1454 replies to this topic

[F.Michael]

Problem I see with another Canadian team is that all of Canada already has their favorite teams picked out. Sure whatever local region its in would likely attend games just for the sake of being able to attend a game, but I bet merchandise sales would be fairly low at first.

Then again, I can't think of many places in the states where that would be much different. Seattle might bite if they suddenly had a hockey team.

Actually you coudld't be more wrong...Winnipeg Jets merchandise still sells well (in Manitoba of course), and from what I've read the folks there cannot wait for the return of "their" hockey franchise.

[Opie]

The other thing is long term, if you put a team in Hamilton now the young kids who don't really have hockey allegiances drawn yet will in a few years be die hard fans of the local team.

I really think Canada could handle another team with ease.

I personally would love to see the return of the Whale, but I know how that would go. Hartford is to fickle, they would have strong attendance for a few years and then once the newness wears off if they are not a winner, the attendance would plummet!

But I just like the idea of the Whale, much like I would love to see Dallas contracted and the Wild made into the North Stars, just because I want to see the North Stars return, and for no other reason!

[cusimano_brothers]

From Toronto Star :

...
A Probe Research poll conducted earlier this month found 61 per cent of Winnipeg residents are in favour of the NHL returning to the city, an eight-per-cent rise from a year ago.

The number of residents opposed to big league hockey coming back to Winnipeg is going in the opposite direction — from 37 per cent a year ago to 26 per cent in the recent poll.

The poll also found more than half of adults in the city (54 per cent) would buy a ticket to at least one game a year at an average price of $70.
...

[eva unit zero]

The other thing is long term, if you put a team in Hamilton now the young kids who don't really have hockey allegiances drawn yet will in a few years be die hard fans of the local team.

I really think Canada could handle another team with ease.

I personally would love to see the return of the Whale, but I know how that would go. Hartford is to fickle, they would have strong attendance for a few years and then once the newness wears off if they are not a winner, the attendance would plummet!

But I just like the idea of the Whale, much like I would love to see Dallas contracted and the Wild made into the North Stars, just because I want to see the North Stars return, and for no other reason!

Seeing the "North Stars" trademark return to Minnesota would be nice, but Dallas is a very successful team so what do you do with a name for them? Plus, the Wild don't have a ton of cash, so can they really afford to pay for the trademark?

As for Hartford, they didn't fail due to a lack of success on the ice. They failed because Hartford is too close to Boston. The Whalers were close to Boston for a reason, actually; it were intended as the WHA competition for the Bruins. When the WHA failed, the Whalers had a decent fanbase, but the Bruins' base was much stronger and had long-running ties to the team. The Jets were a shot in the dark at fans with no local team, however many of those fans had already chosen allegiances and limited the Jets' ability to grow a fan base. The Nordiques also suffered the same fate, as the province was already owned by the Canadiens. The Oilers were intended to compete with the Flames for Alberta. It was a failing attempt during the 70s. They would have been relocated as well, had it not been for the complete domination of the 80s. Many young fans and bandwagoners jumped on with the Oil.

The Islanders and Devils are other teams in this situation due to their proximity to the Rangers; had they not each had significant success when they did, the teams would have moved shortly after, as there were already rumors of the teams being in trouble and/or preparing to move. The Rangers and Canadiens had already caused previous teams in their areas to fold or move through dominating the market.

Hamilton could support a team; but there would be a major issue with Buffalo.
Quebec City is likely able to support teams given the increase in population as well as the new attitude that would provide better team support, even if the Nords aren't the Habs.
Winnipeg feels so slighted about having lost their team that team support would be strong, at least for the first five-seven seasons. After that, it could wane based on team success, or it may not.

Regardless, the Yotes are probably staying in Phoenix, and if not that they will be in Winnipeg.

Edited by eva unit zero, 04 July 2010 - 01:02 AM.

[cusimano_brothers]

From TSN :

It is the topic of some of the most heated debates in Canadian sport: Why shouldn't there be another NHL franchise in Canada? In a joint venture between TSN and The Globe and Mail, the investigative series Why Not Canada? makes definite conclusions regarding the possibility of the addition of an NHL franchise in a Canadian market.

Led by veteran journalist Dave Naylor, the Why Not Canada? series analyzes new wide-ranging and in-depth socio-economic data that clearly illustrates the viability of an NHL franchise expanding or relocating in the Winnipeg, Hamilton, the Greater Toronto Area and Quebec City markets.

The multiplatform investigation includes a six-part series on SportsCentre beginning Monday, accompanied by daily features in The Globe and Mail and online at globeandmail.com. TSN.ca will also have a dedicated Why Not Canada? page beginning Monday with written features, video and in-depth statistical breakdowns for the Winnipeg, Hamilton, the Greater Toronto Area and Quebec City markets.

“Six of the league's 30 teams are located here, yet estimates are that more than 30 per cent of NHL revenue comes from Canada,” says Naylor. “Many Canadians ask themselves: if U.S. franchises are struggling, Why Not Canada? We will look at that question and try to separate the emotion from the facts to definitively answer if another franchise could survive in Canada.”
...

...
The broadcast schedule for Why Not Canada? on SportsCentre and TSN.ca:

- Monday, July 5 – Part 1: Introduction to Why Not Canada?
- Tuesday, July 6 – Part 2: Winnipeg
- Wednesday, July 7 – Part 3: Hamilton
- Thursday, July 8 – Part 4: Greater Toronto Area
- Friday, July 9 – Part 5: Quebec City
- Saturday, July 10 – Part 6: Conclusions

This sounds like it will be good to watch; Mr. Naylor was on "Off The Record" on 30/06 and tipped his hand to the conclusion of what city is ready right now.

I almost forgot what might be one of the real highlights:

As part of the series, Naylor sits down with NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman for his opinion and reactions to the research regarding each of the potential Canadian NHL markets considered.

Edited by cusimano_brothers, 03 July 2010 - 10:13 AM.

[CaliWingsNut]

Should be interesting watching them try and explain their case.

Your bolded figure didn't impress me. They make 30% of sales w/ 20% of the teams, and their currency is up on the dollar. It only means their teams only do a couple percent better than the US overall (like 2-3% ea.), and includes Toronto & Montreal.

The problem (and I'm sure I sound like a broken record) is I don't see the added fan bases being available to actually support a team past the first few years. Canada already has 6 teams in a country with a smaller in population than California.


Please keep in mind, any new franchise is going to need new fans, not old ones already paying.

Edited by CaliWingsNut, 03 July 2010 - 11:13 AM.

[IILeiBlazeII]

Canada already has 6 teams in a country with a smaller in population than California.

The problem with *your* argument is while the population size of Canada is small, 98% (*NOT* a real persentage, but a generalization) of Canadians live, die and breathe hockey. California has a very loud, very vocal minority that are die-hard hockey fanatics. Trust me - I lived there for 3 1/2 years in San Bernardino during the Gretzky era. If you went up to 100 people on the street and said "Hey, man - you watch the finals game last night?" 75 would probably just look at you funny (or shank you) and the remaining 25% would know some Canadian named Gretzky who is the King of hockey. Or something.

Now, am I suggesting moving CA hockey teams? No - I don't know how hockey is treated in NorCal with the Sharks, but they're at least successful in the regular season and obviously the Ducks are doing fine on the ice and the Kings are back on the path to being contenders... but I *am* saying that there are suspect teams - Phoenix, Florida and Atlanta - where "fans" are awful bandwagoners that only hop on if there's success on the ice. When is Florida going to win a cup? How about Atlanta? Phoenix is already on the bubble of moving! Is it wrong that the fans aren't in the stands without success? Of course not - if you were born and raised in Glendale, AZ, when was the last time you went out in the winter onto a frozen lake and shot the puck around with your chums? How many ice arenas do those Floridians attend in their childhood years? How many parents in Atlanta, GA buy their kids skates for their 5th birthday instead of socks, underwear and the newest toy/video game?

The majority of us having grown up, lived in or visited a place like Michigan (or Canada or Scandinavia or 'X location with a cold weather climate') gives us a different perception to the game of hockey than someone from a warm-weather climate. Is that bad? Does that make us superior? No. But it *does* mean that butts would be in the stands in a place that hockey can be played naturally vs artificially.

If the Yotes moved back up to Winnipeg, they'd sell out season tickets for at least the next 5 years - and the team as it is is competitive enough to put on a good display on the ice for years to come. If you moved another team to Quebec City or Hamilton, you'd see success (at least monetarily), too. While I sympathize with the Whaler fans, I'm not certain about Hartford as a location... but who knows? I'd imagine the North East could support another franchise (maybe just move the Islanders up there? Who knows). All I'm saying is the argument that people exist in greater numbers in warm weather climates does not equate to 'hey, lets put a hockey team there and see what happens!'

/rant

[CaliWingsNut]

The problem with *your* argument is while the population size of Canada is small, 98% (*NOT* a real persentage, but a generalization) of Canadians live, die and breathe hockey. California has a very loud, very vocal minority that are die-hard hockey fanatics. Trust me - I lived there for 3 1/2 years in San Bernardino during the Gretzky era. If you went up to 100 people on the street and said "Hey, man - you watch the finals game last night?" 75 would probably just look at you funny (or shank you) and the remaining 25% would know some Canadian named Gretzky who is the King of hockey. Or something.

Now, am I suggesting moving CA hockey teams? No - I don't know how hockey is treated in NorCal with the Sharks, but they're at least successful in the regular season and obviously the Ducks are doing fine on the ice and the Kings are back on the path to being contenders... but I *am* saying that there are suspect teams - Phoenix, Florida and Atlanta - where "fans" are awful bandwagoners that only hop on if there's success on the ice. When is Florida going to win a cup? How about Atlanta? Phoenix is already on the bubble of moving! Is it wrong that the fans aren't in the stands without success? Of course not - if you were born and raised in Glendale, AZ, when was the last time you went out in the winter onto a frozen lake and shot the puck around with your chums? How many ice arenas do those Floridians attend in their childhood years? How many parents in Atlanta, GA buy their kids skates for their 5th birthday instead of socks, underwear and the newest toy/video game?

The majority of us having grown up, lived in or visited a place like Michigan (or Canada or Scandinavia or 'X location with a cold weather climate') gives us a different perception to the game of hockey than someone from a warm-weather climate. Is that bad? Does that make us superior? No. But it *does* mean that butts would be in the stands in a place that hockey can be played naturally vs artificially.

If the Yotes moved back up to Winnipeg, they'd sell out season tickets for at least the next 5 years - and the team as it is is competitive enough to put on a good display on the ice for years to come. If you moved another team to Quebec City or Hamilton, you'd see success (at least monetarily), too. While I sympathize with the Whaler fans, I'm not certain about Hartford as a location... but who knows? I'd imagine the North East could support another franchise (maybe just move the Islanders up there? Who knows). All I'm saying is the argument that people exist in greater numbers in warm weather climates does not equate to 'hey, lets put a hockey team there and see what happens!'

/rant

Again... what does any of that have to do with finding more new fans to support an entirely new team filling a 20,000 person arena 41 times a year?


Can the Canadians quit trying to prove that they are the bigger hockey fans? This has nothing to do with that.

My argument is that Canada is already saturated. Not that California should have more teams. Not that Canadian fans are not nuts about hockey. Simply that, minus stealing buffalo/toronto/detroit fans in Hamilton, that there is not enough PEOPLE to successfully support a 7th team.

Course, I won't be proven right on this for 3-20 years after they decide to move from Phoenix.

Smallest Current NHL markets:
Metro Buffalo Population: 1,124,309 (2008)
Metro Raliegh-Durham Population: 1,742,816 (2009)
Metro Edmonton: 1,034,945 (2006)

-----

Metro Winnipeg: 694,668 (2006)
Metro Hamilton: 692,911 (2006)
Metro Quebec City: 715,515 (2006)

Edited by CaliWingsNut, 03 July 2010 - 04:11 PM.

[Shoreline]

Now, am I suggesting moving CA hockey teams? No - I don't know how hockey is treated in NorCal with the Sharks

There are plenty of Shark fans, in San Jose, Sacramento, Santa Rosa, San Francisco, Eureka, Oroville, Tahoe, and so on. Let's just say the Sharks are treated in higher regard than the Kings and Warriors, and people come from 6 hours north of San Jose just to see the Sharks. There's no issue with their fanbase at all.

There is an inherent flaw with the notion though that California would have trouble supporting a team. Maybe too many teams clustered together would be an issue. Then again, I also have trouble with the notion that it would be merely Metro Winnipeg or Metro Hamilton that would be attending games and producing revenue for their respective teams. Honestly, Wings fans should, of all people, know better about how dispersed fans are. Winnipeg would gather fans not only from around Manitoba but Saskatchewan and perhaps some of Ontario as well. Indeed, a Metro area would be a good summation of a general fan base, but missing a rather large chunk.

Edited by Shoreline, 03 July 2010 - 08:04 PM.

[CaliWingsNut]

There are plenty of Shark fans, in San Jose, Sacramento, Santa Rosa, San Francisco, Eureka, Oroville, Tahoe, and so on. Let's just say the Sharks are treated in higher regard than the Kings and Warriors, and people come from 6 hours north of San Jose just to see the Sharks. There's no issue with their fanbase at all.

There is an inherent flaw with the notion though that California would have trouble supporting a team. Maybe too many teams clustered together would be an issue. Then again, I also have trouble with the notion that it would be merely Metro Winnipeg or Metro Hamilton that would be attending games and producing revenue for their respective teams. Honestly, Wings fans should, of all people, know better about how dispersed fans are. Winnipeg would gather fans not only from around Manitoba but Saskatchewan and perhaps some of Ontario as well. Indeed, a Metro area would be a good summation of a general fan base, but missing a rather large chunk.

I think you mean missing a small chunk.
I live in CA (obviously), and the fact that I might go see the wings when they are playing in SJ, and watch them on "TV" doesn't provide Detroit with much if any revenue. You don't see the NHL reaching out and trying to sell the coyotes to the whole US fanbase for this reason. The long distance fan base is just frosting on the cake for big teams. What any team starting in a new market needs are hometown season ticket fans & corporate boxes buying cheap chinese NHL branded toys & overpriced domestic beer for 41 games a year.

[_Kabrok_]

Again... what does any of that have to do with finding more new fans to support an entirely new team filling a 20,000 person arena 41 times a year?


Can the Canadians quit trying to prove that they are the bigger hockey fans? This has nothing to do with that.

My argument is that Canada is already saturated. Not that California should have more teams. Not that Canadian fans are not nuts about hockey. Simply that, minus stealing buffalo/toronto/detroit fans in Hamilton, that there is not enough PEOPLE to successfully support a 7th team.

Course, I won't be proven right on this for 3-20 years after they decide to move from Phoenix.

Smallest Current NHL markets:
Metro Buffalo Population: 1,124,309 (2008)
Metro Raliegh-Durham Population: 1,742,816 (2009)
Metro Edmonton: 1,034,945 (2006)

-----

Metro Winnipeg: 694,668 (2006)
Metro Hamilton: 692,911 (2006)
Metro Quebec City: 715,515 (2006)

A) While I think that Hamilton would be a problematic potential market for a handful of reasons, it's important to note that the Windsor-QC strip is quite heavily populated with a number of small cities within reasonably close proximity to one another. A Hamilton team would only be so named because that is where the team would happen to be located - in reality you have a handful of other smaller cities like Kitchener-Waterloo and Guelph, plus the GTA, within drivable distance. Obviously it's far less densely populated than, say, Southern California, but citing only the numbers of Hamilton proper is an incomplete assessment of what kind of draw a team there would have (and to nitpick, those numbers are several years old and thus are already very conservative estimates for today, much less in a few years from now when a team might be moved).
B)I disagree, I think it's precisely Canada's hockey-mad population that makes it far from 'saturated'. You can only fit 20000-odd people in any given arena any given night; in a gate-driven league if the people willing to go to games far exceeds the possible number of people who can physically attend it stands to reason you haven't reached saturation. Not to say you should have an NHL franchise in every small town in the country, but if you have a reasonably large urban center like Winnipeg that isn't capable of putting their butts into arena seats because of raw geography (you make it sound like Canadians regularly make trans-national flights 41 times a year to attend games), that's an untapped market entirely irrelevant of whether or not they already happen to enjoy hockey - at the end of they day they still aren't able to go to games they otherwise probably would if they had a team. At the end of the day 7 full arenas is more than 6 full arenas, which is one more arena worth of revenue the League isn't racking in today.

Edited by _Kabrok_, 03 July 2010 - 09:15 PM.

[_Kabrok_]

Problem I see with another Canadian team is that all of Canada already has their favorite teams picked out. Sure whatever local region its in would likely attend games just for the sake of being able to attend a game, but I bet merchandise sales would be fairly low at first.

Jets merchandise is still sold EVERYWHERE in Winnipeg and they've been gone for 15 years. Winnipeggers might have 'second' teams they keep an eye on for the sake of keeping an eye on the NHL, but the loss of the Jets has been nothing short of a Babylonian Captivity for the city. If there was an actual team to back it up (especially if such a team retained the Jets name) merchandise sales would hit the ground sprinting.

Edited by _Kabrok_, 03 July 2010 - 09:17 PM.

[CaliWingsNut]

A) While I think that Hamilton would be a problematic potential market for a handful of reasons, it's important to note that the Windsor-QC strip is quite heavily populated with a number of small cities within reasonably close proximity to one another. A Hamilton team would only be so named because that is where the team would happen to be located - in reality you have a handful of other smaller cities like Kitchener-Waterloo and Guelph, plus the GTA, within drivable distance. Obviously it's far less densely populated than, say, Southern California, but citing only the numbers of Hamilton proper is an incomplete assessment of what kind of draw a team there would have (and to nitpick, Those numbers are several years old and thus are already very conservative estimates for today, much less in a few years from now when a team might be moved).
B)I disagree, I think it's precisely Canada's hockey-mad population that makes it far from 'saturated'. You can only fit 20000-odd people in any given arena any given night; in a gate-driven league if the people willing to go to games far exceeds the possible number of people who can physically attend it stands to reason you haven't reached saturation. Not to say you should have an NHL franchise in every small town in the country, but if you have a reasonably large urban center like Winnipeg that isn't capable of putting their butts into arena seats because of raw geography (you make it sound like Canadians regularly make trans-national flights 41 times a year to attend games), that's an untapped market entirely irrelevant of whether or not they already happen to enjoy hockey - at the end of they day they still aren't able to go to games they otherwise probably would if they had a team. 7 full arenas is more than 6 full arenas.

I welcome you to update Wikipedia with newer more proper population numbers with proper sourcing (or if your lazy, you could even post them here).


To the second bolded section... Who's the one implying people would be flying in to watch games? How is one market, w/ not enough seats to sell, translate into success in a distant market? The only way that statement makes sense is if you are still talking about Hamilton, which I personally think died w/ the bid.

[_Kabrok_]

I welcome you to update Wikipedia with newer more proper population numbers with proper sourcing (or if your lazy, you could even post them here).

The next census is (I believe) happening in 2011. To imply that the country has remained frozen in time over the last five years is rather ridiculous though. More generally, the population of Canada during the 2006 survey was a little over 31 million, recently the population has been reported to have broken 34 million.
http://www.cbc.ca/ne...kground/census/
http://www.cbc.ca/ca...ulation028.html

To the second bolded section... Who's the one implying people would be flying in to watch games? How is one market, w/ not enough seats to sell, translate into success in a distant market? The only way that statement makes sense is if you are still talking about Hamilton, which I personally think died w/ the bid.

You're saying that the market has been saturated, which implies that every single Canadian has more than adequate access to games in a gate-driven league, which is impossible to be the case in places like Winnipeg short of flying to an NHL city. But you're right; even that is farfetched anyway since Canada's 34 million dwarfs the maximum 120000 seats that may be available on any given game night with or without travel. You could just as well argue that America's 300 million oversaturate the country's 480000 available seats - except that in a sizable number of cases they aren't even filling that number. Teams in cities where attendance barely scrapes an average of 12000 a game by giving tickets away seems to indicate 'oversaturation' far more than a team in a city that could consistently bring in 15000 a night while keeping ticket prices relatively high through relatively low availability of tickets. Particularly when said team has money of the likes of TNSE's ownership group behind it. Ditto with Hamilton and possibly QC, though in the case of the former I agree that Basillie destroyed any possibility of it happening anyway.

Again, I'm not saying that the entire NHL should migrate to Canada, but when 1/6th of the League's teams are producing 1/3 of the League's profit it leaves at least me asking why you woudln't want to profit even MORE on that kind of geographical favoritism. Instead of having a team that's leeching off the rest of the League you could have a team that's helping to provide even more of a financial lift to the rest of the League. Perhaps I'm being naive but I don't really see how that's a bad thing.

Edited by _Kabrok_, 03 July 2010 - 10:47 PM.

[Shoreline]

I think you mean missing a small chunk.
I live in CA (obviously), and the fact that I might go see the wings when they are playing in SJ, and watch them on "TV" doesn't provide Detroit with much if any revenue. You don't see the NHL reaching out and trying to sell the coyotes to the whole US fanbase for this reason. The long distance fan base is just frosting on the cake for big teams. What any team starting in a new market needs are hometown season ticket fans & corporate boxes buying cheap chinese NHL branded toys & overpriced domestic beer for 41 games a year.

Not sure quite where your post is going but it's kind of off on it's own tangent. No, large chunk, given the area mentioned was the same province and neighboring ones, not US states 2,000+ miles away. Was Metro area versus a greater vicinity where people can actually drive to the game and not only buy merch (which covers a long distance too depending on fanbase) or simply going to the game.

[CaliWingsNut]

Not sure quite where your post is going but it's kind of off on it's own tangent. No, large chunk, given the area mentioned was the same province and neighboring ones, not US states 2,000+ miles away. Was Metro area versus a greater vicinity where people can actually drive to the game and not only buy merch (which covers a long distance too depending on fanbase) or simply going to the game.

I did go off on a tangent, but I think mostly because I got confused with the "California" (that I now think was supposed to be "Canada") in your previous post.

[cusimano_brothers]

From coyotes nhl dot com :

[toby91_ca]

Should be interesting watching them try and explain their case.

Your bolded figure didn't impress me. They make 30% of sales w/ 20% of the teams, and their currency is up on the dollar. It only means their teams only do a couple percent better than the US overall (like 2-3% ea.), and includes Toronto & Montreal.

Ummm, firstly, the Cdn $ is worth about 95 cents vs. the US $ last I checked, so it is not up on the US $.

Secondly, how did you do your math? Maybe I'm smoking something, but if you consider league revenues to be $3 billion, here's how it would be divided up:

- From Cdn teams = $3 billion * 30% = $900 million / 6 teams = $150 million per team
- From US teams = $2.1 billion / 24 teams = 87.5 million per team

$150 million - 87.5 million = $62.5 million / $87.5 million = 71.4%

So, I don't know how you get your math to work, but based on those numbers, it looks like, on average, the Cdn teams are bringing in 71.4% more than the average US team......not 2-3%. Did you just make up the 2-3%?

[CaliWingsNut]

Ummm, firstly, the Cdn $ is worth about 95 cents vs. the US $ last I checked, so it is not up on the US $.

Secondly, how did you do your math? Maybe I'm smoking something, but if you consider league revenues to be $3 billion, here's how it would be divided up:

- From Cdn teams = $3 billion * 30% = $900 million / 6 teams = $150 million per team
- From US teams = $2.1 billion / 24 teams = 87.5 million per team

$150 million - 87.5 million = $62.5 million / $87.5 million = 71.4%

So, I don't know how you get your math to work, but based on those numbers, it looks like, on average, the Cdn teams are bringing in 71.4% more than the average US team......not 2-3%. Did you just make up the 2-3%?

You are more correct on the math. I did my 2-3 percent figure in my head ((20% of 100 vs 30% of 100)/6).

http://www.forbes.co...ns_Revenue.html

So did you have a point besides blowing a hole in my math?

Edited by CaliWingsNut, 27 July 2010 - 11:09 AM.

[toby91_ca]

So did you have a point besides blowing a hole in my math?

You weren't really impressed or didn't think the difference in revenue generation from Cdn teams vs. US teams was that signficant.

My point was that the difference is actually quite staggering. If you do the math on the link you provided, it shows that Cdn teams earn, on average, 26% more than the US teams. That isn't as significant, but that is also outdated info.