I'm too young to remember the Minnesota North Stars playing here in Minnesota or them moving to Dallas. But I can imagine all the fans being disappointed at Minnesota's hockey team leaving. If the Minnesota Wild ever left, I would be absolutely heart broken, devastated, crushed - use whatever word you want. So would every other hockey fan in Minnesota.
Of course I'm talking about relocating hockey franchises. I don't particularly like the idea of owners moving franchises because it can create more than one problem. Even if ownership changes hands and a new owner comes in, the new owner should not be able to move the franchise for a minimum amount of time. I can understand if it's absolutely necessary for a franchise to move, such as poor attendance/ revenue or moving to a more profitable market area, but otherwise they shouldn't.
CNA CLASSES IN INDIANAPOLIS
A good example of this is what's happening with the Nashville Predators. Billionaire and Blackberry CEO Jim Ballsillie has signed a letter of intent to buy the Predators from the current owner, Craig Leipold. If the sale of the Nashville Predators is approved, there will be a clause in the consent agreement with the NHL that Ballsillie would have to sign specifically stating that he will not relocate the Predators for a certain amount of time - seven years to be exact.
But I also read and heard that if he is not able to get attendance to average 14,000 fans per game next season so that there is a cumulative average of 14,000 fans between last season and this coming up season, then he can move the team because a possible loophole that could get the team out of their lease early with Sommet Center, the arena they play in. Which is also tied into the lease that Nashville has with the arena. Beth Harris said in her article on Yahoo!, Bettman: Nashville franchise `is not going anywhere,' that there has to be a lease between the team and the arena where the team is playing.
There is a lease between the Predators and Sommet Center but a loophole could prevent the team from staying in Nashville if attendance averages less than 14,000 fans per game cumulatively for two consecutive seasons, as I just mentioned. For example, if there is a total average of less than 14,000 between last season and this upcoming season then the team could get out of the lease. That's how current owner Craig Leipold understands it anyways. But of course "city politicians and lawyers appear to be interpreting the lease differently than Leipold [-] the "early termination" clause has to be invoked one year ahead of time, which Leipold planned to do soon. But one Nashville city lawyer said...that the Predators couldn't invoke their escape clause until after the 2007-08 season, meaning they couldn't leave the city until 2009" (Lebrun, Collision Course over Hamilton Plan).
So in theory, Ballsillie could move the team either after this coming up season, 2007-2008, or after the 2008-2009 season if the Predators don't average 14,000 fans per game cumulative through the end of next season.
If you had been reading up on NHL news the last few months, Jim Ballsillie had also put in a bid to buy the Pittsburgh Penguins but then later withdrew it. The Penguins had been talking about possibly relocating if they couldn't get an agreement done with the city and state for a new stadium, but eventually they did. If Ballsillie had ended up buying the Penguins, he would have moved them to Canada, near Hamilton in Ontario.
I don't like the idea of relocating a team for several different reasons. First off, if a new owner comes and moves the team right away, the fans of that team (say Nashville for example where the Predators are now) will be bitter towards the owner for taking the team and would be left wondering how the whole situation happened. If a new owner waited to move and got to know the fans better (and vice versa), help boost attendance, etc - just like the possible situation in Nashville - it would leave fans a lot more appreciative. If the new owner could help attendance along with anything else that needed addressing, the possibility of relocation wouldn't be so high.
Another potential problem would be if the NHL has to re-format conferences if one team moves to the Eastern Conference from the Western Conference or vice versa. A couple minor problems also follow this. If a team switched conferences, for example, if the Predators - who are in the Western Conference - moved to eastern Canada, then there would also be the possibility of having to re-format the divisions as well, entailing moving teams around. This could also happen even if a team moves from the northern United States, or even Canada, to the south or the middle part of the country. This could lead to scheduling changes and nightmares because of teams switching divisions and/or conferences.
A third potential problem is a city that a team relocates to might not have a stadium ready for them to move into. In that case, a stadium would need to be built which has the potential for a whole different can of worms, including and the fact it could cost the people of that city a whole lot more tax money. And even if there is a stadium in place for the team, there would still have to be negotiations as to how much revenue would be shared, if there would be other games going on in the stadium, or perhaps concerts and/or other events. This would have been the case with the Pittsburgh Penguins if they had not stayed in Pittsburgh. Kansas City has a stadium built, or almost finished, that the Penguins would have used PLUS getting all the revenue AND would have had to pay for operating costs entirely. The downside to moving to Kansas City for them would be a smaller hockey area (like Nashville, who's known for country music more so than hockey) and would have to shell out their own money for operating costs. If they moved to any place else like Las Vegas or even Hamilton, Ontario, a stadium would more than likely have to be built just for the team. Plus, Las Vegas isn't necessarily a good place for a hockey team. Granted it's a big city but it's hot there and it's not really a hockey market per se.
I know what some people are probably thinking - how can you say that relocation of a team is not a good thing? It's not totally bad - I do understand that. Relocation can, obviously, get a team to move from a non-traditional hockey market such as Florida or Arizona to a more traditional hockey market like the northern United States or even Canada, and it can create more money for that area as a result of the fans who are going to be spending money on tickets, etc, and overall create a general interest in the sport. As I just mentioned, relocation can get more fans out to the game - even those who are just slightly interested in the game. That in turn can create more jobs and more money for the city.
Adverting on TV, radio, Internet, etc can definitely help a lot as well in terms of getting people out and attracting more people, but one will also need to consider the cost of advertising as well. It costs quite a bit to advertise the team, especially if you are advertising on a lot of different media. Plus you run the risk of fans not coming out to see the team despite all the advertising efforts. Too much advertising can change the perception of people and whether they want to go out and see or buy something. Fans might choose to watch the games on TV for some time firs before spending their money to watch the games in person, which of course hurts attendance and in the end, the revenues as a result. Advertising for a team overall, can be a good thing if it's not overused. It can create many positives for the team as I just mentioned - such as bringing more fans out to the games for example - but if over-used, it may risk turning fans away from coming out to the game and watching their team play.
What could tie into the whole concept of a team relocating is the fact that there are, plain and simply, going to be people who are just not going to be interested from the very start. Take Nashville for example. They averaged just over 13,800 in paid attendance per game this last season. This is a pretty good figure for a city that is known for country music and not hockey. I would be very surprised if they have had a lot of sellouts - maybe a few when they first came into the league in the late 1990s, and when Peter Forsberg got traded to the Predators. If any other team averaged only 13,800 attendees a game, especially those in the northern U.S. or Canada, they would be in serious financial trouble. And it turns out that the current owner, Craig Leipold, and the team has indeed been losing money ever since it came into the league. It's been mentioned in several of the articles that I read, the Predators would like to average at least 14,000 in paid attendance per game so that they can stay in Nashville and not have to relocate.
Of course there are other teams that could run the risk of relocating, and quite possibly for the same reasons already mentioned, but choose to stay where they are because of the loyal fans that they have, or because of a lease they have on their current space; or perhaps it's one of the many other reasons a team stays where they are instead of relocating.
There have been a number of different NHL teams that have relocated, and for various reasons. The Winnipeg Jets moved to Phoenix and became the Phoenix Coyotes. The Quebec Nordiques moved to Denver and became the Colorado Avalanche. The Minnesota North Stars moved to Dallas and became the Dallas Stars.
I know there have been teams that have moved to places where originally, hockey really wasn't very popular. They have ended up making a big impact on the community and the popularity has just gone up like crazy. As a result, there are now more hockey teams, more rinks, and overall, more interest in the sport has gone up. The Dallas Stars and Phoenix Coyotes, for example, are in markets that are not known for hockey and they have definitely been able to draw fans even if the team isn't doing well - as is the case in Phoenix. The Nordiques moved to more of a hockey market because people think of Colorado having the perfect climate and passion for the sport, which is more than likely why the Avalanche are doing pretty well with attendance.
This brings up an interesting point about attendance. There has been some talk about how attendance is down around the league in general, but yet doesn't seem to be affecting a lot of teams in the league. It could be a problem for some teams but we don't seem to hear or know too much about it. According to Commissioner Gary Bettman, attendance is about the same from last year and seems to be pretty good for the most part, with the exception of a couple teams. The whole issue of attendance and whether it's affecting teams has sparked conversation in many different areas including bringing up the possibility of whether the Predators are going to be moving or not.
While I have been talking about relocation of NHL teams, I know it can happen, and has, in other sports as well. The Montreal Expos moved to Washington D.C. and became the Washington Nationals. The Washington Senators came to Minneapolis and became the Minnesota Twins. The Baltimore Colts moved to Indianapolis and became the Indianapolis Colts. The Minneapolis Lakers moved to Los Angeles and became the Los Angeles Lakers.
But of course, the other major sports like basketball and baseball don't seem to have a non-traditional market like hockey does. They all seem to have pretty much a good, stable market where ever they are located, which helps quite a bit. It just seems that teams in other sports don't have much of a problem getting fans out to the game and have to resort to the possibility of relocation. There are, of course, always exceptions in each sport due perhaps to the team not having the greatest win-lose record. Which in itself can be rather ironic because there are teams who don't have a winning record, like the NHL's Philadelphia Flyers this past season, and fans still show up to the games. On the flip side, you can have a case like the Nashville Predators where they do well but they don't average a lot of fans per game. So, the question is raised, in the case of the Flyers, do you move because the team sucks and there's still a decent turnout? No, of course not. There could be any number of factors to consider for that. So do you relocate because there aren't a lot of fans coming out even though the team is doing well, such is the case with Predators? I would answer that it depends. If you're continuously losing money and attendance doesn't go up, then probably yes. But if you're starting to make some money and attendance is going up, then probably not.
While there have been cities and states that have gotten a team back, such as Minnesota getting another hockey team with the Wild, Baltimore getting another football team in the Ravens, Washington D.C. getting a baseball team in the Nationals, that's not the point of this article. The point of this article is whether teams should relocate or not and if they do, they should have a legitimate reason to move.
And that gets me on just one more point on why I am not really in favor of teams relocating. It's the point that relocating teams can have such a negative impact on the community they are leaving like I mentioned earlier with the Nordiques, North Stars, and Jets moving to the southern states. Teams that move from one city to another can disrupt the whole community aspect of the city that they are leaving. Remember what it felt like when the North Stars left? Everybody had had a general common interest, a common bond in the team and when they left, it left such a huge void for so many. No more friendly banter about the team and how the season was going, no more community events sponsored by the team, none of that comradery in attending games.
Granted, a number of the teams that have relocated to new cities have been able to create a genuine interest, building a sense of community among the sports fans and getting a sport growing in the area, but it's not always the case. Sometimes relocating a team can have a negative community aspect because the citizens in the new host city may not want the team there. I also have read that there are some former Quebec Nordiques fans from when the team was there that are now Colorado Avalanche fans. So in all reality, I think relocation of a team can have a negative impact on the feeling of a community in a city and having a team stay where they are can have just as many positives as if they relocated to a new city.
What I'm trying to say is that I'm on the fence, so to speak, of teams relocating because I know there are both pros and cons of relocating teams to new cities. But as I mentioned earlier, I'm more on the side that teams/franchises should not relocate unless they absolutely have to. I know that there are some exceptions such as moving from a non-traditional hockey market to a more traditional hockey market, moving because of declining attendance or revenue among other reasons, but they should not relocate just because they can, or just because they want to. Teams/franchises should have a legitimate reason to why they are relocating to a new city - and not because owners can move a team just because they can and have the money to do so.
Sources I Looked At:
Harris, Beth. "Bettman: Nashville franchise `is not going anywhere'." Yahoo!. 28 May 2007. 29 May 2007. http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=AqhET94fiME.qchctGdfH5R7vLYF?slug=ap-stanleycup-bettman&prov=ap&type=lgns>
Lebrun, Pierre. "NHL, Ballsillie could be headed for collision course over Hamilton plans." Yahoo!. 14 June 2007. 15 June 2007.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=cp-nhl_predators_balsillie&prov=cp &type=lgns>
Erin Gillis
June 15, 2007
http://www.QNHL.com
CNA CLASSES IN INDIANAPOLIS
No comments:
Post a Comment