Moving back to canada….

HockeyNation:

Explain to us again, why the NHL can’t return to Canada?

A few weeks ago I put forward my frequently espoused theory that the NHL could do a lot worse than to put a few more franchises back into Canada. For my efforts I received a few letters and comments suggesting that Canadians whine too much about getting back into the game so to speak.

Let me just say this upfront: I don’t think moving a team or two back to canada is a bad thing. But there are problems. the three most reasonable candidates — Winnipeg, Hamilton and Quebec City — all have problems.

Hamilton doesn’t have an arena that can handle the NHL without significant update. Ditto Winnipeg. both need upgrades. Quebec City — simply needs a new building. Is any of this being planned? Not that I can find. So right up front, is there any place willing to commit $40-50 million and two years of construction to bring a team back? Not that I can find.

Well, Balsillie seemed to be, but the league threw that out. And HIS idea had problems, namely the the Maple Leafs clearly didn’t want to share its fan base with anyone else.

To be honest — the place best suited for another NHL team would be: Toronto, where if you look at the population size and the ticket prices, it clearly has the demand to support another team.

Personally, I think Winnipeg is the best shot for a new team; it’s got a building taht could be upgraded to NHL capability. When they LEFT, they were *only* losing about $10m a year ($C), at a time when US-Canada currency discrepancies were making life miserable for all Canadian teams, and when there was no revenue sharing. If a team existed in Winnipeg today, with revenue sharing, it would probably be supportable.

But let’s throw some facts into this argument and see what happens.

Attendance for Winnipeg, 1989-1995: 13,106, 12,931, 12,931, 13,550, 13,297, 13,013, 11,316

Attendance for Quebec, 1989-1994: 15,080, 14,188, 13,666, 14,981, 14,614, 14,395

Attendance for Phoenix, 2001-2005: 13,161, 13,229, 15,469, 15,582

Attendance for Colorado, 2001-2005: 18,007, 18,007, 18,007, 18,007

(source:

And here’s the problem — the team that used to be the Jets, that everyone loves to talk about how badly they’re doing down in Arizona attendance-wise, they’re still drawing better than they did in Winnipeg. Please don’t tell me about the “two for one” and freebies, unless you can prove that these things magically stop happening north of the border. And frankly, having been a beneficiary of comps in Vancouver, I think it’s safe to say I know it happens up there, too.

He took a snapshot of one day in November which saw a number of American teams play in front of what can only be called embarrassing numbers. Crowds dropping below 11,000 per game, maybe even less when you don’t count the papered houses.

Snapshots, however, are a rotten way to judge this. They don’t take into consideration short-term issues like weather, and frankly, ignore the reality that — gasp — a bad team draws badly.

Campbell has provided a scratch sheet of sorts, similar to the attendance tracking I did as kid as I watched the NHL and WHA stumble their way through season after season of declining and embarrassing attendance returns. He paints a picture of a league very much in denial and soon to be very much in trouble.

Sorry, I don’t agree.

When you look at the waiting lists for tickets in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal and Toronto (only Ottawa seems content to be a walk up city) you quickly realize that the NHL is a tale of two leagues, one a passionate relationship between fans and team, the other an indifferent glance by a less than interested bystander.

Vancouver, since 1989, has varied from a low of 14,000 a game to a high of over 18,000. Calgary in the late 80′s and early 90′s was averaging close to 20k. By 1999 that was down to 15K a game, and it didn’t really recover until 2005. Edmonton started the 90′s drawing 17,000 a game, and by 1995, was down under 13,000, then recovered back to 16K.

The excuses are many why the NHL can’t succeed in the likes of Winnipeg, Hamilton or Quebec City, but one has to wonder how things could be any worse than the current problems of the southern outposts and the formerly showcase cities of Chicago, Long Island and St. Louis.

You have just answered your own question. NOTHING will save a team from bad management. A poorly playing team draws well. A team with management that doesn’t care and doesn’t spend, or spends badly, will draw badly. Nothing the league does will solve that problem FOR THE TEAM. That’s why looking at St. Louis today in the tunnel vision of this season means nothing; yeah, attendance sucks — and you have a team where the old management did basically nothing for years waiting for a new owner, and missed the playoffs after 25 years of going to post-season (and exiting in the first round….); and now, you have a team with a new owner who had to patch it together from spare parts, and it shows; and the fans in St. Louis have responded to the decay by — gasp — staying home. But as recently as 2003, the Blues were drawing 18,000, and were for 20 years consistently in the top five or six in average attendance in the league for the last 20 years. And because they’ve had a two year drop in attendance, suddenly they’re not a hockey town and ought to move?

Bull. they’re a bad team because the old owners let them wither, and the new owenrs haven’t had time to fix the rot. And last year, when the rot really set in, tehy still drew 14,000 a game. More than any of the last six years the Jets drew. ahem.

Now, the Blackhawks are another matter. A team that in the 90′s consistently drew 17,000 and upwards of 20K when the new arena opened, for the last six years lucky to see 15K, and been trending downward to 13K. Why? bad ownership — the Al Davis of hockey. The teams have sucked, the GMs and coaches picked more for loyalty than talent, and the players for being inexpensive more than good. And the fans have responded — by staying away. Of course, the “bad” attendance in Chicago still outdraws Winnipeg’s last years, although I’m convinced the Blackhawks will fix that soon and drop down into the 12K range in the next year or so.

15,000 in Winnipeg or Le Ville du Quebec surely must trump 1,500 on a November night in St. Louis, no matter what accounting guidelines you might be using.

except, of course, you never DID draw 15K in Winnipeg. and you DID in Quebec, but the building got old and nobody wanted to build a new one. They still haven’t.

Read the Campbell article below, it’s an eye opener and should provide a fair amount of ammunition for those that believe the NHL needs Canada a hell of a lot more than Canada needs the NHL!

I’m sorry, the campbell article is a crock. The numbers don’t stand up.

He forgets that it wasn’t too long ago that both Calgary and Edmonton were doing so poorly financially that they were both considered candidates for moving. That Vancouver was struggling, too.

right now, the canadian teams are drawing well — because the canadian teams are PLAYING well. But they aren’t immune to slumps, and with those slumps come drops in attendance (except in Toronto and Montreal, where the demand is so strong they could legitimately field second teams, and because they don’t, people will grab tickets to BAD teams and BAD games because they’re the only tickets available). But what about when the teams go mediocre again? And they will?

What are the worst draws in the NHL this season? Probably not what you think:

26 Chicago (13283)

27 Washington (13130)

28 New Jersey (12,991)

29 Islanders (11714)

30 st. Louis (11,312)

(source:

funny thing is, go back to 2000-2001, and only the Islanders were in the bottom 5. chicago was 24th, Washington 21st, New Jersey 19th, and the Blue 4th.

The “hockey doesn’t belong here” crowd favorite whipping boys

Phoenix (14K, 24th)

Anaheim (15,5K, 21st)

Atlanta (15,9K, 19h)

columbus (16.4K, 17th)

Carolina (17,3K, 15th)

Which, I’ll note, every one of those teams outdraws what Winnipeg drew, and all but Phoenix are consistently outdrawing the last years of Quebec City. For all people gripe about the Hartford to Carolina move, Hartford in it’s last 8 years NEVER drew more than 13.7K. Since moving to its new building, the Hurricane have averaged better attendance than it did in Carolina, and only once in the last four years has it averaged under 15K (and that year was the year before the lockou when lots of us hockey fans tuned out and watched NASCAR or something else, no?) — so they’re averaging 2000/game MORE than the best year Harftord can muster.

My point here?

There’s no magic formula. there’s lots of “mystical golden age memories” that don’t hold up to the light of day or the facts of reality; Of the five teams in Canada, three of them are accepting revenue sharing to get by; there’s no reason to believe that a new team in Quebec City or Winnipeg would be any different — so why should the league encourage moving a team to a place where it knows it’ll have to subsidize it? I think, with revenue sharing, that Winnipeg is viable — but does it make sense to move to a place where you know subsidies are required? Isn’t it better to look for a place that can be profitable?

If you want to look at teams that OUGHT to be moved — it’s not Atlanta, or Columbus. It’s Boston, which has a new building but ahs consistently shown attendance in the bottom ten the last six or more years, and Chicago (ditto), and the Islanders (who have been trying to get a new building for ever) and Pittsburgh (ditto). And unfortunately, you can’t tell me those aren’t hockey cities, especially given Chicago and boston are both an original six team.

So we can toss out the “hockey doesn’t work in southern states” argument, because Dallas and Tampa and LA and Anaheim shows that it DOES — when you have a good team that’s well run and marketed properly. Even Phoenix is showing improvement in the new building, but what it really needs is to win hockey games.

Instead, the teams that have struggled consistently are teams that haven’t succeeded on the ice — Chicago and Boston — or have been in sucky buildings — New Jersey, Pittsburgh, Islanders. Boston has finally revamped management (enough? we’ll see), and Jersey has a new building planned, and the Islanders have one on paper (finally), and Pittsburgh finally has permission to find one.

And chicago? oh, feel sorry for Hawks fans. It’s a long, long winter. again.

The NHL’s number one goal right now should be to convince Wirtz to sell to new ownership that doesn’t include any of that family. Not that it’ll happen.

Does the league have problems? Yes. But ti’s funny — if you compare the “problem children” five years ago with now, there are very few names in common (and the ones that are, most have plans to solve the problems, like Jersey does). Los Angeles and Anaheim are still drawing a combined 31K a game, not exactly chopped liver.

Frankly, the only team I’m worried about is Nashville. They started at 17K, dropped to 14K, dipped to 13K for a bit, and back up to 14K, but they don’t seem to be driving improved attendance. If you want to look at moving a team — they seem a legitimate candidate. Atlanta’s grown attendance to 15,5, Florida’s consistently around 16K, Tampa’s up over 20,5, Columbus around 17K.

Someone please tell my why a team drawing 12k-16K in the states ought to be sent back to Canada. Especially when, if you look at the facts, the best a place like Winnipeg could do was 13K — at a time it was actively trying to save the team.

Maybe, just maybe, the reason the NHL isn’t considering Canada is that they have to actually pay the bills, where reporters and bloggers only have to dream the possibilities. But in the stark light of day (and facts), Canada just doesn’t seem like a good deal (well, I’d put a team in Kingston, or 2nd teams in Toronto and Montreal, but that’s not what most “home to canada” folks are talking about….)

Reality is, maybe the NHL isn’t as stupid as some of the critics want folks to believe….

You might also want to read:

1. Moving beyond flickr   My post last week on Whither Flickr? got picked up by some other blogs and generated some interesting feedback and comments. Almost all of...
2. Happy Canada (and NHL free agent) day! (edited for Handzus deal) July 1, Canada day above the border, and NHL free agent day, when some free agents back up the brink’s truck,...
3. Moving into the offseason well, it’s now the off-season. Time for all of us hockey geeks to take a breather, relax, and wait for something interesting to happen. Not....
4. Hockey Day in Canada A Theory of Ice: The First Nation of Hockey: Today is Hockey Day in Canada. I don’t know what that means, really, but it means...
5. Moving beyond the list mom… Okay, I think I have it figured out… Okay, I think I have it figured out. But first, a digression. On the list-managers list today,...