Which franchises wouldn't suffer attendance issues under these conditions?

[tarheelhockey]

And percent of capacity? The Oilers arena only holds about 16,000 seats, and during 94 or 95 it underwent renovations which could explain the huge dip in 95...

It would not, however, explain the 13k they were drawing in only their 2nd and 3rd non-playoff seasons.

It's not a big deal to simply admit that Edmonton's love for the Oilers falls somewhere short of infinity. There are conceivable circumstances where the fans wouldn't buy tickets, and that is all the OP is asking.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It is. In determining which teams could withstand on ice failures, it's also to note which ones cannot. Process of elimination.

But it's not necessary to dwell on those who are manifestly struggling as noted in the OP.

So the redirects toward teams like the Panthers and Lightning, even though nobody mentioned them at all, tend to send red flags that someone is not really interested in discussing the topic at all.

 

[Fugu]

Let's try this again.

Please stay on the topic that the OP poses.

Those of you who troll, derail the thread and otherwise take the thread to a discussion already underway in other threads will be removed from the thread. If you're the same people that do this in every thread on the business board, you will get a vacation from the business board.

The forum is becoming impossible to read thanks to the factions here. Park the emotions at the door. We're only interested in the financial and managerial aspects here.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

I'm not sure how to interpret the original post. If the intent is to ask the question with the assumption the qualifiers include not only failure on the ice but also a short history 10-15 years, then the answer is very different than a franchise with 40 or more years and some success in its past. If I use current history but substitute 10 years of futility AND no playoff games won at all, with maybe qualifying for the post-season no more than once, I would opine only Toronto, Montreal and maybe the New York Rangers and that's a big maybe.

Just last week Ottawa's Team radio TGOR with Pierre McGuire opined that if the Send repeat this year's futility next season, attendance will take a major hit. Ottawa has been much more successful than many.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Toronto and Montreal may be all that are immune.

Minnesota as "would draw no matter what" is laughable, mostly because the North Stars went through a year with an average attendance of less than 9,000.

Chicago post-lockout had a couple of games with barely 8,000 in the building.

Pittsburgh had under 12,000 in the 2003-04 season.

No fan base is truly immune to a poor on-ice product with no hope for the immediate future. For that matter, no fan base is immune to a good on-ice product with no hope for the immediate future. To continue to point the finger and say, "Carolina this" or "Tampa Bay that" without looking long and hard at what certain "traditional" markets either suffered through or had to do to get butts in the seats is dishonest, it's grossly offensive, and it's absolutely ridiculous.

And that goes for both posters on this board and elsewhere in addition to members of the media who have selective memories in order to push an agenda.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

No success= No butts in seats= No money. This is the law that governs all sports franchises (and it is very interesting to note that the converse is not necessarily true), aside from the outlier, the Toronto Maple Leafs.

IMO, the only reason that Toronto has survived this long while maintaining an organizational reputation akin to the Mickey Mouse Club has to do with their transcendence into cultural identity.

As in, going to Toronto Maple Leafs' games has become a way of showing social and economic status. Only the really wealthy and the big shot executives get in. It's almost like the All Star Game, where half the crowd is NHL brass.

Owning a big house, a big car and 5 TV's is a symbol of wealth and power in America (and Canada). My theory is that Maple Leafs tickets have taken on a similar status in Toronto.

 

[kaiser matias]

Toronto and Montreal may be all that are immune.

Minnesota as "would draw no matter what" is laughable, mostly because the North Stars went through a year with an average attendance of less than 9,000.

Chicago post-lockout had a couple of games with barely 8,000 in the building.

Pittsburgh had under 12,000 in the 2003-04 season.

No fan base is truly immune to a poor on-ice product with no hope for the immediate future. For that matter, no fan base is immune to a good on-ice product with no hope for the immediate future. To continue to point the finger and say, "Carolina this" or "Tampa Bay that" without looking long and hard at what certain "traditional" markets either suffered through or had to do to get butts in the seats is dishonest, it's grossly offensive, and it's absolutely ridiculous.

And that goes for both posters on this board and elsewhere in addition to members of the media who have selective memories in order to push an agenda.

I would have to agree with this. Every team has recently shown signs of low attendence, relatively speaking, except for Toronto (I recall hearing Montreal having some low-ish numbers around 2000, but could be wrong). Regardless of the location of the team, if they are doing poorly on the ice, they tend to have fans disappear.

 

[jkrdevil]

To the original post Toronto, Rangers (because the two buildings are basically all corporate), and maybe Montreal.

I don't think you can say any other team because evidence is there to contradict it.

 

[htpwn]

No success= No butts in seats= No money. This is the law that governs all sports franchises (and it is very interesting to note that the converse is not necessarily true), aside from the outlier, the Toronto Maple Leafs.

IMO, the only reason that Toronto has survived this long while maintaining an organizational reputation akin to the Mickey Mouse Club has to do with their transcendence into cultural identity.

As in, going to Toronto Maple Leafs' games has become a way of showing social and economic status. Only the really wealthy and the big shot executives get in. It's almost like the All Star Game, where half the crowd is NHL brass.

Owning a big house, a big car and 5 TV's is a symbol of wealth and power in America (and Canada). My theory is that Maple Leafs tickets have taken on a similar status in Toronto.

A big part of Toronto's ability to weather poor seasons is the season ticket base. Some have held tickets from the 1930s and to be frank, not a lot of them become available each year. You give them and up you don't get them back. To get through the waiting list at the current pace is something like 100 years.

Interestingly though, as far as I know, TV ratings haven't taken much of a dip.

 

[MoreOrr]

To those who still appear to have a bit of confusion about the OP; as I said, you can respond to it from both sides of the question. But essentially, it's like asking: 'Who wouldn't be upset if someone insulted his/her mother?' The assumption is that anyone would be. In this case, 'Which franchises wouldn't suffer from poor attendance issues if the team failed to be competitive for much of a very lengthy stretch of Seasons?'

And thus, for you to post opinions and perhaps evidence to support or contradict the assumption of the OP, with respect to this or that team or teams in the League.

My assumption is, again, that very few teams in the League would be almost completely immune.

 

[Alan Jackson]

To those who still appear to have a bit of confusion about the OP; as I said, you can respond to it from both sides of the question. But essentially, it's like asking: 'Who wouldn't be upset if someone insulted his/her mother?' The assumption is that anyone would be. In this case, 'Which franchises wouldn't suffer from poor attendance issues if the team failed to be competitive for much of a very lengthy stretch of Seasons?'

And thus, for you to post opinions and perhaps evidence to support or contradict the assumption of the OP, with respect to this or that team or teams in the League.

My assumption is, again, that very few teams in the League would be almost completely immune.

Again, every team would suffer, save perhaps one or maybe two. It's a question of degree.

 

[Metzen]

And percent of capacity? The Oilers arena only holds about 16,000 seats, and during 94 or 95 it underwent renovations which could explain the huge dip in 95...

I think a timeline of the "down years" would help explain what happened to the fans. This context may be transferrable to other teams and help explain why they may have poor attendance as well.

The Northlands Coliseum had an maximum attendance of ~17,000

Edmonton Oilers
Season  Attend   US$          Notes
1989-90 17,008  0.85CAD * Stanley cup winners
1990-91 16,843  0.86CAD * Conference Finals
1991-92 16,179  0.84CAD * Conference Finals - Selloff of NHL players begins (Messier, Anderson, Steve Smith, Ken Linseman)
1992-93 14,797  0.78CAD * Tikkanen, Joe Murphy sold, first time a mention of selling/relocating the Oilers
1993-94 13,478  0.72CAD * Martin Gelinas, Craig Mactavish sold
1994-95 13,124  0.73CAD
1995-96 12,335  0.73CAD * shortened season. Renovated stadium, attendance now maximum of 16,384
1996-97 16,044  0.72CAD * relocation threatened if season tickets did not exceed 13,000.  They exceeded 13,000.  Pocklington threatens the team is for sale but never officially declares it.  Playoffs return to Edmonton
1997-98 16,245  0.68CAD * Oilers make the playoffs again.  Pocklington puts the team up for sale before the season is over.  Local ownership purchases the team shortly thereafter.
1998-99 16,251  0.68CAD
1999-00 15,802  0.67CAD * Local ownership focuses on selling luxury boxes.  Is successful in selling out all luxury suites
2000-01 15,612  0.65CAD *

Within a span of 3 seasons the Oilers had sold 8 out of their top 10 scorers from 1991-92, getting back cash for nearly all of them. Almost as soon as a player registered value, he was sold quickly as well (aka, Vincent Damphouse) The biggest dip in attendance corresponds to when 4 of the top 10 were released. The fans knew they were getting shafted pretty hard core and the drop in attendance corroborates that pretty obviously. By 1994 threats of relocation looming, a team that has been gutted and pillaged resulted in a record low attendance, followed by another record worse attendance in the shortened 95-96 season. I believe the 95-96 season is the same season Northlands renovated Rexall and reduced the seating to the "now" 16,834 by removing seats to add luxury boxes.

Threats of relocation if season tickets did not step up (to above 13,000 IIRC) to make the Oiler's profitable resulted in the creation of a season ticket drive called "Friends of the Oilers". These were not Oiler employee's or NHL employee's, but local businessmen and women that created this drive. It was successful. The Oiler's sold above 13,000 season tickets from ~6,000 and Pocklington was forced to keep his promise to avoid relocation, for that season. By the end of the season, Pocklington was not making enough money on the Oiler's to overcome the debt repayment's his other businesses required (he had some spectacular failures costing him millions). Though the Oiler's were profitable ($4-5M), they were not profitable enough and Pocklington went back to try and sell the team to Les Alexander and move the team to Houston for ~$70M US ($102M CAD). Fortunately for Edmonton, Northland's lease agreement with Pocklington prevented him from selling the team to any non-Edmonton group for 90(?) days after saying the team is for sale. A year later, Pocklington put the team up for sale. Shortly after putting the team up for sale, it was sold to the local ownership consortium.

Currency
I don't think you can pin the drop of attendance on currency for the majority of the 90's. The biggest drop in the value of the dollar coincided with the selling off of top Oiler's resulting in a "perfect storm" of fan apathy and indifference. The season ticket drive to "Save the Oilers" in 96-97 successfully restored attendance to near maximum even though the currency had still not recovered or showed signs of recovering. The currency by the end of the 90's and into the 2000's had reached a low point and this appears it may have had a minor effect on attendance (~600 fans/game) though it should be noted at this time that the Oiler's tickets were now the lowest in the NHL ($25US). So a low currency does appear to have an effect but the stadium is still high in capacity and the much more expensive luxury suites were sold out successfully.


To mimic the conditions the following would need to happen:
1) Selling your top talented players season after season for 4-5 straight seasons and receive little to nothing in return a portion of the time (we'll say 50% of the time)
2) Have the economy tank in the local area by devaluing your dollar today vs. what you spent last year
3) Have constant talks and threats of relocation for 4-5 seasons

Essentially, it comes down to an owner that is absolutely toxic to the team. I think this is why Chicago gets a pass during it's "lean" years and Edmonton should as well. Phoenix is a bit different because I felt Moye's put forth an honest effort to draw people into the seats (hiring Gretzky was a his "ace in the hole" marketing ploy through and through) but the market didn't respond. The Oiler's, even at their worst still had fans willing to go watch the games for this terrible team and put up big money in the form of season tickets to prevent the team from moving by filling their toxic owner with enough money to fulfill a promise he made. <-- How many teams would continue to fund a toxic owner just to keep a team?

Imagine putting your team under these conditions. Imagine Pittsburgh sold Crosby. Three seasons later it sold Malkin, Staal, Letang and Cooke. It may have gotten a decent player or two back in those transactions (say, a David Krejci [Vinny Damphouse] and Nik Antropov [Bernie Nicholls]) but they are sold within a season or two as well. Your team sits between 4th and 6th last in the NHL after the selling of your prized players for 4 years. Management has made it obvious they are going to sell the team for several seasons since the sell off began and rumours for multiple seasons is that the team will sell this year to a Houston tycoon. During this time, it's becoming more costly to go to games as your dollar isn't buying what it used to. What used to cost you $66 for a ticket is now costing you $80 even though the price "didn't really" change. That is, your higher ticket price pays for the same $ salary of the NHL player you're going to go see. In the mean time, other teams are spending more on salaries because $66 to them is $80 to you. Lastly a threat, if you, the fans, don't purchase a large percentage of season tickets the team will be sold and moved this season.



http://hockey.ballparks.com/NHL/EdmontonOilers/articles.htm

 

[Ernie]

The largest thing is how much hockey is ingrained in the local culture, IMO.

Even when the Blackhawks were in the doldrums, nobody questioned that the team would leave. Heck, they were getting outdrawn by the local AHL team for a while there. Still a ton of hockey fans, just no desire to see a crappy team.

Contrast that with a team like Tampa Bay. They win a cup and get an attendance boost, but it dissipates fairly quickly. Sure, with good ownership and good management, the team can survive in that city, but it will not be in a strong position until it has existed in the marketplace for a couple more decades.

The simple fact is that 14 teams are going to miss the playoffs every year, and 8-10 are going to be "also rans" for a string of years. If a team isn't competitive in a good NHL market, they can just wait things out. But in a marginal NHL market, the clock is always ticking.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Rangers, Leafs, Habs, Flyers, Red Wings and Oilers.

And on the fringe...Wild, Blues, Sabres, Senators, Flames and Canucks.

So...12 of 15 teams are pretty safe no matter what. Other teams like the Blues, Bruins, Avalanche, Kings, etc. are probably pretty safe bets but have shown strange dips and low attendance numbers from time to time.

 

[Metzen]

It would be interesting to know how Sharks fans would react to serious team issues. They are a passionate bunch down in San Jose.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Interesting that only a couple of posts have mentioned Philly. To the best of my knowledge, they have had steady sellouts for over 20 years now. I'm sure it would fall off slightly if things got really bad, but I think they are close to Rangers status.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Interesting that only a couple of posts have mentioned Philly. To the best of my knowledge, they have had steady sellouts for over 20 years now. I'm sure it would fall off slightly if things got really bad, but I think they are close to Rangers status.

It's hard to say what would happen in Philly. They had one truly bad season 2006-07 and while "attendance" as in sold tickets didn't take a major hit, there were plenty of open seats at games. The real key to attendance in any market is season ticket sales, and that season, the Flyers were expected to contend as usual. One bad year won't kill season ticket sales.

Even those who quote the Leafs and Oilers as "bad" don't realize they are much better than the really bad franchises. Oilers went to the SCF since the lockout, the Leafs made the playoffs 5 times in the last 10 years and advanced at least a round 4 times, went to the conference finals. The Oilers made the playoffs 4 times in the last 10 seasons, and of course went to the Stanley Cup Finals. Several teams have either not made the playoffs at all or made them once and never have won a single game, much less advance.

The situations just aren't comparable. I think as Alan Jackson posted, every team would be effected by futility. Considering the Leafs haven't made the playoffs since the lockout, perhaps 6 more consecutive seasons of no playoffs in Toronto and 7 more in Edmonton would be a reasonable test of the effect.

 

[syr14]

i will say from my experience of going to capitals games for years it is pretty obvious. Before Alex Ovechkin and even the team's first season with him, the Verizon Center was half empty.

Now after just a few seasons of winning games, putting an exciting team on the ice, caps tickets are easily the toughest ticket in town. We barely win any playoff series let alone a cup but the fan base has become enormous.

Practically every market would have trouble filling the seats with a bad team for a prolonged period of time. if you win games and put a product on the ice people would want to see, they will come.

 

[2023FriendshipTour]

Toronto and New York for obvious reasons, such huge populations and it's all business people.

Montreal to an extent, but if they were bad for long enough I am sure they would even dip.


Really that's about it, you could throw in a bunch of teams, who's attendance wouldn't drop so much after a bad season or two, but over a long enough period every team, but the Leafs and Rangers would see a decent drop in attendance.

And then they start winning again and the people come back!

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Philly is also an outlier, but on the opposite spectrum (pun!!) of the Leafs, in that they have been so successful for the majority of their franchise life, that no one can really say what would happen if the wheels fell off.

To the best of my knowledge, the Flyers have never experienced prolonged futility.

Also, Montreal was falling in the late '90s/ early '00s in terms of attendance, but they quickly resurged after they returned to the playoffs. It really is all about degree.

 

[garnetpalmetto]

Philly is also an outlier, but on the opposite spectrum (pun!!) of the Leafs, in that they have been so successful for the majority of their franchise life, that no one can really say what would happen if the wheels fell off.

To the best of my knowledge, the Flyers have never experienced prolonged futility.

Also, Montreal was falling in the late '90s/ early '00s in terms of attendance, but they quickly resurged after they returned to the playoffs. It really is all about degree.

There was a period of about five years (1989-1994) when the Flyers consistently finished 5th or 6th in their division. That's the closest to any prolonged run at futility they've had. It should be noted that prior to that the Flyers had made the playoffs 17 seasons consecutively and in that time had won two Cups and been to the Cup finals four other times.

 

[Jamin]

I picked out a low season for each of them. Seemed fair enough, as I was only pointing out that those markets are not "automatic" and not trying to spell out their entire attendance history.

If you prefer:

Edmonton Oilers
1992-93 14,797
1993-94 13,478
1994-95 13,124
1995-96 12,335
1996-97 16,044
1997-98 16,245
1998-99 16,251
1999-00 15,802
2000-01 15,612

for a 16000 seat arena being in the 15 and 16 thousands doesnt seem so bad as winning the cup and not selling out the following year

 

[Jamin]

I think a timeline of the "down years" would help explain what happened to the fans. This context may be transferrable to other teams and help explain why they may have poor attendance as well.

The Northlands Coliseum had an maximum attendance of ~17,000

Edmonton Oilers
Season  Attend   US$          Notes
1989-90 17,008  0.85CAD * Stanley cup winners
1990-91 16,843  0.86CAD * Conference Finals
1991-92 16,179  0.84CAD * Conference Finals - Selloff of NHL players begins (Messier, Anderson, Steve Smith, Ken Linseman)
1992-93 14,797  0.78CAD * Tikkanen, Joe Murphy sold, first time a mention of selling/relocating the Oilers
1993-94 13,478  0.72CAD * Martin Gelinas, Craig Mactavish sold
1994-95 13,124  0.73CAD
1995-96 12,335  0.73CAD * shortened season. Renovated stadium, attendance now maximum of 16,384
1996-97 16,044  0.72CAD * relocation threatened if season tickets did not exceed 13,000.  They exceeded 13,000.  Pocklington threatens the team is for sale but never officially declares it.  Playoffs return to Edmonton
1997-98 16,245  0.68CAD * Oilers make the playoffs again.  Pocklington puts the team up for sale before the season is over.  Local ownership purchases the team shortly thereafter.
1998-99 16,251  0.68CAD
1999-00 15,802  0.67CAD * Local ownership focuses on selling luxury boxes.  Is successful in selling out all luxury suites
2000-01 15,612  0.65CAD *

Within a span of 3 seasons the Oilers had sold 8 out of their top 10 scorers from 1991-92, getting back cash for nearly all of them. Almost as soon as a player registered value, he was sold quickly as well (aka, Vincent Damphouse) The biggest dip in attendance corresponds to when 4 of the top 10 were released. The fans knew they were getting shafted pretty hard core and the drop in attendance corroborates that pretty obviously. By 1994 threats of relocation looming, a team that has been gutted and pillaged resulted in a record low attendance, followed by another record worse attendance in the shortened 95-96 season. I believe the 95-96 season is the same season Northlands renovated Rexall and reduced the seating to the "now" 16,834 by removing seats to add luxury boxes.

Threats of relocation if season tickets did not step up (to above 13,000 IIRC) to make the Oiler's profitable resulted in the creation of a season ticket drive called "Friends of the Oilers". These were not Oiler employee's or NHL employee's, but local businessmen and women that created this drive. It was successful. The Oiler's sold above 13,000 season tickets from ~6,000 and Pocklington was forced to keep his promise to avoid relocation, for that season. By the end of the season, Pocklington was not making enough money on the Oiler's to overcome the debt repayment's his other businesses required (he had some spectacular failures costing him millions). Though the Oiler's were profitable ($4-5M), they were not profitable enough and Pocklington went back to try and sell the team to Les Alexander and move the team to Houston for ~$70M US ($102M CAD). Fortunately for Edmonton, Northland's lease agreement with Pocklington prevented him from selling the team to any non-Edmonton group for 90(?) days after saying the team is for sale. A year later, Pocklington put the team up for sale. Shortly after putting the team up for sale, it was sold to the local ownership consortium.

Currency
I don't think you can pin the drop of attendance on currency for the majority of the 90's. The biggest drop in the value of the dollar coincided with the selling off of top Oiler's resulting in a "perfect storm" of fan apathy and indifference. The season ticket drive to "Save the Oilers" in 96-97 successfully restored attendance to near maximum even though the currency had still not recovered or showed signs of recovering. The currency by the end of the 90's and into the 2000's had reached a low point and this appears it may have had a minor effect on attendance (~600 fans/game) though it should be noted at this time that the Oiler's tickets were now the lowest in the NHL ($25US). So a low currency does appear to have an effect but the stadium is still high in capacity and the much more expensive luxury suites were sold out successfully.


To mimic the conditions the following would need to happen:
1) Selling your top talented players season after season for 4-5 straight seasons and receive little to nothing in return a portion of the time (we'll say 50% of the time)
2) Have the economy tank in the local area by devaluing your dollar today vs. what you spent last year
3) Have constant talks and threats of relocation for 4-5 seasons

Essentially, it comes down to an owner that is absolutely toxic to the team. I think this is why Chicago gets a pass during it's "lean" years and Edmonton should as well. Phoenix is a bit different because I felt Moye's put forth an honest effort to draw people into the seats (hiring Gretzky was a his "ace in the hole" marketing ploy through and through) but the market didn't respond. The Oiler's, even at their worst still had fans willing to go watch the games for this terrible team and put up big money in the form of season tickets to prevent the team from moving by filling their toxic owner with enough money to fulfill a promise he made. <-- How many teams would continue to fund a toxic owner just to keep a team?

Imagine putting your team under these conditions. Imagine Pittsburgh sold Crosby. Three seasons later it sold Malkin, Staal, Letang and Cooke. It may have gotten a decent player or two back in those transactions (say, a David Krejci [Vinny Damphouse] and Nik Antropov [Bernie Nicholls]) but they are sold within a season or two as well. Your team sits between 4th and 6th last in the NHL after the selling of your prized players for 4 years. Management has made it obvious they are going to sell the team for several seasons since the sell off began and rumours for multiple seasons is that the team will sell this year to a Houston tycoon. During this time, it's becoming more costly to go to games as your dollar isn't buying what it used to. What used to cost you $66 for a ticket is now costing you $80 even though the price "didn't really" change. That is, your higher ticket price pays for the same $ salary of the NHL player you're going to go see. In the mean time, other teams are spending more on salaries because $66 to them is $80 to you. Lastly a threat, if you, the fans, don't purchase a large percentage of season tickets the team will be sold and moved this season.



http://hockey.ballparks.com/NHL/EdmontonOilers/articles.htm

I remember as a little kid all the efforts to save the oilers, I still remember donating at a mcdonalds

 

[Bittco]

is this really an apples to apples comparison? I know these days most teams use 'tickets sold' as attendance but was this always the case?

 

[garnetpalmetto]

is this really an apples to apples comparison? I know these days most teams use 'tickets sold' as attendance but was this always the case?

To my knowledge, tickets distributed is usually the metric by which attendance is computed, both now and historically.