That's funny, I was just in the Phoenix thread thinking Coyote relocationists are like Flat Earthers, then read this. How apropos.
Quebec still waiting patiently.
- Thread starter Dynamite Kid
- Start date
That's funny, I was just in the Phoenix thread thinking Coyote relocationists are like Flat Earthers, then read this. How apropos.
mikelvl
Registered User
It's a automatic relocation to Houston because that is what Jeremy Jacobs wants. Quebec City needs a perfect storm at this point with an Eastern Conference team in order to get back in, similar to what happened with Winnipeg.
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
If Jacobs has that much influence then it stands to reason he’s probably a primary reason why the Coyotes are still in Arizona.
So much for that narrative......
NEXT!!!!
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
mikelvl
Registered User
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,231
- 8,647
They're not getting an arena built with financial help from the City of Phoenix, so ...
I have an unpopular opinion on this shared by a Federal Economist buddy of mine.
Hockey fans in Quebec already support the Habs. Adding a team in Quebec won't add many new hockey fans, it will just cannibalize the fanbase they already have.
Quebec already kind of has a team to cheer for. Adding Quebec doesn't 'grow' the game at all.
Hockey fans in Quebec already support the Habs. Adding a team in Quebec won't add many new hockey fans, it will just cannibalize the fanbase they already have.
Quebec already kind of has a team to cheer for. Adding Quebec doesn't 'grow' the game at all.
It's the same thing that happened in Ottawa and the same reason Hamilton doesn't get a team and Toronto doesn't get a second team. No need to move people from one fanbase to another.
mikelvl
Registered User
But how do you make more money, by selling out two arenas in the Province of Quebec, or by selling out one arena in Quebec and a half filled arena in Houston or Carolina or Phoenix. I don't think the location should matter. It's will they buy the tickets. And I think they will buy the tickets and sell out in both Montreal and Quebec City. The Leaf tickets are so expensive, they must have phased out a whole group of fans. I think a second Toronto team would work as well.
And this is not a shot at the Sunbelt teams, just saying that two sold out arenas are better than one.
Sports teams aren't gate driven anymore, at least not to the extent they were. Corporate seats suites and sponsorships make a lot more money than ticket sales. 2 sold out arenas would equate to more fans going to games, but it would probably split the corporate seat, suite and sponsorship money as well. The 18500 fans that switch loyalties may also depress ticket prices overall especially when one or both teams are less than stellar. I get that fans in Quebec want and tbh deserve a new team. I would be dead set against it if I was an owner, because if that happened to Montreal today, who says it couldn't happen to my team a year or a decade from now. I would look to keep putting franchises away from existing teams. (note I am not an owner and even as a Coyotes fan why they are still here is a mystery to me. I hope that for the first time they have stability, however I am a student of history). Owners care about $$ and market share, as well as travel and balance of the league. I think any fan base that lost a team should have first shot at another if they can locate an owner, a building, and a revenue stream. I would even say that the expansion fee should be halved. This is why I am not in the position to be an owner.
This is a good post, it that it brings up a very important point.......
For all of the members of the BOG, the question is NOT, "How much money will the local owner make on a sold out arena?" Nor is it, "How much money does Carolina make or lose every year (as an example)?"
The question that the BOG asks themselves is, "Where can there be teams which increase the shared revenue, so that I get a bigger piece of the pie myself?" That usually means TV and merchandise.
And, with that in mind, it's easier to see that Jacobs and others don't have a good reason to care about the Quebec arena, because a new Nordiques isn't going to greatly change the Canadian TV contract. This is what is meant by moving fans from one team to another. It doesn't benefit the other owners at all, really. They don't get anything is Centre Videotron is sold out.
Compare with Seattle. Seattle in the league should bring more attention to NHL hockey in the NW part of the US, and thus benefit the other owners.
That's as clear as I can explain it.
GuelphStormer
Registered User
a) compared to other pro sports in north america, the NHL is still very much a gate-driven revenue base. between 30% to 55% of team-based, total HHR revenues (including national broadcast share) are gate. that's a gate-driven league. as Ive said in the past, if the NFL simply decided to let folks into games for free and forfeited all ticket revenues, the league would still do quite well (because it's television contracts are so massive). the NHL would die.
b) can you please provide evidence that "Corporate seats suites and sponsorships make a lot more money than ticket sales"? i have a hard time thinking that is true. (note that arena naming rights are not generally considered HRR).
c) i completely disagree that patronage is substitutive. fans will not exclusively "switch". yes, while a higher proportion of folks in Canada and Southern Ontario in particular already do watch games on TV and a new team might not necessarily proportionally generate as many new fans compared to other traditionally non-hockey markets, games would still both sell-out. and besides, that's not the way broadcasting and advertising revenues work. more local teams mean more local viewing ... simply put, a single viewer who watches two games is just as valuable to an advertiser as two different viewers who each watch just one game. how a team in Seattle or Hamilton, on the other hand, might affect national broadcast contracts with the league is anybody's guess and is complicated by timing of renewal, and the fact that there exist two different national contracts. i remain unconvinced that NBC or whoever would be willing to pay any appreciable increase in a national contract with the NHL if there was versus not a team in Seattle. we can all think they would, but nobody knows.
i think the owners are more concerned about their own individual placement within the revenue structure and how new teams - and their new revenues - may or may not affect revenue sharing. that Hamilton would immediately become a top five revenue earner (as acknowledged by the NHL during coyotes BK trial) would shift around who pays and who gets how much shared revenues, as would a middling team in Seattle (but for different reasons.) indeed, the biggest knock against Hamilton is that it would make too much money, thus raising total HHR and therefore the salary cap.
Hal1971
Registered User
A lot a "dormant" fan in quebec will become active again if the Nordiques return, I am one of them. I dont watch NHL games on TV or buy merchandise, I simply stopped caring for NHL when the nordiques left and a lot of quebec fans also. it's not true that we all shifted from one fan base to an another. yes the gain will not be like a new market (Vegas and Seatlle) and I totally understand why NHL goes there. Yes adding a team in quebec will not benefit Jacobs and the others, but moving a team to quebec will. That's why I still think that our future is by relocation...
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Why do you think moving a team will benefit NHL but not adding a team to QC? What's the difference?
We agree on the gate revenue being 35 to 55% which is a smaller % than it used to be, therefore sponsorships are comparatively a larger piece of the pie than they used to be. I am not saying the gate doesn't matter just that individuals are a smaller % relative to a teams financial success than corporations and sponsorships - lets say all non gate driven revenue HRR or just $ as they all go into the owners pockets at the end of the day. Quite a few lower bowl and almost all suites are sold to corporations either as incentives for customers or benefits for the employees. I don't believe that gate revenue is unimportant, or the league would do just fine without it. All I am saying is that gate, especially individual fans excluding corporate purchases are a smaller part of the overall revenue pie than they once were. This trend is probably going to continue in the near future.
I come in peace. Its cool to disagree, don't really have an agenda here. I am a horrible business owner, if I ran the league I would immediately expand to 3 cities. Houston, Quebec, Hamilton would be no brainers for me. Is Toronto going to be happy to lose 3000 tickets to a Hamilton team or 20% of market share? Is Montreal going to be happy about Nordiques fans leaving? The owners run the league and if they wanted to have more teams they would already have them. I agree that the financials would be sound for these teams, but I believe that the existing teams are happy with the way things are. Owners want their expansion fees and to put teams where there will be little competition. Think about what would happen if the Knights were in Hamilton instead of Vegas. How would that work out for the Leafs. Why give up any % of market share, especially since unless you are a revenue sharing team they do nothing for your teams bottom line. I agree with you about Hamilton it would be a gold mine. If each owner was a shareholder then again its a no brainer since the league would be stronger but I do not believe that the owners want to open up their geographic areas to competition. Its good for the game but bad for the owners interest. My experience in life is if you pay for an exclusive thing, you do not want to share it. I have no evidence to support this but its been my experience.
voyageur
Hockey fanatic
- Jul 10, 2011
- 9,467
- 8,157
It's Anschultz who wants the team in Arizona no? Wrong governor. The NHL has no place in the West to move Arizona, that's the only reason they still have a team, with a field of schemes. If Houston wanted in, at a price that makes the league look profitable, the Coyotes would be sold right from under the fans noses.
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
Well the league has had no less than three separate opportunities to move the franchise since 2009 and end up looking profitable...... and they haven't done it.
Thanks for playing.
Hal1971
Registered User
You take a team that is losing money in a market and put it in a market where it will make money.
let say the team lose 10 millions per year, you put it in a market where it will generate 10 millions. you gain 20 millions, no need to have a draft, unbalance the division, etc
I personnaly think that behind door, quebec was told that if they are able to wait, one way or other a team will have to move.
You could be right, but let's play a game....
Choose Florida. This franchise claims to be losing money in Sunrise, and that's why they asked a subsidy from Broward County. (Florida fans, don't jump on me, this is just hypothetical.)
Now the owner sells to Quebecor, or some super rich private individual in Quebec.
Very true that the league doesn't need to mess with an expansion draft. The other owners also lose about 40M each from not cashing the expansion fee.
But how does the league itself benefit from this relocation? Answer: It doesn't. The league wasn't losing money. The FL owner was. The league won't make money in Quebec. Their owner will.
That's why this is so hard. Increasing league wide HRR does one thing - it looks good. That's all.
GuelphStormer
Registered User
to add, the league can also charge a relocation fee, and while it is supposed to be based on the difference in market values, it can be somewhat flexible and if new ownership is involved, it's generally backed out from what the proposed value of the new franchise in in X city, less the sale price. like an expansion fee, that relo fee is shared among teams/owners and in most cases that will be much less than an expansion fee. (your hypothetical value of $40m is high, i think, it's more realistically half that, based on $650m/31)
also, when a team goes from losing money to making money (regardless of whether they stay or are relocated) that will likely affect ranked order of revenues and who gets what in revenue sharing. other teams/owners on the bubble of either receiving revenue sharing or paying into revenue sharing may now find themselves better or worse off, depending on where that particular team now ranks.
And, continuing.....The extra HRR in the relocated receiving market raises the cap structure, which ends up costing the existing teams.
Let's try an exercise again:
Expand to Quebec, which ends up 20th in HRR (this is probably a good guess, given the CDN$):
Every owner gets 22M? (about 650/31, plus a little).
Since the new team is so close to the middle of HRR, there will little appreciable effect on salary caps.
The presence of QC "Might" mean 50M more per year in a CDN media contract, so that's about 1.5M each per year.
Since QC is also mid-pack, there is little effect on revenue redistribution.
Relocate Florida:
Sale price 400M, relo fee 250M, all owners get 8M.
Because QC does better than FL as a market, the cap goes up by about 1/2M for everyone.
All the 8 or so teams with less revenue than QC will see a bigger redistribution check. All other teams? Little change, except the big boys might pay just a little bit less.
Media? Exactly the same. The US contract isn't going to change by losing Miami.
Total comparison:
Expansion nets the other owners a 13M check (difference between relo and expansion fees)
Relo costs the owners slightly in salary cap.
Higher revenue clubs would prefer relo by a tiny margin in revenue redistribution.
All in all, the other owners might slightly favor an expansion. But it's not really a huge boost to them to expand. One 22M check for the fee is a small piece of their financials.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
I don’t know about that. Miami is a pretty big market and I think NHL should try to keep a team there. If the team becomes legit contenders it could be a boon for them.
As noted its going to take a special cast for quebec to get a team again and it won't be just any relocation. I still think if the new owner of the coyotes can't get an arena done, the team is heading to houston. NHL will do what has the lease resistance. The BOGs aren't gonna vote for a coyotes to quebec relocation cause of the same reason why they didn't give them team #32 back with the 2015 expansion process.
