On the League Offer

[Puck]

@radoran

Let me clarify... by "success" in that statement you bolded, I was referring to on-ice competitiveness, not financial success. I'm in agreement with you that "hockey markets" don't need to have on-ice success to do well financially. However, most of the hockey market teams you cite have owners willing to spend to the cap or are contenders (like the Flyers). Winnipeg will likely never be a 'spend-to-the-cap' team unless they have a legitimate shot at a cup. I'm not convinced Edmonton can spend to the cap and turn a profit either, new arena or not. There's an exception to this... I live in BC so I get a lot of Canucks news. When the team was mired in the awful Keenan-Messier era, the building rarely sold out. Last March or April, they hit 400 consecutive sellouts.

I'm in disagreement with your analysis of Dallas. The statistics show that when they ice a competitive team, the fans support them. When the team isn't competitive, the fans don't come out. Thus, a direct correlation between "competitiveness" and "financial success". This supports my assertion that non-traditional markets need to ice a competitive roster to have success financially.

New Jersey moved from East Rutherford to Newark when they opened the new arena. Vanderbeek has been fighting with the mayor of Newark since they moved, taking the city to court over parking revenues, etc. More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/sports/hockey/stanley-cup-finals-devils-thorny-financial-history-repeats.html?_r=0

Upon digging a little further, I'm surprised to learn their attendance numbers are actually better in Newark than they were in East Rutherford. Nevertheless, a billionaire owner taking the city to court and winning concessions (and thereby draining local tax coffers) can't sit well with on-the-fence fans. Vanderbeek is a sleazy d-bag and I'd have a hard time supporting a team owned by him regardless of on-ice performance.

Phoenix: "Despite the Coyotes’ league-low average attendance of 12,420, Phoenix is buzzing. Every playoff game has been sold out." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/sports/hockey/2012-stanley-cup-troubled-coyotes-are-in-western-finals.html

Anaheim is too reliant on tourists buying tickets, which is exactly why a team in Vegas will never work. But when they won the cup in 2007, they had consecutive seasons of 17,000+ average fans in the stands before tailing off to 14,760 last season... when they didn't make the playoffs. They'll never be considered a hockey market.

The bottom line for me is hockey markets in Canada, along with the Rangers, Flyers, Boston and Chicago will likely always do well at the gate regardless of on-ice performance. However, non-traditional markets need to do well on the ice to turn a profit. But if they don't do well at the gate, the owners don't spend money on the product. Basically both the fans and the owner become apathetic. The owners demanding the players take a salary cut, whether it be by rollback or escrow, or whatever, isn't going to help their bottom line. Icing a team that can compete with the Flyers, Rangers, Penguins, Kings, Canucks, etc., consistently will bring the fans out.

[jammer2]

@Puck Dallas is famous for being a "what have you done for me lately" type of city. The only team that does well forever is the Cowboys. Fans don't support the Mavericks of the NBA unless they are winning also. Don't know if that is the best way to prove your hypothesis.

[radoran]

I guess the question is: can Carolina ever be Detroit?

I'm curious to see how Phoenix fans, who suddenly found out there was a bandwagon, will react to the lockout.

The League expanded into these new markets to grow the game - and grow their revenues. In the short term - the league skyrocketed to $3.3B in revenue last season - it has been effective. But the current lockout - based in large part upon the "losses" suffered in large part by these non-traditional markets - indicates the long term effectiveness is in question.

[jammer2]

@radoran No, I don't believe Carolina can ever be a Detroit, or anything close. The non traditional markets need to be watched closely, they should not have a indefinate time period to grow the game....it drags the rest of the league down. I don't know why the owners of such teams would want an indefinate time frame put on that either.....get out and go make money in a traditonal market...if the league lets you.

I didn't know TB had made a bit of a comeback (as puck pointed out) with attendance, so maybe I was a little hasty to pull the plug on them, but in general...the teams in non traditonal markets need to be watched better....and moves made quicker, to ensure the health of the league as a whole.

[Puck]

At least the Islanders are moving in the right direction.

@jammer2

Your obervations re: Dallas are duly noted. I still think Phoenix going from dead last in regular season attendance to selling out every home playoff game supports my hypothesis. As do the spikes in Carolina, Anaheim and TB's attendance figures following their respective cup wins. I suspect if I were to go look up Florida's playoff attendance last season, or their regular season attendance in the "year of the rat" there'd be similar evidence.

I think your last post summarizes how difficult it is to be an owner in a non hockey market. It's a huge risk to invest heavily in player contracts when there's no guarantee of on ice performance matching expectations. I imagine Carolina and Minnesota will be pretty upset if those offseason acquisitions don't parlay into playoff spots, at the very least. I imagine this is why Wang is so leery of investing in contracts after his experiences with DiPietro and Yashin. Yes, he misjudged their talent, but he made an investment and took a risk. That it didn't work out for him is no surprise to anyone, proving you need solid hockey minds behind your checkbook or it's all for naught.

[radoran]

"spikes" are one thing - actual, long-term interest is quite another.

We'll see what happens in Phoenix. I'll wager they don't even get back to 14K a game this next season - which is where they were before this three year playoff run.

The bandwagon is definitely an important way to grow interest and fanbase, but if it's simply a short-term spike and teams like Anaheim who you, yourself characterized as "not a hockey market" can't or don't develop long-term, season-ticket-holder-waiting-list type fanbases, I don't know how valuable that is for the League and the sport.

[Puck]

"spikes" are one thing - actual, long-term interest is quite another.

We'll see what happens in Phoenix. I'll wager they don't even get back to 14K a game this next season - which is where they were before this three year playoff run.

The bandwagon is definitely an important way to grow interest and fanbase, but if it's simply a short-term spike and teams like Anaheim who you, yourself characterized as "not a hockey market" can't or don't develop long-term, season-ticket-holder-waiting-list type fanbases, I don't know how valuable that is for the League and the sport.

Ok, I get your point. Let's say Anaheim and Phoenix both develop some consistency and make the playoffs the next 3 or 4 seasons straight. That's going to help their attendance figures, correct? Success on the ice is going to translate to an improved financial picture. That's my argument in a nutshell.

I'm not trying to argue either is EVER going to be considered a hockey market. It's simply not going to happen, although there are a lot of Canadian sunbirds in Arizona, so it's possible, albeit unlikely.

[JackStraw]

I'm not trying to argue either is EVER going to be considered a hockey market. It's simply not going to happen, although there are a lot of Canadian sunbirds in Arizona, so it's possible, albeit unlikely.

I haven't really followed this discussion you're having with rad too closely (too many long posts for my short attention span) so apologies if I'm off point, but I will point out (for whatever it's worth) that in 1967 Philadelphia was certainly not a traditional hockey market. Philly is definitely more a basketball town than a hockey town, but the 76ers experience up and down attendance because they are not consistently competitive. The Flyers are financially successful because (imo at least) they have been consistently successful on the ice, not because Philadelphia was a hockey town just waiting for a team.

So what may be a "non-traditional" hockey market today may become a "traditional" hockey market tomorrow. That said, I have my doubts about the long term viability of most of the warm weather teams in the NHL.

Edited October 24, 2012 by JackStraw

[radoran]

Ok, I get your point. Let's say Anaheim and Phoenix both develop some consistency and make the playoffs the next 3 or 4 seasons straight. That's going to help their attendance figures, correct? Success on the ice is going to translate to an improved financial picture. That's my argument in a nutshell.

I'm not trying to argue either is EVER going to be considered a hockey market. It's simply not going to happen, although there are a lot of Canadian sunbirds in Arizona, so it's possible, albeit unlikely.

I agree that success brings more interest - for teams that aren't already sold out. My question is whether or not the fanbases are there in the lean times - which they are in places like, say, Buffalo, Edmonton and Calgary.

I do agree that Tampa is a good example. I do think that city took to the Bolts as really the first thing other than the (often woeful) Bucs to hit Tampa. Winning created an interest that waned slightly but with even the hint of further success has arisen.

There are other examples. I think Nashville can be said to have something of a "rabid" fanbase.

But Anaheim has two of the top stars in the game in Perry and Getzlaf and a longtime "hometown" hero - Teemu Selanne - and just a few years removed from their Cup has fallen into the 20s in attendance.

Philadelphia missed the playoffs five years in a row and was basically sold out just like Edmonton is today.

This is part of my larger thoughts on whether there are 30 North American hockey markets which I've discussed with many on different threads and look forward to discussing with you and others in future :-)

It's great to have seats on the bandwagon, but it's better to have the bus filled already.

[Puck]

I haven't really followed this discussion you're having with rad too closely (too many long posts for my short attention span) so apologies if I'm off point, but I will point out (for whatever it's worth) that in 1967 Philadelphia was certainly not a traditional hockey market. Philly is definitely more a basketball town than a hockey town, but the 76ers experience up and down attendance because they are not consistently competitive. The Flyers are financially successful because (imo at least) they have been consistently successful on the ice, not because Philadelphia was a hockey town just waiting for a team.

So what may be a "non-traditional" hockey market today may become a "traditional" hockey market tomorrow. That said, I have my doubts about the long term viability of most of the warm weather teams in the NHL.

Awesome point. Philly is the model all expansion franchises should attempt to follow and when Burke was in charge of the Ducks, I think he was on the right track and had that team on a similar trajectory. Philly did a lot of things right: they drafted well, they built a blue collar identity based on gritty play and team toughness that fans appreciated, and they won the cup twice in their first 10 seasons. That Broadstreet Bullies identity has been part of the team ever since. Guys like Ron Hextall, Eric Lindros and Chris Pronger, all part of different eras, were destined to play in orange and black. When the Flyers joined the league it went from 6 to 12 teams. Their path to the cup was considerably easier than the Ducks and Lightning. The Flyers have had 45 years to build that relationship with their fans. So, yeah, I don't know if it's even possible to build a 'hockey market' today. Outside of these strong markets, it's all about "what have you done for me lately?" These newer franchises are at such a competitive disadvantage that revenue sharing is really the only thing I can think of to help them out.

[Puck]

I agree that success brings more interest - for teams that aren't already sold out. My question is whether or not the fanbases are there in the lean times - which they are in places like, say, Buffalo, Edmonton and Calgary.

I do agree that Tampa is a good example. I do think that city took to the Bolts as really the first thing other than the (often woeful) Bucs to hit Tampa. Winning created an interest that waned slightly but with even the hint of further success has arisen.

There are other examples. I think Nashville can be said to have something of a "rabid" fanbase.

But Anaheim has two of the top stars in the game in Perry and Getzlaf and a longtime "hometown" hero - Teemu Selanne - and just a few years removed from their Cup has fallen into the 20s in attendance.

Philadelphia missed the playoffs five years in a row and was basically sold out just like Edmonton is today.

This is part of my larger thoughts on whether there are 30 North American hockey markets which I've discussed with many on different threads and look forward to discussing with you and others in future :-)

It's great to have seats on the bandwagon, but it's better to have the bus filled already.

We're on the same page. Fans in those markets like Florida, Tampa, Anaheim, Phoenix, Columbus, etc., just aren't going to support their teams in lean times, which is a shame because it hurts the viability of the entire league. They come out when the teams are in the playoffs, and then that interest wanes. I wonder how much of that is a media/marketing issue, but I digress. As much as I'd love to see a return to a 24 team league, it won't realistically happen.