Coyotes New Owner: "We Are Staying in the Desert"

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

5 hours ago, Brewin Flames said:

Imo, 2 things have prevented them from having success...

 

#1 Lousy marketing

 

#2 Winning

 

If they could improve both, then success would follow, simple as that.

 

And gila monsters in tents at tailgate parties ain't no fun either!  

[FD19372]

If a cactus tree falls in the desert, does it really fall ...and does anyone care? That just about sums up the Arizona Coyotes. They shouldn't have moved away from Winnipeg to begin with.

[thegx.ca]

14 hours ago, Brewin Flames said:

Imo, 2 things have prevented them from having success...

 

#1 Lousy marketing

 

#2 Winning

 

If they could improve both, then success would follow, simple as that.

 

Is Carolina filling their area in regular season yet? If so, I say marketing more important than winning, because I remember when they won Cup and no one even going to playoff games there.

 

After marketing pays off and it gets popular, fans will still go win or lose - look at all Canadian teams and original 6, especially Toronto and Montreal.

[lynxrattle]

I hear that the way the Stars solved the problem was to build a whole lot of ice rinks in the area in order to build a fan base with actual skating/playing experience.

[thegx.ca]

1 hour ago, lynxrattle said:

I hear that the way the Stars solved the problem was to build a whole lot of ice rinks in the area in order to build a fan base with actual skating/playing experience.

 

That's pretty ingenious actually, very long term and very forward thinking marketing, they must have pitched in with other levels of government - and with cost sharing with other levels of government the actual cost to the teams might be comparable or less than traditional forms of marketing, also the good will received from the community just add to their marketing effectiveness.

[Math]

7 hours ago, lynxrattle said:

I hear that the way the Stars solved the problem was to build a whole lot of ice rinks in the area in order to build a fan base with actual skating/playing experience.

That was part of the strategy but it wasn't an easy task. It was even a huge gamble (Dallas was not the first choice as a landing spot: LA was) because they came in an area where no one had any clue about what was hockey. They were fortunate to have already a good team but the 1995-1996 lock-out hurt a lot. And even after being one of the best team in the NHL in the late 1990s-early 2000s and winning the Cup, they went bankrupt in 2011 and run by the League for a while.

 

  

On 8/20/2021 at 4:56 PM, Villella McMeans said:

Thinking relocation to Quebec would have the same results as Winnipeg.

 

I think it will be way tougher for QC City. In Winnipeg you are more in a central location, you can extend your market to SK and part of northern ON on the other side. The fanbase area in QC City limits to the city itself. All other regions in QC are traditionnally fans of Habs, the Nordiques were in the NHL only 16 years. And again, french market. It's a huge drawback for a team to be successful. I also forgot the amount of taxes (by far the most taxed province/state in North America): if you want to bring FA, you only have in take into account the exchange rate, but also the extra money you'd need to pay.

 

  

On 8/21/2021 at 3:30 PM, Brewin Flames said:

#1 Lousy marketing

#2 Winning

 

You really need both in the so-called "non traditional markets". Carolina is a good example, winning the cup didn't bring and build a loyal and large fanbase. When new ownership took over while becoming good and going in the play-off afain -- the bunch of Jerks and stuff -- they became fun, and people embraced that. However, if they start sucking again, it will be back to the starting point.

[Puck_Pun]

New arena proposal rejected

 

https://www.thehockeyspotlight.com/post/arizona-coyotes-inching-closer-to-relocation-tempe-votes-against-1-7b-new-arena-project

 

...even if it were accepted surely they'd have to find another place for next season anyway, given construction time? 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Puck_Pun

[Math]

They could still play in downtown Phoenix in its former arena but that would be a temporary solution. I still don't understand why the hell do they absolutely want to play in the suburb and make the exact same mistake. Doesn't the situation of Ottawa and Florida ring a bell to them?!?!

[WordsOfWisdom]

What I'd like to know is why US teams get this much effort put into saving them, and this many chances to succeed with so many new owners, but a struggling Canadian team (struggling only because of the exchange rate on the dollar, not a lack of attendance) is stolen away from the city faster than merchandise at a San Jose jewelry store.

 

Side note: I want more LIKES. 

 

 

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

On 8/8/2021 at 2:32 PM, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

 

I know, I know...

Dried up AZ legislation, dried up ownership, dried up front office, and players with a dried up sense of competitiveness.....which leaves the seats dried up!  

 

It's probably hard for players to be motivated to give 100% effort in front of an empty building, especially if you know nobody is watching at home either. 

 

(At least it would be for me.)

 

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

On 8/20/2021 at 2:25 PM, radoran said:

All that said, Houston makes the most sense. League actually gains in total metro size exchanging Phoenix metro for Greater Houston.

 

If it's just about population, then Mexico City makes the most sense.  

 

Why not Tokyo? Jakarta?  Delhi?  You gain way more population in Tokyo than you do in Houston. 

 

 

 

[Puck_Pun]

They'll probably call them something lame like Houston Astros

[radoran]

8 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

If it's just about population, then Mexico City makes the most sense.  

 

Why not Tokyo? Jakarta?  Delhi?  You gain way more population in Tokyo than you do in Houston.

 

The whole concept is the national TV contract. It's why the NFL isn't a gate driven league.

 

You want to make your product as appealing to as wide a swath of advertisers as possible.

 

At this point Houston is in the USA while Tokyo, Mexico City, and Jakarta are not.

[radoran]

9 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

What I'd like to know is why US teams get this much effort put into saving them, and this many chances to succeed with so many new owners, but a struggling Canadian team (struggling only because of the exchange rate on the dollar, not a lack of attendance) is stolen away from the city faster than merchandise at a San Jose jewelry store.

 

Side note: I want more LIKES. 

 

There is FAR more potential money in Phoenix or Houston than there is in Quebec City or Hamilton.

[Math]

One argument in favor of Houston is a new rivalry with Dallas. But the Stars don't see that way and are not really for it: smelling the move, they put their alternative Texas logo on the middle ice, on the website, and changes their twitter account name to @TexasHockey. Bum Phillips would say: "They may be America's team, but we're Texas' team"

 

Personally, I wish they stay in AZ despite all the circus made around the franchise: build/improve/renovate the goddamn downtown arena and put decent management and ownership in place.

[WordsOfWisdom]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

There is FAR more potential money in Phoenix or Houston than there is in Quebec City or Hamilton.

 

I agree, but businesses don't run on "potential" money. They run on actual money.

 

Putting a team in Quebec City or Hamilton would be more profitable both now and in the future. The only reason the idea of Phoenix or Houston would be entertained is as a charity/non-profit organization or because the NHL is subsidizing it heavily with their revenue sharing money. Otherwise no businessman would invest in a hockey franchise in either of those locations. It's just bad business.

 

If you run a home air conditioning business, you don't go to Alaska, Yukon, or the Northwest Territories looking for customers.  

[WordsOfWisdom]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

The whole concept is the national TV contract. It's why the NFL isn't a gate driven league.

 

You want to make your product as appealing to as wide a swath of advertisers as possible.

 

At this point Houston is in the USA while Tokyo, Mexico City, and Jakarta are not.

 

I know I was just being funny.  

 

The LIKE button is right here ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>

[radoran]

2 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

I agree, but businesses don't run on "potential" money. They run on actual money.

 

There are 4.85M people in the Phoenix Metro. 6+M in Greater Houston.

 

There are 800K in Quebec City. 763K in Hamilton.

 

And the American dollar is worth 1.25 to the Canadian dollar.

 

Tampa Bay is the #1 attendance leader in the NHL today. Vegas is 6th.

 

There's more actual money in either Houston or Phoenix than in either Quebec City or Hamilton.

[WordsOfWisdom]

1 hour ago, Math said:

One argument in favor of Houston is a new rivalry with Dallas. But the Stars don't see that way and are not really for it: smelling the move, they put their alternative Texas logo on the middle ice, on the website, and changes their twitter account name to @TexasHockey. Bum Phillips would say: "They may be America's team, but we're Texas' team"

 

 

That's because the Stars recognize that their fanbase is small and splitting it with another team would kill both franchises.

 

Sooner or later the NHL will need to accept reality:

• There is no correlation between the population of a city and the number of NHL hockey fans it has.
• Teams run on actual revenue, not potential revenue. 
• Hamilton and Quebec City are the best locations where fans would pay real top dollar to watch hockey.
• National TV contracts aren't worth anything if your product is one of the freebies/thrown-ins in that lineup and gets dropped soon after.
• Canadian TV contracts pay more money for hockey.

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

5 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

There are 4.85M people in the Phoenix Metro. 6+M in Greater Houston.

 

There are 800K in Quebec City. 763K in Hamilton.

 

And the American dollar is worth 1.25 to the Canadian dollar.

 

Tampa Bay is the #1 attendance leader in the NHL today. Vegas is 6th.

 

There's more actual money in either Houston or Phoenix than in either Quebec City or Hamilton.

 

 

Attendance != Revenue

 

Ticket prices x Attendance = Revenue

 

I think Houston would be another colossal mistake just like Phoenix was. All you would have is another NHL team in a large US city that gets no fan or media attention and that generates no serious revenue. The reason the NHL doesn't want to relocate is because they know it'll flop in Houston too. If Houston was such a viable hockey market the NHL would have been there 20 years ago already. Even the league knows it's a dud. 

 

Despite the currency exchange rate and the smaller population, the richest NHL franchises are always in Canada, and even the "weakest" Canadian franchises are still top 15 in the NHL. You can't lose in Canada when it comes to hockey. 

 

[Math]

Another drawback of QC City that I haven't mentioned yet is the arena location: not as bad as Ottawa but still mediocre.

 

When the QC gov't and the city council had the dumb idea to build the new arena next to the old Colisée, they didn't think about transportation and close markets. In tact it's a terrible geolocalisation. The arena is in the middle of a no-man's land, next to a crumbling mall that doesn't drive people anymore, the highway is next but there's no direct exit, there's no direct connections with public transportation (the closest bus stop is by 10-15 mn on foot, imagine walking there at -30° and wait another 20 mn for the bus), all parking lot entries are linked to local streets that are immediately jammed after a game (I experienced that for Remparts game with attendance of 10k, il was already a nightmare). There's no restaurants and no shops nearby. The overall location sucks. On the other side, I was difficult to put an arena elsewhere but I still think that much better could have been done.

[WordsOfWisdom]

2 minutes ago, Math said:

Another drawback of QC City that I haven't mentioned yet is the arena location: not as bad as Ottawa but still mediocre.

 

When the QC gov't and the city council had the dumb idea to build the new arena next to the old Colisée, they didn't think about transportation and close markets. In tact it's a terrible geolocalisation. The arena is in the middle of a no-man's land, next to a crumbling mall that doesn't drive people anymore, the highway is next but there's no direct exit, there's no direct connections with public transportation (the closest bus stop is by 10-15 mn on foot, imagine walking there at -30° and wait another 20 mn for the bus), all parking lot entries are linked to local streets that are immediately jammed after a game (I experienced that for Remparts game with attendance of 10k, il was already a nightmare). There's no restaurants and no shops nearby. The overall location sucks. On the other side, I was difficult to put an arena elsewhere but I still think that much better could have been done.

 

Ottawa's arena location is ridiculous.  It's so far outside of Ottawa that it actually catches you off-guard if you ever drive to Ottawa. You'll be driving along in the middle of nowhere and suddenly there's a building and a parking lot. As you drive by and see the signage you realize "oh... that's where the Sens play... how strange". 

 

Restaurants and other businesses would open up IF there was an NHL team there.  Strong businesses help fuel other small businesses.  Plus, I'm sure they could build an exit on the highway and deal with bus routes IF they have reason to. All of those are minor issues that be quickly solved if the city has a good reason to. 

 

 

[radoran]

38 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Despite the currency exchange rate and the smaller population, the richest NHL franchises are always in Canada, and even the "weakest" Canadian franchises are still top 15 in the NHL. You can't lose in Canada when it comes to hockey. 

 

In terms of franchise value, Montreal and Tronno are 2 & 3, EDM is 7, and then Canadian teams are ranked: 14 (VAN), 18 (CAL), 26 (WPG), and 28 (OTT). Edmonton doubled in value with their new arena.

 

In terms of revenue, again MTL and TOR are 2 & 3, then VAN (10), EDM (12), CAL (18), WPG (21), OTT (24).

 

Dallas made more money than Edmonton. So did Vegas and Los Angeles.

 

Attendance is difficult to measure apples-to-apples because of the cancelled audiences in Canada, but the current #1 overall is "non hockey market" Tampa Bay.

 

The main problem in Arizona, aside from venue location, is that they took a moribund, failing Canadian franchise and did nothing to help it when it relocated.

[WordsOfWisdom]

4 hours ago, radoran said:

In terms of franchise value, Montreal and Tronno are 2 & 3, EDM is 7, and then Canadian teams are ranked: 14 (VAN), 18 (CAL), 26 (WPG), and 28 (OTT). Edmonton doubled in value with their new arena.

 

Franchise "value" is a subjective figure. It's also wildly inaccurate. The team is worth what someone will pay for it. More accurately, the team is worth the sum total of all the players it currently has plus the value of the brand itself. The fact that American owners don't want to own teams in Canada has nothing to do with their ability to make money and everything to do with the owner's vanity/homer-ism/tax dodging efforts/whatever it may be. So it hurts the "value" of the Canadian teams somewhat to be in Canada but doesn't hurt the business.

 

It's no different than real-estate. An average home in America is currently valued at $250,000.  An average home in Canada is currently valued at $750,000. So, Canada is the winner right? Canadian homes are more "valuable" therefore Canadian homes are better?

 

All that truly matters with a business is net income.  Revenue - Expenses. That's it. 

 

Plus, I think I mentioned this previously (maybe on another forum) but Toronto is the #1 most valuable franchise in the NHL. Always has been. The New York Rangers aren't even close. Why? Because the Rangers don't get to count MSG towards the value of the Rangers, even if it's all owned by the same ownership group. It's irrelevant. The team is a separate business entity from the venue they play in. Otherwise I'll take MSG revenue and add that to the Toronto Maple Leafs while giving ACC revenue to the New York Rangers and then we'll see how the two teams stack up in "value".

 

Bottom line: The MSG venue runs more non-hockey related shows and draws more money than the ACC does. That has nothing to do with hockey and therefore none of that revenue and none of that "value" is hockey-related and therefore doesn't count in this analysis. 

 

Also, none of the revenue figures for the past two years are valid as Canadian teams are in lockdown. You would have to look at data from 2019 or earlier.

 

 

 The LIKE button is here ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>

 

[radoran]

Teams in a market of multi millions of people are more valuable than teams in markets of hundreds of thousands.

 

If Houston got 10% of the population to buy into hockey, it's the same as if the entire population of Quebec City was into hockey. The growth potential is astronomically, exponentially higher than putting teams in podunk towns with no corporate support and with a serious currency valuation disparity.

 

Quebec and Hamilton simply cannot compete in the NHL. And adding less than a million new "fans" (most of whom are already fans of either the Habs or the Leaes) in Canada does virtually nothing for the value of the league. Adding another top 10 media market with millions of potential fans does.

 

the like button is over there ->