Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens

Why Not Canada?


Recommended Posts

Love this paragraph.

“Six of the league's 30 teams are located here, yet estimates are that more than 30 per cent of NHL revenue comes from Canada,” says Naylor. “Many Canadians ask themselves: if U.S. franchises are struggling, Why Not Canada? We will look at that question and try to separate the emotion from the facts to definitively answer if another franchise could survive in Canada.”

So 20% of the teams make up 30% of the revenue for the NHL? Then the opposite is equally true. 70% of its revenue comes from the US's 80% of the teams. So that means 10% of the US teams (2.4) are slacking a bit.

Sounds like for the most part, the US teams are bringing in the same amount of revenue as the Canadian teams, on a % basis. Only 2-3 teams arent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If U.S. teams are struggling then why not move them?"

"Cough" Edmonton "Cough" Ottawa "Cough" Calgary "Cough" "Insert Canadian team who struggled financially"

God what short memories people have, Canada isn't some sort of hockey goldmine. Anything to sell papers, get clicks, appease their casual fan I guess.

There's a chance it could work in Canada, but there's reason to think it may be not be a good move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first articles are out today. They provide the background of how the analysis was done (what aspects they were examining and where they got the numbers) and a quick snapshot for each of the cities. It may sell papers and generate clicks but it will be interesting to see what they come up with. There will be interviews with Bettman as well.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hock...article1628425/

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=326630

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first articles are out today. They provide the background of how the analysis was done (what aspects they were examining and where they got the numbers) and a quick snapshot for each of the cities. It may sell papers and generate clicks but it will be interesting to see what they come up with. There will be interviews with Bettman as well.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hock...article1628425/

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=326630

lol @ people mentionning toronto for a second franchise... even they are tired of the laughs :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the question isn't "Why Not Canada?", but rather "Why Care, Canada?"

With all of this talk dominating the news about Phoenix going to Hamilton and then Winnipeg and then some team going back to Quebec City- am I the only one who really couldn't care less if there was another Canadian team? I mean, I understand it if you live in Winnipeg or Quebec City or Toronto or whatever. If someone told me that there was a chance a team would be coming to Halifax I'd be ecstatic... after all, it would probably be in the North-East division, meaning there'd be three Habs games here per year! :P. But why does everyone want a Canadian team just to say that there's another Canadian team?

Don't get me wrong, it's not like I don't care about the country and hockey's place within it. When the Olympics or any other world tourney starts I'm sporting the maple leaf like any other proud Canuck. But during the NHL season? I want nothing to do with Maple Leafs OR Canucks ;). If anything I like the other Canadian teams even less than the other league teams, if only because there's a much greater chance of having an annoying fan around at any given time. And judging by some of the Habs fans I've met, I'm willing to bet that some other Canadian teams' fans probably have no love lost for our Canadiens franchise either.

The players are from all over the world no matter where the city is located. And furthermore, as an impartial party, why do fans in Hamilton have any more right to watch a sport they love than hockey fans in Dallas or San jose? Because they were born in Canada? I dunno, I don't buy it.

As long as they don't expand the league (further watering down the talent) I really don't care where the other teams are. Don't touch my Canadiens, and for purely sentimental reasons I'd like to see some formerly great teams like the Islanders, Penguins and Oilers stay put. But for the average Canadian that lives outside of the four cities mentioned in the article, why does it matter if there are more Canadian teams? Who cares? I'm not going to be cheering for them anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So 20% of the teams make up 30% of the revenue for the NHL? Then the opposite is equally true. 70% of its revenue comes from the US's 80% of the teams. So that means 10% of the US teams (2.4) are slacking a bit.

Sounds like for the most part, the US teams are bringing in the same amount of revenue as the Canadian teams, on a % basis. Only 2-3 teams arent.

The split of revenue is far from equally split among US franchises. Some franchises such as NY Rangers and the Red Wings bring in a lot more cash than others. Your 2 or 3 franchises in trouble is an underestimate. Top on the list of hemorrhaging franchises, Atlanta, Florida, and Phoenix but add a few more.

blue jackets -- unless their arena deal has been fixed they have no way to make money.

LA -- is a big money loser and AEG is looking at selling.

Islanders -- big money losers and with the rejection of the lighthouse project is Wang ready to move them or sell?

the Blues, dallas stars, Nashville, Hurricanes, devils are also looking for investors or new ownership.

Ken Campbell had a good article in the hockeynews about this.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/3351...sale-teams.html

If these franchises are looking to move, Why not Canada?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winnipeg analysis..

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hock...article1629344/

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=326714

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/winn...article1629346/

The skinny.

1. Winnipeg has a small population 750,000. The economy has weathered the financial crisis but has a small corporate presence (though it is larger than Ottawa's).

2. Arena (MTS Centre) is new only 6 years old, located downtown, is third in bookings in Canada behind the ACC and the Bell. small 15000 with 50 luxury boxes.

3. Owners: Chipman has done well marketing the AHL Moose and is chairman of the arena ownership company(the Moose were 2nd in AHL regular season attendance). David Thomson, chairman of Thomson-Reuters, is a billionaire and a member of the richest family in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the question isn't "Why Not Canada?", but rather "Why Care, Canada?"

With all of this talk dominating the news about Phoenix going to Hamilton and then Winnipeg and then some team going back to Quebec City- am I the only one who really couldn't care less if there was another Canadian team? I mean, I understand it if you live in Winnipeg or Quebec City or Toronto or whatever. If someone told me that there was a chance a team would be coming to Halifax I'd be ecstatic... after all, it would probably be in the North-East division, meaning there'd be three Habs games here per year! :P. But why does everyone want a Canadian team just to say that there's another Canadian team?

Don't get me wrong, it's not like I don't care about the country and hockey's place within it. When the Olympics or any other world tourney starts I'm sporting the maple leaf like any other proud Canuck. But during the NHL season? I want nothing to do with Maple Leafs OR Canucks ;). If anything I like the other Canadian teams even less than the other league teams, if only because there's a much greater chance of having an annoying fan around at any given time. And judging by some of the Habs fans I've met, I'm willing to bet that some other Canadian teams' fans probably have no love lost for our Canadiens franchise either.

The players are from all over the world no matter where the city is located. And furthermore, as an impartial party, why do fans in Hamilton have any more right to watch a sport they love than hockey fans in Dallas or San jose? Because they were born in Canada? I dunno, I don't buy it.

As long as they don't expand the league (further watering down the talent) I really don't care where the other teams are. Don't touch my Canadiens, and for purely sentimental reasons I'd like to see some formerly great teams like the Islanders, Penguins and Oilers stay put. But for the average Canadian that lives outside of the four cities mentioned in the article, why does it matter if there are more Canadian teams? Who cares? I'm not going to be cheering for them anyway.

Could be a combination of a Canadian inferiority complex (Canada versus everyone else for no apparent reason other than we have to be better than someone at something), a media imposed way of thinking, lack of logic or a little both of everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be a combination of a Canadian inferiority complex (Canada versus everyone else for no apparent reason other than we have to be better than someone at something), a media imposed way of thinking, lack of logic or a little both of everything.

Whether the media frenzy has roots in those other factors you mentioned or not, I have almost no doubt that it's the #1 driving force behind all of this stuff.

It's one thing for organizations like TSN or The Hockey News to be backing a study like this, but this one is being conducted in part by a national newspaper (the Globe and Mail). And I'll admit that Balsillie trying to buy the Coyotes was a nice interesting bit of legal drama, but it was something that outside of the Hamilton area probably deserved to be relegated to the back pages of the business or sports sections. Instead, every slight development became front page news on almost every website and newspaper in the Country. They made Balsillie into a national hero (and I'd also be willing to bet that it was one of the most successful domestic marketing campaigns that Blackberry has ever had :P).

And really, did this study actually require a six-day multi-part special in order to get its information across? SIX days? :huh: I know there's not much else going on in the world of hockey, but I'd rather have one or two days of 'Why Not Canada' and then maybe some coverage of the various development camps going on. Or we could get more coverage of one of those other little sporting events going on... there must be something else, right? Maybe, I dunno, the WORLD CUP? If nothing else we could at least do what all the other countries do and have more footage of a prescient German octopus. (Hey, he's now 6/6 :P)

Anyway, sorry for the rant everyone. I'm not actually this bitter a person :P. I just hate when the papers try to whip us all up into a big nationalistic frenzy just to get a few more sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love this paragraph.

So 20% of the teams make up 30% of the revenue for the NHL? Then the opposite is equally true. 70% of its revenue comes from the US's 80% of the teams. So that means 10% of the US teams (2.4) are slacking a bit.

Sounds like for the most part, the US teams are bringing in the same amount of revenue as the Canadian teams, on a % basis. Only 2-3 teams arent.

I don't follow your math. As far as I can tell, the average Canadian team brings in 5% of league revenes (30% / 6). That means that if, as you say " for the most part, the US teams are bringing in the same amount of revenue as the Canadian teams", these US teams also need to bring in 5% of revenues. Of the 70% of revenues remaining, divided by 5%, you get 14 teams who could match the Canadian average. So really you have at least 6 slacking (well sort of, see my next paragraph), not sure where you got your 2.4.

The other problem in your post is drawing the conclusion that a certain number of teams are "slacking". With the given numbers, we have no way to know the distribution of revenue. For example, in my last paragraph the obvious problem with saying "6 teams are slacking", is that it assumed those 6 teams had zero revenues. If you took away 6 teams with zero revenue, then both teams in Canada and the US would have 5% of revenues on average. However, if you remove the 6 weakest teams assuming they do bring in revenue, the total revenue of the league drops, and Canadian teams on average will still be bringing in more. You'd have to remove a significant number of teams to change this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't follow your math. As far as I can tell, the average Canadian team brings in 5% of league revenes (30% / 6). That means that if, as you say " for the most part, the US teams are bringing in the same amount of revenue as the Canadian teams", these US teams also need to bring in 5% of revenues. Of the 70% of revenues remaining, divided by 5%, you get 14 teams who could match the Canadian average. So really you have at least 6 slacking (well sort of, see my next paragraph), not sure where you got your 2.4.

The other problem in your post is drawing the conclusion that a certain number of teams are "slacking". With the given numbers, we have no way to know the distribution of revenue. For example, in my last paragraph the obvious problem with saying "6 teams are slacking", is that it assumed those 6 teams had zero revenues. If you took away 6 teams with zero revenue, then both teams in Canada and the US would have 5% of revenues on average. However, if you remove the 6 weakest teams assuming they do bring in revenue, the total revenue of the league drops, and Canadian teams on average will still be bringing in more. You'd have to remove a significant number of teams to change this.

In Nashville the ownership group will not spend above the half way point to the cap and push to just get 14K fans in the seats this way they qualify for the full 10 Mill a season rev sharing. I am sure there are other teams like that also. So they are pushing to just meet league requirements so they can capitalise on the cahrity (for lack of a better term) of the rest of the NHL. Even with the Rev sharing the team barely posts a profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was watching the Toronto edition of this thing this morning with breakfast and they made what I thought was a really great point about why the Leafs are so dead set against another team moving in on their turf.

It always seemed to me that the Leafs were so big and so popular that they weren't going to lose much money even with another team, and for a team as consistently bad as they are a cross-town rival could actually help to spike fan interest. But the problem isn't really with the Leafs... it's with the ownership. MLSE doesn't just control the Maple Leafs but also the Raptors, Toronto FC and the ACC itself.

Two hockey teams wouldn't affect the Leafs' attendance numbers at all, but you'd have to think that it could sure put dent in the Raptors' figures. They didn't specifically mention this in the tsn article, but a new hockey team would mean a new arena... which would mean new competition for the ACC when booking things like big musical acts. Makes sense to me :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...