Shouldn't the NHL focus more on non-traditional hockey markets?

[obsenssive*]

Hockey belongs to Canada, the north, central, and northeast US, Scandinavia, the former soviet union, and the former czechoslovakia. We will keep it that way until the end. much like cricket we are a brotherhood of a few select nations, not a global sport of the masses.

Not the southern US. Not western and southern Europe. Not anywhere in Asia except for the former soviet republic of Kazakhstan. Not anywhere in Oceania. Nowhere in South America. And certainly nowhere in Africa.

 

[Jazz]

Yes, they should focus on other markets, even if for a couple of exhibition games before the regular season opens in usual cities. For example play their national team. Imagine the NY Rangers playing the Hungarian National team in Budapest.

Every other sport is trying to increase their brand worldwide. Why should hockey keep being inward looking?

I think the idea is that, while the people in the places you listed are hockey fans, you want to turn them into fans of the NHL. Or at the very least, fans of national players who play in the NHL.

And also, the NHL has played several games in Japan, most recently when the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim went with the superstar winger half-Japanesse Paul Kariya.

Kariya actually missed both opportunities to play in Japan. When Anaheim played 2 games vs Vancouver, Kariya was in the middle of a contract hold-out. When the NHLers when to the Nagano Olympics, Karyia had the infamous concussion courtesy of Gary Suter.

I've always wondered if his presence in both situations could have even minutely spurred more interest of hockey in Japan.

This is not going to go over too well. Too many people think that Hockey belongs to Canada and Canadians only and that no one else should care/watch/love/or have hockey outside of Canada. ...Yes they should the NBA went global and is becoming the #1 branded league in the world.

There is truth to what this member posted...both points actually.

Being against the globalization of hockey ≠ Being against having NHL teams in markets that do not care about the sport.

An NHL franchise can work in any large city, with good ownership and good management. It's not going to be a turnkey operation. Bad owners, like the Atlanta Spirit Group, hoped they could just put out a shingle and it would work. You've got to hit the pavement and wear out the soles on your shoes. Only in the strongest of markets do bad owners get a free pass, and even some of those were on the ropes fairly recently (Chicago had horrible attendance as they grew tired of Bill Wirtz!).

Markets that have had no tradition with the sport have can't have a crap product and assume (like many Canadians here seem to believe) that people will come flocking to arena. On-ice success here and there grows the fanbase. Would hockey be as high as it is in Philadelphia if they didn't average a trip to the finals every 6 years?

This is either a flame or a troll, or perhaps a flaming troll. Maybe you shouldn't post here if you are looking for a fight.

Anyhow, how's your "hockey market" faring?

His market is doing fine thank you. Spend time there during the playoffs and you'll see for yourself.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

In response to the thread title, I think the NHL should focus more on the traditional markets and less on the so-called non-traditional markets. There's nothing wrong with trying to expand interest in the game so long as you don't do so at the expense of the existing fan base.

"Slow and steady wins the race." -- Aesop, circa 320 BC

 

[Killion]

The alternatives are not very attractive either. The other major North American leagues have tried offshore games - MLB in Japan and the Carribean, NFL in Japan and Europe including NFL Europe, throw in the Toronto and other Canadian flirtations, plus the NBA with its variants.Other than gimmick or novelty type success there is no evidence of potential long term success for any of the North American big 4 sports

Absolutely correct, or as someone once said about the Winter Olympics, "elite games dominated by a select group of the wealthy Northern European & North American nations".This idea of NHL expansionism to the UK & Europe is nothing new. It started in the 1920's with the creation of the British League and a team owned by Canadian interests playing out of London called the Lions, which expired in 1933.

A 2nd attempt was made in the 70's by Bruce Norris of Detroit. He put together a team (also called the Lions, John Ziegler was VP) that played out of Wembley Arena in 73-74 (I actually attended some of those games) that was unafilliated with any league & played about 70+ games all over the UK & Europe in a sort of Exhibition and Barnstorming format, rarely losing, the team stocked with primarily minor leaguer's. ... He had hoped to generate enough interest in the game & superior level of play of the Lions to create a European NHL Division, with the top clubs competing against the North American teams for the Stanley Cup; a full league to be set-up & running starting in the 74-75 season. No interest, the Lions' folding. Im sure Bruce, John with Al Eagleson in tow had quite the time over there, the latter buying a sexy townhouse in Mayfair from which they plotted & planned Global Domination, however.....

 

[yotesreign]

I'm not a fan of teams giving up regular season home games to play iin other cities. Preseason though is fine. As a STH who has held Season tickets for hockey and football, I enjoy going to regular and playoff games, but would be very content if all the preseason games were on the road - and if I want to watch the prospects I can always find a way to make some practices. With NFL, even though the regular season home schedule is only 8 games and the Cards usually play 2 preseason home games, I don't go to both preseason home games - I usually wind up giving one of those games away to friends, and the other I go for the first half and then leave. I will say that preseason hockey games are more fun preseason games to attend but that's probably becasuse I prefer watching hockey to football.

I hope these don't sound like sarcastic questions - I ask because I don't knowthe answers: How are teams chosen for out of country games? Do they volunteer, do they absorb the additional costs associated? Does the league assist them with expenses? Does the league tell them 'you're going to London, you're going to Prague'?

I agree with the opinion that it is not the NHL's job to grow the game globally. I'd rather see out of venue preseason games played in North American markets that don't have NHL teams - where there is either a prospect of introducing the league to a 'non-traditional' market, or bringing a preseason game to a market that is a former NHL market or even, a market that may be 'too small' to be an NHL market but is nevertheless a strong supporter of hockey at whatever levels it has (be it AHL, juniors, ECHL...)- than see them played in Europe or Asia or other continents.

I could understand if some players would rather play some preseason games in Europe than Hartford or QC or KC, but I'd rather see preseason out of venue games played in North America.

 

[Tekneek]

Why do they need to spend time on the "traditional markets" at all? The game sells itself there, right? So they are free to work on growth markets instead.

 

[Killion]

How are teams chosen for out of country games? Do they volunteer, do they absorb the additional costs associated? Does the league assist them with expenses? Does the league tell them 'you're going to London, you're going to Prague'?

Anywhere in North America is far preferable to Europe just from a logistical standpoint. Baltimore, Cincinnati, Portland, Peoria..... Like you, Ive' always been curious about how the league goes about selecting which teams get tagged for these Barnstorming Tours, who absorbs the costs, what the relationship is between the participating teams & the host clubs, what the split is in terms of gate receipts, who pays for expences & what role AEG plays in covering some of these costs (as they manage & in some cases they co-own some of the venues the games are played in); where do the gate receipts go etc. Tim Lieweke, President of AEG, also just so happens to be Chairman of the NHL Expansion & Relocation Committee......

"theres somthin happenin here
what it is aint exactly clear".....
Buffalo Springfield

 

[cheswick]

Just because the NHL goes somewhere doesn't mean anyone will care. If the two biggest cricket teams came and played an exhibition game in Philadephia would anyone care? Would it grow the sport of Cricket in the States?

I personally think the NHL is extremely foolish by putting teams in markets where there was no desire or knowledge of the game and then growing grass roots hockey and try building a fan base. The NHL should start growing grass roots hockey in markets they aren't in then in 15 or 20 years go expand there.

 

[Fidel Astro]

I personally think the NHL is extremely foolish by putting teams in markets where there was no desire or knowledge of the game and then growing grass roots hockey and try building a fan base. The NHL should start growing grass roots hockey in markets they aren't in then in 15 or 20 years go expand there.

I couldn't agree more. Interest in the sport needs to be developed first. The NHL has been doing things backwards, and that's why certain non-traditional markets are (or were, in the case of Atlanta) struggling.

 

[Fidel Astro]

Too many people think that Hockey belongs to Canada and Canadians only and that no one else should care/watch/love/or have hockey outside of Canada.

I don't think this is true. I'm a very vocal supporter of more teams returning to Canada, but I'm also in favour of teams being moved from non-traditional southern markets to traditional markets in the northern US.

While I'll admit Canadian nationalism does have something to do with it, I think you'll find most of us just want to see the NHL in cities where hockey is culturally relevant and already popular. There are many American cities in the northern part of the country that fit that description.

 

[htpwn]

Markets that have had no tradition with the sport have can't have a crap product and assume (like many Canadians here seem to believe) that people will come flocking to arena. On-ice success here and there grows the fanbase. Would hockey be as high as it is in Philadelphia if they didn't average a trip to the finals every 6 years?

Flocking to arena? Some teams draw less ratings then your average infomercial! The problems in these markets go far beyond lack of success. There is zero base for hockey, none, zilch, and that translates to loses in the tens of millions of dollars.

There are plenty of other hockey leagues in North America that can do the job of "growing the game." The Aeros seem to do quite well in Houston, for example. Why does the top league in the world need to be in certain markets where empty seats outnumber patrons on a regular basis?

 

[The CyNick]

The NHL just wants to expand their brand.

By having games in parts of Europe where hockey is popular you raise the profile of the NHL in those markets. Hopefully that leads to more demand for the NHL product, which will increase viewership on TV, possibly increase rights fees for existing TV deals, or open up new TV deals. You may also increase other revenues like online subs, merchandise, etc etc.

The likelihood of doing that in countries that have no connection to hockey is very low, it would likely be a waste of money. Also as pointed out, the buildings in some of these countries are not adequate to hold an NHL game. It wouldn't be worth the money to travel all that way to get revenues off a 5000 seat arena.

You have limited opportunities to have games overseas. You want to get the most bang for your buck. Places like Sweden and Finland do that. Places like Poland and Hungary wouldn't.

 

[Tekneek]

I couldn't agree more. Interest in the sport needs to be developed first. The NHL has been doing things backwards, and that's why certain non-traditional markets are (or were, in the case of Atlanta) struggling.

Is that why the Atlanta franchise was struggling? You sure it had nothing to do with the poor performance (both on and off the ice) of that franchise?

 

[Tekneek]

There are many American cities in the northern part of the country that fit that description.

Other than, perhaps, Milwaukee, which ones do you have in mind?

 

[Gnashville]

Hockey belongs to Canada, the north, central, and northeast US, Scandinavia, the former soviet union, and the former czechoslovakia. We will keep it that way until the end. much like cricket we are a brotherhood of a few select nations, not a global sport of the masses.
Not the southern US. Not western and southern Europe. Not anywhere in Asia except for the former soviet republic of Kazakhstan. Not anywhere in Oceania. Nowhere in South America. And certainly nowhere in Africa.

I don't think this is true. I'm a very vocal supporter of more teams returning to Canada, but I'm also in favour of teams being moved from non-traditional southern markets to traditional markets in the northern US.
While I'll admit Canadian nationalism does have something to do with it, I think you'll find most of us just want to see the NHL in cities where hockey is culturally relevant and already popular. There are many American cities in the northern part of the country that fit that description.

Flocking to arena? Some teams draw less ratings then your average infomercial! The problems in these markets go far beyond lack of success. There is zero base for hockey, none, zilch, and that translates to loses in the tens of millions of dollars.

There are plenty of other hockey leagues in North America that can do the job of "growing the game." The Aeros seem to do quite well in Houston, for example. Why does the top league in the world need to be in certain markets where empty seats outnumber patrons on a regular basis?

Everyone thought I was trolling when I stated what I did. Yet you confirm what I said. Too many people think that hockey belongs to them and no one else has the right to enjoy it except the people they approve of. Listen to Bob McCown or Read the G&M or watch TSN this is the attitude of the media in Canada also.

Questions I'd like you to answer

1. How is a non-traditional market going to become a more traditional one when you yank their NHL team from them??
2. Hamilton and Toronto hardly draws flies for their AHL teams, how would having an AHL team help grow the game in any cities??
3 Why lump Florida, Atlanta, and Phoenix in with Carolina, Tampa, and Nashville when the later 3 are successful both on the ice and at the box office?
4. Why ignore places like Chicago, Boston, Ottawa, and Minny when they are not having success?
5. What incentive is it for ownership to win when the fans pack the building no matter the record?
6. Have you ever been to games in any of the cities, where you think hockey does not belong?
7. Why gripe and complain so much about these cities or attack their fans?
8. What are you afraid of if you think these cities don't care about hockey?
9. How does it damage your love for the game if these teams exist?

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Everyone thought I was trolling when I stated what I did. Yet you confirm what I said. Too many people think that hockey belongs to them and no one else has the right to enjoy it except the people they approve of. Listen to Bob McCown or Read the G&M or watch TSN this is the attitude of the media in Canada also.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. The NHL is the pinnacle of the sport. Why should that be the starting point and not something an area works its way up to starting from scratch with hockey being played at the grassroots.

But of course, you're not alone in that idea. The league itself had the genius idea of putting NHL teams in locations and only then doing something for grassroots hockey there.

It reminds me of the Chinese building whole cities and then inviting people to live in them. Does anyone think such a city can be as healthy and successful as a city that has naturally grown to a certain size?

It's easy to see why the league has felt that way. It's like that story with Norris in England in the 70s. Owners are primarily businessmen, often from a developer or sales background. To them, hockey is just another product to sell. You can put hockey anywhere, just like you can put a McDonald's anywhere or try to sell a Toyota anywhere.

It's not exactly surprising that this careless attitude has been upsetting to people to whom hockey is not just a product but a cultural good. NHL owners are quick to forget that as sports entrepreneurs they are trying to monetize a cultural good and as such they are also to some extent wardens of culture with some responsibility for it.

That doesn't mean it can't expand, but you've got to take an organic approach, not a "buy two tickets and get hot dogs and sodas for free as well as a complimentary tee shirt" approach.

 

[Canadiens1958]

True For All North American Sports

Absolutely correct, or as someone once said about the Winter Olympics, "elite games dominated by a select group of the wealthy Northern European & North American nations".This idea of NHL expansionism to the UK & Europe is nothing new. It started in the 1920's with the creation of the British League and a team owned by Canadian interests playing out of London called the Lions, which expired in 1933.

A 2nd attempt was made in the 70's by Bruce Norris of Detroit. He put together a team (also called the Lions, John Ziegler was VP) that played out of Wembley Arena in 73-74 (I actually attended some of those games) that was unafilliated with any league & played about 70+ games all over the UK & Europe in a sort of Exhibition and Barnstorming format, rarely losing, the team stocked with primarily minor leaguer's. ... He had hoped to generate enough interest in the game & superior level of play of the Lions to create a European NHL Division, with the top clubs competing against the North American teams for the Stanley Cup; a full league to be set-up & running starting in the 74-75 season. No interest, the Lions' folding. Im sure Bruce, John with Al Eagleson in tow had quite the time over there, the latter buying a sexy townhouse in Mayfair from which they plotted & planned Global Domination, however.....

But similar scenarios have repeated for the four major North American Sports.

Continuing with the NHL. About 50+ years ago the Bruins and Rangers toured Europe post season for app one month playing friendlies in major cities.

MLB players have barnstormed Japan going back to the Babe Ruth era. Likewise they have tried to make inroads in the Caribbean, winter leagues, Expos home games.

NBA - initial season included the Toronto Huskies, various international efforts into Europe, the Yeo Ming phenomena etc.

NFL - has flirted with Canada, exhibition games against CFL teams in the late 1950's / early 1960. The odd NFL exhibition game from 1970 on in Montreal, Jarry Park, Olympic Stadium up to the Bills in Toronto with side trips to Asia, Mexico and Europe - NFL Europe developmental concept, WFL, etc.

Ninety+ years of international efforts with very little in terms of concrete results other than paid vacation time for the execs while disrupting routines for the teams and players.

 

[Tekneek]

NHL owners are quick to forget that as sports entrepreneurs they are trying to monetize a cultural good and as such they are also to some extent wardens of culture with some responsibility for it.

They are quick to forget that? Impossible to forget something that you never thought about. NHL is looking for money. NHL is in Winnipeg for money, specifically the guaranteed money from TNSE. If that money were to dry up and the team be on the financial rocks again, they'll follow the money somewhere else. That's the truth of it.

They aren't wardens of anything, except maybe their bank accounts.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

They are quick to forget that? Impossible to forget something that you never thought about. NHL is looking for money. NHL is in Winnipeg for money, specifically the guaranteed money from TNSE. If that money were to dry up and the team be on the financial rocks again, they'll follow the money somewhere else. That's the truth of it.

They aren't wardens of anything, except maybe their bank accounts.

Well, you aren't really contradicting me here, I'm saying they are wardens (whether they are at all aware of that or not) but they're doing a piss poor job at it.

 

[Tekneek]

Well, you aren't really contradicting me here, I'm saying they are wardens (whether they are at all aware of that or not) but they're doing a piss poor job at it.

Just because I respond to you doesn't mean I have to be contradicting you, does it?

My point would be that the NHL has no interest in that role and never really will. It is going to be easier to accept that truth than it will be to change it.

 

[Gnashville]

I'm saying they are wardens (whether they are at all aware of that or not) but they're doing a piss poor job at it.

So the owners are supposed to satisfy a certain element of the fans that want to keep hockey only to them selves and regress back to <20 teams and ignore the new fans created in the last 20+ years of growth?

 

[Kimota]

Here's an idea, exaust all the deep rooted hockey markets and hot beds first and THEN move to something else.

 

[Tekneek]

Here's an idea, exaust all the deep rooted hockey markets and hot beds first and THEN move to something else.

Which ones have NHL ready arenas and the millions of dollars required to even bring a team to town?

 

[Killion]

But similar scenarios have repeated for the four major North American Sports. Ninety+ years of international efforts with very little in terms of concrete results other than paid vacation time for the execs while disrupting routines for the teams and players.

There ya go, "if you dont pay attention to history"....... Yet here we are again. So, step right up folks to the "Compuware Premier Cup" at the state of the art AEG built, owned & managed London 02 Arena, Berlin 02 Arena etc etc & watch the greatest players in the World, many from your own countries. If you read the NHL's publicity over this idiocy you could be forgiven for not realizing that there actually was a 50yr break from the Bruins/Rangers tour in 1958, that the NHL's always been & always will be there for its Eurpoean fans. The publicity includes platitudes from Donald Fehr who also endorses this nonsense..... good luck with that fellas', and those CBA negotiations, should go smoothly, Don seems a chip off the old block....

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Well, you aren't really contradicting me here, I'm saying they are wardens (whether they are at all aware of that or not) but they're doing a piss poor job at it.

Unless you mean they run a prison, they are NOT *wardens. Perhaps you mean wards of the sport ie. the act of keeping guard or protective watch.

The NHL and the team owners are not in fact wards of hockey. That role falls to the IIHF and the governing bodies in the individual countries. Hockey Canada in Canada, USA Hockey is the United States.

The NHL no matter how much you may dislike it, is a business. The only responsibility the League has towards protecting or growing the game is to market their product.



* I can normally take the butchering of the English language on a messageboard: some favorites are pre-madonna and intensive purposes.

The whole silly discussion about ripping the game from fans' loving hands is ludicrous. The NHL is a business. If business conditions support a team in Atlanta, one would be there. If business conditions support a team in Quebec City, one would be there as well. Fans that don't have an NHL franchise in their town can still enjoy hockey.