Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking
the average is not 90 suites...i listed half the league with 75 or less....the MTS centre can be expanded to 70....can you read or are you just choosing to ignore it.
when the islanders get a new arena, then we can change the discussion....for now (and likely forever) they do not have one....if you consider losing $97 million in three seasons 'suviving', then i am pretty confident that winnipeg cold 'survive' too.
i provided a link showing the islanders current local tv revenues...if you can provide one to the contrary, i would love to see it.
i also provided a link proving league average tv revenue numbers....if you can do otherwise, lets see it.
the canadian teams make $250-300k for every local broadcast on sportsnet....each team broadcasts 40 games a season on that channel...even if winnipeg was to get 1/2 of that deal, they would be better than 10 teams...and with pay per view and other local broadcasting rights, they would easily be in the middle of the pack.
you claimed that the MTS centre has a shortage of club seats...i proved that it didnt matter because that revenue is already in the very low ticket revenues that i provided a link to....so that argument is not valid.
ok, so now corporate sponsorship is your issue....do you have any links that show the levels of corporate support for NHL teams? your assertion that they are somehow relative to the levels of corporate presence in their cities seems to be flawed, since as you say 1/3 of the league is losing 'gobs of money' in very large cities.....winnipeg's corporate presence is similar to that of ottawa and edmonton....the numbers are posted a few pages back.
the lowly AHL moose have their 48 luxury suites sold out at near NHL levels for cost.
i am making the case that winnipeg is more viable than 1/3 of the league...that is why i am comparing it to the bottom 10 teams...those teams have 2 options, fold or move...and they dont have many options to move to.....winnipeg doesnt have to have the highest revenues in the league to be viable...it would be naive to think a city of 750k could ever reach those levels....but if it is a better option than 1/3 of the league i dont see why it isnt viable....middle of the pack is totally fine.
|
Oh I can read just fine. Didn't know the league had only 24 teams! Also, you included some markets with old arenas which will be replaced or were just plain off on some of thew numbers. Lastly, you originally said 70, and now you are saying 75. Pick one. In Canada for example, the average is 95. MTS has 46. Thats not even half. Where you would put these planned extra 30 or so suites is a mystery.
As for the Islanders "losses", any owner can change those figures with a stroke of an accountants pen. This is the same franchise that left their arena because they deemed it "unsafe to occupy" (in a desperate ploy to get a new arena) and went back only when a judge forced them too. So credibility isn't their strong suit. And BTW, the arena will be built, somewhere, soon. Also, why would any new franchise desire to "survive" like that? The league wouldn't want another problem like that as well as I can see too many people lining up to own a team that loses that ,much money. For sources, here's a hint; the Islanders were sold in the late 90's for $195 million. The sale consisted of 2 parts: $95 million for the team, $100 million for the TV contract. I don't think they would have bought a TV contract for 100 million that pays only 5 million a season
In regards to TV markets your Sportsnet numbers are way off. First off, not all Canadian teams are even on the channel so that blows that assumption out the water pretty quick. Secondly, not all sprtsnet markets are the same. For example, Sportsnet West currently has 2 teams in it while Sportsnet Pacific has but one. That means that Spnt. West splits its market into 2 and dilutes the reach of the telecasts and the profits therein. Another team would only spilt that channel yet another way.
Finally, when it comes to club seats, off course it matters. Where do you think a good chunk of those great ticket sales numbers came from? Club seats usually cost 2X a regular priced ticket. In a tiny arena that doesn't have a large number of seats to begin with, that gap gets magnified. And once again, to strive to have similar gate receipts as hockey hotbeds as Nashville, and Phoenix is akin to wanting to be the smartest kid in summer school. Even today, a franchise like Edmonton (with a much larger arena and market) can only manage to place 20th in
TOTAL revenues (not just ticket sales). Just being among the worst of the league is simply not good enough for any new potential team. Having a franchise move to a lesser of 2 evils is not going to happen. The NHL would rather have weak franchises operating in large markets with potential than having slightly better off franchises operating in markets that are at their fullest potential. Unfortunately, that is a reality of today's sports world.