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

[Tawnos]

The Isles and Rangers arenas are 14 miles apart.

It can be done.

The Islanders exist because they paid the Rangers not to exercise their veto. In reality, they didn't get paid anywhere near enough.

I never said it can't be done. I said the Leafs have a veto. The amount they'd ask to not exercise it is going to be a lot, and justifiably so. The number is so high that it likely prevents anyone from doing it. Bell just got $3.5B for their stake in MLSE. Even that might not be enough. You'd need the expansion fee + the arena construction + indemnity.

 

[Rebels57]

Greedy f***s won't rest until they completely ruin the NHL.

 

[Tawnos]

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

There's no set number in the sense that there are only so many spots for it, but there is a set number in the sense that there are only a certain number of players who could be called that. Whatever that number is, and I don't care to define it because it doesn't really matter, it gets diluted by the same level as everything else.

 

[Rebels57]

Atlanta for a 3rd time lol

Houston makes sense but why the f*** do we need 34 teams? absurd the watering down of the product

They know it isn't NEEDED. They are doing it to make themselves richer. Not that complicated.

 

[895]

32 is literally the perfect number of teams.

 

[Captain Mountain]

There's no set number in the sense that there are only so many spots for it, but there is a set number in the sense that there are only a certain number of players who could be called that. Whatever that number is, and I don't care to define it because it doesn't really matter, it gets diluted by the same level as everything else.

Unless you think you can just divide players in half, it definitely matters.

 

[HockeyScotty]

Consider how much the NBA and NFL have grown in the past several decades; they have not needed to infuse cash via expansion franchises.

I think of such issues such as not going to the Olympics as unforced errors that has hindered hockey's popularity on the global stage. Bettman still maintains that the average fan isn't interested in the cap? Really? How out of touch can you be. Time for a change at the top.

Yeah, I can see that if NHL was in that tier then it wouldn't be needed; however NFL is just not a comp. NBA is looking at expanding however; so is MLB.

I think that the NHL has really failed to grow the game globally (Europe for sure is a major untapped market for NHL revenues) but there is much more politics involved in that compared to other sports.

The one advantage that the NHL has over the NFL, NBA, and MLB is the Canadien economic support for NHL teams. At best, the other leagues might find 3 host cities that could support a team in the NFL, NBA, or MLB (Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver) but the NHL has 7. There are 41 "major league" markets in the USA from all the major sports leagues (not counting MLS as a major sport). So from a quick view that means there are potentially 48 viable markets to choose from and that excludes Hartford, Connecticut and Austin, TX as well as only counting single markets that can support multiple teams (NYC, LA, Toronto/Chicago, Bay Area, etc).

The difference in places like Atlanta, Houston, and Phoenix and other USA markets is that without a team there is little NHL revenues to gain from them; but placing an team there and there is massive interest in supporting a team in the NHL. Comps from minor league teams are not an indication; this is about entertainment and hockey not just hardcore hockey fans. This is why expansion can increase overall revenues because it is a gate-driven league that then supports national TV/streaming audiences. In a way, it is more similiar to soccer (non Premier League) than it is to the NFL.

So given what the NHL can actually control:
1) they can do better at growing/marketing the game within the existing footprint
2) growing the footprint (via expansion) is a great strategy as well.

These both can be done independently of one another to maximize growth.

 

[Tawnos]

Unless you think you can just divide players in half, it definitely matters.

Nah. It still works the same way without cutting a player in half.

If there are 100 upper echelon players spread equally for 32 teams (an absurd concept for illustration only), 28 teams will have 3 and 4 teams will have 4. When you make that 33 teams, it would be 32 teams with 3 and 1 with 4.

If there are 75 upper echelon players spread equally for 32 teams, 21 teams will have 2 and 11 will have 3. When you make it 33 teams, you have 24 teams with 2 and 9 with 3.

Both of these examples are equally represented by the 3.1% expansion number. Or I guess the better word is that both examples would be encompassed by the same 3.1% number. It's meant to represent the whole picture, not divide it up by tiers of players.

 

[Smirnov2Chistov]

Couldn’t be happier Atlanta is getting a proper chance this time.

Their last ownership group killed them purposefully

 

[Dr Pepper]

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.

There is a waiting list for Leafs season tickets. They regularly sell out.

Attendance for a second NHL franchise, in or around the GTA, would be maxed out as well I believe.

And "nationally" I'm willing to bet there's ample appetite for another Canadian team, bringing us up to 8 total.

 

[hockey20000]

cant wait for atlanta to fail again tbh be another team for canada that and the atlanta posters on here are smug af lol goodluck with your 3rd try . and welcome houston if it happens

 

[awfulwaffle]

Thank you

NHL teams are just desprate for expansion money and nothing else.

Where does this thought come from? It's also the only league that has multiple teams in Canada. There are more markets that they could expand to in the US to align more closely with the other pro sports leagues.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Nah. It still works the same way without cutting a player in half.

If there are 100 upper echelon players spread equally for 32 teams (an absurd concept for illustration only), 28 teams will have 3 and 4 teams will have 4. When you make that 33 teams, it would be 32 teams with 3 and 1 with 4.

If there are 75 upper echelon players spread equally for 32 teams, 21 teams will have 2 and 11 will have 3. When you make it 33 teams, you have 24 teams with 2 and 9 with 3.

Both of these examples are equally represented by the 3.1% expansion number. Or I guess the better word is that both examples would be encompassed by the same 3.1% number. It's meant to represent the whole picture, not divide it up by tiers of players.

Why on earth would you ever suggest that upper echelon players would be distributed in the same manner that replacement or near replacement level players would be?

The point is that that doesn't happen.

 

[x Tame Impala]

You guys poo-pooing Atlanta are unaware of the changes they've made the last decade or so. A lot of business is being done there now. A lot of corporate sponsorship is available, as it is in Houston, as it is NOT in Quebec or Hamilton or whatever Canadian fever dream you're cooking up.

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.

Fully agreed. They're going to have to make a lot of significant changes to the league going forward. They should have that 19yo or even "exceptional status" rule for the AHL already, personally. Changes to the draft, divisional and conference setups, and the playoffs are all very much necessary IMHO.

 

[ManofSteel55]

Good. Not. A. Major. League. Caliber. City.

This. If Quebec City gets a team, they will be Arizona north - never profitable, always suckling at the teat of the teams that do make money, and a non-conetender, because they won't be able spend to the cap, or as much on things like player development, etc.

 

[SEALBound]

Fully agreed. They're going to have to make a lot of significant changes to the league going forward. They should have that 19yo or even "exceptional status" rule for the AHL already, personally. Changes to the draft, divisional and conference setups, and the playoffs are all very much necessary IMHO.

The NHL team should get to choose, period. Now, if they send them to the CHL, then I understand (maybe) not getting them back. But if you're good as a 18yo and would be served better in the NHL/AHL, teams should have that option. Good example for the Penguins and now Jets - Yager. He'll be doing his 5th WHL season because he's just short of the mark to go to the AHL. Stupid.

Someone a while back suggested cutting the draft down to four rounds, which I like more and more.

I'd like to see the length of time a team owns a player's rights reduced. Instead of 27 or 7 seasons, I'd rather see it at something like 25 or up to 7 seasons (18 to 25). On that note, I wouldn't hate to see a cap on RFA contract values which would help return us to the days of "bridge" deals.

I'd like to see max contract lengths reduced from 7/8 to 5/6 and I'd like to see more favorable buyout options for a team.

I think you could counter those "less player-friendly" stances by adjusting escrow %, shifting more money to bonuses, etc.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

Seems way too early for this. I don't disagree with either place as good options. But I thought this would be further down the line. Like a good 5 more years before its a legit option.

But owners wanting that expansion fee for their greedy little hands, not surprised they are now open to it earlier.

This. If Quebec City gets a team, they will be Arizona north - never profitable, always suckling at the teat of the teams that do make money, and a non-conetender, because they won't be able spend to the cap, or as much on things like player development, etc.

Or they'd be like the Jets. A good team but still terrible with attendance.

 

[OG6ix]

There is a waiting list for Leafs season tickets. They regularly sell out.

Attendance for a second NHL franchise, in or around the GTA, would be maxed out as well I believe.

And "nationally" I'm willing to bet there's ample appetite for another Canadian team, bringing us up to 8 total.

You're assuming that the people waiting for Leafs tickets will want to be fans of a 2nd tier team in Toronto, I have heard all these Biases before from all the pro-canadian media. The fact is the NHL doesn't see it the same way and likely has stats on it (not counting the Leafs maybe not wanting to share a terriroty).

Also, who's going to pay over a billion USD on top of what the Leafs would demand for a 2nd tier team that is clearly not a slam dunk.

This isn't a hockey town look at all the OHL teams that had to move out due to lack of demand.

 

[Dr Pepper]

You're assuming that the people waiting for Leafs tickets will want to be fans of a 2nd tier team in Toronto, I have heard all these Biases before from all the pro-canadian media. The fact is the NHL doesn't see it the same way and likely has stats on it (not counting the Leafs maybe not wanting to share a terriroty).

Also, who's going to pay over a billion USD on top of what the Leafs would demand for a 2nd tier team that is clearly not a slam dunk.

This isn't a hockey town look at all the OHL teams that had to move out due to lack of demand.

Yeah I get it, and I used to go to Marlies games with attendance barely scraping 1,000.

But I still think a second pro team in this area WOULD be a slam dunk - especially if the new ownership group offered tickets for less than the astronomical cost of attending a Leafs game.

 

[North Cole]

Awesome. Take Darnell Nurse please

Awesome. Take Darnell Nurse please

 

[Not The One]

This used to be really exciting. Now it's just depressing.

A 2nd team in the hockey hotbed of Texas. A 3rd try in that other hockey hotbed of Georgia.

Meanwhile the talent gets diluted and every other team gets less chances of making the playoffs and winning the cup. Yay!

 

[ponder719]

Seems way too early for this. I don't disagree with either place as good options. But I thought this would be further down the line. Like a good 5 more years before its a legit option.

But owners wanting that expansion fee for their greedy little hands, not surprised they are now open to it earlier.

Can't speak to the timeline for Atlanta, but in Houston's case, I think the bigger issue is that Fertitta seems to be interested now, but his interest waxes and wanes. If you miss the window to get him on board, you may be waiting a lot longer than 5 years if he loses interest again. When the only person who can put a team in the city you most want to be in says "hey, let's talk," you talk, you don't tell them it's not a good time.

 

[x Tame Impala]

The NHL team should get to choose, period. Now, if they send them to the CHL, then I understand (maybe) not getting them back. But if you're good as a 18yo and would be served better in the NHL/AHL, teams should have that option. Good example for the Penguins and now Jets - Yager. He'll be doing his 5th WHL season because he's just short of the mark to go to the AHL. Stupid.

Someone a while back suggested cutting the draft down to four rounds, which I like more and more.

I'd like to see the length of time a team owns a player's rights reduced. Instead of 27 or 7 seasons, I'd rather see it at something like 25 or up to 7 seasons (18 to 25). On that note, I wouldn't hate to see a cap on RFA contract values which would help return us to the days of "bridge" deals.

I'd like to see max contract lengths reduced from 7/8 to 5/6 and I'd like to see more favorable buyout options for a team.

I think you could counter those "less player-friendly" stances by adjusting escrow %, shifting more money to bonuses, etc.

Hawks had a similar situation with Korchinski this past season. Arguably too good for the CHL, could’ve used time in the AHL instead of being thrown to the wolves on a terrible, barely NHL-caliber, Hawks team.

The owners wouldn’t renegotiate escrow % and the players wouldn’t rescind on the max deal term IMO.

 

[Dale Gribble]

While this was always a forgone conclusion, I'm still disappointed as I was good with 24, but once the NHL went past that, I thought 32 made sense as only half the League makes the playoffs.

Houston makes sense, especially with how fast it's growing and instant rivalry with the Stars.

Atlanta is a different story for me though. While I am aware that the Atlanta Spirit effectively did everything they could to get rid of the team, I don't recall the team being a success off the ice prior to the Spirit Group either.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Where does this thought come from? It's also the only league that has multiple teams in Canada. There are more markets that they could expand to in the US to align more closely with the other pro sports leagues.

they are not expanding to Canada. Third time lucky in Atlanta? League has fallen in love with expansion money 1billion per team? They will need to expand the playoffs to 26