Much like flat Earthers, pro-Melnyk people deserve only the harshest put downs and most prickly euthanasia needles.
That's funny, I was just in the Phoenix thread thinking Coyote relocationists are like Flat Earthers, then read this. How apropos.
Much like flat Earthers, pro-Melnyk people deserve only the harshest put downs and most prickly euthanasia needles.
I doubt its quebec for the same reason why Quebec didn't get expansion in 2015 expansion process they do not want a 17 team there and i doubt they also want quebec playing in the central division either.
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.
Pelicans are always rumored for relocationIt's the whole quantity vs. quality thing. I don't really pay enough attention to the economics of other sports but the NHL isn't the only league with financially dysfunctional franchises I'd assume. Just look at the Rays. I don't know enough to name one in the NBA or NFL (Suns are dysfunctional but not financially I don't think).
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!!!!
They're not getting an arena built with financial help from the City of Phoenix, so ...I'm saying if they can't get an arena built.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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...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.
Why do you think moving a team will benefit NHL but not adding a team to QC? What's the difference?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...
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.[/INDENT]
GuelphStormer, Today at 7:36 AM Report Bookmark
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!!!!
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.
You take a team that is losing money in a market and put it in a market where it will make money.Why do you think moving a team will benefit NHL but not adding a team to QC? What's the difference?
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.
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)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.
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 $650m/31)
also, when a team goes from losing money to making money (regardless of whether they stay or are relocated) that will likely affect ranked order of revenues and who gets what in revenue sharing. other teams/owners on the bubble of either receiving revenue sharing or paying into revenue sharing may now find themselves better or worse off, depending on where that particular team now ranks.
I don’t know about that. Miami is a pretty big market and I think NHL should try to keep a team there. If the team becomes legit contenders it could be a boon for them.And, continuing.....The extra HRR in the relocated receiving market raises the cap structure, which ends up costing the existing teams.
Let's try an exercise again:
Expand to Quebec, which ends up 20th in HRR (this is probably a good guess, given the CDN$):
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.
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.