36 replies to this topic

[bush_cheney2004]

Nope.

The American expansion in to the sun-belt is what has hurt the game. Get rid of those teams and the game will improve considerably.

I don't think so....some Canadian teams suck just as bad...with and without genuine Canadians on the team. When was the last time that a Canadian team won The Cup? LOL! (low blow...better report me!)

[Black Dog]

Anyone that knows anything realizes that the long term growth of the NHL is going to be linked to its participation in America. I'm all for adding a few more teams in Canada, but there's a ceiling here. There just isn't the population. The real potential is in American NHL growth. If you withdraw teams from south of the border, all you're going to do is relegate hockey as a niche sport, instead of one of the 4 major North American sports.

Hockey is a niche sport and will remain that way. The U.S. market in terms of hockey interest is pretty much tapped out as it is. All else being equal, the league would be better off long-term by trying to satisfy the insatiable Canadian appetite for the game, rather than hoping to create a market where none exists.

[Black Dog]

I don't think so....some Canadian teams suck just as bad...with and without genuine Canadians on the team. When was the last time that a Canadian team won The Cup? LOL! (low blow...better report me!)

A Canadian team won the cup last year. 14 of 19 regular players on the Boston Bruins were from Canada.

[LonJowett]

I don't think so....some Canadian teams suck just as bad...

Just to help you out, the discussion is about revenue.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just to help you out, the discussion is about revenue.

Just to help you out...we already discussed this last year. The American markets still provide the bulk of NHL revenue and has a much larger potential market (gate & cable television). Ottawa's revenue is not much better than many other "shitty" teams.


http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/2010/06/nhl-gate-revenues.html

Edited by bush_cheney2004, 04 January 2012 - 01:45 PM.

[Black Dog]

Just to help you out...we already discussed this last year. The American markets still provide the bulk of NHL revenue and has a much larger potential market (gate & cable television).

20 per cent of the league accounts for 33 per cent of the revenue. Problem?

Also: the growth potential of the U.S. means nothing if you can't realize it.

Ottawa's revenue is not much better than many other "shitty" teams.

http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/2010/06/nhl-gate-revenues.html

So revenues around double that of the struggling sun belt franchises is "not much better"?

Of course that's not accounting for the money Canadian franchises generate from sponsorship and merch sales (much of which goes into the league's coffers to prop up the U.S. teams in...um.."growing" markets.)

Edited by Black Dog, 04 January 2012 - 01:59 PM.

[Shady]

If you retreat from American markets, all you do is make the NHL the Canadian version of the Swedish elite league, or the Russian KHL. It makes no long term sense.

[bush_cheney2004]

20 per cent of the league accounts for 33 per cent of the revenue. Problem?

Also: the growth potential of the U.S. means nothing if you can't realize it.

It's a lot better than never being able realize such growth in Canada. Clearly revenue has increased because of American expansion, not Canadian legend.

So revenues around double that of the struggling sun belt franchises is "not much better"?

Not for Ottawa...which is just very average.

Of course that's not accounting for the money Canadian franchises generate from sponsorship and merch sales (much of which goes into the league's coffers to prop up the U.S. teams in...um.."growing" markets.)

Yea, nobody in the USA ever buys NHL merchandise.

[Black Dog]

If you retreat from American markets, all you do is make the NHL the Canadian version of the Swedish elite league, or the Russian KHL. It makes no long term sense.

Relocating failing franchises in places like Phoenix or Carolina is hardly withdrawing from the American market. Maintaining unprofitable teams in places where the game will never be more than a novelty and requiring successful teams to prop them up through revenue sharing is hardly good business.

[Black Dog]

It's a lot better than never being able realize such growth in Canada.

Uh. No. It's not. Either way, you're not growing.

Clearly revenue has increased because of American expansion, not Canadian legend.

Prove it.

Not for Ottawa...which is just very average.

Uh. No. Ottawa is slightly above league average. Which, given teh size of the market in question, kinda supports my point over yours.

Yea, nobody in the USA ever buys NHL merchandise.

Who said they did not?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Maintaining unprofitable teams in places where the game will never be more than a novelty and requiring successful teams to prop them up through revenue sharing is hardly good business.

Moving the goal eh? The Ottawa Senators look to be losing money...again. Why should the successful teams have to prop them up? Does this mean they are "shitty"?



http://www.obj.ca/Local/2010-05-17/article-1097654/Senators-lose-money-for-second-straight-season/1

[Shady]

Maintaining unprofitable teams in places where the game will never be more than a novelty

The longer a team stays in a market, the better chance it becomes more than a novelty and instead part of the city and community. I'm not saying that a couple of US teams shouldn't be relocated. But a reflexive "pull out of the US" mindset is counter productive.

[Black Dog]

Moving the goal eh? The Ottawa Senators look to be losing money...again. Why should the successful teams have to prop them up? Does this mean they are "shitty"?

Are the Sens paying into or benefiting from revenue sharing? If not, they aren't being propped up.

[Black Dog]

The longer a team stays in a market, the better chance it becomes more than a novelty and instead part of the city and community.

How long? It's been 20 years since the last round of expansion/relocations. Carolina and Tampa Bay each won a Cup in that time; they're still drawing flies.

I'm not saying that a couple of US teams shouldn't be relocated. But a reflexive "pull out of the US" mindset is counter productive.

Good thing I'm not doing that.

[guyser]

Now you are being purposely obtuse to try and prove your point.

Am I? Seriously,lets go back to the point I countered.....You said....

They have the least population (~700,000) of any NHL city.

I said they dont, Buffalo has less people living in their NHL cityand that is true.

Teams draw fans from a distance, not just the city centre. 1.2 million versus 700,000

However, Winnipeg probably has more hockey fans in that smaller population. Like, WB stated, it probably evens out somehow, or maybe Winnipeg is actually a "bigger market" if you look at just hockey fans. Hard to say without having data....

Teams do draw from a wide range outside the city.

Manitoba is the draw fro the Jets, alongside the people who live in N Ont close to the border.

Winnipeg may have more fans, but the stat that makes more sense is the per capita income of the two.
Buffalo 's is $15,000 and Winnipegs is $36,000. Thats a huge disparity and the reason in the past that Buffalo came close to losing the team.

TV rights for local games, concessions, corp boxes,jersey sales.....all adds up to Buff being smaller.

Add to that a woeful commercial base in Buffalo , and in comaprison to Winterpeg not even in the same stratosphere, and you have what anyone would call a very small market, especially if you compare it to Winnipeg,although I imagine Columbus is in tough too.
Look at Atlanta, there wss no one at all willing to even look into buying and keeping the Flames. Atl is a huge market but yet, not a single peep was heard.