Bettman meeting with Ryan Smith, owner of Utah Jazz and Real Salt Lake (upd: Smith asks NHL to open expansion process)

[patnyrnyg]

I'll hold out hope. I'd love to see both Quebec and Hartford back, time will tell. The Rangers absorbed the Hartford market by putting their AHL team there, but there's still a lot of local support for the Whalers. Their AHL team plays in the Whalers old home, Whalers banners still hang in the rafters. Probably a lot more of a pipe dream to see the Whale ever return.

I wonder if Bettman is willing to give up Arizona at this point given that Vegas is a roaring success and I think Salt Lake would be too. Give up one but gain 2 really solid markets? He would be a fool to not jump on that. If they do allow another western expansion it opens the door for an eastern expansion too. That's when it could get interesting

They will have a 2nd team in Phoenix before the NHL has a team in Hartford again. I would love to have the Whalers back. They left before I could go see a Rangers-Whalers game, but it just isn't happening. Too close to the Rangers and Bruins for one. Secondly, I have met many people from Connecticut over the years and they all have the same opinion. They hate Hartford and think it is a horrible place/city.

 

[Fatass]

They will have a 2nd team in Phoenix before the NHL has a team in Hartford again. I would love to have the Whalers back. They left before I could go see a Rangers-Whalers game, but it just isn't happening. Too close to the Rangers a Bruins for one. Secondly, I have met many people from Connecticut over the years and they all have the same opinion. They hate Hartford and think it is a horrible place/city.

So does that make QC the fallback, quick move option? Are they the only ones who could take the Coyotes on very short notice?

 

[SImpelton]

Not to get off-topic, but cities that don't already have the facilities and infrastructure should not be bothering with the IOC or Olympic bids. Stick with cities that already have what is needed or go regional.

Are we forgetting that Salt Lake has already hosted the Games?

 

[SImpelton]

So does that make QC the fallback, quick move option? Are they the only ones who could take the Coyotes on very short notice?

QC isn't a quick-anything option. You're not getting a team in Quebec without a drawn-out negotiation with the Molsons. The fact that you want it doesn't mean that this negotiation will magically not have to take place.

I know people want to think that the owners of NHL franchise are inclined to be charitable to the expansion of the league, but that charity is short lived when it comes at the owner's own cost. Especially given the regional model the NHL uses for media coverage right now. Asking the owner of a monopoly to break off part of that monopoly and give it to another owner is... a significant ask, to put it mildly.

The slow death of regional sports networks might be interesting in this regard. if the NHL chooses to create a leaguewide media deal like the NFL that could open up cities like Hartford or QC sometime in the future. But for the moment? The current revenue model of the NHL makes QC a pipe dream.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Are we forgetting that Salt Lake has already hosted the Games?

No, now go read the comment I quoted.

 

[patnyrnyg]

So does that make QC the fallback, quick move option? Are they the only ones who could take the Coyotes on very short notice?

I would think so, but what happened with Atlanta --> Winnipeg is not likely to occur again. The group that bought the Hawks and the arena not only did not want the Thrashers, they did not want them playing in the arena and were not going to let them. If that all of a sudden happened to another team, then maybe a quick move to Quebec City happens?

 

[patnyrnyg]

QC isn't a quick-anything option. You're not getting a team in Quebec without a drawn-out negotiation with the Molsons. The fact that you want it doesn't mean that this negotiation will magically not have to take place.

I know people want to think that the owners of NHL franchise are inclined to be charitable to the expansion of the league, but that charity is short lived when it comes at the owner's own cost. Especially given the regional model the NHL uses for media coverage right now. Asking the owner of a monopoly to break off part of that monopoly and give it to another owner is... a significant ask, to put it mildly.

The slow death of regional sports networks might be interesting in this regard. if the NHL chooses to create a leaguewide media deal like the NFL that could open up cities like Hartford or QC sometime in the future. But for the moment? The current revenue model of the NHL makes QC a pipe dream.

Not sure the NHL could ever have an NFL-like league-wide deal. The NFL plays once per week. They own Sundays, and have a Thursday and Monday Night game. Unless they set the schedule to play the same nights every week, such as all games are Tues-Thurs-Saturday. They would also need multiple channels in the NYC and LA markets.

 

[KevFu]

I know many on here want to see a team in Quebec City. I know there is an NHL arena already. I would love to see Quebec City get a team, but I do not think it is on the radar at all. I remember reading something when they bid last time that their are 2 issues. 1) Bettman believes most residents of the Quebec City metro area are already fans of the NHL. Whether they are Canadiens fans, fans of another team, or just hockey fans in general, a team there is not going to draw many "new" sets of eyeballs. Where a team in Houston/Salt Lake City/wherever will introduce the league to a much larger audience. Same issue for Hamilton when someone mentions them. 2) Other smaller market owners fear a team in Quebec City. It is assumed their revenues will be very high out of the gate, which will in turn raise the salary cap. However, the revenues for the current low revenue teams will not increase by all that much making it harder for them to compete financially. If we want to argue that Arizona is the lowest revenue team, then removing them from the equation just shifts that burden on another franchise. As a friend loves to say, someone has to be the dumbest student at Harvard.

For item 1, I got news for you... fans of the sport in every city have a "favorite team" simply because their city doesn't have one. Most often, it's the team you get on TV when you're a kid, or the team an older member of your family already likes.

For item 2, I agree on the "dumbest student at Harvard" analogy and say it all the time that "Someone's gotta be last in revenues no matter who's got a team." I think the NHL has the best CBA in pro sports, and have been saying for decades that it has TWO flaws: Using average revenue as the point which all economics are based instead of MEDIAN revenue as that point, and not enough revenue sharing. Median ensure an equal number of teams on both sides of the line, and adopting a RS system more similar to MLB solves the inequity.

The fact that a successful expansion team makes things worse for the poorest teams instead of being a rising tide that lifts all boats is an indicator of a problem in the structure.

Very similar to the arguments NIMBY's in Nassau County made about the Islanders arena attempts: "We can't have PROGRESS (a new arena/Quebec Team) because of an existing PROBLEM (insufficient road infrastructure will be a traffic nightmare/CBA flaws). Uhh, that doesn't mean DON'T DO IT, it means DO IT AND FIX THE PROBLEM!

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Prokorov (sp?) wanted an NHL-sized arena. However, there was great opposition to the arena being built by the NIMBY types in that area. The agreement/settlement was the smaller NBA-only sized arena.

You're very much mostly right on that front, however there was an additional factor: There was a financing deadline for starting construction. Working out a deal and plans to build Barclays at an NBA and NHL venue could not be done before the deadline to lose the financing, so they had to go ahead with the NBA sized only plans.

 

[KevFu]

Are we forgetting that Salt Lake has already hosted the Games?

We are not.

But looking at the date of Olympic Games is misleading (much like looking at the Tampa Bay Rays first game is misleading when talking about the Rays stadium situation).

The 2002 Winter Olympics were "won" in a bid in 1995. The venues they used are 25 years old. Like most Olympic venues, they've been changed/retrofitted for other non-Olympic uses.

The Hockey Arena (Maverik Center) was planned in 1995 and built for 12,000 seats after the Olympics. That's the AHL venue now, too small for NHL.

The figure skating venue was built in 1991... for the Utah Jazz. They retrofit it into a bad figure skating venue and then turned it back to an NBA arena. It's not a permanent NHL venue, and it's 33 years old.

The third venue for hockey and ice practice was built in Provo, 45 minutes away, because in order to get the votes for state expenses, they had to give the people of Provo some Olympic action.



It makes TOTAL SENSE for the NHL to meet with Salt Lake and the sports owners of the city now, simply because they're making plans now to construct sports venues if they win the Olympic bid. (I'd suspect that Bettman learned from the 1997 expansion bid process with Houston)

It's mutually beneficial to meet before hand. If Salt Lake gets an NHL team, This is exactly how.

It just makes more sense for everyone. Decide on an NHL building or AHL building which will host the Olympics first. An NHL arena strengthens the Olympic bid -- they built a $55 million AHL arena last time, a $800m NHL arena is more impressive.


People tend to think that expansion can happen in any major city at any time if there is a willing owner and a stadium/arena plan. But since most stadiums/arenas have taxpayer funding, there's really "windows of opportunity" that open/close.

In the Oakland A's relocation thread on the baseball sub-forum, I mentioned that MLB had to recruit to get a second team to come with Tampa Bay to start in 1998. They only added Tampa and Phoenix because they got called before Congress on anti-trust by Florida politicians after Tampa went 0-for-3 getting a team.

But because that "second round" was unexpected, half the cities that lost in the "first round" of bids completed new MINOR LEAGUE stadiums after not getting MLB. The window of opportunity for them was closed, they COULDN'T build an MLB stadium.


Meeting with Salt Lake before Olympic venue plans are finalized is very very smart. Maybe nothing comes of it. But maybe the MLS and NBA owners say "wait a minute, we could create a new arena management company together, co-own an NHL team and an AHL team in Provo, and have three venues to sell concert tickets to and make a Utah Sports Empire."

 

[patnyrnyg]

For item 1, I got news for you... fans of the sport in every city have a "favorite team" simply because their city doesn't have one. Most often, it's the team you get on TV when you're a kid, or the team an older member of your family already likes.

For item 2, I agree on the "dumbest student at Harvard" analogy and say it all the time that "Someone's gotta be last in revenues no matter who's got a team." I think the NHL has the best CBA in pro sports, and have been saying for decades that it has TWO flaws: Using average revenue as the point which all economics are based instead of MEDIAN revenue as that point, and not enough revenue sharing. Median ensure an equal number of teams on both sides of the line, and adopting a RS system more similar to MLB solves the inequity.

The fact that a successful expansion team makes things worse for the poorest teams instead of being a rising tide that lifts all boats is an indicator of a problem in the structure.

Very similar to the arguments NIMBY's in Nassau County made about the Islanders arena attempts: "We can't have PROGRESS (a new arena/Quebec Team) because of an existing PROBLEM (insufficient road infrastructure will be a traffic nightmare/CBA flaws). Uhh, that doesn't mean DON'T DO IT, it means DO IT AND FIX THE PROBLEM!



You're very much mostly right on that front, however there was an additional factor: There was a financing deadline for starting construction. Working out a deal and plans to build Barclays at an NBA and NHL venue could not be done before the deadline to lose the financing, so they had to go ahead with the NBA sized only plans.

The point is, the NHL believes they already have the fans in Quebec City. Brinigng back the Nordiques will not bring in as many new fans to the league. Some of the Habs fans in the area will switch over. Some fans of other teams in the area may change their allegiance to the Nordiques, but it is a zero-sum game. Whereas, they likely have a MUCH smaller percentage of the population as fans in places like Houston, SLC, Portland, Atlanta, wherever else anyone wants to speculate on. So, the opportunity to add just 5-10% of one of those markets will provide a bigger increase to the league overall than the few they would add in Quebec.

 

[Final Baton]

As a Québec City resident and born only an hour away, my perspective is that a good portions of Nords fan DIDN'T became Habs fans. Instead they became fan of another team, or they watch NHL hockey without having a fave team(like I do) or they stopped watching the NHL altogether. The Habs hate is DEEP in Nords fans, never forget that.

Those people would jump back on the Nords wagon the second a team would be announced IMO.

 

[patnyrnyg]

As a Québec City resident and born only an hour away, my perspective is that a good portions of Nords fan DIDN'T became Habs fans. Instead they became fan of another team, or they watch NHL hockey without having a fave team(like I do) or they stopped watching the NHL altogether. The Habs hate is DEEP in Nords fans, never forget that.

Those people would jump back on the Nords wagon the second a team would be announced IMO.

Gotchya'. In your best guess, how many fans would the league add as a whole? Not talking about someone like you who watches without a favorite team or are fans of any other team in the league (including the Habs).

As far as the Habs presence in the Quebec City area, what about the younger kids? Those who were not born or too young to really remember the Nordiques? Any Habs presence from what you can see?

 

[Final Baton]

Gotchya'. In your best guess, how many fans would the league add as a whole? Not talking about someone like you who watches without a favorite team or are fans of any other team in the league (including the Habs).

As far as the Habs presence in the Quebec City area, what about the younger kids? Those who were not born or too young to really remember the Nordiques? Any Habs presence from what you can see?

Indeed since I mentionned "Nords fans", I was refering to people 38 or so and over. So excluding young folks.

IMO, 25% of Nords fans stopped watching the NHL when the team moved. Maybe a bit more.

 

[KevFu]

The point is, the NHL believes they already have the fans in Quebec City whereas they like have a MUCH smaller percentage of the population as fans in places like Houston, SLC, Portland, Atlanta, wherever else anyone wants to speculate on.

That is true from a fan percentage factor, but those people aren't buying tickets if they're sitting in Quebec watching hockey on TV. There's money to be made... it's just a question of how much and if the juice is worth the squeeze.

I strongly suspect that the NHL wanted East/West balance first and foremost before adding QC.

I also suspect they didn't want multiple teams coming in together rapid fire any more because it's really detrimental to the fan growth. We saw it in the 1990s, where the first five expansion teams were all bad and drafting high... but new teams were jumping them in the draft order by being newer/worse.

They added 5 teams in 3 years, then 4 teams in 4 years. If you don't add that many, it's a lot easier for the new bad teams to build via the draft. Like without FLA/ANA coming a year later, Ottawa gets to take Jovanovsky instead of Bonk and they have a better team.


And of course, I suspect that Bettman is going to get the Quebec Nordiques back before retiring as part of legacy shopping.

 

[patnyrnyg]

That is true from a fan percentage factor, but those people aren't buying tickets if they're sitting in Quebec watching hockey on TV. There's money to be made... it's just a question of how much and if the juice is worth the squeeze.

I strongly suspect that the NHL wanted East/West balance first and foremost before adding QC.

I also suspect they didn't want multiple teams coming in together rapid fire any more because it's really detrimental to the fan growth. We saw it in the 1990s, where the first five expansion teams were all bad and drafting high... but new teams were jumping them in the draft order by being newer/worse.

They added 5 teams in 3 years, then 4 teams in 4 years. If you don't add that many, it's a lot easier for the new bad teams to build via the draft. Like without FLA/ANA coming a year later, Ottawa gets to take Jovanovsky instead of Bonk and they have a better team.


And of course, I suspect that Bettman is going to get the Quebec Nordiques back before retiring as part of legacy shopping.

It is not just about buying tickets. I think it is more about television viewing. There are plenty of fans now who never go to games.

 

[KevFu]

Some fans of other teams in the area may change their allegiance to the Nordiques, but it is a zero-sum game. Whereas, they likely have a MUCH smaller percentage of the population as fans in places like Houston, SLC, Portland, Atlanta, wherever else anyone wants to speculate on. So, the opportunity to add just 5-10% of one of those markets will provide a bigger increase to the league overall than the few they would add in Quebec.

As a Québec City resident and born only an hour away, my perspective is that a good portions of Nords fan DIDN'T became Habs fans. Instead they became fan of another team, or they watch NHL hockey without having a fave team(like I do) or they stopped watching the NHL altogether. The Habs hate is DEEP in Nords fans, never forget that.

Those people would jump back on the Nords wagon the second a team would be announced IMO.

When your team leaves you, all bets are off. There's not going to be one way "the fans" react. Some fans will completely abandon the sport. Some fans will adopt a new team. Some fans will watch the sport because they love the sport, but not really adopt a new team.

Building a fan base for a new team NOW is a lot harder than it used to be. The early 90s expansion teams were the last batch where fans in cities without a team just didn't get the product.

I stopped getting Islanders games on my TV in 1996 when I went to college. But that was the first year of Audio Streaming! I left the Islanders TV market, but bought Centre Ice. Then NHLtv. I get to watch more Islanders games per season NOW living in New Orleans, California, Arizona than I did living in New York in the 80s-90s.

I don't think looking at "well, those people are already fans of some team" is a valid reason not to expand, because the TV territory is divided up to cover every inch to at least one team; and the internet makes everyone more connected.

It should all be about who's going to buy tickets, and what it does to TV/media contracts.

It is not just about buying tickets. I think it is more about television viewing. There are plenty of fans now who never go to games.

Heh, as usual, you and I are like 85% on the same page, just only slightly different angles on our views!

 

[Centrum Hockey]

I'll hold out hope. I'd love to see both Quebec and Hartford back, time will tell. The Rangers absorbed the Hartford market by putting their AHL team there, but there's still a lot of local support for the Whalers. Their AHL team plays in the Whalers old home, Whalers banners still hang in the rafters. Probably a lot more of a pipe dream to see the Whale ever return.

I wonder if Bettman is willing to give up Arizona at this point given that Vegas is a roaring success and I think Salt Lake would be too. Give up one but gain 2 really solid markets? He would be a fool to not jump on that. If they do allow another western expansion it opens the door for an eastern expansion too. That's when it could get interesting

Hartford is an AHL city the remaining locals who refuse to support the Wolfpack because they are not the Whalers are a sad group of people.

 

[Fatass]

I would think so, but what happened with Atlanta --> Winnipeg is not likely to occur again. The group that bought the Hawks and the arena not only did not want the Thrashers, they did not want them playing in the arena and were not going to let them. If that all of a sudden happened to another team, then maybe a quick move to Quebec City happens?

Just wondering if there is no new rink coming for the Coyotes, where would they go in in a hurry if the US cities mentioned can’t take them? Seems QC might be the only fallback on short notice that’s viable.

 

[BattleBorn]

Just wondering if there is no new rink coming for the Coyotes, where would they go in in a hurry if the US cities mentioned can’t take them? Seems QC might be the only fallback on short notice that’s viable.

I think the current location of the Coyotes' home games probably makes this discussion moot.

At this point, any city with a 5,000+ person nice arena seems like a home if an arena in that city is approved/under construction.

 

[Fatass]

I think the current location of the Coyotes' home games probably makes this discussion moot.

At this point, any city with a 5,000+ person nice arena seems like a home if an arena in that city is approved/under construction.

Good point.

 

[BattleBorn]

Good point.

I hate to be the chiller on the convo, because a lot of BoH's historical content is based on the premise of your post, and it's still worth discussing. However, the Desert Dogs cutting it up in the Mullet is a development that seems to add a lot of places to the discussion if it makes sense and there's a real desire for the city to have a hockey team and build an arena one way or another. Unless that city is in Quebec, of course.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It is assumed their revenues will be very high out of the gate, which will in turn raise the salary cap. However, the revenues for the current low revenue teams will not increase by all that much making it harder for them to compete financially. If we want to argue that Arizona is the lowest revenue team, then removing them from the equation just shifts that burden on another franchise. As a friend loves to say, someone has to be the dumbest student at Harvard.

I've made this exact point for some 15 years every time someone proposes moving a "bad" franchise from a market that "doesn't deserve" one to a "good" market that "deserves" one in order to increase revenues and the salary cap, and also wants to pretend every other franchise will be just fine (or even better!) when it happens.

 

[BattleBorn]

I can see Salt Lake making it, they have a decent sized metro area, a long minor hockey history, and a fairly large population of LDS folks that would likely adopt the team as their favorite even if they live outside of the Wasatch Front area. Safe to say they'd own Utah, especially if they're named the "Utah Xs" and a decent amount of low population places in Northern Arizona, Northeast Nevada, and probably all of Southern Idaho. Also likely fans in Wyoming, Colorado, Hawaii, etc.

On the downside, due to geography, the metro area is a "strand" along the mountains/lake instead of a "splotch" like Phoenix, Vegas, Denver or other western cities. Everything's north/south along some fairly important arterials that can stink for traffic.

However, SLC has some decent public transportation that can bring people to/from SLC to the north and south while avoiding the traffic issues and potential parking. I'm assuming whatever they build if they were to get a team would be downtown.

 

[sh724]

I've made this exact point for some 15 years every time someone proposes moving a "bad" franchise from a market that "doesn't deserve" one to a "good" market that "deserves" one in order to increase revenues and the salary cap, and also wants to pretend every other franchise will be just fine (or even better!) when it happens.

I have posted on here several times about it makes sense for the league to have teams like the Yotes that are loss leaders. Its better to have a team or two or three with weak revenues to keep the salary cap under control and HRR growth at least somewhat reflective of economic growth.

Moving X team to Y city may make X team more financially viable but excluding any relo fee it negatively impacts every other team in the league. It also negatively effects the players as well as removing a team that is near the floor and replacing them with a team near the cap causes escrow to further increase. There will always be rich teams and poor teams. If a rich team is added teams with average financials instantly become below average.

Everytime i have pointed out this aspect of the league economics multiple ppl try to tell me i am wrong, but its literally how the system works, i am obviously over simplifying it but the premise is accurate.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Just wondering if there is no new rink coming for the Coyotes, where would they go in in a hurry if the US cities mentioned can’t take them? Seems QC might be the only fallback on short notice that’s viable.

That I couldn't tell you. I stopped paying attention to the Coyotes situation so not aware of the contract with ASU, or the timeline/deadline for the new arena situation.