With four different tenant agreements, significant increase in travels, and likely not a hell of a lot of revenue being generated for them because those deals wouldn't be much for just ten games. But again, even if the ownership can be convinced of it, the players would never agree to it. Why would the players agree to a group of their own essentially being homeless gypsies for an entire season? There's no reasonable way to convince them of that.
NHL Making Contingency Plans for Arena-less Coyotes? (All Relo Speculation Here)
- Thread starter Fugu
- Start date
- Status
With four different tenant agreements, significant increase in travels, and likely not a hell of a lot of revenue being generated for them because those deals wouldn't be much for just ten games. But again, even if the ownership can be convinced of it, the players would never agree to it. Why would the players agree to a group of their own essentially being homeless gypsies for an entire season? There's no reasonable way to convince them of that.
If this happens, the NHL should prepare the conferences to limit bad travel.
GuelphStormer
Registered User
sorry, ive been tardy in viewing ... and perhaps I am not understanding what you are saying but surely you are not suggesting that PKP would have to pay less overall for a relocated team than for an expansion team, are you?Quebec City is already ready as opposed to Las Vegas which won't be ready until the 2017-18 season. Why would Quebecor be happy to pay $400 million for a frigging expansion team when they could have the Coyotes for half that price and help solve a recurring problem for Bettman and the owners?
if PKP buys a team, he will have to pay $500M flat. if that team is an expansion team, his total purchase price will be $500M - all of which will go to the league and be distributed among the other owners (presumably 30 at the time of expansion). if on the other hand he buys the coyotes and relocates them, he will still pay the same $500M overall - $305M to buy the team from IA, plus a $195M relocation fee which will go to the league and be distributed among the owners.
there is no difference in price to PKP.
Blueblood
Registered User
- Apr 22, 2007
- 224
- 0
Not for when an eastern time zone team has to play LA, San Jose, Anaheim or Vancouver...
I'm sorry to interrupt this, I just wanted to point out how ridiculous it is that the NHL wants 500 million for this mess.
But that's bad travel for them. Leave QC in the west or move somewhere else.
talkinaway
Registered User
I agree with this - I thought up the "homeless team" scenario as well, but there are just too many barriers. Splitting between two arenas, either 50-50 or have a "special 10 game stint" in another city, might be moderately feasible, particularly if scheduling difficulties were an issue, but with most of the cities being cited (Quebec, Las Vegas, Seattle, Portland), there's not much of an issue of sharing an arena with an NBA team and having tons of dates already booked.
That said, although the players would rightfully hate being a homeless team, I can't imagine that a "we can change your home arena multiple times in a season in an emergency" clause isn't in the contract. In both the NBA and NFL, New Orleans had homeless teams after Katrina hit.
Now, the precise definition of "emergency" may be narrower than "Glendale threw the contract in the garbage 3-4 months before the season started", but the fact that the players don't like being wanderers isn't that relevant - it could happen. Perhaps it would be a PR disaster, but it could.
Besides, there are advantages. If the Quebec Coyotes still have to play in the Western Conference, the players might like being the Quebec/Portland Coyotes, given that 25 of their away games would be played out west anyway.
That said, there are way better solutions than a homeless team, especially since season ticket sales and TV viewership will suffer. I'm sure the NHL has a general plan/concept for a homeless team on the backburner - you always have to prepare for disasters, both natural and manmade. But it's probably plan H.
Wouldn't you rather QC with Montreal, Boston and Toronto than Florida?[/QUOTE]
Well, personally, unless it's an existing Canadian team moving to QC, I'd rather not have them in the league at all. I think there are too many second tier Canadian cities already.
You want to know something going to com down to who wants the coyotes more when they go up on the auction block Portland , Seattle , Quebec City , Las Vegas , Hamilton or Arizona highest bid wins the coyotes 2nd place the Florida Panthers 3rd place the Carolina Hurricanes 4th & 5th get Expansion teams .
Seattle - no arena but a possible new arena pending & won't be ready for a few years so Seattle is out .
Portland - Has the Arena & fan base but I doubt Paul Allen will pay a dime more than 200 million so if there is a biding war he is out
Las Vegas - Bad idea but has new arena being built & have an owner willing to flush money down the toilet but the arena won't be ready for while so they are out but most likely get an expansion team in the near future .
Quebec City - Has everything thing in place for an NHL. team so they are ready
Hamilton - Same as Quebec City all ready for NHL. team but the FirstOntario Center will need to be replaced within the next 10-15 years & the matter of dealing with so called territory rights with Buffalo & Toronto which are completely bogus .
Arizona - Dose not care about the Coyotes & will be glad to see them go .
Seattle - no arena but a possible new arena pending & won't be ready for a few years so Seattle is out .
Portland - Has the Arena & fan base but I doubt Paul Allen will pay a dime more than 200 million so if there is a biding war he is out
Las Vegas - Bad idea but has new arena being built & have an owner willing to flush money down the toilet but the arena won't be ready for while so they are out but most likely get an expansion team in the near future .
Quebec City - Has everything thing in place for an NHL. team so they are ready
Hamilton - Same as Quebec City all ready for NHL. team but the FirstOntario Center will need to be replaced within the next 10-15 years & the matter of dealing with so called territory rights with Buffalo & Toronto which are completely bogus .
Arizona - Dose not care about the Coyotes & will be glad to see them go .
Yeah, too many second-tier Canadian cities with full arenas and higher gate revenues than most of the major U.S. markets.
I still think that places like Edmonton and Winnipeg hurt the perception of the NHL in the United States which is the major market for the NHL. But hey, it's always possible that I have no idea what I'm talking about just like a large number of HFBoards posters.
Ugmo
Registered User
- Oct 24, 2011
- 12,300
- 0
1) Who cares? I mean, so what?
2) It would be hard for them to hurt the perception of the NHL any more than thousands upon thousands of empty seats in Glendale and Sunrise.
Actually it would be better for the Florida teams considering which part of the Eastern teams they got stuck with. Chicago, Dallas, St. Louis, and Nashville are closer to Tampa than Boston is. Wouldn't be much more of a stretch for them compared to what they're dealing with now.
Your argument would of been better if Carolina and Washington were still in their division but the powers that be said nuts to that idea.
Material Defender
Registered User
- Mar 22, 2011
- 606
- 0
Apart from the Remparts de Québec junior hockey team schedule, there's nothing officialy announced for next season in Centre Vidéotron. No problem here.
I'd rather QC get expansion and not mess up travel. Leave QC in the west if they go to Quebec.
Yeah, too many second-tier Canadian cities with full arenas and higher gate revenues than most of the major U.S. markets.
No, rojac is right, it's true what he's saying about Edmonton, Winnipeg, Quebec, etc. Because players don't want to go there. Canadian players put those cities at the top of the their NTC's. We have threads on it. The only time Carolina or Florida appear on those things is because of organizational dysfunction. The Canadian fan and Canadian player are miles apart on what makes the NHL tick. Weather, Media, taxes. Pick one.
So flip them with Pit and Cbj. Keep all the eastern teams in the time zone if you can.
Except the Saints played in San Antonio due to Benson's relationship with the area and in Baton Rouge which wasn't far from the locals. And we're also only talking about 8 games here and not 41. The Hornets predominantly only played in Oklahoma City with occasional games in Baton Rouge. Not the four market gig as suggested. That's not really a feasible plan. The we can change your home arena thing still has to be within reason.
molsonmuscle360
Registered User
The United States has the most teams, but it's not the major market for the NHL. Canada is still the major market, because that is where they have the majority of their fans. So basically you are saying due to American perception of the game, it's better to have the NHL play in secondary and tertiary American markets than it is in "smaller" Canadian cities, that actually sell out arenas and merchandise?
It's like saying that having an NBA team in Milwaukee hurts the NBA's perception to Canadians. To me, what you are saying about the smaller Canadian markets just reeks of elitism.
Ugmo
Registered User
- Oct 24, 2011
- 12,300
- 0
We have threads on it and the upshot of those threads is that players prefer warm weather and winning teams. So we should have teams in warm, large American cities that don't care about them just so that players can play golf on their days off? Great way to run a league.
Not to mention Rojac didn't even mention what the players prefer. He said Winnipeg and Edmonton hurt the perception of the league among the potential U.S. audience. Which, again, makes me think so what? I want teams in markets that care about them, with full houses and great atmosphere. Not some attempt to chase a mythical holy grail that will never materialize.
molsonmuscle360
Registered User
Ok, let the players all play in either Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, NY, and then any city in Carolina or further south.
The rest of the teams can put together their own league, in cities with hockey fans. Guess which league would be more profitable? The NHL is still a gate driven league remember.
Is he lying though? The league will not be gate run forever, and if one day the NHL gets that big TV contract, will it even matter if those teams get in trouble again? They do hurt the perception of the league amongst the audience and the players don't want to go there. Phoenix still managed to get Brett Hull for godsakes. Edmonton and Winnipeg don't have any other big 4 franchise for a reason, they're too small.
Same reason some people in Toronto look down the CFL, Edmonton and Winnipeg look minor league to them.
For now. Maybe it won't be one day. And I can tell you straight up the majority of the NHLPA perfers playing in the us as dictated by their actions. If it was otherwise, Canada might have won a cup this century.
molsonmuscle360
Registered User
And people in Toronto wonder why the rest of the country considers them elitist fools. There is no reason not to have teams in those markets. Just like in the NBA and MLB there is no reason for them not to have teams in those smaller American markets that they do. Just because everyone in Toronto wants to be American, doesn't mean the rest of the country has to sacrifice their NHL team to placate them.
There's no correlation. What's hurt the perception of the NHL is the 'H'. Hockey is a foreign sport (Canadian) that, relative to the other "Big 3" sports, a large segment of the population does not play. The lack of a general interest in hockey (once again, compared to baseball, basketball, and football) is what’s hurt the NHL. You could relocate or fold all 7 Canadian teams and it wouldn’t any difference.
- Status
