NHL Making Contingency Plans for Arena-less Coyotes? (All Relo Speculation Here)
- Thread starter Fugu
- Start date
- Status
Because my freaking team moved to Colorado (after the NHL did F-all to help us), and when a southern NHL team has any problem the NHL is willing to do anything and everything to help!
And since then the NHL throws a childish fit and publicly condems us anytime a Quebec government official says we'd like an NHL team back. And says we're "doing the wrong thing if we ever want a team again sometime in the far future".
While at the same time Bettman PERSONALLY goes to freaking Vegas to PERSONALLY ask people to buy "season tickets" for the future NHL Las Vegas Coyotes 2.0. And anytime a pitiful milestone (that would have been achieved in minutes in Hamilton, Quebec, or Markham) is achieved IN MONTHS in Vegas, he's basically high-fiving everyone.
The disrespect is what makes me sad!
Uhm, was there a buyer who wanted to keep them in Quebec? Was the city/province willing to build a new arena back in 1995?
hisgirlfriday
Moderator
- Jun 9, 2013
- 16,743
- 185
As a fan of a max-cap spending team, empty rinks in other arenas hurt me as a fan.
BattleBorn
50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
I get it and I think I understand, but that seems like a Quebec Nordiques message board response, not a Business of Hockey board response. There's a solid business reason the Nords left and there's a solid reason it's taken so long for them to return. They're going to come back, but once the fan emotion is eliminated from the equation I fail to understand why it's difficult for people to get that QC isn't a huge boon for the league. It's righting what could be considered a wrong, but it's not any type of huge step towards growing the league short of returning to a place that once had a team for 17 years.
I won't respond to the Vegas stuff, since I don't think it's an accurate description of what's happening here.
canuckster19
Former CDC Mod
They don't hurt you necessarily, you just have to accept the fact if the Coyotes are playing the Blackhawks that night, a portion of your ticket dollars are going to pay the opponent. A worse kick in the balls if the Coyotes win, cause then you paid them to beat your team.
BattleBorn
50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
So does a falling Canadian dollar and the fluctuation in exchange rates, yet nobody is suggesting making Canadian teams take in revenue using the USD.
Hal1971
Registered User
Growing the league, perhaps you're right, but solidify it so it can grow, quebec is needed...
Jeffrey93
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2007
- 4,335
- 46
All the financials aside.....image. The NHL has been chasing a big tv deal, doesn't look too good when you're broadcasting games where only 11,000 decided to show up. Makes for bad tv and makes the league look bad as a whole.
True or False:
- Gary Bettman went to Las Vegas to personally start the "buy season tickets seasons in advance" sweepstakes. True!
- Gary Bettman never came to Quebec City to see the new arena and has always been telling people in Quebec to shut up about wanting a team. True!
- You asked me to tell you why I had an emotional response to the current state of the NHL, but you now tell me my emotions are "too emotional". Well duh!
BattleBorn
50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
I'll agree. It's also why I support a team in QC. Adding a solid middle of the revenue range team will solidify the league. The more solid franchises there are, the better it is for the health of the league in its current state. However, for long term growth you've got to expand the market and you don't do it by bringing more of your product to places already consuming the product you offer. At least not in my opinion.
But here's the problem: People in Quebec City ARE NOT consuming the NHL product!
Do you know how many Junior Hockey games (LHJMQ) I went to see this season? About 8.
Do you know how many NHL games I went to see? ZERO!
Unless you are telling me watching an NHL game on TV brings as much money as that person buying tickets...
BattleBorn
50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
Maybe he'll come to QC to start the season ticket drive there. I guess we won't know until it happens.
He never came here until there was a season ticket drive and has apparently been telling us to shut up since 2002.
I was trying to drive a conversation into business.
If it came through tomorrow that the league would be expanding to Hamilton and Toronto tomorrow instead of Vegas I'd be extremely emotional. I don't think I'd make a scene here because I'd understand the business direction and goals of the league have changed and Vegas doesn't fit into the model for now. Then I'd watch a replay of Monday night's game and get back to my mindset prior to February and maybe make angry/snarky comments on the league's facebook posts.
BattleBorn
50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
Quebec City watching games on TV is already included in the league's revenue. Enough people are watching to make whatever value has been placed on the market as a part of the TV deal worth whatever it's worth. Will there be a bump if the Nords come back? Probably, however with the deals already in place and the people behind the scenes making these decisions have knowledge we don't that may already by included in the TV deals. Even if it's not it's likely not enough to open the deal up for negotiation.
You buying tickets for the Nordiques games doesn't really help anyone but the owners of the team and perhaps a tiny bump in the league's HRR figures when the team's numbers are added to the pot. Even if QC sells out every game and every person in QC picks up a sweater it's still likely not going to be enough to get more money into the RS pot unless they make it to the playoffs. Again, it's not adding a major franchise, it's adding a solid franchise in a place that's already pretty much been monetized by the league.
So, you make some owners money, you don't subsidize the league's growth, and there's a little touch of a bump in HRR figures. I'm not advocating against the Nordiques, they should come back. However, from my business perspective it should not be a top priority to have a team there unless the urge to correct what is perceived as a wrong is strong enough to validate it. I think it is, but I really do see why it's not the top thing on the To Do list.
Last edited:
Jeffrey93
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2007
- 4,335
- 46
It extinguishes a fire. Bumps in league HRR and everything else should be coming from expansion, not from relocating an awful revenue team to a market that currently gets zero revenue from the league.
This is replacing a forest fire with an out of control bonfire in the woods.
Assuming the league will expand to two new spots sometime soon, also realizing that Carolina, Miami, Tampa, San Jose, Anaheim, Nashville, and so on are all still growing markets. Is there really a need to take the Coyotes, who failed at this task of growing new fans, and put them somewhere else to attempt to do the same thing?
At least one of the expansion franchises would likely be in a market where new fans/revenue will be (hopefully) created. So do we really need two franchises in the next few years attempting this? While places like Carolina, Miami & Nashville are still attempting it somewhat?
How many teams do you need attempting this at the same time before it has a negative impact on the entire league? TV networks would love to have 32 teams like the Rangers/Leafs/Habs. They don't want teams like Phoenix, Las Vegas, Miami, etc. It's bad tv, looks bad on the league and looks bad on any network for covering it.
BattleBorn
50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
I personally don't think the TV networks care about the teams at all as long as there are people watching. From their point of view, I'm sure they all wish the league expanded to 30 teams in the 1920s and there were 30 teams with 100 year old fanbases, but that's not the case. Same story with the empty venues, I doubt they care in the slightest as long as people watch. The good news is that the regional networks get to sign their own deals with teams and the national networks get their pick of which games to show and pick the ones with the highest predicted viewership.
Assuming the way I understood RS a few years ago is still the way it works, Carolina and Florida aren't getting anything from the sharing scheme. Arizona is a whole different story for obvious reasons. However, the risk associated with a poorly attended team's home games in the grand scheme of things is minor in relation to other issues the league confronts constantly. It looks the worst because it's extremely visible, but even with the loss of whatever prestige the league has endured throughout the Phoenix venture the relocation of Winnipeg to Phoenix would likely still be worth the risk. If a time traveler from 2015 told 1996 me that there was a 75% chance that what has happened in Phoenix would happen, but there was a 25% chance the team would eclipse the Suns as far as fan interest goes, I probably still move the team. Maybe that's just the entrepreneur in me, though.
Let's use an example as far as attendance goes. Assuming capacity percentage is a good indicator of team revenue, a 20% drop in a random team's revenue (let's say Anaheim for example) equates to a 0.7% drop in league wide revenue if every team is 100% and produces the same revenue, which we know isn't the case but is good for an example. Obviously, that percentage is a lot higher if Toronto drops 20%, but whatever team is suffering at the bottom of the league revenue scope isn't a Toronto.
I will take this opportunity to take a little issue with Vegas being included with Phoenix, Miami, and whatever other teams you include in your etcetera given that there isn't a team here and there's a lot of information readily available that suggests Vegas will be nothing like those cities outside of people's personal opinions.
GuelphStormer
Registered User
two relatively recent reports suggest either 10 or 12 teams are viable in canada.
the 2014 Conference Board of Canada (Ottawa-based "non-partisan" think tank) study, "Power Play: The Business Economics of Pro Sports" says 10.
the 2011 Mowatt Centre for Policy Innovation (University of Toronto) report, "The New Economics of the NHL: Why Canada Can Support 12 Teams" argued 12 teams in total.
decent economic analyses, pretty interesting studies.
BattleBorn
50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
I totally understand it when there's emotions and passion on the line. If Vegas gets left out and they expand to Mexico City and Guadalajara (as a silly example so as not to offend others here) only to play to 70% capacity crowds I'd likely be a little cross too.
Maybe so but it's nothing more than jealousy. It's not some noble emotion that some people like to portray it as. It's ego. It's pride. It's simply not getting what you want and pouting over it. The worst part is the attempted justification of it. They mask that fundamental emotion with an argument for it being better for business or the game or whatever. That BS is what irks me.
BattleBorn
50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
I'm in the process of reading this one, since the other is apparently only available in some tangible form. From what I've read so far, it seems pretty sound. However, as you get to page nine they start diving into the television contracts in comparison to the NBA and state that that league is far less gate revenue driven than the NHL to support their claim that Canada should have more teams to keep gate revenues up.
However, the whole goal of this process of league growth and fan growth is to get that major US TV deal that will allow the money to be pooled and provide the league the opportunity to be so dependent upon gate revenues. It seems like adding more teams to Canada counters that goal versus sustaining it. They're taking the league's business as was in 2011, assuming that's the way it will always be, and using that to justify growth to maintain that model versus pursuing the model that has already been put in motion.
I get it, and I'll keep reading this to the end because it's interesting, but it's got very little relevance in the real world, at least to the point I've read so far.
I'm reminded of the book Good to Great. There is an example in there that reminds me of this report. The company Kimberly-Clark made the vast majority of their revenues through their first 60 years producing commercial paper products. They would have likely survived making commercial paper products, but their CEO knew the way to grow the company was to get into consumer products like tissue, sanitary napkins, paper towels, etc. So, instead of taking the easy way out and doubling down on their paper mills like they'd done forever, he sold them and dove into consumer products completely. They grew ridiculously and outperformed all of their competitors.
To me, saying we need five more teams in Canada because that's where the money currently comes from and that will never change is a lot like that. "Let's build some more paper mills so our company will be strong" when in reality that would have been the wrong move.
Jeffrey93
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2007
- 4,335
- 46
Why would I, as a network, want to broadcast a game that is going to show 7,500 empty seats? I believe that when people see poorly attended leagues/sports on TV they are less inclined to watch. There have been studies done that support this.
I've watched some WJHC games in Europe where Canada is playing to about 120 people. It's hard to watch. Like the Ghost-game in Baltimore, it was neat....but really sucked the life out of the game for viewers.
Image plays a role in this too, a big one. If tickets are hard to get everywhere....tv audiences are seeing nothing but full arenas...merchandise is flying off the shelves, broadcasters and sponsors will take notice. If it appears to be a hot ticket...it becomes a hot ticket.
They're lumped in there in that they would be growing new fans, like you stated about Quebec - everyone there is already watching the NHL on TV and aside from ticket sales the league is already getting revenue from that market without a team. Las Vegas isn't like that...neither is Phoenix or Miami. There is so much room to grow, that doesn't mean you want lots of markets like this though. Just like you don't want a roster full of prospects, you don't want a league with too many of them either.
Jeffrey93
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2007
- 4,335
- 46
How do you feel about the whole 'Occupy' movement? You cool with being the 99%?
Is that jealousy?
If markets submitted resumes for teams and say Miami got the job instead of Quebec, if Quebec is upset about that is it jealousy? Are you simply jealous of the less-qualified person that got the job instead of you? Or do you have a legit beef?
KevFu
Registered User
Well, this thread spiraled out of control into insane generalities between the time I went to sleep and got bored at work.
Maps, Geography, Distances and Travel are stupid factors that no one cares about. Each team’s mileage changes every year because of the order of games.
TB/FLA in the Adams makes financial sense because everyone’s far away from that state, and every team in the league sells the same or more tickets when a “traditional” franchise brand comes to town rather than a new brand. Including Tampa and Florida.
You’re a TB fan, I’m assuming. Who do you consider your rival? And who piques your interest when they’re coming to town? BOS, MON, TOR… or CAR, ATL?
Why is your rage directed at Gary Bettman and not Marcel Aubut? Marcel Aubut owned the Nordiques and sold them to Colorado.
Why do you think that the NHL’s backing of teams staying put is limited to Southern teams?
NJD (to Nashville), EDM (to Houston), NAS (to Hamilton, and maybe the bizarre EDM/NASH/HOU two-way relocation once rumored), the BUF & OTT bankruptcies, PIT (to KC/Hamilton),
NYI (to anywhere), PHX (to Hamilton; which was more about stopping the circumvention of the NHL’s constitution). I count six northern teams defended and two southern teams defended.
There was little or no “help” from the NHL for relocations from Minnesota (to DAL), Hartford (to first attempt Columbus, then Carolina), or Atlanta (to Winnipeg) because Norm Green and Peter Karamanos weren’t selling their teams, therefore no local ownership options could be explored. They WERE explored in Winnipeg before the Jets bailed, but no one wanted to buy the team and keep it in an old small building (ditto the Nordiques). And we all know the Thrashers were essentially evicted by their owners.
The lack of a team in Quebec is a wrong which needs to be righted. But this isn’t about the NHL’s disrespect, and it isn’t about “this market vs that market.” Everyone and their mother fully expects Quebec to be NHL team #33 (once we find #34).
I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that “Too many franchises at once in the ‘experimental growth market’ stage is not a good thing." But I’ve been saying it since 1995, and that ship sailed a long time ago. I don’t consider Dallas, Anaheim, San Jose and Tampa to still be in that category. Nashville and Columbus are on the cusp of graduation as well.
To use your phrase, PHX is clearly a dumpster fire and Florida’s situation is not good. In both cases - as well as Carolina, who’s real problem is that they’re a tiny market and we should be worried about their future post-Karamanos (but we’re not there yet) - the underlying problem is not the market itself, but that the the CBA takes away the funds for their marketing efforts because of the salary floor. I understand the floor is necessary, but so is growing the game in those markets.
You don’t say “here’s some seeds, grow us some crops” and then cut off their water.
TV Networks would love 32 NYR/TOR/MON. But LA, SJ, ANA and DAL are right there with the likes of CHI, BOS, PHI, DET, VAN from a revenue/market standpoint. And what makes those four different from Miami and Phoenix? They’re all big and southern and “non-traditional.” The “suburbs” work just fine for Anaheim and San Jose. The owners of FLA/ARZ have been dumpster arsonists.
Give these franchises what they need to successfully grow a fan base. Then we can add teams with the right balance of “growth markets” like Vegas & Houston; untapped hotbeds like Quebec and Southern Ontario; and safe middle-ground markets in untaped territory like Seattle & Portland.
Maps, Geography, Distances and Travel are stupid factors that no one cares about. Each team’s mileage changes every year because of the order of games.
TB/FLA in the Adams makes financial sense because everyone’s far away from that state, and every team in the league sells the same or more tickets when a “traditional” franchise brand comes to town rather than a new brand. Including Tampa and Florida.
You’re a TB fan, I’m assuming. Who do you consider your rival? And who piques your interest when they’re coming to town? BOS, MON, TOR… or CAR, ATL?
Why is your rage directed at Gary Bettman and not Marcel Aubut? Marcel Aubut owned the Nordiques and sold them to Colorado.
Why do you think that the NHL’s backing of teams staying put is limited to Southern teams?
NJD (to Nashville), EDM (to Houston), NAS (to Hamilton, and maybe the bizarre EDM/NASH/HOU two-way relocation once rumored), the BUF & OTT bankruptcies, PIT (to KC/Hamilton),
NYI (to anywhere), PHX (to Hamilton; which was more about stopping the circumvention of the NHL’s constitution). I count six northern teams defended and two southern teams defended.
There was little or no “help” from the NHL for relocations from Minnesota (to DAL), Hartford (to first attempt Columbus, then Carolina), or Atlanta (to Winnipeg) because Norm Green and Peter Karamanos weren’t selling their teams, therefore no local ownership options could be explored. They WERE explored in Winnipeg before the Jets bailed, but no one wanted to buy the team and keep it in an old small building (ditto the Nordiques). And we all know the Thrashers were essentially evicted by their owners.
The lack of a team in Quebec is a wrong which needs to be righted. But this isn’t about the NHL’s disrespect, and it isn’t about “this market vs that market.” Everyone and their mother fully expects Quebec to be NHL team #33 (once we find #34).
I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that “Too many franchises at once in the ‘experimental growth market’ stage is not a good thing." But I’ve been saying it since 1995, and that ship sailed a long time ago. I don’t consider Dallas, Anaheim, San Jose and Tampa to still be in that category. Nashville and Columbus are on the cusp of graduation as well.
To use your phrase, PHX is clearly a dumpster fire and Florida’s situation is not good. In both cases - as well as Carolina, who’s real problem is that they’re a tiny market and we should be worried about their future post-Karamanos (but we’re not there yet) - the underlying problem is not the market itself, but that the the CBA takes away the funds for their marketing efforts because of the salary floor. I understand the floor is necessary, but so is growing the game in those markets.
You don’t say “here’s some seeds, grow us some crops” and then cut off their water.
TV Networks would love 32 NYR/TOR/MON. But LA, SJ, ANA and DAL are right there with the likes of CHI, BOS, PHI, DET, VAN from a revenue/market standpoint. And what makes those four different from Miami and Phoenix? They’re all big and southern and “non-traditional.” The “suburbs” work just fine for Anaheim and San Jose. The owners of FLA/ARZ have been dumpster arsonists.
Give these franchises what they need to successfully grow a fan base. Then we can add teams with the right balance of “growth markets” like Vegas & Houston; untapped hotbeds like Quebec and Southern Ontario; and safe middle-ground markets in untaped territory like Seattle & Portland.
Last edited:
GuelphStormer
Registered User
its not that silly. there is a whole field of study associated with it: loyalty marketing / retention. when consumers buy a product and support a brand, a company may wish to reward them. some do it with perks, like frequent flyer miles or cashback. other do it by offering premium brands, like infinity or lexus. these actions are designed to help keep consumers.
but the obverse can occur. eventually, when consumers begin to self identify and realize they are good and loyal customers they may come to either expect or notice the absence of those perks and become upset. toyota may come to lose customers if they never carry the premium lexus line in smallville. those consumers may go over to the nissan dealer who has now started to carry the comparable, premium infinity line.
the nhl however, has a monopoly on the product: bigtime pro hockey. so consumers, if they want any pro hockey, will continue to watch on tv (ie., continue to buy a toyota) but quite rationally complain that they want, and feel like they deserve, the premium product - actual live nhl hockey (ie., like a lexus).
- Status
