But it's obvious the American markets are still the better alternative financially for the league as a whole because if that weren't the case the teams wouldn't have been there in the first place.
yeah, cause the franchises in Atlanta and Phoenix and everywhere else in the desert are thriving.
rule#1: don't try to sell an arctic game to a desert population. pretty simple.
I guarantee a team in Phoenix would still do better than a team in Saskatoon.
I really think the point gets missed with teams in some US markets. People here in the US don't want to go to games to see a team from Hamilton....Quebec...the cities mean nothing to us. The casual fan may buy a ticket to a Rangers Phoenix game...they know where Phoenix is. To New Yorkers Hamilton is a small private college in upstate NY.
The league shouldn't care where the teams located .... if the team is financially sound then they should't care where its located. It's never going to be huge TV sport in the states so the league needs to put franchises where people are willing to pay top $$$ ... it no longer makes sense to put teams in market where the NBA, MLB and the NFL is located ... it will always be last in those markets. This is where the league and Bettman has failed, instead they should have been working with Toronto and Buffalo and Bassilie to get Phoenix in Hamilton ... I know Toronto might not want it, but I hardly think Hamilton would draw much support away from a rabid leaf fan base. Buffalo might be a tougher sale, but thats what the commissioner is there for to strengthen the league and to work with these teams. It's time to quit experimenting in the US ... allow those teams to bought and moved or fold the teams that are in deep trouble (my preferred choice).
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
remove the canadian teams from the nhl the league will fold within 2-3 years.
remove the american teams the league would survive.
Umm....no. Again if this were the case it would already be one way or the other. Remember the owners are capitalists. They chase the money.
In 2008 the 6 Canadian franchises accounted for 30% (1.1 billion in ticket sales). Besides what would the us teams play for (Canada Owns The Stanley Cup).
The owners may be capitalist ... but most who own NHL franchises aren't making money ... "BECAUSE IF THEY WERE, THERE'D BE NO LOCKOUT"
Post edited by lukin2006 on
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Walking away from the US only makes the NHL a glorified junior league.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,199
Like Vince Lombardi would say....."What the hell is going out there?" What exactly is the NHL thinking just when they had some fan momentum.
I miss hockey....the NBA has a long boring season and I have to deal with all the overly happy Heat fans down here.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
remove the canadian teams from the nhl the league will fold within 2-3 years.
remove the american teams the league would survive.
Umm....no. Again if this were the case it would already be one way or the other. Remember the owners are capitalists. They chase the money.
In 2008 the 6 Canadian franchises accounted for 30% (1.1 billion in ticket sales). Besides what would the us teams play for (Canada Owns The Stanley Cup).
...and after those 6 franchsies where in Cananda could a productive team actually play and make money and compete. Hamilton...maybe. Quebec City....maybe. After that where? I'm being honest. Where else in Cananda could more trams be put that could compete financially?
In 2008 the 6 Canadian franchises accounted for 30% (1.1 billion in ticket sales). Besides what would the us teams play for (Canada Owns The Stanley Cup).
That's really not that overwhelming a number when you really think about it. Since 6 teams of a 30 team league is 20% of the league...they did generate 30% of the revenue which would be above average as a whole....but considering that hockey is the countries past time it's not overwhelming by any stretch of the imagination and take Toronto and Montreal out of that mix and then :fp:
In 2008 the 6 Canadian franchises accounted for 30% (1.1 billion in ticket sales). Besides what would the us teams play for (Canada Owns The Stanley Cup).
...and after those 6 franchsies where in Cananda could a productive team actually play and make money and compete. Hamilton...maybe. Quebec City....maybe. After that where? I'm being honest. Where else in Cananda could more trams be put that could compete financially?
I'm not saying the NHL should walk away from the US ... my preferred solution is contraction ... teams like Phoenix fold them ... get down to 24 teams. The NHL will always be 4th in markets where the other 3 major sports operate.
Yes Hamilton and Quebec could easily support teams ... in both those markets there are obstacles ... in Hamilton deals have to be worked out with Toronto and Buffalo, in Quebec they still need a better arena.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
In 2008 the 6 Canadian franchises accounted for 30% (1.1 billion in ticket sales). Besides what would the us teams play for (Canada Owns The Stanley Cup).
That's really not that overwhelming a number when you really think about it. Since 6 teams of a 30 team league is 20% of the league...they did generate 30% of the revenue which would be above average as a whole....but considering that hockey is the countries past time it's not overwhelming by any stretch of the imagination and take Toronto and Montreal out of that mix and then :fp:
take the rangers out of the mix? most hockey fans in the states are only casual fans. most would rather be at a nascar race
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
In 2008 the 6 Canadian franchises accounted for 30% (1.1 billion in ticket sales). Besides what would the us teams play for (Canada Owns The Stanley Cup).
That's really not that overwhelming a number when you really think about it. Since 6 teams of a 30 team league is 20% of the league...they did generate 30% of the revenue which would be above average as a whole....but considering that hockey is the countries past time it's not overwhelming by any stretch of the imagination and take Toronto and Montreal out of that mix and then :fp:
take the rangers out of the mix? most hockey fans in the states are only casual fans. most would rather be at a nascar race
Yeah. Like I said. Remove US teams from the NHL and you have a glorified junior league.
That's really not that overwhelming a number when you really think about it. Since 6 teams of a 30 team league is 20% of the league...they did generate 30% of the revenue which would be above average as a whole....but considering that hockey is the countries past time it's not overwhelming by any stretch of the imagination and take Toronto and Montreal out of that mix and then :fp:
take the rangers out of the mix? most hockey fans in the states are only casual fans. most would rather be at a nascar race
the quality of play in or junior league is better than the NHL at times ...
Yeah. Like I said. Remove US teams from the NHL and you have a glorified junior league.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The quality of play from some junior teams may be better than some NHL teams...which it's not...but that's not the point. Contract teams? Yeah the players and owners want that. Move them to Canada? Again, yeah the players and owners want that.
The league shouldn't care where the teams located .... if the team is financially sound then they should't care where its located. It's never going to be huge TV sport in the states so the league needs to put franchises where people are willing to pay top $$$ ... it no longer makes sense to put teams in market where the NBA, MLB and the NFL is located ... it will always be last in those markets. This is where the league and Bettman has failed, instead they should have been working with Toronto and Buffalo and Bassilie to get Phoenix in Hamilton ... I know Toronto might not want it, but I hardly think Hamilton would draw much support away from a rabid leaf fan base. Buffalo might be a tougher sale, but thats what the commissioner is there for to strengthen the league and to work with these teams. It's time to quit experimenting in the US ... allow those teams to bought and moved or fold the teams that are in deep trouble (my preferred choice).
Old ownership would have never ever agreed to Hamilton and was probably a large reason Balsielle failed. I think NHL owners as a whole really resented the way he back-doored them on the Phoenix bankrupcy.
The new owner probably wouldnt care as much.
I dont think it would be necessarily bad, especially if the Sabres and NHL had an agreement to always keep Buffalo/Hamilton/Toronto/Montreal together in a Division.
also - hockey just has a natural appeal ... it's played on ice ... a lot of states just don't get any snow and the infrastructure of the sport is minimal
I have to disagree about the money thing being the reason why the NHL is mostly Canadian. The climate and tradition thing yes....money no.
Listen, when it's 110 degrees outside with a heat index of 115, you bet your sweet ass I'm gonna lay down $75 to see the Stars play for three hours.
drivingrl: "Will I ever get to meet Gwen Stefani?"
kevinbeetle: "Yes. When her career washes up and her and Gavin move to Galveston, you will meet her at Hot Topic shopping for a Japanese cheerleader outfit.
also - hockey just has a natural appeal ... it's played on ice ... a lot of states just don't get any snow and the infrastructure of the sport is minimal
I have to disagree about the money thing being the reason why the NHL is mostly Canadian. The climate and tradition thing yes....money no.
Listen, when it's 110 degrees outside with a heat index of 115, you bet your sweet ass I'm gonna lay down $75 to see the Stars play for three hours.
i wasn't referring to the cost of a ticket ...
i was referring to the cost to put a kid through hockey ...
I think its more of a culture thing than cost. Culture leads to more families willing to pay the $. Also, the colder it is, the less options there are.
The Buffalo area isnt the most affluent, but probably has as much/more youth hockey than anywhere in the USA. Due to climate and sharing Canadian culture. Hasek's Heroes helped too.
yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense. because Bettman is great at picking winning franchise locations.
if you believe that, why don't you start a swim suit business in the arctic.
With the exception of a couple they are all doing fairly well. This can be said about any of the other sports however. Bottom line is people in the US would still rather see a team from Phoenix come in than some Canadian city they've never heard of before and that's the bottom line. What might not be best when analyzing a certain city standing alone, when it's analyzed as the league as a whole it makes perfect sense. The Phoenix market is huge. I believe it's the 5th biggest in the country. For the NHL to not want exposure there even if the team is losing money is ridiculous. It's no different than a loss leader concept by a store.
With the exception of a couple they are all doing fairly well. This can be said about any of the other sports however. Bottom line is people in the US would still rather see a team from Phoenix come in than some Canadian city they've never heard of before and that's the bottom line. What might not be best when analyzing a certain city standing alone, when it's analyzed as the league as a whole it makes perfect sense. The Phoenix market is huge. I believe it's the 5th biggest in the country. For the NHL to not want exposure there even if the team is losing money is ridiculous. It's no different than a loss leader concept by a store.
you're right about the media exposure in phoenix which is the main reason why there is a team there ...
but you're assumption on the popularity of canadian teams just doesn't bear itself out ... if you look at road attendance by team as a percentage of capacity ... phoenix is essentially tied with calgary near the bottom of the list ... but ottawa, toronto, montreal, winnipeg and vancouver all are well above phoenix in there ability to draw on the road ... granted that when these teams travel to other canadian cities - they do really well ... the majority of road games are still in US cities ...
i think the thing you underestimate is how many ex-pats or snow birds or canadians actually live and work in the states ...
yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense. because Bettman is great at picking winning franchise locations.
if you believe that, why don't you start a swim suit business in the arctic.
With the exception of a couple they are all doing fairly well. This can be said about any of the other sports however. Bottom line is people in the US would still rather see a team from Phoenix come in than some Canadian city they've never heard of before and that's the bottom line. What might not be best when analyzing a certain city standing alone, when it's analyzed as the league as a whole it makes perfect sense. The Phoenix market is huge. I believe it's the 5th biggest in the country. For the NHL to not want exposure there even if the team is losing money is ridiculous. It's no different than a loss leader concept by a store.
I don't know how you can say with a few exception teams in southern areas are doing well. you have Florida who is broke, you have Tampa Bay who is broke, you have Nashville who is going broke, you had Atlanta who was broke and had to move, you also have the blue jackets who are broke.
Also, Atlanta was also a large market but the NHL let that team leave. Phoenix could have been an ok team but the owners where crap who moved that team to far away from the main hub and that was the major issue
yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense. because Bettman is great at picking winning franchise locations.
if you believe that, why don't you start a swim suit business in the arctic.
With the exception of a couple they are all doing fairly well. This can be said about any of the other sports however. Bottom line is people in the US would still rather see a team from Phoenix come in than some Canadian city they've never heard of before and that's the bottom line. What might not be best when analyzing a certain city standing alone, when it's analyzed as the league as a whole it makes perfect sense. The Phoenix market is huge. I believe it's the 5th biggest in the country. For the NHL to not want exposure there even if the team is losing money is ridiculous. It's no different than a loss leader concept by a store.
I don't know how you can say with a few exception teams in southern areas are doing well. you have Florida who is broke, you have Tampa Bay who is broke, you have Nashville who is going broke, you had Atlanta who was broke and had to move, you also have the blue jackets who are broke.
Also, Atlanta was also a large market but the NHL let that team leave. Phoenix could have been an ok team but the owners where crap who moved that team to far away from the main hub and that was the major issue
What are the alternatives then? Moving teams to remote Canadian cities that won't draw in the States or dissolving the franchises? Neither of those options will fly with ownership, the league, or the players.
With the exception of a couple they are all doing fairly well. This can be said about any of the other sports however. Bottom line is people in the US would still rather see a team from Phoenix come in than some Canadian city they've never heard of before and that's the bottom line. What might not be best when analyzing a certain city standing alone, when it's analyzed as the league as a whole it makes perfect sense. The Phoenix market is huge. I believe it's the 5th biggest in the country. For the NHL to not want exposure there even if the team is losing money is ridiculous. It's no different than a loss leader concept by a store.
you're right about the media exposure in phoenix which is the main reason why there is a team there ...
but you're assumption on the popularity of canadian teams just doesn't bear itself out ... if you look at road attendance by team as a percentage of capacity ... phoenix is essentially tied with calgary near the bottom of the list ... but ottawa, toronto, montreal, winnipeg and vancouver all are well above phoenix in there ability to draw on the road ... granted that when these teams travel to other canadian cities - they do really well ... the majority of road games are still in US cities ...
i think the thing you underestimate is how many ex-pats or snow birds or canadians actually live and work in the states ...
Take out the games between Canadian cities and se how those road draws look.
drivingrl: "Will I ever get to meet Gwen Stefani?"
kevinbeetle: "Yes. When her career washes up and her and Gavin move to Galveston, you will meet her at Hot Topic shopping for a Japanese cheerleader outfit.
yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense. because Bettman is great at picking winning franchise locations.
if you believe that, why don't you start a swim suit business in the arctic.
With the exception of a couple they are all doing fairly well. This can be said about any of the other sports however. Bottom line is people in the US would still rather see a team from Phoenix come in than some Canadian city they've never heard of before and that's the bottom line. What might not be best when analyzing a certain city standing alone, when it's analyzed as the league as a whole it makes perfect sense. The Phoenix market is huge. I believe it's the 5th biggest in the country. For the NHL to not want exposure there even if the team is losing money is ridiculous. It's no different than a loss leader concept by a store.
I don't know how you can say with a few exception teams in southern areas are doing well. you have Florida who is broke, you have Tampa Bay who is broke, you have Nashville who is going broke, you had Atlanta who was broke and had to move, you also have the blue jackets who are broke.
Also, Atlanta was also a large market but the NHL let that team leave. Phoenix could have been an ok team but the owners where crap who moved that team to far away from the main hub and that was the major issue
What are the alternatives then? Moving teams to remote Canadian cities that won't draw in the States or dissolving the franchises? Neither of those options will fly with ownership, the league, or the players.[/quote]
To be honest, I agree with you that there are not many alternatives. Hockey is a fringe sport who Bettman and the owners tried to make a main stream sport and there is not much that can be done about that now.
I guarantee a team in Phoenix would still do better than a team in Saskatoon.
yeah, ok!
Phoenix is only losing like 25-30 million a year.
I truly think the big picture is being missed here. Like I mentioned when analyzing the Phoenix situation currently and standing alone it doesn't look great. When analyzing the big picture of having an NHL: franchise in a world class facility in a huge markey makes perfect sense for the league as a whole. Can't move the team to Hamilton....just cannabalising from Buffalo and Toronto. Quebec City already failed once and they don't have an NHL ready arena any longer and franchsies are not just going to be dissolved. It's the best of bad alternatives hence the team still remains.
If the commissioner did his job then yes they could move Phoenix to Hamilton ... He would need to negotiate a deal with Buffalo and Toronto. I don't know enough about Buffalo's fan base, but I highly doubt leaf fans will bolt to become Hamilton fans. The commissioner has to do his job and discuss it with those teams. I've stated before that I didn't think Toronto or Buffalo would let a team in Hamilton without a price ... What that price is, who knows.
I would say Quebec could get a team if they build a new arena ... One of the best rivalries of the 80's was Montreal vs Quebec.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Comments
Umm....no. Again if this were the case it would already be one way or the other. Remember the owners are capitalists. They chase the money.
The league shouldn't care where the teams located .... if the team is financially sound then they should't care where its located. It's never going to be huge TV sport in the states so the league needs to put franchises where people are willing to pay top $$$ ... it no longer makes sense to put teams in market where the NBA, MLB and the NFL is located ... it will always be last in those markets. This is where the league and Bettman has failed, instead they should have been working with Toronto and Buffalo and Bassilie to get Phoenix in Hamilton ... I know Toronto might not want it, but I hardly think Hamilton would draw much support away from a rabid leaf fan base. Buffalo might be a tougher sale, but thats what the commissioner is there for to strengthen the league and to work with these teams. It's time to quit experimenting in the US ... allow those teams to bought and moved or fold the teams that are in deep trouble (my preferred choice).
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
In 2008 the 6 Canadian franchises accounted for 30% (1.1 billion in ticket sales). Besides what would the us teams play for (Canada Owns The Stanley Cup).
The owners may be capitalist ... but most who own NHL franchises aren't making money ... "BECAUSE IF THEY WERE, THERE'D BE NO LOCKOUT"
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I miss hockey....the NBA has a long boring season and I have to deal with all the overly happy Heat fans down here.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
...and after those 6 franchsies where in Cananda could a productive team actually play and make money and compete. Hamilton...maybe. Quebec City....maybe. After that where? I'm being honest. Where else in Cananda could more trams be put that could compete financially?
our junior teams would probably draw better than many US markets ...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
That's really not that overwhelming a number when you really think about it. Since 6 teams of a 30 team league is 20% of the league...they did generate 30% of the revenue which would be above average as a whole....but considering that hockey is the countries past time it's not overwhelming by any stretch of the imagination and take Toronto and Montreal out of that mix and then :fp:
I'm not saying the NHL should walk away from the US ... my preferred solution is contraction ... teams like Phoenix fold them ... get down to 24 teams. The NHL will always be 4th in markets where the other 3 major sports operate.
Yes Hamilton and Quebec could easily support teams ... in both those markets there are obstacles ... in Hamilton deals have to be worked out with Toronto and Buffalo, in Quebec they still need a better arena.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
take the rangers out of the mix? most hockey fans in the states are only casual fans. most would rather be at a nascar race
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Yeah. Like I said. Remove US teams from the NHL and you have a glorified junior league.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Old ownership would have never ever agreed to Hamilton and was probably a large reason Balsielle failed. I think NHL owners as a whole really resented the way he back-doored them on the Phoenix bankrupcy.
The new owner probably wouldnt care as much.
I dont think it would be necessarily bad, especially if the Sabres and NHL had an agreement to always keep Buffalo/Hamilton/Toronto/Montreal together in a Division.
Listen, when it's 110 degrees outside with a heat index of 115, you bet your sweet ass I'm gonna lay down $75 to see the Stars play for three hours.
kevinbeetle: "Yes. When her career washes up and her and Gavin move to Galveston, you will meet her at Hot Topic shopping for a Japanese cheerleader outfit.
Next!"
i wasn't referring to the cost of a ticket ...
i was referring to the cost to put a kid through hockey ...
The Buffalo area isnt the most affluent, but probably has as much/more youth hockey than anywhere in the USA. Due to climate and sharing Canadian culture. Hasek's Heroes helped too.
yeah, ok!
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Really? :? If it wouldn't Saskatoon would already have a team.
yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense. because Bettman is great at picking winning franchise locations.
if you believe that, why don't you start a swim suit business in the arctic.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
With the exception of a couple they are all doing fairly well. This can be said about any of the other sports however. Bottom line is people in the US would still rather see a team from Phoenix come in than some Canadian city they've never heard of before and that's the bottom line. What might not be best when analyzing a certain city standing alone, when it's analyzed as the league as a whole it makes perfect sense. The Phoenix market is huge. I believe it's the 5th biggest in the country. For the NHL to not want exposure there even if the team is losing money is ridiculous. It's no different than a loss leader concept by a store.
you're right about the media exposure in phoenix which is the main reason why there is a team there ...
but you're assumption on the popularity of canadian teams just doesn't bear itself out ... if you look at road attendance by team as a percentage of capacity ... phoenix is essentially tied with calgary near the bottom of the list ... but ottawa, toronto, montreal, winnipeg and vancouver all are well above phoenix in there ability to draw on the road ... granted that when these teams travel to other canadian cities - they do really well ... the majority of road games are still in US cities ...
i think the thing you underestimate is how many ex-pats or snow birds or canadians actually live and work in the states ...
I don't know how you can say with a few exception teams in southern areas are doing well. you have Florida who is broke, you have Tampa Bay who is broke, you have Nashville who is going broke, you had Atlanta who was broke and had to move, you also have the blue jackets who are broke.
Also, Atlanta was also a large market but the NHL let that team leave. Phoenix could have been an ok team but the owners where crap who moved that team to far away from the main hub and that was the major issue
What are the alternatives then? Moving teams to remote Canadian cities that won't draw in the States or dissolving the franchises? Neither of those options will fly with ownership, the league, or the players.
Take out the games between Canadian cities and se how those road draws look.
kevinbeetle: "Yes. When her career washes up and her and Gavin move to Galveston, you will meet her at Hot Topic shopping for a Japanese cheerleader outfit.
Next!"
What are the alternatives then? Moving teams to remote Canadian cities that won't draw in the States or dissolving the franchises? Neither of those options will fly with ownership, the league, or the players.[/quote]
To be honest, I agree with you that there are not many alternatives. Hockey is a fringe sport who Bettman and the owners tried to make a main stream sport and there is not much that can be done about that now.
Phoenix is only losing like 25-30 million a year.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I truly think the big picture is being missed here. Like I mentioned when analyzing the Phoenix situation currently and standing alone it doesn't look great. When analyzing the big picture of having an NHL: franchise in a world class facility in a huge markey makes perfect sense for the league as a whole. Can't move the team to Hamilton....just cannabalising from Buffalo and Toronto. Quebec City already failed once and they don't have an NHL ready arena any longer and franchsies are not just going to be dissolved. It's the best of bad alternatives hence the team still remains.
I would say Quebec could get a team if they build a new arena ... One of the best rivalries of the 80's was Montreal vs Quebec.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon