matter2003 Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Yeah, just like the Sabres and Senators. Sabres were in bankruptcy court for different reasons---mainly an owner who took money from everywhere and used it as his personal piggy bank---the Coyotes on the other hand are in bankruptcy because people could care less about hockey---big difference... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Sabres were in bankruptcy court for different reasons---mainly an owner who took money from everywhere and used it as his personal piggy bank---the Coyotes on the other hand are in bankruptcy because people could care less about hockey---big difference... The Coyotes are in BK* because the majority owner believes he can circumvent the NHL's normal ownership rules that way, and not because of the fan base (which, indeed, is poor). But it's a strategic move, here, designed to shed the normal obligation to have the league approve a buyer. It has little to do with the team's ability to pay its creditors, according to the league (according to news sources), which is why the NHL is crying foul. I'm not sure the Coyotes' plan will work. (I'm not sure it won't, either.) *No, not the Burger King on Sheridan. And no, not that one, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 20% To be clear, LQ said total revenue was 20%, not season ticket holders. The interesting thing to me is that he is already listing possible negotiation points in his interviews. It is no secret that Buffalo wants easier access onto Ontario cable systems in order to tap into that advertising market. There are a lot of things that can happen that would make this thing not such a bad thing for Buffalo. Hell, TG may even get his entire investment back from Ballsillie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Sabres were in bankruptcy court for different reasons---mainly an owner who took money from everywhere and used it as his personal piggy bank---the Coyotes on the other hand are in bankruptcy because people could care less about hockey---big difference... Why does it work in places like Carolina and Tampa but not Phoenix? You've got an incredible number of northerners in all of those places now. The market is there in each of those cities, but only Phoenix is clueless on how to tap into it. 6 consecutive years of crappy hockey does not sell tickets. There are very few markets where that works. Improve the quality of the product on the ice and people will show up. Winning sells tickets. Losing draws nothing. -Chicago had horrible attendance for years. This year, all of a sudden, they lead the league. What changed? Winning. -Colorado is a hockey hotbed and their attendance figures have regularly been in the top half of the league. Post-lockout figures have fallen, leading up to this season, where they were in the bottom 5 league wide. What changed there? Horrible hockey. Get someone in there who is willing to spend, and spend wisely (that goes for you, Charles Wang) and people will show up. Years of mediocre at best hockey does not build a market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Why does it work in places like Carolina and Tampa but not Phoenix? You've got an incredible number of northerners in all of those places now. The market is there in each of those cities, but only Phoenix is clueless on how to tap into it. 6 consecutive years of crappy hockey does not sell tickets. There are very few markets where that works. Improve the quality of the product on the ice and people will show up. Winning sells tickets. Losing draws nothing. -Chicago had horrible attendance for years. This year, all of a sudden, they lead the league. What changed? Winning. -Colorado is a hockey hotbed and their attendance figures have regularly been in the top half of the league. Post-lockout figures have fallen, leading up to this season, where they were in the bottom 5 league wide. What changed there? Horrible hockey. Get someone in there who is willing to spend, and spend wisely (that goes for you, Charles Wang) and people will show up. Years of mediocre at best hockey does not build a market. Do you mean success on the ice or at the gate? Because Carolina has always been at the bottom of the league in terms of attendance. Tampa reports good numbers, but if you've ever been to a game there, you would swear that they are over-reporting their attendance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Do you mean success on the ice or at the gate? Because Carolina has always been at the bottom of the league in terms of attendance. Tampa reports good numbers, but if you've ever been to a game there, you would swear that they are over-reporting their attendance. Financially it seems to be working for Carolina. They had a nice little spike in attendance the year after winning the Cup, which goes right back to the winning=ticket sales idea. And correct me if I'm wrong here, but they've also drawn significantly better come playoff time, right? As for Tampa, I've never been to a game down there, but I'd imagine that the appearance of the crowd is effected by the fact that they have a larger than average arena capacity. I'm sure they do inflate the stats, but regardless of the actual number, they're in no danger of collapse. Oh, and with my examples of winning=sales, how could I forget the best example of them all out here in bandwagon nation, Boston? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
repster Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Now the latest is another group based in Vancouver is looking at moving the Thrashers to Hamilton. Larry and Tom must be developing some serious anxiety issues. That or they're happy people are being distracted from reflecting on the disappointing season that was this past year. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=278109 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Financially it seems to be working for Carolina. They had a nice little spike in attendance the year after winning the Cup, which goes right back to the winning=ticket sales idea. And correct me if I'm wrong here, but they've also drawn significantly better come playoff time, right? As for Tampa, I've never been to a game down there, but I'd imagine that the appearance of the crowd is effected by the fact that they have a larger than average arena capacity. I'm sure they do inflate the stats, but regardless of the actual number, they're in no danger of collapse. Oh, and with my examples of winning=sales, how could I forget the best example of them all out here in bandwagon nation, Boston? I don't think that's quite true. Carolina is almost always ranked in the bottom third of the league in attendence. They did rank 15th after the Cup win, but they averaged only 17,500 fans per game, which is good, but not great. Since that season, they've fallen back to the bottom third of the league in attendance, averaging Aud-sized crowds. Anaheim followed a similar path, spiking up to be ranked 15th in attendance after winning the cup, but only averaging around 17,000 fans that season. Since that season, they've also fallen back to the bottom third of the league. Tampa, for many seasons reported attendance that ranked them at the top of the league (sometimes reporting 101% attendance). This season, under new ownership, their numbers have fallen back to the bottom of the league. So either the new owners are reporting their attendance more truthfully or the Tampa fans have had it with the team. So winning brings a small, temporary spike in non-traditional markets, but the NHL seems to be having more issues with selling their product in those cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 To be clear, LQ said total revenue was 20%, not season ticket holders. The interesting thing to me is that he is already listing possible negotiation points in his interviews. It is no secret that Buffalo wants easier access onto Ontario cable systems in order to tap into that advertising market. There are a lot of things that can happen that would make this thing not such a bad thing for Buffalo. Hell, TG may even get his entire investment back from Ballsillie. Sorry, I must disagree. I don't see any way a new team in Hamilton/Kitchener/Waterloo isn't a very bad outcome for the Sabres. Separately, here is a pretty interesting article about Balsillie from the NYT. If it wasn't already apparent, it should be clear now that he's going to keep trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Tampa, for many seasons reported attendance that ranked them at the top of the league (sometimes reporting 101% attendance). This season, under new ownership, their numbers have fallen back to the bottom of the league. So either the new owners are reporting their attendance more truthfully or the Tampa fans have had it with the team. So winning brings a small, temporary spike in non-traditional markets, but the NHL seems to be having more issues with selling their product in those cities. Tampa's team has been pure crap over the last two seasons. They hit rock bottom last year and then the attendance dropped. It fits the pattern. And if you want to talk about the non-traditional makets being the ones that are effected by winning and losing, how do you explains cities like Boston and Chicago? Yes, you're going to have your random markets (Toronto, Minnesota) where the gate won't drop during bad times, but the majority of the cities in the league don't fall under that label. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Tampa's team has been pure crap over the last two seasons. They hit rock bottom last year and then the attendance dropped. It fits the pattern. And if you want to talk about the non-traditional makets being the ones that are effected by winning and losing, how do you explains cities like Boston and Chicago? Yes, you're going to have your random markets (Toronto, Minnesota) where the gate won't drop during bad times, but the majority of the cities in the league don't fall under that label. Tampa follows the pattern if you believe the numbers they were reporting. I don't, based on my own experience attending many games in Tampa over the past several seasons. Teams that report 101% attendance don't market to people who live 90 minutes out their market, offering free hot dogs and baseball caps. I get several of these calls every season from the Lightning and I live in Orlando. Boston and Chicago are traditional markets whose ownership treated their fans like crap. Chicago is a strong hockey town that was waiting for Bill Wirtz to die (as unseemly as that sounds). They rank 1st in attendance this season. Boston, despite its record this season, still only ranked 16th in attendance this year. It's important to note, however, that the three other pro teams in the Bruins market all have won championships during the Bruins attendance decline. They still have work to do to keep up with the Celtics, Patriots, and Red Sox. Compare that to the Carolina and Anaheim markets, where even championship seasons were not enough to vault the teams into the top half of the league in attendance. So the Blackhawks, and to a certain extent the Bruins, are the prodical sons that their fan bases have waited to embrace once again. The Ducks and Hurricanes are the red-headed step children of their markets, unable to make any substantial in-roads in terms of attendance, despite icing successful teams over the last decade. It's also interesting to note that Buffalo out-drew all non-traditional market teams this season, including the Sharks and Stars. In the Sharks defense, however, they report 100% attendance, but their arena is smaller than Buffalo's. The highest ranking non-traditional market is Dallas, ranked 15th. Every other non-trad market is ranked below 15. Remember that the NHL brought these markets in to grow television revenue, which hasn't really worked. The NHL has anemic television revenues, and therefore still relies on attendance to generate money. So since these non-traditional markets have failed to generate a growth in TV ratings, and none of the new markets have made a huge impact in attendance (like Minnesota has), the strategy of expanding into these non-hockey markets can and should be questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 I'll pick off two things that stood out to me. Boston, despite its record this season, still only ranked 16th in attendance this year. It's important to note, however, that the three other pro teams in the Bruins market all have won championships during the Bruins attendance decline. They still have work to do to keep up with the Celtics, Patriots, and Red Sox. I feel like ranting about Boston, even though it really has nothing to do with anything we're saying here. This town is the biggest bunch of bandwagoners I've ever seen. None of those teams were drawing all that well up until their championship runs. Sure, the Red Sox are a slightly different situation, but they were never selling the place out prior to the new ownership. Suddenly, they buy the team, make that run in 2003 and people want to show up. Add in a championship and a crappy movie the next year, and suddenly it's cool again to go to these games. No one ever wore any Patriots stuff prior to 2001 around here. Win a couple superbowls and all of a sudden everyone's saying "I've loved them since the day I was born" and they're all wearing hats. The same goes for the Celtics and Bruins. I work across the street from the arena, yet the most I ever saw was the occasional hat or jersey. They start winning and boom, everyone's wearing them. The worst thing of all though is that the city always has these banner ads hanging on lightposts. That's fine, it's a good way to get people to notice things. Right after they took down all the marathon ones, they covered every street with Celtics NBA playoffs banners. That's fine, but why completely ignore the fact that the NHL playoffs are also going on in that same building, not to mention the fact that the Bruins own it. Who cares that the Bruins probably have a better chance of advancing in the playoffs than the Celtics do (prior to the start of the postseason), let's advertise for nothing but the Celtics. Hell, I'm sure more people are already aware of the NBA playoffs since it has a higher viewership, so why not advertise for the lesser known event as well? Would it be too hard to put up a couple hockey banners or at least make them two-sided, one team on each side? Ok, I'll end this rant now. Yeah, I'm not the least bit bitter. Remember that the NHL brought these markets in to grow television revenue, which hasn't really worked. The NHL has anemic television revenues, and therefore still relies on attendance to generate money. Let's not ignore the fact that it certainly doesn't help that the NHL got money hungry and went with the weaker network that aired on fewer tv's around the country. Yes, ESPN gave them the shaft over and over, but they still would've given them far more exposure than OLN/Vs. The biggest problem with the NHL on tv is that no one has a clue how to televise it. They put up those crappy interview boxes, they do the annoyingly pointless zooms and camera changes. Get a semi-competant producer and it would help so much. Sure, it's not going to suddenly make hockey a powerhouse sport, but every little bit helps. You need to start somewhere. Man, I'm really rambling tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.