NHL Season cancellation costs 400 million in ad revenue

[Greschner4]

Did I say the economy grew 386% in the 90's? No. But there's no doubt that the economy did grow and there was more money avalible to be invested in pro sports. Hockey is one of the 4 major sports and by the time Bettman became commissioner it was pretty obvious they were going to be on national television, it was just a matter of when and where. To me, any other commish could have gotten the same result as far as TV goes, so I don't credit Bettman for doing an awsome job with it.

But I'll ask again, where is the NHL's deal today? Whatever Bettman did in the 90's, where is the TV deal now? Is it not pretty much back to where it was when Bettman started? And now they're at risk of losing ESPN as well. You can't give Bettman that much credit for growth when most of that growth has regressed over time.

And I understand that 5 of the teams were in before Bettman started, but since he became commissioner I would say 2 of his 4 expansion teams are in shaky markets for an NHL team. 50% is not a very good success rate when you are talking about a multi-billion dollar industry and franchises that cost millions of dollars. If you are going to expand, you need to do it right all the time otherwise it isn't worth it. On top of that, Bettman brought teams from hockey markets to Carolina and Phoenix.

Only 17 of the 30 teams have existed in their markets continuously since 1990. That's not that long ago.

If you're in only your 15th year as a season ticket holder in an established market, nearly HALF of your games are against franchises that weren't even in existence when you started.

That's simply way too much change way too fast. No other sports league has changed franchises anywhere remotely close to that fast.

It was obviously done to get a geographic footprint for TV, but that strategy has failed dreadfully.

 

[kdb209]

A followup question. If the NLRB did decide to hear the PA's complaint, and there is a lengthy resolution period, would the league be allowed to continue to operate during that period?

Yes. The league could declare an impasse, impose there last offer as the new CBA, and end the lockout and open up camps.

It would then be up to the players to vote to strike. Here is where it gets interesting. Up until now, Goodenow and the excecutive committee have been able to keep the rank-and-file out of it. But in order to strike, there will need to be a secret ballot by all the players - effectively a vote on the owners impasse CBA. Looking at what they've lost already and the uncertain prospects ahead, I think many players would vote against a strike, and come back.

If they do vote to strike, players will then have to decide individually whether to cross the line as replacements, the PA will appeal to the NLRB and provincial boards. The league will be able to play for the months that the NLRB will take to rule. If the NLRB eventually rules against the league, they will be responsible for damages and the old (pre lockout) CBA will be ruled in force until a new CBA is negotiated.

Even if the PA doesn't strike or the NLRB does uphold the impasse, the impasse CBA is only temporary. A new permanent CBA will eventually have to be negotiated between the league and the PA.

 

[codswallop]

Atlanta's a mediocre sports town to begin with and they've already had and lost hockey. In the first go-round their ownership saw -- correctly -- that it's wiser to operate a hockey franchise in Calgary than in Atlanta.

I have to repeat this story, again. The owner of the Atlanta Flames lost big when the real estate market hit the skids in the late 70s. He was more than happy with the team in Atlanta, but he just couldn't afford to keep it after his primary business took this huge hit. There were several offers to keep the team in Atlanta but the group from Calgary was pretty much waiting for a chance like this, thier offer was nearly double the others. The deal was too sweet, the league approved the move.

Atlanta had three pro sports teams before the Thrash that they didn't support very well. Including another winter sport that they support horribly.

It is a pretty fair-weather sports town, I won't deny that. But the Braves and, more recently, the Falcons have received good support. Largely because they're winning, but that happens in just about any sport in any city (with few exceptions).

Though I do believe the lockout has helped the attendance for our ECHL team, near or at the top of the league last time I checked.

The Thrash revenues and attendance are near the bottom of the league.

Pretty much, yeah. Can't deny that. Only possible rebuttal is that this is just about where the team was projected to be after only five years in the league. Ask knowledgeable hockey people, and you'll hear nearly everyone of them say Atlanta is being built the right way. Patient, low payroll, trying to build a collection of young talent to be the backbone of their team in the future.
They were being to succeed in the future, and that future is nearly here.

But I guess no one seems to have patience around here. Especially those who offer up opinions about a team, a city and its people, that they know little about. I'd like to go off on a rant about situations in places like New York or Toronto, but I see that I don't have enough real knowledge to do so. And I know that presuming can get you into trouble.

 

[mooseOAK*]

I think that it was incumbent on the league to at least give Atlanta, the 11th largest market in North America just below Dallas and above Toronto, a chance to see if they can support an NHL team.

Not to do that would be more of a bad marketing move than putting a team there.

 

[Holly Gunning]

Though I do believe the lockout has helped the attendance for our ECHL team, near or at the top of the league last time I checked.

Yes, the Gwinnett Gladiators, in suburban Atlanta, lead the ECHL in attendance with around 6300. This is a 25% increase over last season, which was also a very good year for them, even with the Thrashers playing.

Interestingly, the Thrashers attendance rose the most in the Eastern conference last season (compared to 2002-03), the same time the Glads started. I think the Thrashers were 21st in the league in attendance last season, which isn't quite "at or near the bottom" as characterized.

There's plenty of hockey fans to go around in the metro area of over 4 million.

 

[mr gib]

I have to repeat this story, again. The owner of the Atlanta Flames lost big when the real estate market hit the skids in the late 70s. He was more than happy with the team in Atlanta, but he just couldn't afford to keep it after his primary business took this huge hit. There were several offers to keep the team in Atlanta but the group from Calgary was pretty much waiting for a chance like this, thier offer was nearly double the others. The deal was too sweet, the league approved the move.



It is a pretty fair-weather sports town, I won't deny that. But the Braves and, more recently, the Falcons have received good support. Largely because they're winning, but that happens in just about any sport in any city (with few exceptions).

Though I do believe the lockout has helped the attendance for our ECHL team, near or at the top of the league last time I checked.



Pretty much, yeah. Can't deny that. Only possible rebuttal is that this is just about where the team was projected to be after only five years in the league. Ask knowledgeable hockey people, and you'll hear nearly everyone of them say Atlanta is being built the right way. Patient, low payroll, trying to build a collection of young talent to be the backbone of their team in the future.
They were being to succeed in the future, and that future is nearly here.

But I guess no one seems to have patience around here. Especially those who offer up opinions about a team, a city and its people, that they know little about. I'd like to go off on a rant about situations in places like New York or Toronto, but I see that I don't have enough real knowledge to do so. And I know that presuming can get you into trouble.

good post - amidst all the crap going on - i don't think contraction or relocation is the answer - the game needs time to grow in non - traditional markets - where would the league be without san jose - st louis - and the other cities where they said it wouldn't work that are doing well - minny's been a huge - gate - success - and denver - not bad -

 

[codswallop]

I think that it was incumbent on the league to at least give Atlanta, the 11th largest market in North America just below Dallas and above Toronto, a chance to see if they can support an NHL team.

Not to do that would be more of a bad marketing move than putting a team there.

Demographics played a part as well. All of the businesses in the city (including more than a few giants) bring in people from just about everywhere to live here. It was estimated that at least a third of the metro population was from the north.

Atlanta's name wasn't picked out of a hat for expansion, and it wasn't just because they had a team before. There were other, very relevant reasons why. Not that some people will believe but, hey, what can you do?

 

[NYIsles1*]

I'd like to go off on a rant about situations in places like New York or Toronto, but I see that I don't have enough real knowledge to do so. And I know that presuming can get you into trouble.

It's kind of ironic because the Rangers may have more problems than the Thrashers.

No team claimed to lose more money than the Rangers, not only according to Levitt, but industry sources in New York with estimates between 25-40 million.

Anyone who goes to a game at Msg know's the seats are almost never filled and the attendance is padded by ownership. Seats are almost always available on gamedays.

Newsday claims Ranger television ratings were equal to only 60,000 homes on avg per telecast last season.

Looking ahead how are the Rangers going to get fan or corporate support who would not support a team with an 80 million dollar payroll to support one at 30-40 million? This is a market where the Yankees have a 200m dollar team and all the media, marketing and advertising. The Mets are leaving Msg so there will be no summer programming.

The Fox-Msg merger ended today also with Murdoch going his own way and both sides dividing up ownerhip.

 

[Greschner4]

It's kind of ironic because the Rangers may have more problems than the Thrashers.

No team claimed to lose more money than the Rangers, not only according to Levitt, but industry sources in New York.
Anyone who goes to a game at Msg know's the seats are almost never filled and the attendance is padded by ownership. Seats are almost always available on gameday.

Newsday claims Ranger television ratings were equal to only 60,000 homes on avg per telecast last season.

Looking ahead how are the Rangers going to get fan or corporate support who did not support a team with an 80 million dollar payroll to support one with a 30-40 million dollar payroll? This is a market where the Yankees have a 200m dollar team and all the media, marketing and advertising.

You've made the same silly argument about the Rangers about ten different times now. We get the point ... and it's way off.

 

[Strangelove]

I'd far rather have $3 billion in revenues and a brain in my head....

Your "Stupid Billionaire" theory was doomed from the get go.

An oxymoron....

 

[NYIsles1*]

You've made the same silly argument about the Rangers about ten different times now. We get the point ... and it's way off.

If you got the point you would not blame other markets without blaming your own with them.

If the trap is ruining hockey why did the Rangers hire Tom Renney to teach Sather and his 80m dollar team to trap themselves?

Pat Quinn does not play a trap in Toronto and his team gives the league a good show.

There is nothing off about my argument at all, those are the numbers. Feel free to debate the articles (below) because I'm not making up this information. I have another recent article if you want to read that also?

Steve Zipay of Newsday on 12/14/04 wrote the article on the Rangers poor cable ratings, the link does not work but Zipay's article was about cablevision not refunding local hockey fans cable fees because so few were watching, which is when he specifically brought up the television ratings.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/story/232240p-199467c.htmlhttp://www.nydailynews.com/sports/h...0p-199467c.html

The Daily News has learned that the Rangers were among the teams to have claimed to have lost the most money last season - approximately $40 million.

http://www.nypost.com/business/28740.htm
9/17 article-link does not work..

The owners of the perennially money-losing Rangers hockey team are going to plug up a big red-ink hole with the National Hockey League shutdown of the season.

The Rangers haven't made the playoffs in seven years or any profits
in years. In fact, industry sources say the team loses between $25 million and $30 million a year with its highly paid players and steep overhead in Madison Square Garden arena.

http://washingtontimes.com/sports/2...24222-3766r.htm

But union officials say more than two-thirds of a listed $224 million loss for the 2003-04 season was because of six teams and about a third arose from just New York-area teams. Saskin declined to identify those teams, but both the Rangers and Islanders have sustained heavy losses in recent years.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/story/270716p-231824c.html

 

[hockeytown9321]

He got the NHL its first ever national broadcast contract in the U.S. and the two largest TV contracts in league history, bringing in more than $755 million to owners since 1995. In fact, the 1999 deal with ABC represented a 386 percent increase over the previous deal's value. How many leagues have seen comparable growth?
Those darn facts.

The NHL had national TV long beofre Bettman. They were on NBC during the Campbell days, and they've obviously been on ESPN further back than 1993.

Yeah, he might've gotten those TV deals, but he didn't get them because he was a great salesman of the game. I could've been in his position and gotten the same deal. He's also overseen the game degeneartion to the point it mostl likely won't have an ESPN deal when it comes back, and the NBC deal probably won't be renewed after next year.

 

[Mothra]

I'd far rather have $3 billion in revenues and a brain in my head to prevent me from spending $3.5 billion.

After reading your posts on this thread I am afraid I have to tell you....you are 0 for 2

 

[CarlRacki]

On top of that, Bettman brought teams from hockey markets to Carolina and Phoenix.

If an owner wants to move his franchise, there's nothing a commissioner or league can do about it other than make it a little more difficult. Al Davis and Art Modell proved this in the NFL and Donald Sterling did the same in the NBA. You're blaming Bettman for something well outside his control.

 

[sickboy35]

thats another job for gary - how do you think he'll do? -

he will fail once again! he used to that by now. over ten years with the league and has no idea how to market the sport! glowing pucks? what a joke that was. now i'm not saying i could do better job but thats his job to find the best marketers in the business and let them handle the way to reach your casual fan! this sport is not in good shape as is and then they cancel a whole season? thank you mr.bettman & mr.goodenow! :lol

 

[GKJ]

If an owner wants to move his franchise, there's nothing a commissioner or league can do about it other than make it a little more difficult. Al Davis and Art Modell proved this in the NFL and Donald Sterling did the same in the NBA. You're blaming Bettman for something well outside his control.

Didn't the old owners of the Oilers try and move the team and Bettman wouldn't let them?

 

[nyr7andcounting]

If an owner wants to move his franchise, there's nothing a commissioner or league can do about it other than make it a little more difficult. Al Davis and Art Modell proved this in the NFL and Donald Sterling did the same in the NBA. You're blaming Bettman for something well outside his control.

Point was the league was smaller and more concentrated in hockey cities when Bettman took over. Since then we've seen teams move to or expand to cities that really don't much much of a hockey base. It happened for many reasons but I don't doubt that a huge part of it was that Bettman and the owners wanted the expansion money that came with Nashville and Atlanta.

But anyway, you still haven't replied to my question about the TV deals that you claim have been so succesful with Bettman in charge. What TV deal the NHL had in 1996 doesn't do them much good right now. No matter what Bettman did right or wrong, he obviously has done more wrong because look at where the TV deal has ended up. Most if not all of the progress Bettman made as far as national TV goes has regressed.