selections nor bothered to put together a case to support your team (I'm suspecting its Carolina or Nashville?) and why they have a chance of long term viability. It sucks having to consider changes that affect yourself, but consider the changes for the game of hockey and the league itself. I think that it would be better to have a bunch of teams that develop some real hatred for each other and build from that than what the league has now.
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
The Iconoclast said:
Some good comments there. I do find it interesting that you hammer the Canadian situations but don't do the same with the American situations. Why? And yes, I do tend to believe that it is right for the sport to look toward more traditional marketplaces when trying to rebuild the momentum of the game. It only makes sense. If football were in trouble I'd look to Texas and Florida. If Nascar were in touble I'd look to the SE U.S. for support. If poker were in trouble I'd look to Las Vegas. You go where there is the most support from your product from all levels, and that is most important at the grassroots level IMO. I suspect that if some of the American teams had to go through what many of the Canadian teams did with having to sell off their top players for no other reasons than economics that you would see similar results (oh wait, we have already in Long Island, Washington, Pittsburgh, etc.).

The NHL is in trouble and playing in markets where there is no grassroots support is a killer now, and will be worse in the future. If I had to roll the dice of where to get the game healthy again, I'm going to focus on places where I know the game means something and has historically. Nothing against the southern United States, but it just hasn't proven to be a hotbed for hockey.

BTW... the topic was to identify the teams that you thought were best suited for contraction or relocation and I selected the ones I felt would be best for the game. I also explained why. You have not given your selections nor bothered to put together a case to support your team (I'm suspecting its Carolina or Nashville?) and why they have a chance of long term viability. It sucks having to consider changes that affect yourself, but consider the changes for the game of hockey and the league itself. I think that it would be better to have a bunch of teams that develop some real hatred for each other and build from that than what the league has now.

I wasn't 'hammering' the Canadian situations..merely pointing out that it's unfair to deride some American teams for something..when cities that no one would ever dream of bringing up in a contraction thread suffered the exact same thing. My point is..and this is what you're overlooking...the state of the NHL has little to do with where it's located and more to do with that ratio of salaries to revenues...you know..the whole CBA\lockout issue? Re-locating and contracting would only serve to make things worse. It's a bad idea, and it simply won't happen..at least not in the foreseeable future.
 

Dadof5boys

Registered User
May 25, 2003
1,596
61
Murfreesbo Tennessee
Visit site
nomorekids said:
because the whole idea of contraction is silly, and anyone that actually knows the game on more than just a surface level is aware of that. people can spout off all they want about "talent dilution" but it simply doesn't exist, as has been proven on these boards over and over. as for "fan support," you have to realize that unless you're the Toronto Maple Leafs or the New York Rangers, if you ice a bad team...your attendance will suffer. Is it just coincidence to you that Pittsburgh's once-great attendance has dwindled...as the on-ice product became practically the joke of the league? People call left and right for them to be moved. Very "what have you done for me lately?" , no? You mentioned Nashville...a team that had great attendance the first couple of years...and by the fourth year of mediocrity, some interest was lost. The team picked it up...made the playoffs..and each of the playoff games sold out as soon as tickets went on sale. Teams like Atlanta...haven't had the success yet, so you feel they should be contracted after a couple of years? All the while, as no one ever seems to want to answer me on...EVERY TEAM IN CANADA with the exception of "the big two" has had problems with attendance in the past. If fans in the so-called mecca of hockey don't support their teams when things are rough...why is it a problem that fans in the "non traditional" markets don't, either? Carolina had great attendance during their cup run...and I'm willing to bet that if they didn't instantly go back to being a terrible team the year after, it would have continued. Sure..Vancouver has great attendance...now...but do me a favor and go look up their numbers from the late 80s. You might be surprised. Instead, some people(not just you, many others on this board as well) would like to yank teams out of markets that could and probably would eventually grow into great hockey towns...simply because they didn't think it could work to begin with. And for what? To put hockey back in a place where the NHL has failed miserably(Winnepeg) or in a small burb with long allegiances to two other teams(Hamilton). I empathize with a lot of the Canadian fans on the board that miss having more Canadian teams, but I draw the line at suggesting that these teams return at the expense of others.

Attendance during the lean years should hardly be a barometer for the success of a team. It's when the fans don't support a winner that you can start talking about contraction or relocation.

Such a good post I thought it should be up on the board again. :yo: :handclap:
http://www.hockeyresearch.com/mfoster/business/nhl_attn.html
The Jets never averaged over 13,600. Most of the teams you list moving rarely averaged under that figure
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
cw7 said:
I could point to several financial items that hurt teams like Edmonton and Calgary. Even with excellent attendance, they are/would be hurting. And that's a scarier problem than the mediocre teams struggling with attendance. Do I think those two should be contracted or relocated? Hell no.

For the most part, I agree with the other markets you suggested as possible locations. But chances are we'd be having this same argument five years down the road, and many of those new locations would be in the mix. Maybe it's just me, but I believe that moving or getting rid of several teams would hurt the stability of the league (tender as it is right now). There have been so many moves and new locations in the past decade, the NHL is like a new-born calf struggling to get its feet. Not the best idea to make that task even harder.

None of the target markets you mentioned offer any guarantees. A couple years in the beginning are quite likely to be good, the honeymoon if you will. But after that, it's an unknown. Why continue to provide obstacles to trip over? If a franchise fails where it is right now, so be it. It folds or gets moved. And yes, I'd say that of my Thrashers if that happened. It's just my thought that it's better for the league to give each of these teams that chance.

The process of contraction/relocation is, for lack of a more official term, a bit*h. The time and effort getting rid of a team is enormous. Just on the legal side would be tremendous, not to mention the rest of the process. And there would almost certainly be some sort of backlash from various sponsors, ones that take such moves as a sign of instability. That's certainly a headache the NHL doesn't need.

Unless you think that "U-Haul" would do well as a huge corporate sponsor for the NHL, continual movement of teams isn't in the works.

Some good comments. But I will say that by setting up a franchise in a given spot does not mean it should stay there. You do have to consider what is best for your company. A Mercedes dealership in Peoria (AZ) is likely not going to be a profitable location. One in Scottsdale is likely going to do very well for you. You go where the market is likely the best and has customers that will not only appreciate your product but will buy it. Traditional hockey markets are where to go IMO.

One thing you miss in my grand scheme is playing off of regional rivalries. They are important in selling the game and keeping it going, even when the local team sucks. I alsways look at the games where the Rangers play the Islanders or the Habs play the Leafs or the Oilers play the Flames. Sellouts and the games are electric. And it doesn't matter if its in pre-season. Those games mean something more than just tow points in the standings in a schedule that is too long and too drawn out. They're for bragging rights between cities or markets that hate each other. That's the type of heat the NHL needs to generate to be successful IMO. More rivalries will do just that.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
tulsytrid1 said:
Such a good post I thought it should be up on the board again. :yo: :handclap:
http://www.hockeyresearch.com/mfoster/business/nhl_attn.html
The Jets never averaged over 13,600. Most of the teams you list moving rarely averaged under that figure

Capacity of the old Winnipeg arena was just over 14,000, with many obstructed seats. People talk about % capacity. They should look at what Winnipeg did with a bad building. Several cities have got second chances, I think Winnipeg deserves one too.
 

arnie

Registered User
Dec 20, 2004
520
0
ACC1224 said:
The Leafs will never allow a team in Hamilton.

Forget the Leafs. It would virtually kill the Sabres who get much of their support from Hamilton on down the QEW to NY.

The other reason is that Copps Colliseum is hopelessly outdated. It has not luxury boxes abnd cannot be modied to make many. So Hamiltoin would need a new arena
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
The Iconoclast said:
Some good comments. But I will say that by setting up a franchise in a given spot does not mean it should stay there. You do have to consider what is best for your company. A Mercedes dealership in Peoria (AZ) is likely not going to be a profitable location. One in Scottsdale is likely going to do very well for you. You go where the market is likely the best and has customers that will not only appreciate your product but will buy it. Traditional hockey markets are where to go IMO.

You're right, it doesn't mean it should stay there. But I do believe it should be given the chance of success or failure on its own. Some markets just haven't had the time to develop yet, in what people label "non-traditional" markets this process takes about a generation to fully take hold. Even in a more hockey-friendly environment like Portland, it would still take time to lay down the roots and have them take hold. I just don't see the logic in starting the process all over again in a new city.

In a decade or so (provided the league lets it be), many markets that are now considered non-traditional won't be viewed as such. Some places in the south will obviously never be the hot-bed of hockey as it is in many northern locations, but they can carve out a stable place for themselves in the sporting culture of that city. And the NHL (and hopefully hockey in general) will be better for it. I've said this before in a couple of other threads, it takes patience. I can see a multitude of benefits if hockey takes even a small hold in southern regions, benefits that you couldn't get by putting all NHL teams in areas already saturated in a hockey culture. Short-term benefits would be seen of course, but I do believe that the long-term benefits of growing the sport in different areas will far outweigh any short-term gains you might see.

One thing you miss in my grand scheme is playing off of regional rivalries. They are important in selling the game and keeping it going, even when the local team sucks. I alsways look at the games where the Rangers play the Islanders or the Habs play the Leafs or the Oilers play the Flames. Sellouts and the games are electric. And it doesn't matter if its in pre-season. Those games mean something more than just tow points in the standings in a schedule that is too long and too drawn out. They're for bragging rights between cities or markets that hate each other. That's the type of heat the NHL needs to generate to be successful IMO. More rivalries will do just that.

I'll go back to the patience thing again. If given time, there could be many interesting and intense rivalries of teams in this region. They obviously won't be on par with the historical rivalries that have been around for decades. But whose to say that they won't in time? Maybe Florida and Tampa Bay will turn into a blood-feud. Maybe Tampa Bay and Atlanta will continue to grow into annual contenders and view each of their many meetings per year as an all-out battle. From living in Atlanta, I know that there would be an instant rivalry against Nashville if the two teams were in the same conference.

Possibilities for rivalries very much exist here. The key is, again, time.
 

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
73,088
38,141
arnie said:
Forget the Leafs. It would virtually kill the Sabres who get much of their support from Hamilton on down the QEW to NY.

The other reason is that Copps Colliseum is hopelessly outdated. It has not luxury boxes abnd cannot be modied to make many. So Hamiltoin would need a new arena

The post that my response reffered to had the Sabres gone and Hamilton coming in.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
The Iconoclast said:
Capacity of the old Winnipeg arena was just over 14,000, with many obstructed seats. People talk about % capacity. They should look at what Winnipeg did with a bad building. Several cities have got second chances, I think Winnipeg deserves one too.

Winnipeg does not fit the NHL business model.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
The Iconoclast said:
Why? What is the business model. Elaborate.

The Holy Grail for the NHL is US national TV contract. Putting teams in small markets in Canada do absolutley nothing to advance that goal and in fact hurt those chances.

The NHL markets to a corporate fan base and that does not exist in Wiinipeg. When the NHL sells advertsing it notes that the NHL has the highest per capita income of any of the major pro sports per bum in the seats and the highest percentage of corporate tickets.

Winnipeg does not have the population, business climate, corporate base, tax regime, arena size, etc. to support the return of the NHL.
 

PanthersRule96

Registered User
Jun 15, 2003
6,048
0
Visit site
Teams that could/should move:

New Jersey
Carolina
Anaheim

I would say Pittsburg, but they have too much past greatness plus they have a young group of good players. I would have said Nashville too, just because of the market, but they are a good team that I like.

I can't see FLA moving as they're one of the more healthier franchises plus attendance will grow when they win. Teams that can't put ppl in the seats when they win should be unconditionally moved like New Jersey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->