How about Abilene or Amarillo? Both are good size cities and in relative proximity to existing teams.

42 Fan wrote:

How about Abilene or Amarillo? Both are good size cities and in relative proximity to existing teams.

Amarillo already has a CHL club.

bp

Abilene had a team, although I have no idea what league. All I do know is that the team folded.

There are plenty of markets in California that could support a team.

Abilene had the "Avaitors" of the WPHL. Why did it fold? Beer. No beer sales in a military town. I am sorry to say this, but without beer sales, hockey does not do well. Either would minor pro or junior basketball or topless women's vollyball (Umm...that gives me an idea)...

Central Texas has a nice building in the Expo, it is not like the facility is over exposed or anything... I am hearing about other pro teams looking at the NAHL as a way to continue the game in thier markets.

A good chance of a North Houston area building that may be perfect for the NAHL that is currently being considered. That is all I am going to say about that...today.

The NAHL is looking good. The future is very bright. I think this off-season is going to set some shockwaves through the Junior and Minor Pro hockey worlds. Just like the Auto Builders....hockey needs to be more then a tax write off for wealthy folks. It needs to operate in the black. Drawing under 2,500 a game at the minor pro level is a quick way to bankruptcy. Drawing 2,000 at the junior hockey level is a quick way to keep the owner smiling. Now it is not rocket science to figure that out.

How many minor pro teams draw under 2,500 a game?

Little Rock's Barton Arena needs a team now...who is going to jump head first into that market now?

Up North from the UHL I think that Missouri, Pt Huron, Flint, and Motor City would be better here.

From the SPHL, either the entire league or Florida (Kissimmee), Jacksonville and Pee Dee. The ECHL has Pensacola barely hanging on, this could be Long Beach's last season, and the Texas Wildcatters are not looking like they will play next year in the ECHL, especially since thier rivals have all but bugged out of the game. The next team is Pensacola and if not them...then who?

There was a lot of talk last year about Pt Huron. I think the locals are seeing the light. This minor pro hockey bit is expensive. With the Sarnia Sting across the bridge doing well, I think they are getting the picture. Motor City would do very well at the NAHL level. Especially with a Michigan heavy roster. This is especially the case with Michigan losing so many jobs this last week.

Again...I believe in the NAHL. I believe they have the vision to pick and choose which teams would be a good fit...and which ones are not.

I also believe that current franchises are fincancially strong enough to finish the next season long before the end of the current one.

>I think this off-season is going to set some shockwaves through the Junior and Minor Pro hockey worlds.

I've been waiting for a big implosion, but all we've been getting are small ones. If there's a big shake up this summer, look for the stronger UHL teams to change leagues to the CHL, and the rest to crater. This move has been on and off the table a few times, but if Global Entertainment (dba the CHL) is going to put teams in Youngstown (which is not drawing as well as I expected) and perhaps Lansing, then they need to build a stronger geographically-based division around that growth.

>How many minor pro teams draw under 2,500 a game?

Of the 88 pro minor league teams (down from a peak about ten years ago of around 115), 12 are below 2,500 a night. Seven more are below 3,000, which is my personal Mendoza Line.

>Little Rock's Barton Arena needs a team now...who is going to jump head first into that market now?

Why don't you ask your buddy Claude Lemieux... he scoped it out two years ago looking to place an NAHL team there.

>Up North from the UHL I think that Missouri, Pt Huron, Flint, and Motor City would be better here.

You are going to have better luck convincing folks in Michigan to embrace Juniors than you are in other regions/markets. Need I remind you of the three T's (Topeka, Tulsa, Tupelo)? Missouri has tried juniors in both major leagues. Port Huron might be a decent NAHL market. Flint is a mess and just needs to die as a hockey market, and Motor City's rink was a longtime host to NAHL teams, most recently the Detroit Freeze.

Of course, I think most folks know where I'd like to see an NAHL team.

Marc

Easy there Marc, the Topeka situation was different. We started with the CHL Beer League (lots of fighting) and then went Juniors. It's difficult to make that transition. We still averaged 1800 a game. The Junior team was stuck with the same lease the Pros had and couldn't get out of part of that lease.(ice equipment payments) I believe with the right lease and the right owners the NAHL could flourish here. With the 1500-2000 hard core fans here that would put us 3rd or 4th in attendence in this league. With effort and a good promotion we could probably get to the 3000 mark on the weekend games.

When I speak of the Three T's, I speak of the virtual impossibility to acclimate fans in non-traditional markets to Juniors if the market has already been exposed to minor pros.

As far as the lease... Being pro vs. juniors made no difference. Either way a team would be entering a 7,000 seat arena with no ice making, so either way the team is going to pick up a serious chunk of the capital investment to upgrade the facility. I think it was great that you drew 1,800 (even if that was substandard for the USHL), but would your now slightly-more educated fanbase accept the NAHL as being on par with the USHL, or would they balk at a perceived substandard product like they did the first time around?

Also, your statement of pulling 3,000 on weekends doesn't wash with the reality of the USHL Crows. That team played 26 of 30 games on Fri-Sat-Sun and only four times had a crowd over 2,500. This isn't like pros where a team might pull 1,200 on a Wednesday and 3,600 on Saturday and average 2,400. Nearly all your games were on weekends, and with the exception of a Thanksgiving weekend spike (that was offset by the team's smallest crowd of the season, telling me you had a big promotion Saturday night that killed your Friday gate), the franchise saw decreasing crowds from opening night on. Last season did the market no favors in my mind either, as the record shows a lot of 2200-2400 sized crowds on weekends.

Whatever fanbase may exist in Topeka, it's a mismanaged market, similar to San Antonio, Omaha, and a few others. Like many others, I think an NAHL effort in Topeka needs to revolve around a new, downsized facility. I don't think you need 7,000 seats, even if you aren't paying for the capital improvements.

Marc

Welcome to Fantasy Island....

bp

Da Plane

Da Plane

Marc Foster wrote:

When I speak of the Three T's, I speak of the virtual impossibility to acclimate fans in non-traditional markets to Juniors if the market has already been exposed to minor pros. As far as the lease... Being pro vs. juniors made no difference. Either way a team would be entering a 7,000 seat arena with no ice making, so either way the team is going to pick up a serious chunk of the capital investment to upgrade the facility. I think it was great that you drew 1,800 (even if that was substandard for the USHL), but would your now slightly-more educated fanbase accept the NAHL as being on par with the USHL, or would they balk at a perceived substandard product like they did the first time around?

I think there are about 1,000 hardcore hockey fans in Topeka that are going to support any hockey that they can. There would undoubtedly be some fans that would balk at the quality of the NAHL product, but not to the extent they rejected the USHL when the CHL came in. When the CHL left for the first time to be replaced by the USHL, many fans refused to support the USHL in hopes that it would fail and the CHL would come back. Unfortunately, they got what the hoped for. Now I think most people realize that the CHL (1) is not that much better than juniors and (2) they need to support juniors if they want to watch hockey because the CHL can't cut it here.

As for the issue with the lease, I think mc was talking about the future chances for a junior team in Topeka. When the USHL was here, they inherited the lease that the CHL had, which sent the team's cut of concessions and parking to pay off the installation of the ice making equipment, the boards, zamboni, etc. That has all been paid off now - meaning an increased revenue source for any potential team that did not exist when the USHL was here.

Quote:

Also, your statement of pulling 3,000 on weekends doesn't wash with the reality of the USHL Crows. That team played 26 of 30 games on Fri-Sat-Sun and only four times had a crowd over 2,500. This isn't like pros where a team might pull 1,200 on a Wednesday and 3,600 on Saturday and average 2,400. Nearly all your games were on weekends, and with the exception of a Thanksgiving weekend spike (that was offset by the team's smallest crowd of the season, telling me you had a big promotion Saturday night that killed your Friday gate), the franchise saw decreasing crowds from opening night on. Last season did the market no favors in my mind either, as the record shows a lot of 2200-2400 sized crowds on weekends.

Take note that he said with effort and good advertising. I don't question Butch Johnson's desire to see Topeka work, but the fact is their approach to bringing hockey to this market flat out sucked. They had the theory "If we put a good product on the ice, the fans will eventually come out and support it." That may work in more traditional hockey markets, but not Topeka. The team need to have more of a public presence than it did. With proper advertising, promotions and a few years to build a good base, 3,000 fans per game is not out of the question. It won't happen right away, and it won't happen if the front office does not get creative in bringing fans it, but it can happen if things are done right.

Quote:

Whatever fanbase may exist in Topeka, it's a mismanaged market, similar to San Antonio, Omaha, and a few others. Like many others, I think an NAHL effort in Topeka needs to revolve around a new, downsized facility. I don't think you need 7,000 seats, even if you aren't paying for the capital improvements.

I think a smaller arena would be good too, but I'm not convinced that a team could not make it at the Expocentre. I believe that the last CHL team in there paid somewhere around $3,000-$3,500 per game and got a share of concessions and parking. The rent price included practice time and office space. The total rent paid by the team should be somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000 for the entire year, less a share of concessions and parking.

Even if the team moved into a smaller facility (of which none currently exist in Topeka), I doubt that such facility could offer practice time, games (including all expenses for ticketing, concessions, staff, security, etc.), and year round office space for much less than $100,000. Hell, office space alone in Topeka would probably cost the team somewhere in the $20,000 to $25,000 range at a minimum.

Yes, the arena is larger than what is needed for an NAHL team, but that does not mean that it could not work.

Actually, bafflingly enough, Texas will probably make it back next season, as they got the County to agree to a RENT FREE lease for their next two seasons, AND give them a cut of concessions and the like. Unbelieveable, but true. Biloxi is making progress, and may also return.

Texas?

Texas Wildcatters, an ECHL team in Beaumont... owned by an Angel of Death named Rick Adams. New team in a virgin market and a brand new arena, and only averaged about 2,000 a night. Put it this way - Rita was the best thing that could have happened to the franchise.

Marc

ohok.......was having blondemoement..........

The Wildcatters only hope for survival is tied to a secret proposal for the ECHL and CHL to swap franchises. Now, which CHL team might that be? Rollin....Rollin...Rollin down the river...

Anyway... I still think that team would do much better with us. I tried to convince the longtime ECHL lover of this....lets say he was not amused.

North Houston is 2-3 years away...but it is going to be one heck of a facility along the lines of Sante Fe. 2500-4000 seat main rink with two satelite rinks off of the same chiller system, Tennis, Pool, Health Club with Baseball and Soccer fields outside. Also part of an existing country club. The lid is still tight on getting much more info....but I am staying close for the chance to put my super-club theory to work.

In the meantime...I am going to drive by Sharpstown tomorrow just to see how progress there has come along. Maybe I can put some numbers together for a Tier II "C" Club for next season to play an Independent Schedule.

Isn't there a place for ECHL and CHL talk on this forum? Or..does the index confuse me?

Don't be so damned territorial, Jtornado. The only junior hockey team that exists in a complete vacuum is the Tornado (because they suck, of course... *rimshot*). If one is to analyze markets, current and future, one must examine those leagues on occassion. Examples, there'd be no Texarkana Bandits if it weren't for the fact they were once a CHL market, and a fair bit of time was spent last spring/summer evaluaing the chances that the Santa Fe Roadrunners would move to San Angelo, a failed CHL market (with a horrible lease). Markets brought up in this thread such as Amarillo, Abilene, and Topeka cannot be legitimately discussed without bringing up their minor pro history.

Marc - who once pissed off the now former owner of the New Mexico Scorpions with some comments published in the Albuquerque Journal comparing the NAHL to the CHL...

Marc Foster wrote:

The only junior hockey team that exists in a complete vacuum is the Tornado (because they suck, of course... *rimshot*).

Hey Marc! The 4th grade called. They want their joke back.

Ok JT...you had to have laughed too!