Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Owners care most about the market value of their teams. It's simple economics that having teams in known, larger markets will have a greater positive impact on the average value of teams than ticket prices or attendance providing you get the numbers to stay afloat.

Pretty bold statement to say Alberta has more hockey fans than all of California, Arizona and Texas. I do believe most schools in California have NCAA hockey programs. IIRC, some are Division 1. That's suggests there are fans playing the sport and watching it even if they don't necessarily follow the NHL. There's over 30 million California alone.

I retracted my California statement. I'll double down on Texas and Arizona

As for franchise values forbes doesn't really back your statement.

If it did The New Jersey Devils and NYI Should be above the Winnipeg jets instead of below. LA kings should be Ahead of Vancouver ect.

New York Rangers: $1.2 billion
Montreal Canadians: $1.18 billion
Toronto Maple Leafs: $1.15 billion
Chicago Blackhawks: $925 million
Boston Bruins: $750 million
Vancouver Canucks: $745 million
Philadelphia Flyers: $660 million
Detroit Red Wings: $600 million
Los Angeles Kings: $580 million
Washington Capitals: $565 million
Pittsburgh Penguins: $560 million
Edmonton Oilers: $455 million
Dallas Stars: $450 million
San Jose Sharks: $445 million
Calgary Flames: $435 million
Anaheim Ducks: $400 million
Minnesota Wild: $380 million
Ottawa Senators: $370 million
Colorado Avalanche: $360 million
Winnipeg Jets: $350 million
New Jersey Devils: $330 million
New York Islanders: $325 million
Buffalo Sabres: $300 million
St. Louis Blues: $270 million
Tampa Bay Lightning: $260 million
Nashville Predators: $255 million
Columbus Blue Jackets: $226 million
Carolina Hurricanes: $225 million
Arizona Coyotes: $220 million
Florida Panthers: $186 million

[king10]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Owners care most about the market value of their teams. It's simple economics that having teams in known, larger markets will have a greater positive impact on the average value of teams than ticket prices or attendance providing you get the numbers to stay afloat.

Pretty bold statement to say Alberta has more hockey fans than all of California, Arizona and Texas. I do believe most schools in California have NCAA hockey programs. IIRC, some are Division 1. That's suggests there are fans playing the sport and watching it even if they don't necessarily follow the NHL. There's over 30 million California alone.

there are a total of ZERO NCAA Division 1 or Division 3 Hockey programs in California.

[drummer_god]

Originally Posted by Berklon

MLSE has some say on the restriction of a 2nd NHL team in the GTA (whether it's simply a single vote or something more intrusive), but they can't stop another arena from being constructed.

Of course, would someone be willing to build an arena with the hopes they can generate enough revenue solely from events and without a major tenant - that's a different matter. The Sprint Center in KC generates a profit without a tenant, but they don't have to compete with another arena too close by - whereas a new one in Toronto has to compete with the ACC and First Ontario Centre.

I've always wondered if anyone has the idea to build a concert-specific venue that can seat 12-15k or so and be optimized for these types of events. Personally, I hate large venues for concerts - even arenas are too large and offers crappy sound quality. I prefer 1k-4k venues. But I may change my tune if the venue was designed more like a larger concert hall with superior sound.

Toronto has the Molson Ampitheatre on lake shore Blvd.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by king10

there are a total of ZERO NCAA Division 1 or Division 3 Hockey programs in California.

What do you consider the ACHA Div 2 then? There is a nine team league based in California.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by king10

there are a total of ZERO NCAA Division 1 or Division 3 Hockey programs in California.

Then what was I watching?

*edit ... I see, the ACHA. A cheaper independent option to the NCAA but, still competing at the same level.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

I retracted my California statement. I'll double down on Texas and Arizona

As for franchise values forbes doesn't really back your statement.

If it did The New Jersey Devils and NYI Should be above the Winnipeg jets instead of below. LA kings should be Ahead of Vancouver ect.

New York Rangers: $1.2 billion
Montreal Canadians: $1.18 billion
Toronto Maple Leafs: $1.15 billion
Chicago Blackhawks: $925 million
Boston Bruins: $750 million
Vancouver Canucks: $745 million
Philadelphia Flyers: $660 million
Detroit Red Wings: $600 million
Los Angeles Kings: $580 million
Washington Capitals: $565 million
Pittsburgh Penguins: $560 million
Edmonton Oilers: $455 million
Dallas Stars: $450 million
San Jose Sharks: $445 million
Calgary Flames: $435 million
Anaheim Ducks: $400 million
Minnesota Wild: $380 million
Ottawa Senators: $370 million
Colorado Avalanche: $360 million
Winnipeg Jets: $350 million
New Jersey Devils: $330 million
New York Islanders: $325 million
Buffalo Sabres: $300 million
St. Louis Blues: $270 million
Tampa Bay Lightning: $260 million
Nashville Predators: $255 million
Columbus Blue Jackets: $226 million
Carolina Hurricanes: $225 million
Arizona Coyotes: $220 million
Florida Panthers: $186 million

Pay closer attention. I said would potentially increase the average franchise value. This list of current individual franchise values means absolutely nothing.

[esquire]

^ Judging by the fact that the sunbelt teams are mostly in the bottom or middle tier of franchises by value, you have to wonder what kind of real upward effect adding more franchises in that region would have. It'll be interesting to see where Vegas (what happened to the "Las"?) winds up on that list next year.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Pay closer attention. I said would potentially increase the average franchise value. This list of current individual franchise values means absolutely nothing.

OK, so the "youngest" teams on that list are now going on 20 years in the league, so when is that increased valuation potential going to pay off?

[WhipperSnapper]

Jeez. Let's try a different approach. Do you honestly think the Rangers, Leafs and Canadiens would be each worth a billion dollars if the league were still the Original Six? Or, that they would be worth the billion dollars without Bettman's continental push and still be the 21 teams in the mid 1980s?

Bettman has been around 25 years now and yet the forgone conclusion on this forum is that the southern expansion has been a resounding failure because of attendance and ticket prices.

[esquire]

^ Even with the continental push, the league is still predominantly regional in the North American context, just as it was in the 80s during the 21 team era. Basically central and western Canada, and a handful of northern/north central states.

No one in Denver is watching the NHL playoffs when the Avs aren't in them. The NHL is somewhere in between MLS and the NFL in that regard.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Judging by the fact that the sunbelt teams are mostly in the bottom or middle tier of franchises by value, you have to wonder what kind of real upward effect adding more franchises in that region would have. It'll be interesting to see where Vegas (what happened to the "Las"?) winds up on that list next year.

I'll say it again. These individual values are beside the point. The actual Vegas franchise value matters less than what it does to the values of the Rangers, Leafs and, Canadiens. (Note: I'm just following with Vegas. I don't actually think it adds much value)

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Even with the continental push, the league is still predominantly regional in the North American context, just as it was in the 80s during the 21 team era. Basically central and western Canada, and a handful of northern/north central states.

No one in Denver is watching the NHL playoffs when the Avs aren't in them. The NHL is somewhere in between MLS and the NFL in that regard.

I'm looking at this from a league point of view. You guys can't seem to get around individual franchise performances. It's the perception of being a continental league with teams all over the place. It doesn't really matter if no one is watching in Denver as long as enough people are watching. The potential is also there for Denver to grow into the sport.

It's all over the corporate world. You don't need to be profitable to be very successful. You just need to look the part.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I'll say it again. These individual values are beside the point. The actual Vegas franchise value matters less than what it does to the values of the Rangers, Leafs and, Canadiens. (Note: I'm just following with Vegas. I don't actually think it adds much value)

Assuming that this is actually the case, that's a very odd strategic driver for a 30-team league.

What's in it for the owners of the money losing or stagnant teams, other than the pipe dream that one day they might be part of the top 3 or 5 élite set?

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by drummer_god

Toronto has the Molson Ampitheatre on lake shore Blvd.

Sorry, I should've been more specific... I was referring to indoor venues for the best acoustics. Plus Molson Ampitheatre only has around 9,000 seats - everyone else is sitting/standing on the grass. It's a great outdoor venue to kick back and enjoy some tunes in the summer.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Assuming that this is actually the case, that's a very odd strategic driver for a 30-team league.

What's in it for the owners of the money losing or stagnant teams, other than the pipe dream that one day they might be part of the top 3 or 5 élite set?

Think about it. That's pretty much how everything goes in our economy. There maybe some assistance but, not anything that would be bad for business even if it would truly benefit, in this case, the struggling franchise.

For sports leagues, only the NFL manages to be somewhat fair only because of some lucrative licensing agreements.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by speedog

They're downplaying it too but the financial impact will most likely be missed by quite a few businesses. A good catch for either Red Deer or Saskatoon, front runners apparently.

Yup, it's too bad it had to go down like this, Edmonton loses out on a major event, I doubt the OEG can pull together anything remotely close to what the CFR brought.

[EpicPonyTime]

Originally Posted by speedog

They're downplaying it too but the financial impact will most likely be missed by quite a few businesses. A good catch for either Red Deer or Saskatoon, front runners apparently.

Considering they announced last year that they would be moving to Saskatoon before backpedalling, I hope they choose the latter. I think it would be a huge success there.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Pay closer attention. I said would potentially increase the average franchise value. This list of current individual franchise values means absolutely nothing.

I Don't need to pay close attention. It's pretty clear what you're saying

It's simple economics that having teams in known, larger markets will have a greater positive impact on the average value of teams than ticket prices or attendance providing you get the numbers to stay afloat.

I think that list means nothing because it discredits what you're saying. Your theory of metro population outweighs gate revenue in terms of franchise value should leave the list end with Winnipeg,Ottawa,buffalo and edmonton and start with Newyork,New Jersey,NYI,LA which is not the case

[Oilkountry]

Back to the Coyotes/Houston thing. I see this happening in the near future. As early as next season.

Hear me out. The Coyotes owners are borowing against the team to cover losses from last season (18M) . ASU Is not interested in building such a massive arena for the sun devils. The arena lease at Gila river arena (jobing) is a year by year lease. How long are shareholders going to put up with this? I can see them cashing out to break even and Houston icing a team as soon as next season

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by 240glt

Yup, it's too bad it had to go down like this, Edmonton loses out on a major event, I doubt the OEG can pull together anything remotely close to what the CFR brought.

Reading that article, it states that at one point Calgary was trying to wrestle the event away from Edmonton twice but is now no longer interested. Has the CFR seen a marked decline in interest in recent years from the general public?

That article also said Calgary will or is having a tough time keeping sustained interest in the Stampede. Is the Stampede actually seeing a decline in interest and revenues as well? And would this not be solely the result of the decline in peak oil prices and its effects on the Alberta economy?