|
Two NHL teams in Toronto? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Spin Laden |
Canada's six clubs are responsible for bringing in almost one-third of NHL's entire ticket revenue
NHL ticket revenue by team (.pdf) Canada's six clubs are responsible for bringing in almost one-third of NHL's entire ticket revenue
May 30, 2008 04:30 AM
Rick Westhead
Sports business columnist
A secret NHL report detailing the ticket revenues of its 30 teams reveals what Canadian hockey fans have long suspected and offers a compelling case for putting more teams north of the border.
The six Canadian teams account for 31 per cent of the $1.1 billion (U.S.) in league ticket revenue, and have gone through league-leading double-digit increases over last season, according to the internal NHL report.
Overall, the league has seen its ticket revenue rise almost 10 per cent, but 11 of the 24 U.S.-based clubs were either revenue-flat or lost ticket income.
Atop the list of income winners is the Maple Leafs, who nudged out the Montreal Canadiens to lead the league this past season with $1.9 million worth of ticket revenue per game. Based on 41 home games, that's $77.9 million a year – not counting revenue from pre-season games. A year ago, the Leafs generated $1.5 million a game, according the report obtained by the Star from several league sources.
The increase in the value of the Canadian dollar may be responsible for as much as half of the league's revenue gains since the NHL went through the lockout of 2004-05, say several sources familiar with NHL finances.
"If you take out the Canadian teams, which have done so well since the lockout largely because of the Canadian dollar, the league's revenues are actually only growing at a 2 per cent clip per year," says an executive with a U.S.-based NHL team, who requested anonymity.
"It's not enough. We're not really growing as a sport, and we're still invisible in the U.S."
The figures are sure to embolden Research In Motion co-founder Jim Balsillie in his efforts to add another Canadian-based team to the NHL. He has been stymied twice by the league in attempts to buy a U.S. club and bring it to southern Ontario.
"This really makes the case for another team in Canada, whether it's Hamilton, Winnipeg or Quebec City," says former Vancouver Canucks owner Arthur Griffiths.
"I think Hamilton has the best facility, but obviously faces challenges in what it would have to pay Toronto and Buffalo. Winnipeg is a good possibility, but the market there has shown a resistance to paying top dollar for tickets, and you wouldn't want to add a team that was going to be in the middle-of-the-pack for revenue, while Quebec City needs a huge infusion of investment for a new facility."
The NHL has refused comment on the internal report.
NHLPA executive director Paul Kelly has reviewed the document and said it highlights the importance of placing more franchises in Canada, instead of potential expansion cities such as Las Vegas, Houston or Kansas City.
"I think it would be a huge error not to relocate one of the existing franchises to Hamilton or Winnipeg," Kelly said.
The union chief added the league should embrace Balsillie's entreaties, not "shunt him off."
"This is a guy who has a true passion for the game and has vast resources," Kelly said. "He built his company from nothing into an $80-billion company. We would be foolhardy not to see his efforts happen."
Kelly said the soonest the league could realistically consider relocation or expansion is in time for the 2009-10 season.
The most interesting league data may concern the sad-sack Coyotes, who were last in ticket revenue at $450,000. The team is losing more than $30 million a season and was contacted over the past season by six potential buyers, including Balsillie's lawyer, Richard Rodier.
"We're substantially more optimistic about next year," says Jeff Shumway, a senior Coyotes executive. "Last year we had internal issues about where the franchise should go. We weren't all on the same page. Everyone is now committed to a youth movement."
Unlike other pro sports leagues such as the National Football League, which generates billions of dollars in revenue from huge TV and sponsorship contracts, the NHL is a so-called "gate-driven" league, accounting for almost half of the league's total revenue.
The league has said its attendance has hit records in each of the past three seasons. Trouble is, that's based merely on tickets distributed, not overall revenue from ticket sales.
In fact, eight U.S. teams – the Coyotes, the Florida Panthers, Chicago Blackhawks, New York Islanders, Atlanta Thrashers, Washington Capitals, Nashville Predators and St. Louis Blues – generated less than half the amount of ticket revenue this season of the Edmonton Oilers and Ottawa Senators. At $1.2 million in ticket revenue per game, the Oilers and Senators garnered the least amount of ticket money among Canadian clubs.
The league's overall revenue this season is estimated to be as much as $2.56 billion, 10 per cent more than last year's $2.31 billion and 22 per cent more than the $2.1 billion generated in 2005-06, the first season played under the current labour contract. |
|
|
| elFreak |
yes spin, but the reality is that there are only so many viable markets in canada they can expect to make real money in.
is a league with 8 teams that are sold out more profitable than one with 30 even if some teams struggle? no.
more markets = more money no matter how you look at it.
using an article that is written with a bias because THEY WANT another team is not really valid.
captain obvious says no that canadian teams sell the most for its NATIONAL SPORT.
the reality is that without all of those other markets that sell less, the nhl would be a less profitable enterprise. Teams would not be able to pay imports the high salaries, and they would end up staying in europe.
the game is being sold to the world..it is not a lacrosse league. Merchandising also plays a huge role in revenues. You are smarter than that.
do you think edmonton is rolling in bucks?
they are valued among the last teams in the league in terms of actual franchise value. |
|
|
| elFreak |
i was wrong, calgary is worth less.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/31...tions_Rank.html
the formula is this:
Revenues and operating income are for 2005-06 season and are net of revenue sharing.
1Value of team based on current arena deal (unless new arena is pending) without deduction for debt (other than arena debt).
3Includes stadium debt.
4Net of stadium revenues used for debt payments. 5Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.
NA: Not applicable.
Team Logos Courtesy NHL. |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
| $20 says the new team will win the Stanley Cup before the Leafs do |
|
|
| Spin Laden |
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
yes spin, but the reality is that there are only so many viable markets in canada they can expect to make real money in.
is a league with 8 teams that are sold out more profitable than one with 30 even if some teams struggle? no.
more markets = more money no matter how you look at it.
using an article that is written with a bias because THEY WANT another team is not really valid.
captain obvious says no that canadian teams sell the most for its NATIONAL SPORT.
the reality is that without all of those other markets that sell less, the nhl would be a less profitable enterprise. Teams would not be able to pay imports the high salaries, and they would end up staying in europe.
the game is being sold to the world..it is not a lacrosse league. Merchandising also plays a huge role in revenues. You are smarter than that.
do you think edmonton is rolling in bucks?
they are valued among the last teams in the league in terms of actual franchise value. |
you even said yourself on the Habs thread that the NHL should contract, while I said they should relocate first before looking to contract (no biggie, it's only opinions on a web board).
It's not only about generating revenues, it's also about stoppping the bleeding that the predominately american franchises seem to be enduring. I fear that the league is now cleaning up the mess caused by overly ambitious expansion, including going into a market that had all the trappings of promise but hasn't quite delivered: LA. Imo, Toronto makes more sense than what the league has done in the past expansion wave. |
|
|
| Spin Laden |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abercrombie
$20 says the new team will win the Stanley Cup before the Leafs do |
with Brian McCabe as captain |
|
|
| elFreak |
contract yes.
concentrate only in canada no.
i think that 26 to 27 teams would increase the level in play.
anything less would be suicidal as revenue is revenue.
there are teams in the nhl that have 0 chance of success. |
|
|
| Spin Laden |
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
contract yes.
concentrate only in canada no.
i think that 26 to 27 teams would increase the level in play.
anything less would be suicidal as revenue is revenue.
there are teams in the nhl that have 0 chance of success. |
you know it's a fail thread when the only two ppl posting are non-TOTAs.
I'm definitely for Toronto, though not 'entirely' sold on Winnipeg or the other Canadian cities, just yet (though from an emotional standpoint, I would love to see a team in Quebec). But if it's gonna be a lesser of two evils, then get those teams out of Phoenix, Atlanta, etc and move them to those cities, or to the other american cities I mentioned at the beginning of the thread: Seattle or Kansas (imo).
Re level of play, yeah, it's not as good but I think some of it is also due to salary cap .. some teams are paying to get to the floor of the cap and leaving their teams inferior. I think there's tons of talented hockey players all over the globe, but cap restrictions have forced many to remain in Europe or even retire/AHL. Plus, all these boring defensive systems are stifling talented hockey players, imo. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
contract yes.
concentrate only in canada no.
i think that 26 to 27 teams would increase the level in play.
anything less would be suicidal as revenue is revenue.
there are teams in the nhl that have 0 chance of success. |
Unfortunately, reduction in the number of teams will not happen. I agree that 26 teams is probably ideal.
I think expansion into Europe is more likely. Set up a North American and Europe leagues and the winners face off for the Stanley Cup. It would also allow a more interesting allstar game....make it like MLB where the winner of the allstar game gets home ice advantage. |
|
|
| elFreak |
| it won't happen for the stanley cup, but since the advent of the european champions league i can easily see both champions facing each other in play for another title in the very near future. |
|
|
| Dr. DAS |
New team in Toronto - not going to happen.
Hamilton, maybe. (Go Dogs!) |
|
|
|
|
