Attendance issues: Part II

[Confucius]

Trick question. The Argo's play in a Stadium that can hold 50,000 + people. The Argo's never sell out.

Exactly, and if there was a city where they could draw more people who here doesn't think there would be a team there.

 

[AllByDesign]

If you can't succeed with the competition....you can't succeed. Attendance needs to be 'respectable' regardless of what else is going on.

Having 2/3rds capacity for an early in the season game seems reasonably acceptable to me. Most event promoters base their 'break-even' point on a 65% of house ticket value. The problem is the NHL have mistakenly given the players more than half of collected revenues. This has forced teams to be near capacity every night if they want to even come close to making a profit.

The NFL provides only 8 games (minimum) to watch your team play at home. It is reasonable to expect a capacity turnout given the circumstances this format provides. Having 41 home appearances gives you a better chance to see your team play at home thus providing ample suply to a mitigated demand. You may note attendances in a lot of buildings don't ramp up until after February.

When the NHL doubled their size in the 70's it was quite common to see half-empty facilities. The player's salaries were much smaller and provided the 'newer' markets time to build a presence. The current conditions that owners must face are unreasonable. This is what gives the current crisis situations in Phoenix, Nashville, Atlanta etc..

People seem to think that because Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver sell out, it should be the same result in every other market. I love hockey, but I have enough cognitive function to realize that there are areas in North America where hockey is as popular as the tambourine as an instrument.

Places where hockey captures the imaginations of its citizens are ones where hockey has had an opportunity to develop a story over time. This doesn't happen in a 15 year period. It takes decades.

People on these boards are really making much ado about nothing when it comes to early season attendance numbers. The only reason it is even part of the discussion is because of the volitile nature for owners. Which is a bed that they made for themselves back in 2005.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It's funny when I hear the people in Phoenix say they have a long lasting hockey history because they had a minor team in the 60's, when Quebec city had the Bulldogs in 1878, only ten years after the founding of the first modern english football club, and 5 years after the red sox.

Those comments are always in response to someone acting as if Phoenix natives had never heard of hockey until the past decade.

Well one of the best known products Philips sells in the US is light bulbs..... Most of their other products don't make a good nickname for the venue (I don't think "The Tube" or "The Shaver" would work too well. Nor would calling it "The Phil" [Along the lines of what Turner Field is referred to as.].). Philips Arena is one of those arenas with a corporate name that doesn't sound corporate.

That's exactly what makes it such an awful nickname. If you didn't know better, you might think Philips was some great civic leader after whom the arena is named. It sounds stately and dignified. But you'd rather call it "The Bulb" because the company makes light bulbs? Really? Are they paying you to do that?

Also, "The Bulb" is no better than "The Tube". Is the arena shaped like a bulb? Does it glow at night? What connection is there other than the corporate product? It's just an awkward thing to call an arena considering bulbs are often fragile and dainty, and the most important bulb in the arena is the one behind your goalie. The connotations are wrong on so many levels...

 

[Confucius]

Those comments are always in response to someone acting as if Phoenix natives had never heard of hockey until the past decade.



That's exactly what makes it such an awful nickname. If you didn't know better, you might think Philips was some great civic leader after whom the arena is named. It sounds stately and dignified. But you'd rather call it "The Bulb" because the company makes light bulbs? Really? Are they paying you to do that?

Also, "The Bulb" is no better than "The Tube". Is the arena shaped like a bulb? Does it glow at night? What connection is there other than the corporate product? It's just an awkward thing to call an arena considering bulbs are often fragile and dainty, and the most important bulb in the arena is the one behind your goalie. The connotations are wrong on so many levels...

The Battery

 

[tarheelhockey]

Having 2/3rds capacity for an early in the season game seems reasonably acceptable to me. Most event promoters base their 'break-even' point on a 65% of house ticket value. The problem is the NHL have mistakenly given the players more than half of collected revenues. This has forced teams to be near capacity every night if they want to even come close to making a profit.

This is definitely a bad situation for the league, but really I think we all need to sit tight and see what happens in this next round of TV negotiations. If the league FINALLY scores a respectable deal, which they are expected to, that will go a long way toward stabilizing the profit lines of teams that have lower attendance.

Of course there comes a point where the franchise just can't be saved, but it would be absolutely silly to start moving teams around on Monday when you're going to sign a TV deal on Friday. Also, by the time the TV deal rolls around we should have some answers on the Phoenix ownership situation. By then it'll be obvious what the next steps are.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The Battery

At least that sounds manly

I propose we call it "Philips Arena".

 

[Confucius]

At least that sounds manly

I propose we call it "Philips Arena".

The headlines would be comical, Dead battery, fully charged, boost, recharged, assault at the Battery

 

[AllByDesign]

This is definitely a bad situation for the league, but really I think we all need to sit tight and see what happens in this next round of TV negotiations. If the league FINALLY scores a respectable deal, which they are expected to, that will go a long way toward stabilizing the profit lines of teams that have lower attendance.

The rest of your post is bang on. This part is what I must quip with. A nice shiny national TV deal will do wonders for NHL profile, but will do little to help with the owner's profits. 58% of that shiny new deal goes right into the pockets of the players.

If the league inks a $1 Billion tv deal, it means each team would get 14 million each. teams that are losing 20+ million right now will still be in trouble. If you also consider the current National TV contract nets each team about 4 million dollars it is really only a 10 million improvement.

The owners thought they really pulled one off in 2005. $39 million cap... players taking a 25% haircut. Fast forward 5 years and the cap has nearly doubled and the cap floor is now at where the old maximum was. More teams are on life support now than there were before the end of the last CBA.

I really hope they get it right in 2012.

 

[Jeffrey93]

The rest of your post is bang on. This part is what I must quip with. A nice shiny national TV deal will do wonders for NHL profile, but will do little to help with the owner's profits. 58% of that shiny new deal goes right into the pockets of the players.

If the league inks a $1 Billion tv deal, it means each team would get 14 million each. teams that are losing 20+ million right now will still be in trouble. If you also consider the current National TV contract nets each team about 4 million dollars it is really only a 10 million improvement.

The owners thought they really pulled one off in 2005. $39 million cap... players taking a 25% haircut. Fast forward 5 years and the cap has nearly doubled and the cap floor is now at where the old maximum was. More teams are on life support now than there were before the end of the last CBA.

I really hope they get it right in 2012.

This CBA would work fine if you had 30 stable markets. Revenue sharing would basically be to compensate smaller market teams and that is it. Imagine if Nashville and Carolina really get their acts together and start swimming in revenue??? Teams like Phoenix, Florida, Columbus & Atlanta would hurt even more.

The league should be doing everything it can to get 30 teams that are financially sound. Where losses can be counted with their hands instead of having to use the hands and feet of several people. Then the CBA would seem to work much better than it currently is.

For those that know the cap system REALLY well....what sort of cap hike would we be looking at if everything remained basically the same except 2 to 3 of the lower/lowest HRR teams shot up to the middle of the league in HRR?

 

[tarheelhockey]

The rest of your post is bang on. This part is what I must quip with. A nice shiny national TV deal will do wonders for NHL profile, but will do little to help with the owner's profits. 58% of that shiny new deal goes right into the pockets of the players.

If the league inks a $1 Billion tv deal, it means each team would get 14 million each. teams that are losing 20+ million right now will still be in trouble. If you also consider the current National TV contract nets each team about 4 million dollars it is really only a 10 million improvement.

Fair enough. I mean, it's ridiculous that any team should lose $20m. Situations like that have to be fixed aggressively, which the NHL has attempted to do in Phoenix. I'm thinking more of teams like the Hurricanes, who would go from loss to profit with a better TV deal. Then the dominos start falling as the team is able to invest in new streams of income.

Also, the simple fact of being on a major network would add a lot of buzz to the NHL and give a boost to ticket sales and TV ratings on the local level. It's not just the contract itself, but what it represents to the overall direction of the league.

 

[New Jersey]

I'd be willing to bet if there were a Toronto Argonauts game and Leafs game being played at the same time the Leafs would still sellout.

Are you seriously comparing an NFL franchise to a CFL franchise in this scenario?

Apparently people seem to forget that football in the United States is basically like hockey is in Canada - if not more popular.

In Canada, if a CFL team fails to sell out because one the hockey team from that respective team is playing on the same night, it's OK. But in the States, if a hockey team fails to sell out because an NFL team is playing (When football is the most popular sport and hockey the least in the US.), it's abhorrent.

Ahh, sweet hypocrisy.

How the hell does "RBC Center" sound 'pleasing' and "HSBC Arena" sound "like a trainwreck"?

Xcel Energy Center sounds pleasing to you, but Rogers Arena sounds like a trainwreck? Are you kidding?

Opinions: We all have them.

 

[GetPucksDeep]

...The Thrashers might be horrible and lose money, but the Thrashers/NBA/Arena ownership is a cash-cow....

Where do you get that idea?

The Spirit/Belkin trial introduced plenty of evidence that the ownership partners were subject to huge cash calls. That's because in toto, the busineses were losing money.

Now sure, those losses may be less now that the Hawks have improved, but Hawks attendance still isn't spectacular. No way the combo of businesses is a cash cow. No way.

 

[CorbeauNoir]

Places where hockey captures the imaginations of its citizens are ones where hockey has had an opportunity to develop a story over time. This doesn't happen in a 15 year period. It takes decades.

So then why weren't the Jets or the Nordiques given 'decades' to sort their issues out while by your implication the Coyotes should?

 

[tarheelhockey]

So then why weren't the Jets or the Nordiques given 'decades' to sort their issues out while by your implication the Coyotes should?

Do we have to constantly answer this question?

At the time of the Jets and Nords relocation, there was no precedent for the league intervening aggressively in a relocation. The first time they moved to "save" a team was Edmonton, then they had at least some kind of hand in Pittsburgh and Nashville. Maybe others I'm forgetting off the top of my head.

The Coyotes are the most extreme case, but far from the first, and nothing about that implies that the league somehow wanted Winnipeg and QC to lose their teams.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Trick question. The Argo's play in a Stadium that can hold 50,000 + people. The Argo's never sell out.

Wow that's really small and you can't sell it out? We sell out 105,000 seats for every game here.

Actually, I would have thought that fans in places that appear financially vulnerable would be at the front of the line advocating for expansion into promising markets, or even relocation of other teams to those locations. As long as there are open arenas with owners willing to pay a good price for a team, they give the NHL an option for relocation. So, for example, if TNSE/Winnipeg was offered an expansion team tomorrow, it would reduce the risk of relocation of an existing franchise. In a more contentious vein, if the Coyotes are relocated to Winnipeg, it probably reduces the probability of an Atlanta relocation somewhat. As long as the NHL has a viable open market like Winnipeg (and soon Quebec?), with a strong owner willing to pay full market price, the risk of relocation for struggling franchises remains that much higher. Close out relocation destination options and it will force the NHL to work that much harder to retain franchises where they are.

See, in the end, everybody is on the same side.

I live in Columbus. I buy lower bowl season tickets every year and have done this for nine years. The team is a poorly run business. Not just a poorly run hockey team, but imho a poorly run business. If the owners decide they can't make it work in Columbus, and the NHL can't find an acceptable owner, then fine go, don't let the door hit you in the ass.

I will continue to go to 10-15 Flyers games and still buy center ice.

I'm not threatened by other cities.

I am interested in the business of hockey, the actual financials and the components that go into making up a successful business. I'm not all that interested in turf wars, and I don't give a damn if Hamilton or Omaha ever get a team.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

Actually, I would have thought that fans in places that appear financially vulnerable would be at the front of the line advocating for expansion into promising markets, or even relocation of other teams to those locations. As long as there are open arenas with owners willing to pay a good price for a team, they give the NHL an option for relocation. So, for example, if TNSE/Winnipeg was offered an expansion team tomorrow, it would reduce the risk of relocation of an existing franchise. In a more contentious vein, if the Coyotes are relocated to Winnipeg, it probably reduces the probability of an Atlanta relocation somewhat. As long as the NHL has a viable open market like Winnipeg (and soon Quebec?), with a strong owner willing to pay full market price, the risk of relocation for struggling franchises remains that much higher. Close out relocation destination options and it will force the NHL to work that much harder to retain franchises where they are.

See, in the end, everybody is on the same side.

What about the contractionists?

GHOST

 

[MAROONSRoad]

Wow that's really small and you can't sell it out? We sell out 105,000 seats for every game here.

I'm surprised you are surprised. The CFL averages something like 30,000 fans per game and has done so for decades. On top of that the team in Toronto has not been well supported for some reason. Hockey is by far the most popular professional team sport in Canada. The CFL a distant second in Canada overall, but in Toronto it's probably even lower down the list.

GHOST

 

[Jeffrey93]

Do we have to constantly answer this question?

Your turn to make sure you aren't taking a drink of anything.....

I completely agree.

It's getting pretty annoying that people can't see the difference between the situations. I'm not going to say I completely agree with how the NHL handled the North Stars, Jets, Nordiques & Whalers....but they can't be compared (in this way anyway) to the Thrashers, Coyotes, Panthers, etc.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Wow that's really small and you can't sell it out? We sell out 105,000 seats for every game here.

It always amazed me that College Football in the US can draw like 45,000 more people per game than the professional teams.

When looking at the CFL...factor in population.

The Saskatchewan Roughriders play in Regina, Saskatchewan. A city with a population of 194,971. The Roughriders sellout basically everygame...that's 35,800 people.

So per capita it's pretty well supported. In Ontario for some reason it isn't as much...although the Tiger-Cats or Argos (Argos Suck!) drawing 28,000 for games isn't too bad. Cheapest seat in Hamilton is $20 in the endzones I think...while seats down low at mid-field go for $90 or more.

What do the Buckeyes charge for tickets anyway?

 

[Duke749]

Haven't you been following along? It doesn't matter how fun the game is to be at or how the team plays or any of that. If they don't make the playoffs and go deep in the playoffs it is all pointless.

People apparently stay away because they look at the standings and refuse to go because the team isn't good enough. But....you got to see an exciting game and a Thrashers win. Which has always been my point. Even if it was 5-1 for the Wild it still might have been a very exciting game.

You never know when there is going to be a 'game of the year'......you also never know when there is going to be a 'yawner of the year'. That's called sports. Win or lose...the contest can still be very entertaining.

Glad to hear that you had a good time. It shouldn't take a pile of 5-1 wins to get fans in the building though. 3-2 losses can be just as exciting (if not moreso) as a win. It just seems I keep getting told that the wins are all that matters. Which always makes me think of those Devils that played the most boring hockey ever seen and won lots of games.

Anyway....glad to hear you had a good time at the game.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but haven't you been shooting down arguments like this throughout this thread yet you want to use this argument against him?

 

[tarheelhockey]

It always amazed me that College Football in the US can draw like 45,000 more people per game than the professional teams.

To be fair though, college football stadiums are made up largely of bleacher sections that can cram in larger crowds at cheaper prices.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Places where hockey captures the imaginations of its citizens are ones where hockey has had an opportunity to develop a story over time. This doesn't happen in a 15 year period. It takes decades.

It takes decades of HOCKEY....not NHL hockey.

The NHL made a huge gaff by attempting to develop markets. It is the premiere hockey league in North America...it shouldn't be the league that has to develop interest in hockey, it should have been there before the NHL showed up.

The NHL put the cart before the horse....and it doesn't appear to be working. That isn't the fault of anyone in these markets...it was just a bad plan.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but haven't you been shooting down arguments like this throughout this thread yet you want to use this argument against him?

Sorry....I thought I laid it on pretty thick that I didn't need the in there. I guess I was wrong. I'll use it more in the future.

 

[Confucius]

Wow that's really small and you can't sell it out? We sell out 105,000 seats for every game here.

.

So the solution is simple you get football we'll take hockey

 

[TaketheCannoli]

It always amazed me that College Football in the US can draw like 45,000 more people per game than the professional teams.

When looking at the CFL...factor in population.

The Saskatchewan Roughriders play in Regina, Saskatchewan. A city with a population of 194,971. The Roughriders sellout basically everygame...that's 35,800 people.

So per capita it's pretty well supported. In Ontario for some reason it isn't as much...although the Tiger-Cats or Argos (Argos Suck!) drawing 28,000 for games isn't too bad. Cheapest seat in Hamilton is $20 in the endzones I think...while seats down low at mid-field go for $90 or more.

What do the Buckeyes charge for tickets anyway?

Face value? $75.00
The right to buy 2 season tickets in the nosebleeds? $5000 every year.
You can get crappy games from a broker for $300-400, Good games? start multiplying.