Hurricanes sale formally closed, Tom Dundon now majority owner

[Pantokrator]

This post should be pinned to the top of any thread about relocating a team in a non-traditional market.

There are very few markets immune to sagging attendance due to poor on-ice performance.

I find it very telling that I'm the first person to quote this post pages later.

When you point out attendance woes of teams in traditional markets, you get ignored.

Do it for a non-traditional market team, and the "relocation" crowd comes out more quickly than flies to a pile of dung.

Obviously there are teams that have had financial problems in non-traditional markets before (Atlanta comes to mind, and the 'Canes also posted substantial losses before the '05 CBA), but attendance is only part of the story.

This irritates me as well. The Penguins had the lowest attendance in 2004. The Blackhawks had the second lowest attendance in 2006 and in 2007. It just happened to coincide with poor performance. Everyone seems to overlook this because these teams have since won cups and have strong attendance. If the Canes and Coyotes suddenly became competitive for years in a row, you'd see the attendance improve.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Well Jacobs is 77 so hopefully he'll be pushing daisies soon.

I understand the whole expanding the game argument, but with the addition of Vegas (which is no guarantee) we're really at a point now where we are close to, if not completely maxed out. Especially in the American South and Southwest where they were a little too ambitious.

Is it really that big a deal, to flip Arizona for QC? Would losing the AZ market with nobody watching or attending games and gaining Quebec with a full arena and ratings really be so bad? Maybe what you gain in QC financially outweighs what is lost by jettisoning Arizona

How long are we going to keep making this argument when perhaps the most important league-wide revenue player for the next decade in a half only plays hockey because of the foray into Arizona?

Just curious because the existence of Auston Matthews basically makes this argument pretty ridiculous these days but I guess people will keep ignoring that for a little while. I hope he does drop the hammer on the next Toronto Sun or Globe smear piece on this subject though at some point. He already pretty much is the face of hockey in Toronto and he is going to be the face of hockey in the USA soon enough. The real benefit of sticking it out in Arizona actually could be in the billions if this kid is what people have waited for since the 60's in Toronto and really forever in terms of American Hockey.

I know that is a lot to carry, but and we have to wait a bit, but it is really going to damage the attacks taken on markets. Really when you look at franchise the viability of them is in the third generation in terms of when you have it passed down from multiple generations that is really important. The NHL is just a lot younger here, but patience does make sense.

Before somebody gets upset about this not being McDavid it is similar to why Quebec isn't as interesting to ownership. Matthews has the potential to deliver on fans the NHL doesn't currently have access to in a way that McDavid really does not. That is why my opinion is he is the most important league-wide revenue player moving forward.

 

[MNNumbers]

Wow......Such discussion.

Concerning Carolina.....

1- IF THE TEAM WERE BEING SOLD WITH INTENT TO RELOCATE: The lease is lucrative enough, and has enough years left on it, that buying it out would be expensive and a long shot. So, truth be known, at this point, I don't think that relocation was EVER on the list of possibilities.

2- The one thing that makes a team a candidate for relocation is NOT attendance. I can understand people being surprised at empty seats, etc. And, surely, there are photos from many barns which expose a large number of empties. But, those things, at the very most, are only one piece of evidence. The one thing that makes a team a relo possibility is the financials. Often, that's associated with the arena, and the club seating, etc, and the management contract. In Carolina's specific case, I do not know the entire bottom line of the whole organization, and no one does. What we know about the lease/management contract is that it is VERY advantageous to the team. That's evidence that the team doesn't need to relocate. Associated with that, the existing information seems to be that the Centennial Authority, which controls the arena from the government perspective, is highly likely to favor the 'Canes, which makes moving more difficult yet. (Personally, I think that's foolish on the part of the Cen Auth, but that's only my opinion. The facts are the facts).

3- Conclusion: The lease is extended to 2024. There will be NO relocation until very near that, at the earliest. Anything else stated is really just 'tea leaves'. This seems the reasonable conclusion.

In regard to Arizona.....

Again, the question comes down to $$. Those of us watching closely know that the team was under threat to leave in 2013, until CoG signed that awful lease. The quest now is for a new arena, one which comes with similar advantages. The losses admitted by LeBlanc are such that, even at a 500M price tag, the organization is quickly approaching a sale for break-even at best. No matter how much a person wants to assume franchise values go up, that can't continue. Again, it will be $$ that determines whether the Yotes stay or go.

Concerning Matthews: He is one player. Tens of millions of yearly losses are NOT justified league wide by the existence of ONE player.

Concerning TV: Yes, Phoenix is a huge market. The viewership is not very high, however. So, if TV is the reason the team is staying, it's because of HOPE FOR A FUTURE TV contract. That doesn't seem like good decision making to me. Especially when the future is likely mobile/streaming and that's an entirely different animal.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Second

If he buys for 500M This guy is speculating, he is buying to sell in 2 3 4 years and make a easy 100 or 200M profit, most probably to an eastern thirsty market.

Third

If he buys for say 250, 300M, this guy is buying to stay long term.

This is backwards. But we'll have to wait on the "real" price to be sure.

(Mod)

 

[New User Name]

Look folks, I never thought QC would get a team.

The NHL's mandate is to grow the game in the states.

There's no more than 3 locations in Canada that can support NHL hockey, even if all 3 had teams there would be 10 Canadian teams and 24 American. But at half a billion for a team, that's not happening. Though I question the half billion. Good way to keep undesirables out though.

To be fair though not only does the NHL not want any more teams in Canada, nor does the NHLPA, sure they say one thing BUT.

Congrats Canes fans on getting someone to pony up half a billion to save your team.

 

[cbcwpg]

Losing the TV market in Arizona would be huge. That's why the NHL protects them. If the Coyotes played in New Mexico they wouldn't care where they moved.

The NHL really, really, really didn't want to lose Atlanta but had no choice. Atlanta is a major TV market (10th largest in the country). They might try Atlanta again in 20 years if they find an owner. They swallowed the loss and put a team in Winnipeg. Losing Arizona would be too much. It would guarantee a weaker TV deal than they currently have.

You want to move the Yotes? Find an owner in Houston. Watch the NHL drop Arizona quick.

(and yes NHL owners will take an empty arena in Houston with a better U.S. TV deal than a packed arena in Quebec with a worse U.S. TV deal.)

Still, the Coyotes (16,223) have the fourth lowest number of households watching games among the National Hockey League’s 30 teams. Only the Florida Panthers (4,000 households), Columbus Blue Jackets (11,000) and Colorado Avalanche (16,000) have fewer viewers, according to the Sports Business Journal and Sporting News.

 

[sawchuk1971]

Well, that's one hell of an oversimplification.

PK wanted $45 million to offset losses over the three-year period while the state's arena was being built. That was where the deal fell apart, and that's why people have accused him of being greedy - but the truth is, what he was asking for wasn't all that crazy or unprecedented. I mean, it's crazy to you and me and Joe Sixpack Taxpayer, but in the realm of pro sports, not so much. Right about the same time all this was going on the state of Louisiana was paying the New Orleans Saints owner $186 million over 10 years to offset similar business losses.

sounds like the coyote situation where glendale subsidized the coyotes losses...

Still, the Coyotes (16,223) have the fourth lowest number of households watching games among the National Hockey League’s 30 teams. Only the Florida Panthers (4,000 households), Columbus Blue Jackets (11,000) and Colorado Avalanche (16,000) have fewer viewers, according to the Sports Business Journal and Sporting News.

is this data recent?


wheres carolina in all of this?

 

[New User Name]

again, another ridiculously wrong interpretation of what ive said.

I remember American sports talk shows back when the Canadian assistance plan was in existence (when 4 Canadian teams each were eligible, for 3 million Canadian dollars in RS to compensate for the exchange) and 90% that called in said "move them" or "the league shouldn't be giving welfare"

(Mod)

 

[cbcwpg]

wheres carolina in all of this?

is this data recent?

3 seasons ago. No reference to Carolina. It was specific to the Coyotes.

 

[DaveG]

wheres carolina in all of this?

FSS (Carolina and Nashville are on that network) doesn't release their numbers.

 

[sawchuk1971]

FSS (Carolina and Nashville are on that network) doesn't release their numbers.

what is "FSS"?

 

[GreenHornet]

what is "FSS"?

Fox Sports South (or its sister network FSN Southeast).

FWIW, we get both Carolina Hurricanes and Nashville Predators games on FSN and FSS here in the Atlanta (and all of North Georgia) area.

I wonder if those numbers are factored into those teams' viewership?

 

[Melrose Munch]

How long are we going to keep making this argument when perhaps the most important league-wide revenue player for the next decade in a half only plays hockey because of the foray into Arizona?

Just curious because the existence of Auston Matthews basically makes this argument pretty ridiculous these days but I guess people will keep ignoring that for a little while. I hope he does drop the hammer on the next Toronto Sun or Globe smear piece on this subject though at some point. He already pretty much is the face of hockey in Toronto and he is going to be the face of hockey in the USA soon enough. The real benefit of sticking it out in Arizona actually could be in the billions if this kid is what people have waited for since the 60's in Toronto and really forever in terms of American Hockey.

I know that is a lot to carry, but and we have to wait a bit, but it is really going to damage the attacks taken on markets. Really when you look at franchise the viability of them is in the third generation in terms of when you have it passed down from multiple generations that is really important. The NHL is just a lot younger here, but patience does make sense.

Before somebody gets upset about this not being McDavid it is similar to why Quebec isn't as interesting to ownership. Matthews has the potential to deliver on fans the NHL doesn't currently have access to in a way that McDavid really does not. That is why my opinion is he is the most important league-wide revenue player moving forward.

Again, Phoenix is not a top 10 market, this argument does not work here.

 

[sawchuk1971]

Fox Sports South (or its sister network FSN Southeast).

FWIW, we get both Carolina Hurricanes and Nashville Predators games on FSN and FSS here in the Atlanta (and all of North Georgia) area.

I wonder if those numbers are factored into those teams' viewership?

thanks for the info....

 

[Nordskull]

Look folks, I never thought QC would get a team.

The NHL's mandate is to grow the game in the states.

There's no more than 3 locations in Canada that can support NHL hockey, even if all 3 had teams there would be 10 Canadian teams and 24 American. But at half a billion for a team, that's not happening. Though I question the half billion. Good way to keep undesirables out though.

To be fair though not only does the NHL not want any more teams in Canada, nor does the NHLPA, sure they say one thing BUT.

Congrats Canes fans on getting someone to pony up half a billion to save your team.

You're right Qc wont have a team no matter the reason.

But tell me moving ATL to Winnipeg is growing the game in the states?

 

[Price is Wright]

Phoenix is not that big a TV market. Losing Atlanta hurt much more, and we lost the focus of a lot of corporate money as well.

Getting into, and being successful in Houston would be much more beneficial for hockey.

Last I checked it was a Top 20 TV market and one of the fastest growing states. Yes the current TV watching in Arizona is low for hockey but it's about potential growth.

The point is, losing Atlanta to Winnipeg hurt. Losing Arizona to Quebec would pile on. If Houston was available, it wouldn't be a loss but a gain. If you want to move a team to Canada but still keep good TV optics, move the team to Toronto. It can handle two NHL teams.

 

[Gnashville]

hockey is part of canadian culture...its a country that breathes hockey...

Yet in it's Capital they don't sell out playoff games!!!!

 

[tarheelhockey]

pfffft, this is a silly strawman argument

Perhaps you don't realize how much the goalposts have moved over the years.

Back in the beginning, when this was a bad team playing in Greensboro after a no-fanfare relocation that few anticipated, it was "Look at all the empty seats! It's a failure already! They'll move again soon!"

When the arena was full every night and literally THE loudest building in the league, it was "They'll never show up when the team's losing! That's when they'll move!"

When the team was losing, and people STILL showed up, it was "Ok, but nobody will ever buy them"

Now that someone has signed on the dotted line, it's "I bet he'll flip them in 5 or 10 years..."

It truly never ends. That's what Robo is talking about. No matter that a team sale in the modern NHL is effectively the end of the conversation, never mind that the team is on the upswing again and attendance is sure to get back up to its old levels, never mind that the market is growing and will be at a different level a decade from now. It just never ends for some people, because they're fighting on principle instead of facts.

has continually rested near the bottom of the league in terms of revenues, viewership and franchise valuation.

It's the smallest American market other than Buffalo. By all rights it SHOULD be near the bottom. Anything else would be mind blowing.

Someone always has to be smallest, someone has to be last. That doesn't mean the league has to rearrange deck chairs to constantly get rid of the smaller fish. They knew when they went into Raleigh that it would be a small market, so it would be senseless to suddenly have a problem with that.

 

[cbcwpg]

Last I checked it was a Top 20 TV market and one of the fastest growing states. Yes the current TV watching in Arizona is low for hockey but it's about potential growth.

The point is, losing Atlanta to Winnipeg hurt. Losing Arizona to Quebec would pile on. If Houston was available, it wouldn't be a loss but a gain. If you want to move a team to Canada but still keep good TV optics, move the team to Toronto. It can handle two NHL teams.

Hurt who?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/196784/revenue-of-the-atlanta-thrashers-since-2006/

1st year in Winnipeg the Jets had $34MM more revenue than the year before in Atlanta. That revenue increase directly resulted in the NHL Salary Cap going up a few points, which resulted in the players having to be paid more. The NHLPA is more than happy to have the extra revenue generated by a more financially friendly team. Same goes with the Coyotes. Move them anywhere ( I don't care where ) and they have a revenue growth of say $30-40MM / year... everyone is happy. The league, the players, the TV holders because they can sell higher priced advertising because more people would be watching.

If you are talking about potential TV growth, well that's something no one will ever know because the team ( Atlanta ) is gone. The bottom line is you can't have a team in a market and hope for a strong TV presence when the support for butts in the seats are low. Then NHL is not the NFL where it could survive on just TV revenue. The NHL is gate driven and having a strong gate is what drives a strong TV presence.

**

For the Hurricanes its great if this sale works out. It is up to each market to make itself strong. my question has never been about Carolina being viable... my question is just if the $500MM is a real amount.

 

[Roboturner913]

For the Hurricanes its great if this sale works out. It is up to each market to make itself strong. my question has never been about Carolina being viable... my question is just if the $500MM is a real amount.

And that's a perfectly legit question, as it pertains to values of franchises in general or whether Bettman and Co. are artificially inflating those values to make certain goals on paper.

If it's just more conspiracy theory fodder, as in "nobody would ever buy that team for that much unless they were going to relocate," well, you can take that crap and bury it in the hole in which it belongs.

Edit: Not "you", personally, but you know what I mean

 

[Street Hawk]

For the Hurricanes its great if this sale works out. It is up to each market to make itself strong. my question has never been about Carolina being viable... my question is just if the $500MM is a real amount.

I would concur with this. I do wonder if $500 MM is the amount that the new owner is paying/assuming in debt.

Will he get his money back? Cause, it took PK what like 5 years to even get this offer? Your team is worth what someone will pay for it in that market.

I don't think the valuation numbers from Forbes are bang on, but I agree with them in terms of their rankings of which teams are the most to least valuable. And Carolina has been right near the bottom all of the time. So, is that worth $500MM because Foley paid that for a team in Vegas?

 

[Bixby Snyder]

Yet in it's Capital they don't sell out playoff games!!!!

And it was completely downplayed if not outright ignored by the Canadian media, imagine if that had been an American market especially one in the sun belt.

MOD

 

[cbcwpg]

And that's a perfectly legit question, as it pertains to values of franchises in general or whether Bettman and Co. are artificially inflating those values to make certain goals on paper.

If it's just more conspiracy theory fodder, as in "nobody would ever buy that team for that much unless they were going to relocate," well, you can take that crap and bury it in the hole in which it belongs.

Edit: Not "you", personally, but you know what I mean

Yeah. It's not the purchase of the team to me that's in question. I have no issue believing someone wants to buy it and keep it where it is. I just find it hugely coincidental that the price was exactly what Vegas paid, when Bettman in the past when asked about market values always seemed to say " well each market is unique ". Where now it seems the NHL is making a blanket statement that no market can be worth less than what Vegas paid.

 

[Fugu]

Again, Phoenix is not a top 10 market, this argument does not work here.

Phoenix is in the top 12-13-14, right up there with Detroit and Seattle. In that sense, it is an important market. The NHL shouldn't abandon the large cities easily once they're there.


I am surprised an "outsider" is putting up an offer for the team. It will be interesting to see the actual amount if it's not $500 MM, and who else he's bringing to this dance. RTP is a rapidly growing area, which is always better for future considerations and US growth.

 

[Price is Wright]

... everyone is happy.

It's pointless to discuss with people who don't understand, but no not everyone is happy. You can put 20 teams in Canada and those teams will make money. Doesn't mean everyone will be happy.

The game needs to grow. It's losing ground to MLS. Someday in our lifetime we will be talking about how they just lost their TV deal because NBC thinks volleyball has a better reach and you'll be scratching your head as to why with such profitable teams in Winnipeg and Quebec City. Toronto could support four NHL teams tomorrow. That doesn't mean you put four teams in Toronto.

Believe it or not the NHL BOG is very happy with Bettman because his M.O. is to expand the game. Not isolate it up north. This will not change ever. Call it ridiculous if you want but it doesn't matter if Winnipeg sells out. Winnipeg doesn't create new fans. Everyone just traded their old jerseys from teams they picked up when the Jets left. Winnipeg is not good for the NHL but it was necessary at the time. If they had more time or better owners they would still be in Atlanta.