Hockey Dream won't Die

Gnashville

HFBoards Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2003
13,683
3,510
Crossville
Dude, hockey/basketball isn't going to sell out everygame especially when the team stinks. This isn't the NFL. Many canadians are being overzealous now, I mean the Flames and Oilers weren't selling out in the 90s when their team sucked. Neither were the canucks.
BTW the NFL doesn't sellout either when the team stinks Arizona, New Orleans hardly if ever sell out. Other cities have done very poorly in the NFL. Hockey is the only sport where people focus on attendance as the only mark of a team's success in a city. The sport is growing so much here in Nashville and Tennessee in general it's really starting to become the #2 sport in the state (No NASCAR is NOT #1 that's a major myth about this area)
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
BTW the NFL doesn't sellout either when the team stinks Arizona, New Orleans hardly if ever sell out. Other cities have done very poorly in the NFL. Hockey is the only sport where people focus on attendance as the only mark of a team's success in a city. The sport is growing so much here in Nashville and Tennessee in general it's really starting to become the #2 sport in the state (No NASCAR is NOT #1 that's a major myth about this area)
either do the raiders

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/football/raiders/story/14283649p-15091321c.html
 

Dogbert*

Guest
I forgot to mention one other thing that sets Northern and Southern markets apart. People in colder climates tend to grow up playing and following winter sports like hockey, which makes it easier for them to get into a professional hockey team. When you go and put hockey teams in non-traditional hockey markets, though, you're dealing with people who (mostly) haven't paid much attention to hockey, and thus don't understand the game.

I've got nothing against growing the sport in those markets; all that I'm saying is that it's probably not a good idea to bring the NHL into it right away. It's like when you go to the swimming pool: you've got to get in gradually and get used to the water. What the NHL should've done is collaborate with the AHL, IHL and ECHL to place minor-pro teams in those areas; that would've given them time to build a fanbase (and in some cases, arenas) before placing NHL teams there. If this had happened, then the league could've judged the readiness of the expansion markets BEFORE diving in head-first.
 

Jumptheshark

Rebooting myself
Oct 12, 2003
99,856
13,840
Somewhere on Uranus
i have some darkhorses.....

1. edmonton oilers....can't attract big name free agents and an arena that is over 30 years old....

2. calgary flames.....arena that is over 20 years old....

the fact that both can sell out their arena's tend to make them not even dark horses

NYI and Pitts(until they build a new arena they may move) are the two teams most likely to move.
 

jkrdevil

UnRegistered User
Apr 24, 2006
42,633
12,472
Miami
the fact that both can sell out their arena's tend to make them not even dark horses

NYI and Pitts(until they build a new arena they may move) are the two teams most likely to move.

Well the Islanders are staying put because Wang isn't going to sell his personal toy. As we have seen with this offseason that is exactly what the Islanders are.

I forgot to mention one other thing that sets Northern and Southern markets apart. People in colder climates tend to grow up playing and following winter sports like hockey, which makes it easier for them to get into a professional hockey team. When you go and put hockey teams in non-traditional hockey markets, though, you're dealing with people who (mostly) haven't paid much attention to hockey, and thus don't understand the game.

I've got nothing against growing the sport in those markets; all that I'm saying is that it's probably not a good idea to bring the NHL into it right away. It's like when you go to the swimming pool: you've got to get in gradually and get used to the water. What the NHL should've done is collaborate with the AHL, IHL and ECHL to place minor-pro teams in those areas; that would've given them time to build a fanbase (and in some cases, arenas) before placing NHL teams there. If this had happened, then the league could've judged the readiness of the expansion markets BEFORE diving in head-first.

And that's why these markets should be given time to grow and not shipped out because they are not selling out within 5 years during which the team has sucked. People need to think long term.

I disagree about puttin gin minor leagues first. We are talking about markets such as Atlanta that have top tier major league sports with an NFL, NBA, MLB team. The people in these markets are used to going to see the best play. Put a Minor League team there and they aren't going to draw anything because it's a minor league and thus sub-par. That would be the case no matter what sport the minor league was.

Do you think if the Red Wings didn't exist that a minor league hockey team would be successful in Detroit? No it probably wouldn't instead of going to Wings games more people would spend their money on the Lions, Tigers, or Pistons instead and not the minor league team. It's the same thing with the southren markets.

I think mostly the opposition to the southern markets are just because of precieved location and that they are new. Take Columbus for example they are located in the middle of Ohio a state that has some hockey history and many people lump them in with "southern markets". It's a joke to listen to that crap.
 

Dogbert*

Guest
I disagree about puttin gin minor leagues first. We are talking about markets such as Atlanta that have top tier major league sports with an NFL, NBA, MLB team. The people in these markets are used to going to see the best play. Put a Minor League team there and they aren't going to draw anything because it's a minor league and thus sub-par. That would be the case no matter what sport the minor league was.

Do you think if the Red Wings didn't exist that a minor league hockey team would be successful in Detroit? No it probably wouldn't instead of going to Wings games more people would spend their money on the Lions, Tigers, or Pistons instead and not the minor league team. It's the same thing with the southren markets.

I think mostly the opposition to the southern markets are just because of precieved location and that they are new. Take Columbus for example they are located in the middle of Ohio a state that has some hockey history and many people lump them in with "southern markets". It's a joke to listen to that crap.

Maybe they're used to seeing the best play, but as far as hockey is concerned, a lot of them would have never seen the game at any level. That's what differentiates this situation from your hypothetical Red Wings situation: Detroit citizens, even without a team, probably would've still seen a lot of hockey and known what it was for a while.

It's bad business for a professional sports league to plop a team into an uncertain market, cross its fingers and hope really hard that it works. Besides, if the residents of the market turned out to like hockey, the level at which it was being played wouldn't matter, because they'd go out to see hockey; in turn, those people would be jacked to have an NHL team come to town, and bam! You've got a fanbase.
 

Gnashville

HFBoards Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2003
13,683
3,510
Crossville
I forgot to mention one other thing that sets Northern and Southern markets apart. People in colder climates tend to grow up playing and following winter sports like hockey, which makes it easier for them to get into a professional hockey team. When you go and put hockey teams in non-traditional hockey markets, though, you're dealing with people who (mostly) haven't paid much attention to hockey, and thus don't understand the game.

I've got nothing against growing the sport in those markets; all that I'm saying is that it's probably not a good idea to bring the NHL into it right away. It's like when you go to the swimming pool: you've got to get in gradually and get used to the water. What the NHL should've done is collaborate with the AHL, IHL and ECHL to place minor-pro teams in those areas; that would've given them time to build a fanbase (and in some cases, arenas) before placing NHL teams there. If this had happened, then the league could've judged the readiness of the expansion markets BEFORE diving in head-first.
Nashville has had several different MINOR league teams. No one cared about Minor league hockey in Nashville when we had it. It was nothing but fights and very low skill. It didn't work people want to see the NHL not the ECHL. Who wants to pay to see Trevor Jobe play when you can see Paul Kariya? The ECHL was here before the Predators and drew about 2000 fans max. 15,000 are going to go the ECHL games anywhere. Toronto, Philly, and Chicago have AHL teams and they don't draw well. Minor league hockey works in certain towns but not big league ones.
 

Foy

Registered User
Jun 6, 2006
20,876
0
BTW the NFL doesn't sellout either when the team stinks Arizona, New Orleans hardly if ever sell out. Other cities have done very poorly in the NFL. Hockey is the only sport where people focus on attendance as the only mark of a team's success in a city. The sport is growing so much here in Nashville and Tennessee in general it's really starting to become the #2 sport in the state (No NASCAR is NOT #1 that's a major myth about this area)

The main reason for that is hockey draws a larger portion of its total revenue from attendance than any other sport.
 

Gnashville

HFBoards Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2003
13,683
3,510
Crossville
The main reason for that is hockey draws a larger portion of its total revenue from attendance than any other sport.

True but the same people that complain about Nashville, Carolina, ect's Attendance say the Hartford, Winnipeg, and Quebec should have never moved when those teams had less revenue and sometimes less attendance than The "unacceptable" franchises. 12K a night in Nashville or Carolina makes more money than 12K in Winnipeg or Hartford did. Owners don't care about Capacity precentage.
 

Fugu

Guest
True but the same people that complain about Nashville, Carolina, ect's Attendance say the Hartford, Winnipeg, and Quebec should have never moved when those teams had less revenue and sometimes less attendance than The "unacceptable" franchises. 12K a night in Nashville or Carolina makes more money than 12K in Winnipeg or Hartford did. Owners don't care about Capacity precentage.

Check the CBA on revenue sharing. They have to care about capacity.
 

puckhead103*

Guest
Maybe they're used to seeing the best play, but as far as hockey is concerned, a lot of them would have never seen the game at any level. That's what differentiates this situation from your hypothetical Red Wings situation: Detroit citizens, even without a team, probably would've still seen a lot of hockey and known what it was for a while.

It's bad business for a professional sports league to plop a team into an uncertain market, cross its fingers and hope really hard that it works. Besides, if the residents of the market turned out to like hockey, the level at which it was being played wouldn't matter, because they'd go out to see hockey; in turn, those people would be jacked to have an NHL team come to town, and bam! You've got a fanbase.
u need to blame the owners and the cities for this problem...

it is these same owners who play blackmail with cities saying, "i'll move the team if u don't build a new arena and i'm losing money"....blah blah...

look at that idiot owner in carolina....he moved the team to carolina from hartford because they did not have the funds to build him a new arena.....

and then u have the cities having an inferiority complex saying "we need a big league team so the eyes in the public will look at us as big league"......

case in point of cities who had this problem (nashville, columbus, florida, etc)....
 

OG6ix

Registered User
Apr 11, 2006
4,453
1,350
Toronto
Oh plz... the marlies don't even get good numbers in Toronto and that city cannot even sustain an OHL team. What do you have to say about that town? Move the leafs?
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Check the CBA on revenue sharing. They have to care about capacity.

Actually, they don't. The Revenue Performance Standards in Article 49.3(d) to receive a full share are not based on arena capacity or even actual team attendance percentage.

They are based on:

1. Sequential year to year revenue growth in excess of league average.

and

2. Average paid attendance being > 13,125 (`07-`08) / 14,000 ('08-`09+) (75%/80% of a standard NHL arena size of 17,500) or greater than league average.

(d) Revenue Performance Standards and Effect on Continued Eligibility to Receive Player Compensation Cost Redistribution Funds.

(i) Beginning in the third League Year of this Agreement (the 2007-08 League Year), the eligibility of Clubs for a "full share" Distribution shall be conditioned on Club revenue performance standards, as follows:

(A) After the 2006-07 League Year, any Club that would not qualify for a "full share" Distribution based on the Club revenue performance standards applicable in the 2007-08 League Year will be notified by the NHL of such fact, and areas of potential improvement will be identified.

(B) In the 2007-08 League Year, only those Clubs meeting the following criteria shall be eligible for a "full share" Distribution:

(1) The Club is generating a year-to-year revenue growth rate in excess of the League average revenue growth rate (i.e., the Club's revenue growth rate from 2006-07 to 2007-08 is greater than the League average revenue growth rate from 2006-07 to 2007-08); and

(2) The Club is averaging paid attendance at or exceeding a level that is the lesser of either 13,125 per game (seventy-five (75) percent of 17,500) or the average League-wide paid attendance.​

(C) Beginning in the 2008-09 League Year, and for all subsequent League Years, only those Clubs meeting the following criteria shall be eligible for a "full share" Distribution:

(1) The Club is generating a year-to-year revenue growth rate in excess of the League average revenue growth rate (i.e., the Club's revenue growth rate from the previous League Year to the current League Year is greater than the League average revenue growth rate from the previous League Year to the current League Year); and

(2) The Club is averaging paid attendance at or exceeding a level that is the lesser of either 14,000 per game (eighty (80) percent of 17,500) or the average League-wide paid attendance.​

(ii) For Clubs that do not meet the criteria for a "full share" Distribution as set forth in subsection (d)(i) during the 2007-08 League Year, or any subsequent League Year, such Clubs shall be subject to Distribution "reductions" as set forth below:

(A) First time "non-performers" (i.e., Clubs that do not meet the performance standards set forth above for the first time) shall have the amount of their Distribution reduced to a seventy-five (75) percent share of the full amount.

(B) Repeat, sequential "non-performers" that do not meet the performance standards in two (2) consecutive years shall have the amount of their Distribution reduced to a sixty (60) percent share of the full amount.

(C) Repeat, sequential "non-performers" that do not meet the performance standards in three (3) consecutive years shall have the amount of their Distribution reduced to a fifty (50) percent share of the full amount.​
 

Fugu

Guest
Actually, they don't. The Revenue Performance Standards in Article 49.3(d) to receive a full share are not based on arena capacity or even actual team attendance percentage.

They are based on:

1. Sequential year to year revenue growth in excess of league average.

and

2. Average paid attendance being > 13,125 (`07-`08) / 14,000 ('08-`09+) (75%/80% of a standard NHL arena size of 17,500) or greater than league average.
Quote:
(d) Revenue Performance Standards and Effect on Continued Eligibility to Receive Player Compensation Cost Redistribution Funds.

(i) Beginning in the third League Year of this Agreement (the 2007-08 League Year), the eligibility of Clubs for a "full share" Distribution shall be conditioned on Club revenue performance standards, as follows:

(A) After the 2006-07 League Year, any Club that would not qualify for a "full share" Distribution based on the Club revenue performance standards applicable in the 2007-08 League Year will be notified by the NHL of such fact, and areas of potential improvement will be identified.

(B) In the 2007-08 League Year, only those Clubs meeting the following criteria shall be eligible for a "full share" Distribution:

(1) The Club is generating a year-to-year revenue growth rate in excess of the League average revenue growth rate (i.e., the Club's revenue growth rate from 2006-07 to 2007-08 is greater than the League average revenue growth rate from 2006-07 to 2007-08); and

(2) The Club is averaging paid attendance at or exceeding a level that is the lesser of either 13,125 per game (seventy-five (75) percent of 17,500) or the average League-wide paid attendance.

(C) Beginning in the 2008-09 League Year, and for all subsequent League Years, only those Clubs meeting the following criteria shall be eligible for a "full share" Distribution:

(1) The Club is generating a year-to-year revenue growth rate in excess of the League average revenue growth rate (i.e., the Club's revenue growth rate from the previous League Year to the current League Year is greater than the League average revenue growth rate from the previous League Year to the current League Year); and

(2) The Club is averaging paid attendance at or exceeding a level that is the lesser of either 14,000 per game (eighty (80) percent of 17,500) or the average League-wide paid attendance.

(ii) For Clubs that do not meet the criteria for a "full share" Distribution as set forth in subsection (d)(i) during the 2007-08 League Year, or any subsequent League Year, such Clubs shall be subject to Distribution "reductions" as set forth below:

(A) First time "non-performers" (i.e., Clubs that do not meet the performance standards set forth above for the first time) shall have the amount of their Distribution reduced to a seventy-five (75) percent share of the full amount.

(B) Repeat, sequential "non-performers" that do not meet the performance standards in two (2) consecutive years shall have the amount of their Distribution reduced to a sixty (60) percent share of the full amount.

(C) Repeat, sequential "non-performers" that do not meet the performance standards in three (3) consecutive years shall have the amount of their Distribution reduced to a fifty (50) percent share of the full amount.


If you want to play word games, sure it isn't explicitly spelled out. However.... the NHL had to base this on something (an average figure of NHL arenae capacities and attendance). 80% of 17,500 says to me that owners do have an attendance benchmark, and whether you express it total capacity or as a percentage of capacity - their own arena or league-wide criterion - the criterion nevertheless exists. How can you say the CBA has no such criterion then paste in the exact article that references a criterion?
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
If you want to play word games, sure it isn't explicitly spelled out. However.... the NHL had to base this on something (an average figure of NHL arenae capacities and attendance). 80% of 17,500 says to me that owners do have an attendance benchmark, and whether you express it total capacity or as a percentage of capacity - their own arena or league-wide criterion - the criterion nevertheless exists. How can you say the CBA has no such criterion then paste in the exact article that references a criterion?

Call it word game if you want, but your initial statement was incorrect.

Fugu said:
Check the CBA on revenue sharing. They have to care about capacity.

Care about revenue, yes. Care about actual attendance, yes. Care about capacity, nope.
 

Fugu

Guest
Call it word game if you want, but your initial statement was incorrect.



Care about revenue, yes. Care about actual attendance, yes. Care about capacity, nope.

Clearly you are choosing to ignore one representation of something (the same thing) that can be stated in at least two different ways. 100% of N is still N.


Let's discuss intent also. Any legal document at some point may be subject to a difference in interpretation- leaving the interpreters the task of divining intent.

A specific number was given: 17, 500.

Is it overly presumptuous to say that (a) NHL arenae vary in capacity, from ~16,000 to 21,000+ and therefore (b) a standardized measure total attendance (17,500) was selected and written into the CBA.

Otherwise we would have each team’s arena listed in the document, total attendance possible for each arena would be next, with 75% or 80% of THAT number indicated in determining the portion of revenue to be shared. What exactly are these percentages measuring?

I introduce a percentage measure of 17,500 as being 100% because the CBA clearly uses this number as its measure of attendance. 80% of this figure means something that is not equal to 100%. 75% of this figure means something that is not equal to 100%. These percentages clearly set one figure as a 100%... although nowhere in the document do we see it say, “ 17,500 = 100%”… Anything other than this “attendance” figure is less than 100%.

So you tell me how it is that percentages here are not a measure of capacity?
 

Fugu

Guest
Care about revenue, yes. Care about actual attendance, yes. Care about capacity, nope.


Separate from the interpretation of the CBA and what the intent was, capacity is important.

Two arenae. One has a capacity of 16K and the other 19K. Both teams have total average attendance of 16K. Total revenues of course will vary by what the pricing scheme is for each venue. Which owner is happier? (This goes back to the original comment I made in response to someone who said capacity was not important. I believe your reply was specifically on the CBA clause in question.)
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Separate from the interpretation of the CBA and what the intent was, capacity is important.

Two arenae. One has a capacity of 16K and the other 19K. Both teams have total average attendance of 16K. Total revenues of course will vary by what the pricing scheme is for each venue. Which owner is happier? (This goes back to the original comment I made in response to someone who said capacity was not important. I believe your reply was specifically on the CBA clause in question.)

Capacity is important in so much as it is a driver of revenue and potential revenue - there I agree.

I reacted a bit strongly, because I have seen CBA mis-information stating that Revenue Sharing required the team to hit paid attendance of 75% / 80% of their arena capacity, rather then the fixed numbers of 13,125 / 14,000 (75%/80% of 17,500).

My initial reaction to your statement was rooted in the thought that you were propagating that same mis-information.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->