[Rumour] Why Canada May Never Get Another NHL Franchise

[Atlantica]

Rather than introducing more international teams into the NHL framework I would like to see the Stanley cup winner play in an international tournament against the best of the KHL, Swedish Elite League etc. for a different kind of world championship.

That said, the logistics, politics, players' unions and so on would likely make this a non-starter.

[Travis Munroe]

I could be way off on this but I would imagine that a number of franchise owners do not own the franchise to make money. It is nice to make some money from it but chances are, if they could afford a franchise, they have something else driving the wagon and the franchise is more of a hobby and something to be in the family name.

It goes back to the debate of people saying "well they are billionaires so they can build their own arena". Over the last number of decades, hasn't the flames ownership group actually lost money to keep the team in Calgary? When people say that tax payers are paying for a rink that benefits them, I question how much it really benefits them if they don't own it. If they were looking to benefit themselves, they likely wouldn't have a team in the first place.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by curves2000

The business of the NHL has really changed over the years and teams have gotten smarter milking fans for more dollars.

I am 34 y$ears old and I recall only being able to get Flames games on tv when it was a 2&7 Game or the odd HNIC game on CBC. The idea for the owners at the time was to encourage the local fans to come to the Dome and spend $30 on a ticket or something like that. A lot of fans didn't wear jerseys to games, look at old footage of any Canadian hockey team and you don't see a lot of jerseys, many years ago in place like Toronto and Montreal, men worse suits and women wore dresses. Now teams are selling $400+ "authentic" jerseys. Adjusted for inflation compared to the 40's, 50's etc, a new jersey should cost like $75.

Pro sports is no longer really aimed at the masses. The customer the NHL aims at today is the top 10-15% in income. Willing and able to spend loads of cash on experiences and prestige entertainment.

Is that sustainable? I guess it depends on the future of that demographic. Will the well-heeled market continue to contract as our economy yields ever-higher rewards to an ever-shrinking cohort of workers? Will the model work when the customer-base is down to 5 per cent of the population, and those customers have many other options competing for their money?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

The author is either not very good job at his job or he's carrying the League's water when he does stuff like complain about the costs of AHL teams for Canadian NHL franchises "typically based in the U.S." when only Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver fall into that category. Toronto, Montreal and Winnipeg see their AHL affiliates in the same market and Ottawa's is a 3 hour drive away in Belleville.

The league is planting these stories as a way to drive support in Canada for another stupid lockout.

As far as conspiracy theories go, selling "hey Canada, you're not getting another team" to gain support of Canadians for a lockout is a pretty poor one.

[CaptainYooh]

The article analyzes the franchise purchasing decision based on a business model analytics, which is all wrong. Most pro-sports franchises are only vanity toys for their rich owners, or like in our case, an honest effort to preserve an NHL team in Calgary and treating it as a community asset. Regardless, while economics are definitely important, they are hardly a decisive factor for perspective NHL team owners. If Ken Thompson ever decides he wants to own a hockey team, Ken Thompson will buy a hockey team. These people buy half-a-billion dollar yachts just to park some of their money.

[bluejays]

I dunno about the old way of wanting to own a franchise, just because. Franchises have gone up in price dramatically since the 80's where it was just a toy. When owners are playing three quarters of a billion, if you're using it as a toy you have to be ultra rich. Plus most owners are businessmen first and foremost. Most aren't willing to lose any money and are not willing to let that slide - it's simply in their nature. Now, there are a few still left over who do it for the community aspect, but I guarantee the majority are dying to make it work to make money. Just think how much cheaper concessions would be if the money aspect was secondary or tertiary.

[bubbsy]

It may not be in the next decade but I'd wager the GTA will have another team in my lifetime (I'm in my late 30s).

If would never get as big as the leafs brand/revenue, but they'd do probably better than half of today's teams still.

The only impediment is the MSLE.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

The article analyzes the franchise purchasing decision based on a business model analytics, which is all wrong. Most pro-sports franchises are only vanity toys for their rich owners, or like in our case, an honest effort to preserve an NHL team in Calgary and treating it as a community asset. Regardless, while economics are definitely important, they are hardly a decisive factor for perspective NHL team owners. If Ken Thompson ever decides he wants to own a hockey team, Ken Thompson will buy a hockey team. These people buy half-a-billion dollar yachts just to park some of their money.

He already owns one, they are the Winnipeg Jets.

[420since1974]

IMHO, most NHL teams were not purchased with the idea that they were going to make money each and every year.
For sure, a few were bought solely as "vanity projects", but most were investments in the future.
I don't have the exact figures, but I'd be willing to bet that most teams could be sold at a vast profit for the current owners vs what they actually paid to acquire the franchise years ago.