Quote:
Originally Posted by Monahammer
e.g.
Winnipeg population = ~841,000. Attendees= 12,566 = 1.49% attendance
vs
Calgary population = ~ 1,640,000 Attendees = 17,356 = 1.06% attendance
vs
Philadelphia population = ~ 5,821,000 attendees = 17,971 = 0.3% attendance
The Canadian markets are still dominating in terms of actual percentage of population attending and paying to watch games, they just have less people to tap into. This also makes it extremely difficult to envision Winnipeg for e.g. improving their situation substantially without the average Canadian suddenly becoming much more wealthy. You can tell the canadian economy is hurting as Montreal and Toronto aren't at or above 100%. No non-rich people can attend games anymore.
Anyways though, list is BS when teams like Arizona are ranked near the top. What a joke. I am not even sure what this list is meant to display. If it is about financial health of each franchise, wouldn't the terms of their loan (and asset depreciation if they own the buildings) need to be considered? e.g. not filling the saddledome has a much different impact than not filling rogers place. It doesn't really make sense to show the info this way unless you want to paint a dumb picture about southern NHL markets.
|
That’s kind of a silly way to look at it since no one is going to build a hockey arena with 150,000 seats just because they have a big city.
Also you can go to a game without being rich. I went to the Ducks/Flames game and got an $18 ticket. I routinely see Flames PL tickets for $10-$15 and second bowl for $30-$50. (USD)