What are us fans doing wrong?

SupremeTeam16

5-14-6-1
May 31, 2013
8,156
7,346
Baker’s Bay
Based on the replies in this thread, I can tell the most important thing about NHL hockey has been forgotten.

It is a business. It will act, and react, like a business.

To make matters worse, the Oilers are a monopolistic business in the Edmonton market.

Completely agree with this but a shrewd business man would not allow a management group to run his business into the ground. Would Katz apply the same methods he has with the Oilers to his Pharmaceutical empire? Never in a million years.

It's a slippery slope and the generation of loyal followers from the 80's are slowly fading away and the new generation, for the most part, is growing indifferent to the Oilers. Take into account that between the cost of minor hockey and concerns of injury with parents, hockey enrollment is down and every year there are less and less kids getting involved in hockey.

Indifference is the black plague for a sports franchise.
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
33,160
13,005
It is 'engrained' because it is true.

Oilers revenues are gate driven. Ticket sales slump and we will be back in 1996, praying that the 'ticket drive' will sell enough to stop the looming relocation of the team.

The NHL bailed us out once, they will not do it again.


1996 was a different animal all together...the League as a whole back then was primarily gate driven. Thats not the case anymore. TV revenues are a major part of the equation now and the remaining revenue is gate reliant but the League has more than a few problem franchises already and limited options on how to resolve those situations.
Its in the Leagues best interests to hang onto every strong market they have. Edmonton is a very strong market.

Relocation was a pawn in arena negotiations...nothing more.
It was used as a tool to maximize financial gain.

Fear is an amazing motivator...it is used by corporations and governments all the time to 'guide' the public in specific directions.
Why...because it works.

Now run out and get that flu shot...stat!!!!! ;)
 

member 145483

Guest
wrong

Katz signed a clause that keeps the team here for 35 years once they're in Uncle Darryl's palace

plus, the extra revenue streams created won't affect the team as much as in 96
And, I am sure you have verified this clause with your own eyes?

Unless Katz only has idiots under his employ, which he doesn't, I am going to bet dollars to donuts that it has a standard profitability clause attached to the whole agreement.
 

member 145483

Guest
1996 was a different animal all together...the League as a whole back then was primarily gate driven. Thats not the case anymore.

Relocation was a pawn in arena negotiations...nothing more.
It was used as a tool to maximize financial gain.

Fear is an amazing motivator...it is used by corporations and governments all the time to 'guide' the public in specific directions.
Why...because it works.

Now run out and get that flu shot...stat!!!!! ;)
Oilers are still primarily gate driven.

Per Forbes, 2014:

Oilers Revenues: 119M
Oilers Gate Receipts: 62M
Operating Income (aka: EBIT): 25.3M

Now, my math may not be quite as advanced as yours, but it sure looks to me that once gate receipts dwindle, the Oilers have a profitability issue.
 

member 145483

Guest
Completely agree with this but a shrewd business man would not allow a management group to run his business into the ground. Would Katz apply the same methods he has with the Oilers to his Pharmaceutical empire? Never in a million years.

It's a slippery slope and the generation of loyal followers from the 80's are slowly fading away and the new generation, for the most part, is growing indifferent to the Oilers. Take into account that between the cost of minor hockey and concerns of injury with parents, hockey enrollment is down and every year there are less and less kids getting involved in hockey.

Indifference is the black plague for a sports franchise.
To be honest, I don't know how much Katz really cares about the outcome of the Oilers.

Now that he got his EAD his way, he will make far more money from that than the Oilers would ever net him (assuming no significant changes to NHL control of merchandise profits).

Also, I don't know how much the municipal body cares either. They, also, will make far more money from this district than they have made from the Oilers.

Whether we care to admit it or not, we are having our emotions played for others profits.
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
33,160
13,005
Oilers are still primarily gate driven.

Per Forbes, 2014:

Oilers Revenues: 119M
Oilers Gate Receipts: 62M
Operating Income (aka: EBIT): 25.3M

Now, my math may not be quite as advanced as yours, but it sure looks to me that once gate receipts dwindle, the Oilers have a profitability issue.

You are being awfully tough on your math skills. :D

The Forbes numbers dont factor in the new TV contracts made in 2014. I am not just talking about the Rogers contract. Teams like the Kings almost doubled their TV revenue from past seasons.

The landscape is different now. The old fear factor ploys from the past only work if the market is historically weak.

Its nonsense...especially in this market. The only thing propping this up is a faulty belief system.
 

beaterson

Registered User
Jun 13, 2011
492
0
the 780
We see the same thing in Toronto, with a key difference. The one thing that city has (like it or not) is an absolutely RUTHLESS media to keep the team in check. Unfortunately that same pressure screws with the players.

In Edmonton we have the complete opposite, the media is completely in the pockets of the franchise. Even the 'contrarians' like Strudwick dont really go after the root problems when we all know what the issue is.

As a result, instead of that combination of anger and hope that results from firing management in Toronto, we have that apathy that things won't get better because either the city sucks or nobody wants to play here, etc. on top of that, management here is 'permanent' (it's not, it never is), and as fans we get angry every December, put up billboards, piss off the OBC, and then we're back to apathy in February. Let's not forget that there was momentum last year. Lowe 'requesting' that sabbatical may or may not be true, but regardless it was evidence of pushback. After that, instead of keeing it going, it was back to the HF echo chamber, causing lowe, macT, and Eakins to breathe, and start the abortion over again.

What would Montreal do? Put up a billboard for a couple months? Hell no. Their OBC probably HATED life four years ago, because there was so much discontent towards them. Remember Wilson and Burke in Toronto? Torts and Gillis in Vancouver? They were all SKEWERED by the media, which is effective, for what it's worth.

The billboards are great, but they're not enough. It looks like a minority of angry fans. Us fans need to be more creative. More calling into shows on ched, protests, ads, etc to make those morons really uncomfortable about what they're doing (legally of course).
 

Beerfish

Registered User
Apr 14, 2007
19,513
5,665
Based on the replies in this thread, I can tell the most important thing about NHL hockey has been forgotten.

It is a business. It will act, and react, like a business.

To make matters worse, the Oilers are a monopolistic business in the Edmonton market.

And here is the problem with pro sports.

Anything related to what a team or players do and 'it is a business and should be treated as such'

Anything to do with fans and it is 'you need to be a fan and support your team through thick and thin and if you don't you do not deserve a pro team'

See the problem? If this city's fans treated this like a business the team would be attracting 5,000 fans a game.
 

member 145483

Guest
You are being awfully tough on your math skills. :D

The Forbes numbers dont factor in the new TV contracts made in 2014. I am not just talking about the Rogers contract. Teams like the Kings almost doubled their TV revenue from past seasons.

The landscape is different now. The old fear factor ploys from the past only work if the market is historically weak.

Its nonsense...especially in this market. The only thing propping this up is a faulty belief system.
A TV deal that was signed with who?

The NHL...not the Oilers.
 

member 145483

Guest
And here is the problem with pro sports.

Anything related to what a team or players do and 'it is a business and should be treated as such'

Anything to do with fans and it is 'you need to be a fan and support your team through thick and thin and if you don't you do not deserve a pro team'

See the problem? If this city's fans treated this like a business the team would be attracting 5,000 fans a game.
Absolutely.

This is why I think it should be illegal for professional sports organizations to ban civic ownership of franchises.

If the municipality owned the team, they would follow our wants....because if they didn't, they wouldn't survive the next election.

It gives us an opportunity to exercise some form of balance in a monopolistic environment.
 

CantHaveTkachev

Legends
Nov 30, 2004
50,091
30,317
St. OILbert, AB
And, I am sure you have verified this clause with your own eyes?

Unless Katz only has idiots under his employ, which he doesn't, I am going to bet dollars to donuts that it has a standard profitability clause attached to the whole agreement.

wanna know why the NHL has fought so hard to keep the Coyotes in Glendale? due to their clause tying the franchise in the arena

same thing would happen here...

and I willing to bet Katz won't find a more profitable venture in any other city in North America considering the revenue streams created by having the Oilers in Roger's Place
 

member 145483

Guest
If anybody wants to see something truly depressing...read how the City of Edmonton advertises her 'new arena':

Rogers Place Arena will be a first-class North American sports and entertainment venue, with seating capacity of approximately 18,600 for NHL hockey games and more than 20,000 for concerts and other events. It is expected to host more than 180 events per year. The site will also include a mixed-use community rink, allowing Edmontonians the opportunity to view NHL and WHL practices, to experience MacEwan University Griffins hockey and for community recreational use.
http://www.ead.ca/#/play.html

Edmonton Oilers aren't even mentioned.
 

beaterson

Registered User
Jun 13, 2011
492
0
the 780
Going off my previous point, would anyone be up for starting a kickstarter dedicated to getting rid of management? If a few thousand people put in 5-10 bucks it could start making some noise...
 

member 145483

Guest
wanna know why the NHL has fought so hard to keep the Coyotes in Glendale? due to their clause tying the franchise in the arena

same thing would happen here...

and I willing to bet Katz won't find a more profitable venture in any other city in North America considering the revenue streams created by having the Oilers in Roger's Place
The NHL is paying for the development of our new arena? Or, operation of our team? That's news to me.

The NHL is fighting to recoup NHL losses on that venture.

No such holdup in Edmonton.

As for profitability. That is, quite frankly laughable. Katz got a $2.5 Billion dollar deal done on the back of the Oilers. You don't think he wouldn't shell out $25 million, of his own dime, to prop them up in another city, and secure another multi-billion dollar deal?
 

member 145483

Guest
What do you suppose the NHL does with that money?
Split it equally among 30 teams, which gives the Oilers around $14.4 million (absolute max) of the total income...assuming that the NHL is taking zero from this contract.

Not even close to the 60+ milllion in yearly (non-playoff) gate receipts.

Btw, it is ($5.2 Billion / 12 years) / 30.
 

member 145483

Guest
does that mean we finally get an NHL franchise? ;)

not sure the big deal about not mentioning the Oilers
They mentioned the MacEwan Griffins...by name.

They did not mention a single Katz owned team (NHL or WHL) by name.

Strikingly odd since this entire development is a Katz Group brainchild.

And, yes, that does mean we may actually get an NHL team...:D
 

Summary

Registered User
Oct 13, 2009
658
28
It is 'engrained' because it is true.

Oilers revenues are gate driven. Ticket sales slump and we will be back in 1996, praying that the 'ticket drive' will sell enough to stop the looming relocation of the team.

The NHL bailed us out once, they will not do it again.

Are you really this daft? This question applies to anyone still believing or spouting this nonsense. Relocation was a TOTAL BLUFF. There is not any amount of chance the NHL would allow a profitable market (which Edmonton has handily proven to be) to leave for a market that would gauranteed lose money. Not only the NHL, but even the very thought that Katz himself would even want to go from making money, to losing money by moving markets is just assinine.

That all applied BEFORE the arena was built. How do you think the Oilers could relocate now? No really, how do you believe that? Because it's such a dumb thought that if you know how to work a keyboard then you should be able to think on a level that prevents you from thinking such nonsense.

Now, there's a 35 year location agreement in place. Now, they've built an arena in the city. Are they gonna relocate that as well?
 

CantHaveTkachev

Legends
Nov 30, 2004
50,091
30,317
St. OILbert, AB
The NHL is paying for the development of our new arena? Or, operation of our team? That's news to me.

The NHL is fighting to recoup NHL losses on that venture.

No such holdup in Edmonton.

As for profitability. That is, quite frankly laughable. Katz got a $2.5 Billion dollar deal done on the back of the Oilers. You don't think he wouldn't shell out $25 million, of his own dime, to prop them up in another city, and secure another multi-billion dollar deal?

where in North America would he get the type of deal he got in Edmonton?
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
33,160
13,005
Split it equally among 30 teams, which gives the Oilers around $14.4 million (absolute max) of the total income...assuming that the NHL is taking zero from this contract.

Not even close to the 60+ milllion in yearly (non-playoff) gate receipts.

Lets just say I am beginning to understand why you questioned your own math skills in a previous post.

I suggest you take a closer look at the parameters of all the current TV deals and other streams of revenue.
 

Psychoil

Registered User
Mar 10, 2011
3,667
160
Going off my previous point, would anyone be up for starting a kickstarter dedicated to getting rid of management? If a few thousand people put in 5-10 bucks it could start making some noise...

I mean I'd be down but aren't we already there with the lowe must go campaign?
 

member 145483

Guest
where in North America would he get the type of deal he got in Edmonton?
We will see in a couple of years.

If the City of Edmonton's gambit pays off, every city without an NHL team would want it. If the gambit doesn't, nobody.

So far, it looks like City of Edmonton is going to win, and that would make for a very easy sell to other cities.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad