CWHL to discontinue operations

[Locke]

Originally Posted by craigwd

I can respond to the first quote as I was often the person estimating the crowd size for the website. It is just an estimate since I didn't have time to count everyone in attendance.

Playing in multiple locations at odd times certainly didn't help but it was nice to see the season ticket base often show up. The Crowchild game was at a really odd time on a Tuesday night.

Crowd size seemed to really decrease this year over last year. The Inferno were routinely playing to standing room only crowds in Arena B and good sized crowds in Arena A during 2016/17/18. The playoff games in Carstairs did really well. Max Bell 2 was really well attended too.

Tickets were $15 with young kids getting in free. During Wickfest girls teams would get in free when wearing their jerseys.

See, thats great from the perspective of growing the League, gaining interesting and acquiring fans.

Not particularly great in the players getting a raise.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by Ped

I like that the women are taking a stand, but think they are being impatient.

I believe the frustration arises from the fact that thousands of people claim to support these athletes and teans, yet when the time comes nobody walks the walk and buys a ticket.

The same thing happens for Olympic athletes living in this city (like Gilmore Junio etc). I even see it on this board when it comes to things like Cavalry FC.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by craigwd

I believe the frustration arises from the fact that thousands of people claim to support these athletes and teans, yet when the time comes nobody walks the walk and buys a ticket.

The same thing happens for Olympic athletes living in this city (like Gilmore Junio etc). I even see it on this board when it comes to things like Cavalry FC.

Thats sort of the nature of sports though. It takes decades to build that grass-roots fan base.

The NHL didnt just pop up and become popular with players getting paid millions of dollars, hell, for a long time the players werent even Professionals.

Same with Football, Soccer, Lacrosse, etc.

It takes time and, unfortunately, the trailblazers are often the ones who never see a payday.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

In terms of attendance: Calgary played out of seven different arenas this year. Likely because they were confined to wherever there was available ice time. Also, attendance was clearly only estimated, so it's rather impossible to use it as an accurate measuring stick.

Of games they announced some form of attendance figure:
Winsport A: Avg 575 over 4 games
Winsport B: 500 for one game
Max Bell 2: 500 for one game
GW Harris (Red Deer): 800 for one game
Pason Centennial Arena (Okotoks): 280 for one game
Cochrane Arena: 180
Crowchild Twin Arena: 80
They were supposed to play a game at Edge arena 2 as well, but that was forfeited by Worchester.

So the question is, could a team playing consistently out of Winsport A or (preferably because of central location) Max Bell 1 conceivably draw 1000+ fans in this city if it had the weight of the NHL's marketing behind it? Possibly.

The bigger problem though remains location. It makes the most sense to focus on the Northeast for any new start-up league.

A note on Cochrane, we had a short time to pull that off due to it being a last minute change for the Inferno and were not able to reschedule some of our own teams games so we were a little bit handcuffed. We were really looking forward to trying again with more runway.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by craigwd

I can respond to the first quote as I was often the person estimating the crowd size for the website. It is just an estimate since I didn't have time to count everyone in attendance.

Playing in multiple locations at odd times certainly didn't help but it was nice to see the season ticket base often show up. The Crowchild game was at a really odd time on a Tuesday night.

Crowd size seemed to really decrease this year over last year. The Inferno were routinely playing to standing room only crowds in Arena B and good sized crowds in Arena A during 2016/17/18. The playoff games in Carstairs did really well. Max Bell 2 was really well attended too.

Tickets were $15 with young kids getting in free. During Wickfest girls teams would get in free when wearing their jerseys.

After we had our game in Cochrane I was thinking, why not try making it a bit of a travelling road show? 2 Games In Calgary at arena x, 2 in Cochrane, 2 in Okotoks, 2 in Airdrie etc? Scheduled far enough in advance so it can really be pumped up and promoted locally (I know there are some scheduling issues). Give us the ability to have our own schedules planned around it, we had a fundraising aspect for our game. Those are 4 seriously growing female hockey communities.

Originally Posted by craigwd

I believe the frustration arises from the fact that thousands of people claim to support these athletes and teans, yet when the time comes nobody walks the walk and buys a ticket.

The same thing happens for Olympic athletes living in this city (like Gilmore Junio etc). I even see it on this board when it comes to things like Cavalry FC.

Another problem was it seemed like games were late or scheduled when the kidlets had games...not sure the solution there but hard to take a group of 9 year olds into the city for a weekend game at 7:30 when they have games in the am.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

In terms of attendance: Calgary played out of seven different arenas this year. Likely because they were confined to wherever there was available ice time. Also, attendance was clearly only estimated, so it's rather impossible to use it as an accurate measuring stick.

Of games they announced some form of attendance figure:
Winsport A: Avg 575 over 4 games
Winsport B: 500 for one game
Max Bell 2: 500 for one game
GW Harris (Red Deer): 800 for one game
Pason Centennial Arena (Okotoks): 280 for one game
Cochrane Arena: 180
Crowchild Twin Arena: 80
They were supposed to play a game at Edge arena 2 as well, but that was forfeited by Worchester.

So the question is, could a team playing consistently out of Winsport A or (preferably because of central location) Max Bell 1 conceivably draw 1000+ fans in this city if it had the weight of the NHL's marketing behind it? Possibly.

The bigger problem though remains location. It makes the most sense to focus on the Northeast for any new start-up league.

Edge Arena 2? That is literally a tent with portable bleacher seating for maybe 30 people (arena 1 has lots of nice seats). 2 is almost always used for practices. I wouldn't watch any game there. Heck, even the portable bleachers only afford a view of half of the ice.

Speaking of which, the Winsport arenas other than A are incredibly badly designed for spectator viewing. Seats at one end of the ice only, eh? Makes sense.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

After we had our game in Cochrane I was thinking, why not try making it a bit of a travelling road show? 2 Games In Calgary at arena x, 2 in Cochrane, 2 in Okotoks, 2 in Airdrie etc? Scheduled far enough in advance so it can really be pumped up and promoted locally (I know there are some scheduling issues). Give us the ability to have our own schedules planned around it, we had a fundraising aspect for our game. Those are 4 seriously growing female hockey communities.

Barnstorming is great in theory, but a bad idea in practice. Most notably for a professional team, you'd lose your primary source of both revenue and fan support: season ticket holders. It means you have to do that much more work to sell the same number of seats. Also, it's hard for people to become engaged with or attached to the team when they only play a couple games in your locality.

Just look at this year as an example. You noted yourself that attendance seemed lower this year than previous. In previous years, nearly all home games were at Winsport.


Incidentally, I wonder if making a move to FDB would help as it is a somewhat more central location. There's going to be schedule openings now that the Mustangs have gone under.

[Resolute 14]

The players have formed a union and are again threatening to refuse to play this year unless they get what they want: https://www.theicegarden.com/2019/5/...t-for-the-game

Pretty obvious that they have decided the only way forward for them is to live off the NHL's charity, and they are willing to destroy the NWHL to get there.

And related, both the Sabres and Devils have severed ties with the NWHL teams they were associated with.

[Dan02]

Their demands seem odd given one of the leagues just folded because it couldn't even pay the bills when they were barely paying the players.

It seems the logical way this plays out is that there is no league to play in.

[Reggie Dunlop]

It's an unsustainable business model. Not sure there's much in the way of leverage that the players' association can muster.

[Joborule]

It's just a move to kill any all the leagues so then they can be supported by the NHL and the WNHL would be created. NHL will only make a league when there's no other option as they have stated publicly.

Although the NHL definitely can financially support them best, it may not be grass is always greener here. If it don't make dollars, then it don't make sense for the NHL to really invest much money at all to it.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The players have formed a union and are again threatening to refuse to play this year unless they get what they want: https://www.theicegarden.com/2019/5/...t-for-the-game

Pretty obvious that they have decided the only way forward for them is to live off the NHL's charity, and they are willing to destroy the NWHL to get there.

And related, both the Sabres and Devils have severed ties with the NWHL teams they were associated with.

Forming a union is not the smartest way to get the NHL to start a women's league. I'm sure they would love another union to deal with...

[CaptainCrunch]

using the statement that this seems to be the hill they're going to die on.


They don't seem to have much leverage when the leagues are money losing ventures living off of the charity of others.



They can say, that its girls sport and the NHL is obligated to give them money, but I doubt the NHL is going to want to bother dealing with another unionized player movement in a sport (Woman's pro-hockey) that doesn't seem all that viable.

[monkeyman]

I don't get what they think is going to happen. The NHL can't just start a woman's hockey league; they'd have to find owners for teams. Owners who are willing to invest in a model that hasn't been successful and deal with a workforce on strike.
As much as the NHL says it wants to help, I don't see the NHL or BOG wanting to actively own or be responsible for teams and players under the current conditions.
I wonder if the NHLPA would also have a say in this since it could affect revenue and impact the current collective bargaining agreement. I'm not sure they'd be willing to do anything that will negatively affect their current memberships either.
I'm honestly not sure where this goes from here; I think they put themselves in a pretty poor position.

[Resolute 14]

Well, if the proposed WNHL is a money loser, the NHLPA will certainly - and correctly - say it's not their problem and that all losses should come out of the owners pockets. That union's tune will almost certainly change if by some miracle the WNHL makes money though. They would then probably try to claim the WNHL's revenue as qualifying under the NHLPA CBA.

And the intention from the women's players is almost certainly that a WNHL would be centrally owned by the NHL. There wouldn't be separate ownership groups. Their entire proposal is that the NHL operate a league for them as a charity or welfare case indefinitely.

[Locke]

I have to sort of chuckle at this.

"Nobody wants to pay to see us play so we're going to Unionize! So if we dont get paid then none of us will play!"

Yup. Okay. Good luck with all that then.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by Joborule

It's just a move to kill any all the leagues so then they can be supported by the NHL and the WNHL would be created. NHL will only make a league when there's no other option as they have stated publicly.

Although the NHL definitely can financially support them best, it may not be grass is always greener here. If it don't make dollars, then it don't make sense for the NHL to really invest much money at all to it.

This is 100% what is happening...they aren't under any illusions that they are getting rich off this. They are trying to kill the stubborn league that won't die so the NHL, as Bettman has stated, has a clear path to possibly start something up. I think the thought process is with the buying power and promotional support of the NHL they may be able to actually get some momentum.

They aren't really looking for handout but a hand up. They aren't expecting charity and the players have already proven they will play for peanuts to help build something. What they want is infrastructure more than anything IMO.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

This is 100% what is happening...they aren't under any illusions that they are getting rich off this. They are trying to kill the stubborn league that won't die so the NHL, as Bettman has stated, has a clear path to possibly start something up. I think the thought process is with the buying power and promotional support of the NHL they may be able to actually get some momentum.

They aren't really looking for handout but a hand up. They aren't expecting charity and the players have already proven they will play for peanuts to help build something. What they want is infrastructure more than anything IMO.

Then, I think that's reasonable. If the NHL seeds it, with eyes on increasing viewership holistically, this may be a pennies on the dollar investment.

Utilizing say, a 10-15 year financial model, where the long-game weens the ladies off. The optics though, if the model fails, would be poor upon the NHL.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Then, I think that's reasonable. If the NHL seeds it, with eyes on increasing viewership holistically, this may be a pennies on the dollar investment.

Utilizing say, a 10-15 year financial model, where the long-game weens the ladies off. The optics though, if the model fails, would be poor upon the NHL.

The risk for the NHL is that it becomes like the WNBA - decades of red ink that you can't kill off because of optics. And in the end, you/we will wind up paying for it through higher NHL ticket prices.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

The risk for the NHL is that it becomes like the WNBA - decades of red ink that you can't kill off because of optics. And in the end, you/we will wind up paying for it through higher NHL ticket prices.

Not only that, if they go down the WNBA route somewhere down the line someone will go off and make insane arguments about gender pay equity like somehow Hilary Knight should make the same percentage of league revenues as Conner McDavid despite a complete ignorance of the discrepancy of costs as a percentage of league revenue and simple profitability. If I was Bettman I would be very careful about setting up such a league, and maybe insist that participation is as a sponsor and have Hockey Canada / Hockey USA actually own and operate the league so when the inevitable insanity is suggested there's no legal line of sight to the operations of the NHL.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbe.../#23c7391933eb