Quebec City trying to keep the flame alive

[aqib]

All voted by existing NHL owners, as stated before.

LIke I said, getting Bettman to dislike you is probably not a good idea if you want to be an NHL owner, Bettman certainly has some influence.

But at the end of the day, this league is ran by owners. You can't possibly tell me NHL owners are on board with team in QC but Bettman is standing in the way.

The Jacobs, Wirtz, Illitch families, and the Calgary Flames owners are the only owners who predate Bettman. Everyone else was essentially "hired" by him. They aren't going to go against him.
Secondly, like people point out on the Coyotes thread that the reason Muerelo lets his team president handle all the day-to-day stuff if because he has assorted business interests that he is involved with. For most NHL owners their NHL team is part of a larger empire so they aren't going to pick a fight over expansion to QC vs Atlanta or running out of patience with Arizona.

 

[aqib]

1) TNSE also spent nearly 10 years working towards getting a team back. That means putting themselves in the position to actually support a franchise long term rather than a bunch of wealthy yahoos looking for something the have a tax write off on.


2) (in reference to Bettman opposing Balsillie) But he wasn’t and you keep demonstrating more and more how little you really know about Arizona.

The numbers and comment in parenthesis added by me

1) There were other cities that COULD have supported a team at the time. Like I said, Bill Daly indicated 6 other cities expressed interest. Paul Allen was still alive he could have made an offer. But Winnipeg was the only one allowed to negotiate. Now do you really thing that the 27 other owners were all unanimous in thinking there shouldn't have been a more robust auction or did they just follow Bettman's lead?

2) It was a hypothetical question. If Bettman had said "there is no way to make AZ work, lets figure out a deal for Hamilton" do you think the owners would have risen up in opposition?

 

[TheLegend]

The numbers and comment in parenthesis added by me

1) There were other cities that COULD have supported a team at the time. Like I said, Bill Daly indicated 6 other cities expressed interest. Paul Allen was still alive he could have made an offer. But Winnipeg was the only one allowed to negotiate. Now do you really thing that the 27 other owners were all unanimous in thinking there shouldn't have been a more robust auction or did they just follow Bettman's lead?

2) It was a hypothetical question. If Bettman had said "there is no way to make AZ work, lets figure out a deal for Hamilton" do you think the owners would have risen up in opposition?

How about dealing with more reality and less hypotheticals then.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

The Jacobs, Wirtz, Illitch families, and the Calgary Flames owners are the only owners who predate Bettman. Everyone else was essentially "hired" by him. They aren't going to go against him.
Secondly, like people point out on the Coyotes thread that the reason Muerelo lets his team president handle all the day-to-day stuff if because he has assorted business interests that he is involved with. For most NHL owners their NHL team is part of a larger empire so they aren't going to pick a fight over expansion to QC vs Atlanta or running out of patience with Arizona.

Billionaires with their egos are not going to let their employee dictate to them what he wants. It really doesn’t matter if they became owners under Bettman era. It’s still existing owners that vote for them. Not Bettman. And considering owning NHL is significant investment, no matter how you look at it, you don’t think they will take 5 minutes of their day and speak out if they think Bettman is standing in the way of much more profitable team in Canada, if that’s what they believe?

This is almost Alex Jones level of conspiracy theory.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

It's not a big market and it doesn't have a lot of money. For hockey. It has been proven time and time again that wealth and population number has no bearing in the success of something that has no interest.

Interest is King and Bettman never got that. Which is the complete opposite of UFC where they go where the interest is at the biggest about their sport. Bettman multiplying new franchises who ultimately only survive via the welfare system of the cap.

By that theory, it’s been proven time and time again that small markets like Quebec have no interest in hockey.

 

[KevFu]

I don't understand the whole "Large market doesn't translate to success" part of it.

Average CSA market rank of the top 10 most valuable clubs:
NBA: 5
MLB: 5.9
NFL: 7.7
NHL: 11

Your top 10 most valuable franchises in the NHL includes (order CSA rank)
1 NY, 1 NY, 2 LA, 3 CHI, 5 BOS, 7 PHI, 11 WAS, 12 TOR, 16 MON.


"There's not much difference between a 4 million person market and a 1.5 million person market" I can be on board with; but like the markets with 7m to 25m people just dominate financially and championships wise.

 

[RayMartyniukTotems]

Quebec City deserves an Expansion team more than Atlanta cause the Georgia city will fail yet again even if the NHL pulls out all stops and idiot proofs the Expansion draft for the Flames,Thrashers...!

I don't understand the whole "Large market doesn't translate to success" part of it.

Average CSA market rank of the top 10 most valuable clubs:
NBA: 5
MLB: 5.9
NFL: 7.7
NHL: 11

Your top 10 most valuable franchises in the NHL includes (order CSA rank)
1 NY, 1 NY, 2 LA, 3 CHI, 5 BOS, 7 PHI, 11 WAS, 12 TOR, 16 MON.


"There's not much difference between a 4 million person market and a 1.5 million person market" I can be on board with; but like the markets with 7m to 25m people just dominate financially and championships wise.

Don't know where you got you stats from but the Montreal and Toronto markets and teams generate a helluva more than any American team city in the NHL and as such are worth more in dineros,dollars,soldi...

 

[Jets4Life]

what team do people in QC usually cheer for?

The Habs.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Don't know where you got you stats from but the Montreal and Toronto markets and teams generate a helluva more than any American team city in the NHL and as such are worth more in dineros,dollars,soldi...

Toronto would be top 10 and Montreal top 15 if they were in US, metro population wise.

Hardly small cities.

 

[Reaser]

Toronto would be top 10 and Montreal top 15 if they were in US, metro population wise.

Hardly small cities.

This missing team/city off his top-10 most valuable list was Edmonton, fwiw.

 

[TheLegend]

Toronto would be top 10 and Montreal top 15 if they were in US, metro population wise.

Hardly small cities.

Toronto was #4 on the list of top North American media markets that I looked up the other day.

Atlanta was #7.

Didn’t get to see the entire list (subscription required)

 

[Reaser]

Your top 10 most valuable franchises in the NHL includes (order CSA rank)

1 NY, 1 NY, 2 LA, 3 CHI, 5 BOS, 7 PHI, 11 WAS, 12 TOR, 16 MON.

If you do the 10 least valuable franchises in the NHL, or work it down even further to 8 least valuable, half would be in the top-15, including CSA 2 and 4 -- at least from your own version of CSA ranks.

Also have a "1" that's just outside the Top-10.

So that, including leaving EDM off your top-10, conveniently or otherwise, needs more work/manipulation to say what you want it to say.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

If you do the 10 least valuable franchises in the NHL, or work it down even further to 8 least valuable, half would be in the top-15, including CSA 2 and 4 -- at least from your own version of CSA ranks.

Also have a "1" that's just outside the Top-10.

So that, including leaving EDM off your top-10, conveniently or otherwise, needs more work/manipulation to say what you want it to say.

I mean aside from EDM, every other team is from large cities.

EDM just seems like exception that proves the rule to me.

 

[Reaser]

I mean aside from EDM, every other team is from large cities.

EDM just seems like exception that proves the rule to me.

But you have CSA rank 2 as both the 4th and 25th most valuable NHL franchises. That's both ends of the spectrum.

Had one person essentially say, paraphrasing: "In hockey, market size doesn't guarantee success."

Had another respond with, we'll politely call them alternate statistics, paraphrasing: "Here's market ranks that prove that in hockey, market size guarantees success."

I have no real opinion on what Kimota said. I'm just not in favor of 'statistical' responses that leave out information. Again, conveniently or otherwise, while also leaving out the full picture.

Simply could list all 32 teams by their most-recent Forbes "current value" list, in order, then put their actual CSA # next to it and let it present the picture that it does. Could argue that market size increases the chance of success (success evidently being measured by what franchises are most-valuable, in this case) more so than any sort of absolutes or conclusions based off manipulated numbers and purposeful omission of informaton that doesn't fit the predetermined narrative.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Had one person essentially say, paraphrasing: "In hockey, market size doesn't guarantee success."

I think the original statement is true but have to caveat this applies in US.

Canada is exception. Cities size of Calgary and Edmonton can't support NFL, MLB or NBA team, usually.

 

[KevFu]

This missing team/city off his top-10 most valuable list was Edmonton, fwiw.

Yup. They're the outlier in the Top 10 most valuable franchises.

If you do the 10 least valuable franchises in the NHL, or work it down even further to 8 least valuable, half would be in the top-15, including CSA 2 and 4 -- at least from your own version of CSA ranks.

Also have a "1" that's just outside the Top-10.

So that, including leaving EDM off your top-10, conveniently or otherwise, needs more work/manipulation to say what you want it to say.

It's not totally linear, but it's a general trend that the biggest/best/richest clubs come from the majority of the biggest cities. And the big cities that aren't rich are all the places that got teams really really late and don't have 100 years of fan base built up. It's Miami and Phoenix in NHL AND BASEBALL, but just fine financially in football and basketball.

(Hell, the Clippers, Mets and Angels pretty much have sucked historically for 40 years. But they've been in LA and NY for 40 years, so they're among the richest franchises).

Even if you look at JUST Canada.. Toronto and Montreal: 37 Stanley Cups, 1-2 in the revenue. All cities smaller: 8 total Cups, much further behind in revenue.


Keep in mind that I'm very pro-Quebec expansion and not saying that every city should get teams based solely on population. I'm just saying the reason big markets tend to win over small markets for franchises is a big steaming pile of Duh. You're selling a product, and the more potential customers there are, the more potential revenue there is.

 

[KevFu]

But you have CSA rank 2 as both the 4th and 25th most valuable NHL franchises. That's both ends of the spectrum.

Well, I've made that argument for two decades: That having clubs 2, 15, 29 in revenue in the same New York market before UBS opens essentially proves that financial status is NOT MARKET, it's circumstance.

Had one person essentially say, paraphrasing: "In hockey, market size doesn't guarantee success."

Had another respond with, we'll politely call them alternate statistics, paraphrasing: "Here's market ranks that prove that in hockey, market size guarantees success."

One assumed you could see 9 out of 10 and understand an overall general trend, and the difference between "generally speaking" and "with occasional exceptions"...

I think the original statement is true but have to caveat this applies in US.

Canada is exception. Cities size of Calgary and Edmonton can't support NFL, MLB or NBA team, usually.

The key part to me though is understanding WHY there an exception. Why is Edmonton valued so highly while being small and why are bigger markets so low?

Because when you look at say baseball's list of top 10 most valuable, it's 9 for 9, and then one outlier as well: St. Louis. St. Louis went about 70 years being the furthest West and South team, has a long tradition of being really good (second all-time in Championships) and has a loyal fan base that runs generations deep. While big market Miami and Phoenix don't have generations of fans because they're the newest franchises. (Same with TB and DEN, who are also smaller markets than MIA/PHX).

In football, the outlier is Las Vegas, who's got support of deeeeeeeep pockets from the uber rich casino industry (sponsors), high roller fans, one of the best brands there is, support from basically three markets of fans who've loved the Raiders. How many LA fans feel like the Raiders are their team more than the Rams or Chargers?

And the NBA has literally no outliers. Toronto is the smallest market in the Top 10, while the next three are also the bigger markets: PHX, MIA, Brooklyn (who's in the biggest CSA but has always catered to a minority section of the market, whether that be Long Island, New Jersey or Brooklyn).

So why is it like that in hockey? Well for one, Edmonton has a new incredible arena, increasing their value, while Anaheim has a 31 year old arena and Phoenix has no arena. Edmonton has an extra generation of fans from being a franchise born 20 years earlier than the Ducks/Coyotes. And Edmonton has the best player in hockey -- for the second time in their history.

Hockey is different from the other sports simply because hockey was the smallest league that didn't start creating fans in half the bigger markets until the 1990s, and it just takes time to have generations of fans.


That's not a reason to never go to Quebec -- again, I'm very much in favor of Quebec -- but if all other things are equal, the bigger city is gonna be a richer team, simply because there's more people providing dollars instead of the same people providing dollars over and over again.

 

[End on a Hinote]

Quebec needs to put it to rest. I admire the ambition, but there are simply too many interest and larger markets in the US. Winnipeg was lucky to have had the stars align like they did to get their team back. If the Thrashers situation happened today there would be at least three markets ahead of them for dibs on the team.

Quebec needs to let. It. Go.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Fans wanting a team back is absolutely understandable. They should never let that go.

But dollars count, the mayor of Quebec or some local media types need to reach out to every Quebecois billionaire, or high nine-figures multimillionaire to form a bidding consortium, to try to find people willing to put up a billion dollars for a team. At least from the outside-looking-in, PKP of Quebecor does not appear willing to foot anything close to that bill.

Would that get them the Nordiques back? Dunno, but then it'd be an actual conversation versus empty pandering.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

well is there enough support to have two different leagues in the same arena and being successful..... that's what Quebec is facing since the Remparts established themselves in that market..... it's not just the arena as it once was it's ownership as you just saw with Deacon Sports collapsing citing financials and an anti-business environment in Newfoundland/Labrador (I bought solely into the premise that SJSE IS the primary issue in that market although they claim they're not all to blame )

 

[KevFu]

If you have markets like Winnipeg and Quebec who are head-over-heels all-in on your product, and they can't make it work financially, that means the financial structure of your league is messed up.

The NHL needs to go back to Quebec simply because it's the right thing to do and makes the league better. Fix your economics (RS) so that places which consider hockey the #1 sport and have 800,000 people can be more than hopefully viable; Cash in on the nostalgia factor amongst 40-50 year old people with disposable income while you still can.


I have had this weird belief that Bettman gets this and he's gonna welcome the 'Diques back right before he retires.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

If you have markets like Winnipeg and Quebec who are head-over-heels all-in on your product, and they can't make it work financially, that means the financial structure of your league is messed up.

The NHL needs to go back to Quebec simply because it's the right thing to do and makes the league better. Fix your economics (RS) so that places which consider hockey the #1 sport and have 800,000 people can be more than hopefully viable; Cash in on the nostalgia factor amongst 40-50 year old people with disposable income while you still can.


I have had this weird belief that Bettman gets this and he's gonna welcome the 'Diques back right before he retires.

uh, Kev...... why exactly has a province like Newfoundland summarily watched an NHL Franchise involvement like MLSE and Toronto fail twice..... once because the economics of a lease agreement keep getting renegotiated ad nauseum at the whim of an arena management company that claims they are not at fault for either the Leafs affiliates leaving, or in the Growlers case terminated before the season ended.....so who's at fault..... is it the NHL Ownership that summarily happens to own the affiliate or is it the private ownership like DSE that is financially insolvent..... because it's highly unlikely hockey will return to that province..... it also couldn't sustain two separate other NHL Franchises in Winnipeg, that was due to the Jets returning or Montreal, whose destination was Laval, which was temporary..... I think everyone agrees that the Colisee should've been replaced earlier than it did but that was another factor as to why COMSAT bought the Nordiques to Colorado.... why did the Devils bolt Colorado for New Jersey then..... it's also why Carolina has succeeded there after an ownership change and Hartford trmains Ranger territory and why XL hasn't been replaced since that transition...... nothing has essentially changed to bring a bid to Quebec nor has an Eastern Conference team been a target to relocate..... why has Carolina won the the trademark right to the nostalgia that was the New England, later Hartford Whalers.... has Colorado ever honored the Nordiques since the transition there, even though the Avalanche have a Stanley Cup of 2 since that transfer.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

If you have markets like Winnipeg and Quebec who are head-over-heels all-in on your product, and they can't make it work financially, that means the financial structure of your league is messed up.

The NHL needs to go back to Quebec simply because it's the right thing to do and makes the league better. Fix your economics (RS) so that places which consider hockey the #1 sport and have 800,000 people can be more than hopefully viable; Cash in on the nostalgia factor amongst 40-50 year old people with disposable income while you still can.


I have had this weird belief that Bettman gets this and he's gonna welcome the 'Diques back right before he retires.

Couple things this doesn't take into account...Growth and Corporate money. I have zero doubt that the first 5-10 years, QC would be sold out with a waiting list. But, the metro area has a growth rate below 1% annually. It's only grown by 100K over the last 15 years, so you're relying on those same fans EVERY year and EVERY game to buy tickets. In a city of 840,000, that's a huge ask.

The slow population growth also means the corporate growth will likely be slow so ownership will be knocking on the same doors for suites and advertising EVERY year. Won't work.

I'd love to see my Whalers come back, but nostalgia can run dry pretty quickly.

 

[Salsero1]

Couple things this doesn't take into account...Growth and Corporate money. I have zero doubt that the first 5-10 years, QC would be sold out with a waiting list. But, the metro area has a growth rate below 1% annually. It's only grown by 100K over the last 15 years, so you're relying on those same fans EVERY year and EVERY game to buy tickets. In a city of 840,000, that's a huge ask.

The slow population growth also means the corporate growth will likely be slow so ownership will be knocking on the same doors for suites and advertising EVERY year. Won't work.

I'd love to see my Whalers come back, but nostalgia can run dry pretty quickly.

Then you have to accout for how expensive the ticket packages will be that normal people are going to be expected to buy forever. There's little room for STM turnover.

Then you have to accept that QC would be a very unattractive destination for players.

You'll see the same issues and new ones as Winnipeg.

I really don't see how QC makes the league "better". Atlanta would make the league better.

 

[patnyrnyg]

The commissioner works for the owners. If the owners don't see any value in QC then it's not going to happen, it doesn't matter what a new commissioner thinks and i doubt they're going to hire a traditionalist anyway if they're smart. The NHL has done fine without it.

Yes, but the owners listen to him. Most of the owners are not hockey people. They know they have Bettman to run the show and they trust his judgement of what is best.