BeerGuyJordan

On 6/30/2016 at 9:29 PM, sohiosportsfreak said:

I could see the Colorado Eagles move up and become their team.

I could only see this happening if they partnered with the Avs, who wouldn't want someone else's AAA affiliate in their Metro.

Before someone brings up the Chicago Wolves, the 'Hawks pretty much sell out every game and have a greater metro area of 9.5 million. The Avs/Denver are nowhere close, on either factor.

19 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said:

Could Colorado Springs be a possibility?  I know the arena where Colorado College plays is there, but don't know for sure.

Broadmoor WA seats about 7,700 IIRC.

5 hours ago, MBurmy said:

Surprised nobody's tried speculating on where Vegas' AHL affiliate will go (all signs indicate that the AHL will expand)

We KNOW it's gonna be out West...Reno seems like the most obvious pick, but they still can't get an arena built (an ECHL franchise has been dormant for thirteen years waiting on it).  Other possibilities include Fresno, Sacramento or Salt Lake City...

Reno really makes the most sense: close by, and gives locals an investment in Foley's BlackAceRollerStrippers. If they can't make it happen, and assuming it is in the West, I could see any you suggested, plus maybe Albuquerque (1.5 hour flight) or Colorado Springs (1.75).

If he can't get Fresno, Foley may sacrifice a little proximity to go with a city that's a bit more "traditional hockey territory." With him being so hands on, and the risks posed with the Vegas market, I would think he'd want an AHL team that won't be a drain on Vegas's resources.

I know it will never happen, but the hockey fan side of me would love to see them pack up the Hurricanes, Devils, Panthers and Coyotes, and give us an expansion team. Resulting in new teams in Quebec, Southwest Toronto, Indianapolis, Milwaukee and Seattle.

On 6/22/2016 at 8:44 PM, jp1409 said:

 

I'm :censored:ing tired having to pay $200 for last row weekend games tickets up north to compensate the losses of the teams who stay stuck with their $20 lower level tickets... The NHL is doing well because they totally ruin people who actually care about the game to be able to give away four beers, four meals and four tickets packages for 60 bucks to southern folks who don't give a :censored:. I'm not excited at all that my team will have to raise prices once again to finance another lame duck franchise through revenue sharing.

Teams is the North would charge the same amount even if they weren't trying to float teams. It's about supply and demand. Traditional hockey markets charge more because they CAN. People are willing to pay them. 

Also, when I was in Nashville, I got into the lower bowl for under $100 a seat ONCE, as part of a Black Friday promo. The upper bowl section I usually sat in cost me $45 a seat.

Phoenix did seem cheaper, I got a $99 coors 2-pack in the lower bowl on NYE last season when I was in town for the holidays, but as far as I know, NO ONE is selling $20 100-level seats.

Yes, some markets are struggling, and I'm not arguing that traditional markets cost more for tickets (now that I'm in MN, Wild balcony seats cost me about what lower bowl did for the Preds). Even if none were struggling, Boston, Toronto, Minneapolis, Detroit, etc. would still be charging what they are. That is because their ticket prices are market driven, not to offset Phoenix, Miami and Raleigh.

I'm actually excited about the NHL in Vegas.

Would I have rather seen stabalization of the four teams not really making a profit first? Yes. Are there other cities I'd rather see expansion going to? Yes. Was it the best decision for the league and the game? *shrugs* 

The fact is that it's done. We can't change it, so I'd rather get excited about it than whine about how it turned out or how little sense it makes (which seems to be the popular choice).

19 hours ago, Cosmic said:

This is a few years ago now, but the Sabres bought the Amerks for $5M. They weren't even for sale; $5M was the "can't walk away" price for a mid-drawing AHL team. That tells me there's probably not a ton of money to be made owning an AHL team, maybe with a few exceptions. 

Based on what I've seen from numbers, it looks like a team needs to hit, on average, about the 5,200 average attendance figure to be turning a profit. This is, by no means, official or complete, but based on what I could find on lease/city payments, salaries, franchuse fees, NHL salary assistance, front office salaries, marketing, advertising, merchandising, ticket sales, travel costs, etc. If anyone has a more solid figure, I'd be interested to see what was done differently, since mine is only based on about 5 hours of searching.

Another fact worth noting is that the unexpected buyout of the Amerks came at the end of their lowest attendance season since 1978-79. That season (10-11), along with the two previous ones, were Rochester's three lowest in attendance since 1981. $5 million for a storied franchise that was floundering and the 6th lowest attendance in the league (with indicators looking like it was only going to get worse) seems like a deal worth taking. It isn't really a deal worth judging the value of AHL teams, in general, with.

7 minutes ago, Still MIGHTY said:

Tucson should just be happy we haven't asked for a refund on the Gadsden Purchase.

I'll assume that was a joke, because the Gadsen Purchase portion has most likely been more profitable than the rest of the state, primarily due to mining.

6 hours ago, rams80 said:

Very rare is the NHL parent-owned team that is actually run with an idea towards maximizing profit.  If you think Calgary is trying to run Stockton as a moneymaker, good Lord you've never paid attention to the AHL, have you.  And Edmonton doesn't have that much of a better record.

 

So yeah, letting Tucson "forge its own history" is for more effort than it is worth for the Coyotes.

 

Granted pretending anything related to the Coyotes is permanent enough to try to build a lasting history is also an exercise in stupidity.

You never said maximiing profit before, I wouldn't say any team has that as the AHL franchise's goal. Development comes first, pretty much exclusively. For a lot of teams, brand growth & fan investment comes next. But no team is fine with not making a profit. There are some clubs that seem to run their farm team(s) like they aren't sweating the losses, but Profit is the only hockey god that matters to most owners. 

I think all the Pacific teams figured they could make their locations profitable. The notable exception being the Sharks. Unless they plan to move the Barracuda to Oakland after the Warriors leave, I don't think they have the slightest idea what to do with their affiliate. Stockton and maybe Bakersfield will likely be moving in a few years.

I know why the Coyotes made the move they did with Tucson, but I just hoped they might show more business sense than that. Tucson has the potential to really help the franchise out, if they handle it right, but with it being a non-traditional market, they have to make a lot of smart moves, and get a little bit of luck.. If they screw the pooch, it'll be one more problem for the club. I worry that this is just an early indicator that they don't understand the market they've gotten themselves into. The Old Pueblo is a little different than Phoenix (and they can't even handle that market).

7 minutes ago, rams80 said:

 

1.  The West Coast AHL teams aren't run as moneymakers.

2.  You mentioned two other teams, both of which lost a lot (and one was the dreaded mid-season fold).  Left to its own devices, Tucson hockey does not have anything to point to aside from Arizona's club team.

What does point #1 have to do with anything I just said? Besides that, if you think any non-San Jose pacific division team is just content to exist and isn't trying to turn a profit, you're delusional.

Again, I specifically said that Tucson doesn't have a wealth of history. I mentioned the other two teams because you said that they only had one prior team. I was correcting a false statement.

I was advocating creating an identity (with a modern logo) that let Tucson forge its own history, free of ties to old Phoenix teams.

12 minutes ago, rams80 said:

 

It's really the state's history.  Tucson's history is not great unless you want to be sued by the local university-they had a team in the original Central Hockey League for a single season and that is it aside from the University of Arizona's club team.

I meant that they would be better doing something new, rather than honoring any former team, especially one from Phoenix. 

Aside from the IceCats, Tucson has actually had THREE minor league teams, the Mavericks (75-76 CHL), Rustlers (78-79 PHL) and Gila Monsters (97-99 WCHL). They also had a WPHL team planned that never took the ice: the Tucson Scorch.

Still, not exactly a long and storied history there. But honoring Phoenix's hockey history is just another example of Tucson kind of being expected to just be content with the scraps from Phoenix metro's table, a trend many have come to resent. Creating an identity that would be solely Tucson's would have been a better way to go.

Not so sure I would call what they did iconic. I'm glad it emulates the WHA logo more than the ECHL one, but still a lot of issues with that logo. I would have preferred something more modern, rather than saving money by (poorly) updating a logo with your in-house people...er...I mean rather than resting on another city's hockey history, instead of your own.

This site has turned me into such a logo snob...a couple of years ago, I would have been fine with it.

34 minutes ago, Still MIGHTY said:

 

Make that 3.

Alaska signed on with Vancouver yesterday.

 

Columbus, Florida, New Jersey, Ottawa, and St. Louis are the only NHL teams without a current 2016-17 ECHL affiliation. (Ottawa is just a technicality as they have an agreement with the Evansville/Owensboro IceMen. They're reportedly looking for a stopgap team in the interim.)

Good catch, I hadn't seen the news on that yet. Staying up on the ECHL takes so much more attentiveness than the other two.

I figured that if anyone snatched up the Aces, it would likely be Vancouver.

19 hours ago, AstroBull21 said:

So with Vegas being added, that means the ECHL needs to add 6 teams to have an affiliate for every NHL club to have an affiliate, since they don't allow dual affiliations anymore.

 

Raiding the SPHL could work, as there are some nice markets available including Pensacola, Peoria, Huntsville. Portland Maine could be an ECHL option as they lost the AHL but could be suitable for ECHL. 

 

Not sure where else could be a possibility.

Not really, in 2017-2018, the ECHL will have 29 teams (Worcester joins next season, and the IceMen will be back the year after that, when their arena is ready).

They only need to add 2 teams. There are currently 4 independent ECHL teams (Alaska, Colorado, Wichita and Worcester). Acouple of those will probably pick up an affiliate, on their own, with the new single-tie rule. The NHL isn't likely to force affiliations on AA hockey, not yet, at least. They got by without for years, so I think they'll let the smoke clear on one team-affiliation, first.

As for those two markets, Portland, ME seems pretty likely. If the Hurricanes relocate (which is starting to look more and more probable), Raleigh could be a candidate.

It baffles me why Baltimore doesn't have a minor league team. Especially since it shares a metro area with DC, it seems like a no-brainer for the Caps.

As for Pensacola, it is certainly attractive, but the SPHL is actually doing pretty well, and the Ice Flyers are one of their most successful teams, both on the ice and at the gate. (Plus I'd hate to see that logo go).

1 hour ago, dfwabel said:

SLC is closer to Las Vegas than Reno. Heck, metro ABQ could have a team revived by expansion.

SLC is the closest of the three you mentioned, and it could work, but the Grizzlies are the current ECHL team for the Ducks.

I would think that the team would try to capture a more solid market than Reno has been, historically. Though, the close proximity might put it over the edge. 

ABQ has proven their response to hockey to be...tepid. It could still be worth a shot to them, and isn't really that much further away than Reno, even though it seems like it is.

Without sacrificing geographic proximity, I can't think of any other candidates. It's worth pointing out that pretty much any option for Vegas is going to require a plane ride for call-ups, though.

Springfield went with Thunderbirds.

On 6/10/2016 at 6:58 PM, BigEd76 said:

The Lehigh Valley IronPigs (Phillies AAA) are dressed as the "Cheesesteaks" tonight

 

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CknGk3CUkAATdaS.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CknGk3CUgAA9VrR.jpg

I both hate and love the gimmicky nature of special minor-league jerseys. Baseball does seem to do it a little better than hockey, but I dread when the NBA-D starts really jumping into the game.

2 hours ago, McCarthy said:

Yes the nu Browns comparison is dead on. They can't get out of their own way while also not catching a single break. The Browns would be in a better position right now if they drew prospect names out of a hat and same goes for the Blue Jackets. 

 

IMO, this is even more unforgivable for the Browns. Football sees pretty much everyone from the first round or two suit up the next season. College is, essentially, their development system. 

The NHL sees pretty much everyone past the first 5 to 10 draft picks spend at least a season in college/juniors/minors. The NHL entry draft is, mainly, about drafting prospects, while the NFL is mainly about drafting players.

Hockey drafting has a significantly higher built-in gamble than Football.

36 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

All issues that can be solved with some winning seasons and playoff success. Like Pittsburgh, like Chicago, like Nashville, like St Louis etc etc. I don't know why every other market gets the benefit of the doubt when similar attendance struggles (if not much worse) have gone hand-in-hand with their losing. 

 

I don't want to say the market is a sleeping giant because Columbus will never be a giant, but it has potential to provide value to the league. I think we've shown that in the very brief periods when the team's been competitive. 

I get what you're saying, and as a fellow small market fan, I understand the statement ruffling your feathers.

I personally think that Columbus has the most patient and longsuffering fans,  they don't have former glories to rest on like Toronto. I also feel that a couple of deep playoff runs could be enough to stabalize the market for a long time.

That doesn't change the fact that, if we're discussing relocation, the four franchises you need to discuss are the Hurricanes, Coyotes, Panthers and Blue Jackets. The Islanders got their heads off the block for a few years while the dusr settles from the Brooklyn move (though early numbers aren't encouraging). The two to keep an eye on, that are flirting with that line, are Dallas and New Jersey. 

Columbus is probably the strongest argument of the 4, for not moving. Carolina has won a cup, Florida won their conference once. The fact that the Blue Jackets have stronger numbers despite only 2 first round knock-outs in the post season is a testament to the fans. 

My minor was in business.

Regarding disposable income being unlikely, the Las Vegas metro area wouldn't be seeing the kind of growth is has if income disparity was so horrible. The thing about the middle class is that, by and large, they find ways to make it happen, if it is important to them. We aren't talking Boston of Toronto ticket prices. When I lived in Nashville, I could go to a game for almost half of what the same seats would cost me in Minnesota. 

Also, I work in the healthcare industry, in an office-hours job. Now, it varies, based on size and programs, but at least 60% of your hospital staff will be keeping office hours or a fixed shift schedule. Typically only wards see the crazy schedule.

Sure, retirement isn't what it used to be, but a significant number of people are still planning ahead and are retiring somewhat comfortably. It's like blue collars, if it's important to them, they'll find a way.

Regarding tourists, I never said I was "normal," I was refuting your absolute statement that tourist don't go to sporting events. People who do are out there, how much of the whole they comprise? *shrugs*

My point with Boston and LA is that hockey was a niche sport during thise times. Non-hockey cities can't become hockey cities unless given a chance.

How has Quebecor done more to prove themselves? I've followed the Vegas process closely, since I have a friend who wants me to move out there and help him build his business. Foley initiated this expansion process, asked the NHL to do ticket presales (which he vastly exceeded their benchmark), brought in industry personnel to advise, and conducted two separate contracted surveys of the Vegas metro area before approaching the league. I'm not discrediting Quebecor's bid (it's solid, aside from Loonie strength and conference balance), but to say they've done more than the Vegas bid is a bold claim.

Yes, the league has been embarassingly bad at investigating potential owners, but everything I'm seeing indicates that they learned that particular lesson (I mean, it only took about a half dozen times, right?)

The NBC deal isn't done based solely on the strength of the individual markets, they look more at how many people are watching hockey and the market size of the teams as a potential of viewership. Yes, they will absolutely give at least 2/3rds of the airtime to O6 and first expansion teams, but an extra tv set in Vegas tuning in sweetens the deal pretty much the same as an extra one in NYC. An expanded US footprint makes the TV rights more attractive to networks, especially with hockey viewership on the rise. NBC rights also make most teams more money than they lose in profit sharing, that's why the NHL has been so adamant to not lose the Phoenix market.

The NHL is primarily selling them the potential to air games to hockey fans, which ones they show is a different matter.

Am I being a little optimistic about Vegas? Possibly, and my defense of the Vegas bid is, by no means, airtight. The owners stand to make a good deal of money, however, and Foley seems to be a solid potential owner.

The lay of the land to the fans sometimes is very different than the business approach.

3 hours ago, rams80 said:

PROTIP:  The more games you have for a Vegas team, the greater the likelihood of financial catastrophe.  Restaurant, convention center, and hotel workers don't exactly make enough money to afford to regularly attend games, and there is too small of a corporate middle management presence.  Also, tourists have better things to do than attend sporting events.

Honestly, people act like the only jobs in Vegas are on the strip. Have you ever spent any time in Vegas? I have, and there's a whole lot more to it than just the casino business. In and around the city you have construction, schools (including UNLV), hospitals, etc. Also, a rapidly growing retirement age populace.

Also, not everyone in the gaming business makes minimum wage. Harrah's and MGM are Fortune 500 companies, and their middle-management populace isn't as disproportionate as you might think. (Retail chains and state government are actually more unbalanced)

When I, and most of my friends, travel, the first thing we look at is who is playing while we're there, to see if we want to catch a game.

Vegas is absolutely a risk, but a lot of people were critical of Boston in the 20's and especially LA in the 60's. Foley has done more than pretty much any other potential owner has before to show he's serious and has weighed the risks. I say give them a shot.

Worst case scenario, you have another market for the next bargaining with NBC, and a more traditional market gets a team in 5 to 10 years.

Best case, though, is half a million plus new hockey fans and a unique vacation opportunity for other fans.

7 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Columbus is doing fine enough. They haven't brought shame upon themselves by getting kicked out of their arena or cleaning out the owner's kids' inheritances, which is good. You can't reasonably expect a place like Columbus to have a much higher ceiling than just puttering along.

I like Columbus, and I think that on-ice success is the only missing piece.

That being said, you can't deny that their average attendance, the past 5 years is 26th (only the Islanders, Panthers, Coyotes and Hurricanes were lower), and their capacity hit has been 81.8% (above only Carolina and Arizona). Their merchandise sales are bottom 4 (some brands don't even carry CBJ items), and the only reason they aren't losing money is profit-sharing.

There are stronger candidates for relocation, but Columbus deserves to be mentioned.

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

Putting the team in a market that's a garunteed success, like Quebec City, would be an even better idea.

 

 

 

How many "one last chances" are the Phoenix Arizona Coyotes going to get to make the market work?

I've been saying Carolina to Quebec would be the best way to proceed, but I was commenting on the link stating "Carolina to Vegas".

As for the Coyotes *shrugs*. I spent my teens in Arizona, and you almost never heard anything about the Coyotes. I have a soft spot for them and agree that what they're doing hasn't worked. The League, however, has proven they don't want to lose the market.

I've said for awhile that a central location and better marketing/management could turn the franchise around. With a new arena (possibly) around the corner, indications of a possible return to on-ice competitiveness, the Tucson AHL team, and the new GM, I say give it a shot. This could be the Coyotes' best (and possibly last) chance for a turnaround.

The bottom line is that, with the league not wanting to give up markets and appear unstable, they'll probably give Miami, Columbus and Phoenix time to course-correct. I think it could be justified, as long as they dump the Hurricanes somewhere else immediately and reassess where those three are after the dust settles on that move.

Vancouver and Vegas? Unless I'm missing something crucial in the media, they're both a ways down on the MLB's list. Montreal and Mexico City are the ones the League keeps mentioning. Portlandis also a stronger candidate, with no triple or double-A team. San Antonio/Austin would probably be higher, too. Charlotte's new stadium for the Knights would be a deterrent, but I would still place them right below Vegas and above Vancouver. Indianapolis, Birmingham and New Orleans are all in that same level, as well.

15 hours ago, ninersdd said:

I'll take it that Vegas would presumably be in the Pacific next year(or year after)?

There's almost no way they wouldn't be, imo. They're Pacific time zone, and further west than Phoenix.

17 hours ago, Sodboy13 said:

Okay, let's think about everything that's gone on in the past four years, and everything it's presumably been set up for. Now, let's transcend stupid.

 

https://twitter.com/MurphysLaw74/status/739933875489640448?s=09

I feel like this could make too much sense for the League to actually do. Considering it, sure...but they can't actually force Papa K to sell the Hurricanes, just "encourage," I believe.

If you look at the stats, prospect market and the overall picture, the League could support two more teams. That being said there are still five or six teams I would rather see stabilized/relocated before expansion occurs. Taking a risk with Vegas seems a lot more sensible than keeping a floundering team in Raleigh.

The Hurricanes aren't holding such a najor market that the league should hold on too tightly. The Phoenix, Columbus, and Miami markets are, possibly, worth one big push to stabalize before considering relocation. 

There's no immediate danger for the Islanders, but their attendance took a dive in their first season in Brooklyn. It's safe to assume there will be a further drop off as the excitement of hockey in the borough wears off, for some, and the travel from LI wears down some of the older fans. The team needs to connect with Brooklyn and create new "local" fans. Barclays gave them a sweet deal, but there's an eject button in the agreement, and attendance is pretty much the only real factor in whether or not it gets used.