Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > Fire on Ice: The Calgary Flames Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-22-2013, 11:22 AM   #81
Jay Random
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilderPegasus View Post
I think they'd go in the other direction these days. They'd broadcast games of a Markham team on Sportsnet Ontario and (a new) TSN Toronto station. Then they'd move all the Leafs games to Leafs TV so that Leaf fans have to pony up big money to pay for it each month.
That would be a great way to ensure that the Leafs never win any new fans. Remember when boxing was a major sport? The promoters stopped putting title bouts on network TV and made them all pay-per-view instead — and a whole generation of sports fans grew up without any exposure to boxing.

Basically, you're saying that for the sake of some short-term bucks, Bell and Rogers would sideline the team that they own to broadcast the team they do not own.
Jay Random is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 11:24 AM   #82
Jay Random
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan View Post
As for the Leafs having a veto, they don't.
They have exclusive territorial rights within 50 miles of ACC. It is, of course, Daly's position that the Leafs don't have a veto. It is the Leafs' position that they do. The issue would have to be fought out in the courts — and a drawn-out court battle could be even more damaging than the veto itself.
Jay Random is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 11:26 AM   #83
MisterJoji
Franchise Player
 
MisterJoji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The toilet of Alberta : Edmonton
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan View Post
Seattle has never had an NHL team. Their last pro team was in the old pro WHL and that's probably about 40 years ago. When they won the Stanley Cup, I think the league was the Pacific Coast Hockey League. They were granted a NHL expansion franchise in the 70s but that fell through.
Yeah my bad. I don't know why I thought the Totems were NHL.
__________________
"Illusions Michael, tricks are something a wh*re does for money ....... or cocaine"
MisterJoji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 11:28 AM   #84
AltaGuy
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
 
AltaGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random View Post
The trouble is, the expansion fee and the territorial fee will have to be paid anyway. If you're giving MLSE parking and concession revenue (and why would you? The team would not be playing at ACC), you're putting a third huge burden on the expansion team. Not even the Toronto Toros had to cope with that much, and the Leafs ran them out of town after just three years.
I don't think you quite understood me: territorial fees are negotiated as I understand it, between expansion teams and the territory rights holder. So a prospective second GTA team would need to be creative with MLSE so as not to have to pay an exorbitant territory fee (which could be astronomically high).

So to get around that, you instead offer additional revenue streams to MLSE in lieu of an astronomically high territory fee. MLSE will basically have any prospective franchise by the nads, so they will have to be brought on board as owners in all but an official capacity.

Last edited by AltaGuy; 08-22-2013 at 11:31 AM.
AltaGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 11:34 AM   #85
Vulcan
Franchise Player
 
Vulcan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sunshine Coast
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji View Post
Yeah my bad. I don't know why I thought the Totems were NHL.
Yeah, I just took it as a momentary brain fart and I was just trying to correct it before others took it as gospel.
Vulcan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 11:38 AM   #86
Jay Random
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AltaGuy View Post
I don't think you quite understood me: territorial fees are negotiated as I understand it, between expansion teams and the territory rights holder. So a prospective second GTA team would need to be creative with MLSE so as not to have to pay an exorbitant territory fee (which could be astronomically high).

So to get around that, you instead offer additional revenue streams to MLSE in lieu of an astronomically high territory fee.
The problem there is that those revenue streams are forever. If you're giving up, say, $15 million a year in revenue, that's as much money as it would take to service a $250-million debt to pay the territorial fee. And that debt would eventually be paid off, whereas the lost revenue would increase every year due to inflation.

Basically, your solution is worse than the problem. And the problem is bad enough already.

Quote:
MLSE will basically have any prospective franchise by the nads, so they will have to be brought on board as owners in all but an official capacity.
It would be a clear violation of the rules if MLSE were brought in as owners in an official capacity. To bring them in unofficially would be circumventing those same rules. I can't see the league allowing that. Do the Rangers run concessions and parking for the Islanders and Devils? Do the Kings run anything for the Ducks?
Jay Random is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 11:39 AM   #87
WilderPegasus
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random View Post
That would be a great way to ensure that the Leafs never win any new fans. Remember when boxing was a major sport? The promoters stopped putting title bouts on network TV and made them all pay-per-view instead — and a whole generation of sports fans grew up without any exposure to boxing.

Basically, you're saying that for the sake of some short-term bucks, Bell and Rogers would sideline the team that they own to broadcast the team they do not own.
Bad analogy with boxing. The Leafs are still going to show up on HNIC every week. The games they'd move would be the cable broadcasts that would move from one cable channel to another.

There is precedent for this with the Yankees starting their own cable channel and broadcasting their games on it.

It wouldn't be for short term bucks either. It would be to increase subscription rates for LeafsTV long term. And that's where the money is in sports these days. Sportsnet isn't going to be affected by it. Everyone will continue to subscribe to it.
WilderPegasus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 11:43 AM   #88
Vulcan
Franchise Player
 
Vulcan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sunshine Coast
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random View Post
They have exclusive territorial rights within 50 miles of ACC. It is, of course, Daly's position that the Leafs don't have a veto. It is the Leafs' position that they do. The issue would have to be fought out in the courts — and a drawn-out court battle could be even more damaging than the veto itself.
Well I guess it could end up in court but as Daly says,

Quote:
"I don't think it's a point of contention even with the Leafs," Daly said. "I can see a situation where by adding a franchise to a market, you can raise the tide for all boats. I don't think that because you put a franchise here, it necessarily makes the Leafs any less successful. And, in fact, it could create new revenue opportunities."
He could be blowing smoke up our ... but it could also mean that an understanding could be reached. As for the veto, I'd side with the League's position but a standoff would provide some good entertainment.
Vulcan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 11:47 AM   #89
AltaGuy
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
 
AltaGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random View Post
It would be a clear violation of the rules if MLSE were brought in as owners in an official capacity. To bring them in unofficially would be circumventing those same rules. I can't see the league allowing that. Do the Rangers run concessions and parking for the Islanders and Devils? Do the Kings run anything for the Ducks?
I would argue that paying $250M up front, which would undoubtedly be financed, could certainly be more crippling than giving up $15M in revenue perpetually. Of course, one assumes that a second prospective team in the GTA believes it will be profitable long term. No way to say for certain, however.

AEG, owners of the Kings, run the Prudential Center, American Airlines Arena, and many others for other teams as an example of an NHL owner who profits off of other NHL teams.

Last edited by AltaGuy; 08-22-2013 at 11:49 AM.
AltaGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 11:47 AM   #90
WilderPegasus
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random View Post
It would be a clear violation of the rules if MLSE were brought in as owners in an official capacity. To bring them in unofficially would be circumventing those same rules. I can't see the league allowing that. Do the Rangers run concessions and parking for the Islanders and Devils? Do the Kings run anything for the Ducks?
Well Bell owns a piece of both the Leafs and Habs while David Thomson owns a piece of both the Jets and Habs. I don't think the NHL would be too concerned about those things.
WilderPegasus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 11:54 AM   #91
Jay Random
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilderPegasus View Post
It wouldn't be for short term bucks either. It would be to increase subscription rates for LeafsTV long term. And that's where the money is in sports these days. Sportsnet isn't going to be affected by it. Everyone will continue to subscribe to it.
Actually, the money in sports these days is in taxing cable subscribers for channels they don't want. ESPN alone rakes in over $7 billion a year in subscriber fees. (Source) Since cable channels are normally sold in tiers and not à la carte, most subscribers have to pay for sports channels whether they watch any sports or not. The money raked in from cable bills far exceeds the total revenues of the à la carte sports channels like LeafsTV.

As for Sportsnet, there's only one reason people will continue to subscribe to it if you take away the programming most viewers want to watch. That's, you guessed it, the tiers again. You can't unsubscribe from Sportsnet without losing a bunch of other channels that you probably do want. But if Sportsnet is perceived as having no value, it will only encourage people to ditch the whole idea of channel-based cable TV and switch to streaming and downloadable video — Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, iTunes, and many others. The cable industry cannot keep charging its customers more and more money for the same services. That militates against moving popular programming from basic cable channels onto high-priced premium services.
Jay Random is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
Old 08-22-2013, 11:58 AM   #92
Jay Random
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AltaGuy View Post
I would argue that paying $250M up front, which would undoubtedly be financed, could certainly be more crippling than giving up $15M in revenue perpetually.
Why? As I said, you can service $250m in debt for $15m a year, and you can arrange that debt so that the payments are fixed until the debt is retired — over 25 years, let us say. But if your concessions and parking are worth $15m a year today, they will be worth much more than that in 25 years, and you'll be out the difference. After the 25 years, the debt servicing cost falls to zero, but the lost revenue keeps on increasing.
Jay Random is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 12:39 PM   #93
valo403
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random View Post
The problem there is that those revenue streams are forever. If you're giving up, say, $15 million a year in revenue, that's as much money as it would take to service a $250-million debt to pay the territorial fee. And that debt would eventually be paid off, whereas the lost revenue would increase every year due to inflation.

Basically, your solution is worse than the problem. And the problem is bad enough already.



It would be a clear violation of the rules if MLSE were brought in as owners in an official capacity. To bring them in unofficially would be circumventing those same rules. I can't see the league allowing that. Do the Rangers run concessions and parking for the Islanders and Devils? Do the Kings run anything for the Ducks?
No, but they do run their TV broadcasts. I'm not sure how that works, but that's an example of some overlap.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
valo403 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 07:53 PM   #94
Jay Random
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403 View Post
No, but they do run their TV broadcasts. I'm not sure how that works, but that's an example of some overlap.
It isn't the Rangers per se that run the Islanders' and Devils' TV broadcasts, it's the MSG Network. How that works is simple: MSG owns a sports channel, the teams don't. Since it's supposed to be a full-service regional sports network, it has a lot of programming hours to fill. It certainly is not the case that the Islanders and Devils just gave up their TV rights for nothing to keep the Rangers happy. They are getting paid for those rights. Very different from what some posters are proposing that a Markham team should do by simply giving up revenue streams to the Leafs.

You wouldn't say the Flames are partly owned by the Leafs, just because the Flames' TV broadcasts are on channels owned by Bell and Rogers.
Jay Random is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2013, 09:07 PM   #95
flamesfan1297
First Line Centre
 
flamesfan1297's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: I will never cheer for losses
Exp:
Default

i believe that quebec will get a team before anyone else does
flamesfan1297 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2013, 10:55 PM   #96
MisterJoji
Franchise Player
 
MisterJoji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The toilet of Alberta : Edmonton
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flamesfan1297 View Post
i believe that quebec will get a team before anyone else does
Although I'd like to agree with you and they're probably one of the most deserving, Bettman just gave us back a franchise, highly doubtful he'll do 2 in a row.
__________________
"Illusions Michael, tricks are something a wh*re does for money ....... or cocaine"
MisterJoji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 10:37 AM   #97
flamesfan1297
First Line Centre
 
flamesfan1297's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: I will never cheer for losses
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji View Post
Although I'd like to agree with you and they're probably one of the most deserving, Bettman just gave us back a franchise, highly doubtful he'll do 2 in a row.
true, nver thought of that
flamesfan1297 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2013, 11:00 PM   #98
BigTuna
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by _Q_ View Post
I think another team in Toronto would be a massive failure comparable to the Phoenix fiasco. Leafs nation is strongly passionate about their team. There's no way any of them will switch allegiances.

My hope is the league expands to Portland and Seattle then move Florida or Columbus to Quebec.
It's already been proven a second Toronto team would be #3 in the entire NHL in terms of franchise value, so how the heck could compare it to Phoenix?
BigTuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2013, 11:26 PM   #99
Jay Random
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTuna View Post
It's already been proven a second Toronto team would be #3 in the entire NHL in terms of franchise value, so how the heck could compare it to Phoenix?
That has not been proven; it is a matter of conjecture, based on one particular set of financial projections which might or might not come true.

If the league chose to award a second franchise to Toronto, and if it were able to gain equal access to the local media (despite their existing contracts with the Leafs), and if hockey fans in Southern Ontario were willing to desert a lifetime of allegiance to the Leafs and support the upstart instead, and if it had the use of a suitable arena (which does not yet exist) in a good location on favourable financial terms, and if the Leafs did not hugely increase the cost of establishing the new franchise by taking an exorbitant territorial fee, and if the value of an NHL franchise were determined solely by its operating profit, if, if, if . . . why, then the new franchise would be #3 in the NHL in value.

But none of those ifs are certain, and some of them (like the arena) are positively contrary to the facts at this time. Change any of those assumptions, and you change the value of the franchise. And since all those assumptions reflect a best-case scenario, the prospective value can only go down.

The downside is that a second Toronto franchise could turn into a perennial loser and league-wide joke like the L.A. Clippers in their early years. Yes, the Clippers (after many years of losing money) eventually became profitable — in a market several times larger than Toronto, and in a league with a huge national TV contract. A Clippers-style team in Toronto might not survive long enough to start turning a profit.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.

Last edited by Jay Random; 09-13-2013 at 11:29 PM.
Jay Random is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
Old 09-14-2013, 09:00 AM   #100
BigTuna
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random View Post
That has not been proven; it is a matter of conjecture, based on one particular set of financial projections which might or might not come true.

If the league chose to award a second franchise to Toronto, and if it were able to gain equal access to the local media (despite their existing contracts with the Leafs), and if hockey fans in Southern Ontario were willing to desert a lifetime of allegiance to the Leafs and support the upstart instead, and if it had the use of a suitable arena (which does not yet exist) in a good location on favourable financial terms, and if the Leafs did not hugely increase the cost of establishing the new franchise by taking an exorbitant territorial fee, and if the value of an NHL franchise were determined solely by its operating profit, if, if, if . . . why, then the new franchise would be #3 in the NHL in value.

But none of those ifs are certain, and some of them (like the arena) are positively contrary to the facts at this time. Change any of those assumptions, and you change the value of the franchise. And since all those assumptions reflect a best-case scenario, the prospective value can only go down.

The downside is that a second Toronto franchise could turn into a perennial loser and league-wide joke like the L.A. Clippers in their early years. Yes, the Clippers (after many years of losing money) eventually became profitable — in a market several times larger than Toronto, and in a league with a huge national TV contract. A Clippers-style team in Toronto might not survive long enough to start turning a profit.
This is not true. THe team only has to be put in Markham and it automatically becomes the 3rd most valuable franchise based on location before they play a game.


http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=2554...headlines_main
BigTuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:24 PM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy