A Montreal Myth Debunked
by PPP on Feb 8, 2008 9:41 PM EST
in News
Email
PrintThere is a theory among the ill-informed that what will topple MLSE will be some sort of revolution by the put-upon proletariat. MF37 and Dave Feschuk, of all people, handily disproved that falsehood. The truth is that the vast majority of the money that MLSE rakes in comes in from their corporate brethren and if the French Revolution taught us anything it's that the nobility tend to stick together (and eventually get beheaded together but sadly Peddie and the MLSE board are likely safe from that fate) so there is no respite in sight from that avenue of appeals.
So the next time someone says that Leaf fans need to stay away from the ACC to help save the Leafs laugh in their faces because they are completely clueless. In fact, they are probably Jays fans because staying away from the SkyDome has helped turn the Jays into a winning franchise. I mean, ownership would never find another way to sell those tickets. Right?
To read about the more insidious falsehood or to comment on the hilarity of needing to sell tickets to opposing fans to get butts in the seats click 'Full Story'.
The most dangerous lie of our time arose from this great article by this great article by Kim Jorn. He did a great job of showing how clueless the Montreal cabbie was but in the comments a blatant falsehood made an appearance. A lie that I have heard perpetrated with pride by Montrealers repeatedly and echoed by an inebriated bird-watcher:
Montrealers love their team but will voice their disapproval of management, ownership and the players on the ice by withholding their money. When the Corey/Houle/Tremblay Habs stumbled, the fans damn well let them know changes were necessary and ownership listened. I think that Ballard, Stavros and now MLSE don't ever receive that message.
you've completely missed Berger's point about Habs fans-- which isn't that they should be applauded for being front runners, but that they should be applauded for going away when the team was as bad as the Leafs are now! And that you're proudly unashamed of your unwavering support of the Blue and White when it's painfully clear that what has allowed the Leafs to languish through these forty years of mediocrity is exactly that!
Those are two well thought out comments that addressed Kim's article and showed him to be lacking in knowledge, wit, and hygiene. Or at least they would have accomplished that if they had been made in an alternate universe where Habs fans had in fact gone away from their team in the past 15 years when they have been terrible much more often than not. Hell, they've missed the playoffs five of the last eight seasons and they are not exactly guaranteed to prevent it become six times in nine years.
Unfortunately, in this reality, Habs fans have not wrought change with their Karl Marx-led revolt against George Gillett. The real improvement that is finally being seen came because their President, Pierre Boivin, was given the backing by ownership to bring in a proven winner as General Manager, Bob Gainey. Keep in mind that even while the Habs, like Icarus before them, have flown close to the sun of first place there is no guarantee that they will not see the wax (Kovalev-Plekanec-Kostitsyn The Elder) holding their wings melt away causing them to plummet into the draft lottery as happened just a year ago.
The truth is that Habs fans have happily continued to go see their heroes in droves and plunked down their hard-earned cash (one assumes but never really knows) to see the team that they love and they should be applauded for their devotion. Exhibit A in the case versus the alterers of history is below. Keep in mind that while that that trio of 94% seasons seem like some sort of exodus they were still good enough to rank in the top two in the NHL for average attendance. Not only that but if you take a closer look you'll see that those average attendances were still enough to outnumber the average number of Leafs fans that suffered in the ACC during that same period.
So we can finally put the canard that Habs fans are so otherwordly knowledgeable about hockey that they sacrificed their chance to see their adored bleu, blanc, et rouge in order to bring about change to rest. MZ in the comments of the Cox Bloc probably summed things up best:
More than any of that, though, is how ridiculously unfair it is for guys like you and Berger to blame the fans. Teams like the Leafs and the Red Sox have real fans, and there's no getting around that. It's why, as Kim Jorn rightly points out, a boycott won't work. If Leaf fans as a species survived the asteroid impact of the '80s, we'll survive this season. But don't you dare suggest that it's because we won't flick some internal switch and abandon a losing team (a trait [Ed.'s Note: which doesn't in fact exist] in Habs fans that you applaud) [now] that we have a losing team. It's not our fault that there's been some serious bungling at the management level. It's not our fault when players get injured. Losing 8-0 to the Panthers was in no way our fault.
- Indicates a season shared between the old arena (Maple Leaf Gardens and The Forum) and the new arena (The Air Canada Centre and the Molson/Bell Centre)
** Attendance figures before the 2000-2001 season came courtesy of Andrew's Stars Page who thankfully archived the old ESPN numbers. The number from 2000-2001 onward come from the ESPN Average Attendance page.
10 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
so much fun
it's just so much fun when habs fans are proven wrong!
never gets old.
beauty of a piece ppp. that's why you do, what you do. keep it up.
Excellent work
by Down Goes Brown on Feb 9, 2008 10:44 AM EST reply actions
Welcome Sean!
Thanks for opening up an account although I am not sure about your post ;) I mean, it's completely out of the nature of the Toronto media to make intellectually dishonest claims like that or this one by Damien Cox:
Moreover, I can never really blame good teams for showing a little guts and going for it, even when they shouldn't. Good example: When the Leafs traded for Owen Nolan a few years back, they honestly believed they were close to taking a stab at the Stanley Cup. They weren't, Nolan didn't help much and a package of futures, including Brad Boyes, went to San Jose. But I've always found it difficult to be too critical of that deal even though it didn't work. How do you blame teams for being ambitious?
Well Damien, first off, a couple of years ago means March of 2003. I wonder what happened in 2002 to make the Leafs think that they had a shot at a Stanley Cup? Maybe they made it to the Conference Finals with an injury ravaged team. The Omen's right though, there was nothing to indicate that the Leafs were a Stanley Cup contende.
Damien is above that sort of thing
It's nice to see Damien likes the deal. I've read where some Toronto writers have said Nolan was "washed up" when the deal was made.
Sure glad to hear that Damien disagrees.
by Down Goes Brown on Feb 9, 2008 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
Sweet Jesus
He doesn't even try to keep his opinions straight!
by David Danforth on Feb 9, 2008 11:11 PM EST up reply actions
Even Better
While hammering the Leafs for that Nolan trade this morning he praised the Suns for trading for Shaq. I guess each sport has a different definition of 'washed up' not to mention: what have the Suns ever done to think that they were title contenders?
I applaud their ambition though.
Thanks for the link... but...
Hey thanks for the link and for picking out one of the parts of my comments on the story over at Coxbloc that wasn't too ridiculous or irate. I'll grant you that I was basically talking out my ass on this one, but I'm still not sure I'm wrong. Do you guys really have that much faith in the attendance figures that teams provide? Do those include comps and how pervasive were they? How many people paid for tickets but stayed home and deprived the team of sales on concessions?
And I'm sure you've noticed that 103.65% of capacity is almost ten per cent higher than 94.14%, right? Different arenas, apples and oranges... I get it. But do you? I mean, that didn't stop you from using average attendance to make claims when the fact that the Bell Centre is much larger than the ACC changes the whole equation. Obviously using the number of people in the seats as a comparison is ridiculous when the Leafs are way beyond capacity. The only reason down-year attendance in Montreal was still bigger than attendance in Toronto is because the ACC isn't big enough for all the people who want to see the Leafs. If there were an infinite number of seats available, the Leafs would sit way more than the 20,027 the Canadiens peaked at. And that's exactly the problem.
While those 1200 fans who didn't buy tickets, plus however many more paid and stayed home don't nearly represent a full-scale boycott, the fact that attendance was essentially decreasing (minimally as it was) in parallel with the previous year's performance shows that there absolutely was a problem in Montreal that needed to be corrected by putting a winning team on the ice.
Even if Montreal fans didn't go away in the numbers that the myth purports, Leafs fans haven't gone away at all (ESPN has the figures for '08, and they're at 103.4% of capacity).
That's a huge difference between the two cities. The Leafs are essentially daring fans not to renew their season tickets and nobody doing it. Montreal couldn't get away with that for long before they saw they were going to feel it. And it's sad, because the only real pressure that Leafs fans can exert is financially, and they just aren't doing it. Some of them even balk when the media gives them a helping hand by not sugarcoating what a laughingstock the team has become. The comment from MZ that's supposed to sum up your thoughts is exactly more of the same head-in-the-sand nonsense. Absolutely Leafs fans share in the blame here. Without their blind loyalty it wouldn't have taken four years before ownership though, "Hey, we need someone GOOD to run the team."
Anyway, I've said way more than I intended to. All I really wanted to point out was that I can remember getting $10 tickets from scalpers outside the Molson Centre right in the middle of those 99-02 down years. You let me know when I can do that outside the ACC.
by stoeten on Feb 11, 2008 3:23 PM EST reply actions
Blame (corporate) Canada
I couldn't agree more with your sentiment, but the reality is far more complex.
I think if you look at the numbers you'd understand MLSE's revenue model and why blaming Leaf fans is misguided to say the least.
As Jim Balsillie well knows, the demand for NHL hockey in southern Ontario (and not Leaf hockey - but NHL hockey) is near insatiable. With over seven million people, the golden horseshoe has 2.5x the population of the greater Montreal area and about the same population as the entire province of Quebec. It is the corporate capital of Canada.
That's a lot of people and a sea of money for MLSE to draw on.
Every major corporation and law firm I know of has seasons tickets for the Leafs and some have season tickets and a box. The demand for NHL hockey is such that some of the companies I work with also have tickets and/or boxes for the Sabres.
With near inelastic demand, driven almost entirely by corporations, comes stratospheric prices.
Platinum tickets to a Leaf game are $400 each. Upper bowl purples are $37 each. As I posted on my blog, a single row of platinum seats generates more income for MLSE than all of the standing room tickets in the ACC combined.
Up in the corporate suites, it's more of the same. Want pretzels and a veggie tray? That will be a minimum order of $160; Popcorn and some pizzas $300. Want to feed the suits some dinner? Shrimp, green salad and an order of Salmon is $75 per person. Wine has a 300% mark-up and a 12 oz. beer is $7.
The last time I took clients to a box, eight of them ignored the game and talked business, two of cheered on the Penguins and one other Leaf fan and I got to enjoy a Leafs loss. The firm picked up a $2000 catering tab (not including a tip for the hot-ish hostess), plus the costs of 12 seats, plus the cost of the suite, plus the licensing agreement and on and on and on...total bill was easily five figures and only two of us were Leaf fans.
Do you really think the average fan is whipping out their chequebook for this? Do you really think it's the average fan that's running up a nightly $2000 catering charge? More importantly - and back to your post - do you really think the average fan skipping out on a $37 purple seat, a couple of $8 beers and a cheap car flag can compete with the amount of money being spent in the lower bowl and in the executive suites each and every night?
Looking at these numbers, there's no way a common fan can put a dent MLSE's bottom line.
Finally, I see your scalper example and I'll raise you this:
$45 - that's my personal total out of pocket contribution to MLSE this year -one purple seat and one beer. It was a great game, the Leafs lost in the shoot-out and I had a fantastic time.
$600 - that's what Corporate Canada's has paid MLSE on my behalf this year - three games in the reds, three jumbo pretzels, three orders of sushi and lots and lots of beer.
You want to blame someone for the Leafs woes? I'll give you two: JFJ and a Canadian tax code that permits businesses to write off 50% of each and every dollar they spend at the ACC.
You want a revolution? It's going to have to start with the tax code or with the suits.
Are you serious?
I'm sorry, but the relationship between the average fan and the Leafs' profit is hardly so linear. The suits and the high prices at the ACC exist because of the strength and the prestigiousness of the Maple Leafs brand, not vice versa. Without everyday fans watching the games, calling the call-in shows, paying for the cheap seats, filling the bars for games, buying the merchandise and the newspapers, going to the websites, subscribing to LeafsTV, etc. etc. etc., the prestige that brings the corporate community to Leafs games doesn't exist-- or is significantly diminished.
Interesting point about Balsillie and the appetite for NHL hockey here, but the idea that if corporations and fans stop going to see the Leafs others will simply take their place is pretty flawed. Look at the Blue Jays if you don't think that a good dose of public apathy can drive away corporate support and completely change an organization. Don't forget that it wasn't so long ago that they were the hot ticket. Plus, I think a huge sector of the market you're referring to is comprised of disenfranchised Leafs fans who want nothing to do with their uber-corporate culture and the terrible hockey decisions it breeds (or perhaps are still pissed at Harold Ballard).
But OK, you've at least acknowledged that financial incentives are key to changing the hockey culture at MLSE. I just find it kind of troubling that you suggest average fans can do nothing but throw up their hands, blaming someone else? Well, if there's one way to ensure nothing ever changes, you've nailed it.
I'm sure it's much easier being an apologist for the organization and waiting for somebody else to do something, but Jesus... rather than just griping about the GM and the tax structure, Leafs fans ought to be asking the question, why is a front office structure that brings in an under-qualified GM and then ties his hands even permitted to exist?
Of course, if so many people are going to keep ignore the role of every fans in creating the conditions for that sort of thing to happen, I guess I'm asking a bit much. In that case, enjoy the next 40 years and, for all of your sake, here's hoping they get lucky-- because they certainly aren't going to get good.
Oh, and I've noticed nobody has yet addressed my re-bunking of the Montreal myth. I should probably add to that, while I did use the 1200 seats under capacity figure, we need to keep in mind that this was the average attendance for the whole year. Undoubtedly-- though I don't have the game-to-game figures-- when Montreal attendance bottomed out, attendance numbers wouldn't have been stable at 20,000 throughout the season. Attendance almost certainly started higher than it finished. We can say with certainly there were more than 1200 empty seats on a lot of nights by the end of their low period. The figures quoted were pretty misleading. . . Er, no. The figures show exactly what I said. It's the interpretation that was misleading. And why anyone purporting to be a Leafs fan would want to debunk this-- other than for the sake of being completely petty-- is beyond me.
by stoeten on Feb 13, 2008 1:01 PM EST up reply actions
<Ming-Ming>Sewiously!</Ming-Ming>
You wrote: Interesting point about Balsillie and the appetite for NHL hockey here, but the idea that if corporations and fans stop going to see the Leafs others will simply take their place is pretty flawed.
Flawed, eh? In two days, Balsillie booked deposits on 64 of the 70 luxury suites at Copps Coliseum. That sounds like some pretty heavy pent-up corporate demand for NHL hockey to me. If I were an NHL owner in this market, I'd be looking at the line up of corporations and licking my chops.
As for a few of your other charges:
1. If you read any of our blogs, you'd know most of the people who gather here at PPP are not apologists for this organization. Personally, I hate the way this club is run, I hated JFJ's entire tenure, and I wish this club had been completely blown-up coming out of the lock-out. (F*ck, that preceding sentence fragment pretty much sums up two years worth of my blog entries...).
2. You're kidding yourself if you don't think the tax code plays a huge role in the massive revenues down at MSLE. Ask yourself this: how did recent changes to the tax code affect golf memberships? It wasn't pretty - courses are offering some pretty interesting pricing and incentives to make up for the fact that green fees are no longer tax deductible. Now ask yourself, how many corporations would renew season tickets in the platinums at $18,000 a year per seat (that's not a typo - $18 freakin' K per seat) if they couldn't write 50% of that off.
3. I don't pay for Leafs TV, I don't own a silly car flag, I don't buy jerseys, trinkets, chotchkes or any other Leafs paraphernalia. I fully support pocket book diplomacy and am 100% behind voting with your wallet. As I said in my previous post I agree with you. But to follow your line of reasoning, I've been a Cardinals fan since I was eight when my dad bought me a jersey on a business trip to St. Louis. I've spent more money on the Cards than the Leafs so it would be great if you could let me know how much I'm to blame for the Cards lean years and how much credit I get for their World Series wins? (Having a hand in a World Series victory would be a mighty sweet thing to put on my CV).
As for debunking your myth, here's the bottom line, WCH and others love to trot out the meme that people don't support the Habs when the on-ice product is weak. The numbers show this to be a lie. The team's lowest attendance mark is 94%. Full stop.
Here's another myth: Hab fans restraint with their wallets is what led to on-ice improvements.
Nope, George Gillet is what led to the Habs turning the corner. New ownership meant an end to the Molson's old-boy network that brought you former beer salesman Reggie Houle as your GM, followed up by the failure known as Andre Savard.
Oh, and as interesting as this debate is, neither one of the teams we support have accomplished jack in the past 5+ years.
While I like the way the Habs are trending, they're still a team that is 3 for 5 in post season appearances and have only won 2 playoff rounds.
While I hate the direction the Leafs are trending, they too are 3 for 5 in post season appearances and have won three playoff rounds.
I find it funny that one of these teams is held up as the model for fans to follow and the other one should be subject to a fan-led boycott.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- The Chicago Blackhawks’ seven-game losing streak is bad for everybody
- According to NHL, here’s why Dominic Moore escaped suspension for Fedotenko hit
- How Mats Sundin’s no-trade clause controversy made fans reconsider loyalty in NHL
- Nordiques Nation invades Hockey Day in Canada
- Youth hockey coach, parents clash over alleged tirade over 9-year old’s 200th goal puck
SBNation.com Recent Stories
StatCounter
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
