Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Houston Rockets owner eyeing NHL franchise?

Calgary4LIfe · 10-10-2017, 04:34 PM

Well, the NHL is firmly in the "Big 4" group of sports now in North America, but there is a tonne of room for it to grow yet. Houston is the biggest market without an NHL team, so it definitely does make sense. Not only would the revenue of an expansion franchise be helpful (500 million), but even a relocation fee would be as well (200? 300? I am not sure). On top of this, the long-term TV contract deal would most certainly be higher (which is why the NHL has yet to move away from the Phoenix market - even though that team is NOT doing well, the value of having a national TV deal inclusive of Arizona increases the revenue for the NHL IIRC). Houston would be another big add onto a long-term national broadcast deal.

MLS is also pushing in the US. Definitely gaining in popularity there. The NHL revenues are what.. half of the NBA? The NBA is the 3rd on the list from the Big 4 leagues.

I would say that if there is an opportunity to move into the Houston market, the NHL would be incredibly foolish NOT to do so. It would also help to increase exposure in the Texas area, and perhaps even develop a natural rivalry with Dallas.

I really think that the NHL will eventually hit 34 or 36 franchises, simply by entering some of the bigger markets that they do not yet have exposure in (and including the possibility of a 2nd Ontario team, as well as Quebec).

MLB has 30 teams? NFL 32? NBA 30? (might be slightly off here, but it's close). Not so crazy to think about when you factor in the Canadian teams. Take out Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa and Montreal, and suddenly you are left with only 25 franchises that are competing in markets with the other Big 4 sports. Not all of those markets will be suitable (for instance, I really doubt Milwaukee will ever be looked at), but there does exist some rather large markets that are untapped by the NHL still. I am sure they would love to find a way back into the Atlanta market as well, but they need an owner who is actually willing to make it work. Would be funny to have them there for a third time though.

It is definitely risky, but I do believe that the NHL is intent on increasing their revenues in the US market, and the only way to do that is to expand into these big untapped markets and further grow the game.

Mixed results without question, but I think the expansion that we saw in the last 20 years have proved to be beneficial, including California, Nashville, and for a time, even in Florida (up and down in those markets, but I really think the NHL will do whatever they can to stay in those markets for the long run).

The only reason they left Atlanta the 2nd time was that there was no time to find a new owner in Atlanta and get a building up. Winnipeg got pretty lucky there. In the 2006-07 season, Atlanta (16,240) had a higher attendance than St. Louis (12,520), Chicago (12,727), NYI (12,886), Washington (13,929), NJ (14,176), Boston (14,764), Phoenix (14,988), Nashville (15,259), Florida (15,370). Doesn't scream like a failing organization to me, though when they did lose their best players and started sucking again, interest did dwindle down to 13,469 in their last season - still higher than the Islanders and Phoenix, and only ~200 from Columbus. Still higher than the low point in many successful organizations like Chicago though (12,727 in the 06-07 season), or the Pens (11,877 in the 03-04 season).

To me, it shows that a team - even in established markets - just need to be competitive to keep drawing interest. Washington, Boston, St. Louis and Chicago at the bottom of the heap in the 06-07 season? Carolina was also good up until 2012-13. Once the team started sucking, so did the fan support. However, they had a higher average that year than the Rangers, arguably the 2nd best market in the world, right?

Markets are fickle, but TV contracts are not. To get out of being such a gate-driven league, the NHL needs to expand into these larger markets so that they can get a larger share of TV revenues. I think that is their plan, and the Atlanta owner threw a huge wrench into that plan. Houston may prove to be a very successful way back into it.

If that owner is willing, the NHL will expand into that market ASAP, I would bet. Might be some lean years to start, but the long-term view is probably very palatable for the NHL to take some losses in that market for a while.

10-10-2017, 04:34 PM	#29
Calgary4LIfe Franchise Player Join Date: Jun 2010 Exp:	Well, the NHL is firmly in the "Big 4" group of sports now in North America, but there is a tonne of room for it to grow yet. Houston is the biggest market without an NHL team, so it definitely does make sense. Not only would the revenue of an expansion franchise be helpful (500 million), but even a relocation fee would be as well (200? 300? I am not sure). On top of this, the long-term TV contract deal would most certainly be higher (which is why the NHL has yet to move away from the Phoenix market - even though that team is NOT doing well, the value of having a national TV deal inclusive of Arizona increases the revenue for the NHL IIRC). Houston would be another big add onto a long-term national broadcast deal. MLS is also pushing in the US. Definitely gaining in popularity there. The NHL revenues are what.. half of the NBA? The NBA is the 3rd on the list from the Big 4 leagues. I would say that if there is an opportunity to move into the Houston market, the NHL would be incredibly foolish NOT to do so. It would also help to increase exposure in the Texas area, and perhaps even develop a natural rivalry with Dallas. I really think that the NHL will eventually hit 34 or 36 franchises, simply by entering some of the bigger markets that they do not yet have exposure in (and including the possibility of a 2nd Ontario team, as well as Quebec). MLB has 30 teams? NFL 32? NBA 30? (might be slightly off here, but it's close). Not so crazy to think about when you factor in the Canadian teams. Take out Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa and Montreal, and suddenly you are left with only 25 franchises that are competing in markets with the other Big 4 sports. Not all of those markets will be suitable (for instance, I really doubt Milwaukee will ever be looked at), but there does exist some rather large markets that are untapped by the NHL still. I am sure they would love to find a way back into the Atlanta market as well, but they need an owner who is actually willing to make it work. Would be funny to have them there for a third time though. It is definitely risky, but I do believe that the NHL is intent on increasing their revenues in the US market, and the only way to do that is to expand into these big untapped markets and further grow the game. Mixed results without question, but I think the expansion that we saw in the last 20 years have proved to be beneficial, including California, Nashville, and for a time, even in Florida (up and down in those markets, but I really think the NHL will do whatever they can to stay in those markets for the long run). The only reason they left Atlanta the 2nd time was that there was no time to find a new owner in Atlanta and get a building up. Winnipeg got pretty lucky there. In the 2006-07 season, Atlanta (16,240) had a higher attendance than St. Louis (12,520), Chicago (12,727), NYI (12,886), Washington (13,929), NJ (14,176), Boston (14,764), Phoenix (14,988), Nashville (15,259), Florida (15,370). Doesn't scream like a failing organization to me, though when they did lose their best players and started sucking again, interest did dwindle down to 13,469 in their last season - still higher than the Islanders and Phoenix, and only ~200 from Columbus. Still higher than the low point in many successful organizations like Chicago though (12,727 in the 06-07 season), or the Pens (11,877 in the 03-04 season). To me, it shows that a team - even in established markets - just need to be competitive to keep drawing interest. Washington, Boston, St. Louis and Chicago at the bottom of the heap in the 06-07 season? Carolina was also good up until 2012-13. Once the team started sucking, so did the fan support. However, they had a higher average that year than the Rangers, arguably the 2nd best market in the world, right? Markets are fickle, but TV contracts are not. To get out of being such a gate-driven league, the NHL needs to expand into these larger markets so that they can get a larger share of TV revenues. I think that is their plan, and the Atlanta owner threw a huge wrench into that plan. Houston may prove to be a very successful way back into it. If that owner is willing, the NHL will expand into that market ASAP, I would bet. Might be some lean years to start, but the long-term view is probably very palatable for the NHL to take some losses in that market for a while.