More NHL Teams Should Move AHL Club Close

[MiamiHockey]

Why isn't anyone speculating about the alternate path for the AHL, which is that the NHL gets sick of sustaining losses in the name of "development"? This has happened in the past - in the 6-team era the NHL owned the EPHL, it got sick of the losses and essentially shifted the league to the USA to form the CPHL, and again, got sick of the losses. And why do you think Detroit sold the Adirondack Red Wings? Because they were sick of losing money.

It would take a small shift in the CBA to make the current "within an hour's drive of the NHL team" irrelevant: give a NHL team a certain number of players on their roster who do not count against the cap if they don't play. Come up with some fancy technical details to prevent gaming. Now a NHL team can again carry 3-4 players around instead of having to run an AHL team in the same building to get the same cap effect.

Are you really trying to draw a comparison between the finances of the Original Six era and today's NHL?

 

[210]

I'm not saying the post you were replying to (#15) isn't totally off the wall with wild suggestions for moves that aren't going to happen.

However, it seems like an incredibly silly rule that we can't speculate about NHL teams possibly buying and moving AHL teams when it has happened several times in the last couple of years (Anaheim/Norfolk, Phoenix/Springfield, Ottawa/Binghamton, Montreal/St Johns just off the top of my head) i believe in all four of these cases the NHL team didn't own the AHL team, and then announced they were buying and moving the team at the same time.

It's not a "silly rule", it's just "silly". Feel free to discuss what you want.

 

[ripham23232]

I'm not saying the post you were replying to (#15) isn't totally off the wall with wild suggestions for moves that aren't going to happen.

However, it seems like an incredibly silly rule that we can't speculate about NHL teams possibly buying and moving AHL teams when it has happened several times in the last couple of years (Anaheim/Norfolk, Phoenix/Springfield, Ottawa/Binghamton, Montreal/St Johns just off the top of my head) i believe in all four of these cases the NHL team didn't own the AHL team, and then announced they were buying and moving the team at the same time.

I'm not a HFboards veteran by any stretch, but I think the larger point here is people come up with these conversations by throwing things at the wall hoping to stick rather than have an informed conversation about AHL franchise movements. In a thread regarding the trend of moving teams closer to the parent organization, one poster said Minnesota needs to be aligned with the Milwaukee Admirals, completely disregarding any outstanding affiliation agreements, ownership groups, or the fact that Minnesota owns part of the Iowa Wild and Des Moines is actually a shorter drive to St. Paul than Milwaukee is. There is no argument to be made for either Minnesota or Nashville to shift their current arrangements as it's beneficial for both in it's current state, at least from a hockey ops perspective. There's little regard for facts about how these situations come to be in 1/2 the posts about this topic.

Why isn't anyone speculating about the alternate path for the AHL, which is that the NHL gets sick of sustaining losses in the name of "development"? This has happened in the past - in the 6-team era the NHL owned the EPHL, it got sick of the losses and essentially shifted the league to the USA to form the CPHL, and again, got sick of the losses. And why do you think Detroit sold the Adirondack Red Wings? Because they were sick of losing money.

It would take a small shift in the CBA to make the current "within an hour's drive of the NHL team" irrelevant: give a NHL team a certain number of players on their roster who do not count against the cap if they don't play. Come up with some fancy technical details to prevent gaming. Now a NHL team can again carry 3-4 players around instead of having to run an AHL team in the same building to get the same cap effect.

I'd be curious to see AHL team revenues. "Attendance" is a poor indicator of revenues in many cases, as the fan sees only the people that show up, not accounting for the fact show rate is typically between 50-65% of tickets sold. This argument shows up constantly around here, as fans have trouble understanding published attendance numbers have little correlation to how many people are in the building and are more reflective of tickets distributed/sold. It also doesn't account for any other revenue stream such as sponsorship, concessions, etc. Long story short, I think there would be some surprise around these parts at how many AHL franchises are sitting pretty from a financial standpoint. Minor league sports have come a long way from the old days.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

I still wish the Sens moved the B-Sens Hamilton earlier, or to St. John's instead of Belleville for next season.

I'd say the Blackhawks and Wolves but that wouldn't be good chemistry, I find the Blackhawks better off with Rockford long term and seems to be working out very well with the two.

But one interesting fact is that some teams will be in big cities which is a good thing because it spreads the game out across the country. But I mean places like Chicago has an NHL, AHL and ECHL team; all of which are not affiliated.

Anyway, this is my take:

Nashville - Memphis
Tampa Bay - Orlando (Syracuse)
Minnesota - Milwaukee Admirals
Vancouver - Victoria (Comets)
San Jose - Sacremento
St. Louis - Expansion - Kansas City
New Jersey - Binghamton
Vegas - Chicago Wolves

*If Florida decides to relocate the Thunderbirds (which I doubt happens for a while) - Atlanta/Baltimore

Not sure why Nashville would move to Memphis when they have a proven affiliate in Milwaukee which is closer to Chicago and Minnesota and provides more flight opportunities than Memphis.

San Jose is already in San Jose so you can't get much closer.

Have you checked a map? Des Moines is closer to MSP than Milwaukee is and has a better arena than any other AHL city except SJ, SA, Moose, ans maybe some of the other new ones like Hershey and WBS.

And the thing about moving the AHL affiliate closer to home is only valid for overlap dates. It Si actually more key that they are BOTH close to home and close to the majority of their road opponents.

I'm not saying the post you were replying to (#15) isn't totally off the wall with wild suggestions for moves that aren't going to happen.

However, it seems like an incredibly silly rule that we can't speculate about NHL teams possibly buying and moving AHL teams when it has happened several times in the last couple of years (Anaheim/Norfolk, Phoenix/Springfield, Ottawa/Binghamton, Montreal/St Johns just off the top of my head) i believe in all four of these cases the NHL team didn't own the AHL team, and then announced they were buying and moving the team at the same time.

Montreal didn't buy St. John's. St. Johns never owned a franchise. The owners of the Moose moved their franchise when they acquired the Thrashers then moved them back to Winnipeg.

When Moose went home, Hamilton moved to the Rock until Laval was ready.

I echo that people just post on here BS about affiliates changes without concept of the business model of the AHL and NHL.

 

[royals119]

Why isn't anyone speculating about the alternate path for the AHL, which is that the NHL gets sick of sustaining losses in the name of "development"?

At least in part because the shift toward owning the AHL team and locating it close by just accelerated 2-3 years ago, and is still moving in that direction. I can't see the NHL teams getting sick of losses on this scale in such a short period of time, especially when there are still teams buying and moving AHL franchises. The logical thing is to assume that will continue, at least in the short term.

It would take a small shift in the CBA to make the current "within an hour's drive of the NHL team" irrelevant: give a NHL team a certain number of players on their roster who do not count against the cap if they don't play. Come up with some fancy technical details to prevent gaming. Now a NHL team can again carry 3-4 players around instead of having to run an AHL team in the same building to get the same cap effect.

I think you have said this before, but history says there are no simple changes in the CBA. The players will want concessions for any change the owners make, and the GM's of richer teams will find a way to use this rule to their advantage while poorer teams won't want to spend the money to carry extra players. It defeats the purpose of the cap. Also, while you seem to feel that "development" is a joke or sham, the NHL GMs don't. They see bringing in mid to low round draft picks on ELC's and having them succeed in the NHL as vital to winning under the cap system.

think the larger point here is people come up with these conversations by throwing things at the wall hoping to stick rather than have an informed conversation about AHL franchise movements.

I agree. I was only addressing the smaller point where some posters were saying it is impossible, or silly to discuss an NHL team moving an AHL team they don't own. There are plenty of reasons for or against a particular move, but owning or not owning the team isn't that significant anymore. If an NHL team wants to buy and move an AHL team bad enough, they will find a way.

In a thread regarding the trend of moving teams closer to the parent organization, one poster said Minnesota needs to be aligned with the Milwaukee Admirals, completely disregarding any outstanding affiliation agreements, ownership groups, or the fact that Minnesota owns part of the Iowa Wild and Des Moines is actually a shorter drive to St. Paul than Milwaukee is. There is no argument to be made for either Minnesota or Nashville to shift their current arrangements as it's beneficial for both in it's current state, at least from a hockey ops perspective. There's little regard for facts about how these situations come to be in 1/2 the posts about this topic.

I'd be curious to see AHL team revenues. "Attendance" is a poor indicator of revenues in many cases, as the fan sees only the people that show up, not accounting for the fact show rate is typically between 50-65% of tickets sold. This argument shows up constantly around here, as fans have trouble understanding published attendance numbers have little correlation to how many people are in the building and are more reflective of tickets distributed/sold. It also doesn't account for any other revenue stream such as sponsorship, concessions, etc. Long story short, I think there would be some surprise around these parts at how many AHL franchises are sitting pretty from a financial standpoint. Minor league sports have come a long way from the old days.

Not sure why Nashville would move to Memphis when they have a proven affiliate in Milwaukee which is closer to Chicago and Minnesota and provides more flight opportunities than Memphis.

San Jose is already in San Jose so you can't get much closer.

Have you checked a map? Des Moines is closer to MSP than Milwaukee is and has a better arena than any other AHL city except SJ, SA, Moose, ans maybe some of the other new ones like Hershey and WBS.

And the thing about moving the AHL affiliate closer to home is only valid for overlap dates. It Si actually more key that they are BOTH close to home and close to the majority of their road opponents.

All great points, thanks for bringing salient points to the discussion with facts to back them up.

Montreal didn't buy St. John's. St. Johns never owned a franchise. The owners of the Moose moved their franchise when they acquired the Thrashers then moved them back to Winnipeg.

When Moose went home, Hamilton moved to the Rock until Laval was ready.

I echo that people just post on here BS about affiliates changes without concept of the business model of the AHL and NHL.

Thanks for clarifying. I spent a little time researching that one and couldn't sort out all the details. Danny Williams is listed as the owner of the Ice Caps. When Montreal announced they were taking the team to Laval, he announced he was going to find a way to bring a new team to St John's. That made it sound to me like Montreal bought the franchise away from him. I take it that is incorrect and Montreal actually owned the Hamilton franshise and moved them to St John's, with Williams as a local operator/GM/mouthpiece for the franchise, but not the actual owner? Or is it more complicated than that?

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

Not sure why Nashville would move to Memphis when they have a proven affiliate in Milwaukee which is closer to Chicago and Minnesota and provides more flight opportunities than Memphis.

Yeah, you can basically get to any NHL city from Milwaukee on a non-stop flight. The only downside is Frontier stopped the daily non-stop flights between Milwaukee and Nashville 5 years ago, which obviously isn't ideal.

Still, with O'Hare a little over an hour away, you could get down there and fly pretty much anywhere. That's something pretty much no other AHL city can offer.

 

[adsfan]

I'm not a HFboards veteran by any stretch, but I think the larger point here is people come up with these conversations by throwing things at the wall hoping to stick rather than have an informed conversation about AHL franchise movements. In a thread regarding the trend of moving teams closer to the parent organization, one poster said Minnesota needs to be aligned with the Milwaukee Admirals, completely disregarding any outstanding affiliation agreements, ownership groups, or the fact that Minnesota owns part of the Iowa Wild and Des Moines is actually a shorter drive to St. Paul than Milwaukee is. There is no argument to be made for either Minnesota or Nashville to shift their current arrangements as it's beneficial for both in it's current state, at least from a hockey ops perspective. There's little regard for facts about how these situations come to be in 1/2 the posts about this topic.



I'd be curious to see AHL team revenues. "Attendance" is a poor indicator of revenues in many cases, as the fan sees only the people that show up, not accounting for the fact show rate is typically between 50-65% of tickets sold. This argument shows up constantly around here, as fans have trouble understanding published attendance numbers have little correlation to how many people are in the building and are more reflective of tickets distributed/sold. It also doesn't account for any other revenue stream such as sponsorship, concessions, etc. Long story short, I think there would be some surprise around these parts at how many AHL franchises are sitting pretty from a financial standpoint. Minor league sports have come a long way from the old days.

I am a big time hockey fan. I miss a game that I have tickets for about once a year. That gives me a 97% attendance rate. Who are these people that show up for 1/2 to 2/3 of games that they hold tickets for? What cities are those? You have to have 6 or 8 inches of snow to have that many no shows in Milwaukee. I am pretty good at estimating indoor crowds and at noticing how many empty seats remain.

Yes, you can announce the number of ticket sold for a game. However, if it is 6000 in a 10,000 seat arena, and only 3000 or 4000 fans are really there, it is pretty obvious what the team is doing. It would be easier to give out some free tickets and get more people to attend (papering the house) on a short term basis.

In the IHL days, the Admirals attracted 9000 a game for three consecutive seasons.
Lloyd Petit, one of the owners, said that "the team never made money". Of course, they traveled to San Diego and Houston in those days. That couldn't be cheap.

 

[ripham23232]

I am a big time hockey fan. I miss a game that I have tickets for about once a year. That gives me a 97% attendance rate. Who are these people that show up for 1/2 to 2/3 of games that they hold tickets for? What cities are those? You have to have 6 or 8 inches of snow to have that many no shows in Milwaukee. I am pretty good at estimating indoor crowds and at noticing how many empty seats remain.

Believe me, as a sports fan it blows my mind too that you'd have tickets to something and not go. But, it happens. As I understand, Milwaukee has always had good attendance and show rates with the Admirals. In my own outside perspective, I think they have a higher place in Milwaukee than a lot of minor league sports teams hold in their respective towns if that makes sense. I work in minor league baseball, and the parallels between baseball and hockey in this regard are incredibly similar. We talk to hockey teams as much as baseball teams because it's really all the same game from a business perspective. A majority of the no-shows come from corporate season ticket accounts, full season accounts that miss every now and then for whatever reason, sponsor accounts that have been passed through with a recipient just no showing, etc. There's a multitude of reasons beyond that even, but a show rate around 55-60% of sales is pretty normal around sports.

Yes, you can announce the number of ticket sold for a game. However, if it is 6000 in a 10,000 seat arena, and only 3000 or 4000 fans are really there, it is pretty obvious what the team is doing. It would be easier to give out some free tickets and get more people to attend (papering the house) on a short term basis.

Agreed, and that's exactly what happens in terms of announcement. For whatever reason though, a lot of the people that have the attendance = revenue conversation on these boards though don't understand/realize the announced attendance is not how many people are sitting in the arena while the game is being played. To the other point, you have to be very careful with free and discounted tickets. Once you begin devaluing your product, especially consistently, people are very reluctant to pay full price. There's some truth to a certain level of comps being ok as they still come in and buy food/drink/shirts whatever, but the emphasis must be on the short term as you mentioned.

In the IHL days, the Admirals attracted 9000 a game for three consecutive seasons. Lloyd Petit, one of the owners, said that "the team never made money". Of course, they traveled to San Diego and Houston in those days. That couldn't be cheap.

I would love to have the time and resources to do a study into the IHL of the 90's. I was 8 years old when the Griffins became a team in Grand Rapids and it was my first exposure to the sport. I fell in love with the Vipers, Solar Bears, etc. My eBay history would reveal that much as its a continuous search to get my hands on merchandise from those late 90's teams. I can't speak for what Milwaukee's revenues were in that time period, but I'm sure there's some hyperbole in there as well. On the other hand though, given the climate around the league in that stretch, the rapid growth also created a windfall of problems, and we all know the result.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

I am a big time hockey fan. I miss a game that I have tickets for about once a year. That gives me a 97% attendance rate. Who are these people that show up for 1/2 to 2/3 of games that they hold tickets for? What cities are those? You have to have 6 or 8 inches of snow to have that many no shows in Milwaukee. I am pretty good at estimating indoor crowds and at noticing how many empty seats remain.

Yes, you can announce the number of ticket sold for a game. However, if it is 6000 in a 10,000 seat arena, and only 3000 or 4000 fans are really there, it is pretty obvious what the team is doing. It would be easier to give out some free tickets and get more people to attend (papering the house) on a short term basis.

In the IHL days, the Admirals attracted 9000 a game for three consecutive seasons.
Lloyd Petit, one of the owners, said that "the team never made money". Of course, they traveled to San Diego and Houston in those days. That couldn't be cheap.

I know of one major corporation (I won't name it) that has a ton of tickets to games that are paid for for their employees to use but many of them are never used.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

I can't speak for what Milwaukee's revenues were in that time period, but I'm sure there's some hyperbole in there as well. On the other hand though, given the climate around the league in that stretch, the rapid growth also created a windfall of problems, and we all know the result.

Ehh, I believe owners when they say Milwaukee never made money.

Take a look at the previous lease compared to the one they have now.

The Admirals per game fee will be $1,500 on weeknights and $2,500 on weekends at the Panther Arena. At the BMO Harris Bradley Center, the Admirals get weeknights free but pay $10,000 for each Saturday home game and $2,750 for Friday night games.

The Admirals receive 15 percent of revenue from merchandise sold at the Bradley Center but that figure shrinks considerably after the facility subtracts taxes, direct product costs and labor. At the Panther Arena, the Admirals will fund the merchandise inventory but will see 75 percent of all proceeds.

At the Bradley Center, the Admirals receive none of the concessions proceeds. At the Panther Arena, the team will get a percentage of concessions sales on a sliding scale, depending on attendance, ranging from 26 percent to 41 percent.

The Admirals have limited advertising and sponsorship rights during their games at the Bradley Center. At the Panther Arena, the team will be able to sell rotating or temporary advertising rights during games such as on dasher board and scoreboard displays.

The Bradley Center collects a $2-per-ticket facility fee for Admirals games. The Wisconsin Center district also will collect a $2 fee the first five years of the new lease and $2.50 in years six through 10.

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwauke...admirals-are-better-off-at-panther-arena.html

 

[ripham23232]

Ehh, I believe owners when they say Milwaukee never made money.

I didn't mean to imply that I thought they were lying. It's entirely possible they didn't make money, especially with the climate of the league at the time. I just think it may not be entirely truthful or there was some exaggeration when the statement was made. I guess what I'm trying to say is what the owners consider "no money" may not be accurate description of the income. I've been known to joke about how I make no money at my job, when in reality, I do receive a paycheck.

I'll have to look through that info you provided when I have a little more time. Very interesting find. Thanks for sharing!

 

[adsfan]

I didn't mean to imply that I thought they were lying. It's entirely possible they didn't make money, especially with the climate of the league at the time. I just think it may not be entirely truthful or there was some exaggeration when the statement was made. I guess what I'm trying to say is what the owners consider "no money" may not be accurate description of the income. I've been known to joke about how I make no money at my job, when in reality, I do receive a paycheck.

I'll have to look through that info you provided when I have a little more time. Very interesting find. Thanks for sharing!

I will save you some time.

I agree with almost everything that AF24 stated. I thought that the BC facility fee was $1 a ticket. The first year that was added, the team paid it. I suppose that it could have gone up to $2, but I don't remember that. The Ads totally got screwed on concessions, merch and parking.

I am full season this year. I was full for 15 years at the BC and half the other 13 years.

AF24 PM that company name to me. I have an idea who it is already.

 

[210]

Why not just name the company? It's not like it's a secret...

 

[adsfan]

Why not just name the company? It's not like it's a secret...

I assume that it is a business secret between the company and the Admirals.

Since you are a professional writer, you should appreciate confidentiality.

I don't wish to undermine my local team and I am not the Drudge Report.

 

[210]

I assume that it is a business secret between the company and the Admirals.

Since you are a professional writer, you should appreciate confidentiality.

I don't wish to undermine my local team and I am not the Drudge Report.

That makes absolutely no sense on any level.

 

[adsfan]

That makes absolutely no sense on any level.

I agree. Your post doesn't make any sense.

Are you incapable of asking AF24 to PM you the info?

Are you incapable of understanding that AF24 may have a reason or reasons for not going public with this info? I can understand why he might not wish to do so. It may seem like something small to you, but people at my company have been fired for less. For all that I know, my company might have a business relationship with the unknown one. That is why I would never pass it on.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

The reason I didn't post it publicly is the person who can get me free tickets is currently up for a promotion. I don't want to jeopardize the possibility of him/her getting the promotion by naming the company (s)he works at in a public forum.

It likely wouldn't jeopardize it if it was found out but if there's a 0.00000001% chance that it does, then I'm not going to post it. I don't want to be responsible for costing a person who deserves a promotion that promotion because of something I posted on a message board.

 

[PCSPounder]

That's great info, but totally irrelevant. Until these NHL teams purchase their affiliate talking about moving them is incredibly silly.

Ye shall question the chutzpah of NHL owners at thy peril.

 

[GarbageGoal]

The two seats next to my season seats in Providence are supposedly held by season ticket holders (people who wanted to move there have been told this). Yet about half the time no one sits there (not complaining myself, really) and if they do, it's never been the same people in the 18 years I've been there. They are never open if you go to Ticketmaster's map.

The only thing I can figure is some corporate account or ticket reseller holds them.

 

[210]

The reason I didn't post it publicly is the person who can get me free tickets is currently up for a promotion. I don't want to jeopardize the possibility of him/her getting the promotion by naming the company (s)he works at in a public forum.

It likely wouldn't jeopardize it if it was found out but if there's a 0.00000001% chance that it does, then I'm not going to post it. I don't want to be responsible for costing a person who deserves a promotion that promotion because of something I posted on a message board.

Now this answer makes sense.

It being "business secret between the company and the Admirals" makes zero sense no matter how adsfan thinks he can defend the statement.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

Just a quick business 101. The legal structure of an organization is a big factor in whether a "company" makes money or not. For example, the BlackHawks say they lose money every year. This may be true however they may have a different organization that receives the TV revenues, another organization that receives concession revenues, and another organization that collects the rents and other revenues from the arena operations. It also goes to where expenses are recognized as well. They may load all expenses into an organization in order to offset previous year or future income.

So unless someone has all the financial statements for every legal entity within a corporate structure, you will never know who makes money and who doesn't.

 

[royals119]

The two seats next to my season seats in Providence are supposedly held by season ticket holders (people who wanted to move there have been told this). Yet about half the time no one sits there (not complaining myself, really) and if they do, it's never been the same people in the 18 years I've been there. They are never open if you go to Ticketmaster's map.

The only thing I can figure is some corporate account or ticket reseller holds them.

Same thing with the four seats in front of me in Reading. They have been held by the same people for 16 years, and they are occupied for maybe 4-5 games per year. I believe it is a small local company that has a sponsorship agreement with the team. I believe all of the sponsor deals include season tickets as part of the package. Some companies use them, others don't.

Personally I pay for three season seats, but only use two tickets. We have the extra seat open at each game for coats and elbow room. We then trade the extra tickets in later for tickets to another game and give them away to customers. So my tickets show up as only a 66% attendance rate, even though my wife and I never miss a game.

 

[Devils Dominion]

Same thing with the four seats in front of me in Reading. They have been held by the same people for 16 years, and they are occupied for maybe 4-5 games per year. I believe it is a small local company that has a sponsorship agreement with the team. I believe all of the sponsor deals include season tickets as part of the package. Some companies use them, others don't.

Personally I pay for three season seats, but only use two tickets. We have the extra seat open at each game for coats and elbow room. We then trade the extra tickets in later for tickets to another game and give them away to customers. So my tickets show up as only a 66% attendance rate, even though my wife and I never miss a game.

That irks me a lot, that companies have season tickets to hockey games and they hardly ever use them.
I've seen this at NHL/AHL/ECHL games.

It bothers me that someone within a company who knows they have season tickets does not hand them out to their employees or customers for every game.
What a waste.

 

[mk80]

Some tickets may not even be held by any corporations. For example I work for an indoor soccer team, and we will use tickets as trade with local businesses (sometimes not even the same business), usually this could be something like hosting a team meet and greet at a restaurant for example, or when we hold fan appreciation night we swap tickets for gift cards and things to give away. So some of these seats that change constantly may not be held by the company account or a season ticket holder that gives them away.

 

[GarbageGoal]

Same thing with the four seats in front of me in Reading. They have been held by the same people for 16 years, and they are occupied for maybe 4-5 games per year. I believe it is a small local company that has a sponsorship agreement with the team. I believe all of the sponsor deals include season tickets as part of the package. Some companies use them, others don't.

Personally I pay for three season seats, but only use two tickets. We have the extra seat open at each game for coats and elbow room. We then trade the extra tickets in later for tickets to another game and give them away to customers. So my tickets show up as only a 66% attendance rate, even though my wife and I never miss a game.

Makes sense. I only use both my tickets about 40% of the time, and the other people who are ST regulars in my aisle on my other side are the same. More seats than they normally need....