NHL Anti-Thread: Bad Business Decision Aggregator

[Gothamite]

the only winter sport in town

[DG_ThenNowForever]

the only winter sport in town

Plus Huskies football and basketball. The latter has the most schedule overlap and serves a different market, but you can fit 10,000 for basketball at Hec Ed.

Even still, I think the NHL could reliably cobble together 9-11,000 fans each night, no problem. I'd go twice and buy a jersey. I still don't get why that's preferable to 20,000 a night in Quebec, but whatevs.

[Evil G]

That fills the Key enough, but then with Sonics Arena and such, what will happen when they're there if it even does get built?

[charger77]

I still don't get why that's preferable to 20,000 a night in Quebec, but whatevs.

To keep Hockey Related Revenue therefore salaries lower?

[chrysleraspen08]

I'm just curious, if the Yotes do end up moving to Seattle, could the Seattle area still support the Thunderbirds and the Silvertips?

[The_Admiral]

Ding! Remember, by coming up short of HRR projections, the league can take the difference out of the players' salaries in escrow. Shane Doan pays for the comfort of Shane Doan.

Silvertips, yes (Everett is a trek), Thunderbirds, doubtful. Good thing they have that new-ish mid-sized arena. oops

[DG_ThenNowForever]

That's some cold . The NHL is the worst.

[OMMF]

Ding! Remember, by coming up short of HRR projections, the league can take the difference out of the players' salaries in escrow. Shane Doan pays for the comfort of Shane Doan.

Silvertips, yes (Everett is a trek), Thunderbirds, doubtful. Good thing they have that new-ish mid-sized arena. oops

They're both a 30-35 minute drive from KeyArena so one isn't more of a "trek" than the other. And with the move to Kent, it divided the city fanbase. Not saying a lot of old Seattle fans became Everett ones but they do go there to watch the Silvertips lose. I live in W Seattle and I feel like we are pretty far North to be STH for the Thunderbirds.

[dfwabel]

But now there is a RSOC (Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee), which wasn't under the previous CBA.

From SBNation:

The 2013 CBA brings with it a proposed solution to the harsh dictates of the 2005 revenue sharing system: the Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee (RSOC). The Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee now takes a deeper look at each club's financial requirements and their diligence in growing their own revenue vis-a-vis the previous regime. By setting up built-in flexibility in the 2013 CBA, the NHL and NHLPA are giving themselves a better chance to succeed.

Composition of the RSOC

Seven voting members comprise the RSOC; three members are chosen by the NHLPA (with at least one player), and four, including the chairman, are chosen by the Commissioner (with at least one owner). Both the Commissioner and the Executive Director of the NHLPA serve as nonvoting members.

Powers and Duties

The RSOC has broad power to access financial information and club business planning documents, subject to confidentiality agreements. Their usefulness in making league financial decisions is more than apparent. Under the CBA, clubs are entitled to receive certain amounts calculated by specific formulas, while others and the league are required to give up certain amounts to fund the revenue sharing pool. Under the RSOC's power, however, the distributed amount can be changed. If the change is within 15% of the original calculation, a vote of a simple majority is all that is required. If it is beyond 15%, a five-vote majority is required, and the change subject to an external limit.

Similarly, a five-vote majority can change the formulas used for funding and distribution, meaning that the formulas established by the 2013 CBA are simply default starting points that are not set in stone. The RSOC is also tasked with overseeing the Industry Growth Fund, which will be established "to make long-term improvements in the revenue generating potential of the low grossing Clubs." The fund totals $20 million, but may be adjusted by the RSOC. Clubs that fail to obtain 75% of the league average in gate revenues (not total revenues) are subject to RSOC oversight and possible allocation of IGF resources. The IGF may allocate funding as grants, loans, or in-kind (actual objects). Recently relocated clubs are not subject to oversight until two years after relocation, but may still get IGF funding.

[njmeadowlanders]

the only winter sport in town

Plus Huskies football and basketball. The latter has the most schedule overlap and serves a different market, but you can fit 10,000 for basketball at Hec Ed.

Even still, I think the NHL could reliably cobble together 9-11,000 fans each night, no problem. I'd go twice and buy a jersey. I still don't get why that's preferable to 20,000 a night in Quebec, but whatevs.

Oh come on. You know as well as I do that football isn't referred to as one of "the winter sports". I know, I know, it is still played after December 21st and you can potentially host a couple of playoff games, but that's basketball and hockey--the arena sports. It's baseball in the summer, football in the fall, the other two are "winter".

And yes, there's college, but I meant pro. And college football is done save for a bowl game a little over a month into the NHL season anyway.

[rams80]

No, college is a factor because the University of Washington is actually in Seattle as opposed to being palmed off on some unsuspecting small city in the late Nineteenth Century.

[dfwabel]

No, college is a factor because the University of Washington is actually in Seattle as opposed to being palmed off on some unsuspecting small city in the late Nineteenth Century.

Especially since New Husky Stadium as 50+ suites to sell, in addition to club seating, and a seat license plan for main bowl seating.

While it is a university who can have a pool of the whole state (and other alumni) and more for six games, it is still a multiple year commitment in the mid-6 figures for suites.

[Brian in Boston]

I'm not going to suggest that a Seattle-based NHL franchise would outstrip a Quebec City-based franchise in terms of fan support. Doing so would be foolhardy. After all, hockey amounts to a secular religion throughout Canada.

That said, I've never understood those who are willing to dismiss Seattle as a city with no ice hockey "tradition". The municipality played host to either a major or minor-pro franchise in the sport for 50 of 60 seasons between the Seattle Metropolitans' 1915-16 campaign and the Seattle Totems' last stand in 1974-75. During that time, Seattle never went more than 4 consecutive seasons without a pro hockey team. Factor in the city's run hosting Major Junior hockey for the past 36 seasons and Seattle has played host to major-pro, minor-pro, or major junior hockey for 58 of the last 70 seasons.

By contrast, people fall all over themselves to trumpet the "hockey tradition" of Hartford, Connecticut, a city that didn't sniff major or minor-pro ice hockey until the World Hockey Association Whalers arrived in time for the second half of the 1975-75 season... and averaged just 11,518 fans-per-game during the 21 full WHA and NHL seasons the team called the city home (12,236 fans-per-game during the 17 full NHL seasons). The Whalers were drawing an average of just 10,407 fans-per-game as a late as the 1993-94 NHL season, yet virtually nobody claims that Hartford lacked in "hockey tradition".

I'm not saying that Seattle's run as a home to major-pro, minor-pro, and major junior hockey entitles the city to an NHL franchise, but could we please retire the meme that holds that the city lacks in "hockey tradition".

[Mings]

I think what people are missing is corporate money/support. People have said that Indianapolis could support a third major league team. Fan wise? Yes, absolutely. Corporate sponsorship-wise? Not a chance. The Pacers, Colts, and Indians have the vast majority of it tied up. The same thing goes for Seattle. The fans would most likely show up, but could the NHL team survive playing the fifth-wheel in the corporate money dating game?

[Cosmic]

So let's talk about the fun part... logos and jerseys. Would we have a year of the Seattle Coyotes? Would there even be enough time at this point to develop an identity, get merchandise out, etc.? We're already a couple of weeks past when Les Thrash was sold to True North, and there's not even anything definite out there yet.

[Evil G]

I think I have stated the Seattle Roast billions of times already. It would be an awesome tribute to the coffee industry, and I love Seattle coffee (specifically Starbucks).

[Gothamite]

I'm not saying that Seattle's run as a home to major-pro, minor-pro, and major junior hockey entitles the city to an NHL franchise, but could we please retire the meme that holds that the city lacks in "hockey tradition".

I'm not sure that has a whole lot to do with it. At least not on these boards.

Seattle already has strong fanbases in three sports (even if the baseball one has taken a beating lately). The newest (and thus customarily weakest) is as crazy-devout as any in the country.

These are all important when you consider corporate support, which budgets its dollars annually. Teams in the same market aren't pals, they're competitors for finite resources. If you're Major Company A, and looking to spread your dollars around, you're probably already invested in the Mariners and Seahawks. Got to be, that's what you do. You've seen the ludicrous rise of the Sounders and have gotten in on that ride, and you're tossing a few bucks out Husky way. Now there's a new hand out, one that isn't coming from a very strong place.

The NHL is planning to enter a fairly crowded marketplace already. That is, I think, the real point. To the extent the city's hockey history has any bearing at all it's that we can't say there's already a strong culture there. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't - how do the Thunderbirds do? - but the odds start to look long when you add that to all the other factors.

They don't have a great arena. They don't have an untapped market in terms of sports franchises. They don't have a grateful municipality eager for the validation they would bring. They don't seem to have any special enthusiasm waiting for them in the marketplace. This is what the Coyotes will be facing.

[dfwabel]

I think what people are missing is corporate money/support. People have said that Indianapolis could support a third major league team. Fan wise? Yes, absolutely. Corporate sponsorship-wise? Not a chance. The Pacers, Colts, and Indians have the vast majority of it tied up. The same thing goes for Seattle. The fans would most likely show up, but could the NHL team survive playing the fifth-wheel in the corporate money dating game?

Many NHL teams run at 96% arena capacity and still tell us that they do not make money. Local TV is what makes teams profitable or not.

[Gothamite]

Arena capacity doesn't have much to do with corporate support. Especially if the NHL considers all tickets allocated or given away towards attendance, as I believe they do.

Sure, selling those suites is nice. But ad revenue is nicer.

[Sodboy13]

I think I have stated the Seattle Roast billions of times already. It would be an awesome tribute to the coffee industry, and I love Seattle coffee (specifically Starbucks).

Ever think there's a reason everyone keeps ignoring you?