Bring the NHL to Houston!!!

[uhlaw97]

Oops!!!

MY MISTAKE!!!!

Well now, that means there's still hope for Houston!

 

[Melrose Munch]

Houston will get a team. And they will support it better than Atlanta.

 

[saskganesh]

The Aeros were part of the 77-78 WHA merger attempt, but that didn't happen, so they closed shop. I'd like to see them back, now that we have the "Jets" again; that was a good rivalry. The WHAeros (heh) never had a losing season.

 

[19Yzerman19]

It is a regional sport. It will never be Number 1, hell even Number 2 in most American markets. The NHL will always get a constant cash flow from Canadian markets, even if they are small.

And also, Canadian markets can definitely grow. Canada is growing quite quickly in population I think (250K in immigrants I think) so it's not like Canada is frozen at 34 Million

So explain to us how both CGY and OTT lost money last year?

 

[Puckschmuck*]

So explain to us how both CGY and OTT lost money last year?

I think it's more accurate to say that 1/3 (or 2/3rds, can't remember which) of the league's total combined revenue came from Canadian teams, correct?

 

[19Yzerman19]

I think it's more accurate to say that 1/3 (or 2/3rds, can't remember which) of the league's total combined revenue came from Canadian teams, correct?

And in that revenue you have 2 teams that are losing money so they should get moved because they are a hinderence correct?

 

[19Yzerman19]

Also that has nothing to do with what I quoted

 

[Melrose Munch]

EDM also lost money. Straight from Katz mouth.

 

[19Yzerman19]

EDM also lost money. Straight from Katz mouth.

BUT BUT canadian markets never ever lose money no matter what the size!

 

[Puckschmuck*]

Also that has nothing to do with what I quoted

Yeah, I know where you were intending to go with your "point", buy my "comment" was with regards to, atm, a 1/3 to 2/3s of the leagues revenue is coming from north of the borders, regardless of if any are losing money or not.

 

[headsigh]

Houston will get a team. And they will support it better than Atlanta.

So if Houston gets a team, they'll break attendance records for an expansion franchise and never go below 15k attendance for at least 8 years of their existence?

 

[Melrose Munch]

So if Houston gets a team, they'll break attendance records for an expansion franchise and never go below 15k attendance for at least 8 years of their existence?

Atlanta did pretty good. I expect Houston to do less better simply because there is less competition. UH sports programs is not as big as UG or GSU.

 

[Melrose Munch]

BUT BUT canadian markets never ever lose money no matter what the size!

It's a lie and always has been.

 

[NewClearWinter]

To all those who are bashing Dallas:

Call me crazy, but I think a big reason why Dallas has been "struggling" as of late is because the Rbk Edge transition in 2008 completely destroyed the Dallas brand. Their classic green Star jersey was replaced with a bland basketball jersey style. Branding is huge when it comes to any product. They just need a little injection of personality into the brand so it connect with the fan base better.

All in all, Dallas is a great market, and I'm tired of all of this USA v Canadian bickering. Hockey fans everywhere are appreciated.

 

[RandR]

All in all, Dallas is a great market, and I'm tired of all of this USA v Canadian bickering. Hockey fans everywhere are appreciated.

Amen. And it's great to be discussing hockey with fellow fans from all over.

There is plenty of room for debate without any need to turn things into a Canadian vs American debate.

 

[KevFu]

To all those who are bashing Dallas:

Call me crazy, but I think a big reason why Dallas has been "struggling" as of late is because the Rbk Edge transition in 2008 completely destroyed the Dallas brand. Their classic green Star jersey was replaced with a bland basketball jersey style. Branding is huge when it comes to any product. They just need a little injection of personality into the brand so it connect with the fan base better.

All in all, Dallas is a great market, and I'm tired of all of this USA v Canadian bickering. Hockey fans everywhere are appreciated.

Well, it's certainly a factor. But the biggest factor was Hicks' Liverpool debts.

But yes, it's obvious that DALLAS IS NOT HAVING A MARKET ISSUE.

Their revenue is since 2003: 96, 108, 103, (LO), 89, 91, 105, 97, 95

The claims that they lost money before 2010-11 is basically false:
Their revenue dropped $8 million in revenue from 2004 to 2010, but their player expenses dropped by $28 million.

Forbes shows their operating income (aka profit/loss) as: 6, 6, 0, (LO), 10, 11, 14, 12, 6.

They might have lost a little bit a dough in 2010-11, but this is a large market with large revenue streams. Their 2,142 fewer fans a game are basically upper bowl seats. Their suites are sold. Their advertising is sold. And both are tied to the NBA Champion Mavericks as they share an arena.

The only concern for Dallas is "will new ownership make changes that run the franchise into the ground?"

They're not relying on "Modano to win cups to keep them afloat" any more than Boston, Philly, Detroit or Washington is relying on winning cups to keep them from going out of business. Dallas is firmly in the "second tier" of NHL big markets, behind TOR, NYR, MON, CHI, LA.

 

[KevFu]

Amen. And it's great to be discussing hockey with fellow fans from all over.

There is plenty of room for debate without any need to turn things into a Canadian vs American debate.

For the most part, American hockey fans fall into two groups:

- Those of us from traditional markets, who are no different than Canadian hockey fans in that we wax nostalgic for the 'Diques, Jets, North Stars and Whale; think some southern teams (SJ, DAL, COL, TB) were fine additions to the league, but wish we still had the Norris, Smythe, Adams and Patrick as seven-team divisions for 28 teams.

- Those in Southern markets, who might think the exact same thing, but are glad they have a team nearby.


As much as I defend the southern teams, I wish a number of them and their ugly uniforms and lack of tradition never existed. I disagree with how they all came into the league. They never should have expanded past 24 without 5-, 10-, and 20-year plans in place for 28, 32 and 36 teams. And once someone moved, they should have paused and re-assessed, the whole time looking 20-30 years down the road.

 

[not a trapdoor]

As much as I defend the southern teams, I wish a number of them and their ugly uniforms and lack of tradition never existed. I disagree with how they all came into the league. They never should have expanded past 24 without 5-, 10-, and 20-year plans in place for 28, 32 and 36 teams.

This is how I feel; too much too fast. Some new markets worked from the start (Denver, San Jose, for example) while others have been long term projects (Phoenix, Atlanta). Too many WIPs means instability. Sure, there'll always be someone at the bottom and relocations will always happen from time to time, but the recent experience of the NHL fighting fires in Atlanta & Phoenix at the same time is not good. On the upside, Nashville seem to have found their feet

 

[RandR]

As much as I defend the southern teams, I wish a number of them and their ugly uniforms and lack of tradition never existed. I disagree with how they all came into the league. They never should have expanded past 24 without 5-, 10-, and 20-year plans in place for 28, 32 and 36 teams. And once someone moved, they should have paused and re-assessed, the whole time looking 20-30 years down the road.

I agree. The league over-expanded as a means of making money via expansion fees and in an attempt to get a large national TV contract in the U.S. Some of the new teams in the south have succeeded, but the league shouldn't have expanded from 21 to 30 teams in a 9-year period. At least the league stopped expanding for the past decade, but I think 28 teams would have been better.

 

[Ismellofhockey]

So explain to us how both CGY and OTT lost money last year?

Link?

I'm willing to bet that most of their losses came from 2 things: a poor season leading to a drop in ticket sales and revenue sharing. Also, the Sens might lose money on paper, but their concert subsidiary makes up for it. They own the arena and the team, so they always make money, even if the team itself is losing money on paper.

 

[sipowicz]

So explain to us how both CGY and OTT lost money last year?

Calgary lost money???? With the NHL's third-highest average ticket price ($66.68), behind only the Maple Leafs and Canadiens, every game sold out with an average attendance over 19K per game, 13th most valuable NHL franchise (Forbes) Come on man!

 

[19Yzerman19]

Link?

I'm willing to bet that most of their losses came from 2 things: a poor season leading to a drop in ticket sales and revenue sharing. Also, the Sens might lose money on paper, but their concert subsidiary makes up for it. They own the arena and the team, so they always make money, even if the team itself is losing money on paper.

its right here in the business section of HF the search button is your friend my friend

 

[19Yzerman19]

Calgary lost money???? With the NHL's third-highest average ticket price ($66.68), behind only the Maple Leafs and Canadiens, every game sold out with an average attendance over 19K per game, 13th most valuable NHL franchise (Forbes) Come on man!

Like I said to the other poster

its right here in the business section of HF the search button is your friend my friend

 

[KevFu]

This is how I feel; too much too fast. Some new markets worked from the start (Denver, San Jose, for example) while others have been long term projects (Phoenix, Atlanta). Too many WIPs means instability. Sure, there'll always be someone at the bottom and relocations will always happen from time to time, but the recent experience of the NHL fighting fires in Atlanta & Phoenix at the same time is not good. On the upside, Nashville seem to have found their feet

Works in Progress are fine... you just really can't have more than one in a conference at a time. OTT and COL were slam-dunk markets. I'd even put ANA in that list of "places we were pretty sure it was gonna work just fine."

To me, the expansion plan should have been:
FIRST WAVE: SJ, OTT, TB (1992-1995)
Relocation to Dallas and Colorado (one growing, one slam dunk). Pause expansion.
Relocation to Carolina and Phoenix (both growing markets)
Now we have a problem. We pause expansion. We re-assess.

We go "Ok, Dallas worked, we think Houston will. Tampa worked, let's add Florida. Minnesota needs to get back into the league. And we need another market we KNOW is going to be stable. Anaheim."

That's 28 teams in 2000. And when Minnesota got their teams, it's "hey, the next expansion is in eight years. So Quebec, Winnipeg we advise you to get arena deals in place."

In 2008, it's Quebec, Winnipeg, Nashville, and Columbus.

I agree. The league over-expanded as a means of making money via expansion fees and in an attempt to get a large national TV contract in the U.S. Some of the new teams in the south have succeeded, but the league shouldn't have expanded from 21 to 30 teams in a 9-year period. At least the league stopped expanding for the past decade, but I think 28 teams would have been better.

I don't think 30 is "over-expanded." Besides, who would you cut off the last four? If we're at 28, we'd still have Minnesota, Winnipeg, Quebec without teams, as well as Houston, Seattle.

Which reminds me, the NHL needs to have a 32 plan, and a 36 plan in the drawer. You can always say "this is for 5-10 years down the road, and 15-25 years down the road" and not date it or actively seek implementing it. But you need to plan ahead.

Calgary lost money???? With the NHL's third-highest average ticket price ($66.68), behind only the Maple Leafs and Canadiens, every game sold out with an average attendance over 19K per game, 13th most valuable NHL franchise (Forbes) Come on man!

Which goes to show you that one-year profit/loss is meaningless. Who owns Calgary? What else does he own? Do you really think a Canadian oil tycoon worth $2.2 billion really gives a crap that the Flames lost $1 million in 2009, 2007, and $6 mil in 2004, $4 mil in 2003?

The Flames are in ZERO danger, so why would anyone in their right mind use a fluctuating year-by-year profit/loss to suggest otherwise?

No apply that logic to the rest of the NHL. Far fewer teams in danger now, isn't it?

Link?
I'm willing to bet that most of their losses came from 2 things: a poor season leading to a drop in ticket sales and revenue sharing. Also, the Sens might lose money on paper, but their concert subsidiary makes up for it. They own the arena and the team, so they always make money, even if the team itself is losing money on paper.

That's how a lot of businessmen roll. You have a billion dollar industry that enabled you to buy a $200 million hockey team as a hobby (and get your name in the paper as a civic presence). You run the team to just about break even. If you spend money to win and lose a couple mil, the fans love you for going the extra mile to try and win.

And it's a tax right off (at least in the States). Most owners try to walk that fine line. The ideal profit/loss for a sports team (on paper) for a guy who has a business empire is -$1000. The US has some nice tax loopholes designed to encourage rich guys to start companies, take risks and put people to work. They can get a massive tax break on their large successful company by owning a company that is losing a little bit of money.

 

[RTN]

Houston and Seattle are the only US cities I think the NHL should consider. Possibly Portland.