NHL Expansion back on agenda?

[Salsero1]

I understand the reasoning behind the NHL's business decisions, and I expect nothing less of them, but I certainly don't have to like them or the insane cash grabs & gimmicks that the NHL constantly engages in.

It's the smart business decision for them, of course, but if you can't see that it's costing the fans more and more each year, then I don't know what to tell ya. The people on this forum seem so very interested in growing the NHL's bottom line. I don't. The NHL's Board of Governors aren't my friends.

The presence of teams in the US south is not why tickets are expensive.

The NHL is not, nor has it ever been "purer" or less money focused than the other pro sports leagues.

It sounds like you just want it to be 1985 again. We're never going back there.

And we'll stop sticking up for ourselves (acting like martyrs) when yall quit acting like we're a blight on the sport.

 

[KevFu]

As for ATL and HOU giving QC a better chance... I really don't think they do. The markets you listed aren't the most likely of the #36 options in the US, with maybe the exception of Austin... As I've said before, IMO, the most likely thing team 36 does is move a CST team into the Eastern Conference. Either Nashville or Chicago, more likely Nashville. Austin would do the same thing too.

Yeah, going with another western team and bumping Nashville East makes a lot of sense, simply because there's no US market in the East that isn't bumping up against existing teams for all the reasons I laid out. But the thing with an Austin and a San Antonio is... they're essentially doing the same thing if Houston is team #34.

And that's also true for like, Milwaukee, Memphis, etc. Quebec is the path of least resistance.

What is 1c and 9c? 1st in Canada and 9th in Canada by population?

Yup.

 

[Max Milk]

How many times does it need to be said that whoever owns the Blazers, owns the key to whether or not the NHL will actually go to Portland? And until Paul Allen's widow decides to give up the Blazers in order to keep the Seahawks, or vice versa, there's no chance of that happening.


Means squat, especially considering that Milwaukee is well within Chicago's media market and they may not exactly like giving up that slice. And once more...who holds the cards in terms of arena management in Milwaukee? The Bucks? They haven't shown any interest, and made Fiserv specifically as a basketball venue.


Also means squat, in the end.


Peladeau and Quebecor have been silent since VGK set the going rate for an expansion team, and when you're ostensibly trying to angle for a team with political reasoning, you're going to be left out in the cold, especially when all your bluster ends with a whimpering and empty pockets.


Welcome to the world of business in sports, bud. This has been the case since the 1930's, at minimum. You could enjoy minor league or major junior hockey, but you run into the exact same business and politicking, except at much lower stakes.

I'm not sure you understand the distinction between the words "should" and "will", good sir. Read my post again if it helps.

I've read the thread, I know these things you've outlined as well as you do.

 

[Tawnos]

Yeah, going with another western team and bumping Nashville East makes a lot of sense, simply because there's no US market in the East that isn't bumping up against existing teams for all the reasons I laid out. But the thing with an Austin and a San Antonio is... they're essentially doing the same thing if Houston is team #34.

And that's also true for like, Milwaukee, Memphis, etc. Quebec is the path of least resistance.

The thing with Austin... it would be a place the NHL would be getting first and that's a big deal. Also notably, it's hypothetical home territory doesn't overlap Houston's at all. Neither does San Antonio's, but the NBA being there is an issue. Houston and Austin do bump up against each other, it's true. It wouldn't be the first time the NHL put two teams in one state on a single expansion run. Anaheim/San Jose and Tampa/Florida happened at the same time.

 

[Max Milk]

The presence of teams in the US south is not why tickets are expensive.

Never said it was. But letting questionable hockey markets back in like Phoenix & Atlanta (who could very well prove me wrong & work out fine this time) for $1.2 billion is certainly symptomatic of a league that prioritizes the almighty buck and very little else.

 

[Tawnos]

Never said it was. But letting questionable hockey markets back in like Phoenix & Atlanta (who could very well prove me wrong & work out fine this time) for $1.2 billion is certainly symptomatic of a league that prioritizes the almighty buck and very little else.

If you want to discuss systemic issues in our entire economic system, that's fine. But what you described is how every single big business operates in the system we have. Wanting them to do differently isn't anything but yelling into the void.

Being "symptomatic of a league that prioritizes the almighty buck and very little else" doesn't even qualify as a criticism, in my mind.

 

[hammer42]

I can see Houston getting a team but Atlanta failed not once but twice what makes them think a third time will work this is the definition of insanity it is time to move on from Atlanta & focus on cities like Houston , Kansas City , Hamilton & Quebec City those are the money markets .

 

[Max Milk]

If you want to discuss systemic issues in our entire economic system, that's fine.

Well I can't do that here so me yelling into the void is exactly what you're getting...

Once again, I understand the calculus, that doesn't mean I hafta sit here & pretend I like it.

 

[TheLegend]

The Chargers were leaving anyway. If Kroenke hadn't gone to LA the Chargers would have built their stadium in Carson.

...... with the Raiders. Dean Spanos didn't have that kind of money. Kroenke also knew he couldn't compete in LA with the Raiders there (and still might not with them in Vegas.)

 

[StreetHawk]

...... with the Raiders. Dean Spanos didn't have that kind of money. Kroenke also knew he couldn't compete in LA with the Raiders there (and still might not with them in Vegas.)

That is why the chargers got first choice over the raiders to join the rams. Both clubs increased value of the team but on the field they don’t have a true home field advantage anymore. Chargers don’t have that deep a following in LA and LV is a destination spot where visiting fans will pay to make a weekend of it.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

I understand the reasoning behind the NHL's business decisions, and I expect nothing less of them, but I certainly don't have to like them or the insane cash grabs & gimmicks that the NHL constantly engages in.

It's the smart business decision for them, of course, but if you can't see that it's costing the fans more and more each year, then I don't know what to tell ya. The people on this forum seem so very interested in growing the NHL's bottom line. I don't. The NHL's Board of Governors aren't my friends.

So, it’s a smart business decision to put teams in Atlanta and Houston, but it’s dumb (or a “nightmare realm”?) because you want teams in those small markets because they have junior programs and because they want one. Got it.

 

[aqib]

...... with the Raiders. Dean Spanos didn't have that kind of money. Kroenke also knew he couldn't compete in LA with the Raiders there (and still might not with them in Vegas.)

Spanos had said the Chargers would have been able to go it alone if they had to. They had Goldman Sachs backing them. Unlike the Davis family they made their money outside of football and then bought a team. The Raiders weren't never going to be able to do it alone. Thats why they had to get $750 million from Nevada.

Bettman is a lawyer, so he's very precise with his words. End of the day, NHL didn't want QC, were hoping that SEA would have submitted when LV did, but the arena deal wasn't ready yet, so instead of doing what the NHL did in the 90's for expansion, and just go ahead and award teams based on who applied, they opted to just go LV and wait on SEA.

Utah, NHL had that in their back pocket. I mean, no way the NHL repeats AZ with a non nhl caliber arena unless they have stronger assurances that there is either a new arena or a massive reno to the Delta Center. That is not happening within a month.

Thats what I mean. They will spin it in a way so they won't flat out say they just don't like the market.

I think if the Coyotes had gone back to Winnipeg, QC would have gotten the Thrashers.

 

[Max Milk]

So, it’s a smart business decision to put teams in Atlanta and Houston, but it’s dumb (or a “nightmare realm”?) because you want teams in those small markets because they have junior programs and because they want one. Got it.

No it's dumb to put teams in cities where no one gives a toss about hockey or watches the games on tv. If the owners are making money off of it, then good for them, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend to enthused when a bunch of southern fans who don't know anything about the game start posting just the most mindless drivel about their new team. We don't need them.

 

[KevFu]

The thing with Austin... it would be a place the NHL would be getting first and that's a big deal. Also notably, it's hypothetical home territory doesn't overlap Houston's at all. Neither does San Antonio's, but the NBA being there is an issue. Houston and Austin do bump up against each other, it's true. It wouldn't be the first time the NHL put two teams in one state on a single expansion run. Anaheim/San Jose and Tampa/Florida happened at the same time.

I don't mean overlap by the territorial rights (which were drafted in what feels like the stone age compared to the 21st century), but the fact that Austin televisions would be Houston Aeros TV territory. You're probably not going to want to carve Texas into thirds at once. You divide it half first, and then if Houston is successful go to Austin/San Antonio.

You mention Tampa/Florida and San Jose/Anaheim, but those are places that are 4 to 6 hours apart from each other. They're also relatively equal in terms of possible fans in the region (TV territory). South Florida is 8 million, Central Florida is 6.2 million. The Bay Area (TV territory) is about 20 million, while Southern California is 23 million.

Whereas the Gulf Region of Texas is 7.5 million people and the Capital Region is 2.4. Even if you're considering San Antonio as part of the capital region, it would be 7.5 to about 5. And the time-based factors would probably make San Antonio "Aeros territory" FIRST and then an uphill battle to convert those fans to Austin fans.

BTW, the argument is that "in Austin if the NHL gets their first..." which is very sound. Worked in San Jose, Nashville, Columbus... But Austin's culture isn't like that in that regard. MLS is first and while we draw the line between "big four and big five" by revenue sizes, the NHL is way closer to MLS than it is to NFL (not that anyone would say Austin, San Antonio or anywhere in Texas ISN'T a football market!).

I can see Houston getting a team but Atlanta failed not once but twice what makes them think a third time will work this is the definition of insanity it is time to move on from Atlanta & focus on cities like Houston , Kansas City , Hamilton & Quebec City those are the money markets .

That's dumb and we're well past that. But hey, enjoy watching attempt #3 in Atlanta. Maybe it will change your narrow view.

 

[Tawnos]

I don't mean overlap by the territorial rights (which were drafted in what feels like the stone age compared to the 21st century), but the fact that Austin televisions would be Houston Aeros TV territory. You're probably not going to want to carve Texas into thirds at once. You divide it half first, and then if Houston is successful go to Austin/San Antonio.

You mention Tampa/Florida and San Jose/Anaheim, but those are places that are 4 to 6 hours apart from each other. They're also relatively equal in terms of possible fans in the region (TV territory). South Florida is 8 million, Central Florida is 6.2 million. The Bay Area (TV territory) is about 20 million, while Southern California is 23 million.

Whereas the Gulf Region of Texas is 7.5 million people and the Capital Region is 2.4. Even if you're considering San Antonio as part of the capital region, it would be 7.5 to about 5. And the time-based factors would probably make San Antonio "Aeros territory" FIRST and then an uphill battle to convert those fans to Austin fans.

BTW, the argument is that "in Austin if the NHL gets their first..." which is very sound. Worked in San Jose, Nashville, Columbus... But Austin's culture isn't like that in that regard. MLS is first and while we draw the line between "big four and big five" by revenue sizes, the NHL is way closer to MLS than it is to NFL (not that anyone would say Austin, San Antonio or anywhere in Texas ISN'T a football market!).

Real dollar differences is one way of framing the differences between the leagues, but IMO it's not a better measurement than % difference.

The difference between NFL and NHL was $6.7B (12.8-6.2), 108% more for the NFL.
The difference between NHL and MLS was $4.2B (6.2-2), 210% more for the NHL.

As I've mentioned before, I think people overstate the connection between two totally distinct markets just because they're somewhat close geographically and are in the same state. A Houston Aeros team would have very, very little penetration in the Austin and San Antonio markets after just a few years... same as the Hurricanes have little penetration in the Charlotte market after more than 25 years.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

No it's dumb to put teams in cities where no one gives a toss about hockey or watches the games on tv. If the owners are making money off of it, then good for them, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend to enthused when a bunch of southern fans who don't know anything about the game start posting just the most mindless drivel about their new team. We don't need them.

Literally quoted your words, but OK. To be clear, you know that Tampa, Dallas, Florida, and Carolina were all top-10 in attendance last year, right? And that team from Miami actually won the cup, right?

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

I think if the Coyotes had gone back to Winnipeg, QC would have gotten the Thrashers.

There were rumors (just that though...no link I can give) that ASG was negotiating with a group in Seattle immediately after buying the team. We do know that court docs say they were actively trying to sell the team right away. Not sure if true and if there was any continued interest out of Seattle years later when the sale finally occurred.

 

[Max Milk]

Literally quoted your words, but OK. To be clear, you know that Tampa, Dallas, Florida, and Carolina were all top-10 in attendance last year, right? And that team from Miami actually won the cup, right?

I've been to those cities (excluding Raleigh) and nobody there gives a rat's ass about hockey. Full stop.

Let's look at the TV ratings these sunbelt teams get, shall we? There's a reason networks in the US don't air their games nationally.

Also I apologize for the mean nature in my previous reply. Not trying to demean die-hard hockey fans in the south, but even they have to know that there are very few people in their area with whom they can discuss the game in-depth.

 

[dj4aces]

No it's dumb to put teams in cities where no one gives a toss about hockey or watches the games on tv.

The NHL is trying to grow the sport, not remain stagnant. To grow, you need to expand to places where people may not know much about the sport. Putting a team in a place where people are already fans doesn't grow the footprint of the sport. It doesn't grow the game at all. Growth in the southern US is one of the BoG's stated objectives. It was when the BoG hired Bettman to be the commissioner, and with three top-10 markets in the southern US without NHL teams, it remains true today.

There were rumors (just that though...no link I can give) that ASG was negotiating with a group in Seattle immediately after buying the team. We do know that court docs say they were actively trying to sell the team right away. Not sure if true and if there was any continued interest out of Seattle years later when the sale finally occurred.

Balsillie was another one I know about, but when he learned that determining ownership of the Hawks, Thrashers, and Philips was what was in question, he quickly moved on.

 

[Max Milk]

The NHL is trying to grow the sport, not remain stagnant. To grow, you need to expand to places where people may not know much about the sport. Putting a team in a place where people are already fans doesn't grow the footprint of the sport. It doesn't grow the game at all. Growth in the southern US is one of the BoG's stated objectives. It was when the BoG hired Bettman to be the commissioner, and with three top-10 markets in the southern US without NHL teams, it remains true today.

Cool, so when does this southern expansion churn out anything more meaningful than just enough season ticket holders to keep the team in town? Hockey is still, after 30 years of this, enjoying zero cultural relevance in the southern states.

 

[Max Milk]

And I'm not saying we need to relocate teams out of the south or anything of that nature. I just find it crappy that money dictates that the 4 newest franchises in the NHL will be 4 more southern teams that about 40 thousand upper middle class people will care about in their new, respective cities.

 

[sneakytitz]

Let's look at the TV ratings these sunbelt teams get, shall we? There's a reason networks in the US don't air their games nationally.

They do?



I see Dallas, Florida, Tampa, Nashville, and Carolina with double-digit nationally televised games.

 

[Max Milk]

They do?



I see Dallas, Florida, Tampa, Nashville, and Carolina with double-digit nationally televised games.

Y'know, championship caliber teams getting less televised games than the Buffalo Sabres may not be the flex you believe it to be.

 

[sneakytitz]

Y'know, championship caliber teams getting less televised games than the Buffalo Sabres may not be the flex you believe it to be.

Don't move the goal posts, hoss. You said the sunbelt teams don't get nationally televised - they do, alot.

 

[Max Milk]

Don't move the goal posts, hoss. You said the sunbelt teams don't get nationally televised - they do, alot.

They do when they're playing northern teams or, much more rarely, when they're playing another championship caliber southern team.

Also we're not talking about expanding to Dallas here, we're talking about the likes of Phoenix & Atlanta who were absolute national broadcast kryptonite.