Really strong attendance numbers

[Gulvorn]

Shouldn't the worst teams in the league have the worst attendance? Who has been worse than the Jackets, Thrashers, Islanders, and Panthers over the past decade?

Does anyone in MLB question why Pittsburgh doesn't have fans showing up to the games? No, because they have a horrible product and they stand no chance at winning a World Series. The same is true for the previously mentioned teams

In most cases it's about the product more than it is about where the team is located

 

[tarheelhockey]

One thing they definitely have in common with the Coyotes is the deep recession in 1992 and hangover for several years.

That's a factor I hardly see discussed in relation to STH erosion. It can't help Phoenix and Florida that they're (I think) the two most heavily impacted areas in the housing market breakdown. I look to the empty seats in Detroit as a measure of how badly some teams' attendance is being bitten by the economy -- especially in the lower bowls.

 

[Silver]

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.

No, it doesn't. Edmonton's situation was akin to Chicago's, not Phoenix.

 

[triggrman]

I wonder if Football, baseball or basketball boards have threads on attendance?

 

[MikeyPeenz]

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.

The only thing stupid about this is in a city of 20 million people less than 15,000 are showing up to games, not including games on nascar race days

In a northern city where hockey is liked and admired by most of the population,
out of 2million people they manage sellouts.

You tell me which is the better business decision

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

The only thing stupid about this is in a city of 20 million people less than 15,000 are showing up to games, not including games on nascar race days

In a northern city where hockey is liked and admired by most of the population,
out of 2million people they manage sellouts.

You tell me which is the better business decision

Not too long ago, many thought it would be a good business decision to move Pittsburgh to Kansas City. It turns out, they were wrong.

 

[Gnashville]

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

Name one small Northern city paying into the revenue sharing plan!!

 

[CC Chiefs*]

I wonder if Football, baseball or basketball boards have threads on attendance?

What do those 3 sports have that the NHL doesn't?

Hint: It sounds like a major TV contract with revenues to share.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

I wonder if Football, baseball or basketball boards have threads on attendance?

I am pretty sure they do, esp. the NBA boards.


However, I doubt that there are people who want to see contraction based more on geography and a sense of being wronged than actual finances (not to say that those are not a factor, but still.


And I also doubt that there are people who would argue that growing the game has a negative effect on the sport.

IIRC, someone went to several NFL Sports Blogs and asked how they would feel about an NFL team in Toronto and/or Montreal before LA. Most were receptive to the idea.

 

[tarheelhockey]

No, it doesn't. Edmonton's situation was akin to Chicago's, not Phoenix.

Chicago is just another example of the same principle -- attendance figures aren't the be-all and end-all.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

I am pretty sure they do, esp. the NBA boards.


However, I doubt that there are people who want to see contraction based more on geography and a sense of being wronged than actual finances (not to say that those are not a factor, but still.


And I also doubt that there are people who would argue that growing the game has a negative effect on the sport.

IIRC, someone went to several NFL Sports Blogs and asked how they would feel about an NFL team in Toronto and/or Montreal before LA. Most were receptive to the idea.

I have one very simple question? How do the Green Bay Packers survive in the NFL (very very very small market)? If Mr. Bettman worried MORE about a MAJOR TV contract instead of pimping a team at the Winter Classic, a gimmick ASG format or having a shootout the Atlanta's, Carolina's and others wouldn't constantly be in the red.

 

[tarheelhockey]

And I also doubt that there are people who would argue that growing the game has a negative effect on the sport.

I'm sure if you hung around a baseball board long enough, you could find a tiny quiet minority who would keep the sport away from other countries. But in the context of baseball, I can't imagine that element being given an open mic in the media or dominating the conversation about the game's future.

 

[Silver]

Chicago is just another example of the same principle -- attendance figures aren't the be-all and end-all.

No, Edmonton and Chicago are examples of horrible ownership that the cities actively hated.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

I have one very simple question? How do the Green Bay Packers survive in the NFL (very very very small market)? If Mr. Bettman worried MORE about a MAJOR TV contract instead of pimping a team at the Winter Classic, a gimmick ASG format or having a shootout the Atlanta's, Carolina's and others wouldn't constantly be in the red.

What does the Winter Classic, the ASG and the shootout have to do with Carolina's and Atlanta's finances (or any team's finances for that matter)?


I am genuinely confused here, you're going to have to explain your point.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

What does the Winter Classic, the ASG and the shootout have to do with Carolina's and Atlanta's finances (or any team's finances for that matter)?


I am genuinely confused here, you're going to have to explain your point.

Point is. If GB worried more about a MAJOR TV contract instead of the gimmicks he's introduced. Pretty simple?

A major TV contract is how the GB Packers survive.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Point is. If GB worried more about a MAJOR TV contract instead of the gimmicks he's introduced. Pretty simple?

Ah, I see.

I agree for the most part, though as I think about at it right now, I find it hard to come up with ways that I would have done it differently.

Ideally, we will get a good TV contract come this fall, when our deal with Vs. is over.

 

[Jeffrey93]

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.

Oh really? The Oilers ownership went bankrupt and it took several years to find anyone willing to own a team in Edmonton?

The NHL's involvement in the Edmonton sale is pretty sketchy. Current Ownership had an agreement with Northlands that they were required to look for local ownership. They did...and found it. At the last minute. And yes...the NHL bent a rule about the size of the Ownership group.....big deal.

That's like bending the rule that Owners aren't supposed to be crooks...or that Karmanos shouldn't have been allowed to move his team so quickly....

It was a minor push to help make something happen that everyone involved wanted.

I'm starting a list....this is on it. Such a pain in the butt listening to this stuff. Yeah yeah...the NHL "Saved" Edmonton. All they did was allow a larger group than usual to purchase a team.

HUGE sacrifice the league made...

You can't compare that to going to court and then owning the team for however long it has been. You just can't.

 

[Jeffrey93]

I have one very simple question? How do the Green Bay Packers survive in the NFL (very very very small market)? If Mr. Bettman worried MORE about a MAJOR TV contract instead of pimping a team at the Winter Classic, a gimmick ASG format or having a shootout the Atlanta's, Carolina's and others wouldn't constantly be in the red.

Exactly.

Where the teams are located doesn't matter.

If all the teams are selling out and generating big bucks....TV deals come knockin'....franchise values keep rising ridiculously.....everyone is happy.

But...minor hockey in Georgia, Florida, Arizona, etc. might take a 5% hit. Which...at the end of the day....is what the NHL is REALLY all about.

 

[Fugu]

Not too long ago, many thought it would be a good business decision to move Pittsburgh to Kansas City. It turns out, they were wrong.

Some of us never thought it was a good idea to move any team to Kansas City. Still don't.

Name one small Northern city paying into the revenue sharing plan!!

Edmonton paid into revenue sharing in 2008. Calgary may have been a contributor around the same time. Not sure if Ottawa ever was. More importantly though, there are cities that aren't really huge (as compared to NYC, LA, TO, or Chicago) who do quite well-- Detroit and Montreal come to mind. There are bigger 'southern' cities that don't have anything close to their revenue base.

Chicago is just another example of the same principle -- attendance figures aren't the be-all and end-all.

Market size is important. If the teams are gate-driven, then attendance and related revenues are quite important. The bigger cities have the advantage of always having the potential for far larger local TV contracts. Problem for the NHL though is that the cities with the best attendance and highest ticket prices and highest TV contracts all happen to be the same set of teams.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Oh really? The Oilers ownership went bankrupt and it took several years to find anyone willing to own a team in Edmonton?

The NHL's involvement in the Edmonton sale is pretty sketchy. Current Ownership had an agreement with Northlands that they were required to look for local ownership. They did...and found it. At the last minute. And yes...the NHL bent a rule about the size of the Ownership group.....big deal.

That's like bending the rule that Owners aren't supposed to be crooks...or that Karmanos shouldn't have been allowed to move his team so quickly....

It was a minor push to help make something happen that everyone involved wanted.

I'm starting a list....this is on it. Such a pain in the butt listening to this stuff. Yeah yeah...the NHL "Saved" Edmonton. All they did was allow a larger group than usual to purchase a team.

HUGE sacrifice the league made...

You can't compare that to going to court and then owning the team for however long it has been. You just can't.

I'm under the impression that Oilers to Houston was inevitable, and then the NHL changed it's ruling regarding consortium ownership to allow, just that, a consortium of local Edmonton businesses to purchase the Oilers and keep it in Edmonton.

In essence, they broke their own rule (one of their rules that actually makes sense) to allow a team to remain in place. You can't underplay that part just because it does not fit your agenda of "The NHL hates Canada!!!".

And while I certainly don't agree with what Karmanos did, there was not much the League could do to stop him. Hartford was playing hardball about the new arena (the old one was part of a shopping mall) and it was evident that they didn't care about the Whalers.

There was no rule in place at the time to stop Karmanos from moving to Carolina. What should the League have done?

 

[ponder]

Attendance figures are fairly meaningless IMO, because:
a) They're often faked/inaccurate
b) Some teams virtually give away tickets just to get butts in the seats, that or they sell them super cheap in the first place

A sellout in a top market means an arena full of people who were willing to pay absolute top dollar to go to the game, as well as a massive number of other people who would love to be there but just couldn't get tickets. A sellout in a marginal market basically just means the team gave away a crazy number of tickets, and the tickets they did sell were sold at bargain basement prices. Revenues (properly adjusted for inflation) are really all that matter IMO.

 

[Jeffrey93]

I'm under the impression that Oilers to Houston was inevitable, and then the NHL changed it's ruling regarding consortium ownership to allow, just that, a consortium of local Edmonton businesses to purchase the Oilers and keep it in Edmonton.

In essence, they broke their own rule (one of their rules that actually makes sense) to allow a team to remain in place. You can't underplay that part just because it does not fit your agenda of "The NHL hates Canada!!!".

Take a breather!!

If it doesn't fit my agenda...then it doesn't fit yours either.

Put the two in perspective. The NHL allows more people to be part of an ownership 'group' than they usually allow. Compare that to going to court.....having their laundry aired out in public and eventually purchasing one of their own franchises.

How "drastic" was it that they allowed a few more people to be part of an ownership group than they typically allow?

Did they have to go to court? Did they have to buy back one of their own franchises? No, it never got that far. Local people stood up and answered the bell.

And while I certainly don't agree with what Karmanos did, there was not much the League could do to stop him. Hartford was playing hardball about the new arena (the old one was part of a shopping mall) and it was evident that they didn't care about the Whalers.

They had plans to build a new arena
Many arenas are part of "shopping malls"
Hartford met every demand Karmanos made
The NHL....seemingly did nothing.

There was no rule in place at the time to stop Karmanos from moving to Carolina. What should the League have done?

You are aware of when the 'seven year itch' clause came into effect?? It's weird...you support Karmanos...but if you swap his name for 'Balsillie'....there seems to be a PILE of reasons why the very same actions should not have been allowed.

 

[Fourier]

Edmonton paid into revenue sharing in 2008. Calgary may have been a contributor around the same time. Not sure if Ottawa ever was. More importantly though, there are cities that aren't really huge (as compared to NYC, LA, TO, or Chicago) who do quite well-- Detroit and Montreal come to mind. There are bigger 'southern' cities that don't have anything close to their revenue base.

The Oilers paid into revenue sharing in 2006 and 2007 as well.

Calgary has likely paid into revenue sharing every year of the new CBA.

Market size is important. If the teams are gate-driven, then attendance and related revenues are quite important. The bigger cities have the advantage of always having the potential for far larger local TV contracts. Problem for the NHL though is that the cities with the best attendance and highest ticket prices and highest TV contracts all happen to be the same set of teams.

There is at least one exception to this rule on the tv side. The Islander's TV deal is pretty sweet. BUt they also cannot get revenue sharing because of the size of their market so this nehates the TV deal somewhat. Otherwise, this is pretty much dead on.

 

[Mwd711]

I have one very simple question? How do the Green Bay Packers survive in the NFL (very very very small market)? If Mr. Bettman worried MORE about a MAJOR TV contract instead of pimping a team at the Winter Classic, a gimmick ASG format or having a shootout the Atlanta's, Carolina's and others wouldn't constantly be in the red.

Comparing the NFL to the NHL is silly. Thats comparing apples to kiwis. The NFL is one of the top rated TV properties among general tv shows let alone sports. The NHL will never get to that point gimmicks or otherwise. Regardless the Winter Classic has been a money maker and had good ratings and that's all that matters. I have no idea what that has to do with the NFL or Green Bay.

 

[Killroy*]

Take a breather!!

If it doesn't fit my agenda...then it doesn't fit yours either.

Put the two in perspective. The NHL allows more people to be part of an ownership 'group' than they usually allow. Compare that to going to court.....having their laundry aired out in public and eventually purchasing one of their own franchises.

How "drastic" was it that they allowed a few more people to be part of an ownership group than they typically allow?

Did they have to go to court? Did they have to buy back one of their own franchises? No, it never got that far. Local people stood up and answered the bell.

They had plans to build a new arena
Many arenas are part of "shopping malls"
Hartford met every demand Karmanos made
The NHL....seemingly did nothing.

You are aware of when the 'seven year itch' clause came into effect?? It's weird...you support Karmanos...but if you swap his name for 'Balsillie'....there seems to be a PILE of reasons why the very same actions should not have been allowed.

Have you ever been to the Hartford Civic Center before?