NHL Board of Governors to approve opening of expansion process; Atlanta and Houston believed to be leading candidates

[McFlash97]

Nearly 2 billion for a franchise, the NHL is greedy as fxxxx. No wonder they want to keep expanding. Who the fxxx wants another 2 teams in the southern USA man. Give Quebec and Portland a go. Much better hockey cities.

 

[Captain Mountain]

On the talent dilution issue, I think people really overestimate how much expansion dilutes talent when the league already has 30 teams. We're not even talking about one player per team distributed around the league. In 1979, which is the end of the expansion era most associated with talent dilution, the new teams each expanded the league by 5.9%. The next expansion team will expand the league by just over half of what each of the 1979 expansion teams did... 3.1%.

Or looked at another way. The league expanded by 250% in the years from 1967-1979. It expanded by 43% in the 90s. The 2017-2030 expansion will only have expanded the league 13% or 20% depending on if we get 2 more or 4 more teams.

I don't think that's the talent dilution people are talking about though. There's enough turnover year over year to know that just adding one or two teams isn't going to mean that there are suddenly a lot more players who shouldn't be in the NHL. The talent dilution is more on the upper echelon of players.

Either teams can build a group with a lot of high end talent locked up or teams will rely on a couple of guys to drive the bus. Either way there would be less parity in the league. We're already seeing that parity isn't what it was 5-15 years ago (although I think the flat cap plays a bigger role). And I'm not sure the league is as healthy as it is when there's less parity over a long period of time considering how gate driven the league still is.

 

[Dread Clawz]

At least one team is a done deal for them to be opening expansion.

Atlanta is a done deal

 

[OG6ix]

Canadians (I'm Canadian btw) need to understand that growth is not in Canada. We are lucky to have markets like Winnpeg and Ottawa already who have struggled. Canada doesn't need more teams. Quebec city is smaller than the aforementioned markets. It does very little for a national TV deal in Canada and NOTHING for the US (where the money is). NHL isn't looking to be a gate driven league (like the other major sports leagues and basically every one sport that isn't considered minor league). So you can shout blue in the face but most people running a business would do exactly what the NHL is trying to do.

Canada should consider getting teams in other sports even though they are rich in price.

Atlanta Thrashers in their last year were doing better attendance than Winnipeg this time last year.

 

[Bjorn Le]

I mostly agree, except that it will leave more teams without a superstar level talent. That kinda sucks for fans.

It sucks for fans of middling teams but there isn’t much separating the best teams from the teams that get seeded 4-7 in many years. It’s why Boston with the best regular season record ever gets knocked out in the first round and it’s an upset but not that much of an upset. Even last year, Dallas as the top seed in the West had to play a Vegas team that was 8th but had injuries/lady luck gone their way, might have been 1st themselves. If Dallas had ultimately one, they would’ve had to defeat a team capable of knocking them out in every single round, despite being the best team in the West and arguably the best team in the league.

 

[Viqsi]

I'm sorry, but that's a stupid reason. And it has nothing to do with the fact that my team is the last or second-to-last team that would ever relocate. Expansion affects my team and my quality of viewing a sport which I love. I don't want to lose a player in the expansion draft and I don't want to watch a watered-down product when other teams play.

Okay. You can be against expansion and that's fine, that's your prerogative. But if you advocate for relocation specifically, put up or shut up.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Canadians (I'm Canadian btw) need to understand that growth is not in Canada. We are lucky to have markets like Winnpeg and Ottawa already who have struggled. Canada doesn't need more teams. Quebec city is smaller than the aforementioned markets. It does very little for a national TV deal in Canada and NOTHING for the US (where the money is). NHL isn't looking to be a gate driven league (like the other major sports leagues and basically every one sport that isn't considered minor league). So you can shout blue in the face but most people running a business would do exactly what the NHL is trying to do.

Canada should consider getting teams in other sports even though they are rich in price.

Atlanta Thrashers in their last year were doing better attendance than Winnipeg this time last year.

The NHL going for a third kick at the can in Atlanta before it even considers adding a second team to the GTA, is pretty laughable IMO.

 

[Tawnos]

The NHL going for a third kick at the can in Atlanta before it even considers adding a second team to the GTA, is pretty laughable IMO.

I really do think the NHL as a whole would love to put another team in Ontario, but they're not about to force the Leafs to accept one and they have a veto over GTA2 and Hamilton.

 

[OG6ix]

The NHL going for a third kick at the can in Atlanta before it even considers adding a second team to the GTA, is pretty laughable IMO.

I live in the GTA it's not the hockey populous it once was. It's actually not much of a hockey town I'd say but much more a leafs town. In the 80s/90s... maybe... now? Nope.

Atlanta vs GTA 2 is absolutely not laughable. You're just bias.

 

[SEALBound]

Too bad the owners want this free money regardless of how it impacts the on ice product. The league already has too many AHL level players.

With them wanting to add two more teams to 34 and likely two more to get to 36, I would maybe like to see a rewrite of the CHL vs NHL agreement to move some talent. I would try to remove the 20yo requirement of the AHL or bump it down to 19yo.

The problem, as you allude to, is that you are going to end up giving out at least 40 additional contracts and then 80 (4 teams, 20 guys as a base), to guys that probably aren't NHL caliber players, as we traditionally know it. Inevitably, this will increase crappy, bloated contracts which I don't think is healthy for the league.

If you want to add two or four teams, they likely need a new CBA and CHL/AHL agreement that helps structure things a bit differently than it currently is now if you want long-term financial sustainability.

 

[OG6ix]

I really do think the NHL as a whole would love to put another team in Ontario, but they're not about to force the Leafs to accept one and they have a veto over GTA2 and Hamilton.

Ottawa says hi and they are quite removed from Toronto. Where would this new team be? Vaughan? Where you have massive italian leafs fans and asian basketball fans? Brampton/Missisauga where basketball, soccer and cricket are big? Out east Scarborough/Pickering/Ajax? The GTA is not the same anymore where the puckhead media pretends they are stuck in the 80s writing blogs and complaining on radio shows no one under 40 listens to.

Hamilton... ok if you want to get a small tv deal with CHCH and charge people 30 dollars Canadian in ticket prices.

 

[SEALBound]

I really do think the NHL as a whole would love to put another team in Ontario, but they're not about to force the Leafs to accept one and they have a veto over GTA2 and Hamilton.

I would rather see GTA or Hamilton over Atlanta. New York and LA easily support two teams. I think GTA could too.

 

[Tawnos]

I don't think that's the talent dilution people are talking about though. There's enough turnover year over year to know that just adding one or two teams isn't going to mean that there are suddenly a lot more players who shouldn't be in the NHL. The talent dilution is more on the upper echelon of players.

Either teams can build a group with a lot of high end talent locked up or teams will rely on a couple of guys to drive the bus. Either way there would be less parity in the league. We're already seeing that parity isn't what it was 5-15 years ago (although I think the flat cap plays a bigger role). And I'm not sure the league is as healthy as it is when there's less parity over a long period of time considering how gate driven the league still is.

The talent dilution across the league is exactly the same as it is in the upper echelon.

I would rather see GTA or Hamilton over Atlanta. New York and LA easily support two teams. I think GTA could too.

I do too, but the barrier to it has nothing to do with demographics.

 

[Viqsi]

I really do think the NHL as a whole would love to put another team in Ontario, but they're not about to force the Leafs to accept one and they have a veto over GTA2 and Hamilton.

Technically I don't believe they have an actual veto per se, but the first part (they're not going to force the Leafs) may as well serve as one.

 

[Viqsi]

I would rather see GTA or Hamilton over Atlanta. New York and LA easily support two teams. I think GTA could too.

Complain to MLSE then, not the NHL BoG.

 

[Tawnos]

Technically I don't believe they have an actual veto per se, but the first part (they're not going to force the Leafs) may as well serve as one.

The NHL bylaws explicitly prohibit any team from playing within the home territory of another team without their consent. The home territory is 50 miles from the city limits where the home arena is located. Since both Hamilton and most of the proposed GTA2 sites are within that home territory, the Leafs absolutely have a veto, even technically.

 

[Viqsi]

The NHL bylaws explicitly prohibit any team from playing within the home territory of another team without their consent. The home territory is 50 miles from the city limits where the home arena is located. Since both Hamilton and most of the proposed GTA2 sites are within that home territory, the Leafs absolutely have a veto, even technically.

This was actually discussed on here a ways back:

Territory Infringement Rights

Where can I find info about territory infringement rights about New Entrants? Like I need to know how close a new team could get to an existing one. Is it different in different places? And what are some of the rules around this? Thanks

forums.hfboards.com

 

[Dr Pepper]

I live in the GTA it's not the hockey populous it once was. It's actually not much of a hockey town I'd say but much more a leafs town. In the 80s/90s... maybe... now? Nope.

Atlanta vs GTA 2 is absolutely not laughable. You're just bias.

Call it what you want, a second team here is long overdue.

If you don't think a team in, say, Oakville or Hamilton, would be more of a draw than Thrashers 3.0, then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

As others have mentioned, sure the Leafs might raise an issue but maybe that's why Bell just backed out of the team ownership arrangement they had with Rogers. Maybe soon there will be talk of a Bell-owned franchise popping up elsewhere in Canada, perhaps even nearby.

The NHL bylaws explicitly prohibit any team from playing within the home territory of another team without their consent. The home territory is 50 miles from the city limits where the home arena is located. Since both Hamilton and most of the proposed GTA2 sites are within that home territory, the Leafs absolutely have a veto, even technically.

The Isles and Rangers arenas are 14 miles apart.

It can be done.

 

[Captain Mountain]

The talent dilution across the league is exactly the same as it is in the upper echelon.

How could you possibly make that claim when you're argument for talent dilution across the league was formulaic? Unless you can quantify the upper echelon of players.

 

[OG6ix]

Call it what you want, a second team here is long overdue.

If you don't think a team in, say, Oakville or Hamilton, would be more of a draw than Thrashers 3.0, then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

As others have mentioned, sure the Leafs might raise an issue but maybe that's why Bell just backed out of the team ownership arrangement they had with Rogers. Maybe soon there will be talk of a Bell-owned franchise popping up elsewhere in Canada, perhaps even nearby.

More of a draw in what sense? Atlanta has already proven that the attendance was good for a team that was as atrocious as the Thrashers were (google it). I don't see GTA2 won't be more of a draw on TV - being the NJ devils of Ontario. Nationally I don't see HNIC dropping the leafs for GTA 2.

Oakville? Who's going to drive to Oakville? Also their demographics have been changing too with an influx of South Asisns and Asians.

 

[hamzarocks]

Okay. You can be against expansion and that's fine, that's your prerogative. But if you advocate for relocation specifically, put up or shut up.

Relocation is ownership based and current and future financial/economic based. Fans will always say to relocate a smallwr market team which is not doing much in the NHL at the moment to an idealistic big market, but it will rarely ever occur

Markets which struggle financially and are seeing troubles getting a fambase will be at risk to lose their teams

Happened to Jets, QC for CAD teams when they couldnt afford to run their team as US$ was rising compared to CAD.

Fans will always want the least profitable teams to relocate for a team closer to them or a city they think will be a big profit team; however we saw it takes a very long time for a big market that is struggling to relocate (coyotes for like 20 years, thrashers got a good 5-6 years before they finally left, NYI, Canes & Panthers all got a lot of time to turn things around and know all are pretty good markets and all have cups now)

The at risk markets for relocation after Coyotes left now would be Ottawa (seem to be in the clear as new stadium coming in), Jets (small stadium and market, not likely to move due to very strong owner and fanbase committment), maybe Calgary (again seem to be safe with new arena coming in)

Besides that, don't see any market being at a risk of relocation at the moment. Houston and Atlanta 3.0 will all get a fair amount of time to work and its unlilely that the league would pull the plug on a 2B franchise a few years in even if attendance numbers and total revenues from operations are low first few years.

Houston
Atlanta 3.0
Arizona 2.0 (10 years from now)
Team 36 (New mexico, Quebec city, GTA #2 , Austin, another US market, in 10 years) should round out the 36 teM league in 10-15 years time

 

[Tawnos]

This was actually discussed on here a ways back:

Territory Infringement Rights

Where can I find info about territory infringement rights about New Entrants? Like I need to know how close a new team could get to an existing one. Is it different in different places? And what are some of the rules around this? Thanks

forums.hfboards.com

The change the NHL made reducing the veto applies to relocations only. It does not apply to expansions.

 

[Moist ReadOnly]

People arguing talent dilution when hockey is the second-most played sport of the big-5 in the world

More countries play hockey than basketball, baseball, and American football combined

Just admit you dont know shit if youre arguing talent dilution lol

 

[Tawnos]

How could you possibly make that claim when you're argument for talent dilution across the league was formulaic? Unless you can quantify the upper echelon of players.

How would it not? Why would a 3.1% dilution only affect lower echelon players?

 

[Captain Mountain]

How would it not? Why would a 3.1% dilution only affect lower echelon players?

Because there's no set number of "upper echelon" players. Its not like roster spots.