Balsillie/Phoenix part V

[mnwildfan79]

If this particular team is lost, there is nothing that prevents the NHL from placing another team in the greater Phoenix area, assuming an owner would be willing to make a go of it. If the current location of the arena is a problem, they might in fact be better off by leaving-- and THEN placing a new team in Scottsdale. They'd also be able to collect a franchise fee.

How would that scenario in ANY way be better for the NHL than what they are doing?

 

[TaketheCannoli]

If this particular team stays in Glendale, there is nothing that prevents the NHL from placing another team in the Greater Toronto Area, assuming an owner would be willing to make a go of it. If the proposed location is a problem for exisiting teams, they might in fact be better off by abandoning the idea of Hamilton-- and THEN placing a new team in So Ontario, perhaps in Mississauga, Vaughn or elsewhere in the GTA. They'd also be able to collect a franchise fee.

 

[Fugu]

The national networks don't have the stomach for it because people in the west don't care for the most part. Its up to the NHL to then decide whether to admit defeat and wait of MLS to take your sponsorship dollars, and all of your players go to some sort of Pan-Europe hockey league; or to continue fighting to make people in the west care. The NHL has committed to the latter.

The way to do that is to have the hockey presence, good teams, and local rivalries to drum up bar-talk.... or do you have a better suggestion?

The NHL has enough money to keep the best players in the NHL. In fact, the current CBA's restrictions have done more to keep European talent in Europe (especially the entry level contracts).

The markets have spoken, just follow the money trail. If a good team is the prerequisite, then the NHL should just force all the top talent to these markets because there's no other way to force that issue. 30 teams, only one can win the Cup, only 16 qualify for the playoffs, and someone has to be in the bottom half every year. The Any Given Sunday malarkey doesn't work in hockey because of the way talent is developed, and the fact that there are 30 teams selecting players in the first round. It has to be built up, first of all, and this CBA also forces teams to rely a heck of a lot more on home-grown, younger, less expensive talent. In a sense, the cost certainty system is at odds with what people say is needed (winning, not parity) to grow the game.

As for your last comment-- local rivalries, bar talk -- how long do you try that approach and how much money do you spend? What is the return? Do people ~really~ believe that the outcome of this strategy translates to a meaningful national TV contract (>$1 billion per year)? I read a lot about growing the game, and establishing a presence, etc., but if I were a good CFO somewhere, I'd have to say, "What's the projection in dollars? How much do I spend and what is my return?" I mean, it is a business after all, right?

 

[seanlinden]

Hmmm... National TV deal... I wonder, how many people, in the southwest let's say, watch the NHL on TV outside of Dallas, Denver, and Phoenix? Hey, didn't I just read somewhere in the previous Balsillie thread that there were something like 7,000 people in Phoenix who regularly watched the NHL on TV? Honestly, I don't remember, that number just rings a bell.

And again, what about the rest of Texas, Colorado, Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada.... how many people outside of Dallas, Denver, and Phoenix watch the NHL on TV?

National TV deal, covering the southwest... hah.

So moving teams away from there is going to all of a sudden get people to start watching.... not sure I follow the logic there.

 

[Fugu]

How would that scenario in ANY way be better for the NHL than what they are doing?

Is the problem Glendale? There is only one way to get out of Glendale.

If this particular team stays in Glendale, there is nothing that prevents the NHL from placing another team in the Greater Toronto Area, assuming an owner would be willing to make a go of it. If the proposed location is a problem for exisiting teams, they might in fact be better off by abandoning the idea of Hamilton-- and THEN placing a new team in So Ontario, perhaps in Mississauga, Vaughn or elsewhere in the GTA. They'd also be able to collect a franchise fee.

Of course, you have to accept that Glendale isn't part of the problem in Phoenix. (Notice I said part.)

The issue with where to place an expansion team is a bit different from where to move a team IF it indeed has to be moved. There simply are no markets that aren't tested, have an arena, that won't require revenue sharing, have an owner, etc. Toronto may be one of the few remaining spots that can 'easily' support a team. I guess one has to decide if they feel the US is saturated or not. Even if you come back with the answer that it isn't, you have to decide how many more cities are realistically viable given the NHL's real economic conditions, not some pipe dream about an NFL-style TV contract.

 

[triggrman]

Hmmm... National TV deal... I wonder, how many people, in the southwest let's say, watch the NHL on TV outside of Dallas, Denver, and Phoenix? Hey, didn't I just read somewhere in the previous Balsillie thread that there were something like 7,000 people in Phoenix who regularly watched the NHL on TV? Honestly, I don't remember, that number just rings a bell.

And again, what about the rest of Texas, Colorado, Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada.... how many people outside of Dallas, Denver, and Phoenix watch the NHL on TV?

National TV deal, covering the southwest... hah.

Texas is loaded with minor league hocky, fwiw...

 

[mnwildfan79]

Is the problem Glendale? There is only one way to get out of Glendale.

No the problem is the NHL wants to stay in Glendale and they have the right to make that decision. You may disagree with it, but you nor anyone else has been able to come up with a valid argument as to how the NHL is better off with the Coyotes in Hamilton. If you do come up with one, in addition to posting it here maybe print it out and send it to the 29 other owners and explain to them why they are wrong about wanting to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix.

 

[seanlinden]

The NHL has enough money to keep the best players in the NHL. In fact, the current CBA's restrictions have done more to keep European talent in Europe (especially the entry level contracts).

The markets have spoken, just follow the money trail. If a good team is the prerequisite, then the NHL should just force all the top talent to these markets because there's no other way to force that issue. 30 teams, only one can win the Cup, only 16 qualify for the playoffs, and someone has to be in the bottom half every year. The Any Given Sunday malarkey doesn't work in hockey because of the way talent is developed, and the fact that there are 30 teams selecting players in the first round. It has to be built up, first of all, and this CBA also forces teams to rely a heck of a lot more on home-grown, younger, less expensive talent. In a sense, the cost certainty system is at odds with what people say is needed (winning, not parity) to grow the game.

As for your last comment-- local rivalries, bar talk -- how long do you try that approach and how much money do you spend? What is the return? Do people ~really~ believe that the outcome of this strategy translates to a meaningful national TV contract (>$1 billion per year)? I read a lot about growing the game, and establishing a presence, etc., but if I were a good CFO somewhere, I'd have to say, "What's the projection in dollars? How much do I spend and what is my return?" I mean, it is a business after all, right?

Right now the NHL has the money; but their strongest competition is currently an extremely poorly organized european system. They are realzing this and beginning to change it. Europe excluding Italy, Spain & Portugal has a population of approximately double the United States + Canada. There is 1 major sport across the continent (versus 3 and soon 4); and even that has the greatest concentration in the non-hockey areas. The fact is that in the long run, a european hockey league has a bigger audience, smaller geographical area (i think the population density is about 4 times US + Canada), and less competition. In the long run, they will problably succeed because they don't need anywhere close to the level of penetration needed in North America.

If you're a CFO; you can complain about the spending all you want, but thats why you're a CFO and not a CEO. The CEO must look at the long term future of the business as a whole. The alternatives are to take a proactive approach now in spending money to develop the game; or wait until the europeans start taking NHL players.

Nobody really knows the best way to spend the money to grow the game, but I do know that moving teams away from the areas where you need to grow is backwards thinking. If they decide that certain factors prevent it from working in Phoenix (which isn't the case because there is ownership willing); then KC or Vegas are the next strategic placements.

These owners are here for long term profit and long term franchise values. If they don't grow the game, their franchises are no more valuable then a developmental league to europe.

 

[Fugu]

In the short view yes. On the other hand, if the league wants to compete for the sports entertainment dollar in North America, it needs a presence in these markets.

I'm going to take you to task over this sentence because it reminds me of the jargon that comes from business school professors drumming up consultancy work, or promoting their latest "management" books....

It also reminds of the slick use of buzz words to make a statement about something when someone can't back something with actual dollars, but is saying something that sounds "right".... hence the buzz words.

Market presence. What is this exactly, in your opinion?

Competing for the sports entertainment dollar, in North America? Oh really?

How much of this 'presence' do you need; and how much of that dollar do you think you can get?

 

[Fugu]

No the problem is the NHL wants to stay in Glendale and they have the right to make that decision. You may disagree with it, but you nor anyone else has been able to come up with a valid argument as to how the NHL is better off with the Coyotes in Hamilton. If you do come up with one, in addition to posting it here maybe print it out and send it to the 29 other owners and explain to them why they are wrong about wanting to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix.

Oh please. Spare me the emotional argument. I KNOW the NHL wants to keep the team where it is, especially since JB wants to move it somewhere they don't want him to move it. I know what they are trying to protect, and if I were in their shoes, I'd do the same. What rights they have however will be up to the courts.

You can answer your own question about why the NHL would be better off with a team in Hamilton. If it really weren't an issue, they wouldn't be fighting it. Heck, Gary has already admitted he'd let the team move to Winnipeg if a buyer can't be found, so his commitment to Phoenix goes only as deep as finding an owner willing to spend money there. Once that isn't an option, he's open to Winnipeg.

Hmmmmmmmmm.............

A valid argument? Who gets to decide what is valid? You? I tend to think that one reason Phoenix is not better off where it is today is that they're losing millions of dollars every year, and that no owner came forward with an offer that didn't require a new lease/terms; and that existing creditors walk away with their gargantuan losses.

 

[CGG]

No the problem is the NHL wants to stay in Glendale and they have the right to make that decision. You may disagree with it, but you nor anyone else has been able to come up with a valid argument as to how the NHL is better off with the Coyotes in Hamilton. If you do come up with one, in addition to posting it here maybe print it out and send it to the 29 other owners and explain to them why they are wrong about wanting to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix.

The Hamilton Coyotes would easily have more people watch their first NHL game on TV than Phoenix had cumulatively all season. If the idea is to have healthy franchises generating revenue and income, then no one can sanely argue that the NHL is better off in Phoenix than Hamilton. If the NHL isn't interested in maximizing revenues, but has some other wacky agenda like filling holes on a map to broaden appeal in the US to achieve that fabled lucrative national TV contract, then we should keep Phoenix where it is and also move Calgary and Montreal to Seattle and Salt Lake City.

 

[mnwildfan79]

Oh please. Spare me the emotional argument. I KNOW the NHL wants to keep the team where it is, especially since JB wants to move it somewhere they don't want him to move it. I know what they are trying to protect, and if I were in their shoes, I'd do the same. What rights they have however will be up to the courts.

How was my argument in any way emotional? If anything, my emotions would lend me to be anti-southern experiment. The NHL took away MY North Stars and sent them south just as I was starting to love the sport. Emotionally I hate all the stupid southern teams, and would love to see another passionate hockey market get a hockey team over a bunch of snow-birds and non-interested desert dwellers.

You can answer your own question about why the NHL would be better off with a team in Hamilton.

No I can't, that's why I asked you.

If it really weren't an issue, they wouldn't be fighting it.

If what really weren't an issue?

Heck, Gary has already admitted he'd let the team move to Winnipeg if a buyer can't be found, so his commitment to Phoenix goes only as deep as finding an owner willing to spend money there. Once that isn't an option, he's open to Winnipeg.

This is just common sense. Of course if he can't find a buyer for the Phoenix market the team has to either fold or move. However it appears there are multiple potential buyers that want to keep the team in Phoenix, so I don't see how this is relevant at the moment.

Hmmmmmmmmm.............

Indeed

A valid argument? Who gets to decide what is valid? You?

Alright you got me, I worded that poorly. I haven't seen an argument that explains why the NHL having a team in Hamilton is better than keeping the team in Phoenix when all things are considered in my opinion.

I tend to think that one reason Phoenix is not better off where it is today is that they're losing millions of dollars every year, and that no owner came forward with an offer that didn't require a new lease/terms; and that existing debtors walk away with their gargantuan losses.

You mean creditors? Again back to the original point, are they really better off with the team in Hamilton? That remains to be seen.

 

[mnwildfan79]

The Hamilton Coyotes would easily have more people watch their first NHL game on TV than Phoenix had cumulatively all season. If the idea is to have healthy franchises generating revenue and income, then no one can sanely argue that the NHL is better off in Phoenix than Hamilton. If the NHL isn't interested in maximizing revenues, but has some other wacky agenda like filling holes on a map to broaden appeal in the US to achieve that fabled lucrative national TV contract, then we should keep Phoenix where it is and also move Calgary and Montreal to Seattle and Salt Lake City.

If you really consider growing the sport in non-traditional hockey markets in order to work towards a lucrative national TV contract is whacky, I don't know what to say to you that will make you explain why staying in Phoenix is better for the NHL. You make think its a fable, I and others (apparently the owners of NHL teams) think it's a smart business decision.

 

[copperandblue]

If Balsillie had come along in this Coyotes situation and told the League that he decided that he just wanted an NHL franchise and that he'd move it to Kansas City, with a promise to keep the team there (at mimimum 10 years), would this circus now be in court?

Everything else being equal, I think it would be.

I am no lawyer or businessman so I have no clear idea what all the ramifications would be but as a mere layman I am not sure that the primary issue here isn't the back door, strong arm tactics that Balsille has tried to use on a number of occassions.

I see the BOG as the overall NHL entity as being similar to a union. It can only operate effectively as a single entity and the league by-laws are in place because of that. It's a for better or worse situation and Balsillies attempted circumvention of those by-laws could/would fracture the union so to speak.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

I'm going to take you to task over this sentence because it reminds me of the jargon that comes from business school professors drumming up consultancy work, or promoting their latest "management" books....

It also reminds of the slick use of buzz words to make a statement about something when someone can't back something with actual dollars, but is saying something that sounds "right".... hence the buzz words.

Market presence. What is this exactly, in your opinion?

Competing for the sports entertainment dollar, in North America? Oh really?

How much of this 'presence' do you need; and how much of that dollar do you think you can get?

I'm glad you asked. According to Paul Kelly, Executive Director of the NHL PA, the league needs to have teams PLURAL in the Southwestern US in order to have any TV contract with ESPN, NBC, ABC, Versus etc. Kelly discussed this in his interview on the Fan 590.

Now, if you would be so kind, please respond to my questions:

1. How do you resolve Moyes "selling" a territory he doesn't own?
2. How can you justify the irreparable damage to the Sabres and the Leafs by moving a team into their market, and how does the Balsillie proposal make them whole going forward.
3. Would you prefer as indicated by your posts, that the NHL only exist in the N.E. US, Detroit, Minnesota, Chicago and Canada? If so, which teams would you eliminate from the NHL and how much would it cost each surviving team to buy them out, and possibly even replace those teams with as many as you like in Canada. Additionally, how would that contraction effect revenues going forward?

I have additional discussion but I will start a new thread as it is beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[Moobles]

"but you nor anyone else has been able to come up with a valid argument as to how the NHL is better off with the Coyotes in Hamilton."

You're using circular reasoning here. The debate as to whether the NHL is better off staying in Phoenix has many components to it. While I don't think there's been any real unanimous consensus on this board as to whether keeping them in Phoenix is a good or bad idea (though there certainly seem to be more vocal opponents here of keeping the team in Phoenix), there is no denying there are serious problems in Phoenix that need to be rectified ASAP.

There have been plenty of sound arguments; both valid and well-worded throughout the discussion on this board, and I would refer you to the older threads (sift through it) to find some of the better arguments on both sides. I don't think anyone here can reasonably predict what's going to happen and the outcome of that happening, but it is unfair and illogical to dismiss Hamilton as a good sporting business opportunity, just as it is silly to ignore the consequences of moving the Coyotes out of Phoenix.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

No the problem is the NHL wants to stay in Glendale and they have the right to make that decision. You may disagree with it, but you nor anyone else has been able to come up with a valid argument as to how the NHL is better off with the Coyotes in Hamilton. If you do come up with one, in addition to posting it here maybe print it out and send it to the 29 other owners and explain to them why they are wrong about wanting to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix.

mnwildfan, i'm not sure it even matters whether the NHL is better off with a team in Hamilton or Phoenix. I would love for anyone to explain why Moyes has the right to sell a franchise that is located anywhere but his home territory. I would love to hear someone logically explain why Balsillie should be accorded the same TV rights as MLSE, why they should be able to infringe in the Toronto TV market and have to pay nothing for that right.

 

[David_99]

If you really consider growing the sport in non-traditional hockey markets in order to work towards a lucrative national TV contract is whacky, I don't know what to say to you that will make you explain why staying in Phoenix is better for the NHL. You make think its a fable, I and others (apparently the owners of NHL teams) think it's a smart business decision.

IMO the NHL should do everything possible to fill where there is demand, which would only strengthen the league. The stronger the league, the easier it is to experiment in less tradition areas. The NHLs biggest achievement/mistake was expanding/relocating to so many untested markets it too short a time. Dallas, San Jose & Colorado turned out unbelievably well. A few more are doing ok. The rest, imo, are weighing down the league. They basically threw as many teams against the wall as they could. Some stuck so hard they are unmovable. Others are barely hanging on. Expansion has dramatically grown the game in the last 2 decades. Though not all can be success stories. Such a rapid expansion has weakened the NHL in terms of aiding struggling teams. Having to put out so many fires year after year is not what I call stability.

Long story short, moving a team to ON will strengthen the core of the league. One less team to worry about. Being too successful in Ontario may hurt some of the southern teams in the short term, but at least there's one more team making money and one less losing money. With one less team to stabilize, the league can concentrate on the rest of the teams with problems. Then, once the league can consider itself stable, it can risk expanding to a risky market. 20 teams helping 10 teams is better then 10 teams helping 20 teams. That's more over-simplified take anyway.

 

[mnwildfan79]

mnwildfan, i'm not sure it even matters whether the NHL is better off with a team in Hamilton or Phoenix. I would love for anyone to explain why Moyes has the right to sell a franchise that is located anywhere but his home territory. I would love to hear someone logically explain why Balsillie should be accorded the same TV rights as MLSE, why they should be able to infringe in the Toronto TV market and have to pay nothing for that right.

I completely agree. But I have long since tired of trying to have that debate on these boards. The legality of the situation will play out in court. I largely think the debate we are having on here is moot and engaging it more as a hypothetical than anything.

 

[Fugu]

Now, if you would be so kind, please respond to my questions:

1. How do you resolve Moyes "selling" a territory he doesn't own?

This is the NHL's position, and thus not the fact you are trying to present as in this debate.

Moyes is trying to get the best deal he can for himself. The courts will decide if he can do this or not.

I understand why the NHL would fight his move. I understand why Moyes is trying to recoup hundreds of millions in losses.

The NHL's position may in fact be tenable, but I don't think it's as near of a slam dunk as you are presenting it here.

2. How can you justify the irreparable damage to the Sabres and the Leafs by moving a team into their market, and how does the Balsillie proposal make them whole going forward.

Who says it's irreparable?

JB's current offer does not make them whole-- in the sense that he has not offered anything, and there are no provable/quantifiable figures that have been presented as to what real damage might be.

Again-- the law will decide IF teams can claim a market to be exclusively theirs; and to the extent that this is upheld, a figure will be derived as to damages. JB then can pay that or pull his offer. I have no problem with that.

3. Would you prefer as indicated by your posts, that the NHL only exist in the N.E. US, Detroit, Minnesota, Chicago and Canada?

I have never stated this.

If so, which teams would you eliminate from the NHL and how much would it cost each surviving team to buy them out, and possibly even replace those teams with as many as you like in Canada. Additionally, how would that contraction effect revenues going forward?

I don't want to get into 'which' teams I'd cut, but I am on record here as to my personal opinion/preference about the size of the league (usually I have it at 20-24 teams). I would not put any more teams in Canada, were I to have my 20-24 team league; however I do see a business case for the GTA being able to support a second team and being able to do so better than some current US markets.

Thus, you're off base again with your Canada comment. That's not my position, and never has been.

Buyouts are beside the point because I've never seen teams bought out before. There is a difference between a hypothetically ideal league size (in my opinion) and folding teams that have already been added to the NHL. These are separate discussion points. The fact that I think an ideal league size is less than the current state doesn't mean the current state is ideal because we can't easily fold teams.

Revenues. Total HRR would decrease (duh) if you folded six teams. Let's do the math. Six teams, avg revenue of $60 million, HRR goes down by $360 million. Would TV contracts decline in a commensurate fashion? Well, no, on the Canadian front. US? It's about $80-90 million between NBC and VS. Take your pick.

The remaining teams would either have to play more games against each other; or they would lose revenue by playing fewer games. They would have fewer teams to spread out the remaining value of the TV contracts, thus they'd get more per team.

Hey, when you're starting with ~10% of revenues coming from central NHL efforts, revenue becomes a funny thing. It's local, not global, but you're starting from the premise that all HRR is somehow affected. It's not. Some portion certainly is, but not as much as you seem to be implying. Furthermore, if the weakest revenue generators are cut (or the smallest markets as far as market potential), the avg revenue/team would in fact increase.

 

[Fugu]

I'm glad you asked. According to Paul Kelly, Executive Director of the NHL PA, the league needs to have teams PLURAL in the Southwestern US in order to have any TV contract with ESPN, NBC, ABC, Versus etc. Kelly discussed this in his interview on the Fan 590.

I didn't ask what Paul Kelly said because I don't accept him as a strategic marketing authority, or an analyst that advises on sports management and investment. I asked you.

You made the statements about market presence and competing for the NA sports dollar.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

I didn't ask what Paul Kelly said because I don't accept him as a strategic marketing authority, or an analyst that advises on sports management and investment. I asked you.

You made the statements about market presence and competing for the NA sports dollar.

Please accept my apology, I wasn't clear in quoting Kelly. He said those networks told the PA with no teams in that area, they are unwilling to broadcast the NHL nationally. Since Kelly actually attends these meetings and discusses these with the networks, I accept his claims. If you don't that's your prerogative.

 

[mnwildfan79]

IMO the NHL should do everything possible to fill where there is demand, which would only strengthen the league. The stronger the league, the easier it is to experiment in less tradition areas. The NHLs biggest achievement/mistake was expanding/relocating to so many untested markets it too short a time. Dallas, San Jose & Colorado turned out unbelievably well. A few more are doing ok. The rest, imo, are weighing down the league. They basically threw as many teams against the wall as they could. Some stuck so hard they are unmovable. Others are barely hanging on. Expansion has dramatically grown the game in the last 2 decades. Though not all can be success stories. Such a rapid expansion has weakened the NHL in terms of aiding struggling teams. Having to put out so many fires year after year is not what I call stability.

Long story short, moving a team to ON will strengthen the core of the league. One less team to worry about. Being too successful in Ontario may hurt some of the southern teams in the short term, but at least there's one more team making money and one less losing money. With one less team to stabilize, the league can concentrate on the rest of the teams with problems. Then, once the league can consider itself stable, it can risk expanding to a risky market. 20 teams helping 10 teams is better then 10 teams helping 20 teams. That's more over-simplified take anyway.

Excellent post.

The question is not really Phoenix vs. Hamilton. It's "is the NHL overall healthy enough to continue the southern experiment". I've only been reading since part 3 on, but countless objective posters have been getting at that very point.

Personally, I give the NHL owners and Gary Bettman a lot of respect when it comes to the whole concept of southern expansion. I don't think they were ignorant enough to really believe that all the non-traditional hockey markets would be easy to make profitable. You have posted many examples of southern markets that are already working, and that's great. However, this one (and a handfull of others) are taking more time and more work. Phoenix in particular was also hampered with severe mismanagement, a terrible lease, and a continually subpar on ice product. Maybe at some point it will be time to bail on Phoenix, but I (as well as GB/BOG) don't think we're at that point yet. Give them a chance under better management, with revised lease. It appears they are on the brink of becoming a contender for years to come with their core of young exciting players, let's see how full the arena is when they make the playoffs 3-4 years in a row.

I guess I'd have to say the burden of proof is on the people that are screaming we need change to show us why. Is there anything that suggests the NHL will not be able to survive another 5, 10, 20 years with the likes of Phoenix "weighing them down"? Maybe that's how long it will take to turn Phoenix into a revenue producing franchise, who knows. If there are numbers out there that suggest the NHL as a whole is taking on water and is about to sink, by all means move Phoenix to Hamilton, we can't afford to risk the whole ship by getting greedy. However I think the truth is the NHL overall is fine and while still working out the revenue sharing kinks in the new CBA has a good business model.

 

[Hale Dawerchuk]

I moseyed on over to the Arizona Republic website yesterday to get some local perspective on the situation, and found a stock article on the situation eighth on the sports page directly underneath the US National Women's Softball Championship results.

Neither team in the contest was from anywhere near Arizona. This is the population base the NHL is trying to hold onto?

And I've seen a few posts suggesting Hamilton's population is 1mm. The surrounding area makes it much bigger, of course. See if you can find a satellite shot of the earth at night, and look at the light emanating from Hamilton compared to Phoenix.

As for Copps Colisuem, it's newer than Joe Louis Arena, isn't it?
No one complains about that rink.

 

[Alan Jackson]

If you really consider growing the sport in non-traditional hockey markets in order to work towards a lucrative national TV contract is whacky, I don't know what to say to you that will make you explain why staying in Phoenix is better for the NHL. You make think its a fable, I and others (apparently the owners of NHL teams) think it's a smart business decision.

Honestly, do people still believe this crap? That the league is going to "grow the game" in non-traditional markets? That people that have gone generations without knowing or caring about what a puck looks like are going to take up a sudden interest in hockey?

The Sun Belt experiment has been an unmitigated disaster. An utter failure, in every possible sense.

People are never going to care about hockey (in large numbers) in Florida, or Arizona, or Nashville, or Las Vegas, or ...

And you know what? That's okay. Our game is fine. We don't need to force feed it to people who aren't interested. We don't need to change our rules and our traditions to lure people who aren't coming, all the while shunning the very fans who've built the league to what it is.

This misconception that the league, one day, is going to be poplular throughout the United States, and that a network is going to come calling with a massive TV contract is so beyond reality that it makes me worry about the mental health of the people who believe it.

If there is a demand for hockey in non-traditional markets, then by all means, expand there. But don't shoehorn franchises in markets that aren't interested. Don't compromise the integrity of the sport in the hope that new fans are going to flock to your product.

Eventually, the owners will realize that the economy of the game is driven by fans in traditional markets, and that the smart business strategy is to exploit those markets, and to consolidate your strengths rather than grasping at the false promises of non-traditonal markets.