The Vegas option
by James Mirtle on May 16, 2009 6:00 AM CDT
140 comments
The latest leak out of the fiasco in Phoenix has a big-time Hollywood name attached to it, one we've heard mentioned whenever the next great wave of NHL expansion is brought up.
Jerry Bruckheimer, celebrity puckhead.
Here's David Shoalts, who presents word of a scenario of a negotiated-for "out clause" that would spring the team from Arizona if it continued to struggle:
... if attendance in Glendale follows the pattern that reportedly cost Moyes more than $300-million and put the team into bankruptcy court, within two years it will be ready to move. That could happen either through another bankruptcy proceeding or by revoking the franchise and granting a new one.
Presto, the source said, a team turns up in Las Vegas with Bruckheimer at the controls — which is what many in the NHL would like to see anyway. The current problems building a suitable arena in Las Vegas presumably would have been solved in the two years the Coyotes were dying in the desert.
The NHL has made a pretty frank denial — the words "comical" and "totally untrue" were used — but I doubt it much matters given previous such protestations turned out to be grossly misleading.
I don't doubt Bruckheimer's been sought out in this situation — in fact, given recent history and the AEG/Boots funny business with the Predators, this sounds about right — but I do wonder why Jerry Reinsdorf's being used as an intermediary and if he ultimately feels comfortable doing so.
I sure wouldn't.
In recent times, the NHL has taken a rosier approach to looking at Vegas than, say I don't know, a seventh Canadian franchise.
Yesterday, Bettman on a move to Southern Ontario:
“It’s not anything we’ve looked at, and before you make a decision that will involve hundreds of millions of dollars, that is something that is going to have to be studied. It’s the reason we have relocation procedures.”
On a move to Vegas in the fall of 2007:
"We’re small potatoes on the sports book. If we were going to Vegas, we would have to focus on that issue. But I don’t think it’s nearly the issue for us as it may be for [another league]."
Tiny taters with the bookies? Well then, giddy up.
As an aside: If the NHL's leadership and board of governors are hellbent on choosing substandard American locales and hopping from to place to place, I suppose that's their prerogative.
But what I wonder is, why not, at the very least, come clean and admit failure in some instances? Massively successful leagues like the NFL have had plenty of relocations and have been stronger as a result, so why then is there this dire need to preserve every step of the 1990s expansion footprint, however diseased some may become? Some of the NHL's newer markets, in the face of a lot of skepticism, have done exceptionally well, but a handful haven't, and in these economic climes, there will be failures. Phoenix will not be the last team to go down this path (although hopefully nothing in the future is quite as ugly as this).
If they haven't looked into it yet, it's time to study up on Southern Ontario, because I have a feeling that's a market they'll be knocking on the door of within the next five years.
And Vegas? Sure, them too. A lot of studying to be done there.
Paul Kelly of the NHLPA, a surprisingly sane voice of reason in all of this, gets the final word.
0 recs |
140 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
The NHL has made a pretty frank denial — the words “comical” and “totally untrue” were used — but I doubt it much matters given previous such protestations turned out to be grossly misleading.
So, the scenario is pretty close to dead on correct, I’m thinking. :)
The more I think about the southern Ontario thing, the more I don’t think Toronto has anything to worry about. A second franchise (or a third, for that matter) in the general area would not have the name recognition, tradition, inertia, or generational loyalty of the Toronto Maple Leafs. They would be second banana, but being second banana in such a rich territory would be better than being the only show in a very poor territory. There are so many hockey fans in the area that there are likely to be those uncommitted to the Leafs, or at least willing to watch another team, that it would be worthwhile. If a team looked at just the hockey interest in (for example) Detroit, and thought that might be a good place to move to, I doubt that would work nearly as well because they would be so disadvantaged from the start by the record of success and the long history the Red Wings have. It isn’t just how many hockey fans there are – it’s how many hockey fans are uncommitted to the current team, and I think that would actually limit movement into other territories because the existing team would have to be extremely vulnerable, or there would have to be so many excess fans that it wouldn’t matter how strong the existing team was, because the crumbs left behind would be better than the entire meal available in another location.
It reminds me of the polygyny threshold model in red-winged blackbirds, actually. :)
"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 16, 2009 7:35 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
(Basically, the polygyny threshold model involves a trade-off between status (only female mating with a male, or one of several females in the territory of a single male) and habitat quality. There is a point at which the quality of habitat is so high that even sharing with other females provides more resources, and greater reproductive success, than being the only female in a poorer quality habitat. If the Phoenix Coyotes were a female red-winged blackbird that just migrated north and is looking to mate, and the two breeding territories she has to choose from are Phoenix and Toronto, she would need to decide whether to be the only mate of the male holding the Phoenix territory or the second mate of the male holding the Toronto territory, and choose which would provide her the most resources (food, water, shelter) to best be able to raise her young and have the greatest probability of reproductive success.)
I don’t want to ramble about ecology, but the parallels really are interesting – to me, anyway. But I’m a nerd.
"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 16, 2009 7:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
youre the man, Baroque
Check out my hockey blog!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Catch the Wings/Ducks coverage over at CycleLikeSedins!
http://wingsvducks.blogspot.com/
by IAmJoe on May 16, 2009 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is a lot of interesting and fun stuff to think about, but I am not sure about the analogy.
It appears to make two significant assumptions:
1) Number of hockey fans in southern Ontario = number of hockey fans in southern Ontario who can afford an NHL game.
Not only do I think the latter number is enormously lower, but I am not even sure one is a function of the other.
2) It fails to recognize that business, much more so than nature, is imperfect and the actions of the involved parties are more a result of guesses and chances being taken. If a bird comes here and the mating thing doesn’t work out, there is presumably still an opportunity to go elsewhere. THe bird doesn’t blow hundreds of millions of pounds of birdseed building a nest and then waiting it out for five years. Also, if that bird doesn’t mate and have to move elsewhere, it doesn’t reflect badly on the other birds still trying to fly around in other areas. Further, none of the mating/non-mating in Ontario has anything to do with the ability of the other birds trying to mate in their own market with the fans of said bird.
by Gerald on May 16, 2009 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Number of hockey fans in southern Ontario = number of hockey fans in southern Ontario who can afford an NHL game.
This is untrue, and completely irrelvant. Not every hockey fan can afford to go to a game, in ANY market. Thats part of the problem with Toronto now, is that number of hockey fans who can afford a game = near-0. No one has to assume that people can fill the arena. The important thing is that the tickets are paid for in some way. Part of the problem for the Leafs is that almost every seat in the arena is owned by some business. If no one showed up to a Maple Leafs game, but every seat was paid for, it would be creepy, but the only thing MLSE loses out on is concessions/parking, but they don’t have to pay for people for these or for cleanup. It would not hurt the team much financially for such a thing to happen. The question is, can Hamilton get that kind of support? Through local businesses, local fans, whatever, as long as some entity is able to pay for the seat, even if they don’t use it, then Hamilton is a success. Especially if the team is more competitive than the Leafs, this is almost certainly a yes. Even if they’re not as good as the Leafs, they’ll still probably be ok. Better than Phoenix, for sure.
Check out my hockey blog!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Catch the Wings/Ducks coverage over at CycleLikeSedins!
http://wingsvducks.blogspot.com/
by IAmJoe on May 16, 2009 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not sure what you are driving at, Joe, or what you think I was driving at, since your post didn’t address it.
My point had nothing to do with who actually attends games or whether or not tickets are used. That did not bear even remotely on my post..
I was more pointing out the fact that, while there is a general clamouring of people for a second hockey team in southern Ontario, it is a huge jump to assume that said interest has anything to do with ticket-buying. I am convinced that a great many people who are yelling the loudest for a team in Hamilton would not be able to actually afford a ticket, much less $5-8 grand for a season ticket, and those that could afford a ticket MIGHT be able to afford one or two a year at most. That was my point; one can talk about hockey interest in SO all one wants, but the only “interest” of relevance is from those with the means to buy.
by Gerald on May 16, 2009 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That consideration of “interest” does apply to every market, though, as you properly suggest.
by Gerald on May 16, 2009 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am convinced that a great many people who are yelling the loudest for a team in Hamilton would not be able to actually afford a ticket, much less $5-8 grand for a season ticket, and those that could afford a ticket MIGHT be able to afford one or two a year at most.
For a guy who has been challenging others to defend their assertions, I’d like to know how you’ve arrived at this conviction.
by hockeycountry on May 16, 2009 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m trying to figure out how he can assert this at the same time that he’s asserting that the right to put a franchise in southern Ontario is an incredibly valuable asset that the NHL won’t give away for free.
by J. Michael Neal on May 16, 2009 8:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To Michael:
The right to put a franchise in southern Ontario is valuable. The right to put a team in Hamilton – not nearly as valuable.
Secondly, rather than put all of your own meaning into my words, you might try reading carefully. Whether or not a franchise would be incredibly valuable has nothing to do with the fact that “a great many people would not be able to actually afford a ticket …”. Both are easily true.
Haven’t you had enough?
by Gerald on May 16, 2009 10:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only way in which the statement, “a great many people would not be able to afford a ticket” has any relevance to the situation is if it means that the franchise isn’t very valuable. If the franchise is valuable anyway, then it’s going to make money there. The only way it can make money is if the tickets are purchased at NHL prices. If the tickets are purchased at NHL prices, how many people can or can’t afford to buy them has no bearing on the viability of the team.
The only way all of your statements can be true is if at least one of them is unimportant. In which case, why are you bringing it up?
by J. Michael Neal on May 16, 2009 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. Prices of NHL tickets in this marketplace.
2. Income distributions.
by Gerald on May 16, 2009 10:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a variation on, “No one goes there anymore; it’s too crowded.”
by J. Michael Neal on May 16, 2009 10:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really. This is a version of Michael saying “if I can pretend that Gerald is saying what I want him to say instead of what he actually is saying, i might actually win an argument, and winning it would validate me.”
by Gerald on May 16, 2009 10:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really? So, when you said that most people wouldn’t be able to afford a ticket, you knew perfectly well that your comment had no bearing on whether the franchise would sell enough tickets to be valuable?
by J. Michael Neal on May 16, 2009 10:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again with trying to win an argument by effectively placing your own words in the other person’s mouth and ascribing motives and knowledge that are not inferred from the other person. Is that the ONLY way that you can proceed? It is more than tiresome, particularly given the fact that, every time you do so, you get it abjectly wrong.
Try it from the top:
1. A great many people are clamouring for a 2nd franchise to be placed in southern Ontario.
2. Commentators and those people themselves are taking this outpouring of public support as evidence in and of itself that such a franchise would be successful.
3. Those mentioned in #2 seem to automatically infer that, because these people are clamouring, they would be purchasers of NHL tickets, which is a key measure of financial success of the franchise (since, without financial support, the endeavour would be doomed).
4. NHL tickets are, even in unsuccessful markets where some cheap tickets are available, by and large a costly purchase. There are a great many people who cannot afford even a $40 ticket.
5. Since there are assumptions by the very same people in #2 that the franchise will be a resounding financial success, that almost necessarily entails the assumption that the tickets will be grossly more expensive. This assumption would place tickets even further out of the realm of many people, particularly that political subset known as “working families”.
6. If the tickets are no so exorbitantly priced as to make the 2nd NHL team a slam dunk, then the team will not be the ravingf success that the people in #2 think it will be.
So you see, what I am trying to say (al;beit not very efficiently) is that there is a contradiction in the view of those people. IF the team is a raging success, it will be because tickets are at Leaf-ish levels, which puts them outside the range of most folks who are yammering now. If the tickets are so lowly priced as to make the opinions of those scads of people meaningful in an NHL business context, then the team will not be a raging success.
So, if the team is going to be valuable, then who gives two craps about the clamouring? Most of those people matter very little economically.
So, your statement “The only way in which the statement, "a great many people would not be able to afford a ticket" has any relevance to the situation is if it means that the franchise isn’t very valuable” is comepletely beside the point, and factually inaccurate to boot.
by Gerald on May 17, 2009 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Coles notes version to hewlp you with your comprehension, Michael:
The supposed avalanche of online and verbal support has “no bearing on whether the franchise would sell enough tickets to be valuable”.
by Gerald on May 17, 2009 12:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think this explanation clarifies your point very well – at least to me.
One thing to note is that last year, when JB was about to purchase and move the Nashville Predators to Hamilton, he started selling season tickets – at a price we have to assume was sufficient for the franchise to be successful.
On June 14, 2007 Balsillie started to accept season ticket deposits for the Hamilton Predators through Ticketmaster. He collected more than seven thousand deposits on the first day of the campaign, and within days had capped deposits for luxury boxes at 80. By June 19 Balsillie was believed to have 12,000 deposits for season tickets in Hamilton, far exceeding the Predators’ current season ticket base. Balsillie is said to have done this to show the NHL board of Governors that Hamilton is a viable NHL market.
That alone would tend to indicate this potential franchise has a decent enough chance to be successful. Granted it is not a real legitimate feasibility study, but it’s better than nothing. And it also shows that there’s a good chance it would be better than it is in Phoenix.
by Habs on May 17, 2009 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not exactly. He was taking deposits on tickets which were not yet priced (to say nothing of taking deposits on suites that did not yet exist).
by Gerald on May 17, 2009 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn’t matter that the suites didn’t exist yet, it’s besides the point. The point is that there were enough companies willing to put down a deposit on luxury boxes (which would have existed anyway, had the sale gone through) to warrant capping it.
Probably that the final prices were not known yet, but a price range must have been provided for this amount of people to plunk down cash deposits on tickets and boxes. No one puts down a deposit with promise to buy on something for which the price is not known.
The fact that 12 000 people were willing to financially commit to buying season tickets, and provide a cash deposit to back it up, is a very strong indication that the team would have a good chance at being successful.
by Habs on May 17, 2009 6:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I recall correctly, at least on the ticket side of things there was no range of ticket prices provided. You were simply plunking down a small amount of cash in order to get first shot at being able to decide whether you could afford the eventual ticket price.
The corporations that plunked cash down might have been in the same situation.
It’s not that surprising. People were plunking down cash to get first crack at the tickets. There was no commitment to buy the full tickets when they came on sale.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on May 19, 2009 9:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are correct, PPP. When it was going on, i actually checked into it first hand. No ranges were provided for either type.
by Gerald on May 19, 2009 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is your arguent that the Leafs are the only raging success in the NHL? If so, then I would think that your conclusion would be that Phoenix is doomed. If not, you’re still going on irrelevantly.
In fact, my contention is that there is a very wide range between “very successful” and “Toronto Maple Leafs.” If you have a lot of people clamoring to buy tickets, it’s a pretty good indication that you’ll be able to sell a bunch of them for decent prices. If nothing else, it beats trying to run a team in a place where there aren’t large numbers of fans clamoring to buy tickets. Can you explain to me a single thing about southern Ontario as a market that makes you skeptical of a team’s ability to be a success that is not even more true of Phoenix?
by J. Michael Neal on May 17, 2009 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No. It is not my argument. If you are going to keep suggesting that I am “going on irrelevantly”, though, our discourse will be either terminated or much less civil. In other words, stop trying to bait me.
Single thing #1:
1. In my opinion, Hamilton has zero corporate base.
Single thing #2:
2. I have significant doubts that Toronto companies (beyond those in westernmost Mississauga) will buy suites or club seats to entertain clients when such entertainment will entail 3 hour roundtrips (90 mins each way) of travel time – hockey game or not.
Single thing #3:
3. Without that lucrative downtown TO corporate base, the corporate base for big ticket items shrinks significantly.
by Gerald on May 17, 2009 6:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, how is it better in Phoenix? What sort of corporate support are they getting?
by J. Michael Neal on May 17, 2009 6:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have some figures. It depends on what you are asking. Ask a specific question, and i might have the data.
by Gerald on May 19, 2009 7:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As for being civil, it’s taken both of us to get here. The difference is that I’m not trying to pretend that I’ve been particularly well behaved. If civility is a make or break issue for you, I’d suggest starting at home.
by J. Michael Neal on May 17, 2009 6:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Point taken. i WAS trying a different, more civil tack with you, but i sensed a step back. I will try again.
by Gerald on May 19, 2009 7:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
where'd you get
90 mins toronto-hamilton?
by passive_voice on May 18, 2009 1:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably by actually driving down the QEW during rush hour on any week day.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on May 19, 2009 9:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ah
well, teams don’t play at 5pm for a reason.
by passive_voice on May 19, 2009 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
no, but if they play at 7, and you live a little ways away, gotta walk from the parking lot, and you wanna get there with time to grab a beer before puck drop…
Check out my hockey blog!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Catch the Wings/Ducks coverage over at CycleLikeSedins!
http://wingsvducks.blogspot.com/
by IAmJoe on May 19, 2009 11:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
They play at 730 and traffic is still really heavy around 7pm.
I don’t know that it’ll be a 90 minute drive back into the city but it’ll be hell to get out of the parking lot since most people will drive. I would imagine that it would be worse than getting to the Corel Centre in Ottawa and that’s saying something.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on May 19, 2009 11:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would be, you’re right. Hamilton’s not ideal, but the team would still do well given the demand around here.
It’d be much better to put a team in downtown or even midtown Toronto, but I’m not sure that’s realistic. Hopefully it happens within my lifetime.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 19, 2009 11:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Balsillie has already lined up two corporate sponsors – Molson’s and Home Hardware.
I haven’t taken the time to look up Stats Canada figures on income distribution and entertainment spending (they are online – just took too long to load). I am sure there are numbers about corporations available.
I highly expect that JB has not based his entire strategy on the the overexcited uproar from the low-income masses (my interpretation of your comments). There’s been some research by some highly qualified individuals to convince him that this is viable. The online campaign is simply part of a strategy to out the NHL and Bettman; it is not the basis of his decision to invest. I also expect that the NHL is smart enough (ok – maybe that’s a stretch) to have also worked up the numbers; they too know what the makeitseven.com campaign is all about.
This is a battle of competing business plans for the NHL.
by hockeycountry on May 18, 2009 8:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn’t it Labatt, not Molson?
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on May 18, 2009 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
oops – I know it’s some beer outfit.
by hockeycountry on May 18, 2009 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
People can’t afford Leafs tickets either, but they’re still leading the NHL in revenue, even when they suck. Given the fact that MLSE can jack prices for a failure of a team up to insane levels, and the appetite remains insatiable, that would seem to be some of the best anecdotal evidence one could provide to make the case for another team in Southern Ontario. Balsillie attempted to quantify this support before by trying to sell season tickets for a team he didn’t even own yet, and was vilified for it.
Ideally, the NHL does some nice feasibility studies and stuff and collects up front money for season tickets, sponsorship, etc. etc. etc. before a team gets to Ontario. If we were talking about an expansion franchise, this would be the ideal strategy. However, the luxury of being able to take time and make fancy graphs and big studies kind of goes out the window when you’re trying to keep a franchise afloat, and its definitely sinking. I would say the anecdotal evidence in favor of a team in Ontario is good enough for me. Hey, maybe everyone in Ontario is fiercely loyal to the Leafs and will never spend a cent on another team that moves into their area. But somehow, I doubt that.
Check out my hockey blog!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Catch the Wings/Ducks coverage over at CycleLikeSedins!
http://wingsvducks.blogspot.com/
by IAmJoe on May 16, 2009 10:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
All fair points, Joe, and they have been made countless times.
However, as to your statement that “the anecdotal evidence in favor of a team in Ontario is good enough for me”:
a) it’s not your money, and
b) that franchise location is not your asset.
In my view, that always makes decisions much easier when one does not have a personal financial stake. I think we can all agree on that.
by Gerald on May 16, 2009 10:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
a) It is ballsillie’s money, and he seems willing to spend it, and
b) that franchise location still isn’t an asset.
It’s kind of amusing that you get all worked up that I’m not a lawyer, but offer opinions on the law anyway, and yet opine on the subject in which I am a professional in the same way. It’s not an asset. The NHL doesn’t own anything like the exclusive right to put franchises anywhere.
by J. Michael Neal on May 16, 2009 11:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting you should say that, as the NHL (and all other sports leagues) expressly take the opposing view. You might be interested to know that the NHL has taken that specific view in its pleadings, and cites extensive case law to that effect. They even call it an “asset” (I guess I am prescient, huh).
It is also implicit in the consent agreement that every owner signs. The only asset they receive in regards to location is the right to operate within a certain jurisdiction. Since the NHL is the only grantor of NHL franchises in the world, there is no other owner of non-granted NHL territory than the NHL. It is baffling how you do not see this. I can only assume that at this point you are disagreeing for its own sake.
I already granted that it is not an asset in the sense of the balance sheet. It is exactly that (an asset) in every other sense of the word. It might surprise you to know, michael, that there is an accounting definition of certain words in the english language and a colloquial sense, and even (in this context) a legal sense.
by Gerald on May 17, 2009 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t care what the NHL calls it; they don’t have any more credibility than you do. They do not own anything in regards to franchise locations. They have no legal right to put a franchise anywhere, so they don’t have an asset.
In your second paragraph, you do a very good job of summarizing why the 9th Circuit held against the NFL. Since the NHL is the only grantor of NHL franchises, it’s a monopoly, and the exercise of that power is illegal. I’m still waiting for you to explain how the 9th Circuit held anything else.
As for your third paragraph, again, I point out that you are all for amateur analysis when it comes to someone else’s profession. Professional sneering is good as long as you are doing it, apparently.
Please, explain this definition of an asset that does not involve a legal right.
by J. Michael Neal on May 17, 2009 5:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you high or something? “They have no legal right to put a franchise anywhere”?
The NHL is the only party who grants NHL franchises.
Again, you have Raiders wrong. Raiders held that the NFL is not a single entity, and accordingly the relevant provisions of their constitution were subject to the rule of reason. In that case, it did not pass muster.
You probably want to do a little more research on the “illegality” of monopolies, by the way. You don’t have it right.
by Gerald on May 17, 2009 6:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re absolutely right. Its not my risk to take. Its also not mine to decide, so I don’t need as much evidence to make me think it might be a good idea. I would want to do some more research before I made a such a huge personal investment. But I don’t need as much evidence to convince me that you should make the same investment, because what you do with your money doesn’t really have an impact on me.
However, there is firm evidence in the form of ongoing losses that Phoenix has taken over their existence to show that perhaps Phoenix is not the best place for this team. Maybe they could have a team in the future. But this team, as it is, in this climate, does not appear to be a fit for Phoenix. There is almost no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that this franchise will work any better in KC or Las Vegas. But there is tons of anecdotal evidence to support the idea that this franchise will succeed in the Toronto area. Based on this alone, before any other feasibility studies, before deposits on season tickets for the Hamilton Coyotes are taken, before any of that, which all doesn’t exist right now, I’m taking Ontario. To me, it looks like choosing between a negative, two complete unknowns, with plenty of questions and even some evidence to show them as negatives, and a somewhat likely positive. I’ll take the positive, because it has the safest and best chance of working out.
Maybe I, individually do not know enough of the situation to be able to make this decision properly. But a lot of other people who should know more about the situation than me also seem to feel the same. That reinforces my opinion. Maybe its wrong, and Toronto can’t/won’t handle another franchise. But I would bet that they could.
Check out my hockey blog!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Catch the Wings/Ducks coverage over at CycleLikeSedins!
http://wingsvducks.blogspot.com/
by IAmJoe on May 16, 2009 11:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure but...
People can’t afford Leafs tickets either, but they’re still leading the NHL in revenue, even when they suck. Given the fact that MLSE can jack prices for a failure of a team up to insane levels, and the appetite remains insatiable, that would seem to be some of the best anecdotal evidence one could provide to make the case for another team in Southern Ontario.
Don’t confuse loyalty to an 80 year old franchise (even older under other names) with ticket demand for a new team in the area. IMHO, whether they are successful during the honeymoon period will determine if the team is successful long-term…if they even make it to Hamilton.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on May 19, 2009 9:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Point
I think this is a good point, but expands to well outside the Hamilton/greater TO area.
One of the things that bothers me in this entire debate, is the assumption that just plopping a franchise in a Canadian city is a guaranteed sellout 41 times a season, no matter how big the city is or how competitive it is.
In 2001 Edmonton had 92.7% attendance, or 15,600 fans a game, and Calgary had 86.1% attendance, or 16622 fans/game. In fact Calgary stayed in the 15-16k/game and in the 80% until 2006. Not coincidentally, Calgary made the playoffs in 2006. And Calgary is an established team with a passionate fanbase.
People aren’t going to come out and see on-ice garbage, no matter how passionate they are. If it’s that bad they will watch on TV from home, and that’s true no matter what franchise moves.
The reason Phoenix is such an attractive relocation franchise is that they are really on the verge of breaking out. They have a quality lineup and some very good young players making their mark. They probably should have made the playoffs.
by Jibblescribbits on May 19, 2009 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are really only two franchises in the league that don’t fall under that same umbrella in terms of fan support and it’s the Leafs and the Canadiens. The latter has run into corporate support problems in each of the past two recessions though so even that is not guaranteed.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on May 19, 2009 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
which is why the “It’s a sun-belt” thing is fundamentally absurd. Franchises across all sports, cities, and geographies have trouble with finances and attendance when they consistently put out a sub-standard on-field/ice product. The only markets that have been immune to this have been franchises in cities with enough population & desire to overcome the crappy product. (i.e Boston, New York-baseball, Toronto, Montreal -hockey etc).
For god’s sake NFL teams don’t sell-out when they are bad, and that’s only 8 home games a season, and this country is NFL-mad.
by Jibblescribbits on May 19, 2009 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, teams have trouble with finances if they struggle, sure, but not to the extent the Coyotes are struggling. There aren’t many NHL markets that would lose $40-million in a season regardless of on-ice performance.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 19, 2009 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, having said that the revenue sharing money from the league is, in an important sense, losses on the part of the Coyotes, I’d really like to see the books here. The amount of accounting shenanigans that go on running sports teams is truly amazing. It says something about my view of the NHL that I’m prepared to accept that teams are losing money at all. I don’t buy that from any MLB owner. (The NFL doesn’t claim it, and I don’t know jack about basketball.)
Clearly, money has been disappearing in Glendale, but I’d love to know exactly where it’s disappearing to. My guess is that the financial statements would show significantly less than a $40 million loss from operations. That figure would not include debt service and would include the payments from the league office. There are a variety of different figures one could use for how much money a sports team is “really” “making,” and all of them are perfectly legitimate in one way or another, and misleading in at least as many ways.
by J. Michael Neal on May 19, 2009 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Debt servicing.
Well, we know for sure that the Coyotes are still paying down the arena build. There is also a rumor of some language or clause that forces the Coyotes to pay for a portion of the Westgate build. Factor in as well Gretzky’s salary, then paying Glendale for parking without recouping losses via a parking surcharge…
I’d be really curious to see how much the Coyotes are losing WITHOUT all of that. The Coyotes also lost money thanks to a poor lease at US Airways Center (formerly America West Arena) due to payments to the Phoenix Suns. Seems to me that this franchise has been paying all sorts of stupid money out for one thing or another that goes above and beyond normal operations…
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 19, 2009 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i have a lot of that info from the court filings. I can give you a half-decent explanation, if you want.
by Gerald on May 19, 2009 7:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could you explain how...
an attorney can tell the judge to, “suck an egg” and not be jailed for contempt?
This whole conference call is out of order.
by TD O'Dell on May 19, 2009 8:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My only point is that the team is losing money because of really poor management, not because “Phoenix isn’t a hockey market”
by Jibblescribbits on May 19, 2009 5:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s some of both, actually. It’s hard to have management worse than the Blackhawks had for a long time, but they were never in danger of going bankrupt.
by J. Michael Neal on May 19, 2009 9:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How long did the Chicago have the Blackhawks before they “hit the skids” with that awful management?
How many playoff runs did the team make before it became a bottom-feeder?
You simply can’t compare an Original Six franchise in a hockey market with 83 years of doing business and three Stanley Cups with what is in essence an expansion team in a new market that’s been in two different cities in 12 years. And I say “new market” instead of “unsuitable market” because, in my mind, nobody has proven conclusively that this market cannot support hockey by the same criteria as other markets are judged.
I’m also pretty certain that the Blackhawks’ lease with the United Center is in no way, shape or form as awful in terms of ancillary payments and debt servicing as Phoenix’s with Glendale.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 19, 2009 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This
The Blackhawks weren’t in danger of going bankrupt because Dollar Bill ran things differently than any normal human would. He made profits by paying little to nothing for players and cutting cost corners at every turn.
With a salary floor (and different stadium deals etc) That isn’t nearly the same type of mismanagement as in Phoenix.
by Jibblescribbits on May 19, 2009 10:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
nobody thinks that and you know it
nobody’s advocating putting a team in halifax or victoria. there’re half a mill in hamilton, and of course like 5m within a short drive. downtown t-dot would be better, but hamilton will be a top-10 revenue team.
by passive_voice on May 19, 2009 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let them move a few teams over to europe ;)
by Tommelot on May 16, 2009 8:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
If they can convince six of the more troubled owners to sell or relocate, they could add two expansion teams and have three North American divisions (8 teams each) and one European division (8 teams). Especially if they can put Phoenix in a two-year holding pattern this could make sense. In terms of growing league revenues, expanding to Europe has always seemed like a no-brainer to me. Travel costs would rise but you would gain a European TV contract and a tonne of merchandise sales.
If they just end up moving Phoenix, Houston seems like the best choice. No realignment, natural rivalry (Dallas), previous interest in an NHL team, real interest in hockey (the Aeros have been very successful at the gate) and it stays with the game plan of moving to big Southern markets. It’s baffling to me that Houston doesn’t come up more often.
by Scott Reynolds on May 16, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Houston doesn't come up...
…because it’s an American sunbelt market. And Bettman has his eye on Vegas if any team is going to be moved on his watch.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 16, 2009 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But Scott’s point is, that’s precisely why it should come up. It’s an American sunbelt market, it’s big, and it has a decent history with the game (the Aeros were one of the more solvent WHA teams until they couldn’t afford the Howes anymore, and the AHL version is doing pretty well), which is precisely why it really should pique Bettman’s interest. Hell, it almost became an NHL market about ten years ago with the Oilers almost moving. I’d rather see a team in Houston than Vegas or KC, because I think it’d have more of a chance there.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on May 16, 2009 6:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Granted, but...
…there is no LOBBY to get a Houston team. The only lobbies right now are the NHL itself (Bettman & Co.) who want to do what they want to do (whatever the hell that REALLY is), and Balsillie and a few million Canadian Robin Hoods who are rallying to steal from the poor to give to the rich.
I think Houston would be an awesome place for an expansion team.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 16, 2009 8:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
agree on houston
it’s so damn big and rich (more than 3x as big as Las Vegas), a well-marketed team could do a booming business.
my only concern with houston is that it may be reaching a bit of a saturation point, with the big three leagues plus an mls team already there. still, it’s 2.5x bigger than denver, which manages to support all 5—i think it’d be great.
by passive_voice on May 16, 2009 9:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you aren’t hucking a ball, many Texans just aren’t in to it; more than half would complain about how cold the stadium would be to make playable ice for half the season. And for what it’s worth, Houston has THE most boring downtown nightlife scene. It is a massive, unnavigable, bedroom community snooze-ola.
Now, as to the ice frauleins…the hockey goddess is from here.
Give me Vegas.
from the house that Red Jesus built
by bigonetimer on May 17, 2009 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A hockey team in Las Vegas...
…would make Phoenix look like… well… Canada.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 17, 2009 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Canada...
As criminally depressed as I am as a Mutts STH, I would rather the Coyotes go to Hamilton TODAY than even flirt with moving to Vegas or Kansas City.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 16, 2009 10:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
As a Sabres fan worried about Hamilton's effect on us
I’d rather have them in Toronto than Hamilton, that’s for sure.
Shut up when you're talking to me!
by Afino on May 16, 2009 11:34 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I really don’t think many Hamiltonians have Sabres season’s tickets … they draw more from the Niagara region, etc. And many of those people would likely still go to Buffalo if it was the cheaper option.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 16, 2009 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you are going to go for big bucks on an expansion to 32 teams, Las Vegas makes the most sense as a pair up with Toronto/Golden Horseshoe. Offer the teams at $300 million each, and every owner pockets $20 mil. Cha ching.
I love the idea of a team in Las Vegas – once the economy recovers a bit.
by Resolute on May 16, 2009 11:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
300M for a expansion franchise in southern ontario is far below market value, as was covered in one of the previous posts on this subject here. I think it was Mirtle who suggested a number closer to 600-800M as a total cost was probably more accurate. Could be wrong though.
Check out my hockey blog!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Catch the Wings/Ducks coverage over at CycleLikeSedins!
http://wingsvducks.blogspot.com/
by IAmJoe on May 16, 2009 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Las Vegas Arena Progress
From today’s Las Vegas Sun:
If the effort to build an arena in Las Vegas is, as many believe, largely a race to see who gets a shovel in the ground first, this week’s developments clearly left the city’s preferred developer in second place.In both timing and financial feasibility, the ambitious $10.5 billion downtown arena project proposed by REI Neon/Warburg Pincus now appears to be at a decided disadvantage relative to an arena plan by Anschutz Entertainment Group and Harrah’s Entertainment for a site just off the Strip.
While the AEG/Harrah’s plan remains on target for a 2010 opening, REI Neon’s request to the Las Vegas City Council for yet another time extension to negotiate a deal leaves the company trailing on the calendar. The council is to vote on that request next week.If REI Neon cannot complete its deal with the city by February the company could lose the rights to a separate 12-acre parcel which, if developed, could generate revenue to help pay for an arena. And that deadline is looking problematic, given that at least one property owner in the 85-acre site where the Michigan-based company plans to build said REI recently asked for a 16-month extension on its option to buy his land.
REI Neon spokesmen could not be reached for comment Tuesday, but there seemingly is little they could say to put a positive spin on the newest chapter in the arena saga.Although Mayor Oscar Goodman has said he believes the Las Vegas region is big enough and robust enough to absorb two arenas, most believe that, as long as the city lacks a major league sports franchise, only one arena, at most, will be built in the near future.
by Big Picture Guy on May 16, 2009 1:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Uhm, has anyone looked at the Vegas commercial real estate market lately?
by J. Michael Neal on May 16, 2009 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
It is time to buy.
from the house that Red Jesus built
by bigonetimer on May 17, 2009 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I vote Winnipeg, but it’s not on the list.
by chileiceman on May 16, 2009 3:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Winnipeg’s arena is too small, isn’t it? Besides, with Balsillie involved, it’s going to be Southern Ontario or bust.
I has good practice. Mike Grier keep shooting puck at me, and my confidence boosted very more. - "Evgeni Nabokov"
by Nael M. on May 16, 2009 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Winnipeg won’t get an NHL franchise. Not enough people, not enough money, etc. etc. Sorry.
Check out my hockey blog!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Catch the Wings/Ducks coverage over at CycleLikeSedins!
http://wingsvducks.blogspot.com/
by IAmJoe on May 16, 2009 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Winnipeg won’t get an NHL franchise. Not enough people, not enough money, etc. etc. Sorry.”
So, do you have anything to back that up or are you just pulling that claim out of your a$$? 700,000 people and another 200,000 within a hour and a half (or less) drive of the city isn’t enough? Why not look at average hockey fans by population not population alone. Phoenix might have millions of people, but I can guarantee you it doesn’t have more hockey fans. They love their football, baseball, basketball, and college sports way more than hockey. Just having a bunch of people in a place doesn’t make an NHL team work. Having a good population with a love of hockey who will support the team in a die-hard manner is what will result in success.
You also claim their isn’t enough money, but Winnipeg is one of the most affordable cities to live in North America and has some of the most affordable housing relative to it’s population. That means people have more money disposable income to spend on things like hockey and concert tickets. The MTS Centre is the 3rd busiest arena (for non-sports events) in Canada, and the 11th busiest arena in North America! So, for some reasons Winnipeggers are willing to step up and spend money to see all of the big acts that come to the city (Metallica, Nickelback [yes, they suck, but they’re big], Celine Dion, Justin Timberlake) but they’re not going to spend money to see the high-quality professional hockey of easily the most popular league in Canada?
Also, not to insult Hamilton, but it’s a steel and car city. Guess what? Those are two huge struggling parts of our economy. Winnipeg on the other hand has a much more stable economy with low unemployment and some actual growth.
I do honestly believe a second team in the Toronto area would be successful (and that the most successful place for a new Canadian team would be downtown Toronto). However, Winnipeg shouldn’t be discounted and insulted in the way it has been by many of the comments on this board. It would most definitely be a successful place for another Canadian NHL team. Make it 8, damn it!
MTS Centre stats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTS_Centre
Winnipeg Jets news: http://sports.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090516.wsptwpg16/GSStory/GlobeSportsHockey/home
by royal_ on May 16, 2009 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t forget what we spent the 90’s doing: propping up several small Canadian teams who had incredibly passionate fanbases, but did not have enough American dollars in income to keep themselves afloat very easily. Spending in the NHL is pretty close to where it was pre-lockout. Two things have helped make teams in these smaller Canadian markets do well. First of all, was a intentionally low cap, that cut spending across the league to a level the Canadian teams could compete with. Second was the Canadian dollar’s spike, which is since sliding. Sure, maybe the Canadian dollar stabilizes right alongside the American dollar. But historically speaking, its much more likely to slide back to where it was before.
This means that in say 5 years, spending in the NHL will likely be above where it was in the 90’s and even 00’s. Also, the Canadian dollar will likely be closer to its historical place compared to the American dollar. Winnipeg had trouble then, so whats going to keep that from being the case again? Or even becoming the case again to a team like Edmonton? In order to overcome those disadvantages (saying nothing of the more practical disadvantages, like how Edmonton can’t convince anyone to move to Siberia Edmonton), you need a larger population base, like Montreal or Toronto can draw from, to help make up the difference.
At this point in time, there seems to be very little to indicate that these historical disadvantages can be overcome. Putting a team in Winnipeg again, just to lose it again, would probably hurt hockey more than it helps it. If the league is put into the position again of having to help prop up some Canadian franchises, while at the same time having to give revenue sharing to other franchises throughout the league, running the well dry becomes a serious concern.
Check out my hockey blog!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Catch the Wings/Ducks coverage over at CycleLikeSedins!
http://wingsvducks.blogspot.com/
by IAmJoe on May 16, 2009 10:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
1) I don’t anticipate the Canadian dollar sliding back to where it was ten years ago. For a variety of reasons, the US dollar was artificially high against pretty much every currency in the world. The question now is whether it’s once again overvalued against every currency in the world, or only against a basket of Asian currencies. My guess is that the US$/Cd$ rate stays fairly close to where it is now, going forward.
2) When you say that spending is where it was pre-lockout, is that nominal dollars, or real dollars?
by J. Michael Neal on May 16, 2009 10:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
1) I don’t anticipate the Canadian dollar sliding back to where it was ten years ago. For a variety of reasons, the US dollar was artificially high against pretty much every currency in the world. The question now is whether it’s once again overvalued against every currency in the world, or only against a basket of Asian currencies. My guess is that the US$/Cd$ rate stays fairly close to where it is now, going forward.
You may be right. You may be wrong. Frankly, I don’t know. I’m not that much of an expert on international finance. But we agree that its still going to be less than the American dollar, which is the only dollar that matters in the NHL books. The problem probably won’t be as bad as it was in the 90’s. But the problem will exist, to some extent. And franchises like Edmonton or Winnipeg have enough disadvantages, that when another problem crops up, each individual problem becomes larger than it would be to a franchise that has relatively few such disadvantages. I would be extremely uneasy about sticking another team in Canada outside of Montreal/Toronto until more time is passed and we have a more stable and longer timeline at which to look at, to determine the viability of future franchises in areas like Winnipeg. Right now, everyone loves to remind you how profitable the Canadian franchises have been since the lockout, but that is short term thinking, and the existence of a franchise isnt (or shouldnt be) a short term thing.
2) When you say that spending is where it was pre-lockout, is that nominal dollars, or real dollars?
Well, honestly, I’m not entirely sure what you mean.
What I mean is that, without actually looking at numbers and breaking them down and calculating it all out, I’m guessing on what I remember from reading similar things and on my own logic that player payroll now (what a club spends on players for a year) is close to what it was pre-lockout. The problem before was that some Canadian franchises couldn’t afford to keep up with the cost of icing a team. If the cost is the same now, after a couple years of cap growth, but the other extenuating circumstances that helped these teams in the meantime (artificially low cap, CSN $ spike) are no longer there, then what are those teams going to do? Sure, things may not be as bad as before, but it will still be an issue.
Check out my hockey blog!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Catch the Wings/Ducks coverage over at CycleLikeSedins!
http://wingsvducks.blogspot.com/
by IAmJoe on May 16, 2009 11:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But we agree that its still going to be less than the American dollar, which is the only dollar that matters in the NHL books.
Very likely true, but also irrelevant. It doesn’t make any difference whether the Canadian dollar is at the arbitrary level of parity with the US dollar. Don’t be confused by the fact that both countries use the term “dollar” to describe their currency; they aren’t the same thing. Whether the US and Canadian dollar are worth the same amount doesn’t make any more difference in any sort of cross-border transaction between the two countries than whether the US dollar is worth exactly the same as the British pound in US/Britain trade.
What matters is whether or not Canadians are able to pay the same amount in absolute value in order to watch hockey as Americans are, regardless of how that value is denominated. The exchange rate at which this would be true is almost certainly less than parity. If the two currencies are worth the same, Canadians are probably making more money than Americans are, and certainly have a higher level of disposable income that they are inclined to pay to support NHL franchises.
Well, honestly, I’m not entirely sure what you mean.
If you don’t know, that means that you are likely talking nominal dollars. Again, this isn’t a relevant measure. Thanks to inflation, one US dollar today is worth less than one US dollar ten years ago. Dollars across time are only nominally the same value; in real terms, what they can buy changes, so the real value of the dollar moves because of inflation. So, if NHL teams are spending the same number of nominal dollars on payroll as they were before the lockout, it means that they are really paying less. Using US CPI-U (the most commonly used measure of inflation), salaries would have to be 15% higher today than they were in 2004 to represent the same value.
The difference is greater than that. In addition to inflation, the economy has grown in terms of the amount of value it produces. $1.14 today represents less a smaller share of the US economy today than $1 did in 2004. If we assume that consumers are prepared to pay the same fraction of their income on hockey related items now that they were then (an admittedly weak assumption), then NHL teams that could pay $1 in salaries in 2004 could pay about $1.24 today. Unless they are paying that much, they have not, in fact, caught up with where they were.
by J. Michael Neal on May 17, 2009 2:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I understand you correctly, what you’re saying is that the CDN franchises just have to charge a little more to make up the difference betweent he CDN dollar and the US dollar, right?
But that’s exactly the problem. If the Canadian dollar is worth say 90 cents American, then the CDN franchises have to charge ~10% more to break even (0.90 + ~0.09 = ~1.00). Its a bit of a disadvantage, sure, but its not a huge one. We’re only looking at an extra $5 on a $50 ticket. Not breaking the bank here. But if the CDN dollar is worth 80 cents American, now they’re having to increase the price 25% to break even (0.80 + 0.20 = 1.00). Now you’re talking about increasing a $50 ticket by $12.50. Getting a little more significant. If the CDN dollar reaches 70 cents American, its a nearly 50% premium you have to start charging to break even.
If the CDN dollar sits around 75 cents US, we’re looking at a pretty significant premium that CDN franchises will have to charge to make the same money an identical US team would. For a franchise like Toronto or Montreal, with much bigger areas to draw from (and consequently, more wealthy people to draw from as well), this can be overcome. When you get into smaller areas like Edmonton or Winnipeg, which have much more limited populations, along with other disadvantages, this disadvantage might be the one the straw that breaks the camels back. It’s almost been that straw for Edmonton a couple of times now.
Maybe I’m missing your point, but I don’t see any way that what I’m saying could possibly not be a problem for such franchises.
I understand what you’re saying about the inflation, and so spending 60 million dollars on player payroll ten years ago could afford to spend much more today. Boiled down, dollar for dollar, accounting for inflation and all, there is probably less dollars in total player payroll than there was 10 years ago. But I have to think that we’re getting much closer. And especially if the economy hadn’t fallen over, and revenues were able to continue climbing (though they weren’t going to remain at the artificially high climbing rates they were initially coming out of the CBA), we would probably approach that point in a couple of years. I don’t have any numbers here to back this up,. and maybe I’m completely off base, but that seems like a relatively sound logical guess.
If that is a logical assumption to make, that we will soon reach the point where we were before the lockout, where the amount being spent on total player payroll is equal to where we were 5-10 years ago, in real dollars, then this means that my question about the ongoing ability of a team like Edmonton to remain both financially and competitively viable is a valid one. And if this is a valid question for Edmonton, it also is a valid question that must be answered before we drop an expansion team into Winnipeg. Again, maybe I’m totally off base, I’m not running the numbers on this or whatever, but it seems logical to me that if I’m on the right track, then this is an important question for Edmonton and Winnipeg.
Check out my hockey blog!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Catch the Wings/Ducks coverage over at CycleLikeSedins!
http://wingsvducks.blogspot.com/
by IAmJoe on May 17, 2009 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I understand you correctly, what you’re saying is that the CDN franchises just have to charge a little more to make up the difference betweent he CDN dollar and the US dollar, right?
No. What I’m saying is that Canadian franchises can charge exactly the same thing as US franchises, but that that value is denominated in something different. If the Canadian currency were officially called the Loonie, I don;t think this would be as confusing to people. Just because they are both called “dollars” doesn’t mean that there is any inherent relationship between how much each of them is worth. The exact same amount of money is described by different numbers in the two currencies.
Maybe I’m missing your point, but I don’t see any way that what I’m saying could possibly not be a problem for such franchises.
That’s because you are confusing the US “dollar” and the Canadian “dollar” as being in any way the same thing. They aren’t. You can’t think of $1.10 Canadian as being more than $1 US, because it isn’t. It can be either more or less than $1 US, depending upon a number of factors, one of which is the exchange rate.
At some exchange rates, it is prohibitively expensive for Canadian owners to pay the players in US dollars. At other exchange rates, they get a windfall profit paying them that way. Both of these figures involve the Canadian dollar being worth less than the American dollar. Parity is probably pretty close to where it is now.
But I have to think that we’re getting much closer. And especially if the economy hadn’t fallen over, and revenues were able to continue climbing (though they weren’t going to remain at the artificially high climbing rates they were initially coming out of the CBA), we would probably approach that point in a couple of years.
But we aren’t. The salary cap is fixed as a percentage of league revenues. If the owners take in less money, the cap goes down. If they take in more money, and can thus afford to pay more in salaries, the cap goes up. There are some goofy things about the way the floor is calculated that make the entire analysis less pure then this, but it gets at the essence of the question. League wide, the cap going up is an indication that the owners can afford to pay out more in salaries.
What is a very serious problem is that there is extreme disparity between what some owners can afford to pay out and what other owners can. This problem is real, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with aggregate salaries. A figure of how much the league as a whole is paying the players has no relevance to the question of whether any particular franchise can afford to pay its players. My suspicion is that, going forwards, the US/Canadian exchange rate will probably be close enough to parity that it isn’t a big factor.
That leaves the problem of markets that pull in vastly different amounts of revenue, regardless of what currency it’s in. I think that there are a lot of reasons to think that Winnipeg is not a good place for an NHL franchise, but that has entirely to do with the fact that I think that it’s too small. The Canadian dollar isn’t the issue.
by J. Michael Neal on May 17, 2009 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This problem is real, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with aggregate salaries. A figure of how much the league as a whole is paying the players has no relevance to the question of whether any particular franchise can afford to pay its players.
This seems counter-intuitive to me. The total amount of salary in and of itself doesn’t directly affect them, but what other owners are spending in total does. If everyone else is spending 50M a year on player payroll, and you’re only spending 40M, and can only afford to spend 40M, thats a problem for you. The fact that 1.450 Billion (29 owners x 50M) is being spent on player payroll doesn’t directly hurt you. The fact that you can’t spend 50M like every other owner hurts you. Who wants to go play for the poorhouse and get paid less or if you’re paid fair, be on a team that is financially constrained, lowering their competitiveness?
Further, if 25 out of 30 teams are doing well, the cap is going to continue to climb, and those other 5 are going to be up shit creek because the cap is climbing, they can’t afford to spend more. This is going to make their situation worse, because they’re not doing well as it is, for whatever reason. As the cap goes up, but their spending power does not, they become less competitive, compounding the problem, and causing them to continue to not do well, until eventually the entire process becomes futile and the team needs external assistance. Obviously, this can be a problem for any sort of small-ish market or market without a hockey foothold of any kind. Until these sorts of things can be dealt with, the thought of putting teams into such situations is seems short-sighted and, ultimately, a bad idea.
That’s because you are confusing the US "dollar" and the Canadian "dollar" as being in any way the same thing. They aren’t. You can’t think of $1.10 Canadian as being more than $1 US, because it isn’t. It can be either more or less than $1 US, depending upon a number of factors, one of which is the exchange rate.
I understand that 1 Loonie =/= 1 Dollar. I understand that the Loonie and the Dollar are different things. The problem is that if, all else being equal, you sell 20,000 tickets for 50 Loonies each, and I sell all mine for 50 Dollars each, if the exchange rate is not favorable for you (which, historically speaking, it usually isn’t), then I’ve made more money that you. Occasionally, the exchange rate may turn out such that you make more than me, but that doesn’t happen often that a Loonie is worth more than 1 Dollar. Now do that for 40 more games. I’ve just made a lot more money than you. As long as the exchange rate remains close to 1:1, neither one of us gains a whole lot or loses a whole lot versus the other, and things probably end up being ok. But as it slides down from 1:1, that difference grows very very quickly.
All I see you saying here is that the Loonie and the Dollar are not worth the same thing. And I’m agreeing with you. Because the Loonie is (usually) worth less than the Dollar, you have to charge more to get the same thing, or accept taking a loss due to the exchange rate. As the exchange rate becomes less favorable, you’re having to charge more and more to break even with my team, because your income is all in Loonies, but your expenses are in Dollars, while my income and expenses are both in Dollars. This is a disadvantage to you, and depending on circumstances entirely out of your control (the exchange rate), it could really mess you up. As long as the exchange rate remains 1:1, this isn’t a problem, as your Loonie is the same as my Dollar, and we both make the same income. But if the exchange rate is less favorable for you, say, 1.1:1 Loonie:Dollar (1.10 Loonies = 1 Dollar), then you begin to have a problem. Potentially a very very big problem, which you have no control over at all. I don’t see how this isn’t an inexorable problem for the smaller Canadian franchises.
If I’m still missing your point, then I don’t know what to say.
Check out my hockey blog!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Catch the Wings/Ducks coverage over at CycleLikeSedins!
http://wingsvducks.blogspot.com/
by IAmJoe on May 17, 2009 11:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Further, if 25 out of 30 teams are doing well, the cap is going to continue to climb, and those other 5 are going to be up shit creek because the cap is climbing, they can’t afford to spend more.
Yes, but this has nothing to do with aggregate spending on player salaries. It has to do with revenue disparities. The same argument holds whether it’s five teams that keep up, or ten. The total amount spent makes no difference. The difference is in what the top teams can spend as opposed to what the bottom teams can spend.
I understand that the Loonie and the Dollar are different things. The problem is that if, all else being equal, you sell 20,000 tickets for 50 Loonies each, and I sell all mine for 50 Dollars each, if the exchange rate is not favorable for you (which, historically speaking, it usually isn’t), then I’ve made more money that you.
Why are you assuming that Canadian teams will sell their tickets for the same number of their dollars that American teams will charge in our dollars? The value of the two currencies have nothing to do with each other. This is as true of prices charged as it is of value collected. Sure, if both a Canadian team and an American team price their tickets at the same number of their respective dollars, the Canadian team is going to collect less value, but so what? There’s no reason to assume that that’s going to be true.
by J. Michael Neal on May 18, 2009 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well then either we return to a forced, lower cap and more revenue sharing or many teams, including those in Edmonton and Ottawa, are in big trouble.
As for the free agent issue. I’d much rather have a team that has to constantly build through the draft and trades like Edmonton than no team at all. Jets fans will live with the fact high-price free agents have no interest in Winnipeg, and that will be fine. Just ask Edmonton and Buffalo fans. They deal with and love their team regardless.
“Second was the Canadian dollar’s spike, which is since sliding. Sure, maybe the Canadian dollar stabilizes right alongside the American dollar. But historically speaking, its much more likely to slide back to where it was before.”
Don’t be so sure about that. If anything the value of the American dollar will continue to decline. Canada is in quite a good position in terms of economic growth. Also, we have the #1 rated banking system in the world (http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE4981X220081009) and a dollar that has stablized around 80 to 85 cents. The dollar dropping back to 60, 65 cents, not likely anytime soon. If anything the crippling effect of the economic downturn will destroy more franchises in the near future than your doom and gloom, “Canadian dollar is going to collapse” rhetoric.
by royal_ on May 16, 2009 10:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well then either we return to a forced, lower cap and more revenue sharing or many teams, including those in Edmonton and Ottawa, are in big trouble.
Yeah, you explain that to the NHLPA. And keep us from another work stoppage. “You guys need to be accepting less money so we can stick a team in Winnipeg again!”. The cap already hamstrings some teams. Why should the owners be willing to be further hamstrung, in order to help prop up teams in Winnipeg or Phoenix or whatever? Increasing revenue sharing takes money out of successful owners pockets, in order to line the pockets of such hockey luminaries as those in Tampa Bay, Phoenix, and Atlanta. These franchises are mismanaged into the ground, and for that, teams like the Wings and the Leafs should line their pockets? Even before you consider the fact that many of the owners in the NHL are just plain greedy, this idea is an extremely hard sell, without some (impossible) guarantee of competitiveness in those markets. Why should I spend money on making my team good and successful, when I can just take MLSE’s money and laugh all the way to the bank?
As for the free agent issue. I’d much rather have a team that has to constantly build through the draft and trades like Edmonton than no team at all. Jets fans will live with the fact high-price free agents have no interest in Winnipeg, and that will be fine. Just ask Edmonton and Buffalo fans. They deal with and love their team regardless.
This was mostly an aside. Edmonton has enough troubles. Its hard to get free agents there. Its hard to keep your players there. And no matter what, no organization can draft 100% perfectly all the time. This is a big enough hill to climb. If the Canadian dollar were to slide any more, this would make things even worse. I’m saying that the deck is already somewhat stacked against Edmonton as it is, and that it could become even more so. I have no doubt of the passion of Edmonton or Buffalo or Winnipeg fans. But the competitive disadvantage exists, and enough competitive disadvantages eventually make a team cease to be viable. Edmonton has been close to the noose a few times. Nothing to say it won’t happen again. Sticking more teams into such situations would just make the situation worse, should it occur.
a dollar that has stablized around 80 to 85 cents. The dollar dropping back to 60, 65 cents, not likely anytime soon. If anything the crippling effect of the economic downturn will destroy more franchises in the near future than your doom and gloom, "Canadian dollar is going to collapse" rhetoric.
I am not an international banker or anything along those lines. I really don’t even keep up on the news that well. I don’t know if the Canadian dollar will return to 60-65 US cents again. I don’t know if it will go up to 1.5USD. As I said above, the best guess that can be made is that it will remain below the American dollar. Perhaps not to the same levels as it was before, because I do agree with you on the declining of the American dollar. Maybe you’re right and the CDN dollar stays at 80 US cents. But that still means that I’m right. I’m not saying the Canadian dollar is going to collapse, as you’re accusing me of. I’m saying that the Canadian dollar will be worth less than the American (and the NHL’s) dollar, and that this is a competitive disadvantage. Maybe not as big of one as it used to be, as the difference between the two dollars is not as big as it used to be, but it is a significant disadvantage nonetheless. If the Canadian dollar did fall to 0.60 USD, it would cripple a couple franchises. If there were teams in Winnipeg and other similar Canadian cities, and they all had to deal with such a crash, the results could be downright catastrophic for the league.
Again, enough competitive disadvantages, and people will stop seeing such a franchise as being truly viable. Quebec and Winnipeg both had competitive disadvantages in the 90’s, that made people stop seeing them as viable NHL cities. I have no doubt that fans in Quebec and Winnipeg are hugely passionate fans, but they also are at a serious disadvantage when it comes to icing a competitive team, and passion doesn’t pay the bills, or line the pocketbooks of the owner. It makes their competitive and financial viability increasing more precarious. And if there were more of these teams, balanced so precariously, one single disaster, like a CDN $ crash could mean the end of several franchises. Just as the current economic disaster in the US is putting franchises at risk as well, as there will probably be more franchises that follow Phoenix’s path.
What I’m saying is that the NHL needs to move to a position of stability. Building and committing in its best markets, without taking risky steps, like putting a team in Las Vegas. Or Winnipeg. Maybe far far in the future, under a different CBA and several more stable markets, the NHL could come back to Winnipeg. But not anytime in the foreseeable future.
Check out my hockey blog!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Catch the Wings/Ducks coverage over at CycleLikeSedins!
http://wingsvducks.blogspot.com/
by IAmJoe on May 16, 2009 11:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Laughable Canadian Assistance Plan?
That whopping $3 million a year from the American teams to four Canadian teams?
Yup. Thanks for your help.
I think the Habs and Leafs both paid about six times that amount last year in welfare payments.
by Exit716 on May 17, 2009 8:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
More news.http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=278929
by LarsPGH on May 16, 2009 9:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think you have overlooked the big problem with Hamilton. It is in the territory of 2 existing teams. The fact that Hamilton is in Canada is a non-issue. It’s not about US v. Canada. I don’t think the owners at this point in time want to open the door on teams moving in to other teams territory. Particularly when one of the team’s already there isn’t in the greatest shape financially (The Sabres). Now there may some doubt of the impact it would have on Buffalo, but if Galisano and the Sabres basically stand against it the league and the other owners will stand with him. Add in the fact it appears JB is unwilling to even pay territory fees and it makes the league stand stronger.
If say JB wanted a team in Winnipeg, he would have been there long ago (with the Preds). It is Hamilton specifically that held him up originally, and his actions since that will end up keeping him out for good (I don’t think he will end up winning this). And because hamilton has foolishly tied exclusively with him it has just further damaged their already slim chances of getting a team.
I think ultimately their will be a second Toronto team (but not anywhere south), but it will not be owned by JB.
by jkrdevil on May 16, 2009 9:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
How close does a team have to be to be considered in their territory? My understanding was that it was 50 miles, and Hamilton is further than that from Buffalo. And it’s about 45 from Toronto.
That’s the difference? Five miles?
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 19, 2009 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
one of the important things in determining a good market is competition—the coyotes are competing against the d-backs, cards, and (especially) the suns. for that reason, i can actually see vegas working, at least until the NBA shows up too.
by passive_voice on May 16, 2009 9:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The only way that Vegas can work as an NHL franchise is if the marketing/sales department that’s put in place from day 1 is absolutely top notch. I mean, outright brilliant.
Las Vegas’s population is just short of 600 000 people, which truthfully isn’t much for an NHL city, even in Canada. Add to this that the majority of these people have never heard about hockey in their lives, and you have a problem from the start.
It could work if the marketing was directed at tourists. If you can fill about half the arena with locals (say, about 8500 people per game), you could probably fill the other half with tourists. Hell I know if I was planning a trip to Vegas, I would make sure it matched with the date that the Habs are in town, and go see them there. But the marketing for that needs to be right on the ball – contact with hotels, packages with room + tickets, the arena has to be close to the Strip, you name it.
Bottom line is, I really don’t think that franchise could be successful if it operated along the same lines most franchises currently do. This market is unique and management would have to adapt to that. Given the NHL’s track record in such matters, I really don’t see that as plausible…
by Habs on May 16, 2009 9:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It could work if the marketing was directed at tourists. If you can fill about half the arena with locals (say, about 8500 people per game), you could probably fill the other half with tourists. Hell I know if I was planning a trip to Vegas, I would make sure it matched with the date that the Habs are in town, and go see them there. But the marketing for that needs to be right on the ball – contact with hotels, packages with room + tickets, the arena has to be close to the Strip, you name it.
That is where I see the tricky part (well, one of many tricky parts). If you are relying on tourists, it will only really work with teams that travel well. If a team is playing poorly and doesn’t have a lot of our-of-town fans or those willing to travel, they won’t go to Vegas for a game – if they want to go for a vacation, they will go for a vacation that fits their schedule, not when the hockey team is playing. And if the Las Vegas team itself is not very good (or as boring as anything to watch), their hometown ticket sales might suffer as well.
I don’t think anyone involved with the NHL is astute enough to market a team properly for that market.
"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 16, 2009 10:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can't rely on a transient fanbase.
A lot of sports have focused on Las Vegas as a possible franchise destination, but tellingly none of them have established a presence precisely because there is no guarantee of consistent local support. The only major sport that has a firmly-established presence in the Vegas area is NASCAR, and they have only a handful of events a year – certainly not a season that stretches from October to April.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 16, 2009 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is my feeling as well. I outlined my perception of what it would take, in my opionion, from a marketing perspective, to maybe have success in Vegas.
But in truth, and especially given the League’s track record at selling its product, I don’t think it’s a viable option.
by Habs on May 17, 2009 1:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
nein, captain
if vegas’ population is 600000, vancouver’s is 570000 and buffalo’s is 250000.
it’s metro pop that matters, and vegas has 2m, vancouver 2.2m and buffalo 1.2m vegas is by far big enough for one (probably two) pro sports teams.
by passive_voice on May 17, 2009 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vegas can’t work unless the Casino’s buy almost all of the season tickets. Small permanent population who really have no interest in hockey. Add that to the fact most of them work in service related industries and don’t make all that much money. Excuse the pun, but Vegas, like the idea that other teams will work in the desert, is a mirage.
by royal_ on May 16, 2009 10:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Mysteriously, several teams in non-traditional markets continue to do well. Even the Lightning were doing well, until new ownership moved in and immediately began the process of shitting on every fan they could. The very argument that hockey can’t work in desert areas because they don’t have snow is patently false and is an impediment to any discussion on the subject. Hockey might work better in Phoenix if it didn’t suck for 15 years. Or Atlanta. Oddly enough, many of these areas that have competitive teams actually do well, even if it doesn’t snow there for 6 months a year.
Perhaps the problem is the quality of team being iced, not how much ice is outside the arena.
Check out my hockey blog!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Catch the Wings/Ducks coverage over at CycleLikeSedins!
http://wingsvducks.blogspot.com/
by IAmJoe on May 16, 2009 11:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shhhh...
Pssst – nobody likes the logic that a good team could make a tough hockey market improve. From what I understand, you have to be able to sell out an arena even if the team is a chum-bucket-level team in order to be considered anything but a failure.
‘Course, what that says to me is that people who pay premium prices to sell out an arena for a crappy team have appallingly low standards and appallingly high discretionary income, but that’s probably just proof that I’m not passionate enough a fan… :)
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 17, 2009 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that’s probably just proof that I’m not passionate enough a fan… :)
You and me both. I still don’t understand why I continue to root for the Detroit Lions.
Check out my hockey blog!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Catch the Wings/Ducks coverage over at CycleLikeSedins!
http://wingsvducks.blogspot.com/
by IAmJoe on May 17, 2009 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A desire to root for th eDetroit Lions is clearly the product of a disordered mind.
by Gerald on May 17, 2009 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excuse the pun, but Vegas, like the idea that other teams will work in the desert, is a mirage.
The thing is, that’s not true. It’s a broad generality that sounds good when applied to a whole bunch of teams, but it isn’t true. Each market has to be looked at individually to determine whether or not they are viable.
Dallas could be considered to be in the desert, yet they have a very successful franchise. Nashville could also fall into that category, yet they’re showing signs of finally breaking through. Tampa Bay and Sunrise (Panthers), while they aren’t in the desert per se, are both franchises that have had some degree of fan success in their community, as long as they were well managed.
Reading all of your previous posts it’s clear to see you are bitter about the Jets, and I can understand that – I lived through the Nords relocating. But what you have to see is that the one premier factor that will determine whether a ‘non-traditional’ market is successful or not, is the quality of ownership and management. It’s clear from all the expansion teams, that only those that have been well managed have had success. The ones that are struggling are poorly managed.
That’s the bottom line. And really it applies to nearly any team (the Leafs excluded…). Chicago, a city that has a rabid hockey following and very loyal fans, an original 6 franchise with tons of history, was mismanaged for decades and their attendance was down the drain, until a new owner came around.
by Habs on May 17, 2009 1:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a completely inaccurate comment. First off, as passive_voice noted, Las Vegas has a large metro population when you combine Las Vegas, Henderson, and North Las Vegas. Second off, the casinos don’t need to buy all the tickets, and the tickets could be sold at low price. The Las Vegas Wranglers are one of the top 10 selling ECHL teams, which should count for something. The arena will be owned by a casino so the entire operation would be subsidized by gambling sales; that is why the Penguins wanted slot machines in their new building. Las Vegas has much more interest in hockey than anyone is giving them credit for. I lived there for a year and I can vouch for the quality and quantity of men’s leagues. The youth leagues there are also growing rapidly. I think that’s a pretty good sign of hockey interest. I agree with the previous comment that the NHL should not be in charge of marketing, but why would they be? The individual teams market themselves, and the Vegas casinos are some of the best marketing departments you can find anywhere. I think they could sell hockey by making it “another thing to do” when you are in Vegas.
Add that to the fact most of them work in service related industries and don’t make all that much money.
Finally, this quote is just asinine. Yeah, a lot of the people in Vegas work service industry, but the service industry workers out there make a ton of money. They make less money now than they were when the economy was good but they are still making better money working service jobs in Vegas than almost anywhere else. There are quite a few service jobs that can make over $100K (not counting stripping) and even more if you lower the bar to about $75-80K. That is enough money to pay to go see a hockey game.
by Fehr and Balanced on May 17, 2009 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But what you have to see is that the one premier factor that will determine whether a ‘non-traditional’ market is successful or not, is the quality of ownership and management. It’s clear from all the expansion teams, that only those that have been well managed have had success. The ones that are struggling are poorly managed.
Unfortunately, no one can FORCE a team to not do stupid management things, so some teams are always going to have some level of idiocy in the front office. And although a winner will draw anywhere, not all teams can win. In a 30 team league, if all was random, each team would win a Cup about three times in a century – and it isn’t random, as a better run team has a better chance of winning multiple times over a particular time period and a poorly run team has almost no chance. For all the publicity the Cubs get for their century drought, I don’t think it will be all that uncommon in the near future (unless teams end a championship drought by folding). So then the question becomes how can you build a following without a history of championships? A competitive team helps, but how long can a team be competitive and entertaining without winning and still keep fans who feel as though they are being teased?
"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 17, 2009 5:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Longer than you think.
If a team is competitive and entertaining but doesn’t win championships, people will still show up at the games. Look at the Phoenix Suns. If there’s an NBA team that could be considered the ultimate tease, this team is it. They have spent the past 20 years inducing their pundits and media to believe that they could win it all, only to fold every single time they were within reach. But their style of play and their on-court product is good enough to keep the fans coming back.
In the case of the Phoenix Coyotes, I would like someone to tell me who – aside from Shane Doan – the last marketable “star” player was that donned a Coyotes sweater. I’m talking about a star in their prime, not a Twinkie-gobbling Brett Hull or a retirement-village-candidate Mike Ricci. The only true “star” involved with the Coyotes – at least since the turn of the century – has been Wayne Gretzky, and he’s done jack squat for the prestige of this team or their on-ice product.
Still, when the Coyotes went into the All-Star Break this year in 5th in the conference, the fans noticed. The arena started getting better crowds and there was more excitement about the team. But there was still an undercurrent of, “When are they going to fall on their faces?” brought on by what happened the season before – the epic collapse that followed the return of Rick Tocchet. Sure enough, after the ASB, the team imploded apocalyptically and ended up with yet another lottery pick.
That’s the wrong kind of consistency to have, but that’s what the Coyotes have been saddled with. A move to Hamilton will not change that a single whit – it’ll just mean more people watching the team tantalize and then tank like they’ve done for virtually all of the preceding decade.
Having said all that, with all the other sports teams in the Valley except for the Cardinals on the downswing, a GOOD Coyotes team could really make an impact on this market. The Diamondbacks are headed for another season like their 51-111 season a few years ago and the Suns are getting to the point where they’re going to have to rebuild now that D’Antoni’s run-and-gun offense is history. With the Mutts’ huge prospect pool and several young players shaking off the sophomore slump, who could blame us as Coyotes STHs for hoping to keep the team here for a year or two more to see if they can turn it around?
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 17, 2009 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t think of anyone recent, but Jeremy Roenick’s first tour in the late 90s was decently successful.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on May 17, 2009 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A move to Hamilton will not change that a single whit
Actually, it will have a significant effect in and of itself, even before you consider the ownership change. First of all, no one wants to sign with Phoenix, because they have no idea what they’re signing up for. PHX is worse off than even Edmonton right now in that regard. They will be #30 on people’s lists of teams they’d like to sign with, and will likely accept less money to have certainty in where they’re going to live. These players have kids and stuff, remember. That will also hugely effect the ability to retain homegrown talent, much of which the Coyotes are trying to develop right now.
Further, new ownership in Balsillie presumably brings some changes. Maybe not a coaching change, as that would be nigh-sacrilegious, but it would be one change I would make. It would also change the way a GM could handle things. Instead of thinking “oh no we have to keep our budget as low as possible while trying to ice a barely competitive team”, if the GM is given carte blanche to spend to the cap and all that jazz, then they could certainly make some significant steps. Being able to rearrange the front office (who, you remember, has built this perennial loser in PHX) would be a big improvement.
Check out my hockey blog!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Catch the Wings/Ducks coverage over at CycleLikeSedins!
http://wingsvducks.blogspot.com/
by IAmJoe on May 17, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Balsillie probably wouldn’t have to do anything sacrilegious in terms of coaching; Gretzky probably wouldn’t follow the club north.
by dzuunmod on May 17, 2009 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
<i.That’s the wrong kind of consistency to have, but that’s what the Coyotes have been saddled with. A move to Hamilton will not change that a single whit – it’ll just mean more people watching the team tantalize and then tank like they’ve done for virtually all of the preceding decade.
It would have a big effect on it. One of the things that different sized markets have is a different amount of cushion for screw ups. Look at the Maple Leafs. The franchise is something of a joke, but they make a huge amount more money than any other team. Hamilton wouldn’t be that good a market, but it would be good enough that a team can afford to screw up some of the time. The Coyotes have no margin for error. My guess is that they are always going to be a team on the margin. If they do well for a couple of years, they’ll start to draw. If they then turn around and have a bad team for a couple of years, they’re going to be right back where they are now. Everything has to go just right for it to work there. Now, granted, I’m a Red Wings fan, so I’m used to things going just right for an extended period of time. I’m not sure I’d want to sink a couple hundred million dollars into the idea that I can duplicate Devellano/Holland.
by J. Michael Neal on May 17, 2009 6:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Holy Fan Support, Batman!
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=278999
Between 250 and 500 people showed up for a Save the Coyotes rally. Really? That’s it? They could all fit in one section of Jobing.com, no?
They’re going out with a whimper. What a shame.
by LarsPGH on May 17, 2009 3:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It's a matter of context.
The “Save the Coyotes Coalition” is six days old. The rally was decided upon and put together with virtually no media support. We weren’t even able to announce the venue until three days before the event.
Given that context, I think getting 500 people standing outside in 100 degree heat to support the team almost totally by word-of-mouth is not half bad.
You want to know what’s the truly sad part? Not one player or anyone associated with the team showed up to help us out.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 17, 2009 5:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You want to know what’s the truly sad part? Not one player or anyone associated with the team showed up to help us out.
Players I could understand, actually – if they don’t live there in the offseason they probably headed home for the summer. But it would have been nice if someone had bothered to show up.
And I think a few hundred people showing up on such short notice isn’t bad at all. Especially with the feeling that everything is against them.
"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 18, 2009 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The ironic part...
…is that thanks to this situation the Coyotes have gotten more press from the local media than probably the last three years combined.
The bad news is that most of the “journalists” around here either a) are writing editorials saying, basically, “WGAF?” or b) just reprinting the Associated Press stories and then slapping ridiculous Enquirer-style headlines on them. Seriously… if I hadn’t had thirty years of experience with these hackjob morons I’d say there was some sort of conspiracy to get the team out of the state on the part of the local media. But it’s just incompetence and laziness.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 18, 2009 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
500 people standing outside in 100 degree heat to support the team almost totally by word-of-mouth is not half bad.
I don’t know whether to be jealous (we had a frost warning here in Ottawa last night) or convinced that hockey does not belong somewhere where it gets to be 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the spring!! 100 degrees! It must cost a fortune to keep ice in the arena. Maybe hockey will die in the sunbelt due to the environmental impact of keeping arenas cool enough. Imagine a SCF in Phoenix in June.
Kidding aside, it must be terrible being a ’yotes fan right now.
by hockeycountry on May 18, 2009 8:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it's not fun...
…but I still haven’t asked for a refund of my season tickets yet… :)
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 18, 2009 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t give up – it’s far from being a done deal.
by hockeycountry on May 18, 2009 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i say in saskatoon or regina.
i think it would just be bloody hilarious to put a team in saskatchewan.
GO CANUCKS GO!
well, normally that's the case, but they're out of the playoffs, so i've become a bandwagon jumper.
GO CAROLINA GO!!!!!!!!! BRING THE CUP TO MY HOMETOWN!!!!!!!!!!!
by missy on May 18, 2009 11:34 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
i'd love to see
some businessman move a team to saskatoon because somebody messed up a decimal place and he thought there were 2.5 million people there.
by passive_voice on May 18, 2009 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d like to see a team in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan just because it is one of the best place names ever. When I was a kid I wanted to live there so I could call myself a Saskatoonian. (Kids are odd at eight years old.) :)
"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 18, 2009 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s been tried.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on May 19, 2009 7:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It made sense at the time.
You had the Canucks, Flames, Oilers, and Jets already in western Canada, and player salaries were still low enough that 18,000 lunatics a night could (probably) pay the bills. They would’ve been moving back to St. Louis within fifteen years, but I can see why Hunter tried it.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on May 19, 2009 6:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Toronto is much more deserving of 2 hockey teams than New York,
but I really hope they stay put in AZ.
Welcome to Smashville, Tennessee.
by Aditya T (smashville) on May 19, 2009 5:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Try three.
Rangers, Islanders, and Devils… all within spitting distance of each other.
But hey, they’re in New York and so is Bettman so why not?
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 19, 2009 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Check out this list of professional sports teams in the state of New York...wow
Buffalo Bills – National Football League
New York Jets – National Football League
New York Giants – National Football League
New York Red Bulls – Major League Soccer
New York Knicks – National Basketball Association
New York Liberty- Women’s National Basketball Association
Buffalo Sabres – National Hockey League
New York Islanders – National Hockey League
New York Rangers – National Hockey League
New York Dragons – Arena Football League
Welcome to Smashville, Tennessee.
by Aditya T (smashville) on May 19, 2009 9:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention minor league teams
Such as the Yankees and Mets. And if You’re gonna include the New Jersey Giants and New Jersey Jets, then I’d agree with zyllyx that the Devils and Nets also qualify (esp. if the Nets are moving to Brooklyn).
As for the lesser Minor Leaguers, I’d argue that the Dragons and Liberty are less important than Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse baseball teams or even Albany, Binghampton, Rochester and Syracuse hockey teams.
I don’t know shit ‘bout the NBA’s D-League, but teams like the Syracuse Orangemen basketball team surely outdraw the Dragons.
As impressive a list as this may be, I’m sure it doesn’t rival California or Texas, especially if you were to include NCAA powerhouse teams.
by TD O'Dell on May 19, 2009 10:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
Cali:
San Diego Chargers
San Diego Padres
LA Kings
LA Lakers
LA Clippers
LA Dodgers
Anaheim Ducks
Anaheim Angels (of LA) (Does this count as 2?)
SF Giants
SJ Sharks
SF 49ers
Oakland A’s
Golden State Warriors
Oakland Raiders
Major Colleges
UCLA
USC
Stanford
Cal
Semi-major colleges
SD State
Pepperdine
Santa Clara
UC-Davis
SJ State
by Jibblescribbits on May 19, 2009 10:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chivas USA
If ever there was a team that would benefit from relocation to Chappaquiddick, this has to be the one. The concession revenues at the in-house bar from Teddy alone would offset any potential parking costs incurred.
On second thought, with each Kennedy driving themselves (and a young woman or two) to the games, maybe those costs cancel out the scotch sales.
by TD O'Dell on May 19, 2009 11:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t forget Sacramento (even if the average Kings player wishes he could).
by TD O'Dell on May 19, 2009 10:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
oops...sorry
Can’t believe I missed baseball!
Welcome to Smashville, Tennessee.
by Aditya T (smashville) on May 19, 2009 10:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If only free agents would forget to leave the Yanks and Mets off their wishlists, maybe MLB wouldn’t be such a lopsided league.
by TD O'Dell on May 19, 2009 10:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That should read
If only no free agents would not forget to not leave…
I left out a few double negatives in my original awkward phrasing.
by TD O'Dell on May 19, 2009 10:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This must be why the Mets and the Yankees both missed the playoffs last year.
by J. Michael Neal on May 20, 2009 12:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
On Facebook? Use Connect to join SB Nation. Share insights with fans and friends.- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Puck Previews: Red Wings, Flames battle for final playoff spot
- Ovechkin gets 2-game suspension; NHL calls hit 'reckless'
- Versus, DirecTV deal done; satellite fans get their playoff hockey
- Your choice for the Crosby Golden Roar art contest winner
- Puck Headlines: Life without Campbell; Devs Christmas sweaters
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Ovechkin suspended for Capitals' next 2 games
- Mike Modano out indefinitely after Dallas Stars centre undergoes appendectomy
- Stars' Modano out indefinitely after appendectomy
- Alex Ovechkin suspended two games for hit on Blackhawks defenceman Campbell
- Ducks' Selanne has shoulder sprain, Getzlaf has inflamed ankle
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.
