On the League Offer

[radoran]

In the end it comes down to determining whether or not the primary focus is to maintain hockey as a niche sport in specific areas of the country or try to make it into more of a national sport. I completely agree that there are teams in markets that won't support them, nevertheless the NHL Board of Governors (owners) decided to expand the league in an attempt to grow the game and get a major TV deal.

I don't believe there are 30 North American hockey markets. Just don't. But there are 30 NHL teams.

Both the owners and the players have a vested interest in maintaining the number of current teams - the owners because teams just failing is bad for the overall value of the league and the teams within it; and the players for the 25+ jobs each squad represents.

One can disagree with the policy and the results of that policy, but that is the reality of the situation and it doesn't really look like it's going to change (beyond relocating a couple of teams to, say, Quebec and Seattle).

[Bertmega]

@radoran

I agree with you that there is not 30 North American Markets and there are 30 NA teams. With that said, I have seen heavily populated urban areas that have two Starbucks on a single city block. What if eventually, say 10 years down the road, the NHL adapts the same logic. Move some of the teams to areas that have proven success with the sport. A team in Quebec City, Hamilton, Seattle, a second New England Team, etc? I think that would bring the revenues into the positive for many struggling teams. I understand that they want to prevent cannibalism within the market segment, but sometimes you need to amputate the foot to save the leg.

If Gary Bettman is true to his word that he wants the grow the sport via a grassroots movement by expanding to non traditional markets, than kudos to him. Maybe at this rate one day we'll have a few players emerge from Alabama and Florida, but until then the reality is locking the doors and the players and the fans. I think growing the sport is admirable, but not a possibility that truly exists. For example, I played in my youth, I remember waking up early to practice, I remember the early days and late nights, for many families the commitment both financially and time wise is not possible.

My take is move the sports to where it works and let the rest pan out from there.

[radoran]

@radoran

I agree with you that there is not 30 North American Markets and there are 30 NA teams. With that said, I have seen heavily populated urban areas that have two Starbucks on a single city block. What if eventually, say 10 years down the road, the NHL adapts the same logic. Move some of the teams to areas that have proven success with the sport. A team in Quebec City, Hamilton, Seattle, a second New England Team, etc? I think that would bring the revenues into the positive for many struggling teams. I understand that they want to prevent cannibalism within the market segment, but sometimes you need to amputate the foot to save the leg.

If Gary Bettman is true to his word that he wants the grow the sport via a grassroots movement by expanding to non traditional markets, than kudos to him. Maybe at this rate one day we'll have a few players emerge from Alabama and Florida, but until then the reality is locking the doors and the players and the fans. I think growing the sport is admirable, but not a possibility that truly exists. For example, I played in my youth, I remember waking up early to practice, I remember the early days and late nights, for many families the commitment both financially and time wise is not possible.

My take is move the sports to where it works and let the rest pan out from there.

I think Quebec is as close to a done deal as possible. I think a second Tronno Metro team makes a lot of sense, too. It's insane that Greater Los Angeles has two teams while Tronno has one - taking for granted that the Leafs are a valid NHL franchise.

I think Seattle makes more sense than, say, Glendale, Arizona.

Columbus should be a better market than it is, having apparently been run by a group of monkeys banging on a typewriter.

I think da Broons are far too entrenched in New England - especially after the failure of the Whalers.

Many of the reasons that these sensible relocation moves haven't happened is because the NHL is run by guys who think that moving a team OUT of Edmonton is something that should be reasonably entertained.

[B21]

@radoran

I agree with you that there is not 30 North American Markets and there are 30 NA teams. With that said, I have seen heavily populated urban areas that have two Starbucks on a single city block. What if eventually, say 10 years down the road, the NHL adapts the same logic. Move some of the teams to areas that have proven success with the sport. A team in Quebec City, Hamilton, Seattle, a second New England Team, etc? I think that would bring the revenues into the positive for many struggling teams. I understand that they want to prevent cannibalism within the market segment, but sometimes you need to amputate the foot to save the leg.

If Gary Bettman is true to his word that he wants the grow the sport via a grassroots movement by expanding to non traditional markets, than kudos to him. Maybe at this rate one day we'll have a few players emerge from Alabama and Florida, but until then the reality is locking the doors and the players and the fans. I think growing the sport is admirable, but not a possibility that truly exists. For example, I played in my youth, I remember waking up early to practice, I remember the early days and late nights, for many families the commitment both financially and time wise is not possible.

My take is move the sports to where it works and let the rest pan out from there.

Good points, Bertmega. I wouldn't hold out much hope of that happening, though. It's still too early in the effort to expand the league into the non-traditional markets to start packing up the "unsuccessful" franchises in the southern U.S. and moving them north. On that note, I'd say the next team to move would be the Islanders (i.e. - a team in a northern traditional market).

There was an interesting sidebar in Sports Illustrated a few weeks ago that was trying to use population as a reason why the Big Ten has fallen so far off the map and the SEC and PAC-14 have surpassed them in talent. It used the electoral map...every state in which there is a Big 10 team has lost electoral votes since 1980. Every state with an SEC or PAC-14 team has gained. Sometimes a lot in both cases. It's no secret we are in the midst of a big shift in the U.S. as far as where people are living. I think the NHL is just trying to keep up. Plus, if you don't have teams in some of the largest U.S. markets, your product is less attractive to televsion, advertisers, etc. (Exception: Atlanta...which I'll argue is a bad sports town, not just a bad hockey town. Even the Braves and Falcons don't draw).

The model you outlined would work...just with less dollars to be spread around. That means the owners realizing less money in their pockets and the players realizing even less that what the owners are looking to cut now. It would literally be one big downsizing....no more $60 million cap let alone $70 million.

Nothing wrong with that but at the end of the day it's not want the owners and players want....less money and less jobs. With all that in mind I think the league doing everything it can to keep these markets viable is going to be the norm. The NFL model of revenue sharing that @radoran mentioned is exactly what is needed to make that work. 30 teams doing what is best for the greater good of the league rather than competing against each other on and off the ice.

That's not want most Flyers fans want to hear...you have the fan base and support (i.e. - money) to (let's call it what it is) outspend the little guy. If you want to be the Yankees of the NHL that's fine but any Yankee fan who doesn't feel a bit smarmy about their success is in serious denial. This is why the NFL revenue sharing model (albeit at a smaller number for the NHL) is what I'd prefer. When the Steelers win two Super Bowls, I know it is because we put together the best team under the same circumstances as the team we beat. Flip side, I know the Pirates have had 20 straight losing seasons because they cannot compete with the resources of the Yankees, Red Sox and Philles of the world.

[HockeyFan]

I would imagine that there will be a "grandfather" clause on existing contracts

I would hope so, but I have read some stuff that says otherwise, that the NHL wanted to punish teams that circumvented the unwritten spirit of the last CBA. (Sort of like that guy in Detroit complaining about using the offer sheet.)

I am not sure about its legality, but I would love to see that lawsuit - NHL Owner vs. the NHL on a deal that they would have had to vote to accept (I would think.)

In other news, I firmly understand why the players would want 100% of the contract they signed 12 hours before CBA expiration.

As for opting out of contracts, it seems the only published relief at this time is the ability to exceed a lowered cap.

And wait a second... if you are lowering the cap number, that was supposed to rise and fall based on league revenue, how are you accomplishing that? Seven percent of the current established cap number is ("only") $4.914 million...

Maybe the league or the NHLPA should go for the nuclear option, and rewrite all contracts? I don't ever see either side ever agreeing with that, but wouldn't that give NHL Network a bunch of new stuff to cover...

Punishing teams retroactively makes no sense, but there are many other things that make no sense coming out of the league.

[HockeyFan]

It's still too early in the effort to expand the league into the non-traditional markets to start packing up the "unsuccessful" franchises in the southern U.S. and moving them north.

I double checked this, because I was a bit fuzzy, but some of the expansion teams are approaching (or even at) 20 years old. Sure, maybe they didn't have a chance until the last CBA... but they have had the time to establish fan base, support, and as you say; money. The second six teams were but 25 years old when this latest round started. For these teams, created under Bettman's guidance, they only know lockouts when it comes to bargaining.

Revenue sharing goes a long way to make the NFL successful, and you are right, many (if not most) Flyers fans don't want to hear about how (insert dead cap space % here) is benefiting Nahsville or allowing Minnesota to sign top talent to long-term deals (then gripe about expensive long-term deals). But support is also key - as you also nailed. Sure, people are moving south; but how many are rescinding their fandom of a specific team? Thanks to the Internet and cable/satellite - and how the league even markets itself - watch your team anywhere. Sure, the most die-hard fan will enjoy going to their new home team, maybe even become a 78'er for that team. But that has not been the experience of the Florida franchises, which actively advertise to foreign fan bases to help sell tickets. Winning the Cup in Tampa, Anaheim, or even New Jersey has done little to stoke interest or generate huge in-person in-game fan base. It certainly woke one in Chicago.

Of course, even the mighty NFL, with its revenue sharing and franchises working to benefit the league, has not found a way to make a team profit and stay in LA.

Edited October 21, 2012 by HockeyFan

[hf101]

This thread has been moved to the CBA related forum as the topic is not only Flyers related. I'll leave a link, please be sure to add the CBA Related Forum to the list of content you regularly visit.

[Vanflyer]

Spectacor, PRISM, WIP, the entire empire is built upon the Flyers.

The fact that he did those things in two-prong sense: 1) to help get greater exposure (ie. revenue) for the team, 2) keep the dollars in his pocket vs. another companies pockets. The spectacor was really the brilliant stroke for that time period. He then had the gate receipts, the parking receipts, security, concessions, etc.

[MaineFlyFan]

Snider was the son of a grocery store magnate, who parlayed his money into an ownership stake (7%) of the Philadelphia Eagles.

He took that share and invested virtually everything into the Flyers and building the Spectrum, upon which his entire empire is built.

Ed Snider would certainly be "well off" without the Flyers entering the picture, but I don't think he would be anywhere near the "disgustingly rich" that he is today without them. Spectacor, PRISM, WIP, the entire empire is built upon the Flyers.

Thanks for the insight Rad....I've never lived in Philly and must say I was speaking a little "ignorantly" about sniders wealth. I just figured most NHL owners did not make their fortune off of an NHL team.....a pro sport that is barely even considered one of the top 4 anymore.....LOVE the game....HATE the leauge and pro sports in General. I have not watched an entire NFL game in probably 20 years. Screw pro athletes and the billionaire owners that pad their ego's and Wallets......both sides SUCK and I'm pissed as hell right now after this latest proposal/counter by both sides......I believe they should be payed well for what they do (look at Pronger, sacrificed his well being for a game!), but for the players to reject a deal that cuts avg salary by $250K (when most are making MILLIONS) in a collapsing economy non-the-less, is just sicking!

[radoran]

Thanks for the insight Rad....I've never lived in Philly and must say I was speaking a little "ignorantly" about sniders wealth. I just figured most NHL owners did not make their fortune off of an NHL team.....a pro sport that is barely even considered one of the top 4 anymore.....LOVE the game....HATE the leauge and pro sports in General. I have not watched an entire NFL game in probably 20 years. Screw pro athletes and the billionaire owners that pad their ego's and Wallets......both sides SUCK and I'm pissed as hell right now after this latest proposal/counter by both sides......I believe they should be payed well for what they do (look at Pronger, sacrificed his well being for a game!), but for the players to reject a deal that cuts avg salary by $250K (when most are making MILLIONS) in a collapsing economy non-the-less, is just sicking!

I really have all the respect in the world for what Ed Snider did and created with the Flyers in Philadelphia.

That said, I don't agree with him on almost anything.

As for salary reductions, if I were, say, Hartnell or Simmonds and just signed multi-year - arguably "hometown discount" - deals "in good faith" with a man who is now demanding that the contracts he just offered and signed be cut because he, as a successful businessman, couldn't figure out that the economics of those deals and the deals he offered other players year after year after year were "threatening the game" - I might not be willing to just take a cut in salary for the next six years just to make sure he can make more money.

That said, I believe both of them were fools to sign those deals when they did.

[Lindbergh31]

Good points, Bertmega. I wouldn't hold out much hope of that happening, though. It's still too early in the effort to expand the league into the non-traditional markets to start packing up the "unsuccessful" franchises in the southern U.S. and moving them north. On that note, I'd say the next team to move would be the Islanders (i.e. - a team in a northern traditional market).

There was an interesting sidebar in Sports Illustrated a few weeks ago that was trying to use population as a reason why the Big Ten has fallen so far off the map and the SEC and PAC-14 have surpassed them in talent. It used the electoral map...every state in which there is a Big 10 team has lost electoral votes since 1980. Every state with an SEC or PAC-14 team has gained. Sometimes a lot in both cases. It's no secret we are in the midst of a big shift in the U.S. as far as where people are living. I think the NHL is just trying to keep up. Plus, if you don't have teams in some of the largest U.S. markets, your product is less attractive to televsion, advertisers, etc. (Exception: Atlanta...which I'll argue is a bad sports town, not just a bad hockey town. Even the Braves and Falcons don't draw).

The model you outlined would work...just with less dollars to be spread around. That means the owners realizing less money in their pockets and the players realizing even less that what the owners are looking to cut now. It would literally be one big downsizing....no more $60 million cap let alone $70 million.

Nothing wrong with that but at the end of the day it's not want the owners and players want....less money and less jobs. With all that in mind I think the league doing everything it can to keep these markets viable is going to be the norm. The NFL model of revenue sharing that @radoran mentioned is exactly what is needed to make that work. 30 teams doing what is best for the greater good of the league rather than competing against each other on and off the ice.

That's not want most Flyers fans want to hear...you have the fan base and support (i.e. - money) to (let's call it what it is) outspend the little guy. If you want to be the Yankees of the NHL that's fine but any Yankee fan who doesn't feel a bit smarmy about their success is in serious denial. This is why the NFL revenue sharing model (albeit at a smaller number for the NHL) is what I'd prefer. When the Steelers win two Super Bowls, I know it is because we put together the best team under the same circumstances as the team we beat. Flip side, I know the Pirates have had 20 straight losing seasons because they cannot compete with the resources of the Yankees, Red Sox and Philles of the world.

B21, the NFL model would work for the NHL if they had a tv contract like the NFL does. Maybe the NHL should look at the minimum salary cap total for a team should be half of the cap maximum [so if it's a $70 million cap max, then it would $35 million cap minimum instead of the $54 million that it is]. That might help some of the teams.

[jammer2]

@Lindbergh31 It's pretty obvious some of these owners are in over thier heads. If they can't afford it, they should sell. If your market does not already love hockey, it's useless to try and grow it. To me, it's either there or it's not. History has proven that non-traditional areas do not magically "get it". Maybe a tad oversimplified, but that's how I see it.

[Puck]

It's pretty obvious some of these owners are in over thier heads. If they can't afford it, they should sell. If your market does not already love hockey, it's useless to try and grow it. To me, it's either there or it's not. History has proven that non-traditional areas do not magically "get it". Maybe a tad oversimplified, but that's how I see it.

Hockey succeeding in non traditional markets is dependent on those teams winning. The Panthers and Coyotes of the world do alright when those teams make the playoffs and the fans have something to cheer about. The years of not turning a profit have a lot to do with the piss poor product on the ice. Dallas Stars fans supported the team when it was contending year after year and now that they're run-of-the-mill, the building doesn't sell out.

Perhaps it's time to look at expanding the number of teams that make the playoffs. If I recall correctly, 16 teams made the playoffs in a 21 team league after the WHA merger (76%). It's still 16 teams that get in now that it's a 30 team league (53%).

More teams in the playoffs = more fan interest in more markets = more revenue. I've had this conversation with some buddies at work and I'm a bit surprised it's not brought up more often. It's a way to grow the game and grow revenue. Thoughts?

[jammer2]

@Puck " Hockey succeeding in non traditional markets is dependent on those teams winning. The Panthers and Coyotes of the world do alright when those teams make the playoffs and the fans have something to cheer about. The years of not turning a profit have a lot to do with the piss poor product on the ice."

I point to the Hurricanes and Lightning. They won Stanley Cups, the season ticket only went up slightly the year after the wins, and then dropped dramitcally a few years later. To this day they both suck attendance wise....you can't put a sqaure peg in a round hole.

[radoran]

@Puck " Hockey succeeding in non traditional markets is dependent on those teams winning. The Panthers and Coyotes of the world do alright when those teams make the playoffs and the fans have something to cheer about. The years of not turning a profit have a lot to do with the piss poor product on the ice."

I point to the Hurricanes and Lightning. They won Stanley Cups, the season ticket only went up slightly the year after the wins, and then dropped dramitcally a few years later. To this day they both suck attendance wise....you can't put a sqaure peg in a round hole.

Phoenix made the WC Finals. The Coyotes were 30th in attendance.

Anaheim won a Cup in 2007 - 26th.

Dallas "won" a Cup in 1999 - 28th.

Islanders one of the great dynastic franchises - 29th.

New Jersey is a multiple Cup winner - 24th.

Colorado "made a profit" - 23rd.

Carolina won a Cup in 2006 - 22nd.

Toronto has never won a Cup hasn't made the Final after expansion - 5th,

Philadelphia hasn't won a Cup since 1975 - 3rd.

Ottawa has never appeared in the Stanley Cup Final - 6th.

Calgary failed to make the playoffs - 7th.

Buffalo has lost in the first round two of the last five years, missing the playoffs the other three - 11th.

Edmonton failed to make the playoffs, sold out.

Pleased to be explaining again how success on the ice represents increased revenues?

[Puck]

@radoran

Traditional market fans (aka Leaf fans) will support their team in good times and bad, I guess. I'm not sure what years you're quoting stats from. Take Dallas for example - did they rank 28th in attendance in 1999 or 2012? Big difference. Phoenix may have been 30th in attendance in the regular season, but that rink looked pretty full in the WCF. Islanders? I'd respond with "Charles Wang"... 'nuf said. Jersey's attendance woes have a lot to do with the rink location (same with Phoenix). I think an blindfolded idiot threw a dart at a map in both those cases... Ottawa's (Kenora, actually) too.

BTW, the Senators made the cup final in 2007 and lost to the Ducks.

[flyerrod]

Hockey succeeding in non traditional markets is dependent on those teams winning. The Panthers and Coyotes of the world do alright when those teams make the playoffs and the fans have something to cheer about. The years of not turning a profit have a lot to do with the piss poor product on the ice. Dallas Stars fans supported the team when it was contending year after year and now that they're run-of-the-mill, the building doesn't sell out.

Perhaps it's time to look at expanding the number of teams that make the playoffs. If I recall correctly, 16 teams made the playoffs in a 21 team league after the WHA merger (76%). It's still 16 teams that get in now that it's a 30 team league (53%).

More teams in the playoffs = more fan interest in more markets = more revenue. I've had this conversation with some buddies at work and I'm a bit surprised it's not brought up more often. It's a way to grow the game and grow revenue. Thoughts?

For that to work, you will need to shorten the season or you will end up playing hockey til August.

[radoran]

@radoran

Traditional market fans (aka Leaf fans) will support their team in good times and bad, I guess. I'm not sure what years you're quoting stats from. Take Dallas for example - did they rank 28th in attendance in 1999 or 2012? Big difference. Phoenix may have been 30th in attendance in the regular season, but that rink looked pretty full in the WCF. Islanders? I'd respond with "Charles Wang"... 'nuf said. Jersey's attendance woes have a lot to do with the rink location (same with Phoenix). I think an blindfolded idiot threw a dart at a map in both those cases... Ottawa's (Kenora, actually) too.

BTW, the Senators made the cup final in 2007 and lost to the Ducks.

Yeah I blocked out 2007 :-)

Numbers were all from last year.

fWIW, New Jersey just built a brand new arena to replace the one that was hard to get to...

[Puck]

For that to work, you will need to shorten the season or you will end up playing hockey til August.

Is that a bad thing?

[Puck]

@Puck " Hockey succeeding in non traditional markets is dependent on those teams winning. The Panthers and Coyotes of the world do alright when those teams make the playoffs and the fans have something to cheer about. The years of not turning a profit have a lot to do with the piss poor product on the ice."

I point to the Hurricanes and Lightning. They won Stanley Cups, the season ticket only went up slightly the year after the wins, and then dropped dramitcally a few years later. To this day they both suck attendance wise....you can't put a sqaure peg in a round hole.

Yeah, the Lightning have Stamkos but missed the playoffs last year despite making it to the WCF the year before. They rarely sell out that building but if they consistently made the playoffs, could they perform better at the gate?

Didn't Carolina miss the playoffs the year after winning the cup? Put a team like Detroit in Raleigh and I suspect attendance would go up. That franchise is a lot of things; consistent ain't one.

[radoran]

Yeah, the Lightning have Stamkos but missed the playoffs last year despite making it to the WCF the year before. They rarely sell out that building but if they consistently made the playoffs, could they perform better at the gate?

Didn't Carolina miss the playoffs the year after winning the cup? Put a team like Detroit in Raleigh and I suspect attendance would go up. That franchise is a lot of things; consistent ain't one.

But would a "team like Detroit" be in Raleigh? Could Carolina build such a franchise? Doubtful.

Again, the Flyers haven't won the Cup since 1975 and were third in attendance last year. Calgary didn't make the playoffs and was 7th. Edmonton sold out every game and they haven't been any better than 4th in their division since they went to the Final - seven years ago.

There is no evidence-based direct correlation between "winning" and "financial success".

[flyerrod]

Is that a bad thing?

Hockey season starts running that long and I will never get anything done........

[Puck]

Hockey season starts running that long and I will never get anything done........

I was referring more to a shortened regular season with a longer post-season. Attendance goes up in the postseason in non-traditional markets. Doesn't make a difference in places like Toronto, New York, Philly, Vancouver, etc.

[Puck]

Dallas Stars average yearly attendance: http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=5404

Stars yearly performance (scroll to bottom): http://www.hockeydb.com/stte/dallas-stars-5404.html

In 2008-09 they stop making the playoffs and attendance dips each year afterward. I don't think that's a coincidence, but that's my opinion.

Carolina attendance: http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=5154

Carolina performance (scroll down): http://www.hockeydb.com/stte/carolina-hurricanes-5154.html

Carolina's attendance isn't that bad considering they averaged over 16,000 fans per game over the last 6 or 7 seasons and only made the playoffs once in that span.

Tampa Bay attendance: http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=8385

Tampa Bay performance: http://www.hockeydb.com/stte/tampa-bay-lightning-8385.html

Note: Tampa's attendance peaked the year after they won the cup. Last year, attendance was up over 1000 fans per game after a run to the ECF.

@radoran: "There is no evidence-based direct correlation between "winning" and "financial success"."

I agree to this statement as it applies to traditional markets, and your insights regarding the Flyers aren't wrong. But you seem to define success by winning the cup. There's only 1 cup winner every year, so thereby the other 29 teams are failures. I'm not sure recent cup losers and conference final losers would call their seasons financial disasters. There's a difference between "being competitive" and being "perpetually awful." (I'm looking at you, Charles Wang.)

[radoran]

@radoran: "There is no evidence-based direct correlation between "winning" and "financial success"."

I agree to this statement as it applies to traditional markets, and your insights regarding the Flyers aren't wrong. But you seem to define success by winning the cup. There's only 1 cup winner every year, so thereby the other 29 teams are failures. I'm not sure recent cup losers and conference final losers would call their seasons financial disasters. There's a difference between "being competitive" and being "perpetually awful." (I'm looking at you, Charles Wang.)

Not at all. The Leafs are sold out and they haven't won a Cup since 1967. They haven't made the playoffs since the last lockout and haven't made the Final in a league with more than six teams.

But Toronto is a "hockey market."

The Sens - with one Final appearance and three first round exits in the five years since - have strong attendance. Ottawa is a "hockey market."

Buffalo has never won a Cup and has two first round exits in the five years since successive Conference Finals - 11th overall in attendance last year (missing the playoffs). Buffalo is a "hockey market."

The Flyers are one of the original expansion franchises and won back-to-back Cups within eight years of being established. They have consistently spent to ice competitive teams, Philadelphia is a "hockey market."

Edmonton hasn't made a playoff since 05-06 - sold out every game last season.

Winnipeg accepted the moribund Thrashers and sold out every game while the team made an improbable run, just missing the playoffs. Winnipeg - "hockey market."

Phoenix made the playoffs for the third year in a row, advancing to the Conference Final. They were last in the league in attendance, a good 2,000 less than they averaged four years ago after six straight non-playoff seasons.

Anaheim has made the playoffs in seven of the past nine seasons, including a Finals appearance and Cup win. 26th in attendance last season.

Dallas made the playoffs in 12 of its first 14 seasons, including two Finals appearances and a Cup "win." 28th in attendance last year at 77% of capacity.

New Jersey has missed the playoffs twice in the past twenty-two years and opened a brand new arena. 24th in attendance at 87% full.

The point about "winning" not equalling "financial success" is most crucial in non-traditional, developing markets with little history with or connection to the sport (the Devils an exception, being the poor stepchild of the New York area where the Rangers sold out every game).