Anisimovs AK
Registered User
It is. For someone that routinely posts like he knows everything Id expect him to know something. Guess I'll keep dreaming.
The NHL made $4.86 Billion in 2017/2018, and $5.09 Billion in 2018/19
Quebec still in discussions.
- Thread starter Dynamite Kid
- Start date
- Status
The NHL made $4.86 Billion in 2017/2018, and $5.09 Billion in 2018/19
GuelphStormer
Registered User
I do not doubt this, but do you know how this loosely breaks down? national contracts versus (which) local markets? thanks
Pandemonia
Registered User
- Aug 30, 2020
- 769
- 1,322
Yeah, diff guys talking cross purpose about diff things. Major staple in this place.
Ernie
Registered User
- Aug 3, 2004
- 12,831
- 2,277
Best not to have things on your bucket list that you have no control over and are unlikely to happen.
Anisimovs AK
Registered User
$200 a year from NBC, roughly $140 million from MLB'S Bamtech and ESPN Plus for digital rights, roughly $400 million from Canadian tv, then the rest from international rights.
Teams negotiate their local tv/radio contracts separately from the league, which is why I only included the national contracts. For example, San Jose has a somewhat notoriously poor local tv deal, whereas the Kings make $20 million a year from their local deal
KevFu
Registered User
The t-shirt thing is just a quick, simple visual example of the principle of potential growth at work. A franchise like Arizona or Florida CAN WORK to make people care about their product. But franchises like Buffalo, Carolina and Winnipeg can't control how many people live in their markets. There's nothing they can do to increase that number without a comic book villain's scheme to sneak fertility drugs into the water supply.
Operating income is essentially meaningless though. Not making money and CAN'T make money are two different things.
The Thrashers essentially got evicted from Atlanta by their own owners. If you look at other popular BOH topics:
1. The Islanders had a terrible lease until 2015 that crippled them financially and the franchise was just terrible and killing time until the lease was up.
2. In Houston, we acknowledge that "no one" can get an NHL team there except for the owner of the Rockets because of the clauses in his lease to the Toyota Center.
The owners of the Atlanta Hawks/Thrashers controlled the lease to Philips Arena (no clue what it's called now), and when they put the Thrashers up for sale, it essentially created a situation just like those.
For the Thrashers to stay in Atlanta, a new local owner would have to buy the team and VOLUNTEER FOR THAT Islanders situation. Just like anyone trying to bring an NHL team has to cut a deal with the Rockets owner (aka, Volunteer for that Islanders/SMG situation). Because those are terrible options, no one was interested in buying the Thrashers to keep them in Atlanta, so the NHL quickly got the deal done with True North so they could shuffle off to Winnipeg.
As someone with a Nordiques avatar, you should understand that markets don't fail. Teams move because of circumstance. If your arena is old, or your lease is terrible, or your arena is in a terrible location... then you can't bring in revenue streams that everyone else can bring in and you fall behind. And when no one wants to buy the team under those conditions, there's no choice but relocation. That's what happened to the Nordiques (old arena, owner had to sell to Colorado). No one in their right mind would call Quebec City a "failed market." So we should recognize the same situations in other cities.
Stumbledore
Registered User
I like most of your post but you're grossly over-simplifying the battle between owner Marcel Aubut (an avowed federalist) and premier Jacques Parizeau (an avowed separatist). While you claim no one wanted to buy the team and the owner had to sell, Aubut had more than one offer for the team - heck, even Parizeau offered to buy them - but Aubut decided to stick it to Parizeau by quickly selling the team to Denver.
A couple of quotes from the Canadian Encyclopedia give a glimpse into the problem:
"Aubut claimed that the team could not survive in the NHL's smallest market without a new, publicly funded arena and ongoing government support. But Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau instead offered to buy out Aubut and underwrite some team deficits for two years while the provincial government conducted a feasibility study on the arena. That, the owners decided, was not enough - and now the soon-to-be-renamed Nordiques are off to Denver."
"When asked if the province would make a last-ditch effort to save the team, Parizeau replied: "I have more important things to deal with than Mr. Aubut's every little twitch."
Ouch!
You need to take a trip out east. In terms of hockey, things are way different from even 2004. The lockouts did a number on popularity.
Stumbledore
Registered User
My travelling days are over but I agree things are way different now. Lockouts did damage the popularity of hockey, but I think the soaring costs will have a much larger impact. A kid's equipment practically bankrupts a family and the cost of ice time is ridiculous. Given how relatively inexpensive it is for a kid to take up soccer or basketball, I expect that in a decade or two they will pass hockey in terms of player registrations.
But to call hockey a niche sport in Canada really reflections a willful ignorance of how things are in the Great White North.
KevFu
Registered User
Extremely valid point. I admit not being totally up to expert level knowledge on nuances of that situation, so thank you for offering me more insight.
That being said, those nuances and details are exactly the same kind of thing that illustrates the point: situations and nuances are to blame and not "the market failed." Politics blocked a solution from being possible before Aubut gave up and sold.
I used to point out that the New York metro area had three teams, and their rankings in revenues were 2, 15 and 29. You can't look at team 29 and call the market a failure when same market has 2nd team in revenue. You have to look at the circumstances between the two: Rangers operate MSG, Islanders had terrible lease leeching off revenue streams.
I'd say that 90% of people here or more think that Nordiques 2.0 would be quite successful in a new, modern arena, which has already been built. With a new arena, they would have been able to keep up with modern revenue streams.
- Jan 22, 2007
- 14,430
- 7,184
Having a hard cap--and lucrative TV deals--in place would help the Nords 2.0 a lot IMO.
MMC
Global Moderator
I hope Quebec doesn't get a team any time soon. I'd much rather them take advantage of some new markets that have a chance at bringing tremendous growth to the league, vs a retread like QC where a team won't be very profitable or grow the league at all.
GuelphStormer
Registered User
in theory you may be right but all told, well over a billion dollars has been wasted in Phoenix growing the game.
I'd much rather see the NHL take advantage of fans it already has in markets that are underserved.
End on a Hinote
Registered Abuser
Not really on topic, but your preaching to the choir on this one.
If you think its hard living in a city where people think that, try living in a whole country. One team (Ottawa) is struggling in ticket sales and many non-Canadian fans now think no where in the entire country can support a team anymore with some thinking a couple should even be relocated.
KevFu
Registered User
But you can DO BOTH.
And it's actually smart to do both. I know I mentioned this a while back (like 2013) when I was reading tea-leaves about rumors of "Quebec and Markham after the new CBA" and "Coyotes might go to Seattle... or Portland" and then they expanded with Vegas...
If you were going to grow the league from 30 to 36, you'd want:
Slam dunk successful markets (Quebec, GTA2/Markham)
Probable successful markets that open up the Pacific Northwest (Portland, Seattle)
A big TV market that will most-likely be solid based on a peer success story (Houston)
An experiment that would bring massive media attention to the league (Las Vegas)
That's two eastern time zone teams, and four non-ETZ teams, providing balance and happiness.
Another expansion/relocation article with a twist
MMC
Global Moderator
Phoenix would do fine if the team was ran competently. Other non-traditional markets had similar issues before finding success.
MMC
Global Moderator
What makes a market deserved or undeserved though? What makes Quebec City "deserve" a NHL team? I see so many people acting like the market is entitled to a team just because there are a ton of hockey fans, but that really isn't how this works. What exactly does Quebec have to offer the NHL, that Portland or Houston doesn't?
MMC
Global Moderator
If the NHL expands to 34, I wouldn't mind seeing Quebec City as the Eastern market to keep the conferences balanced, alongside a Portland or Houston, but I wouldn't want to see a team in an existing market relocate there.
KevFu
Registered User
Good stuff.
Right, Tampa was a disaster for a decade or two. In an 12-year span from 1998-2010, Tampa had five different owners, the same number Arizona has had from 2008-2020. Now, Tampa are rock stars, with revenues doubling, value tripling and attendance being like 95+ percent under Vinik.
I don't like "deserve" as a part of expansion city discussions. But Quebec City is obviously a market where the NHL can and would be successful with a modern NHL arena and the revenue it provides. Something we've NEVER SEEN because the Colisee was 30 years old when the Nordiques joined the NHL (maybe because I'm an Islanders fan, I can easily recognize this, and feel a kinship; I don't know).
Plus I think with Bettman being 68 years old and entering his last chapter as commissioner, I think that the "legacy shopping" aspect makes perfect sense. Expansion takes time (I'm like, quoting myself on teams 33-36 from posts I wrote in 2013!), so I think he has a rough sketch for an exit plan. Vegas, Seattle, (Portland/San Diego/Other west team), Quebec, Houston and broker a Rogers/Bell divorce for a second Southern Ontario team; Then retires with the NHL having overseen a robust expansion to every part of the US, nine Canadian teams and his biggest correctable failures (Quebec, Minnesota, Winnipeg) fixed.
I agree because I don't think we have any markets really worth giving up on. The Coyotes have been a nightmare, but nothing a new arena in a centralized location couldn't fix. If anyone relocated, I would think Florida to Atlanta (or long-shot legacy shopping: Hartford). You don't need teams in Miami, Phoenix, Dallas, or hypothetically Houston being top 10 in revenue, winning 75% of Cups, selling out every night. You just need them as teams in the league that function like other healthy teams in the league: Good years, down years, win a Cup every 30 years or so. Basically what Dallas has been.
Right, Tampa was a disaster for a decade or two. In an 12-year span from 1998-2010, Tampa had five different owners, the same number Arizona has had from 2008-2020. Now, Tampa are rock stars, with revenues doubling, value tripling and attendance being like 95+ percent under Vinik.
I don't like "deserve" as a part of expansion city discussions. But Quebec City is obviously a market where the NHL can and would be successful with a modern NHL arena and the revenue it provides. Something we've NEVER SEEN because the Colisee was 30 years old when the Nordiques joined the NHL (maybe because I'm an Islanders fan, I can easily recognize this, and feel a kinship; I don't know).
Plus I think with Bettman being 68 years old and entering his last chapter as commissioner, I think that the "legacy shopping" aspect makes perfect sense. Expansion takes time (I'm like, quoting myself on teams 33-36 from posts I wrote in 2013!), so I think he has a rough sketch for an exit plan. Vegas, Seattle, (Portland/San Diego/Other west team), Quebec, Houston and broker a Rogers/Bell divorce for a second Southern Ontario team; Then retires with the NHL having overseen a robust expansion to every part of the US, nine Canadian teams and his biggest correctable failures (Quebec, Minnesota, Winnipeg) fixed.
I agree because I don't think we have any markets really worth giving up on. The Coyotes have been a nightmare, but nothing a new arena in a centralized location couldn't fix. If anyone relocated, I would think Florida to Atlanta (or long-shot legacy shopping: Hartford). You don't need teams in Miami, Phoenix, Dallas, or hypothetically Houston being top 10 in revenue, winning 75% of Cups, selling out every night. You just need them as teams in the league that function like other healthy teams in the league: Good years, down years, win a Cup every 30 years or so. Basically what Dallas has been.
GuelphStormer
Registered User
and they've been saying that for how long? meanwhile, wooosh goes another ten, twenty, hundred, two-hundred million dollars. that money will never be recouped. never.
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
Yup..... terrible.....
https://www.si.com/nhl/2018/08/25/arizona-hockey-growth-coyotes-auston-matthews
Really bad........
With Lyndsey Fry’s guidance, hockey among females in Arizona is booming
It just continues to suck......
Hockey Continues To Thrive In Arizona
Why do two of those stories focus on women? The last time I checked only 1 woman had ever played in the NHL.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
HF Habs: U18 World Men's Hockey Championship, April 25-May 5- Latest: WeThreeKings
-
-
