B21 Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Seems to me, an expansion team can only succeed if two extenuating factors are present.... A) a pre-existing infrastructure of minor league hockey aimed specifically at kids from 3-17 years old. B) the sport must be somewhat culturally entrenched into the fibre of the area in question. You can *try* to grow the sport without A and B....but it's basically a waste of time. The lack of A and B are the reasons why Florida and Arizona will ultimatley fail. Hockey is not the kind of sport where you can just hope and pray it gets accepted, the adoption papers must be already filed. Here's the problem with that. Option B doesn't apply to any U.S. market. Hockey is not and never has been part of the "culture" here. Not like it is in Canada. That includes the likes of Detroit, Boston, Philly, et al. Option A applies in a few places (Portland, OR) comes to mind. Still - if that's the criteria, put a team in Quebec and pray it works this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Seems to me, an expansion team can only succeed if two extenuating factors are present.... A) a pre-existing infrastructure of minor league hockey aimed specifically at kids from 3-17 years old. B) the sport must be somewhat culturally entrenched into the fibre of the area in question. You can *try* to grow the sport without A and B....but it's basically a waste of time. The lack of A and B are the reasons why Florida and Arizona will ultimatley fail. Hockey is not the kind of sport where you can just hope and pray it gets accepted, the adoption papers must be already filed. You know where basically none of that was true for an expansion team? Philadelphia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 You know where basically literally none of that was true for an expansion team? Philadelphia. Los Angeles. San Jose. Tampa. Denver. Anaheim. Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 A couple of things, I don't believe that the NHL was ever in any jeopardy of being wiped out by the WHA, the teams absorbed were the ones that the NHL felt had the best chance of surviving. Also, I'm not sure what you mean about a core market, as far as I can see, that market has been fulfilled by the Original Six, everything else has been normal and healthy growth of the league. As far as minimal interest goes, I think that the people of Quebec demonstrated that during the recent Memorial Cup where attendance was abysmal. Wow. It's hard to keep up with this thread! Four pages already! When I say "core market", I mean the places where hockey is king. The province of Quebec is a core hockey market. The NHL has lost over a billion dollars by not having the Nordiques in the league since 1995. That number continues to grow. For every year that the Coyotes exist and not the Nordiques, the NHL says goodbye to over 50 million dollars. Actually it's probably closer to 100 million dollars. (Subtracting a 50 million dollar loss and adding a 50 million dollar gain is 100 mil.) Someone was saying that "existing fans don't grow the game". That's true. However, existing fans pay the bills and allow the game to grow. Without existing fans you have no fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickp Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 getting a team in the Pacific Northwest (Seattle or Portland) should be a major priority for NHL. the Canucks has no regional rival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Wow. It's hard to keep up with this thread! Four pages already! When I say "core market", I mean the places where hockey is king. The province of Quebec is a core hockey market. The NHL has lost over a billion dollars by not having the Nordiques in the league since 1995. That number continues to grow. For every year that the Coyotes exist and not the Nordiques, the NHL says goodbye to over 50 million dollars. Actually it's probably closer to 100 million dollars. (Subtracting a 50 million dollar loss and adding a 50 million dollar gain is 100 mil.)Someone was saying that "existing fans don't grow the game". That's true. However, existing fans pay the bills and allow the game to grow. Without existing fans you have no fans. But what did they gain by having a successful franchise in Colorado?Winnipeg AND Quebec both lost their franchises because THEY REFUSED TO SUPPORT THEM.true story. You have a nice (undocumented) acorn here.It's not at all an oak tree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotta99fan Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Wow. It's hard to keep up with this thread! Four pages already! When I say "core market", I mean the places where hockey is king. The province of Quebec is a core hockey market. The NHL has lost over a billion dollars by not having the Nordiques in the league since 1995. That number continues to grow. For every year that the Coyotes exist and not the Nordiques, the NHL says goodbye to over 50 million dollars. Actually it's probably closer to 100 million dollars. (Subtracting a 50 million dollar loss and adding a 50 million dollar gain is 100 mil.) Someone was saying that "existing fans don't grow the game". That's true. However, existing fans pay the bills and allow the game to grow. Without existing fans you have no fans. The Province may be King, but Quebec city is not. I think they are fickle fans.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 But what did they gain by having a successful franchise in Colorado?Winnipeg AND Quebec both lost their franchises because the city refused to fund a new arena with public money THEY REFUSED TO SUPPORT THEM.true story. Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 The Province may be King, but Quebec city is not. I think they are fickle fans.. Well if it weren't in Quebec City, what other major cities in Quebec would be feasible? I'm not saying it has to be Quebec City. Quite frankly a second team in Montreal that shares the same arena with the Canadiens makes the most sense. That keeps costs down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Someone was saying that "existing fans don't grow the game". That's true. However, existing fans pay the bills and allow the game to grow. Without existing fans you have no fans. Let's try some basic math. Do those who used to follow/watch the Nordiques still watch hockey? Yes. Has not having a team in Quebec in any way stopped the NHL from exponentially increasing their Canadian TV money? http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=693152 12 year deal with Rogers signed in 2013 which took effect this season. $5.23 billion. That's billion with a b. Nearly 10 times as much as the last time the deal was up. (And yes - that far outpaces inflation). Compare that to the U.S. deal with NBC signed two years earlier for 10 years and $2 billion. That's over 60% more. In Canada. With 3 times fewer teams. 10 times fewer the population. Or....60% less in the U.S. With 3 times the number of teams and 10 times the population as Canada. You tell me....where should the NHL be trying to put more teams? Imagine if the NHL could generate even half the interest in the U.S. as there is in Canada. Can you see why they (the owners - not Bettman) want/wanted to try and refuse to give up easily on their efforts? I'd love to see a team in Quebec City. But the NHL needs a team in Quebec City like it needs another lockout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Fixed. And both cities have changed their tune and are willing to bend over backwards for a team.That will stay there until they aren't.You enjoy splitting hairs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Let's try some basic math. Do those who used to follow/watch the Nordiques still watch hockey? Yes. Has not having a team in Quebec in any way stopped the NHL from exponentially increasing their Canadian TV money? http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=693152 12 year deal with Rogers signed in 2013 which took effect this season. $5.23 billion. That's billion with a b. Nearly 10 times as much as the last time the deal was up. (And yes - that far outpaces inflation). Compare that to the U.S. deal with NBC signed two years earlier for 10 years and $2 billion. That's over 60% more. In Canada. With 3 times fewer teams. 10 times fewer the population. Or....60% less in the U.S. With 3 times the number of teams and 10 times the population as Canada. You tell me....where should the NHL be trying to put more teams? Imagine if the NHL could generate even half the interest in the U.S. as there is in Canada. Can you see why they (the owners - not Bettman) want/wanted to try and refuse to give up easily on their efforts? I'd love to see a team in Quebec City. But the NHL needs a team in Quebec City like it needs another lockout. I'm all for trying new markets..... but take care of "home base" first. Once you run out of places to stick teams up here (Canada and northern US), then you go for the Las Vegas and Phoenixs of the world. The NHL still makes most of its money on ticket sales right? So TV deal aside, they make more money by having paying fans in attendance watching the Nordiques. What the NHL is doing is not wrong, it's just backwards. They're doing the steps in the wrong order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 And both cities have changed their tune and are willing to bend over backwards for a team.That will stay there until they aren't.You enjoy splitting hairs? The weather is really lousy up here lately. I've been stuck in the house all day. No beaches. No babes. So I've been unusually argumentative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 I'm all for trying new markets..... but take care of "home base" first. Once you run out of places to stick teams up here (Canada and northern US), then you go for the Las Vegas and Phoenixs of the world. The NHL still makes most of its money on ticket sales right? So TV deal aside, they make more money by having paying fans in attendance watching the Nordiques. What the NHL is doing is not wrong, it's just backwards. They're doing the steps in the wrong order. The home base is taken care of though. Remember.....$5.2 billion. Everybody already watches. You don't need any more teams in Canada if you are the NHL. Yes - individual teams make more from ticket sales, their local TV deals and advertising than they do from sharing in the NHL's TV revenue. More math. $5.2 billion over 12 years is $43,000,000 per year or about $1.4 million per team per year. In 2013-14 the average ticket price per game was $62. If you sell out all 41 homes games in an 18,000 seat arena you've taken in almost $46,000,000. Then there is parking, concessions, etc. I'm sure this differs from team to team but you get the idea. So how does any locally generated revenue from a team in Quebec help the NHL? It actually hurts the U.S. teams as the Canadian teams get a cut off the top before the rest is evenly divided (Toronto and Montreal being the exceptions). An expansion team in the U.S would not. Another question is this.....How much more - if any - could the NHL have milked from Rogers if there was a team in Quebec (Metro Population: 765,000)? How much less would NBC be willing to offer with no team in the Phoenix metro area (population 4.5 million)? How much less if there was no team in Miami (6 million) and/or Raleigh (2 million)? How much more if they keep Phoenix and add Seattle (3.5 million) and Kansas City (2.7 million)? TV revenue comes from advertising and advertising needs people watching. They already watch in Quebec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 The home base is taken care of though. Remember.....$5.2 billion. Everybody already watches. You don't need any more teams in Canada if you are the NHL. Yes - individual teams make more from ticket sales, their local TV deals and advertising than they do from sharing in the NHL's TV revenue. More math. $5.2 billion over 12 years is $43,000,000 per year or about $1.4 million per team per year. In 2013-14 the average ticket price per game was $62. If you sell out all 41 homes games in an 18,000 seat arena you've taken in almost $46,000,000. Then there is parking, concessions, etc. I'm sure this differs from team to team but you get the idea. So how does any locally generated revenue from a team in Quebec help the NHL? It actually hurts the U.S. teams as the Canadian teams get a cut off the top before the rest is evenly divided (Toronto and Montreal being the exceptions). An expansion team in the U.S would not. Another question is this.....How much more - if any - could the NHL have milked from Rogers if there was a team in Quebec (Metro Population: 765,000)? How much less would NBC be willing to offer with no team in the Phoenix metro area (population 4.5 million)? How much less if there was no team in Miami (6 million) and/or Raleigh (2 million)? How much more if they keep Phoenix and add Seattle (3.5 million) and Kansas City (2.7 million)? TV revenue comes from advertising and advertising needs people watching. They already watch in Quebec. With one more team in either Quebec City, Hamilton, or Toronto, I agree. At that point I think the Canadian market will be maxed out. In the US, Seattle and Cleveland are prime candidates for teams. They are perfectly located to fit well with other teams, and those are northern US cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 @WordsOfWisdom My bad - my math was a "zero" short. $5.2 billion over 12 years is $433 million (not $43 million) which is about $14.5 million per team per year. My point not affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 With one more team in either Quebec City, Hamilton, or Toronto, I agree. At that point I think the Canadian market will be maxed out. In the US, Seattle and Cleveland are prime candidates for teams. They are perfectly located to fit well with other teams, and those are northern US cities. I'd go to Kansas City before Cleveland. It's bigger. There is no NBA (and no LeBron James) that you have to compete with. It makes more sense geographically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 I'd go to Kansas City before Cleveland. It's bigger. There is no NBA (and no LeBron James) that you have to compete with. It makes more sense geographically. Agreed. Okay Dorothy, pack yer things, we're going to Kansas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Agreed. Okay Dorothy, pack yer things, we're going to Kansas! Google "Auston Matthews". Another reason why the league is looking to make these non-traditional markets work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.