Anisimovs AK
Registered User
Having an AHL team in a city doesnt mean that an NHL team in that city would have to pay territorial rights.
An expansion team in Cleveland wouldnt have to pay the Jackets either.
Potential markets for potential NHL expansion beyond 32
- Thread starter Big Z Man 1990
- Start date
An expansion team in Cleveland wouldnt have to pay the Jackets either.
TECHNICALLY THEY DO..... Gilbert forced the Sharks out of Cleveland in 2006.....he had to buy another team to replace them
Barclay Donaldson
Registered User
It is logical, because one situation is improving massively on an annual basis while the other one is at maximum performance. Winnipeg was given time to show what their maximum pull was and they only made money while they were well under the cap ceiling while still experiencing the "shiny newness effect" which has worn off as they've stopped selling out their small arena despite being one of the best teams in the league.
The Coyotes were very close to profitable when they initially moved and weren't out of the playoff race by Christmas. Winnipeg is starting to face that problem as they haven't been selling out, which started in October of this past season. You claim Québec won't face these issues? Winnipeg is already facing them! Phoenix after one year of improvement under a new owner who is in for the long haul is not much worse at Winnipeg at maxed out performance. There is absolutely no evidence that Québec would make money, and I've provided plenty of evidence that they wouldn't make money. I've provided plenty of evidence that shows they could barely even afford a team.
voyageur
Hockey fanatic
- Jul 10, 2011
- 9,467
- 8,157
In the 90s when the Nordiques moved they were one of the better drawing teams. 13 000-14 000 consistently. Jets, Whalers and several other markets (Minnesota, New Jersey, Isles, and Boston, Washington) would draw below them. It was economics that sunk the Nordiques, with the Canadian dollar at an all time low, and Bettman's move to pay the players in US dollars. Bettman had an owner in place that was going to bring more revenue to the league than Marcel Aubut. And a vision to grow the league.
Quebec would be a good hockey market, better than Ottawa, which is restricted by government regulations, better than Winnipeg, better than Arizona or Florida. I'd project the revenues to be in the Nashville/Buffalo range. They do not have big industries in Quebec, but a multitude of arm's length government investors seems possible, and there is other Montreal investors that would probably want in. Don't forget that Montreal and Quebec are quite close, and have traffic going back and forth. They are however eternal rivals, you just have to watch old hockey footage to get that sense.
I think it is the politics of Peladeau that sunk the Nordiques chances, as the NHL steers clear of politics, and separatist politics certainly aren't what the BoG would be looking for. I think the owner is the obstacle, not the market.
TVA is losing money, as is Rogers. The NHL is as much to blame as anyone, as they have taken rivalries out of the league. Quebec-Montreal would probably garner over a 1 million viewers within Quebec, that would change the fortunes of TVA, but you can only get 5 matchups tops. Florida -Montreal on a Saturday night will draw a 1/3 of the viewers in all likelihood, the non traditional markets aren't really good sells in Canada. But it is what it is. The NHL is increasing revenues, with each non traditional fan it brings in.
Quebec would have not gotten the NHL more money than they would with Vegas and Seattle. They aren't going to get a bigger canada TV deal since its capped out. The job of the NHL is do whats best for its franchise as a whole not appease one market. Not against a team going to quebec but its much harder than people seem to realize. No teams are going to relocate any time soon.
Anisimovs AK
Registered User
That had nothing to do with the Blue Jackets though. As a matter of fact the new Cleveland team was an affiliate of Colorado until 2016. So based off what you are saying, if someone wanted to bring a NHL team to Cleveland in 2015 they would have had to pay the Avalanche because they owned the AHL team there?
Ive seen nothing added to the CBA or anything thats been voted upon by the BOG that mentioned the change to the 50 mile radius rule when it come to territorial payments for expansion/relocation teams
voyageur
Hockey fanatic
- Jul 10, 2011
- 9,467
- 8,157
Alright this is my last argument. Let's get our facts straight. Winnipeg stopped selling out, but by what margin? There is still 13 000 season ticket holders, with a significant waiting list. So that the revenues are pretty safe. A walkup ticket at a minimum of $75 is not the easiest sell, in a city that is quite poor. By contrast my uncle said he could buy Coyotes tickets for $7 a few years ago. I bought a ticket for a hockey game for $7 in the 80s. Those prices made Winnipeg unstainable. So you see that gate receipts for the Jets and Coyotes has a discrepancy of $30 million Us dollars, in favour of Winnipeg. That's a big mountain to climb in a gate driven league.
The ownership, True North also has the ability to draw on revenues for casinos, hotels, and other properties related to the Jets, which is why they are committed to the market, and have a long term commitment, though I am too lazy to print the article. It's why Chipman is on the BoG.
I think Phoenix is going to have a hard time selling any politician on a hockey first arena, given those revenues stated, and knowing that the Suns are the bigger ticket. If they could work with the Suns ownership, they might be sustainable. A downtown hockey arena, that drew in extra entertainment dollars, might work, as I think Florida is profiting from in spite of losing significant hockey revenues, but I don't know the political sentiment of the region.
I am not going to keep arguing about Quebec. I've stated my case elsewhere.
First day back on HF, and I am already in an argument. Not as much fun as a hockey fight, let me tell you. Good luck on what you are selling though.
voyageur
Hockey fanatic
- Jul 10, 2011
- 9,467
- 8,157
I believe the TV deal is flexible, with an increase in payment based on number of teams. And then TVA would be the obvious broadcaster and pay for the rights to broadcast their own property. Would Montreal want an indemnity, probably? But you are correct in saying that both Vegas and Seattle bring in more revenue, especially on a corporate level. And they add new hockey fans, which is what the NHL needs, and markets that are attractive, especially in the face of a new US TV contract. I wouldn't write Quebec off though. I think if Peladeau finds a partner, the NHL will look at them. With Melnyk having liquidity issues, and the city of Ottawa unable to work with him to build a rink, I think the NHL would consider moving from Ottawa to QC, because it would renew a rivalry in the province of Quebec that has potential to grow revenues, it's a real rivalry. Ottawa as a hockey market, still boasts a high number of Habs fans, which is redundant. Quebec City as a whole, doesn't like Montreal, especially in sports, and has the arena ready to go.
Not sure what arguing about Arizona has to do with new markets??
Here's the reality about Arizona for everyone who really wants it....
Bettman said they needed a new arena, but that was a con job for an arena with a management subsidy built in. Such an arrangement isn't going to happen, especially post COVID
There is really nothing wrong with Glendale. The Phoenix metro is too spread out to make any location the 'perfect' spot. What has been lacking is appropriate marketing to the metro itself.
Said marketing seems to be improving under Meruelo, but it's still very early, and we don't know if COVID is going to set them back or not.
All of that being said....
Houston depends on Fertitta, and every indication is that his relationship with the league is not going to produce a team for the Houston market. The alternative is a new arena, and that doesn't seem likely there. So, while I might have thought 2 years ago that ARZ>>HOU was possible, I don't think so now.
As for other markets...
No place left in North America will be able to pay the entry fee. That's the simply truth. Any new market after Seattle will not be a hockey hotbed with lots and lots of local revenue and therefore won't be able to to produce enough ROI to justify the expansion fee. Even Seattle, with COVID going on, might struggle - at least the arena part. Build a new arena, and then a virus prohibits there from being events in the arena? Tough start.
Specific to Quebec...
Lots of fans.
Government town, so questionable how much local business support there could be, since government people can't entertain at events in Canada.
On the other hand, it's a free arena.
I would expect some small yearly losses, depending a lot on the CDN dollar.
But, it's not happening unless someone NEEDS to relocate, because going to QC doesn't gain the BOG anything, really...or at least they don't think it does.
Here's the reality about Arizona for everyone who really wants it....
Bettman said they needed a new arena, but that was a con job for an arena with a management subsidy built in. Such an arrangement isn't going to happen, especially post COVID
There is really nothing wrong with Glendale. The Phoenix metro is too spread out to make any location the 'perfect' spot. What has been lacking is appropriate marketing to the metro itself.
Said marketing seems to be improving under Meruelo, but it's still very early, and we don't know if COVID is going to set them back or not.
All of that being said....
Houston depends on Fertitta, and every indication is that his relationship with the league is not going to produce a team for the Houston market. The alternative is a new arena, and that doesn't seem likely there. So, while I might have thought 2 years ago that ARZ>>HOU was possible, I don't think so now.
As for other markets...
No place left in North America will be able to pay the entry fee. That's the simply truth. Any new market after Seattle will not be a hockey hotbed with lots and lots of local revenue and therefore won't be able to to produce enough ROI to justify the expansion fee. Even Seattle, with COVID going on, might struggle - at least the arena part. Build a new arena, and then a virus prohibits there from being events in the arena? Tough start.
Specific to Quebec...
Lots of fans.
Government town, so questionable how much local business support there could be, since government people can't entertain at events in Canada.
On the other hand, it's a free arena.
I would expect some small yearly losses, depending a lot on the CDN dollar.
But, it's not happening unless someone NEEDS to relocate, because going to QC doesn't gain the BOG anything, really...or at least they don't think it does.
The NHL isn't going to go to 15/17 setup they didn't when they went through the 2017 expansion process they won't now. Red wings or the blue jackets are not being forced to go back to the western conference. It also makes no sense to have a far far eastern team play in the central division due to travel costs.
Right now the NHL isn't desperate to move any teams. When it gets to the point where the league has to move no choice then they rather keep the coyotes franchise within the US then to lose the team to a city that probably won't gain them much more than what they are already are getting. If NHL becomes desperate to move a team Houston is probably the destination. Being desperate to move a franchise the buyer that will relocate the team is in control of the price not the league.
Being desperate you lose leverage in talks to sell and relocate a franchise. I still think the league wants houston and will relocate a team there if they absolutely have to. (aka no choice in order to keep the team in the US) Houston is basically a Quebec emergency relocation only but a much much bigger market than quebec itself.
Tommy....I'm lost as to how you got some suggestion of a 15/17 arrangement out of my post??? Are you thinking I was suggesting ARZ>>Que? Absolutely NOT!!
Arizona presently is as good a location for a franchise as any place in the West, including Houston, once you factor in how much Fertitta wants to pay. The team is NOT moving from there. I just can't see it.
As for Eastern teams moving? Florida is locked in. Carolina just extended their lease. No one else is any big trouble at all, unless you count Ottawa. Who knows there, but if they moved a little distance east to Quebec, that wouldn't be a big deal at all.
I was suggesting if it get to the point of a thrashers situation where the coyotes HAD TO relocate aka can't stay in Arizona then Houston will more likely get them. Like i said if the league is desperate to where they have to move the team then they take what Fertitta will offer. Basic negotiations 101 don't act desperate if you expect a very good price for something.
Who knows what would happen perhaps a $$$ person shows up for Portland Oregon and offers more than what they would have gotten out of Houston. 3 way rivalry in the northwest especially Sea vs port would be thing for the league. Oof that would be an alignment mess to figure out.
Arthur Morgan
Registered User
Why couldn't Toronto handle a 2nd team? even if it's not in Toronto. there are big cities around here. lots of other big cities have multiple teams
but they should bring back the Nordiques
but they should bring back the Nordiques
TheLegend
Hardly Deactivated
no, show me where Seattle has a name, logo......TL........ MAYBE we ought to terminate Arizona or relocate it to Palm Springs, so they can swap affiliates with Tucson, remember them using a name that's been recycled how many times
Hutch... we were discussing the AHL franchise and Seattle possibly sharing affiliation with another team until they could get their arena and team untracked. You were absolutely adamant it was impossible even though others already showed you it’s happened before.
Now you’re simply being obtrusive. But if they ended up using the Coyote’s affiliate as a base to begin with then they do.
Think we’re done here.
I have yet to find anything if the Palm Springs AHL even started construction of the arena yet. If they did then it went under the radar.
TheLegend
Hardly Deactivated
Palm Springs. My point is if they run into a delay getting their AHL franchise up and running they can share their players with another affiliate.... OR if they get the franchise built and the arena is delayed they could share a facility. Like Vegas I wouldn’t think it would be more than a year.
TheLegend
Hardly Deactivated
Same here... just the one article where they were supposed to break ground in February and announced the delay right before with no comment.
Probably environmental reasons i might have read someone complained about parking and got the whole thing delayed then the virus breaks out. I check twitter now and then to see if anything pops up but nothing. There was that one article i say that said team delayed a year but that was article was pulled.
TheLegend
Hardly Deactivated
Chalk it up to NIMBYism.
Here’s something to consider though. The arena was to be built on enrolled tribal land IIRC. If the tribe wants a big parking lot on their land to go with it then there’s really nothing Joe Public can do about it.
Only have to revisit the saga of Tohono O’odham v Glendale, AZ to see that.
who knows really but if i see anything i'll be sure to post it in the AHL section.
If one was to go absurdist, you could say that any number of teams up to 42 is possible if they play a round robin regular season, (6 divisions of 7) where you have a regular season champion that has greater emphasis and a 24 team playoff with the 4 team per conference play in.
Now where you would find the players and cities with suitable arenas to add another 10 teams and not go back to the “glory” days of 1977 North American hockey, I’m all ears.
Millenial cohort is aging out of the league, gen Z is almost through so talent pool is shrinking. Even with the flood of Europeans coming over and the expansion of the USA pool, talent is starting to thin out and another 50 jobs will thin it out even more before demographic changes. Considering that NHL Central Scouting ranks 350 or so players for each draft worldwide, what does a league look like that would draft 297 of them and on average 128(that’s not even including replacement level players)would eventually play in the league? Hockey Canada does a lousy job of attracting & retaining players and keeping costs down.
If you could pull it off with zero complications on stadia & ownership, could you get to 42? 40? Portland, Austin, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, Cleveland, Kansas City, Quebec...Hamilton? Milwaukee? Are people willing to watch product that is that diluted?
Now where you would find the players and cities with suitable arenas to add another 10 teams and not go back to the “glory” days of 1977 North American hockey, I’m all ears.
Millenial cohort is aging out of the league, gen Z is almost through so talent pool is shrinking. Even with the flood of Europeans coming over and the expansion of the USA pool, talent is starting to thin out and another 50 jobs will thin it out even more before demographic changes. Considering that NHL Central Scouting ranks 350 or so players for each draft worldwide, what does a league look like that would draft 297 of them and on average 128(that’s not even including replacement level players)would eventually play in the league? Hockey Canada does a lousy job of attracting & retaining players and keeping costs down.
If you could pull it off with zero complications on stadia & ownership, could you get to 42? 40? Portland, Austin, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, Cleveland, Kansas City, Quebec...Hamilton? Milwaukee? Are people willing to watch product that is that diluted?
Barclay Donaldson
Registered User
Because the Maple Leafs will veto any team in their zone. In addition, there’s a lot of fans with preexisting loyalties. Leafs fans aren’t just going to suddenly drop their Leafs loyalties. And for the non-Leafs fans, their not just going to drop their loyalties. The area is all hockey fans. The NHL’s last few expansion teams have been to areas where there aren’t hockey fans because it adds hockey fans, and therefore revenue. And there is no potential owner group that could afford a team or arena if you want to put the team outside of the veto zone. You’re talking about dropping more than a billion dollars before the puck even drops.
And unless it’s a complete emergency, no team will, wants to, or ought to go to Québec City.
Zippy316
aka Zippo
Instead of looking for expansion beyond 32, NHL should put their focus into growing the game into more markets.
The markets that aren't big enough to handle an NHL team? Push to get an AHL team and market the hell out of them. If they can build the AHL up to be more of a draw, it'll only increase competition and make the NHL teams better.
The markets that aren't big enough to handle an NHL team? Push to get an AHL team and market the hell out of them. If they can build the AHL up to be more of a draw, it'll only increase competition and make the NHL teams better.
Anaheim has no territorial rights over San Diego. At least not the ability to veto a San Diego NHL franchise. They and LA may have broadcast rights (which don't have a 50 mile limit like territorial rights), they have a lease on an aging arena that will never be used for the NHL.
All Anaheim can do is persuade enough other teams to vote down a San Diego expansion / relocation. If they lose and some fictional rich person gets a team in San Diego with a fictional new arena, Anaheim would get a nominal payment for moving their affiliate, and possibly a payment for invasion of broadcast territory.
The NHL disputes whether the 50 mile limit is still in effect and gives an automatic veto. Toronto and Buffalo argue it's in place. They've avoided going to court over the issue. SO far.
NOw I doubt the NHL is keen on putting a team in SD with 2 in the LA area, but who knows.
