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

[WC Handy*]

The simple fact that you think a 15,000 seat arena is ideal says quite a bit about the market.

 

[jamiebez]

The simple fact that you think a 15,000 seat arena is ideal says quite a bit about the market.

The fact of the matter is: we don't know what kind of revenues a team will need in the new NHL, post-CBA. No one is suggesting that a 15,000 seat arena in Winnipeg will work if an 18,000 seat arena in Edmonton isn't working with a payroll of $27M (the Oilers break-even point, according to Levitt).

However, if a deal can be reached where the Oilers are profitable in Edmonton with the revenues they can generate in that market (or Calgary, or Buffalo, etc) then there's no reason to think that it can't work in a city with a similar population and corporate base, like Winnipeg.

And besides, they can always expand the rink if needed to squeeze in a thousand or so seats by raising the roof slightly and changing the pitch of the seats in the second level. They were geographically constrained by fitting the building in a city block, so they couldn't build out (hence the current size) but if the demand for tickets is there - which I believe it would be for the NHL - I'm confident they can expand it.

 

[tinyzombies]

The Jets and Nordiques left for larger markets south of the border in 1996 and 1995. I don't have any hard data, but I bet the team average salary was less than half of what it was last year in 2004. I don't think that these markets have enough size to support an NHL franchise, even with a new CBA.

I think that you have to give the new markets time to develop. I don't think you develop hard-core sports markets in 5-10 year, unless a team is a consistent contender. I'm not sure how long it will take, but it's a long term process IMO.

Colorado is not a larger hockey market than Quebec City. They have Walmart money behind them and were able to spend anything they wanted without a cap.

Phoenix is certainly not a larger hockey market than Winnipeg either.

There are many different scenarios where Quebec and Winnipeg could have a team. Starting with a cap and a hefty luxury tax, you could have an American owner, a corporate owner, tax breaks......etc.....they only have to reach 25 mil in salary if that is the bottom end. This is doable and I bet it will happen too.

 

[WC Handy*]

Denver's 2+ million is quite a bit more than Winnipeg has.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan
The Jets and Nordiques left for larger markets south of the border in 1996 and 1995. I don't have any hard data, but I bet the team average salary was less than half of what it was last year in 2004. I don't think that these markets have enough size to support an NHL franchise, even with a new CBA.

I think that you have to give the new markets time to develop. I don't think you develop hard-core sports markets in 5-10 year, unless a team is a consistent contender. I'm not sure how long it will take, but it's a long term process IMO.

Colorado is not a larger hockey market than Quebec City. They have Walmart money behind them and were able to spend anything they wanted without a cap.

Phoenix is certainly not a larger hockey market than Winnipeg either.

There are many different scenarios where Quebec and Winnipeg could have a team. Starting with a cap and a hefty luxury tax, you could have an American owner, a corporate owner, tax breaks......etc.....they only have to reach 25 mil in salary if that is the bottom end. This is doable and I bet it will happen too.

Some nostalgic fans are really in denial about the ex-WHA markets.

Quebec City - a larger hockey market than Denver???
Winnipeg - a larger hockey market than Phoenix???

Just look at the numbers.

Population:

US Cities by population (7/1/2003):

6. Phoenix, Ariz. 1,388,416
...
26. Denver, Colo. 557,478

A quick search only gives Canadian Metro areas, so:

If you include the entire Metropolitan Areas:

US Metropolitan areas (7/1/2003)

Phoenix - 3,593,408
Denver - 2,301,116

Canadian Metroploitan areas (7/1/2004):

Quebec City - 710,800
Winnepeg - 702,400

You can argue that population isn't everything, so lets just look at attendance:

http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/index.html

Team Year G Total Average
Quebec Nordiques 1979-80 40 429,672 10,742
Quebec Nordiques 1980-81 40 489,096 12,227
Quebec Nordiques 1981-82 40 604,817 15,120
Quebec Nordiques 1982-83 40 602,318 15,058
Quebec Nordiques 1983-84 40 599,420 14,986
Quebec Nordiques 1984-85 40 594,712 14,868
Quebec Nordiques 1985-86 40 591,376 14,784
Quebec Nordiques 1986-87 40 593,289 14,832
Quebec Nordiques 1987-88 40 597,707 14,943
Quebec Nordiques 1988-89 40 581,795 14,545
Quebec Nordiques 1989-90 40 603,193 15,080
Quebec Nordiques 1990-91 40 567,762 14,194
Quebec Nordiques 1991-92 40 558,967 13,974
Quebec Nordiques 1992-93 41 613,479 14,963
Quebec Nordiques 1993-94 41 600,695 14,651
Quebec Nordiques 1994-95 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Colorado Avalanche 1995-96 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Colorado Avalanche 1996-97 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Colorado Avalanche 1997-98 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Colorado Avalanche 1998-99 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Colorado Avalanche 1999-00 41 738,395 18,010
Colorado Avalanche 2000-01 41 738,287 18,007
Colorado Avalanche 2001-02 41 738,287 18,007
Colorado Avalanche 2002-03 41 738,287 18,007
Colorado Avalanche 2003-04 41 738,287 18,007

Colorado has sold out 18K+ every year. The Nordiques topped 15K only 3 times in 15 years.

Team Year G Total Average
Winnipeg Jets 1979-80 40 527,722 13,193
Winnipeg Jets 1980-81 40 523,975 13,099
Winnipeg Jets 1981-82 40 528,634 13,216
Winnipeg Jets 1982-83 40 511,644 12,791
Winnipeg Jets 1983-84 40 482,167 12,054
Winnipeg Jets 1984-85 40 510,633 12,766
Winnipeg Jets 1985-86 40 547,778 13,694
Winnipeg Jets 1986-87 40 543,703 13,593
Winnipeg Jets 1987-88 40 507,066 12,677
Winnipeg Jets 1988-89 40 512,635 12,816
Winnipeg Jets 1989-90 40 524,016 13,100
Winnipeg Jets 1990-91 40 517,246 12,931
Winnipeg Jets 1991-92 40 519,625 12,991
Winnipeg Jets 1992-93 41 555,809 13,556
Winnipeg Jets 1993-94 41 545,198 13,298
Winnipeg Jets 1994-95 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Winnipeg Jets 1995-96 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Phoenix Coyotes 1996-97 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Phoenix Coyotes 1997-98 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Phoenix Coyotes 1998-99 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Phoenix Coyotes 1999-00 41 614,644 14,991
Phoenix Coyotes 2000-01 41 583,194 14,224
Phoenix Coyotes 2001-02 41 539,770 13,165
Phoenix Coyotes 2002-03 41 542,404 13,229
Phoenix Coyotes 2003-04 41 634,243 15,469

A consistant 12-13K in Winnepeg. 13K-15K in Phoenix, with 15K+ in a new arena.

Yes, with a new CBA with a low enough cap, teams could survive in Winnepeg and Quebec (and yes even Hartford), but with that same new CBA teams will do much better in Colorado and Phoenix, and teams in other markets (Atlanta, Nashville, etc) will survive even better and have no reason to move. And if teams do relocate, there are more promising markets then Winnepeg or Quebec - Portland, Houston, Vegas.

I'll give Winnepeg as having an outside shot. Quebec - no chance in hell.

Winnepeg, Quebec, Hartford (and Edmonton) only had teams because of the WHA merger. None of them would have objectively been picked as NHL expansion sites.

People, get over it. The WHA is dead (except for that new fantabulous league starting up any day now, really we mean it - we have this website and everything).

 

[JimEIV]

Quebec City really deserves a hockey team

 

[AXN]

Does it really want to survive in those cities?

P.S.
I am not laughing at the cities just the thought.

 

[PecaFan]

You can argue that population isn't everything, so lets just look at attendance:

http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/index.html

Other numbers, including your missing ones:
http://www.hockeyresearch.com/mfoster/business/nhl_attn.html

 

[Hasbro]

Colorado is not a larger hockey market than Quebec City. They have Walmart money behind them and were able to spend anything they wanted without a cap.

Phoenix is certainly not a larger hockey market than Winnipeg either.

There are many different scenarios where Quebec and Winnipeg could have a team. Starting with a cap and a hefty luxury tax, you could have an American owner, a corporate owner, tax breaks......etc.....they only have to reach 25 mil in salary if that is the bottom end. This is doable and I bet it will happen too.

I've popped this out a few times:

according to SI's 50th anniversary poll the Avs are the favorite team in colorado (duh), Wyoming (our local counterpart to Canada), Nebraska (still trails cow tipping though), Utah, New Mexico (hold on, there's a NEW Mexico?) , Idaho, Montana and runs second in Kansas. The Avs also have a radio affiliate in South Dakota. That's 13.6 million people total and about 9 million outside of Colorado.

The Avs, like the Broncos and baseball Rockies have benifited from alot of regional overflow.

 

[AXN]

Attendance is not that bad. Most teams are everaging 15,000 or better.
Islanders, Devils, Nashville, Chicago and Pittsburgh are below.

Devils- new stadium will help.
Islanders - the same but don't know if they will get one.
Pittsburgh - same as Islanders could move.
Nashville - not that great
Chicago - simply bad team.

 

[NYIsles1*]

Attendance is not that bad. Most teams are everaging 15,000 or better.
Islanders, Devils, Nashville, Chicago and Pittsburgh are below.

The Isles problem is the avg ticket price increased by 38.3 percent, which makes their tickets the sixth most expensive. Like the Garden and Meadowlands the tickets sold vs posted attendance are very exagerated per game and rarely reflect true attendance, especially at Msg where the building is 1/2 filled most weeknights.

http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_nhl_03-04.cfm


http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_nhl_03-04.cfm

 

[Mess]

The Isles problem is the avg ticket price increased by 38.3 percent, which makes their tickets the sixth most expensive. Like the Garden and Meadowlands the tickets sold vs posted attendance are very exagerated per game and rarely reflect true attendance, especially at Msg where the building is 1/2 filled most weeknights.

http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_nhl_03-04.cfm

Two Words .. Alexei Yashin

Case closed ...

Fans have to pay the price of Bad management decisions. In the new NHL fans will still have to pay the price .. Just know the money will go into the Owners pockets at the expense of the players ..

 

[mooseOAK*]

Two Words .. Alexei Yashin

Case closed ...

Fans have to pay the price of Bad management decisions. In the new NHL fans will still have to pay the price .. Just know the money will go into the Owners pockets at the expense of the players ..

Heaven forbid that the owners make some money.

 

[Mess]

Heaven forbid that the owners make some money.

Make all the money they want .. They are suppose to be smart businessmen .. Then stop making stupid mistakes ..

Why can't they stick to a budget and spend and manage a Hockey Team properly ??

You don't need a CBA that says you can only spend 54% on player salaries .. Just hire yourself a good financial advisor to work with your GM to make sure you don't over spend ..

Bank interest alone on their Billions should be enough to fund a pretty solid NHL team ..

 

[NYIsles1*]

Two Words .. Alexei Yashin

From a decade of bad ownerships and fans staying home intentionally to twenty straight sellouts in the second half of 2002 after signing Yashin and Peca...

Espn calling the Isles New York's Hot Hockey team:
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/shanoff/011231.html

About as much media exposure as hockey can get in baseball's largest market..

Case closed...

Fans have to pay the price of Bad management decisions. In the new NHL fans will still have to pay the price .. Just know the money will go into the Owners pockets at the expense of the players ..

Considering the players were making over seventy percent of league reveune which is higher than any other sport what's so bad about that?

Most of that money going into owners pockets is to stop the bleeding, not make a profit. Islander fans are paying for Smg's lease. The Isles payroll is at the league avg with Yashin's contract.

Toronto will make more of a profit with a cap but they will also lose some money they used to make when they can no longer absorbe a big contract or have to endure a rebuilding season or two.

 

[Mess]

Heaven forbid that the owners make some money.

So you feel Blue Collar hard working people and fans are responsible to pad the billions of the Owners pockets. ?

Remind me why again do these fans show up at the Arenas in the first place ..?

 

[Mess]

Toronto will make more of a profit with a cap but they will also lose some money they used to make when they can no longer absorbe a big contract or have to endure a rebuilding season or two.

Pretty solid case you have there ..

" make more of a profit with a cap but they will also lose some money "

Seems you have a bit of a circular logic problem there ..

 

[Patman]

So you feel Blue Collar hard working people and fans are responsible to pad the billions of the Owners pockets. ?

Remind me why again do these fans show up at the Arenas in the first place ..?

to watch hockey... not the Maple Leafs and the New York Rangers and certainly not star player X. The success of those teams does little for the other 28 clubs in the NHL and their cities. The people are their to watch their team which is an extension of the city they live in, but I guess its just a blue collar dream to watch a league where you need to be white collar to afford to watch. Star player X helps the team succeed but they are going for the larger sport of hockey and not just for players X, Y, and Z which the union can't understand. The players are replacable... but of course the talent isn't. The blue collar guy is not responsible to fill the owner's pockets... but he isn't responsible to fill the player's pockets either.

If this is about the NHL and finances then promote massive revenue sharing... but I feel that behind this stance is the natural need to make sure the Leafs hold their place in the world than any real care about the player's stake in life.

 

[mooseOAK*]

So you feel Blue Collar hard working people and fans are responsible to pad the billions of the Owners pockets. ?

Remind me why again do these fans show up at the Arenas in the first place ..?

If the players were willing to play for $50,000 per year then there wouldn't need to be billionaires owning teams. Since that is not true then we will just have to learn how to put up with them.

 

[Mess]

The blue collar guy is not responsible to fill the owner's pockets... but he isn't responsible to fill the player's pockets either.

If this is about the NHL and finances then promote massive revenue sharing... but I feel that behind this stance is the natural need to make sure the Leafs hold their place in the world than any real care about the player's stake in life.

The last time I checked .. Going to a Hockey game is optional .. Paying the price of a ticket is a personal choice .. If at any time your on ice product or your costs to fans are too high then as management you are making mistakes. if you make bad business decisions that an lead to losses on the books at the end of the Day ..

Massive Revenue Sharing ?? You need to sit back and think what that means .. The NHL does not have a big lucrative National TV to divide up .. as a result of that, then revenue sharing comes down to Fans in Big Cities ..

Why do you feel fans in NY and Toronto, Detroit, Philly need to give their hard earned money to watch their teams play, to poor market teams so their fans can go watch their Team ??

So a fan in Philly making $30 grand a year goes to a home game to see his team and he is required to pay 3 times the price of a ticket then a fan in Nashville or Carolina. All because part of their money spent needs to be sent small market teams so their fans making $30 grand a year can watch a hockey game for a lot less and then use that money saved on other things in life ..

Why would a big market fan have any interest in this ??.. They are rivals and could care less what is going on with any other team then their own .. They pay money to see their players, and if the league wants to cap the league for fairness that is fine. Just that as Owners in big cities if you are forced to ice less of a product its only fair that you lower ticket prices in your own market to save your loyal fans money . Why give it to benefit other owners and fans in other cities at the expense of your own fans ??

 

[NYIsles1*]

Pretty solid case you have there ..

" make more of a profit with a cap but they will also lose some money "

Seems you have a bit of a circular logic problem there ..

Good luck convincing Leafs fans to purchase tickets at those prices when your team cannot spend it's way out of a bad season or have to endure rebuilding going into a season with few name veterans and low expectations after a while. This is not the eiighies or nineties either when tickets were still reasonable at Maple Leaf gardens.

The thing about high spending at those ticket prices for so long is fans demand nothing less and do not want excuses. A cap will put money in the Leafs owners pocket for now but it will be offset by fans no longer interested in financially supporting a team that is not expected to win.

Just ask Toronto Blue Jays fans after they no longer could put a championship team on the field. Skydome/Rodgers center looks like a minor league ball park. When the Yankees come to town and there are more Yankee fans in the seats..

 

[Mess]

If the players were willing to play for $50,000 per year then there wouldn't need to be billionaires owning teams. Since that is not true then we will just have to learn how to put up with them.

Pretty good definition of the AHL or ECHL there ..

You have to spend money to make money and the better managing of your costs the more $$$ you will make ... But if you want to make millions you need to spend millions in order to attract someone else's money ..

If the owners want to ice replacement players and if they think fans will pay them the money to see that, then all the power to them .. Sadly that is not how like works ..

I go to see movie in the theatre to watch my favourite Actors and Actresses appear.. When the theatre is showing low budget films lacking in Star quality I spend my money elsewhere at the expense of the owner ..

In order for all people to make money then the Stars of film needs to be paid their millions so that their films can make millions all around. Its very rare a Blair Witch project comes along that is the exception to the rule .. You get what you pay for ..

Would Braveheart or Gladiator been as successful financially without Mel Gibson and Russell Crowe being replaced by low budget no-name actors ?? Would the NHL be as successful without Joe Sakic and Marty Brodeur being replaced by players making 50 k??

 

[NYIsles1*]

Why do you feel fans in NY and Toronto, Detroit, Philly need to give their hard earned money to watch their teams play, to poor market teams so their fans can go watch their Team ??

What are your talking about? The Flyers owner claimed to lose money going to the seventh game of the conference finals and has been complaining for years about losses. The Rangers claimed 40.9 m in losses to Levitt and the Wings lost almost 20m going to the second round. Dallas and Colorado now are in the red. The Blues lose 30m or more a year.

The Minnesota Wild manage themselves properly and in 2002-03 made more profit than Toronto. Vancouver made more in profit than Toronto.

You want your team to spend to the cap and hurt the business? Pay a tax and share revenue for the priviledge. Either that or spend less and share nothing, your owners choice, just like ticket prices.

The Leafs made only a 14.1 reported profit in 2003-04 according to Forbes. If profit sharing is set ten percent that's 1.4 million from the Leafs to share among twenty or more teams.

 

[Mess]

[/size][/font]

What are your talking about? The Flyers owner claimed to lose money going to the seventh game of the conference finals and has been complaining for years about losses. The Rangers claimed 40.9 m in losses to Levitt and the Wings lost almost 20m going to the second round. Dallas and Colorado now are in the red. The Blues lose 30m or more a year.

The Minnesota Wild manage themselves properly and in 2002-03 made more profit than Toronto. Vancouver made more in profit than Toronto.

You want your team to spend to the cap and hurt the business? Pay a tax and share revenue for the priviledge. Either that or spend less and share nothing, your owners choice, just like ticket prices.

The Leafs made only a 14.1 reported profit in 2003-04 according to Forbes. If profit sharing is set ten percent that's 1.4 million from the Leafs to share among twenty or more teams.

Revenue sharing is based on Market size not profitability you know .. In a Hard Cap world that forces the NYR, Detroit and Philly to spend $25 mil less on salary will make those teams profitable and ripe for Revenue sharing.

Do you honestly believe the Wild as you call them the most profitable team will be Revenue Sharing and giving its profits to Detroit and Philly to bail them out ??

Revenue sharing can't be set at any rate .. The owner of that market would have to agree to it .. You can't force anyone to share your profits that is optional and a tough sell .. The only way to draw money from them is offer them something like a luxury tax system that allows them to spend and be knowingly fined and that money going as revenue sharing.

Big market teams would be better off lowering ticket prices and benefiting its own fan base then to give that money to opponents to strengthen them ..

Why do you constantly quote Forbes when the NHL is using the Levitt report for its Hard Cap and linkage figures ??. Forbes didn't look at any NHL books to come up with its figures ...

 

[NYIsles1*]

Revenue sharing is based on Market size not profitability you know .. In a Hard Cap world that forces the NYR, Detroit and Philly to spend $25 mil less on salary will make those teams profitable and ripe for Revenue sharing.

Actually it's based on revenue made, not profit or market size and no one is sure how much a revenue hit a team will take when they stop overspending. I think your confusing this with Larry Brooks claim markets with more than 2.5m are not eligible for revenue sharing which was done to prohibit Mr Wirtz in Chicago from getting a check.

Here are the top revenue teams (according to the NHLPA): Outside of the Rangers numbers figures being 33m off the numbers for the top five teams are all comparable to Forbes. What's interesting here is after Toronto the Wild are the next team making a profit.
1) Toronto
2) Dallas
3) Colorado
4) Detroit
5) Philadelphia
6) Rangers
7) Montreal
8) Boston
9) Minnesota
10) Vancouver


Even if those teams outright are spending twenty million in payroll to make back ten million in revenue and still lose money they will have to share. The Ranger payroll was close to 80m and they only produced 85.5m in profits which is what the Montreal Canadians also made. (while taking big losses)

you honestly believe the Wild as you call them the most profitable team will be Revenue Sharing and giving its profits to Detroit and Philly to bail them out ??

The folks at Forbes claimed the Wild made a 20m profit in 2002-03, not myself. They also claim they made a 9m dollar profit in 2003-04. If the Wild revenue reaches the level of sharing they will have to pay as well. Right now they are ninth which says a lot about our business, doesn't it?

Why do you constantly quote Forbes when the NHL is using the Levitt report for its Hard Cap and linkage figures ??. Forbes didn't look at any NHL books to come up with its figures ...

The Forbes revenue figures are in line with the Leafs revenue as reported by the NHLPA themselves. (118m) I quoted the Levitt report and several NY papers that document the Ranger losses. Mr Snider, Illitch, Hicks have not been shy about saying their teams are not profitable the last few years, long before a
work-stoppage.