The fact of the matter is: we don't know what kind of revenues a team will need in the new NHL, post-CBA. No one is suggesting that a 15,000 seat arena in Winnipeg will work if an 18,000 seat arena in Edmonton isn't working with a payroll of $27M (the Oilers break-even point, according to Levitt).WC Handy said:The simple fact that you think a 15,000 seat arena is ideal says quite a bit about the market.
Beukeboom Fan said:The Jets and Nordiques left for larger markets south of the border in 1996 and 1995. I don't have any hard data, but I bet the team average salary was less than half of what it was last year in 2004. I don't think that these markets have enough size to support an NHL franchise, even with a new CBA.
I think that you have to give the new markets time to develop. I don't think you develop hard-core sports markets in 5-10 year, unless a team is a consistent contender. I'm not sure how long it will take, but it's a long term process IMO.
raketheleaves said:Colorado is not a larger hockey market than Quebec City. They have Walmart money behind them and were able to spend anything they wanted without a cap.Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan
The Jets and Nordiques left for larger markets south of the border in 1996 and 1995. I don't have any hard data, but I bet the team average salary was less than half of what it was last year in 2004. I don't think that these markets have enough size to support an NHL franchise, even with a new CBA.
I think that you have to give the new markets time to develop. I don't think you develop hard-core sports markets in 5-10 year, unless a team is a consistent contender. I'm not sure how long it will take, but it's a long term process IMO.
Phoenix is certainly not a larger hockey market than Winnipeg either.
There are many different scenarios where Quebec and Winnipeg could have a team. Starting with a cap and a hefty luxury tax, you could have an American owner, a corporate owner, tax breaks......etc.....they only have to reach 25 mil in salary if that is the bottom end. This is doable and I bet it will happen too.
Team Year G Total Average
Quebec Nordiques 1979-80 40 429,672 10,742
Quebec Nordiques 1980-81 40 489,096 12,227
Quebec Nordiques 1981-82 40 604,817 15,120
Quebec Nordiques 1982-83 40 602,318 15,058
Quebec Nordiques 1983-84 40 599,420 14,986
Quebec Nordiques 1984-85 40 594,712 14,868
Quebec Nordiques 1985-86 40 591,376 14,784
Quebec Nordiques 1986-87 40 593,289 14,832
Quebec Nordiques 1987-88 40 597,707 14,943
Quebec Nordiques 1988-89 40 581,795 14,545
Quebec Nordiques 1989-90 40 603,193 15,080
Quebec Nordiques 1990-91 40 567,762 14,194
Quebec Nordiques 1991-92 40 558,967 13,974
Quebec Nordiques 1992-93 41 613,479 14,963
Quebec Nordiques 1993-94 41 600,695 14,651
Quebec Nordiques 1994-95 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Colorado Avalanche 1995-96 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Colorado Avalanche 1996-97 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Colorado Avalanche 1997-98 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Colorado Avalanche 1998-99 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Colorado Avalanche 1999-00 41 738,395 18,010
Colorado Avalanche 2000-01 41 738,287 18,007
Colorado Avalanche 2001-02 41 738,287 18,007
Colorado Avalanche 2002-03 41 738,287 18,007
Colorado Avalanche 2003-04 41 738,287 18,007
Team Year G Total Average
Winnipeg Jets 1979-80 40 527,722 13,193
Winnipeg Jets 1980-81 40 523,975 13,099
Winnipeg Jets 1981-82 40 528,634 13,216
Winnipeg Jets 1982-83 40 511,644 12,791
Winnipeg Jets 1983-84 40 482,167 12,054
Winnipeg Jets 1984-85 40 510,633 12,766
Winnipeg Jets 1985-86 40 547,778 13,694
Winnipeg Jets 1986-87 40 543,703 13,593
Winnipeg Jets 1987-88 40 507,066 12,677
Winnipeg Jets 1988-89 40 512,635 12,816
Winnipeg Jets 1989-90 40 524,016 13,100
Winnipeg Jets 1990-91 40 517,246 12,931
Winnipeg Jets 1991-92 40 519,625 12,991
Winnipeg Jets 1992-93 41 555,809 13,556
Winnipeg Jets 1993-94 41 545,198 13,298
Winnipeg Jets 1994-95 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Winnipeg Jets 1995-96 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Phoenix Coyotes 1996-97 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Phoenix Coyotes 1997-98 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Phoenix Coyotes 1998-99 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Phoenix Coyotes 1999-00 41 614,644 14,991
Phoenix Coyotes 2000-01 41 583,194 14,224
Phoenix Coyotes 2001-02 41 539,770 13,165
Phoenix Coyotes 2002-03 41 542,404 13,229
Phoenix Coyotes 2003-04 41 634,243 15,469
kdb209 said:You can argue that population isn't everything, so lets just look at attendance:
http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/index.html
I've popped this out a few times:raketheleaves said:Colorado is not a larger hockey market than Quebec City. They have Walmart money behind them and were able to spend anything they wanted without a cap.
Phoenix is certainly not a larger hockey market than Winnipeg either.
There are many different scenarios where Quebec and Winnipeg could have a team. Starting with a cap and a hefty luxury tax, you could have an American owner, a corporate owner, tax breaks......etc.....they only have to reach 25 mil in salary if that is the bottom end. This is doable and I bet it will happen too.
The Avs, like the Broncos and baseball Rockies have benifited from alot of regional overflow.according to SI's 50th anniversary poll the Avs are the favorite team in colorado (duh), Wyoming (our local counterpart to Canada), Nebraska (still trails cow tipping though), Utah, New Mexico (hold on, there's a NEW Mexico?) , Idaho, Montana and runs second in Kansas. The Avs also have a radio affiliate in South Dakota. That's 13.6 million people total and about 9 million outside of Colorado.
The Isles problem is the avg ticket price increased by 38.3 percent, which makes their tickets the sixth most expensive. Like the Garden and Meadowlands the tickets sold vs posted attendance are very exagerated per game and rarely reflect true attendance, especially at Msg where the building is 1/2 filled most weeknights.AXN said:Attendance is not that bad. Most teams are everaging 15,000 or better.
Islanders, Devils, Nashville, Chicago and Pittsburgh are below.
Two Words .. Alexei YashinNYIsles1 said:The Isles problem is the avg ticket price increased by 38.3 percent, which makes their tickets the sixth most expensive. Like the Garden and Meadowlands the tickets sold vs posted attendance are very exagerated per game and rarely reflect true attendance, especially at Msg where the building is 1/2 filled most weeknights.
http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_nhl_03-04.cfm
Heaven forbid that the owners make some money.The Messenger said:Two Words .. Alexei Yashin
Case closed ...
Fans have to pay the price of Bad management decisions. In the new NHL fans will still have to pay the price .. Just know the money will go into the Owners pockets at the expense of the players ..
Make all the money they want .. They are suppose to be smart businessmen .. Then stop making stupid mistakes ..mooseOAK said:Heaven forbid that the owners make some money.
From a decade of bad ownerships and fans staying home intentionally to twenty straight sellouts in the second half of 2002 after signing Yashin and Peca...The Messenger said:Two Words .. Alexei Yashin
Considering the players were making over seventy percent of league reveune which is higher than any other sport what's so bad about that?The Messenger said:Fans have to pay the price of Bad management decisions. In the new NHL fans will still have to pay the price .. Just know the money will go into the Owners pockets at the expense of the players ..
So you feel Blue Collar hard working people and fans are responsible to pad the billions of the Owners pockets. ?mooseOAK said:Heaven forbid that the owners make some money.
Pretty solid case you have there ..NYIsles1 said:Toronto will make more of a profit with a cap but they will also lose some money they used to make when they can no longer absorbe a big contract or have to endure a rebuilding season or two.
The Messenger said:So you feel Blue Collar hard working people and fans are responsible to pad the billions of the Owners pockets. ?
Remind me why again do these fans show up at the Arenas in the first place ..?
If the players were willing to play for $50,000 per year then there wouldn't need to be billionaires owning teams. Since that is not true then we will just have to learn how to put up with them.The Messenger said:So you feel Blue Collar hard working people and fans are responsible to pad the billions of the Owners pockets. ?
Remind me why again do these fans show up at the Arenas in the first place ..?
The last time I checked .. Going to a Hockey game is optional .. Paying the price of a ticket is a personal choice .. If at any time your on ice product or your costs to fans are too high then as management you are making mistakes. if you make bad business decisions that an lead to losses on the books at the end of the Day ..Patman said:The blue collar guy is not responsible to fill the owner's pockets... but he isn't responsible to fill the player's pockets either.
If this is about the NHL and finances then promote massive revenue sharing... but I feel that behind this stance is the natural need to make sure the Leafs hold their place in the world than any real care about the player's stake in life.
Good luck convincing Leafs fans to purchase tickets at those prices when your team cannot spend it's way out of a bad season or have to endure rebuilding going into a season with few name veterans and low expectations after a while. This is not the eiighies or nineties either when tickets were still reasonable at Maple Leaf gardens.The Messenger said:Pretty solid case you have there ..
" make more of a profit with a cap but they will also lose some money "
Seems you have a bit of a circular logic problem there ..
Pretty good definition of the AHL or ECHL there ..mooseOAK said:If the players were willing to play for $50,000 per year then there wouldn't need to be billionaires owning teams. Since that is not true then we will just have to learn how to put up with them.
The Messenger said:Why do you feel fans in NY and Toronto, Detroit, Philly need to give their hard earned money to watch their teams play, to poor market teams so their fans can go watch their Team ??
NYIsles1 said:[/size][/font]
What are your talking about? The Flyers owner claimed to lose money going to the seventh game of the conference finals and has been complaining for years about losses. The Rangers claimed 40.9 m in losses to Levitt and the Wings lost almost 20m going to the second round. Dallas and Colorado now are in the red. The Blues lose 30m or more a year.
The Minnesota Wild manage themselves properly and in 2002-03 made more profit than Toronto. Vancouver made more in profit than Toronto.
You want your team to spend to the cap and hurt the business? Pay a tax and share revenue for the priviledge. Either that or spend less and share nothing, your owners choice, just like ticket prices.
The Leafs made only a 14.1 reported profit in 2003-04 according to Forbes. If profit sharing is set ten percent that's 1.4 million from the Leafs to share among twenty or more teams.
Actually it's based on revenue made, not profit or market size and no one is sure how much a revenue hit a team will take when they stop overspending. I think your confusing this with Larry Brooks claim markets with more than 2.5m are not eligible for revenue sharing which was done to prohibit Mr Wirtz in Chicago from getting a check.The Messenger said:Revenue sharing is based on Market size not profitability you know .. In a Hard Cap world that forces the NYR, Detroit and Philly to spend $25 mil less on salary will make those teams profitable and ripe for Revenue sharing.
The folks at Forbes claimed the Wild made a 20m profit in 2002-03, not myself. They also claim they made a 9m dollar profit in 2003-04. If the Wild revenue reaches the level of sharing they will have to pay as well. Right now they are ninth which says a lot about our business, doesn't it?The Messenger said:you honestly believe the Wild as you call them the most profitable team will be Revenue Sharing and giving its profits to Detroit and Philly to bail them out ??
The Forbes revenue figures are in line with the Leafs revenue as reported by the NHLPA themselves. (118m) I quoted the Levitt report and several NY papers that document the Ranger losses. Mr Snider, Illitch, Hicks have not been shy about saying their teams are not profitable the last few years, long before aThe Messenger said:Why do you constantly quote Forbes when the NHL is using the Levitt report for its Hard Cap and linkage figures ??. Forbes didn't look at any NHL books to come up with its figures ...