Really strong attendance numbers

[Gnashville]

SLake i love the ticket prices damn I wish we could even get a snif of a game anywhere around here for those kinds of ticket prices. It costs me almost as much to go see the Knights play here in London as it did to go to see the HABS play in nashville last year.

How was your trip here?? Did you enjoy the Game?? As far as ticket prices go did you also notice the price of gas, Food, hotel rooms as lower or just hockey tickets???

 

[wjhl2009fan]

the numbers may say a sellout. Some may be others they can spin the numbers anyway they want. A lot of these arena's are plenty empty though. Therefore they are not getting the concession money they need and want.

Keep in mind yes it may look like alot of empty seats but in some cases there sold for one reason or another people don't go.

 

[jacketracket*]

We'd be able to boost an average attendance rating of roughly 97% if it wasnt for Florida, New york Islanders, Atlanta (who've been doing better recently), Columbus and those damn Coyotes.

Just move the teams north already and see the surprise attendance records that are set

We'd have been able to boost attendance in the '70s and '80s if we had moved the Wings, Canucks, ... the '90s and '00s if we had moved the Blackhawks, Penguins, Senators, Flames, Bruins, ...

Hell ... move the CBJ in any of the first seven years of their crappy existence, and you'd likely be lowering average attendance.

When does the we're-better-fans-than-you carousel stop?

 

[Fidel Astro]

When does the we're-better-fans-than-you carousel stop?

I think it'll stop if one of two things happens:

a) fans start showing up in the trouble spots (i.e. Phoenix) and showing the league and everyone else that they do, indeed, care about their team.

or

b) the struggling teams are moved up north.

That's about it, really. The first option seems like it should be relatively easy to accomplish, especially with low ticket prices and winning streaks (for some teams), but for some reason it continues to elude them.

Anyway, kudos to the teams that are actually getting solid crowds out night after night.

 

[jacketracket*]

I think it'll stop if one of two things happens:

a) fans start showing up in the trouble spots (i.e. Phoenix) and showing the league and everyone else that they do, indeed, care about their team.

or

b) the struggling teams are moved up north.

That's about it, really. The first option seems like it should be relatively easy to accomplish, especially with low ticket prices and winning streaks (for some teams), but for some reason it continues to elude them.

Anyway, kudos to the teams that are actually getting solid crowds out night after night.

Vancouver? Ottawa? Detroit? Boston? Chicago? New Jersey? Edmonton? Pittsburgh? Calgary?

All these teams - who have had prolonged bouts of "struggling" - should have been moved "up north"?

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

Vancouver? Ottawa? Detroit? Boston? Chicago? New Jersey? Edmonton? Pittsburgh? Calgary?

All these teams - who have had prolonged bouts of "struggling" - should have been moved "up north"?

I have posted this numerous times. It just doesn't catch on.

 

[Fidel Astro]

Vancouver? Ottawa? Detroit? Boston? Chicago? New Jersey? Edmonton? Pittsburgh? Calgary?

All these teams - who have had prolonged bouts of "struggling" - should have been moved "up north"?

I think this has been discussed hundreds of times before in various threads, but, again:

No.

Teams with long histories in proven hockey markets should not be moved, even if they are in prolonged slumps. Teams who have never succeeded since their inception, however, are a different story.

 

[EbencoyE]

I think this has been discussed hundreds of times before in various threads, but, again:

No.

Teams with long histories in proven hockey markets should not be moved, even if they are in prolonged slumps. Teams who have never succeeded since their inception, however, are a different story.

You know that's pretty stupid right?

If you own a hockey team, there's no reason you would give up on a southern city with 20 million people before a northern city with 2 million people, even if they have a "long hockey history". Unless you're a horrible businessman that is.

 

[danishh]

the northern teams, at their worst attendance points, were still getting more revenue per game than some of the various weaker markets in the league.


it's not all about attendance, its about teams with cheap tickets with weak attendance.

 

[Jeffrey93]

You know that's pretty stupid right?

If you own a hockey team, there's no reason you would give up on a southern city with 20 million people before a northern city with 2 million people, even if they have a "long hockey history". Unless you're a horrible businessman that is.

A horrible businessman would keep his operation in a market that isn't buying his product when there are other markets dying to buy his product at much higher prices.

Even if that individual thinks it is smart to keep losing tens of millions in that market, simply because it's bigger....it doesn't do any good for the rest of the league. It harms the league in several ways.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

the northern teams, at their worst attendance points, were still getting more revenue per game than some of the various weaker markets in the league.


it's not all about attendance, its about teams with cheap tickets with weak attendance.

True, but in many cases, you're never going to (eventually) gain revenue until attendance goes up.

 

[HabsByTheBay]

You know that's pretty stupid right?

If you own a hockey team, there's no reason you would give up on a southern city with 20 million people before a northern city with 2 million people, even if they have a "long hockey history". Unless you're a horrible businessman that is.

In that case I'm moving my hockey team to Tokyo.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

the northern teams, at their worst attendance points, were still getting more revenue per game than some of the various weaker markets in the league.


it's not all about attendance, its about teams with cheap tickets with weak attendance.

DING DING DING we have a winner. Some of the weaker markets don't even have 100% TV coverage.

 

[tarheelhockey]

In that case I'm moving my hockey team to Tokyo.

Pssht, that's almost as crazy as trying to sell baseball in Japan!

 

[Fidel Astro]

it's not all about attendance, its about teams with cheap tickets with weak attendance.

That's it. Yes.

Also, while a city with 20 million people sounds like a great place to put a team, if that team struggles to get even 10,000 (a tiny fraction of its overall population) out to the games, even with drastically reduced ticket prices and promotions, it's not a good location for a team.

A Canadian city with less than 1 million doesn't sound great on paper, but if it can sell between 90-100% capacity every game (a much larger percentage of its overall population), as well as a ton of others watching on TV, it's going to make money.

Everyone understands that these southern mega-cities have gigantic populations and the potential to 'grow the game' and attract new fans, and that's why the NHL went there. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Unfortunately, this potential has not been achieved, even though all of the teams have been around more than a decade ...some coming up on 20 years.
Mod: deleted.

So you have a small market with constant, strong support vs. a mega-market with little to no support. Neither one is likely to change. Which sounds like a better deal? If I'm a businessman, I'm taking the risk and going with the small market.

 

[Fugu]

That's it. Yes.

Also, while a city with 20 million people sounds like a great place to put a team, if that team struggles to get even 10,000 (a tiny fraction of its overall population) out to the games, even with drastically reduced ticket prices and promotions, it's not a good location for a team.

A Canadian city with less than 1 million doesn't sound great on paper, but if it can sell between 90-100% capacity every game (a much larger percentage of its overall population), as well as a ton of others watching on TV, it's going to make money.

Everyone understands that these southern mega-cities have gigantic populations and the potential to 'grow the game' and attract new fans, and that's why the NHL went there. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Unfortunately, this potential has not been achieved, even though all of the teams have been around more than a decade ...some coming up on 20 years.

Sure, somewhere like Winnipeg is not going spontaneously generate hundreds of thousands of new fans -- the size of the fanbase will stay pretty much the same -- but cities like Phoenix and Miami, despite their gigantic populations, haven't been able to increase their fanbases in a significant way either.

So you have a small market with constant, strong support vs. a mega-market with little to no support. Neither one is likely to change. Which sounds like a better deal? If I'm a businessman, I'm taking the risk and going with the small market.

Actually, I don't think that's it either. The business people who are trying to get a team back in Winnipeg only consider it viable IF there's a cap and reasonable revenue sharing.

Canada does have a deeper market penetration rate relative to the US in terms of interest in hockey and people saying they are fans. If we're comparing the viability of a Canadian city of 1 million vs a US city of 1 million, the Canadian city will be able to charge more per seat (in CAD), and have a greater percentage of the population engaged.

Seeing that I'm not a fan of the cap or this particular type of revenue transfer that we call sharing, but it's really not sharing, I don't believe we should be quibbling over cities of 1 million in population. Major leagues really should just focus on major cities and then make it very hard to actually own one of those teams.

One argument I can see for supporting an extra team or two in Canada that probably cannot compete with the likes of Toronto, Montreal, NY, Chicago and LA.... is to keep the source of the majority of NHL talent engaged. To the extent that having a certain number of NHL teams in Canada helps on the talent supply side, I can see this being a business reason to support teams that otherwise would have a hard time competing with the big boys.

 

[jacketracket*]

I think this has been discussed hundreds of times before in various threads, but, again:

No.

Teams with long histories in proven hockey markets should not be moved, even if they are in prolonged slumps. Teams who have never succeeded since their inception, however, are a different story.

Discussing it thousands of times in millions of threads doesn't make the position any less silly, though.

You want to limit the league to teams with "long histories in proven hockey markets"? Then don't accept the millions in expansion fees already collected and dispersed. Dump everything newer than the Original Six, as every team admitted since has had their share of struggles.

Once you've collected those fees, however, and duped unsuspecting markets into investing in the infrastrucure required to support an arena on the assumption that they will be allowed the opportunity to develop a "long history", you've got a "different story".

Thankfully, the league seems to have an attention span a bit longer than the average "elitist" we see posting here ...

 

[Fidel Astro]

Once you've collected those fees, however, and duped unsuspecting markets into investing in the infrastrucure required to support an arena on the assumption that they will be allowed the opportunity to develop a "long history", you've got a "different story".

I don't agree with the term "duped." The southern cities that acquired NHL teams would have been well aware of hockey's low level of popularity in the region well before the arenas were built. They should have also been aware of past relocations in the NHL's history, including some teams (i.e. Jets, Nordiques and Whalers, for example) who didn't even get 20 years in the league to develop that "long history."

Other teams lasted even shorter periods of time, like the original teams in Colorado and Atlanta.

Just because a city builds an arena, that doesn't automatically guarantee that the sport is going to succeed there, nor does it mean they deserve special consideration. They took a gamble by installing an expensive arena. It didn't help hockey catch on. Unfortunate, but it happens. Time to move on.

 

[Jamin]

You know that's pretty stupid right?

If you own a hockey team, there's no reason you would give up on a southern city with 20 million people before a northern city with 2 million people, even if they have a "long hockey history". Unless you're a horrible businessman that is.

and yet all these owners of small northern teams are making money and their revenue sharing is keeping the big souther cities afloat

 

[Jamin]

The real issue there, Fidel, is whether that small Canadian market would be at 90-100% capacity after 10 years outside the playoffs and David Booth being the biggest star on the team. It's easy to speculate that the fans would keep blindly showing up, but that didn't happen when the Jets struggled. Nor for that matter when the Oilers struggled, Edmonton being the closest comparable market. Both of them averaged less than either Florida or Atlanta at a time when ticket prices were considerably less inflated.

Given that those small Canadian markets will (reasonably enough) have a breaking point in regards to tolerating failure, I don't see a huge advantage in moving terrible teams there versus keeping them in place. Either way, you have to fix the on-ice product first before you can reap any profits.

i may be wrong but 5 years with no playoffs is struggling and edmonton is still selling out. unless your talking about pre lockout

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

i may be wrong but 5 years with no playoffs is struggling and edmonton is still selling out. unless your talking about pre lockout

Edmonton was also the team whose attendance was struggling during their dynasty.


ZOMG, move them to Nevada!!!

 

[Jamin]

Edmonton was also the team whose attendance was struggling during their dynasty.


ZOMG, move them to Nevada!!!

i wouldnt call getting between 10 and 16 thousand people in a small city struggling. Not selling out the 06-07 season after winning a cup...thats more embarrassing

 

[jacketracket*]

I don't agree with the term "duped." The southern cities that acquired NHL teams would have been well aware of hockey's low level of popularity in the region well before the arenas were built. They should have also been aware of past relocations in the NHL's history, including some teams (i.e. Jets, Nordiques and Whalers, for example) who didn't even get 20 years in the league to develop that "long history."

Other teams lasted even shorter periods of time, like the original teams in Colorado and Atlanta.

Just because a city builds an arena, that doesn't automatically guarantee that the sport is going to succeed there, nor does it mean they deserve special consideration. They took a gamble by installing an expensive arena. It didn't help hockey catch on. Unfortunate, but it happens. Time to move on.

Nope ... "duped" fits the scenario perfectly. Along with the awarding of a franchise - once the league's expansion requirements were met - comes the expectation that that franchise would be given time to build a following.

My apologies if that hurts your "traditionalist" sensibilities, but that's the way it goes. Imagine how strong the league would appear as an investment opportunity, to prospective corporate partners, if new communities lost their franchises 10-15 years after sinking tens of millions into the deal.

After decades of professional hockey, Winnipeg didn't have the backing, a suitable arena, or the attendance needed to remain viable at the time. Unfortunate, but it happens. Time to move on.

 

[tarheelhockey]

i may be wrong but 5 years with no playoffs is struggling

Let's not be too selective. They made the playoffs 7 years out of 9, climaxed by falling 1 goal short of a Cup. They're building a prospect core that's the envy of the league including a blossoming superstar. I'd hardly call that a "struggling" franchise to the tune of never winning a single playoff game.

unless your talking about pre lockout

That's what I meant in the previous post. After winning 5 Cups in 7 years, this is what happened to their attendance:

1991 - 16,843 (Conference Final)
1992 - 16,179 (Conference Final)
1993 - 14,797 (no playoffs)
1994 - 13,478 (no playoffs)
1995 - 13,124 (no playoffs)
1996 - 12,335 (no playoffs)

At that point the Oilers were losing so much money that they were the Phoenix Coyotes of their day. Instead of just letting them leave town, the NHL intervened to keep them in place, which is the ONLY reason they're selling out games today.

Edmonton illustrates very clearly that Canadian markets are NOT guaranteed to sell out under all circumstances, and equally illustrates why relocation should be avoided if at all possible.

 

[OthmarAmmann]

Let's not be too selective. They made the playoffs 7 years out of 9, climaxed by falling 1 goal short of a Cup. They're building a prospect core that's the envy of the league including a blossoming superstar. I'd hardly call that a "struggling" franchise to the tune of never winning a single playoff game.



That's what I meant in the previous post. After winning 5 Cups in 7 years, this is what happened to their attendance:

1991 - 16,843 (Conference Final)
1992 - 16,179 (Conference Final)
1993 - 14,797 (no playoffs)
1994 - 13,478 (no playoffs)
1995 - 13,124 (no playoffs)
1996 - 12,335 (no playoffs)

At that point the Oilers were losing so much money that they were the Phoenix Coyotes of their day. Instead of just letting them leave town, the NHL intervened to keep them in place, which is the ONLY reason they're selling out games today.

Edmonton illustrates very clearly that Canadian markets are NOT guaranteed to sell out under all circumstances, and equally illustrates why relocation should be avoided if at all possible.

One thing they definitely have in common with the Coyotes is the deep recession in 1992 and hangover for several years. The decline of the CAD and related drop in revenue relative to expenses is quite different.