|
Post by phillymike on Dec 4, 2013 22:49:48 GMT -6
Wow! There is no excuse for that. That is just beyond embarrassing for the players, the team, and the league.
|
|
|
Post by jetsorbust on Dec 5, 2013 9:39:30 GMT -6
Wow! There is no excuse for that. That is just beyond embarrassing for the players, the team, and the league. Am I the only one that isn't seeing a picture at all? not even an error picture, just blankness.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Dec 5, 2013 9:47:03 GMT -6
I'm seeing a picture. It's their ever-deserted "Club Red $20,000 a seat zone" but the pic is there.
m.
|
|
|
Post by phillymike on Dec 5, 2013 10:06:52 GMT -6
Seriously, there are more players than there is fans in the Club Red zone!! Wow!
|
|
|
Post by Lions67 on Dec 5, 2013 10:53:49 GMT -6
10,000 and change at that game. announced.
the problem with this league is that the head office allows its franchises to be an after thought for some of these owners. wouldnt it be great if the NHL put the franchise ahead of any other business venture these owners may be doing?
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Dec 5, 2013 20:51:08 GMT -6
jets fans, i know you are watching is it as bad as it seems in florida?
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Dec 5, 2013 21:19:39 GMT -6
10,966 announced attendance, this dude has to be regretting his purchase
|
|
|
Post by Ric O. on Dec 5, 2013 21:27:58 GMT -6
From what I could see in HD, I don't see any way there were 10,000 people in that arena tonight. 7 or 8000 maybe...
|
|
|
Post by Guardian on Dec 5, 2013 22:00:25 GMT -6
Maybe the fans were dressed up as empty seats?
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 5, 2013 23:58:23 GMT -6
10,966 announced attendance, this dude has to be regretting his purchase Not really, unless music/concerts/Disney on ice etc... are banned this guy will do fine. He'll do even better if the casino next door gets approved.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Dec 6, 2013 0:02:58 GMT -6
mike there has to be a limit to how bad the panters do at the gate and what he can bring in, it still costs money to run the arena...unless they make so much from everything else, im assuming theres no way to discard the team and keep the lease though.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 6, 2013 0:12:45 GMT -6
The are making a ton from everything else. It's a very busy arena. The 1st 10 years it was open overall they made 89.9M and that was with a more player friendly collective bargaining agreement with less revenue sharing. I think the Panthers are a long way from that limit or else this guy wouldn't have paid what he did. Nope there is no way to discard the Panthers and keep the lease. If they could the Panthers would have been gone a long time ago. Think of the profit this guy could make if he could flip the team to PKP and keep the concerts.
It really sucks and is unfortunate but 2 teams that shouldn't exist(Panthers and Coyotes) probably always will because of other stuff(concerts/the idiocy of Sammy Chivara, Manny Martinez and friends)
|
|
|
Post by jetsorbust on Dec 6, 2013 9:23:00 GMT -6
The are making a ton from everything else. It's a very busy arena. The 1st 10 years it was open overall they made 89.9M and that was with a more player friendly collective bargaining agreement with less revenue sharing. I think the Panthers are a long way from that limit or else this guy wouldn't have paid what he did. Nope there is no way to discard the Panthers and keep the lease. If they could the Panthers would have been gone a long time ago. Think of the profit this guy could make if he could flip the team to PKP and keep the concerts. It really sucks and is unfortunate but 2 teams that shouldn't exist(Panthers and Coyotes) probably always will because of other stuff(concerts/the idiocy of Sammy Chivara, Manny Martinez and friends) This is another thing I really just don't get... like the GTA thread, it comes down to basic economics and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Okay - sunrise Florida has an arena. It's a very busy arena and makes a ton of money from concerts and other events, but loses a fair chunk of change from a hockey team. Why does the hockey team lose money? Because no one in the area is interested in hockey. So why then does the local government (whoever owns the arena) insist on the owners keeping the hockey team? I mean if the market doesn't much care about the team, and they clearly don't, why bother doing this? Let's say the team loses $20 Million a year. Give the arena owner the option to pay $10 Million a year in extra lease payments, in exchange for dumping the team. Everybody benefits, no? The only thing I can think of is that having an NHL team makes them a popular destination for Canadian tourists. There is clearly a lot of truth to this, but does the amount of people that decide to come here because of the hockey team really amount to enough to cover the losses of the team? Hard to say, but I would doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Guardian on Dec 6, 2013 13:31:36 GMT -6
There certainly were a lot of Jets fans at the arena last night.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 7, 2013 2:54:12 GMT -6
The are making a ton from everything else. It's a very busy arena. The 1st 10 years it was open overall they made 89.9M and that was with a more player friendly collective bargaining agreement with less revenue sharing. I think the Panthers are a long way from that limit or else this guy wouldn't have paid what he did. Nope there is no way to discard the Panthers and keep the lease. If they could the Panthers would have been gone a long time ago. Think of the profit this guy could make if he could flip the team to PKP and keep the concerts. It really sucks and is unfortunate but 2 teams that shouldn't exist(Panthers and Coyotes) probably always will because of other stuff(concerts/the idiocy of Sammy Chivara, Manny Martinez and friends) This is another thing I really just don't get... like the GTA thread, it comes down to basic economics and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Okay - sunrise Florida has an arena. It's a very busy arena and makes a ton of money from concerts and other events, but loses a fair chunk of change from a hockey team. Why does the hockey team lose money? Because no one in the area is interested in hockey. So why then does the local government (whoever owns the arena) insist on the owners keeping the hockey team? I mean if the market doesn't much care about the team, and they clearly don't, why bother doing this? Let's say the team loses $20 Million a year. Give the arena owner the option to pay $10 Million a year in extra lease payments, in exchange for dumping the team. Everybody benefits, no? The only thing I can think of is that having an NHL team makes them a popular destination for Canadian tourists. There is clearly a lot of truth to this, but does the amount of people that decide to come here because of the hockey team really amount to enough to cover the losses of the team? Hard to say, but I would doubt it. I thought of that idea. Don’t think it will work. A big reason why besides Canadian tourist the county wouldn’t go for it is the same reason why cities/counties with actual fan bases build arenas/stadiums even though in most cases they don’t make money for cities/counties. They want to be “MAJOR LEAGUE”. There are only 122 teams in the big 4 sports. Sunrise has one of them. I also don’t think the Panthers loses are 20M. That’s a little high. Forbes had them at -7.7M last year but they didn’t play a full season. The season before Forbes had them at -12M. If that -12M is true remember there is a more owner friend CBA now compare to then with more revenue sharing/the players getting 50% instead of 57%. From what I’ve heard the 7% difference will save each team 8M a year. The Panthers will still lose money but I don’t think the split the difference idea on the losses would be enough incentive to the county to stop being “MAJOR LEAGUE”
|
|