[News] Update: NHL green lights season-ticket drive for Las Vegas

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

National ad deals go to the NHL itself, so adding Las Vegas is mostly irrelevant to that. Local advertising dollars go to the teams, and are dictated based on ratings, so unless the Las Vegas team is a ratings dynamo (highly unlikely), the revenue they can make off advertising will be average or below average (certainly below the 7 Canadian teams, the New York area teams, Boston, Detroit, Minnesota etc...you know, places that love hockey?). Likewise casino's have no interest in targeting Las Vegas residents, who would be the ones watching the games. So it wouldn't really work.

As to the international fanbase, that's utterly irrelavant because a 7:30PM PST start in Vegas is 2-6AM in most of Europe (where hockey is popular. The rest of the world? Not so much) so not exactly going to be a ratings draw (ratings = ad money). Likewise the NBA crushes the NHL internationally and baseball is pretty big too, so really the NHL has the NFL covered in terms of international appeal, but that's it. So no, the international revenue it can generate is microscopic and has little to no consideration in terms of putting a team there.

Putting a team there is about being the first pro team in Vegas and trying to get the fan loyalty as there likely isn't going to be intense fan support for multiple pro teams. Problem is once the NBA gets a team there (60% chance it happens down the road), the NHL is in big trouble as Vegas residents will easily choose to support a NBA team over a NHL team.

Adds in the arena itself, along the boards on the LED belt around the arena and so on... When people are watching from other cities, you know the visiting team... Vegas corporate sponsors and Casino will be advertising the eff out of vegas. From showgirls on ice to intermission ongoings around Vegas.

Europens watch NHL. Period. They may not watch it live. But they watch it. So no, its not irrelivant. Regardless of who the advertising dollars are going to, you bet that there would be a bidding war between Casinos or other venues for a 4X8 piece of boards in an Arena. From the try any gun to drive any car and Callaway Golf center in between.

You bet they would benefit from National TV exposure on that level. And since organizations are allowed to manage their own TV rights.. it could be a serious money maker.

[Locke]

I also remember reading years ago that the #1 guy who has been banging the drum for a team in Vegas is Jerry Bruckheimer whose personal Net Worth is just shy of $1B.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Locke

Every Casino in town would have huge swathes of tickets just like they do to almost every Vegas show.

Ever been to Vegas? There'd probably be slot machines bolted to each seat and mounted to the wall in front of every urinal with card tables in the promenade.

If the goal is to make money thats all Vegas does. A team would make money.

Would it suck to play for? Absolutely. Very few fans of the actual team and very small likelihood of acquiring any due to the transient nature of the city.

But it would make money.

Seems doubtful to me. Most of the shows that casino's in town have tickets to take place in Casino's. That makes sense to give tickets to those shows, the customer is in their casino then. To give tickets to an event outside of your venue does not seem to make sense. I imagine the NHL will have as much success as the Arena Football League has had in Vegas. No Casino's gave free tickets to their games because it did not make sense because you do not have a captive audience like you do for a Celine Dion or Garth Brooks show inside your own casino.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Seems doubtful to me. Most of the shows that casino's in town have tickets to take place in Casino's. That makes sense to give tickets to those shows, the customer is in their casino then. To give tickets to an event outside of your venue does not seem to make sense. I imagine the NHL will have as much success as the Arena Football League has had in Vegas. No Casino's gave free tickets to their games because it did not make sense because you do not have a captive audience like you do for a Celine Dion or Garth Brooks show inside your own casino.

Okay, that makes sense. So your position is that you feel its not a good idea because the team wouldnt make money because not all of the businesses would support it in favour of other, more profitable entertainment events.

Fair enough.

I would imagine the profitability of the team was probably determined in the feasibility study, so at the very least the owners are confident that a team in Vegas would break-even at worst.

My position is that I believe that with some creativity the team would probably make money, or, at the very worst, lose less money than:

- Florida
- Tampa
- Phoenix
- Carolina
- Etc.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Locke

Okay, that makes sense. So your position is that you feel its not a good idea because the team wouldnt make money because not all of the businesses would support it in favour of other, more profitable entertainment events.

Fair enough.

I would imagine the profitability of the team was probably determined in the feasibility study, so at the very least the owners are confident that a team in Vegas would break-even at worst.

My position is that I believe that with some creativity the team would probably make money, or, at the very worst, lose less money than:

- Florida
- Tampa
- Phoenix
- Carolina
- Etc.

I just think there are better options that have long hockey histories. Take Portland for instance, they are currently tied with the city of Vancouver for Stanley Cup victories. They have over a century of experience supporting hockey. I would think that they should get a team before Vegas.

Now moving any of those 4 teams you listed to Vegas, that would make more sense to me but expand into markets like Portland, Seattle, Quebec City etc. first

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by IgiTang

Adds in the arena itself, along the boards on the LED belt around the arena and so on... When people are watching from other cities, you know the visiting team... Vegas corporate sponsors and Casino will be advertising the eff out of vegas. From showgirls on ice to intermission ongoings around Vegas.

Europens watch NHL. Period. They may not watch it live. But they watch it. So no, its not irrelivant. Regardless of who the advertising dollars are going to, you bet that there would be a bidding war between Casinos or other venues for a 4X8 piece of boards in an Arena. From the try any gun to drive any car and Callaway Golf center in between.

You bet they would benefit from National TV exposure on that level. And since organizations are allowed to manage their own TV rights.. it could be a serious money maker.

Ads in the arena are irrelevant because they will absolutely not make more than an average NHL team does. So Las Vegas isn't unique in that regard, every team can do that, and at least half the teams in the league and several of the expansion/relocation possibilities (Toronto and Quebec City namely) can earn more. Suggesting there will be a bidding war for ad space is utterly absurd (Bidding war? For real?), especially since MGM would own the arena and would never allow other casinos to advertise. So what they could make from ads is the same and likely less than many NHL teams.

Adding a Las Vegas team does nothing for increasing eyes in Europe. Zero, zip, zilch. If it doesn't increase viewership, there is no net benefit. Ads are not relevant because a Las Vegas team would not be shown on TV any more than any other team, and more than likely substantially less than established teams like the Leafs or Canadiens. So a Las Vegas team contributes nothing to the TV bottom line. Now, adding a team in London or Paris? Entirely different story. But Las Vegas doesn't help increase eyes in Europe any more than Seattle would.

National TV rights are the NHL's property, and they retain all money (and distribute it through revenue sharing), so Las Vegas can only negotiate it's local TV rights. Do you think local Las Vegas TV networks are going to be tripping over themselves to throw huge cash for rights? I sincerely doubt it.

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Seems doubtful to me. Most of the shows that casino's in town have tickets to take place in Casino's. That makes sense to give tickets to those shows, the customer is in their casino then. To give tickets to an event outside of your venue does not seem to make sense. I imagine the NHL will have as much success as the Arena Football League has had in Vegas. No Casino's gave free tickets to their games because it did not make sense because you do not have a captive audience like you do for a Celine Dion or Garth Brooks show inside your own casino.

ive stayed at TI and been given tickets to go see Ka at MGM grand. Ive stayed at Ceasars and been given tickets to see Nitty Gritty Dirt Band and Beverly Mahood at the Wynn. Ive stayed at the Luxor and been given tickets to ride the rollercoaster at NYNY.

Las Vegas Casino district is run by one major entity. Yes there are individual owners but there is a "profit share" so to speak on the Strip. I cant remember what its called.. But you pay extra for it when you go to Vegas and pay it upon checkout. A hidden little cost of Vegas. Paris doesnt have it.

But if youve ever been to Vegas, they dont care about you staying in any particular casino. They care about you spending money on the strip.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by IgiTang

ive stayed at TI and been given tickets to go see Ka at MGM grand. Ive stayed at Ceasars and been given tickets to see Nitty Gritty Dirt Band and Beverly Mahood at the Wynn. Ive stayed at the Luxor and been given tickets to ride the rollercoaster at NYNY.

Las Vegas Casino district is run by one major entity. Yes there are individual owners but there is a "profit share" so to speak on the Strip. I cant remember what its called.. But you pay extra for it when you go to Vegas and pay it upon checkout. A hidden little cost of Vegas. Paris doesnt have it.

But if youve ever been to Vegas, they dont care about you staying in any particular casino. They care about you spending money on the strip.

Sounds like they were trying to get you to leave

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Ads in the arena are irrelevant because they will absolutely not make more than an average NHL team does. So Las Vegas isn't unique in that regard, every team can do that, and at least half the teams in the league and several of the expansion/relocation possibilities (Toronto and Quebec City namely) can earn more. Suggesting there will be a bidding war for ad space is utterly absurd (Bidding war? For real?), especially since MGM would own the arena and would never allow other casinos to advertise. So what they could make from ads is the same and likely less than many NHL teams.

Adding a Las Vegas team does nothing for increasing eyes in Europe. Zero, zip, zilch. If it doesn't increase viewership, there is no net benefit. Ads are not relevant because a Las Vegas team would not be shown on TV any more than any other team, and more than likely substantially less than established teams like the Leafs or Canadiens. So a Las Vegas team contributes nothing to the TV bottom line. Now, adding a team in London or Paris? Entirely different story. But Las Vegas doesn't help increase eyes in Europe any more than Seattle would.

National TV rights are the NHL's property, and they retain all money (and distribute it through revenue sharing), so Las Vegas can only negotiate it's local TV rights. Do you think local Las Vegas TV networks are going to be tripping over themselves to throw huge cash for rights? I sincerely doubt it.

Without digging through news articles, I believe there was a judgement within the last few months that allowed teams to mandate their own TV rights ala MSG Entertainment and such...

When the leafs are playing in Vegas, and the game is on CBC, SN by that time.. Are people from TO not going to be watching the game? Infact most of the eastern seaboard will too.

When OV and the caps are in Vegas, will Russain fans from Moscow not see highlights or PVR the game? I think they would.

When The Nucks are in Vegas, wont every Swede, twin girl and nuck fan be watching?

I can tell you one thing my friend, I have never said as many times about any other city in the world as much as ive said about Vegas, damn we gotta go after seeing something cool or fun. Or getting the itch to get trashed and gamble.

Just seeing Vegas attracts people to it. Period. Billboards about "Love" or "o" or "Jersey boys" or anything... Casino are going to pay huge dollars to have their ad up instead of anothers.

You keep trying to be technical, but there is no evidence supporting your point of view. However, almost every person that has been to vegas has seen a picture, ad or heard about it from someone and gone based on that.

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by nik-

Sounds like they were trying to get you to leave

... really?

[trew]

Originally Posted by Locke

I also remember reading years ago that the #1 guy who has been banging the drum for a team in Vegas is Jerry Bruckheimer whose personal Net Worth is just shy of $1B.

I don't think you have to look much further than the owners of the new 20,000 seat LV arena: MGM and AEG Live (owners of the LA Kings).

MGM and AEG have been holding Kings Pre-season games in Vegas for several years at MGM's Garden arena, and they always sell out. MGM is probably the top (or at least top 3) in Casino and resort room holdings, and also have broadcast holdings as well.

AEG makes sense because of the Southern California factor. 26% of visitors to Vegas come from Southern California, and over 50% come from the Pacific division hockey markets. With 3 million visitors per month, and a show attendance rate of 70% for visitors, that puts a huge amount of NHL watchers in the casinos looking for something to do at night. Sounds like they have a pretty good bet on a unique but lucrative hockey market.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Locke

I also dislike the notion that Quebec City somehow 'deserves' a team. Why? Because they like hockey?

If anything, Quebec City deserves an NHL hockey team the least because they've already had their chance.

We sit here talking about how expansion isnt what the league needs, it would be better served with contraction but then we want teams in places like Markham and Quebec City? Its madness.

We're already seeing the cracks in the veneer of the Winnipeg Jets.

They lost their team when the Canadian dollar was a $.65. Not really their fault, since as a comparison we almost lost our team as well.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by IgiTang

Without digging through news articles, I beliebe there was a judgement within the last few months that allowed teams to mandate their own TV rights ala MSG Entertainment and such...

When the leafs are playing in Vegas, and the game is on CBC, SN by that time.. Are people from TO not going to be watching the game? Infact most of the eastern seaboard will too.

When OV and the caps are in Vegas, will Russain fans from Moscow not see highlights or PVR the game? I think they would.

When The Nucks are in Vegas, wone every Swede, twin girl and nuck fan be watching?

I can tell you one thing my friend, I have never said as many times about any other city in the world as much as ive said about Vegas, damn we gotta go after seeing something cool or fun. Or getting the itch to get trashed and gamble.

Just seeing Vegas attracts people to it. Period. Billboards about "Love" or "o" or "Jersey boys" or anything... Casino are going to pay huge dollars to have their add up instead of anothers.

You keep trying to be technical, but there is no evidence supporting your point of view. However, almost every person that has been to vegas has seen a picture, ad or heard about it from someone and gone based on that.

1. You're saying the same thing I am. Local TV rights are owned by teams. National rights by the NHL. That's it, end of discussion. Teams can negotiate their own local deals, hence TSN having Jets and Leafs and Canadiens home games. National deals, no. So Las Vegas can negotiate its own TV deal, but again, do you really think TV networks in Vegas will shell out huge cash? No is almost certainly the answer.

2. People in Toronto watching a Las Vegas game will be giving ratings...to the TV station in Ontario. That doesn't help the rating in Las Vegas, at all, in any way, shape or form. And from the reverse perspective, Canadian viewership does not count towards US TV ratings. So it doesn't matter if Joe from Toronto or Dbag from Vancouver watches Canucks-Vegas, it doesn't help the TV rating in Las Vegas. Low ratings = low broadcasting fees.

3. Las Vegas has more entertainment options than anywhere on earth. So hockey would be in addition to the many options already out there. How many people do you think are just gonna want to randomly see a hockey game between two random teams it has no attachment to? Works better for boxing or MMA because someone getting the crap beaten out of them is somebody getting the crap beaten out of them. Attending Panthers-Vegas randomly is not going to happen very often. Most of the people attending games in Vegas from outside Vegas will likely have planned to do so.

4. Every NHL team can have ads. What makes you think Vegas will be so massive? If the franchise is advertising hockey, it's only generating revenue if people show up....which again, guess what? Every NHL team does it. Ad space they sell in arena for boards or whatever is dependant on views (TV and in arena). Hence why the Leafs and Canadiens and Rangers make more than anyone in that department. Ad money is generatied on the basis of how often it will be seen. Again, without a sold out building a big TV ratings, they can't charge whatever they want for ad space. Supply and demand.

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

They lost their team when the Canadian dollar was a $.65. Not really their fault, since as a comparison we almost lost our team as well.

Province de Quebec could have given them some tax relief to keep them afloat for a little while until they figured out a long term plan. But the owner was eager to sell with the team destined for Denver.

Its never a fans fault really.. However, Nordique fans wernt a model for support.

Also, Bettman didnt like them as much as the Oilers and Flames, so he didnt fight for them.

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

1. You're saying the same thing I am. Local TV rights are owned by teams. National rights by the NHL. That's it, end of discussion. Teams can negotiate their own local deals, hence TSN having Jets and Leafs and Canadiens home games. National deals, no. So Las Vegas can negotiate its own TV deal, but again, do you really think TV networks in Vegas will shell out huge cash? No is almost certainly the answer.

2. People in Toronto watching a Las Vegas game will be giving ratings...to the TV station in Ontario. That doesn't help the rating in Las Vegas, at all, in any way, shape or form. And from the reverse perspective, Canadian viewership does not count towards US TV ratings. So it doesn't matter if Joe from Toronto or Dbag from Vancouver watches Canucks-Vegas, it doesn't help the TV rating in Las Vegas. Low ratings = low broadcasting fees.

3. Las Vegas has more entertainment options than anywhere on earth. So hockey would be in addition to the many options already out there. How many people do you think are just gonna want to randomly see a hockey game between two random teams it has no attachment to? Works better for boxing or MMA because someone getting the crap beaten out of them is somebody getting the crap beaten out of them. Attending Panthers-Vegas randomly is not going to happen very often. Most of the people attending games in Vegas from outside Vegas will likely have planned to do so.

4. Every NHL team can have ads. What makes you think Vegas will be so massive? If the franchise is advertising hockey, it's only generating revenue if people show up....which again, guess what? Every NHL team does it. Ad space they sell in arena for boards or whatever is dependant on views (TV and in arena). Hence why the Leafs and Canadiens and Rangers make more than anyone in that department. Ad money is generatied on the basis of how often it will be seen. Again, without a sold out building a big TV ratings, they can't charge whatever they want for ad space. Supply and demand.

you seem to only be reading what you want from what im saying. Also you say im saying what you are saying... Funny, I said it first. LOL

You are missing my point and i think i have been pretty clear on how I view this.

We disagree.. ? I guess.. Lets move on..

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by IgiTang

you seem to only be reading what you want from what im saying. Also you say im saying what you are saying... Funny, I said it first. LOL

You are missing my point and i think i have been pretty clear on how I view this.

We disagree.. ? I guess.. Lets move on..

Uhhh what am I missing? Cause if I'm missing something it's because you aren't elaborating all that well. Otherwise I've pretty much addressed all your points, that you don't agree with what I said is not the same as not getting it.

And actually in my very first post, I clearly indicate national TV advertising deals go to the NHL and local TV deals go to the team. LOL indeed...

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by trew

I don't think you have to look much further than the owners of the new 20,000 seat LV arena: MGM and AEG Live (owners of the LA Kings).

MGM and AEG have been holding Kings Pre-season games in Vegas for several years at MGM's Garden arena, and they always sell out. MGM is probably the top (or at least top 3) in Casino and resort room holdings, and also have broadcast holdings as well.

AEG makes sense because of the Southern California factor. 26% of visitors to Vegas come from Southern California, and over 50% come from the Pacific division hockey markets. With 3 million visitors per month, and a show attendance rate of 70% for visitors, that puts a huge amount of NHL watchers in the casinos looking for something to do at night. Sounds like they have a pretty good bet on a unique but lucrative hockey market.

Highly doubtful that the NHL allows a company that makes money off sports gambling own/have direct control of a franchise. Clear conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety will always be there whenever the team loses or makes unpopular moves. e.g. "Oh Vegas lost? Guess MGM threw the game to make some money"

Also doubtful the NHL will allow the same owner for two teams especially if they are going to be in the same division.

[heep223]

Could it happen, the NHL expanding into Sin City? Sure. Is it anything close to being a done deal? Well, let the reaction of one owner tell the story: laughter.
That's laughing as in, "Ha-ha-ha, not a chance. Not right now, and maybe never."

Sources tell ESPN.com there is no formal expansion process under way at this time. Is there discussion of various rumors? Sure, but as Bettman and deputy commissioner Bill Daly have steadfastly insisted in recent months, the league is merely looking at all opportunities that present themselves.
There is no formal plan, though. No city has been identified as the next to get a team.
"Nothing whatsoever has changed on this subject," Daly told ESPN.com in an email Wednesday. "No process in place, no decisions have been made and nothing new to report."

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/11...e-not-imminent

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Locke

I also dislike the notion that Quebec City somehow 'deserves' a team. Why? Because they like hockey?

It helps. I talked with some Nordiques fans in Quebec (and they weren't in Quebec City), and they said there's a tremendous appetite for a team to cheer for besides the Habs, because all younger fans (by younger I mean under 50) hear about is the glory days of the Canadiens. There are over 8 million people in Quebec (more than twice the population of Alberta), and they're crazy about hockey. They can support two NHL teams. The only question is corporate support.

Originally Posted by Locke

We sit here talking about how expansion isnt what the league needs, it would be better served with contraction but then we want teams in places like Markham and Quebec City? Its madness.

The Greater Toronto Area could easily support another team. They would sell out 10 years worth of season's tickets and corporate boxes tomorrow if they went out sale. They could probably support two. Next you're going to try to tell me New York can only support one baseball or NFL team.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

They lost their team when the Canadian dollar was a $.65. Not really their fault, since as a comparison we almost lost our team as well.

Funny how people forget about that stuff. The Flames came pretty close to relocating. Would that mean Calgary can't support an NHL franchise?

[trew]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Highly doubtful that the NHL allows a company that makes money off sports gambling own/have direct control of a franchise. Clear conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety will always be there whenever the team loses or makes unpopular moves. e.g. "Oh Vegas lost? Guess MGM threw the game to make some money"

Also doubtful the NHL will allow the same owner for two teams especially if they are going to be in the same division.

Sorry, talking about the owners and operators of the arena, not the team. MGM, AEG, and the NHL have a history in Vegas, and now these two companies are building a massive arena on the strip.