The NHL is coming closer to Quebec City

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Gitfiddler

Buffalo's a good hockey market, but it's a small market, and it depends a lot on Canadians to buy tickets. Hamilton would take away from that.

Is Buffalo considered a small market because it lacks a corporate base? If one were to look at population, it's bigger than Calgary.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by trueviking

^like what?

what other categories would winnipeg do worse than phoenix, nashville, miami, atlanta, the islanders?

as for the luxury suites: the MTS centre has two double (party) suites that could be made into regular ones if they wanted, so they really have 50...and as i mentioned before, this is the one part of the arena that could be added to....and likely will be even without the NHL....most arenas in the NHL have 70 or so luxury suites....MTS could be the same with easy modification....i know for a fact that it has already been explored...ive seen the drawings.



FYI: gate reciepts int he NHL are closer to 50%....from the levitt report in 2003.

Gate receipts $997 million
Broadcasting and new media $449 million
In-arena revenues $415 million
Other hockey revenues $85 million
Total revenues $1,996 million

What categories fall short? In every one except ticket sales. For example, the New York Islanders signed a local broadcast deal in the 80's that was worth as much as the entire Hockey Night in Canada TV deal. That has since changed, but the Islanders would still be making more money off of a local broadcast deal than a Winnipeg market could ever dream of. And they don't have a new arena (yet). This speaks nothing of the corporate base of New york which is about 85X the size of the Peg's which would show up in things like sponsorship and luxury box and club seat sales. That's when the gap between the markets gets wider.

Also, the average number of suites in NHL rinks is actually closer to 90 so once again, not even close. This mentions nothing of club seats of which the MTS Centre has 900. The NHL average is just over 2000. So again there, not anywhere near enough.

[Gitfiddler]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Is Buffalo considered a small market because it lacks a corporate base? If one were to look at population, it's bigger than Calgary.

"Small market" in terms of the NHL is a relative term. Obviously in comparison with places like NYC, Toronto, Chicago, Philly, etc, Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa are all very small markets. By US standards a place like Pittsburgh is a small market. But it's economies of scale. In Canada, anything with a million people is a big city. In the US, it's small beans until the metro area reaches at least 3 million. Even Milwaukee, which is considered a mid-sized market by US standards would be the 4th biggest market in Canada after TO, Mtl and Vancouver.

Calgary definitely has a much larger corporate base than Buffalo. Probably larger than any city of a comparable size, actually. Buffalo's stuck in the midst of the manufacturing belt of the US, it has a lot of media saturation from the rest of the state, and particularly NYC. It's a tough go there for both the NHL and NFL franchises at the moment.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Which rinks? Cause MTS Centre has 48 suites and that is roughly 1/2 the NHL average. Even the now obsolete Rexall Centre has 56 so that would still put the MTS Centre at the bottom of the list in Canada in terms of the entire NHL, only above the rinks in the NHL built before 1990 (which currently is only a handful). That is nowhere near big enough.

For a further example, Calgary's Saddledome has 76 suites and they too want to build a new arena

I thought I had read that the Islanders only had 32 luxury boxes (I know they urgently need a new arena if they are to stay there) and San Jose has like 66, which Winnipeg might be able to squeeze into the MTS.

Anyway, as I have hinted at before, Winnipeg would certainly improve its chances with even a modestly expanded MTS Centre.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Which rinks? Cause MTS Centre has 48 suites and that is roughly 1/2 the NHL average. Even the now obsolete Rexall Centre has 56 so that would still put the MTS Centre at the bottom of the list in Canada in terms of the entire NHL, only above the rinks in the NHL built before 1990 (which currently is only a handful). That is nowhere near big enough.

For a further example, Calgary's Saddledome has 76 suites and they too want to build a new arena

I was also wondering if those luxury boxes in the US cities (particularly in the South) are all rented every year and if so, at premium prices? I would think that if there was little interest for tickets in the stands and for watching on TV, the incentive for private businesses to pay top-notch prices for luxury boxes may not be there either.

There are likely takers for most of them, but at what price? Are they deeply discounted just like ticket prices are routinely slashed?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Gitfiddler

"Small market" in terms of the NHL is a relative term. Obviously in comparison with places like NYC, Toronto, Chicago, Philly, etc, Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa are all very small markets. By US standards a place like Pittsburgh is a small market. But it's economies of scale. In Canada, anything with a million people is a big city. In the US, it's small beans until the metro area reaches at least 3 million. Even Milwaukee, which is considered a mid-sized market by US standards would be the 4th biggest market in Canada after TO, Mtl and Vancouver.

Calgary definitely has a much larger corporate base than Buffalo. Probably larger than any city of a comparable size, actually. Buffalo's stuck in the midst of the manufacturing belt of the US, it has a lot of media saturation from the rest of the state, and particularly NYC. It's a tough go there for both the NHL and NFL franchises at the moment.

The small market vs big market issue is also about how many people in a given area care about hockey. (At least in the short term, until you can turn a lot of them on to the sport - and we've seen how difficult that is.) The number that really counts is how many people in a given area care about the sport. A place like New York is so huge and has enough of a hockey history that the Rangers do fine. But just because London, England is bigger and richer doesn't mean it's a better NHL market than Montreal, Toronto or even Calgary.

It's a mistake the NHL has been making for the past 15 years or so. Sure Phoenix has 4 million people in its metro, but perhaps only 5% of them have a passing interest in hockey, or 200,000 people. In a place like Ottawa with 1 million people, perhaps 80% of people are interested, which is 800,000 people. In spite of appearances, Ottawa is actually a much larger hockey market than Phoenix.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by Nicko999

Bring them back!!! Habs-Nordiques rivalry was something...

Biggest brawl in NHL history!
• Video Link

Actually, the biggest brawl in NHL history was the Flyers and Senators on March 5, 2004. 419 penalty minutes were given.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The small market vs big market issue is also about how many people in a given area care about hockey. (At least in the short term, until you can turn a lot of them on to the sport - and we've seen how difficult that is.) The number that really counts is how many people in a given area care about the sport. A place like New York is so huge and has enough of a hockey history that the Rangers do fine. But just because London, England is bigger and richer doesn't mean it's a better NHL market than Montreal, Toronto or even Calgary.

It's a mistake the NHL has been making for the past 15 years or so. Sure Phoenix has 4 million people in its metro, but perhaps only 5% of them have a passing interest in hockey, or 200,000 people. In a place like Ottawa with 1 million people, perhaps 80% of people are interested, which is 800,000 people. In spite of appearances, Ottawa is actually a much larger hockey market than Phoenix.

Markets are about TV ratings, primarily.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

What categories fall short? In every one except ticket sales. For example, the New York Islanders signed a local broadcast deal in the 80's that was worth as much as the entire Hockey Night in Canada TV deal. That has since changed, but the Islanders would still be making more money off of a local broadcast deal than a Winnipeg market could ever dream of. And they don't have a new arena (yet). This speaks nothing of the corporate base of New york which is about 85X the size of the Peg's which would show up in things like sponsorship and luxury box and club seat sales. That's when the gap between the markets gets wider.

Also, the average number of suites in NHL rinks is actually closer to 90 so once again, not even close. This mentions nothing of club seats of which the MTS Centre has 900. The NHL average is just over 2000. So again there, not anywhere near enough.

umm yeah well...thankfully new york city isnt the benchmark of corporate presence required for a viable NHL franchise or there wouldnt be many teams.

re. the new york islanders: regardless of what happened 2 decades ago, the islanders have lost $97 million dollars in three seasons....all that supposed corporate support doesnt seem to be helping.

the islanders currently make $7 million a year in local tv revenue...3/4 of the league average...1/15th of the 'entire hockey night in canada tv deal'....another team in the NYC metro, the devils only make $4.6 million...less than half of the league average.

http://books.google.com/books?id=58K...evenue&f=false

re. tv revenues: the facts are that the bottom 10 teams average only $5 million per year in local television broadcasting revenue.....1/3 of the league averages $5 million!...im pretty sure winnipeg can dream like that....

re. club seats: that revenue would be included in the ticket revenues i posted earlier....it doesnt matter if you have 15000 club seats if nobody's buying them....the pathetic ticket revenues generated by 1/3 of the league included all those club seats...as i proved earlier, 15500 seats at the league average gives winnipeg top half of the league revenues....with or without club seats.

re. luxury suites: im not sure why you think everyone has 90 luxury suites....the MTS centre has 50 and can be expanded another 20...i work for the architect who has done the planning for that expansion.

SJ 65
minn. 66
tampa 71
nash 70
NYI 32
carolina 66
columbus 76
Fla 70
NJ 76
Pitt (new) 66
Calgary 72
Edmonton 55

the phoenix arena has almost 30 empty suites and i have a very hard time believing that all those suites are sold in the other american arenas....ive been to games in atlanta and nashville where it looked like there was an electrical blackout at the suites level...

http://www.fromtherink.com/2009/6/9/...ngs-impact-the

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I thought I had read that the Islanders only had 32 luxury boxes (I know they urgently need a new arena if they are to stay there) and San Jose has like 66, which Winnipeg might be able to squeeze into the MTS.

Anyway, as I have hinted at before, Winnipeg would certainly improve its chances with even a modestly expanded MTS Centre.

Yes, the Islanders do only have 32 suites and just over 100 club seats. That is why they will rebuild the facility with as much as 3 times the number of club seats or they will move to a facility that already has them. However the Islanders have a local TV broadcast deal that pays them close to $20 million per season which is more than a few other NHL teams combined!

The HP Pavilion has 70 suites and is largely regarded as the main reason holding the Sharks back from being one of the NHL's top revenue producing teams. They do however have 3,000 club seats and a very large corporate support to help with those shortcomings. Also, of note, it has been recently talked about San Jose going after an NBA franchise to share the HP Pavilion with the Sharks and along with it, major renovations to the arena.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I was also wondering if those luxury boxes in the US cities (particularly in the South) are all rented every year and if so, at premium prices? I would think that if there was little interest for tickets in the stands and for watching on TV, the incentive for private businesses to pay top-notch prices for luxury boxes may not be there either.

There are likely takers for most of them, but at what price? Are they deeply discounted just like ticket prices are routinely slashed?

Its hard to track whether suites are or are not sold but the one thing that is for sure is that they are not discounted like some regular tickets are in some of the weaker markets. Their maybe deals like discounted food in the suites, but the tickets themselves will more than likely in most cases stay high. These things are for corporate clients who can afford (or at least used to) these costs.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by trueviking

umm yeah well...thankfully new york city isnt the benchmark of corporate presence required for a viable NHL franchise or there wouldnt be many teams.

re. the new york islanders: regardless of what happened 2 decades ago, the islanders have lost $97 million dollars in three seasons....all that supposed corporate support doesnt seem to be helping.

the islanders currently make $7 million a year in local tv revenue...3/4 of the league average...1/15th of the 'entire hockey night in canada tv deal'....another team in the NYC metro, the devils only make $4.6 million...less than half of the league average.

http://books.google.com/books?id=58K...evenue&f=false

re. tv revenues: the facts are that the bottom 10 teams average only $5 million per year in local television broadcasting revenue.....1/3 of the league averages $5 million!...im pretty sure winnipeg can dream like that....

re. club seats: that revenue would be included in the ticket revenues i posted earlier....it doesnt matter if you have 15000 club seats if nobody's buying them....the pathetic ticket revenues generated by 1/3 of the league included all those club seats...as i proved earlier, 15500 seats at the league average gives winnipeg top half of the league revenues....with or without club seats.

re. luxury suites: im not sure why you think everyone has 90 luxury suites....the MTS centre has 50 and can be expanded another 20...i work for the architect who has done the planning for that expansion.

SJ 65
minn. 66
tampa 71
nash 70
NYI 32
carolina 66
columbus 76
Fla 70
NJ 76
Pitt (new) 66
Calgary 72
Edmonton 55

the phoenix arena has almost 30 empty suites and i have a very hard time believing that all those suites are sold in the other american arenas....ive been to games in atlanta and nashville where it looked like there was an electrical blackout at the suites level...

http://www.fromtherink.com/2009/6/9/...ngs-impact-the

Nobody sasid the Islanders were making money. I was simply stating their current TV deal (which you are waaay wrong on) Their local TV deal is worth $21MM a year (the NHL average is $3.7) and is the 2nd highest in the NHL behind the Rangers. They still need a new arena and will get one-one way or another. They survive despite their small outdated arena. Winnipeg has no such luxury.

Also, the only thing you "proved" was that Candian based teams buy a lot of tickets. Thats all. As I pointed out, ticket sales are not even half of total revenues of a team. The market falls well short in areas like the aforementioned suite rentals, broadcast deals, and the biggest shortcoming corporate sponsorship. Why compare yourself to the bottom 10 teams of the league? Most of those are teams in the sunbelt losing gobs of money. Hardly something to strive for.

BTW never said "everyone has 90 suites." Just said the average is around that figure. In any case the MTS falls well short at 46.

[Acajack]

EastVanMark,

It sounds to me like there are no hard-and-fast rules about anything in the NHL (including team profitability). Any rule about arena capacity, TV revenue, luxury boxes, etc. is liable to be bent according to the whims of Mr. Bettman and the Board of Governors. If they want a city in the league, they’ll bend all the rules if they have to (and even pay its way), but if they want to keep a city out, they’ll strictly apply every single one and even invent new ones.

Not that that’s news to anyone who has followed the NHL’s shenanigans in recent years.

All the more reason for them not to get a single penny of my money for the time being.

Acajack
Former Ottawa Senators season ticket holder and former attendee of a dozen games per year in Montreal

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Nobody sasid the Islanders were making money. I was simply stating their current TV deal (which you are waaay wrong on) Their local TV deal is worth $21MM a year (the NHL average is $3.7) and is the 2nd highest in the NHL behind the Rangers. They still need a new arena and will get one-one way or another. They survive despite their small outdated arena. Winnipeg has no such luxury.

Also, the only thing you "proved" was that Candian based teams buy a lot of tickets. Thats all. As I pointed out, ticket sales are not even half of total revenues of a team. The market falls well short in areas like the aforementioned suite rentals, broadcast deals, and the biggest shortcoming corporate sponsorship. Why compare yourself to the bottom 10 teams of the league? Most of those are teams in the sunbelt losing gobs of money. Hardly something to strive for.

BTW never said "everyone has 90 suites." Just said the average is around that figure. In any case the MTS falls well short at 46.

The Islanders’ TV deal is legendary in pro sports and a classic example of someone getting stiffed big time. If university business students aren’t studying this as an example of what not to do, then they should. As you pointed out, this is a good reason why the Islanders (at least) are not going anywhere. Or at least that they will be staying somewhere in the Greater New York market.

Consider that MSG pays 20-some million a year to broadcast Islanders games that average 15,000 viewers.

RDS pays about the same annually to broadcast Canadiens’ games that attract between 600,000 and 800,000 viewers!

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Nobody sasid the Islanders were making money. I was simply stating their current TV deal (which you are waaay wrong on) Their local TV deal is worth $21MM a year (the NHL average is $3.7) and is the 2nd highest in the NHL behind the Rangers. They still need a new arena and will get one-one way or another. They survive despite their small outdated arena. Winnipeg has no such luxury.

Also, the only thing you "proved" was that Candian based teams buy a lot of tickets. Thats all. As I pointed out, ticket sales are not even half of total revenues of a team. The market falls well short in areas like the aforementioned suite rentals, broadcast deals, and the biggest shortcoming corporate sponsorship. Why compare yourself to the bottom 10 teams of the league? Most of those are teams in the sunbelt losing gobs of money. Hardly something to strive for.

BTW never said "everyone has 90 suites." Just said the average is around that figure. In any case the MTS falls well short at 46.

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.

[Acajack]

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.

And let's not forget the welfa... er, equalization payments that the profitable teams make to the money-losers at the moment. This hasn't even been factored into the equation!

Winnipeg and Quebec City have prove that they can pay for themselves 100%
or more, yet Phoenix, Atlanta and others are heavily subsidized by Toronto, Montreal, etc.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

EastVanMark,

It sounds to me like there are no hard-and-fast rules about anything in the NHL (including team profitability). Any rule about arena capacity, TV revenue, luxury boxes, etc. is liable to be bent according to the whims of Mr. Bettman and the Board of Governors. If they want a city in the league, they’ll bend all the rules if they have to (and even pay its way), but if they want to keep a city out, they’ll strictly apply every single one and even invent new ones.

Not that that’s news to anyone who has followed the NHL’s shenanigans in recent years.

All the more reason for them not to get a single penny of my money for the time being.

Acajack
Former Ottawa Senators season ticket holder and former attendee of a dozen games per year in Montreal

There are no "rules", its just that which ever city has a team has to make a certain amount of money in order to make it viable. If you have weak ticket sales, then you must make up for it somewhere in another category i.e. broadcast deal or corporate sponsorship. However, a city with a small arena, small TV market, and a small corporate base is missing on all fronts.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

There are no "rules", its just that which ever city has a team has to make a certain amount of money in order to make it viable. If you have weak ticket sales, then you must make up for it somewhere in another category i.e. broadcast deal or corporate sponsorship. However, a city with a small arena, small TV market, and a small corporate base is missing on all fronts.

Recent history has shown us that certain cities are held more stringently to the viability/non-viability criteria than others. Clearly, even with revenue sharing, the Phoenix franchise is not viable in its current location. And several other clubs would not be viable in their current locations either were it not for the financial bailouts from the pockets of (mostly) northern-based clubs.

[EastVanMark]

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.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Recent history has shown us that certain cities are held more stringently to the viability/non-viability criteria than others. Clearly, even with revenue sharing, the Phoenix franchise is not viable in its current location. And several other clubs would not be viable in their current locations either were it not for the financial bailouts from the pockets of (mostly) northern-based clubs.

Yes, you're right, the Coyotes are not viable in their location currently. And yes they do benefit from payments from other franchises (not just the Canadian ones if that is what you are implying). Also, remember there is also the Canadian assistance plan which smaller market Canadian teams used not too long ago when the dollar was weaker. So it has worked both ways.
The difference in the US south is that the cities in which these franchises are found will bend over backwards to ensure that their team stays in their city. for example, the city of Nashville not only purchases large blocks of tickets but will actually pay the Predators money if the team does not reach certain revenue goals! If even a fraction of that kind of assistance was available to small Canadian markets, we would still have 8 franchises north of the border.