Moobles
Registered User
- Mar 15, 2009
- 2,555
- 0
The article basically rehashes what we've seen on here with some fairly decent analysis, graphs and a very nice layout (surprisingly refreshing.
I appreciated they're sober interpretation of NHL markets, and while they gave Hamilton and London nice aggregate scores unlike what some people on here think they weren't completely rosy about the picture of NHL teams. The biggest point they make that made sense is shared arena tenants: it does reduce the cost for teams to operate in a shared arena if one time does indeed bring in the bucks. It's nice to see some analysis devoted to Canada, though I'm sure they had their biases and doubt they went into the study expecting to find results otherwise.
The one thing they don't mention is the power of brand power, and that new teams in these cities would be completely reliant on new franchises being able to gain a portion of their fan-base. Now it's hard to do this. Every Canadian team now has more than 20 years of history in their areas, but I roughly hypothesize that some areas probably would do better than others. Namely, the GTA, Winnipeg and Quebec (small markets but viable) could all probably support new teams, and maybe you could penetrate the brand in Montreal and Vancouver. In both of the latter cases however the current team is very popular: it's hard to envision how a new team would be able to sift fans from them. That I think would merit analysis in itself, but probably the best way (imo.) would be some kind of geopartisan divide in the way that the Rangers/Isles, Yankees/Mets do it (though New York benefits from having 17 mil+ in its GMA). In Vancouver an "east/south side" or suburban team might be able to capture the imagination of fans (especially if the Canucks were struggling) and in Montreal perhaps a West island team (exploiting the English/French divide) or a Laval one could reel in new fans. But I honestly think it'd be hard to do, since there's a lot of brand loyalty to penetrate in those areas (and in Montreal; practically their civic religion since the 1930s.)
Still, an interesting study to read.
I appreciated they're sober interpretation of NHL markets, and while they gave Hamilton and London nice aggregate scores unlike what some people on here think they weren't completely rosy about the picture of NHL teams. The biggest point they make that made sense is shared arena tenants: it does reduce the cost for teams to operate in a shared arena if one time does indeed bring in the bucks. It's nice to see some analysis devoted to Canada, though I'm sure they had their biases and doubt they went into the study expecting to find results otherwise.
The one thing they don't mention is the power of brand power, and that new teams in these cities would be completely reliant on new franchises being able to gain a portion of their fan-base. Now it's hard to do this. Every Canadian team now has more than 20 years of history in their areas, but I roughly hypothesize that some areas probably would do better than others. Namely, the GTA, Winnipeg and Quebec (small markets but viable) could all probably support new teams, and maybe you could penetrate the brand in Montreal and Vancouver. In both of the latter cases however the current team is very popular: it's hard to envision how a new team would be able to sift fans from them. That I think would merit analysis in itself, but probably the best way (imo.) would be some kind of geopartisan divide in the way that the Rangers/Isles, Yankees/Mets do it (though New York benefits from having 17 mil+ in its GMA). In Vancouver an "east/south side" or suburban team might be able to capture the imagination of fans (especially if the Canucks were struggling) and in Montreal perhaps a West island team (exploiting the English/French divide) or a Laval one could reel in new fans. But I honestly think it'd be hard to do, since there's a lot of brand loyalty to penetrate in those areas (and in Montreal; practically their civic religion since the 1930s.)
Still, an interesting study to read.