NHL on solid financial ground overall

[NextBigThing]

Boise with blue ice would be epic.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

Boise with blue ice would be epic.

Good luck following a black puck on blue ice.

 

[Hamilton Tigers]

Having teams earning more 2-3X more than the lowest earners isn't a problem? How exactly are teams in the NHL losing $20 MM or more per year? Why are franchise values for some hovering at $100MM, assuming anyone is actually found to buy a team?

And this still astounds me when this topic comes up;

While we know because of the bankruptcy process that the Phoenix Coyotes made only $13.33-million in ticket revenues the year before they went into bankruptcy, the yet to be named Winnipeg franchise would bring in $1.23-million per home game at their $82 average ticket price.

With the dollar basically at par, that means they would make roughly $50-million on regular-season ticket sales alone, $37-million more than Phoenix made in the year before court proceedings made their attendance situation far worse.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...-means-big-money-for-winnipeg/article2048916/

 

[Jeremy Hronek]

Good luck following a black puck on blue ice.

White Puck?

 

[Fourier]

1. You have zero evidence of your statement that league revenues are up "largely due to the traditional markets".

2. If you do the math, it does not support the suggestion that NHL revenue growth of the type experienced in recent years, including this year, can be fueled by a few "traditional markets". Notwithstanding that a few markets have maredly higher than average revenues, the NHL revenue base is simply too diversified for overall revenue to be impacted by only a few "traditional" markets. It simply does not work mathematically.

I guess it would be important to identify what you mean by "in recent years".

If we are talking "since the lockout" then I would agree with you. Especially in the first few years following the lockout where growth rates were over 10%. But I would say that a solid case could be made that in the last 4 years the growth we have seen in the NHl has likely been primarily due to the impact of the "traditional markets".

 

[Mwd711]

Good luck following a black puck on blue ice.

They did try it in Buffalo, thanks to Larry Quinn Granted, it's not Boise St. blue, but it's close enough.

 

[Fugu]

I guess it would be important to identify what you mean by "in recent years".

If we are talking "since the lockout" then I would agree with you. Especially in the first few years following the lockout where growth rates were over 10%. But I would say that a solid case could be made that in the last 4 years the growth we have seen in the NHl has likely been primarily due to the impact of the "traditional markets".

And using a rate of growth as being somehow significant when the gap is as wide as it is may also be misleading. A team with $120 MM in revenues could grow a mere 3%, which would be $3.2 MM in additional revenue. A team with $56 MM in HRR would need to grow at almost double that rate to get the same amount of real cash-- 5.7%.

As to your second point, if you have the bigger markets with the 5% or higher rates of growth, and the 'have nots' failing to grow at all, "Houston, we have a problem".

 

[C77]

From the article:



Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/industri...sed-to-make-northern-migration/#ixzz1OtJVS2sG

And that's the problem; the huge gap.

Sure league revenues are up, but that's largely due to the traditional markets where ticket prices are higher than ever as are TV ratings. The non-traditional markets are, for the most part, dragging the league down considerably.

And this is why I think the title of this thread is rather misleading.

It should read more like this: "Seven Franchises Continue to Prop Up NHL"

The business model is not good; the league is pretty much using the profit from the Leafs, Habs, Canucks, Bruins, Flyers, and Rangers to subsidize the losses of a much greater number of teams.

Now of course there are always going to be teams that struggle financially in a big league, but to have the net income of $0 or less for a sum of any 15 teams in the league is very poor.

Basically, if it weren't for the Leafs and Habs in particular with such a strong Canadian dollar, then the league would need drastic changes (cutting half a dozen teams?) because the few remaining teams that actually make money would not even be close to covering the losses of 10+ franchises.

I think one could make the argument right now that the strong Canadian dollar has probably saved a number of franchises in the United States.

 

[eggy2486]

I assume if there's any kind of realistic consideration of a place like Boise, then Madison should be considered (perhaps more potential than Milwaukee), Grand Rapids, and Omaha.

I don't see any of them as NHL markets, but they could be solid AHL teams. The advantage Boise has is that they don't have any hockey competitors in their market, and the Idaho Steelheads have a decent fan base already (~4000 a night, just under the league average). But Madison has to compete with U of Wisconsin, and from what I understand, the locals would rather go to a college game than a pro game. The same problem affects Minnesota but they can get away with an NHL team just by the outstanding number of hockey fans there.

But I think we're both arguing the same original point - that these places shouldn't be seriously considered for NHL.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

I laugh how Houston wasnt on that list...

 

[KevFu]

I just want to point out that every single one of the four sports leagues in North America is talking about relocation and/or re-alignment:

NFL: LA getting a franchise via relocation?
NHL: Winnipeg and realignment
MLB: realignment?
NBA: Sacramento to Anaheim, New Orleans owned by NBA?

MLB also has the Dodgers and Mets fiascos, stadium issues with Oakland and Tampa.
The NFL has the lockout, and the NBA is about to.

For all the talk of how the NHL has failing franchises, the other leagues are at worst "just as messed up."