If the NHL misses actual regular season games will you come right back?

[radoran]

I can see it having an impact on tv viewership, but it takes one if two types of people to do season tickets. 1) those who love the game and/or team and aren't abandoning them regardless. Or 2) those that do it for ego or business purposes, and neither ego or business schmoozing will stop them either.

I think viewership will suffer. Merchandising as well. But we're small fish in a big ocean, and not a single school will be big enough long enough to matter.

I completely agree, but the main question here is are there enough of #1 and #2 in the "emerging markets" to overcome the third lockout in 15 years.

Again, in Canada, the Northeast, etc. - sure. They will.

Is hockey established enough in the expansion cities?

Phoenix drew 12K fans a game last year. Columbus 14.6K; Anaheim 14.7K; Carolina 16K; Florida 16.6K.

If you're already playing to 85% houses, is losing another season of hockey going to HELP that?

[Podein25]

Phoenix drew 12K fans a game last year. Columbus 14.6K; Anaheim 14.7K; Carolina 16K; Florida 16.6K.

Are those the averages for those teams for 2011/12? I'm shocked to see them that high for many of those teams.

[Bertmega]

Bring back the red pucks and the Philadelphia Blazers

Edited October 9, 2012 by Bertmega

[radoran]

Are those the averages for those teams for 2011/12? I'm shocked to see them that high for many of those teams.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/year/2012

Remember, Florida won the division last season - and was up 1,000 tickets a game, up from 15.1K two years ago.

Phoenix made a run to the Conference Final and has been mired at lower than 13K for the past two seasons.

Anaheim's been stuck at 15K or lower since 08-09.

Regardless of how surprising they may seem, they are, IMO, precarious.

[jammer2]

@radoran I'm wondering if the Ducks have peaked at 15,000....even if they become better and made some deep runs in the playoffs...it seems as if that market is just never gonna grow.

[radoran]

@radoran I'm wondering if the Ducks have peaked at 15,000....even if they become better and made some deep runs in the playoffs...it seems as if that market is just never gonna grow.

The only reason there's a team in Anaheim is that the NHL wanted the Disney ownership. They named the franchise after a kids' movie.

It's not like the Kings had made L.A. into a hockey hotbed.

And now BOTH have won Cups in the last decade five years.

[jammer2]

@radoran If a Cup win does not propel you to new heights in attendance, nothing will. What could possibely be more enthralling and exciting than seeing Lord Stanley hoisted to your home fans?? If they still struggle after winning the cup, they should be axed out of mercy immediatley.

[radoran]

@radoran If a Cup win does not propel you to new heights in attendance, nothing will. What could possibely be more enthralling and exciting than seeing Lord Stanley hoisted to your home fans?? If they still struggle after winning the cup, they should be axed out of mercy immediatley.

I know, hard to believe that SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA hasn't become a hockey hotbed...

Maybe if a superstar like Wayne Gretzky came to town.

Oh, wait...

[Polaris922]

How bad is financial planning though when 15k is precarious? I mean 15,000 people come out 40 times a year to see you. That's 600,000 tickets at their average of $37 each... that's 23.4 million dollars. Give them 3,000 more fans per game and it's still only $28 million. That is just over half the payroll. I guess the problem is if they raise the ticket price they lose even more attendance. So what other income does the team generate? And can they afford the payroll as it stands if something isn't changed?

[radoran]

How bad is financial planning though when 15k is precarious? I mean 15,000 people come out 40 times a year to see you. That's 600,000 tickets at their average of $37 each... that's 23.4 million dollars. Give them 3,000 more fans per game and it's still only $28 million. That is just over half the payroll. I guess the problem is if they raise the ticket price they lose even more attendance. So what other income does the team generate? And can they afford the payroll as it stands if something isn't changed?

That's "attendance" and might not reflect "paid attendance" and you'll note that the average ticket price for Anaheim games dropped $7.50 from 09-10 to 10-11 and their average attendance dropped from 15.1K to 14.7K.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/194916/nhl-average-ticket-price-for-anaheim-ducks-games-since-2006/

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/year/2010

That said, Winnipeg sold out at 15K and "made money" last season (or at least didn't qualify for the revenue sharing they planned on), so it is possible.

But Winnipeg isn't Orange County, California in terms of costs.

I say again, if you're owning a professional sports team "to make money" off the internal operations of that sports team - you're doing it wrong. You need to be in professional sports "to win" and if you win you should make money. If you win and still don't make money, you're never going to.

Then you have decisions like having a team that's "losing money" like Minnesota start it's season in Europe.

[Polaris922]

That's "attendance" and might not reflect "paid attendance" and you'll note that the average ticket price for Anaheim games dropped $7.50 from 09-10 to 10-11 and their average attendance dropped from 15.1K to 14.7K.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/194916/nhl-average-ticket-price-for-anaheim-ducks-games-since-2006/

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/year/2010

That said, Winnipeg sold out at 15K and "made money" last season (or at least didn't qualify for the revenue sharing they planned on), so it is possible.

But Winnipeg isn't Orange County, California in terms of costs.

I say again, if you're owning a professional sports team "to make money" off the internal operations of that sports team - you're doing it wrong. You need to be in professional sports "to win" and if you win you should make money. If you win and still don't make money, you're never going to.

Then you have decisions like having a team that's "losing money" like Minnesota start it's season in Europe.

And until we know total revenue figures and not just "hockey related revenue" figures do we even know for sure the teams aren't making money? There's a lot if secrecy there, and a smart negotiator convinces you they're losing when they're winning.

[radoran]

And until we know total revenue figures and not just "hockey related revenue" figures do we even know for sure the teams aren't making money? There's a lot if secrecy there, and a smart negotiator convinces you they're losing when they're winning.

"We" will likely never know the "real" numbers.

I don't for a second believe thatForbes report, or Bettman's claims.

[jammer2]

I think most owners are in it for the *status symbol* it gives you. It's kinda like buying a yacht...you know it depreciates a LOT when you drive it out for the first time, but the bling it provides feeds the ego, so the loss is acceptable. Why else would 2/3rd's of NHL owners choose to lose millions every single year, with no end in sight....unless, of course, the books are being cooked.....I suspect it's a bit of both.