Can Hockey Survive in Que/Htf/Win with new CBA

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by nyrmessier011, May 7, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. nyrmessier011

    nyrmessier011 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte/NYC
    I would LOVE to see NHL teams moved back to Quebec, Winnipeg and Hartford or to Manitoba or somewhere else deeply rooted in hockey tradition. I think the game needs that right now for many different reasons. IMO, some teams in southern markets will never recover from this lockout.
    Personally, I think the idea is very real of moving teams north of the border because of the new CBA. I think it's a venture that owners of teams in southern markets will explore with this new linkage system in place.

    Do you all think this is a very real possibility with the new CBA in place? I know there have been many threads about where to move new NHL teams but in this thread I would like to talk about Canada and the New England area.
     
  2. Hawker14

    Hawker14 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,084
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    i think it is very realistic to see an nhl team in at least one of these markets in the next few years.

    all three cities already have solid fanbases, so a franchise wouldn't need to worry about cultivating them.

    i would also add in hamilton as another deserving area that would be a fine choice for relocation.

    the nhl would be the #1 pro sport in these markets, and wouldn't need to compete with the nfl, nba, and mlb for corporate sponsorships.

    winnipeg has the best opportunity, as both hartford and quebec have aging arenas which would need to be replaced, and hamilton has territorial issues with toronto and buffalo so close.

    i think the biggest mistake the nhl ever made was allowing the 3 former wha franchises to be relocated without trying to help them. hockey's core fan will always be the boy or girl who grows up playing shinny on outdoor rinks, so it's in the league's best interest to have as many teams as possible in these locations.
     
  3. nomorekids

    nomorekids The original, baby

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    33,375
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Home Page:
    Quebec? MAYBE.

    Hartford\Winnipeg?

    No.
     
  4. Reaper45

    Reaper45 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2003
    Messages:
    33,571
    Likes Received:
    842
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Quebec, possibly, but not Hartford. Winnepeg maybe.
     
  5. nomorekids

    nomorekids The original, baby

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    33,375
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Home Page:
    Do you have any grasp on what the lockout is about? or have you just rationalized it to suit your own fanciful philosophies? The idea isn't for southern(or western) teams to have an easy way to MOVE. it's to make it so that their teams can be healthy. it's for western canadian teams to be HEALTHY. you live close enough to hartford to know it's a pit(and i lived there, believe me, i'm qualified to say so.) Winnipeg, even most realistic canadians who feel bad the jets had to move...will admit it's not a viable NHL market...more like a terrific AHL market. Quebec..seems feasible..with the right ownership.
     
  6. allin4466

    allin4466 Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,077
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    winnipegs new arena isnt big enough to support a new NHL team i dont think. In the winnipeg free press i think it was last year, they had an article, and for a winnipeg team to BREAK EVEN they would have to sell out every game and go two rounds deep into the playoffs.

    under new conditions, its possible, but i think the NHL is looking for contraction not expansion right now. Although pull some teams out markets they dont belong in and bring them back up to the BGWN and it may do well.

    1st things first, get rid of bettman and goodenow
     
  7. Munchausen

    Munchausen Guest

    Quebec no longer has an arena suited for an NHL team (the Colisee is an embarassing and outdated piece of architecture). Even if they did, this is a small city that will need to compete against Montreal for advertising money while having very limited corporate (luxury boxes) potential. Not happening.
     
    Last edited by moderator : May 8, 2005
  8. nomorekids

    nomorekids The original, baby

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    33,375
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Home Page:

    i'm mostly inclined to agree. i just think that of the three, it's the only one remotely viable.
     
  9. Hawker14

    Hawker14 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,084
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    baseball hasn't recovered in toronto since the '94 mlb strike, so i have serious doubts hockey ever would in places like raleigh and nashville.

    i'm interested if you could expand on why you feel quebec city could be viable, while winnipeg could not. both quebec city and winnipeg have similar populations and income levels. quebec's arena however is 55 years old, while winnipeg's is brand new.

    if winnipeg couldn't sell out their 15,015 seat arena, then the city would have no place even dreaming about the nhl. the city did average approximately 13,000 fans per game in the past for the jets, which isn't bad considering the jets were seldom a winning hockey team and the winnipeg arena with a seating capacity of 15,353 had approximately 2,000 seats with terrible sight lines. the mts centre has no such bad seats. the jets attendance at times was actually better than boston and minnesota which is often overlooked.

    in regards to the size of the arena, both ownership from the flames and oilers have expressed their support for the nhl returning to winnipeg, and to paraphrase one of them, it's better to have 1,000 seats too few than 2,000 seats too many as it creates greater demand, and increases revenue from pay per view broadcasts.

    here's a link to a sample gate revenue chart for the jets from jetsowner.com . http://beerforbreakfast.org/cgi-bin/i/Jets/Revenue_Crunch.jpg . these figures include aggressive targets for pay per view, but it's important to note that gate revenues gererally account for only 40-60% of a team's total revenues and this doesn't include merchandising, advertising, etc.

    also, well heeled corporate types such as the aspers (owners of canwest global tv network, the sun newspapers/national post) have indicated they are interested in being part of an ownership group for a winnipeg team under a new cba.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2005
  10. nomorekids

    nomorekids The original, baby

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    33,375
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Home Page:
    that's a weak analogy. baseball, in MOST markets, hasn't recovered from the strike. interest spiked a bit during the mcgwire\sosa years...but it's never been like it used to be in most markets that aren't NY or Boston. The STRIKE in 94 was something that fans were almost unanimously against, and thus had good reason to feel forever jaded toward the game. On the contrary, most fans in small market cities are united BEHIND this lockout, feeling that losing a season of hockey is far better than an environment that would see them lose their team completely.

    Remember..you're talking to someone who grew up a Jets fan. I loved the team...but it just didn't work, and there's no way that's an NHL arena. Arenas of today are creeping up toward needing 19-20 thousand...not 15,000.
     
  11. Hawker14

    Hawker14 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,084
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    agreed most arenas have 19-20 thousand seats. carolina and nashville averaged 13,000 fans pre-lockout. that's alot of empty seats. again it is better to have 1,000 seats too few, than 5-6,000 seats too many. after all, the nhl average was approximately 15,500 fans per game, so claiming an arena needs to be 19,000 seats doesn't really make much sense.

    as far as fans not returning to baseball following the strike being a weak argument for claiming the same will happen to hockey... are you seriously claiming that fan support is going to be equal or better than it was pre-lockout, especially in non-traditional markets ?
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2005
  12. nomorekids

    nomorekids The original, baby

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    33,375
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Home Page:

    i think, as these "non traditional" markets get better(which is supposed to be one of the selling points of the lockout to begin with), that yes, the attendance will go up. can you deny that when nashville was winning..their attendance was up? all home playoff games sold out immediately, even the ones that might not have been necessary. carolina had a similar situation. most of these teams have given no reason for new fans to take interest...but when the spark was there...the fans came out. the entire nashville stretch, attendance was in the 16,000 range...and then completely sold out in the last games\playoffs. with a favorable CBA, these teams won't be "one year wonders" that can't afford to keep their stars. they'll continually have a chance, which will give a reason for fans to not only take notice...but stay interested.
     
  13. bleedgreen

    bleedgreen Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    13,742
    Likes Received:
    4,517
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    colorado
    Home Page:
    the main reason hockey wont go back to hartford is because its between two markets (bos,nyr) that bettman felt covered the area well enough. going back would be a major contradiction on his part, and he wouldnt do it. the area could support it, much like im sure quebec and winny could. going back to those locations wouldnt be such a reversal to him, as it could be marketed as giving back some of the game to canada. i still find it unlikely that any area would get another shot prior to the nhl giving other new areas a shot first. i would think all the other markets mentioned in the possible market thread would consideration before these older markets would.

    for the record though, i have no doubt that the three markets in question could support a hard cap hockey team.
     
  14. nyrmessier011

    nyrmessier011 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte/NYC
    No, I have no idea what's been going on for the last 235 days.

    Like I said in my post, I don't think even with the new CBA that SOME southern (or western teams as you like to call them) will be able to be "healthy" because I don't think they can recover the small fan base they have in the first place. I think it makes more sense to move them to a city that actually likes hockey and can allow the team to afford paying the $25 million floor the new CBA will see. If they can be profitable where they are then why move? But my point was when Phoenix still can't make money under the new CBA, do you think they can in Win/Que/Htf.
     
  15. nomorekids

    nomorekids The original, baby

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    33,375
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Home Page:
    what makes you so sure they won't make money under the new cba?

    ps: they're not making money in calgary or edmonton...and they certainly didn't make money in winnipeg the first time...what makes you so sure they will..this time?
     
  16. Hawker14

    Hawker14 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,084
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    according to forbes, both calgary and edmonton indeed turned a profit in '03-'04.

    yet, forbes claims anaheim and carolina lost $ 22.4 million and $ 18.2 million respectively. considering carolina went to the cup finals in '02, and anaheim in '03. what more do these teams have to do to get a steady and stable fanbase. that's alot of losses to be turned around in a new CBA. i obviously disagree that fans in these markets will come back stronger than ever after the lockout. fans in these markets have already experienced success, yet these teams still struggle. is this what sunbelt success stories like dallas have in their future when they inevitably start rebuilding and thus, start losing ? could it even happen in denver ? tampa bay ? if the nhl is banking on fairweather fans to drive it's economic engine post-cba then it's in for a big shock.

    it's no secret winnipeg lost money in their final seasons, but they were playing in an outdated arena and had the league's 10th highest payroll in '95-'96. the WEC sucked every ounce of revenue from the arena, leaving the jets only with gate revenue. the team was mismanaged and certainly wouldn't be mistaken for a winning club. this was a franchise after all, that traded kris draper for a buck. yet winnipeg had better attendance figures than the north stars at times, and now with minnesota getting a new arena and the nhl returning they've consistently sold out. there's no reason to believe the same wouldn't occur in winnipeg.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2005
  17. Leaf Lander

    Leaf Lander Registered User Sponsor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    30,981
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    176
    Occupation:
    EI Baby
    Location:
    BWO Headquarters
    Home Page:
    hamilton would need torontos approval...why split the market place up when you can have the whole pie for yourself.

    it is bad enough buffalo and ottawa are around
     
  18. nomorekids

    nomorekids The original, baby

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    33,375
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Home Page:
    03\04 was the first year in almost ten that calgary turned a profit. that's been well-documented...and it took a trip seven games deep into the finals to do it. even then, it was only marginal. edmonton turned a profit...but at the expense of what's largely been a firesale of players over the past years. does having hockey in winnipeg...at any cost...mean so much to you that you'd be willing to deal with what they have to? there are NO BIGGER supporters of this lockout, from what i've seen, than edmonton fans...and they have that right. they've watched guys like weight, guerin, arnott, hamrlik all come into their own on their team..and then all move on to teams with more money. do you think edmonton has much of a chance of anything but a first or second round spoiler under those terms? what happens if schremp comes in, tears up the league in his first few seasons...and then demands 5 million dollars or holds out...forcing the oilers to either pawn off other players to free up the money...or worse, trade him to the rangers\avs\stars\wings\leafs?
     
  19. Hawker14

    Hawker14 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,084
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    the whole point of this thread is teams moving north "under a new cba". why do you presume that with the new cba almost virtually assured of having a salary cap, that teams will be having firesales ? yes edmonton ownership is a staunch supporter of a salary cap. they are also supporters on the nhl returning to winnipeg under a new cba. it's non-sensical that you post the avs/red wings/leafs/rangers etc. are going to have all this salary cap room to afford the next wave of superstars.

    i'm still interested as to why you refuse to back up your post that quebec city is feasible while winnipeg is not.

    under a new cba, an nhl team in winnipeg wouldn't be operating under the same system that the nhl has had the past ten years. the premise is 15,000 fans in winnipeg under a new cba is better than a market with 10,000 fans elsewhere.

    i honestly don't want to see an nhl team relocate as i don't want to see other fans go through what winnipeggers did. however if a team must move, then winnipeg is the best option imo.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2005
  20. nomorekids

    nomorekids The original, baby

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    33,375
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Home Page:

    with all due respect, the whole point of this thread is pretty silly, to begin with.

    with a new cba, there should be no NEED to move any markets. expansion? maybe someday down the line, but not now.

    and if you'll notice, i said there's pretty much zero chance of ANY of the three returning, but on a hunch, i think quebec is the only one i could MAYBE see it happening.
     
  21. Hawker14

    Hawker14 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,084
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    and again i ask why. is it quebec's 55 year old arena that provides your hunch.

    the thread may be silly in your mind, but it isn't in mine, as even with revenue sharing and a salary cap, the carolina's and nashville's of the league could still have massive financial problems.

    building a stable fanbase has been tough enough for these franchises pre-lockout. now that hockey has been taken away for a year i doubt fans will be breaking down the doors to get back in the arenas once the league resumes.

    yet winnipeg sells out it's building for world junior exhibition games. it sells out the rink in grand forks for the actual tournament. hockey and nhl talk is front page news on the sports pages here and is the clear #1 sporting/entertainment choice. and the moose are one of the ahl's top draws, even though the team is the farm club of one of our biggest nhl rivals !!!

    excuse me if i don't put much stock in people's unsupported hunches that quebec city is more feasible.
     
  22. CoupeStanley

    CoupeStanley Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Occupation:
    Webmestre
    Location:
    Nicolet
    Home Page:
    Quebec would have absolutely no problem with fan support but corporate support is another issue..

    More likely than the 2 others though.
     
  23. no13matssundin

    no13matssundin Registered User

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, its the other way around. Quebec is a for sure no b/c of the tax burden. Winnipeg and Hartford taxes and fan base are a great deal more owner-friendly. The amount of tax a team in Quebec City would be paying is sometimes 40-50% more than other teams. Its that bad.

    In this case, Winnipeg/Hartford are the for sures.
     
  24. nomorekids

    nomorekids The original, baby

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    33,375
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Home Page:

    yeah, winnipeg and hartford really impressed me with those 12K a night averages.

    like i've said over and over...it's irrelevant, because there will be no NHL hockey in any of the three.
     
  25. bleedgreen

    bleedgreen Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    13,742
    Likes Received:
    4,517
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    colorado
    Home Page:
    everyone associated with the league said the forbes report was baseless, and worthless in terms of debating - as not one team opened a single book for it. you cant really use the forbes report to back your personal arguements against or for franchises. carolina's ticket holder base took a huge jump after the cup run, and they had no problems drawing fans that year - they had to suck for two years to drive them away. karmanos is full of it when he says his team loses that much. if he is losing that much, why is he a hawk owner all for the 40 million range payroll cap with minimal revenue sharing? his team would still be losing money, therefore...he is lying about how much they lose. if they were negotiating a deal that still had his team losing money - youd hear him crying in the papers everyday.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"