Sharks need a new TV deal and arena

[Resolute 14]

http://www.mercurynews.com/sharks/ci...sharks-ability

Interesting story, in part because it further reinforces the silliness of thinking TV ratings for various teams in the US means anything. The Islanders get $20 million per season in TV revenue. San Jose? $7 million. But that might teach them to sign a 20-year deal. Or not, since they've called Bettman in to squeeze Comcast/NBC.

Story also notes the inevitable concern about the long term viability of SAP Center (it was small from the get go), and the possibility of moving to a new facility in Santa Clara. Or elsewhere.

The story also fits the long running narrative that the Sharks generally operate at a loss. Tripling their TV revenue to match the Sharks and Ducks would change that in a hurry though.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

First of all, Drew Remenda is gone and that's a great thing. The guy might have been the most biased analyst I've ever seen.

I've been in that arena and it is surprisingly low capacity for an NHL rink. It's currently at 17562 capacity (ranked 24th in the NHL) and it's an ok arena, but nothing special for a fan experience. It's even behind the other Sharks arena in Cologne, Germany (18500).

And nobody in the bay area seems to know they're even there apart from a few legitimate hockey fans I've ran into. As well as they've done over the years, the lack of a championship has not cemented them into the public's consciousness the way the Giants and A's have been for example. They are in the same conversation as the Golden State Warriors for most people, pretty much an afterthought.

All I'm saying is if they start losing you aren't going to see a lot of people attending games they way they are now, and without a proper T.V. deal they are going to flounder. I don't blame the team for pushing for this now with a reload (possibly even a rebuild) coming and the chance of less success.

[PeteMoss]

If they can't make money in that area with suites and in arena advertising they need a better sales team. There is boatloads of cash in that area.

Typical sports team owner though... sign a 20 year deal at a rate that obviously was acceptable to you at the time, then the market changes and realize you screwed yourself and start the 'oh we might have to move' rumours.

EDIT: ^^^ Surprised you say the A's are popular down there. The Sharks have nearly out drawn them in terms of attendence some years despite playing in a tiny arena. Obviously the A's stadium is a complete dump which is a factor.

[Vulcan]

How much do the Flames get in their local deal?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

How much do the Flames get in their local deal?

I don't know if that was ever revealed. I honestly wouldn't expect it to be too much higher than what San Jose gets at best, but the Canadian teams have an advantage at the moment in the fact that our fans are willing to pay a pile more to go to the games. Canada generates the gate revenue, the US generates the television revenue.

[PeteMoss]

Rates will go up in Canada now that TSN is in the game for local rights. The Flames and Oilers were locked up long term by Sportsnet before TSN made much of a move into local rights so it is likely lower than it should be.

[Trumbull]

I'm not that old and I still remember the Sharks playing at the Cow Palace waiting for the (then) San Jose Arena to be built. It's still a pretty new arena. If they're operating at such a loss still, they need new upper management, or to simply move/fold. The Bay Area is a gold mine for "entertainment" money, and Sharks tickets are among the more expensive for US prices. It doesn't make sense to me (in a sense where factors other than management are to blame) that the Sharks are in such a position.

[nfotiu]

Local TV money has become such an awful, corrupt game, and the discrepancies are going to further mess up the cap/floor system when some teams are raking in so much more than others. So, there will be teams in cities that aren't well supported that will thrive in the short term (until the RSN bubble eventually pops).

Basically Bettman and the Shark's owners are saying we've maxed out the amount of money we can make off of hockey fans, so now we need to find out a way to charge all the non-hockey fans an extra $80 a year on their cable bills. I wish the media would report it like this. Instead of the narrative of Sharks stuck in a lousy tv deal, how about "Sharks and the NHL want to increase your cable bill to keep the Sharks in town".

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Local TV money has become such an awful, corrupt game, and the discrepancies are going to further mess up the cap/floor system when some teams are raking in so much more than others. So, there will be teams in cities that aren't well supported that will thrive in the short term (until the RSN bubble eventually pops).

Basically Bettman and the Shark's owners are saying we've maxed out the amount of money we can make off of hockey fans, so now we need to find out a way to charge all the non-hockey fans an extra $80 a year on their cable bills. I wish the media would report it like this. Instead of the narrative of Sharks stuck in a lousy tv deal, how about "Sharks and the NHL want to increase your cable bill to keep the Sharks in town".

No doubt. The league and NHL teams (by representation) played their hand very openly during those Glendale hearings regarding the Coyotes. We want taxpayers and everyone else besides NHL fans and the teams themselves to subsidize the league. #### profits.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

I'm not that old and I still remember the Sharks playing at the Cow Palace waiting for the (then) San Jose Arena to be built. It's still a pretty new arena. If they're operating at such a loss still, they need new upper management, or to simply move/fold. The Bay Area is a gold mine for "entertainment" money, and Sharks tickets are among the more expensive for US prices. It doesn't make sense to me (in a sense where factors other than management are to blame) that the Sharks are in such a position.

From what I've heard they are operating at a loss because they choose to. The owner(s) have said they'll make up any losses in order to pay for a top team. An internal budget would solve any financial problems.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Rates will go up in Canada now that TSN is in the game for local rights. The Flames and Oilers were locked up long term by Sportsnet before TSN made much of a move into local rights so it is likely lower than it should be.

With this new deal with RSN, there will be more national games, lessening the number of local games, so there will be fewer games to sell. That could have a bearing on a Flames TV deal.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

If they can't make money in that area with suites and in arena advertising they need a better sales team. There is boatloads of cash in that area.

Typical sports team owner though... sign a 20 year deal at a rate that obviously was acceptable to you at the time, then the market changes and realize you screwed yourself and start the 'oh we might have to move' rumours.

EDIT: ^^^ Surprised you say the A's are popular down there. The Sharks have nearly out drawn them in terms of attendence some years despite playing in a tiny arena. Obviously the A's stadium is a complete dump which is a factor.

Well the stadium is awful to watch a game in, but if you have a winning team that helps a lot. Even when they aren't at the top, the fans are still loyal, just don't always make it out to watch games in a bad stadium for 81 games out of the year. Even a renovation would make it a better experience, but the team is constantly cash strapped being in the much lower rent east bay (by comparison to the rest of the bay, it's still pretty expensive to live even there but expendable income is much lower). The Coliseum makes the dome look like a palace.

And just to address another thought you added, there is a lot of money in the bay, but it isn't really a sporting town. There's too much else to do in the bay and sports aren't at the top of the list for most people. Same reason why South Florida teams don't draw a lot unless they're winning.

[Puppet Guy]

move the Sharks to Quebec City...

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Puppet Guy

move the Sharks to Quebec City...

You say in jest, but 15399 is still more than Winnipeg's 15004.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

With this new deal with RSN, there will be more national games, lessening the number of local games, so there will be fewer games to sell. That could have a bearing on a Flames TV deal.

Not until 2020 though.

[Fire]

How much are the Flames getting per year on the regional Sportsnet deal?

[albertGQ]

I can't remember where I heard or read it but the number $16M-$18M comes to mind.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Fire

How much are the Flames getting per year on the regional Sportsnet deal?

I've been trying to find something definitive, but am coming up empty. However, Ottawa might be a fair comparable, and their expiring deal with Sportsnet paid $125,000 per game. Using that figure, the 58 games contracted to Sportsnet would make the deal worth $7.25 million per year. However, I haven't found when that Ottawa deal was signed, and if it was before 2010, then inflation might drive the Calgary figure higher. I would say $7-8 million is probably the most reasonable estimate.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Not until 2020 though.

The contract with the Flames isn't up until 2020 or their won't be any more nationally broadcast games until 2020? Last I heard RSN is adding national games on Sundays so that would cut into the games the Flames have local rights to.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The contract with the Flames isn't up until 2020 or their won't be any more nationally broadcast games until 2020? Last I heard RSN is adding national games on Sundays so that would cut into the games the Flames have local rights to.

The regional deal expires after 2019-20, and Rogers is contracted to air "at least" 58 games on SNW or SN1 per season. I doubt very much that Rogers will get a discount on the regional deal in the unlikely event they broadcast more than 24 Flames games nationally.