The dangers of underserving the market
by James Mirtle on May 10, 2009 6:15 AM CDT
147 comments
In terms of solid reads from this weekend, the Toronto Star's Damien Cox had an excellent column Saturday on the situation in Phoenix and what the league's brass should take away from the situation.
His "three key lessons" are:
- There is no benefit to be derived by intentionally shielding public eyes from the economic troubles of individual teams.
- Treating the players' union as a minor irritant rather than a true partner isn't a productive strategy.
- The issue of a second team in the GTA or southern Ontario isn't going to go away.
They are all good points, although I'm not expecting much movement on item No. 2. If anything, it seems the animosity between the league and the NHLPA grows each season, setting the stage for another nasty labour battle in 2011.
Cox is certainly right in one sense in that Jim Balsillie's bid and the league's response has created an incredible amount of negative PR for the NHL among Canadians (especially in Southern Ontario). There's always been a large anti-Bettman faction in this country, but in recent days, it seems to have grown considerably.
Cox elaborates on his third "lesson" over at his blog, The Spin, in a video, and offers some on point observations on where all this talk of Balsillie and another team near the Greater Toronto Area is headed:
They cannot any longer hope that the issue of a second team in Southern Ontario is just going to go away ... they can't just expect people not to want to talk about it. There's too much passion, too much interest, too many questions as to, well, if there isn't going to be a second team, why? And I think these are issues the NHL has to address, either by looking hard at putting a second team here or coming up with some solid reasons that people can understand as to why it's not a good idea to have [another] team in Southern Ontario.
Balsillie's bid for the Coyotes does seem a long shot, but it's likely pressed the NHL into having to answer some of the difficult questions on a subject they've ignored for far too long. There's growing bitterness in Toronto over the fact that the league has become all but inaccessible for everyone but the wealthy elite and the business community, and that could have long-term effects on the fan base in this part of North America.
The fact is that the vast majority of kids are growing up in this city without ever having the opportunity to attend an NHL game, and I wonder if at some point that'll turn a generation off the sport entirely.
Even if we just consider the revenue generation side of things, there is something incredibly unsettling about the chart I used on this post, one that shows the Maple Leafs far, far out front of any other NHL team despite icing a non-playoff club the past four seasons. Just imagine where they'd fit in after a long run in the postseason — and what that would mean for already ridiculous ticket prices.
It's not unfathomable that Toronto could, in the near future, begin generating four or five times the revenue of some of its "peers," and that imbalance isn't going unnoticed around the league.
At this point, the best way for the NHL to escape Balsillie just might be to find an owner they can work with in the Southern Ontario market and giving the fans a league-approved "hero" to get behind.
There's their win-win.
- If you missed it, Balsillie chatted with HNIC's Ron MacLean Saturday night on the Inside Hockey segment. They didn't cover a lot of new ground, but you can judge for yourself the man's intentions with his bid for the Coyotes. He certainly doesn't come across as the bogeyman some American fans are making him out to be.
0 recs |
147 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
Nice one, James.
Quite an interesting contrast between the US based media (including bloggers) and those in Canada.
I’m a Coyotes fan but a realist. I do wish it was the Thrashers being pursued by Balsillie. Canada, Ontario and even Toronto would do well to get another NHL franchise. How long can Bettman last depriving consumers of his product?
by LarsPGH on May 10, 2009 8:26 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
does anyone outside of coyotes partisans want the team to stay in PHX?
I haven’t seen much in the US media to that effect
by royalsreview on May 10, 2009 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately...
…hockey isn’t the national story that it is in Canada.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think "bogeyman" is the right term.
“Renegade” might be a better one. He wants a team and is willing to buy any one that comes available. That’s his right, but he’s going about it wrong by trying to jam it down the throats of the NHL. I don’t think anyone can argue, at this point, that Southern Ontario shouldn’t have a team if they can work out an arena plan whose final location protects the Sabres.
The “bogeyman” role, in Americans’ minds, is filled by Canadian fans and Canadian media using the Coyotes’ problems as an individual franchise to, once again, slur a vast swath of our country for idiots who are too dumb to appreciate hockey when they’ve never been offered good hockey to appreciate. Some of that slides over to Balsillie for whipping it up with the MakeItSeven campaign, but it’s not his primary role.
By the way, for Canadians who talk about how great it would be to have an owner who loves the game as much as Balsillie does: there are several ways that can cut. One is Mike Ilitch, and that’s. Another is his Detroit-area rival Peter Karmanos, who happens to have built a pretty decent hockey culture in the South with Carolina. But the third, looking toward football and someone who’ll bend rules to get what he wants, is Daniel Snyder of the Washington Redskins. You don’t want that.
by JoshCVT on May 10, 2009 8:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The "bogeyman" role, in Americans’ minds, is filled by Canadian fans and Canadian media using the Coyotes’ problems as an individual franchise to, once again, slur a vast swath of our country for idiots who are too dumb to appreciate hockey when they’ve never been offered good hockey to appreciate.
That’s fine, but let’s not get tripped up with the real issues by worrying about the hammerheads. I love sun belt hockey fans, especially when there are enough of them in their particular market to really sustain their teams. Watching hockey flourish in San Jose and Texas, for example, is great.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 10, 2009 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
James,
I’d appreciate your sentiment of there wasn’t a boatload of those hammerheads who are very vocal on this site and others whose basic argument is that southern American markets don’t DESERVE a hockey team, regardless of economics or location.
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on May 10, 2009 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can see that Balsillie is thought of as a renegade, but when he was looking into purchasing the Penguins I remember that he was following all the rules and seemed to be going along with the conventions of the private club of owners, until late in the process he was told that even if there wasn’t a new arena deal he still wouldn’t be able to move the team.
It seems as though he has decided that the club will never be open to him according to their rules, so he might as well try to force he way in if that is the only opportunity left to him.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on May 10, 2009 9:39 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
“until late in the process he was told that even if there wasn’t a new arena deal he still wouldn’t be able to move the team.”
Barocque, even by JB’s version of events that is completely inaccurate.
Jb’s story was that at the last minute he received a set of contractual requirements that would restrict him from moving the team for seven years, potentially even if the City of Pittsburgh declined to build a new arena.
The league categorically rejected that version, indicating that the seven-year requirement had been discussed and was well known to JB long in advance. Furthermore, the league asserts that they had indicated to JB that they were prepared to negotiate certain terms of the seven-year limit (no doubt to allow him to maintain the threat of moving as against the city of PITT in order to force them to build the arena).
While my personal belief is that JB did know well in advance but was rightly concerned that, if the City became aware of the seven-year requirement he (JB) would be stripped of any leverage to force them to build the arena (because he would not be able to hold the threat of moving over the City’s head), either way it is not what you suggest above.
by Gerald on May 10, 2009 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
James: I am an American hockey fan and I think most American fans like myself do NOT conside Jim Balsillie a “bogeyman.” The guys painting him the bogeyman are Gary Bettman and the other NHL owners who want the large franchise fee that goes with expansion vice relocations and of course die hard fans of any team he pursues and wants to relocate.
LETS GO CAPS!!!!
by markbona-capsfan99 on May 10, 2009 10:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree...
I’m an American hockey fan and I think Jim Balsillie is the man. If his dream is to bring another hockey team to Canada, more power to him. He makes a ton of sense and I hope he succeeds.
by Danno11 on May 10, 2009 10:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Balsillie was a passionate hockey fan/billionaire from Nevada who wanted to put a team in Las Vegas he would be riding in Bettman’s limo to every game. But he’s not from Nevada, and that’s the problem.
Location is the only issue.
The league does not want a second team in Southern Ontario. Do you think Balsillie was the first person with the idea to put a second team in Southern Ontario? He is, however, the first person with enough guts to take on the NHL and MLSE to try and make it happen.
by FourFeetOfCurl on May 10, 2009 10:42 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Balsillie is not the NHL boogeyman
But right now he figures quite prominently in the nightmares of every hockey fan in Phoenix just as he did in Nashville’s fans and Pittsburgh’s fans when he wanted to purchase and MOVE their teams.
Yes Canada as a whole (not just Ontario) is being underserved as a market and I would be 100% behind getting more teams there. More hockey is always going to be a good thing in my eyes. But relocating ANY team (not just US ones) sticks in my craw.
Balsillie tried to do it the right way the first time. The result was seriously twisted and shouldn’t have happened (but I am sure glad the Pens stayed put).
The NHL needs to not only reconsider the whole ‘new teams in Canada’ issue, but to actively pursue getting it done. Balsillie’s problems getting a team are just a symptom of a larger issue, Canada wants more teams and can support another team as well as any market possibly can. It can be done without stepping on the toes of the teams that already have territory there. All parties concerned need to get that ball rolling and serve ALL the fans rather than destroying one market to accommodate another.
Just a few cents from a Phoenix fan who isn’t getting much sleep these days.
Takin over the NHL, 1 blocked shot at a time... Go Z!
by Z4dfense on May 10, 2009 11:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
But relocating ANY team (not just US ones) sticks in my craw.
Where were you in 1996?
by royalsreview on May 10, 2009 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't know about Z4dfense...
…but I wasn’t a hockey fan in 1996. I became one in 2003… thanks to the Coyotes.
Had I been a fan then, I’d have argued against moving the Jets and supported expansion instead.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was in California
Being involved in the game at the grassroots level. Learning to coach the young players and fans of the future and raise 2 young players of my own. Unfortunately I didn’t have the time nor energy to follow the NHL in an indepth fashion like I do now. But I assure you… I woulda been rootin for Winnipeg to keep their team.
No city lucky enough to have a team should ever have to lose them. It is my sincere hope that Winnipeg can get another shot at having their own team. My vote isnt keep it 6 or make it 7… my vote is leave the Yotes where they are and give Southern Ontario a brand new team they can grow with and love while leaving my beloved team safe and hopefully prosperous in Phoenix.
Takin over the NHL, 1 blocked shot at a time... Go Z!
by Z4dfense on May 10, 2009 9:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ditto.
That pretty well sums up my feelings too. I have said a lot in this thread and I should probably shut my big mouth; the last thing I’ll say is that, as a hockey fan, you can make whatever logical reasoned arguments you want about how great a franchise in Hamilton would be.
It still wouldn’t change my love for my team, and it won’t convince me one whit that the Coyotes leaving here would be a good thing.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 9:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t expect so. But the financial realities of the situation are very bleak right now.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 11, 2009 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely not a bogeyman...
I’ve seen enough of Jim Balsillie to know that he’s an exceptionally wealthy hockey superfan. Inherently, there’s nothing wrong with that, and if it were not for the way he’s gone about trying to get a franchise, I’d admire him a great deal.
The trouble with Balsillie is two-fold – first, he has specifically ignored due diligence in establishing the need for an NHL franchise in Hamilton/GTA/K-W every time he’s tried to get an existing team moved there. He wants to do it his way with a maximum of his own profit and a minimum of the NHL’s requirements for proving the demand. The only reason that some Canadian fans are not incensed by this is because the team currently at stake is a financially-troubled Sunbelt franchise. Imagine how different the situation would be if the team at stake were the Senators or the Oilers.
The second problem with Balsillie is that, in his rush to get a second team established in the GTA, he has limited his actions to relocating existing franchises with no thought whatsoever to their established fan-bases. You can say what you want about Phoenix and maybe even Nashville, but Pittsburgh has a long, long history in the NHL and moving the team out of there would have been a major disaster for the league. Balsillie doesn’t care (though to be honest, neither do his intended beneficiaries).
As for your points about the GTA, I can see how the inaccessibility to Leafs tickets might deprive young Torontonians or Hamiltonians of the chance to see NHL hockey. But let me ask you this – how can you be sure that a second GTA team wouldn’t fall into the exact same trap as the Leafs? Overcharging tickets because of the huge demand… selling out to businesses and corporations and making the team inaccessible to the common fan? All of that can – and WILL – happen to a second GTA team. Balsillie says that 100,000 people signed up for his “Make It Seven” site, which is great… but Copps Coliseum doesn’t even hold 17,000 people, does it?
Think also about the number of kids that will never get to see an NHL game in Phoenix. That may not be an issue for Canadian fans but it is for fans of hockey in general. I’ve been a fan here long enough to see how the youth hockey program – supported by the Coyotes – has flourished. Some of our youth teams are championship winners and the PF Changs development league is one of the highest-regarded development leagues in the nation. Those are the seeds for a hockey harvest but they need time and care to flower.
This all really comes down to egos – Balsillie attempting to get what he wants how he wants it, and Bettman attempting to save face and shore up his power base. And we – not just Coyotes fans, but fans in the GTA for whom this new team would be a double-edged sword – are the ones who are going to suffer for it.
I still don’t understand – with all of the assumption that the GTA is hockey’s next super-market – why nobody has done any feasibility studies on the impact that a second team would have on the league. With some hard data and research and just a bit of due diligence, I am positive that a case could even be made for a two-team Canadian EXPANSION of the league instead of relocation. That is, if what everyone has been telling me about both the GTA and Quebec…
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 11:30 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I wouldn’t bet on a team flourishing in Quebec City.
I don’t think you need to establish the need for a team in Southern Ontario at all — it’s clearly evident that the club would be a success. The major issues are encroaching on the Leafs and Sabres territory, and that’s the No. 1 reason the NHL hasn’t done a “feasibility study.”
Tickets would still be expensive for a second team in the GTA market. Would they be as expensive as they are now with only one team in the downtown core? I doubt it. But if there’s actually a possibility that two NHL teams could generate four times the revenue of a Phoenix-based team, I bet you can guess my solution.
Three teams.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 10, 2009 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Clearly evident" is not enough, particularly in this kind of business.
…and it’s not the NHL that needs to do the feasibility study, because you and I already know that they won’t bother. That job then falls to the potential suitor. Load up on data, crunch the numbers, and present the NHL with an indisputable case that the GTA will a) boost overall league revenues, b) not encroach upon the Leafs and Sabres and c) serves a market that is in the NHL’s best interests to appease.
I work in motorsports marketing and the worst thing you can do is go into a business meeting armed with gut feelings, “no-brainers” and empty assurances, no matter how obvious it might be to the layman. If you go in armed with a directed, tailored proposal aimed specifically at the benefit to your potential client’s bottom line, however, even the most skeptical CEO can be convinced.
If Balsillie had gone that route, how on earth could even Bettman and Daly have been able to refute him or deny him? He’d have been able to go point by point, number by stark number, and absolutely killed Bettman’s nebulous case of “But what about Buffalo?” or whatnot. But Balsillie is trying to raise a mob and use popular opinion, which gives Bettman and co. all the leverage they need to block him.
As for three teams in the GTA, as my old math teacher used to tell me – show your work, young man… :)
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure it’s really worthwhile to present the NHL with this type of information when they’ve said all along they have no interest in expanding or relocation and therefore no interest in looking at this data.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 10, 2009 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then why bother with the three circus’s that Jimmy Big-Bucks has put the league through? If it ain’t gonna happen, then why bother?
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on May 10, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Balsillie’s attempting to get the court to decide it. I assume he feels this is his only way in.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 10, 2009 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Clearly evident” seems to have been the NHL’s way of thinking when it comes to expansion.
"Without good hard work, it is impossible to reach the pinnacle of success." - Anatoli Tarasov
by PRC on May 10, 2009 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, the "Two-Wrongs-Make-It-Right" argument!
…and hasn’t Bettman been crucified for years for going that route? And rightfully so?
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Think also about the number of kids that will never get to see an NHL game in Phoenix. That may not be an issue for Canadian fans but it is for fans of hockey in general. I’ve been a fan here long enough to see how the youth hockey program – supported by the Coyotes – has flourished. Some of our youth teams are championship winners and the PF Changs development league is one of the highest-regarded development leagues in the nation. Those are the seeds for a hockey harvest but they need time and care to flower.
How long? The problem with this argument is that it has no end. Ten years from now, people might be saying exactly the same thing, with an NHL team that still can’t turn a profit. How long should the other owners be committed to subsidising a weak team, in the hope that someday, it might be different? I’d be a lot more sympathetic to this argument if you were willing to commit to some time period after which it’s acknowledged that it won’t ever happen.
by J. Michael Neal on May 10, 2009 7:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How long? The problem with this argument is that it has no end. Ten years from now, people might be saying exactly the same thing, with an NHL team that still can’t turn a profit. How long should the other owners be committed to subsidising a weak team, in the hope that someday, it might be different? I’d be a lot more sympathetic to this argument if you were willing to commit to some time period after which it’s acknowledged that it won’t ever happen.
That’s what I wonder, too. If every time the team goes through a rebuilding phase, the arguments are the same – “no, there really are enough fans – just wait three more years until our young players develop and we start making the playoffs, then you’ll see!” – and it doesn’t work out well, a new GM is hired with a different philosophy, and the whole process repeats – how many chances does a market get?
In Minnesota, rabid as the fans are, they are getting extremely tired of hearing “next year, next year” and “wait until the kids develop” while they watch a team that sells out the arena (which I have heard is a beautiful facility) seem to low-ball popular players as soon as they start to get expensive, play boring trapping hockey, and never get enough offense to make up for their one dynamic scoring threat being sidelined.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on May 10, 2009 8:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well it seems Minnesota has really turned the page this year with the departures of both Lemaire and Risebrough.
by Habs on May 10, 2009 11:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Their fans certainly hope so. A lot will depend on who comes in to replace them, but they are hopeful – some of them even hope that Gaborik might decide, if the team plays a more offensive style and gets him some real help, to stay with the Wild, even if only on a short-term contract.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on May 11, 2009 3:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, I'll commit.
I would like at least 10 years, WITH A WINNING SEASON under our belts. The caveat being that the 10 years needs to start from the lockout, not from when the Jets first moved here. The team is in a new city and new arena and the relocation from Phoenix was akin to starting over from scratch.
If the team achieves success on the ice and still can’t fill an arena, you can have them.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 8:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In other words, you think that the Coyotes deserve money made by other teams in perpetuity if they are never competent enough to build a winning team. Failure is to be subsidized.
by J. Michael Neal on May 10, 2009 10:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stop putting words in my mouth.
I don’t believe or want any such thing. And you know it.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 11, 2009 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Explain how saying that there should not be any attempt to move the team until they’ve had winning seasons is anything other than an argument that, so long as they are bad, the rest of the league and/or the city should subsidize them? You may not like the logic of your position, but it’s still there.
by J. Michael Neal on May 11, 2009 5:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Instant contender like Denver?
What would have happened in Phoenix, hypothetically speaking if that market had the Quebec Nordiques dropped into their lap. A tailor-made championship contender?
Conversely, would Denver have gone nuts over the Winnipeg Jets?
By the way, if you believe the talking heads on Hockey Night in Canada, Denver qualifies for welfare this season too.
Just saying.
by Exit716 on May 11, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Avs were one of the shittiest teams in the league this year and attendance was down. It wasn’t due to injury (Isles) or trade rumors (Tampa bay) or even horrible taste in third unis (Atlanta and Tampa again). It was due to all of that and a 100% commitment to SUCK at every possible junction of the decision-making ladder, from Free Agent signings (Raycroft + Tucker = Fail), failure to INTERVIEW ANYBODY for the head-coaching job, horrible contracts (Tucker again), personal responsibility (Sakic + snowblower = EPIC Fail), and Tyler Arnason.
Would any rational person PAY to see that?
I’m sorry, I got off on a rant. Were you trying to make a point?
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on May 11, 2009 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rational people?
Leafs fans complain they CAN’T pay to see that kind of hockey because of big corporations… ;)
C’mon, I kid because I love…
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 11, 2009 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Question
This has been on my mind since this whole thing started going. When we talk about the need for a team in Southern Ontario where are we assuming it’s going to come from?
What I mean is there is, judging by some comments, not a lot of support for moving an existing franchise(and I’m not just referring to Phoenix here but to any of the franchises that are currently struggling financially). The answer then seems to be expansion.
However I don’t see how we square the idea with expansion with the problem of the talent pool being diluted. It seems to me that during the times that we’re not discussing the financial health of franchises we’re wondering whether there are enough players to go around?
Is spreading the talent available even thinner the answer?
by yrmom on May 10, 2009 11:37 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Expansion...
You know, I hear a lot about the “dilution of the talent pool,” but honestly – if you consider how many guys from lower rounds of the draft have inexplicably become stars in the league, I think it’s a matter of how players are developed more than the excess or paucity of opportunity.
I honestly can’t see how there wouldn’t be enough players to go around if the league expanded by a couple of teams, especially if they were Canadian teams. I think for every scrub who got a chance at the NHL who wouldn’t with 30 teams in the league, there’d be a star player discovered to offset him.
To get back to relocation. I don’t like the idea of relocation at all, but in my more selfish moments I have to wonder – why strip a market COMPLETELY of pro-level hockey when there are other markets that have teams to spare? I mean, look at Florida – they have two teams. The New York area has THREE NHL franchises within spitting distance of each other, and how can anyone justify that when Toronto only has one? Even Southern California has two NHL franchises within a couple hours’ drive of each other.
With all that in mind, does that give anyone a bit better idea of how we in Phoenix would become the “underserved” and “hockey-starved” if the Coyotes were to leave?
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Phoenix lost its NHL team, I imagine an AHL one would be placed there instead. The city would not be stripped completely of professional hockey by any means.
Many of the prices now being paid by fans in Arizona are minor-league level prices. Selling 14,000 tickets a game is gone thing — selling them at $20 a ticket when teams like Pittsburgh have those same seats at $65 creates a massive imbalance.
If Phoenix is going to survive long term, they’re going to need to drastically increase ticket prices.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 10, 2009 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Phoenix is going to survive long term...
…they’re going to need to win. If they win and succeed and still can’t pull a crowd, THEN the experiment can be deemed a failure and you guys can have the team with our compliments.
As far as ticket prices, the first thing the team needs to do under new ownership is to work with Glendale for a more favorable lease arrangement, and then start adding a parking surcharge to ticket prices. There currently isn’t any and I can’t imagine a single fan who would argue about paying a few more bucks per ticket for that. But raising the ticket prices for a team that is the equivalent of onion gum is a dumb idea, no matter what other teams do. Pittsburgh has Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin and company to justify those prices – what do the Coyotes have?
If Phoenix lost the Coyotes then I’d be thrilled to death to get an AHL team at the Job. But that can’t be a long-term solution, IMO. I still think this market will support a team that isn’t riddled with incompetence, saddled with the “Friends of Gretzky” phenomenon, or that doesn’t do what the Coyotes did in the draft and free agency in the bulk of past decade.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Phoenix is going to survive long term…they’re going to need to win. If they win and succeed and still can’t pull a crowd, THEN the experiment can be deemed a failure and you guys can have the team with our compliments.
I absolutely agree with this. Nashville’s worrisome given they’ve struggled in some years to fill the building while icing a great team.
I still think this market will support a team that isn’t riddled with incompetence, saddled with the "Friends of Gretzky" phenomenon, or that doesn’t do what the Coyotes did in the draft and free agency in the bulk of past decade.You may be right, but now it’s just up to an owner to gamble on that as well.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 10, 2009 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It'd be an easier gamble
If the house were forced to stack the odds in Bettman / Reinsdorf’s favour.
Rooting for Bettman in this fight, it seems to me, is akin to rooting for the house to win.
by TD O'Dell on May 10, 2009 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
More favorable?
In your opinion, how many more favors should the Coyotes ask of the taxpayers of Glendale, than if you spend $180M to build it, they will come – and park their cars?
It’s fantastic that many residents of Phoenix are willing to drive to Glendale, but to play devil’s advocate for the citizens of that county, why should they foot the bill?
Hockey fandom aside, is it your position that government’s job is to allocate tax dollars for the betterment of a private sector businessman’s balance sheet? Senator McCain has surely argued to the contrary.
It seems to me, that after 13 years of bumbling management, that the invisible hand of the market has spoken.
by TD O'Dell on May 10, 2009 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No more taxpayer money.
I don’t agree with asking for a single cent of taxpayer money to help the team. We paid that price for the arena because it was the anchor for a new metro hotspot (which, in fairness, has happened – Westgate is a fast-growing and popular destination on the West Side. Not bad for a plot of land that used to be a cotton field less than a decade ago). But as for using city funds to prop up the team, not a chance.
What Glendale CAN do is revisit the lease to allow the team to make more money from revenues. Certainly, they need to protect themselves from a team packing up in the middle of the night (like the Coyotes would have with Balsillie had not protections been in place), but there is plenty of other lease restructuring that can happen to significantly improve the team’s basic bottom line
And I agree with you to an extent – the market HAS spoken, but what they’re saying is, “We’re not going to throw good money away on a team that is at best disinterested in success.” That’s far different from, “Durrrrr, hockey? Iz dat wif black pucks n bloody noses?” :)
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t agree with asking for a single cent of taxpayer money to help the team.
What Glendale CAN do is revisit the lease to allow the team to make more money from revenues.
You just contradicted yourself. Any revenue stream that the Coyotes get from the arena is entirely taxpayer money. It may be that the city isn’t maximizing the revenue by charging for all the things that they could, but the right to charge those prices belong to the owner of the arena, which is the city. Any renegotiation of the lease that puts more money in the pocket of the Coyotes is a public subsidy.
by J. Michael Neal on May 10, 2009 7:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Any renegotiation of the lease that puts more money in the pocket of the Coyotes is a public subsidy.
I wonder how well that will go over with the people of Glendale – and how it will affect re-election campaigns for city council or mayor (or however the city’s government is structured). I remember reading article in the Tennessean when there was a though that the Nashville Predators might be moved, and a LOT of the comments were along the lines of “who needs hockey? I don’t watch it. They shouldn’t get any more of our tax money because we have better things to spend it on! We don’t need a stinkin’ hockey team because we can use the arena for musical acts and stuff like that.” There was a lot of hostility at the thought that public money might go to a team that a lot of people weren’t interested in.
Is there a dynamic like that developing in Glendale, too?
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on May 10, 2009 8:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, yes there is. The region is really struggling due to the recession and not in a good position to give the team more concessions with the lease.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 11, 2009 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Misunderstood what was being asked...
I thought you were talking about public subsidies in the context of a public referendum or a bailout from Glendale, not game revenues.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still think this market will support a team that isn’t riddled with incompetence, saddled with the "Friends of Gretzky" phenomenon, or that doesn’t do what the Coyotes did in the draft and free agency in the bulk of past decade.
What are the team’s chances of that – realistically. Would even a new owner be able to get rid of Gretzky’s buddies and still be able to use him as a marketing tool, or would he be able to ease Wayne out of the coaching job entirely. And it takes time to completely redo a scouting staff and be able to improve drafting and performance in free agency – as well as taking several years to make an impact.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on May 10, 2009 8:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's already started...
When Don Maloney was hired he completely turned over the scouting staff and our drafts lately have VASTLY improved. As far as FoG goes, we’re still saddled with Grant Fuhr but we also have Sean Burke in there contributing so that alleviates it. The team’s chances of being successful in the next few years are MUCH higher now than they were under Michael Barnett or previous management groups (you’ll note that a lot of ex-Coyote management went to Tampa… and look what happened there).
I’m not asking for indefinite patience – just context and perspective. If we weren’t talking about a Sunbelt team the tenor of the discussion would be far different and there would be a lot more leeway for poor results and team mismanagement. And like I said, if the Coyotes manage a playoff run and we still can’t pull fans, then even I will admit that the experiment is over and will support a relocation if it is on the table.
Just PLEASE give us a chance not to suck.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 9:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No. If you weren’t demanding money from other teams, the tenor of this discussion would be different. I’m all for giving teams leeway if they can support themselves. If they can’t, and need concessions from taxpayers and subsidies from other teams, the leash is much shorter.
That’s my problem. None of your arguments seem to take into consideration that your position requires other people giving your team money. Beggars can’t be complainers, and the Coyotes are beggars.
by J. Michael Neal on May 10, 2009 10:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think in any draft you’re going to uncover stars in late rounds but I don’t think you’re going to find a star per scrub at anytime. It’s not happening now with 30 teams.
by yrmom on May 10, 2009 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Talent Dilution is a Myth
The classic ‘talent dilution’ argument is a myth. Yes, there are 5 times as many teams as they were 40 years ago, but the player pool to draw from is way more than 5 times bigger than it was back then, and even the worst NHL player right now is a 24-7, 365 days a year trained hockey machine.
by eboy71 on May 10, 2009 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
fair enough. I’d noticed that it always rears it’s head when there’s talk about contracting the league and I was just wondering where that particular argument had gone.
by yrmom on May 10, 2009 6:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hell, all you need to do is look at League composition. There are actually fewer Canadians, by number and not just percentage, in the League now than there were in the “Original 21” days, but those slots and all the new ones created by nine new teams have been filled with Americans and Europeans. Furthermore, the “lost Canadians” in this mental exercise would be the sort made largely irrelevant by the instigator, the third man in, and the ten-game ban for leaving the bench, anyway, so no great loss, other than maybe a bit of sideshow entertainment value in an otherwise dead game (not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that).
Combine this with improved training, nutrition, etc., and I think you can blow the talent-dilution argument clean out of the water.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on May 10, 2009 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The fact is that the vast majority of kids are growing up in this city without ever having the opportunity to attend an NHL game, and I wonder if at some point that’ll turn a generation off the sport entirely.
Yeah. Not. Going. To. Happen.
Look, this market is underserved at hockey’s highest level, but they have 2 AHL franchises, and 14 OHL franchises in southern Ontario. To say that there will be an entire generation of kids who are turned off the sport because of this is absolutely ludicrious. Somehow, grassroots hockey has remained strong in Manitoba and around Quebec City since their NHL teams left, and a lack of a NHL team in my home province’s entire history has not hurt the grassroots hockey level at all.
Just because the region is willing to spend even more money on hockey as part of their collective disposable income doesn’t mean the sport will be in jeopardy long term. If anything endangers the sport long term in this country, it’ll be the cost of actually playing it.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on May 10, 2009 12:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
All right, but if you actually live in Toronto, where its prohibitively expensive to play the game and there isn’t an OHL team for a considerable distance, does that change the situation? I’m talking about the downtown core here, which I would argue is being turned off the game. Even in some of the ’burbs, the junior teams are struggling to fill their buildings.
Players are still being produced in places like Oakville and Unionville, on the fringes, but the inaccessibility of the Leafs is having an impact in the city.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 10, 2009 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you have something to tie the inaccessibility to the Leafs to the problems filling OHL arenas? Could it be other factors like a downturn in the economy, the expense associated with playing and/or watching hockey?
I think you’re grasping at straws for a reason to justify a second team. If a REAL study was done to show the upside of a second team, I’m sure you’d have a litany of valid reasons to do it without trying to connect one nebulous cause to a completely unrelated effect.
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on May 10, 2009 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think that’s what I’m doing at all. We’re discussing the impact of the inaccessibility of the Leafs on the fanbase for NHL hockey in this region, which is a different issue than you’re bringing up.
I live in and cover professional hockey in this city, and a second team is a slam dunk. It absolutely is.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 10, 2009 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you 100%. I just don’t think “the poor children of the GTA” is a valid reason, that’s all.
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on May 10, 2009 8:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe it’s not “the poor children of the GTA” so much as “the next generation of youngsters in the most hockey-mad region in North America”.
Is it in anyone’s interest to deny kids in Toronto the chance to go to NHL games in person?
by dzuunmod on May 10, 2009 8:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps another question is...
…is there any reason to elevate the desires of kids in Toronto over kids anywhere else?
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Forget about kids for a second...
There isn’t a single person in Phoenix with $50 in disposable income who is being denied the chance to see NHL hockey. The Coyotes were in 28th this season in capacity, and their tickets are cheaper than some Major Junior teams. Meanwhile, there are tens, and probably hundreds, of thousands of people in the GTA with a hell of a lot more disposable income than that who can’t see NHL hockey at any price. Even Montreal, with a Metro Area with less than half the population of Phoenix, sells out every game months in advance.
I really don’t think that Canadian hockey fans think that hockey fans in the South don’t deserve NHL hockey: I, at least, am glad that people like zyllyx are passionate about the greatest game on earth, and I think that most Canadians would agree with me. And I don’t think you’re less of a fan because you’re new: there’s nothing like the zeal of a convert, after all, and it takes real dedication to be passionate about something few others care about. It’s just that there aren’t enough converts: if there were a few hundred thousand zyllyx’s, we’d all be happy to see the Yotes do well. But there aren’t. The contest between the 14,000 people who pay to watch the Coyotes play in Phoenix on any given night, and the likely 60,000 people who would pay WAY more to watch them play in Ontario doesn’t strike most Canadians as much of a contest at all. That isn’t hating Southern fans, that’s just wanting hockey and being understandably annoyed that a city that has it isn’t bothering to watch it.
by wmd78 on May 10, 2009 10:42 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yes, there is. The children of Toronto are prepared to pay enough money that the team can support itself. That’s just about the strongest reason there is for elevating their desires.
Sports is a business. Businesses need to make money.
by J. Michael Neal on May 10, 2009 10:44 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
WHY ?
Everyone needs to step a step back to evaluate things in a clearer light.
1. Southern Ontario and/or Toronto should have up to 4 teams. Kids have to be able to go to games or they will not feel the need to as adults. The ‘Leafs’ should not have exclusive rights to region so large in this day and age. That time has past. ‘Their’ market is under served and growth is essential to prevent erosion.
2. The American sunbelt experiment has run it’s course. The national American TV deal at the end of the rainbow has not appeared and will not appear. That fact needs to be faced. Some teams, the ones who have had on-ice success, have done OK. Others have not. It is time to relocate franchises’ that are not, and will not be, healthy in the near future. These teams need to move to locations that are set up for success or need to fold. Addition by subtraction is an option that needs to be considered.
3. Passionate owners are good for the league and the game. Period.
by jeffadams on May 10, 2009 1:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
1. Again, is there some college study or something that says Canadian youths who don’t attend NHL games grow up and continue to NOT attend? Why is this conclusion being drawn and what bearing does it really have on the argument. Also, where’s your data to suggest 4 teams is viable when there was an NHL team in Buffalo at the end of the previous century that rarely had a full house due to a crap on-ice product? To me that suggests that the market would only support multiple SUCCESSFUL franchises.
2. Were you saying the same thing when the Oilers and Flames struggled to fill buildings just a few years ago? How will there ever be a clear-cut end to the ‘experiment’ if we don’t see how the market reacts to success? Fanbases in Miami and Phoenix haven’t failed their respective teams, management of those franchises have REPEATEDLY failed those fans.
3. Rule-breaking owners are NOT good for the league. Balsillie has repeatedly flaunted his wealth as a great equalizer to the NHL. Do we really need an owner that will rewrite the rules (along with a check) every time he sees something he doesn’t agree with?
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on May 10, 2009 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. Attending is not an option for the vast, vast majority of fans in this market. It’s far too expensive to go. Buffalo is not the Toronto market. It’s a different country for God’s sake.
2. Good point. It comes down to whether or not someone wants to own the team in those markets, however.
3. Balsillie would argue he had some rules rewritten for him when he attempted to purchase teams the first two times.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 10, 2009 4:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
2. We didn’t land on Sherwood Forrest, Sherwood Forrest landed on US!
by Jibblescribbits on May 11, 2009 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you for that…
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on May 11, 2009 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Woops...
Early “return” key there. :)
Why not just do a Greater Toronto Hockey League? That’s where you’re heading. I wonder what the rest of Canada thinks about idea of Toronto having 4 NHL teams.
As for your second point, why don’t you petition someone to just pull the six Canadian NHL teams out of the NHL and start a new Canada-only pro hockey league? That’s the direction you’re obviously heading. Heck, you have an “Original Six” already with the current franchises, and if you expand up to 10 (Winnipeg, Quebec, Halifax, Saskatoon?) then you have the tiny league with an undiluted player base. Nirvana!
The idea that passion excuses all other behaviors is why the NHL has had so many crooks in its ownership group over its history. Period.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anyone arguing for an all-Canadian league is clearly out of touch, so if you’re hearing suggestions like that, I’d leave them be.
People in this market simply want to be able to attend games. I hear from them all the time, and it’s very difficult to come up with reasons why many will never see an NHL team within two hours of their hometown.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 10, 2009 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I get that.
But you know what? People like me want to be able to attend games too. I hear from them all the time. It’s difficult for me to come up with reasons why they should be listened to less than people in Toronto.
Once again, I agree that a second GTA team would be a slam dunk. But think of it from my perspective – how many pro-level hockey teams do you have in the GTA if you count the minor league teams? Isn’t it something around 20 or so? Do you know how many we have in Phoenix? Two. One of them in Glendale, one (the CHL Sundogs) in Prescott, about two hours away from Glendale. The closest team beyond that is the Anaheim Ducks, at least six hours away (in clear traffic). So you might imagine that it’s hard for me to sympathize with Torontonians who say they are starved for hockey.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 4:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
There is an AHL team in Toronto, as well as a few junior teams (not 20, but still a lot).
The negative impact of turning off an entire state by yanking the Yotes out of AZ would have major ramifications.
What some Canadians have a hard time with is differentiating between the South and southern states. There is a potential for huge, HUGE growth in AZ and that cannot be flushed if the goal of the league is to create an image for itself as a Big 4 sport.
MLS is pushing hard to capture the hearts and minds of Americans and the NHL needs to be cognizant of that threat to their own status.
by TD O'Dell on May 10, 2009 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fortunately...
…MLS hasn’t done squat in the Phoenix area. If ever there was a pro sport tailored to a city like Phoenix, it is major league soccer. That there isn’t a franchise here yet boggles my mind.
That said, I played soccer as a kid but if I’d have known about ice hockey there’s no question that instead of kicking balls I’d have been shooting pucks. And I know a lot of young kids around my neighborhood who, after seeing both hockey and soccer, agree with me.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But think of it from my perspective – how many pro-level hockey teams do you have in the GTA if you count the minor league teams?
The Marlies, the Bulldogs and the Leafs.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 10, 2009 6:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you counting...
…the junior ranks? I am assured by several Canadian acquaintances that junior hockey is still considered professional-level, unlike the NCAA or NTDP. But I don’t know much about how those teams are regarded in their home areas…
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Junior hockey players are younger than NCAAers and are not paid.
by dzuunmod on May 10, 2009 8:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Further, it’s impossible to follow a junior league team in Toronto the way it’s possible to follow an NHL team. The games aren’t on TV or radio (for the most part), there are no beat writers with the newspapers and Alexander Ovechkin and Sidney Crosby never roll into town playing for the Soo Greyhounds. It’s like saying that it’s OK for the Yankees to charge $2500 a game in their new stadium because kids and working class types can go see their minor-league team on Staten Island.
It’s not the same experience, and to have live NHL hockey for the suits and corporate bigwigs in Toronto, but not for the masses (which is how it currently is), while Phoenix Coyotes fans can walk through the turnstiles at a price most Canadians would pounce on were it offered in Calgary or Montreal or Toronto is simply unfair.
by dzuunmod on May 10, 2009 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree totally that Toronto's ticket prices are ridiculous...
…but don’t blame the Coyotes. Blame the Maple Leafs and MLSE. And don’t expect a relocated Coyotes team to be much different in terms of accessibility – particularly if the demand is as much of a “slam-dunk” as everyone says.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 9:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would I blame the Maple Leafs? They are charging what the market will bear, and probably less.
by J. Michael Neal on May 10, 2009 10:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
When people complain about the bigwigs getting all the tickets, they aren’t complaining about the prices: they’re complaining that a huge number of tickets are corporate season tickets. The problem in Toronto and Montreal isn’t that the tickets are too expensive. It’s that THERE AREN’T ENOUGH TICKETS at any price. Meanwhile, there are thousands of empty seats at Coyotes games.
by wmd78 on May 10, 2009 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The tickets in T.O. are also way too expensive. $420 for a lower bowl ticket to a Tuesday night regular season game against Atlanta?
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 11, 2009 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they’re selling, they aren’t too expensive. If the basic concern is that more people should have a chance to see the hockey team play, lower ticket prices don’t solve that problem. All it means is that an artificial shortage of a good (tickets) gets resolved in some other way, probably by having connections. It would probably be a somewhat, though not that large, different set of people that get shut out, but they’re still going to get shut out. The only regulation you could put on it that might solve that is to artificially lower the number of season tickets sold, and put a restriction on how many tickets anyone can buy over the course of a season. Good luck with that.
The main beneficiaries of MLSE lowering ticket prices would be the scalpers. They’d make a fortune. As I don’t particularly like the scalpers (probably even less than I like MLSE), this doesn’t strike me as a good outcome. I’m all in favor of a team charging whatever the market will bear on tickets, and solving the problem exactly how Jim Ballsillie is trying to solve it: add more teams. Toronto could support at least three NHL teams and produce greater revenue streams than some cities. New York could easily support another baseball team.
by J. Michael Neal on May 11, 2009 5:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m all in favor of a team charging whatever the market will bear on tickets, and solving the problem exactly how Jim Ballsillie is trying to solve it: add more teams.
Agreed. Too expensive is, I guess, a relative term to what you can afford, but it’s simply nuts what teams like the Leafs and Yankees are charging.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 11, 2009 7:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tickets in Hamilton would likely still be very, very pricey. Not as much as the Leafs, but on par with somewhere like Vancouver or Philadelphia, where the team always sells out.
At least they’d be available.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 11, 2009 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you honestly think that a Hamilton team won’t sell truck-loads of seats to the corporate empty suits that are the bane of Toronto fans? Is Jimmy likely to turn away from guaranteed money from those people to keep the ‘little people" and the deprived children of Toronto in those seats? I think that’s a tad unrealistic.
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on May 11, 2009 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I expect him to sell as many of those kinds of tickets as he can. If he can sell out that way, and the average fan still can’t get a seat, it means that you need a third team. Keep going until people can get tickets.
by J. Michael Neal on May 11, 2009 5:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Greater Toronto Hockey League.
Yes. Good luck with that.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 11, 2009 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why not meet demand with supply?
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 11, 2009 7:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The question is
So will you be the first in line to contract a GTA team when the level of mediocrity spreads to all three/four teams and there’s no longer a demand, or will you stand on the soapbox of “Canada’s Game”, give them a chance to win, etc.?
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on May 11, 2009 9:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We’re not talking about expanding this much in the area, so it’s not really a point worth exploring. For now, add only a second team and there’ll never be an issue of no demand.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 11, 2009 10:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So will you be the first in line to contract a GTA team
Sure. If they stop making money, they go bust. I’ve never understood why sports leagues are held to be different than any other business. (Except really big banks, I guess.) Business failures happen all the time. Companies file for bankruptcy, and their assets get put to better use.
If that’s not happening, there’s something wrong. Among other things, in the case of sports teams, is that they are able to hijack local governments for cash. We also get successful teams subsidizing the failures.
by J. Michael Neal on May 12, 2009 2:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think you need to establish the need for a team in Southern Ontario at all
Agreed but you do need to rethink your long term strategy for leaguewide growth which is of course long overdue. Pulling the plug in Phoenix probably won’t be fatal but if it becomes a contagion and more of the despised “Southern” teams are hijacked by freebooters, you can kiss any national marketing sponsorships in the US goodbye or at least they will be severely trimmed back. The big US tv contract is probably a pipe dream but it was the piece of cheese that kept the rodents turning the wheel. Where’s the next piece of cheese? Investors and sponsors demand “growth” and “we’ve got a profitable team in Hamilton,Ont” is nice but not what I want to hear if I’m running a marketing campaign for Honda or a hedge fund guy with money to invest.
Jim Balsillie may be able to pay for the whole shooting match out of pocket(although I doubt that includes an arena) but most of these franchises need to continually borrow and restructure large amounts of debts. That means going to bankers and investors who will want to see a longterm business plan with “Growth” stamped on the cover.
What I object to most in Balsillie’s approach is this: when you acquire an NHL franchise, the assets you are acquiring include exclusivity, the history and reputation of the league, its reputation and the good will people have towards it (I am fully aware of how ironic that sounds at present but try to start a new league and see how long it takes for people to accept it). Can you really tell me that Balsillie’s three forays into ownership haven’t damaged and subverted the very things that he hopes to profit from in the future?
by Big Picture Guy on May 10, 2009 2:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Can you really tell me that Balsillie’s three forays into ownership haven’t damaged and subverted the very things that he hopes to profit from in the future?
It could be argued that JB has already come to the conclusion that the NHL has no intention of accepting him as an owner and thus is endeavoring to ‘damage and subvert’ the current league authority and leadership in such a way as to be able to profit from the NHL at a later point.
by Habs on May 10, 2009 11:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is more indicative of “growth,” though?
A league with franchises that are profitable, but in an overall smaller geographical area, or -
a league which covers a large area on the map, but has several teams that are struggling financially?
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on May 10, 2009 3:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That’s the 64 dollar question. I would say “potential for growth” so the latter is probably how most investors would think. At least those who would be attracted to the risk/reward proposition owning a sports team affords.
by Big Picture Guy on May 10, 2009 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would be more inclined to think the former – which must be why I don’t have oodles of money sitting around waiting to buy a sports team. Partly it just seems that there is so much of a focus on physical location, when so many people are fans of teams that they don’t get to see because they can’t afford it or because they moved away, and follow the Canucks from China via the internet – or the Red Wings from Brazil, or the Canadiens from Europe.
It seems almost antiquated and quaint to look at a map and see if there are “holes” in it where the market isn’t sufficiently penetrated, when so much market penetration is electronic.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on May 10, 2009 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But fans in markets outside North America don’t pay into gate revenue, concessions, or local cable costs. I agree that there is still a very molasses-like pace with internet/broadband accessibility with the NHL, but expansion/relocation has everything to do with physical location, especially population demographics. Fans from elsewhere don’t directly pay into the team, except for merchandise and I’m not even sure if there is an official online feed sponsored by the NHL for international fans to purchase. Perhaps, that’s the problem, but I think that’s another issue altogether.
Supporter of the Sergei Berezin "Give and Go" - You give me puck, then you go to hell
by bkblades on May 10, 2009 5:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on who you are.
From a fan perspective, it is clear that putting a team in an area with concentrated hockey fandom, regardless of the size of the city or market, is the best idea. But that’s a short-term solution.
For a professional sports league, you not only have to look at franchise profitability but also the overall footprint of the league. If you consolidate – add through subtraction, concentrate masses of teams in a single market, etc. – you generate increased short-term viability and profits but you also significantly restrict the reach of your league. As was mentioned before, the corporate dollars from significant investors are based upon the greatest number of eyeballs seeing their product. While it may seem on the surface that two, three, or four teams in the GTA would provide significantly more exposure than a half-sold arena in Phoenix, you have to think on a different level than that. Three sold-out hockey arenas represent 60,000 people, but you’re looking at the same metropolitan area in terms of overall advertising impact. For a league looking for high-dollar investment, it makes better sense to have one franchise in the GTA and one in Phoenix than it does to have three franchises in the GTA and none in Phoenix.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A wise woman once said
Unfortunately, hockey isn’t the national sport that it is in Canada.
This was in response to the observation that only supporters of the Coyotes within Phoenix, which does not even amount to a large percentage of Phoenix residents, have their eyeballs on this most fascinating story.
According to that wise woman, there are roughly as many eyeballs focused on hockey, as the number of Toronto eyeballs focused on NASCAR. If I were someone who knew anything about marketing motorsports, then maybe I’d understand why a market the size of Toronto has fewer NASCAR events than some of the burgeoning metropolises in the South that have held annual events for generations.
by TD O'Dell on May 10, 2009 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just FYI...
I’m not a woman.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OOps
mistaken identity.
I met a woman over on Odin’s site who was as eloquent and whose name was as tough to pronounce as your own.
My apologies.
by TD O'Dell on May 10, 2009 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No offense taken.
Being mistaken for Z4dfense is a compliment. She’s not as patient as I am tho – whereas I’m more of a “skill” player she’ll rough you up pretty badly if you get on her bad side… :)
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 6:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And...
…I should probably mention that NASCAR is establishing a Canadian league at the moment with the idea of expanding its footprint and exposure in your fair nation, as well as in Mexico.
The traditionalists in NASCAR – the sister-marryin’, shotgun-totin’ rednecks in the Alabama infields – made a big stink about the sport expanding west of the Mississippi but NASCAR expanded anyway. It turned a regional sport into a national phenomenon and made their brand recognizable from coast to coast.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I am aware of the Canadian Tire Series
Not quite the same as the big league, but it’s a start.
I was just trying to point out that other sports organizations recognize that rapid expansion of the high-end, elite leagues is not necessarily the most efficient or effective way to grow the sport.
Perhaps, had the NHL not put 8 major league teams into the southern states in a 9 year stretch, the death of the IHL in those regions would not have come as quickly (if at all).
by TD O'Dell on May 10, 2009 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll agree there.
One of the problems with coming to hockey so late is that I missed all of the really controversial stuff that happened with regards to my home team. Had I been around the sport in the mid 1990s, I’d have been against relocation to Phoenix but in favor of INVESTIGATING an expansion there (of course, I didn’t move back to Phoenix from Boston until 2000, but that’s another story). The same process that I described above about collating and researching data about feasibility would have had to apply to Phoenix and the other sunbelt cities before a team got put there.
‘Course, ironically enough it was Bettman’s ill-advised scream-and-leap expansion into Phoenix that made me a hockey fan in the first place. That’s kind of a Star Trek paradox in the making, huh? :)
RE: the Canadian Tire Series, it’s not really meant to be on the same level as Sprint Cup racing – but it’s a bottom-up approach (a gateway drug) to the sport in Canada using the existing resources. Applying that to hockey, I can see a scenario where, if the Mutts get moved to Canada, an AHL team would be an acceptable substitute in the near term. It wouldn’t be the NHL but at least it would be pro hockey and the arena would see some use (it’d be the nicest arena in the bus leagues, for sure). More importantly it would keep hockey in the cultural milieu and help keep the growing grassroots hockey programs in business. Then down the road maybe the NHL could come back with an expansion franchise. I could live with that.
But, of course, keeping the NHL team here would be my first choice.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
From a fan perspective, it is clear that putting a team in an area with concentrated hockey fandom, regardless of the size of the city or market, is the best idea. But that’s a short-term solution.
Short -term solution? How is serving a great traditional market with huge demand a short-term solution? That’s almost the very definition of long-term solution. What is a short-term solution is grabbing one-time expansion fees from owners in markets that don’t care about the game, only to watch them whither away into obscurity a mere decade later.
by eboy71 on May 10, 2009 6:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because...
It’s a short-term solution because after the hype goes away, the patriotic rhetoric gets put away, and the reality sets in, you’ve basically done no expanding, no growth in areas that will increase the league’s standing or expand its presence in its overall market. The long-term health and viability of the league is not bettered one whit by reducing its reach and “circling the wagons” in Canada.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 6:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly, this is the mentality that has gotten American businesses into such trouble. The worship of “growth,” at the expense of solid earnings and revenue streams has produced several bubbles and implosions. I think that chasing growth at the expense of predictable money is exactly what the NHL should not be doing.
by J. Michael Neal on May 10, 2009 7:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really hate to ask this...
…but if the solid earnings and revenue streams were coming from New York and the financially struggling teams were in Ottawa, Edmonton, or Vancouver, would you feel the same way about contracting the struggling teams and expanding in the stronghold?
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 10, 2009 9:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I would. As a Michigander living in Minnesota, I have no particular brief for Canada. I just like the color of their money.
Which is actually true. I like having money of different colors.
by J. Michael Neal on May 10, 2009 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand what you are saying, but if the NHL ‘retracts’ from the shallower markets, only has teams in the deeper markets, when and if there ever is a major TV deal (which the league has put out as the golden egg, not me) they will have effectively shot themselves in the foot to the tune of millions. As a long-term business strategy, having more flavors of ice cream is more important than having lots of vanilla on hand and I can see where the league has invested in this scenario.
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on May 11, 2009 7:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can see why the league invested in this scenario, too, but it didn’t work. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. By this definition, Gary Bettman is insane.
by J. Michael Neal on May 11, 2009 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Other businesses, when they look at the financial numbers and find that they have expanded into areas that are losing them money, aren’t afraid to retrench in their strongholds. They don’t like it, but do it because they feel it will be better for the brand or the chain overall. Growth isn’t always better – sometimes it isn’t the right time for it, or it’s done too fast.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on May 10, 2009 8:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure Gary Bettman is able to think along these lines…
by Habs on May 10, 2009 11:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t be surprised – many other businesses can’t think that way, either. The only way they define growth is “more and more outlets” and reducing the number, even if their profits might increase as a result, makes them break out in hives.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on May 11, 2009 3:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, well they’re now getting what they deserve for that mentality. You are going to see the number of retail outlets, at least in the States (I don’t know Canada), collapse as the commercial real estate bust gets under way.
I’m just not convinced that the rest of us deserve this.
by J. Michael Neal on May 11, 2009 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right. America sucks…we had it coming…
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on May 11, 2009 9:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Problem is tv and advertising are still focused on traditional media ratings. A subscription model has worked for MLB on the internet but the truth is internet advertising is still a relative trickle and not the gold mine people once thought.
by Big Picture Guy on May 10, 2009 3:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The NHL in Canada vs the Premier League in England
How many Premier League teams are there in London? I can think of at least 4 or 5, as well as many lower division clubs. London has about 8.5 mill in it’s metro area, Toronto has, what over 7? Pretty close in size. And Toronto, like London, is a city that is absolutely crazy about a sport. Toronto is one of the corporate mega centers of a country, many of those who would be willing to throw mucho-dinero to advertise on multiple teams. So why is it that Toronto has only 1 NHL team? To me this is madness. As a hockey fan (yes, even as an American hockey fan) I have a great time watching Canadian teams who are rivals play eachother. Toronto – Ottawa is always fun to watch, as the crowd is back and forth, much like it is fun to watch Arsenal – Chelsea on the FSC (or like with what I grew up with in Islanders Rangers. Ah, going to the Garden with my Isles gear on is so much fun). Could you imagine if Hamilton and Toronto played in a Conf. Championship? There would be bedlam. Sure, nobody in Arkansas would care, but who cares? I say put at LEAST 3 teams in the area.
It is in the best interests of the viability of the NHL over the long term to secure as many TRUE local rivalries as possible, because even when the game itself starts to slip, those rivalry games can hold the ship above water and keep the fans into it and the tickets selling. Hamilton would sell out probably every game anyway, but it would be almost an absolute guarantee anytime they play Toronto, Buffalo, hell even Detroit, Ottawa, etc as those fans make it into the building. That takes care of about a quarter of their schedule, for years to come.
by DanNOLA on May 10, 2009 4:51 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
This is something that a lot of Americans don’t appreciate about Canada, or many European countries for that matter. Toronto dominates Canada to a far greater extent than any city, even New York, dominates the US. It’s about a third the size of New York, in a country that has a tenth of the population of the US.
by J. Michael Neal on May 10, 2009 7:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The GTA (Greater Toronto Area for you Americans) holds nearly a quarter of Canada’s population. That’s like if you combined NYC metro with the Greater LA, the Chicago Metro Area, the Dallas Forth-Worth area and the Detroit area, which all together represent about 25% of America’s population… The importance of Toronto in regards to Canada, economically, is staggering.
All this to say that I can’t find any real reason not to have a second team in the GTA…
by Habs on May 10, 2009 11:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the visual. I knew Toronto and environs were large, but I didn’t know that the area held that large a proportion of the population.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on May 11, 2009 3:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is an amazing way of putting things.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on May 11, 2009 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, don’t downsize us…
I get the sense that there are a lot more people in this country than many in the U.S. think.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 11, 2009 7:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the idea of local rivalries.
Until this year when the Blackhawks got good enough to make the playoffs, their attendance was very bad – except when Detroit came to visit. A lot of the fans were Red Wings fans, but also there were Blackhawks fans who didn’t want to spend money to see a bad team play an opponent they were indifferent toward, but did want to see Chicago play a decent team. It isn’t quite local, but pretty close.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on May 10, 2009 8:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The League doesn’t create negative PR. It’s the hyper-critical fans and journalists who turn every positive into a negative, every plus into a minus. Most NHL fans and journalists hate Gary Bettman. They never give him the benefit of the doubt.
From what I can tell, NHL fans whine more about their sport, their commissioner, their lack of media coverage, than any other sport.
by auxlepli on May 10, 2009 10:18 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
That’s true in my opinion too, and I admit that I tend to be a part of the problem at times.
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on May 11, 2009 7:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
Have you ever heard baseball fans bitch about Selig, and traditional baseball media?
by Jibblescribbits on May 11, 2009 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hockey fans are better at it, though, and usually faster on the draw.
by JoshCVT on May 11, 2009 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree. How many derogatory nicknames have hockey fans come up with for Bettman, besides That ******* Moron?
Beelzebud (my personal favorite, the Lord of Fly Balls)
Seligula
Budzilla
Dozens more.
by J. Michael Neal on May 11, 2009 5:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Buttman seems to be gaining traction in these parts.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 11, 2009 7:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The league, by ignoring fans in this market, has certainly created some negative PR. Fans aren’t being hypercritical when they simply say they want to be able to attend games.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 11, 2009 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A vast majority of the bad PR isn’t stemming from fans feeling underserved, it’s the Canadian sports media playing the “It’s OUR game” card at the drop of a hat.
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on May 11, 2009 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sure blame the media. That effin Dave Shoalts and his made up articles about the state of the Coyotes finances.
by yrmom on May 11, 2009 6:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last time I checked, it wasn’t underserved GTA fans starting the Makeitseven campaign or selling Predators tickets in Hamilton, it was Balsillie who used the media as a spring-board for his Canada-centric propaganda machine.
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on May 11, 2009 9:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I haven’t seen any articles stating “it’s our game.” Maybe I stay away from the sources you’re checking out.
Bad PR is bad public relations. Not media relations. The public is steaming mad here, and it’s all over every hockey forum you can think of. The Balsillie stories at globesports.com have been the most popular ones all week.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 11, 2009 7:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How much of it is sensationalized to sell papers though? My understanding is that Balsillie is being portrayed (or at least attempting to be portrayed) as some kind of Canadian white knight, even though he’s had one deal in Pittsburg turn sour, sold tickets to a fictional team after promising not to move Nashville, and is now taking the NHL to court because he doesn’t have the patience to do things the league’s way. He’s largely trying to screw the NHL out of millions by back-dooring his way into the league, but all of his proponents are only talking about how he’s “good for the league”. I just think they’re juggling a double-edged sword.
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on May 11, 2009 9:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Find me an example of sensationalism and we’ll discuss it. I work in the media here and I’d say the majority of the coverage has been fair.
The fact is, because of the Leafs’ influence, the league has essentially stated it has no interest in another team in Southern Ontario. It doesn’t help expand the league’s footprint and build U.S. television audiences, the unserved fan base be damned.
The only reason this is being discussed at all is Balsillie keeps pursuing teams any way he can. And fans are eating it up.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 11, 2009 11:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This ends when the other owners get fed up with letting MLSE monopolize the cash cow. Somewhere down the line, that will happen. As you’ve pointed out, the imbalances in the revenue streams are just too great.
In the long run, my guess is that Ballsillie will never get his team, but that his actions push the league towards getting another franchise in the Toronto/Southern Ontario area. When that happens, expect Ballsillie to write his memoirs claiming that he’s responsible for it finally coming true.
by J. Michael Neal on May 12, 2009 2:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s growing bitterness in Toronto over the fact that the league has become all but inaccessible for everyone but the wealthy elite and the business community, and that could have long-term effects on the fan base in this part of North America.
The fact is that the vast majority of kids are growing up in this city without ever having the opportunity to attend an NHL game, and I wonder if at some point that’ll turn a generation off the sport entirely.
This is an interesting point. While hockey does occupy a hallowed place here in the GTA, there are a lot more sporting options available these days — the NBA and MLS have growing fan support, and those games are much much cheaper to play than hockey. Also, the GTA is growing by leaps and bounds, and most of the people coming in are immigrants from places that have no hockey tradition. Toronto’s population is nearly 50% foreign-born - the NHL just CAN’T take it for granted that their children are going to pick up hockey sticks. Between demographic changes, the Leafs’ eternal crappiness and their inaccessible tickets, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see the GTA’s hockey fanbase eroding in the years to come. This is why you see Hockey Night in Canada broadcasting playoff games in Punjabi, Mandarin and Cantonese these days - the market is changing, and the NHL has to adapt to it. If these people have never seen (and have no chance of seeing) what you’re selling, how will they ever buy it?
by mogo on May 13, 2009 12:53 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Exactly. I didn’t get into the demographics of the city, but that’s a big part of it, and I look at all of the young baseball, soccer and basketball fans that the other pro teams are drawing here and really wonder. People are turning elsewhere with their entertainment dollar.
Heck, even I’m going to baseball games instead of NHL games.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 13, 2009 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
oops.. somehow a lot of that got crossed out unintentionally.
by mogo on May 13, 2009 12:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on From The Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Blog extras
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
