kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
Sorry to burst your rose colored glasses, but HansH is spot on.jester099 said:I'm not sure in the hockey world this is always true... I think a lot of other factors than profits come into play...HansH said:What many of you are forgetting is that a good "hockey town" is not always a good "NHL town". There are plenty of markets where they love hockey to death, that would never be able to support the financial realities of an NHL team, even with the current CBA.
Kansas City (new arena, 2008) and Houston (New arena, 2003) are FAR more likely to get NHL Teams than any Canadian market, Quebec included -- because they have a better potential for financial rewards. Anschutz knows squat about hockey (as the Kings' performance has shown), but he knows real estate, and he'll get himself an anchor tenant for the KC arena, whether it be NHL or NBA or both. Winnipeg is out of the running because their arena condemns them to the bottom half or third of the attendance rankings, even if they sold out every night. Quebec may love their hockey, but they don't love the NHL as much as Les Alexander would in order to pair the Rockets with an NHL team in his NHL-ready arena.
It's dollars and cents. Any argument that trashes KC and Houston (or Dallas) on grounds that they're not "as good hockey cities" is completley irrelevant.
How much money can owners make -- that is the ONLY question to answer, period. And the potential is more in KC and Houston, at the moment, than it is in Quebec and Winnipeg. Now, might teams there fail? Sure -- and THEN it would be time to visit the Quebec and Winnipeg options. But not until then.
Sure profits are a big part of the equation, but if it was only profits, teams like the Oilers would've already folded IMHO.
With the new CBA, cities like Edmonton and Quebec and Winnipeg have the means to be competitive, and that with a lot of work from influantial and rich people may be all that is needed to bring back hockey to these cities...
The NHL is business, and dollars and cents are what will dictate where teams go. In this, the NHL is no different from any other sport. Inertia may keep a team in market when an owner might do better elsewhere (your comparisons to Edmonton) and some owners may be willing to lose money for some period of time in the name of ego or civic pride, but if and when an owner decides to sell or move a team, you can be sure that nothing will really matter but economics.
It's not (and never has been) is Winnepeg or Quebec a better "hockey town" than Atlanta or Carolina or <insert your favorite non-traditional market here>. The question is, if and when any current NHL owner decides to sell or move, where can he (or a new owner) make the most money. It's not up to you or me or even Gary Bettman - it's up to the current owners. So if an owner thinks he can make more money by moving to Portland or Houston or KC or OKC or a new owner in those cities is willing to pay more for the franchise, that's where they will move (or be sold to).
The decision is purely financial, based on market size, potential corporate support, availability of state-of-the-art facilities, sweetheart lease deals etc.
Just because the new CBA may allow a team to survive in Winnepeg or Quebec does not mean that there is any reason why a team would move there if there were more lucrative opportunities available. And the same CBA that may make the NHL more viable in those cities also makes today's weaker franchises more viable where they are, so they are less likely to move.
The best (and probably only) possibility for teams in Quebec or Winnepeg is expansion, when the league has some say in the process - the league gets the same expansion fee no matter who they choose. But I don't see expansion on the horizon untill at least the end of this CBA.