Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

One of every three:


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,615 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 02 January 2012 - 08:22 AM

Toronto Star.

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#2 CenterIce

CenterIce

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,989 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 09:34 AM

Toronto Star.


It makes sense, but Bettman only cares about TV markets.

#3 Hockey Convert

Hockey Convert

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 275 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 09:57 AM

That story is all well and good, but all it really provides evidence for is that tickets are more expensive in Canada, and lots of people buy them. That's interesting, but not really earthshaking, to me. I'm not sure you can support "teams are better off in Canada" without some more information; at least:

1) How do ticket revenues match up against merchandise revenues?
2) What's the revenue from media contracts and advertising in different markets?
3) As I understand it, some teams do funny things with owning the arena, and paying a different corporation (with the same owner) usage fees, etc. How does accounting like that affect team and league revenues?

All that being said, I suspect the NHL might be better off with some teams either contracting out of existence or in Canadian markets, but I don't really know for sure and the article doesn't really shed much light on that. It seems more like a jump-to-conclusions mat for riling up rabid Canadian fans.

#4 hockey&beer

hockey&beer

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Location:North of Detroit, way south of heaven.

Posted 02 January 2012 - 11:15 AM

I'm all for more teams north of the border but, although numbers don't lie, they sure can tell a fib.

The average Canadian NHL arena holds 19000 rowdy fans. This is not taking "The 'Peg" into account since I'm unable to find current stats. The remaining 24 barns hold an average of 18375 puck heads. (If you do move Atlanta north the numbers only change slightly, 18429 Canada and 18368 US). The fun part comes in when you look at average price per ticket. All 6 Canadian teams are above the league mid-point. The NHL average as of last season is $54.25USD where the 6 teams north of the border average $76.49USD. That comes in at about 42% more per seat. Also keep in mind that league average seating capacity is 18500, 4 of 6 Canadian teams come in well above that with Montreal tops at 21273.

Just saying.


References
http://www.fancostex.../fci_pdfs/4.pdf
http://www2.canada.c...38aaeb&k=98487t
"Matt Moulson... he would get more air time if he was Matt Labatt." Ken Daniels

#5 T.Low

T.Low

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,980 posts
  • Location:Bellingham, Wa

Posted 02 January 2012 - 03:44 PM

I'm all for more teams north of the border but, although numbers don't lie, they sure can tell a fib.

The average Canadian NHL arena holds 19000 rowdy fans. This is not taking "The 'Peg" into account since I'm unable to find current stats. The remaining 24 barns hold an average of 18375 puck heads. (If you do move Atlanta north the numbers only change slightly, 18429 Canada and 18368 US). The fun part comes in when you look at average price per ticket. All 6 Canadian teams are above the league mid-point. The NHL average as of last season is $54.25USD where the 6 teams north of the border average $76.49USD. That comes in at about 42% more per seat. Also keep in mind that league average seating capacity is 18500, 4 of 6 Canadian teams come in well above that with Montreal tops at 21273.

Just saying.


References
http://www.fancostex.../fci_pdfs/4.pdf
http://www2.canada.c...38aaeb&k=98487t



No links, but I heard on Vancouver's Team 1040 that while Toronto draws roughly 19k fans and Florida draws roughly 14,750, the real difference is that Toronto also draws 750,000 tv audience, Flordia draws a tv audience of another 14,000. That's a major difference.

#6 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,615 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 02 January 2012 - 03:49 PM

From the original article:

...
The NHL and the NHL Players Association are still negotiating the final figures on a broad report on hockey-related revenue for 2010-11 season.
...

Cooking the books? Unthinkable!

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#7 Ally

Ally

    just figured out how to change my title

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 491 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 02 January 2012 - 04:04 PM

I'm not at all surprised that Canadian teams make lots of money, the whole country loves hockey. The problem comes in when people say that teams should relocate, we just don't have enough cities that are big enough to support teams. Maybe a couple more teams could be up here but they wouldn't all produce this kind of revenue.

 
"Everything he does is exciting to watch.” -Holmstrom describes Datsyuk


#8 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 06:59 PM

I'm not at all surprised that Canadian teams make lots of money, the whole country loves hockey. The problem comes in when people say that teams should relocate, we just don't have enough cities that are big enough to support teams. Maybe a couple more teams could be up here but they wouldn't all produce this kind of revenue.

That is true, but I don't think you'd need to move more than a few teams to make a noticable difference in league finances. Quebec City could support a team, and you could likely put 2 (maybe even 3) more teams in Ontario; one more should be easy. With Atlanta gone, just moving Phoenix would be huge for the league. Isles or Columbus for the second.

#9 Doc Holliday

Doc Holliday

    LGW's impromptu Photoshopper

  • Silver Booster
  • 4,340 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 07:32 PM

That is true, but I don't think you'd need to move more than a few teams to make a noticable difference in league finances. Quebec City could support a team, and you could likely put 2 (maybe even 3) more teams in Ontario; one more should be easy. With Atlanta gone, just moving Phoenix would be huge for the league. Isles or Columbus for the second.


Why the Jackets? They haven't had any type of success to bring in fans in the first place.

Posted Image


#10 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 08:19 PM

Why the Jackets? They haven't had any type of success to bring in fans in the first place.

You could say that about most teams.

10 (11 counting this year) years without any type of success, losing tons of money, declining attendance... I don't see anything to suggest the team will have any success in the near future, nor would I be particularly confident that they'd become consistently profitable even if they did.

Nashville, Carolina, and Florida are other options. St. Louis too, but they at least have some history and a good looking young team.

#11 Doggy

Doggy

    Meanwhile...

  • HoF Booster
  • 4,345 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 03 January 2012 - 05:43 AM

You could say that about most teams.

10 (11 counting this year) years without any type of success, losing tons of money, declining attendance... I don't see anything to suggest the team will have any success in the near future, nor would I be particularly confident that they'd become consistently profitable even if they did.

Nashville, Carolina, and Florida are other options. St. Louis too, but they at least have some history and a good looking young team.

St. Louis has history but the Isles should be gone??
Rough as guts.

#12 swedishconnection

swedishconnection

    Conn Smythe - as predicted since 2006

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 881 posts
  • Location:Ace Deuce, MI

Posted 03 January 2012 - 09:05 AM

You could say that about most teams.

10 (11 counting this year) years without any type of success, losing tons of money, declining attendance... I don't see anything to suggest the team will have any success in the near future, nor would I be particularly confident that they'd become consistently profitable even if they did.

Nashville, Carolina, and Florida are other options. St. Louis too, but they at least have some history and a good looking young team.


Why does Nashville keep coming up in these discussions? They are doing well for a small market team. To me it seems like they are filling up their barn - and they have some rabid fans.

Florida just seems forced to me. Does anyone really watch them? Usually when they are on I flip it away because they are boring. I am still shocked they have a team out of all of the ones talking about moving...
QUOTE
Mickey is one of the only colour commentators I've heard that gets angry when his team gets a powerplay as a result of a crap call from an official.

-Hockeytown0001

#13 achildr1

achildr1

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,021 posts

Posted 03 January 2012 - 09:15 AM

Why does Nashville keep coming up in these discussions? They are doing well for a small market team. To me it seems like they are filling up their barn - and they have some rabid fans.

Florida just seems forced to me. Does anyone really watch them? Usually when they are on I flip it away because they are boring. I am still shocked they have a team out of all of the ones talking about moving...


I believe they still don't really make money and, if they were to stink it up for 5 or 6 years they could easily be irrelevant again in Tennessee.





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users