Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="jncuse, post: 3866436, member: 1969"] You are misrepresenting things. This is very clear based on the info you have picked from the article you have provided. The real issues as indicated in the article were weak ownership which irritated a fan base (a common problem in Canadian professional sports at the time) and the cost issue. It was also tough to compete with many American cities who get government subsidies for infrastructure that for the most part Canadian governments have not provided (rightly so). Quebec was getting decent attendance and support compared to other American teams-- as was Winnipeg, as was Ottawa, as was Edmonton. And they almost all lost their teams in the 1990's. The revenue to cost structure in the 90's was very different in the NHL for Canadian teams as was the makeup of ownership groups (generally). They did not have large media revenues to offset some of the real cost issues they were facing at the time. The early to mid 90's (really all the 90's) was a tough time for many Canadian NHL teams not just Quebec. Winnipeg lost its team, Ottawa struggled hard (saved itself in part by going bankrupt) and Edmonton was also exploring options. The owners that held many Canadian teams had nowhere near the wealth outside of hockey or security that they do now to take on losses. In Canada there was not an appetite amongst bigger businesses or media businesses to invest in hockey (or other professional sports). Remember some of these owners were legacy WHA guys where the investment was quite low -- so when the costs of running a business in the NHL went up rapidly due to escalating salaries in the early 90's it was very difficult for them as they lacked other wealth. It was a double gut punch when the CAD$ would decline in value rapidly at that time as salaries were paid in USD and gate revenues were generally locked in at CAD. Salary costs were fluctuating rapidly (and rising) , Local TV Broadcast rights were very small compared to today, so most revenues were gate driven and therefore fixed. That's not an easy business model and local ownership groups were not jumping into to save hockey franchises because of it. The only two markets to generally breeze by in the environment were Toronto and Montreal... and even the Montreal franchise value took a big hit at the time. [I][I]Of course this all started to change in the early 2000's when the Canadian markets started to effectively monetize local TV broadcast rights (they rose substantially) and gain enough revenues to offset the risks from this cost uncertainty issue.[/I] [/I] And even more so now where they all have healthy local TV revenues. The Canadian markets are all amongst the strongest in the league except for maybe Ottawa and part of that is on the owner. When Quebec and Winnipeg lost their teams the revenue to cost structure of the league was so different. This issue wasn't even only in Hockey -- even the Toronto Blue Jays had a hard time getting decent value for their franchise and building in the 90's. The Grizzlies lost there team and the Raptors struggled as well. In the early 90's the Montreal Expos went from a stable ownership group to a local consortium who refused to invest any cash into the team. And we saw what happened with them. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?