Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
Here is the problem, we heard the exact same thing about Arizona and Carolina. Sure, the NHL wants TV deals in those areas for revenue but how does that help an owner who is bleeding millions every year? The same thing was said about Atlanta the second time around and how did that work out? The reality is a decent portion of the Stars fanbase probably comes from Houston and they have a hard time selling out now. So once the shiny new toy factor is over with a Houston team instead of having one team in Dallas that at best draws mid pack attendance you will have two teams drawing bottom 5 attendance. It won't work.
|
Revenue sharing - that's how it helps bleeding owners. The NHL wants a lucrative broadcasting deal, and the more huge markets covered by a franchise, the more likely they are to obtain one.
Atlanta went down not really due to economics, but more because of an owner that didn't want them. IIRC, he owned the building, and didn't want them there. That is why the NHL moved quickly to move the team, and Winnipeg was the easiest relocation at the time. Winnipeg got really lucky. The NHL had no interest in moving out of the Atlanta market, but their hands were tied there.
Here is a good representation about what happened with the Thrashers and why they failed, as well as why the NHL themselves were so willing to move the team so quickly.
https://www.topdan.com/sports/why-th...t-atlanta.html
As a fan, I am 100% ok with no more expansion other than just to equalize the number of teams. I just don't think that the NHL and the ownership groups would want to pass up on $500 million dollar injections, as well as the potential to finally obtain a lucrative national broadcasting contract.
The only reason it seems that teams south of the border are struggling is due to how poorly managed they have been. Every team that is thought of as a 'failed' franchise has had some really solid years' worth of attendance, even having numerous years beating out such juggernauts and original six teams like Boston, Chicago and NYR. Look through the attendance records year-to-year, and the only thing that I find that has any correlation is the number of years of pure suckage.
That is why the NHL tried very hard to make the LV franchise successful from the get-go. That is why I think you have to tip your hat off for McPhee here. The other organizations always had pretty decent attendance for the first few years, but the many years of sucking led to a diminishing attendance. McPhee is trying to position his team to take advantage of the first few years of really sucking, but trying to build his team through the draft so that in 3 years or so, they can start turning a corner. Risky, definitely, and not without some mistakes, but I myself am not jumping on McPhee for failing quite yet, nor will I defend/praise him. What he is doing is very risky in allowing his team to suck off the bat (start to the season aside), but I am reserving judgment until about the 3 or 4 year mark.
Look at how well Nashville is suddenly doing in their market. Phoenix was a decent market until they made the gamble to go to Glendale. Ottawa's attendance kind of sucks in relation to other successful teams because their arena is in a sucky location. Location aside, it seems to be nearly perfectly correlated to the relative success of each franchise on the ice. Houston, in retrospect, should do well financially as long as they are managed properly. There is barely a US market that I can see that doesn't drop their attendance dramatically during the years where they don't experience much on-ice success.