Quebec City trying to keep the flame alive

[Channelcat]

We can talk about supposed promises until we're blue in the face. The real important issue is that there doesn't appear to be a party in Quebec willing to pay even half of what the NHL is expecting for an expansion team nowadays.

We had 3 groups interested in the Senators at similar money, so I can't see why not. Quebec almost sounds like a better situation.

 

[SImpelton]

I actually suspect that the next shot for QC to have a team is not pulling one up from the south, but rather the beginnings of renewed financial issues in Winnipeg.

Winnipeg is by far the tiniest market in the league and they rely heavily on keeping the good times rolling to stay solvent. let's just say I've been hearing rumblings of cracks in the foundation over there. Nothing concrete, but all is not well.

QC may well function as a port of last resort to prevent another Canadian team from fleeing south

 

[Tawnos]

if you looked at the 20 potential NHL Expansion options go a step further and rank those 20 teams in terms of not just population but as a Hockey MARKET. A few years back when Brian Burke was GM of the Canucks he used to throw out this line from time to time about how Vancouver is the world’s Third largest Hockey market. Based on youth Hockey,adult recreational and hockey first fans above all other Sports in their city.im Curious as to where Quebec City lies in the world hockey markets ranking system.

It doesn’t matter. The single most important factor in expansion is growth potential for the league as a whole. If you looked at 20 potential expansion markets, QC would be near the bottom for growth potential.

An existing, strong hockey culture is largely a negative for expansion. The ideal market is really one where there’s an existing, middling hockey culture. That’s why Seattle was attractive. That’s why SLC is attractive. That’s why Portland is always on the list.

 

[joelef]

Nobody in Quebec has been willing to pay a billion for an nhl franchise. Quebecer was on his at knees begging for a discount.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

We had 3 groups interested in the Senators at similar money, so I can't see why not. Quebec almost sounds like a better situation.

I'd like Quebec City to get a team, but the area's basically been radio silent since the Vegas expansion fee of half a billion was announced, and since then that would look like a discount.

I won't remotely pretend to know QC very well, but the silence (aside from empty platitudes) is seemingly damning.

But, as Utah showed, all it takes is one billionaire to open up their wallets and things can change fast.

 

[BigT2002]

I'd like Quebec City to get a team, but the area's basically been radio silent since the Vegas expansion fee of half a billion was announced, and since then that would look like a discount.

I won't remotely pretend to know QC very well, but the silence (aside from empty platitudes) is seemingly damning.

But, as Utah showed, all it takes is one billionaire to open up their wallets and things can change fast.

If they ever do another expansion, they'll need to do 4 cities to make it work, no? I believe that was the NFL's excuse for it because you need 4 from 32 to balance the conference out.

 

[edog37]

So on the one hand - yes have some pity for Quebec City. They had a moderately successful team for several years. It relocated due to money struggle of the owner, not lack of support. The team then won the Stanley Cup the following year after relocation.

Years later the NHL then, with a wink and a nod, urged Quebec City to build a modern NHL-caliber arena which they did. But no team has moved in. And there's every reason to think a QC franchise would do well financially.


But on the other hand - pity doesn't mean QC is getting a team. And it doesn't look like they are. Money is the only thing that talks.

Lots of historical revision.

The league never nodded anything towards QC. Bettman was rather adamant that building an arena was done at risk & that the league had no obligation to go there.

There’s fundamentally no reason to think any Canadian market (except Toronto, Montreal, & Vancouver) can do well financially. Winnipeg has attendance issues despite playing in a small arena, Ottawa has been a dumpster fire for years, Calgary has an arena problem until the new one gets built, & Edmonton barely sold out a playoff game. The Canadian dollar is currently at .73 to the US dollar. That was at 1990s levels. Would the league have to gin up another rescue plan like the one from the early 2000s? Also, given the small size of the market, there’s good reason to think a second go around would result in another relocation.

Here’s a twist…it’s highly unlikely any of the other Canadian teams would welcome a QC team back into the league. Montreal doesn’t want another team in the province. The others didn’t lift a finger to help the Nordiques 1.0 the last time either. Why split the TV money smaller?

 

[Melrose Munch]

Lots of historical revision.

The league never nodded anything towards QC. Bettman was rather adamant that building an arena was done at risk & that the league had no obligation to go there.

There’s fundamentally no reason to think any Canadian market (except Toronto, Montreal, & Vancouver) can do well financially. Winnipeg has attendance issues despite playing in a small arena, Ottawa has been a dumpster fire for years, Calgary has an arena problem until the new one gets built, & Edmonton barely sold out a playoff game. The Canadian dollar is currently at .73 to the US dollar. That was at 1990s levels. Would the league have to gin up another rescue plan like the one from the early 2000s? Also, given the small size of the market, there’s good reason to think a second go around would result in another relocation.

Here’s a twist…it’s highly unlikely any of the other Canadian teams would welcome a QC team back into the league. Montreal doesn’t want another team in the province. The others didn’t lift a finger to help the Nordiques 1.0 the last time either. Why split the TV money smaller?

Let's be honest, how many American markets are better than Edmonton, Calgary, or Winnipeg hockey wise? Not many, but the reality is due to pressure, media and taxes, players would rather be in the US where they are anonymous. Maybe they wouldn't welcome the Nordiques back, but they should be aware of the fact hockey is getting less popular in Canada as the days go by.

 

[KevFu]

It doesn’t matter. The single most important factor in expansion is growth potential for the league as a whole. If you looked at 20 potential expansion markets, QC would be near the bottom for growth potential.

An existing, strong hockey culture is largely a negative for expansion. The ideal market is really one where there’s an existing, middling hockey culture. That’s why Seattle was attractive. That’s why SLC is attractive. That’s why Portland is always on the list.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think the powers that be look at things in such basic terms like that. "Growth Potential" is another way of saying that something "Isn't there yet." Connor McDavid has very little growth potential, because he's THERE. It's just not possible to be much better than that.

It's all about the economic "line" of value, and owners have tended to value to the potential of making big money in a playoff run from the bandwagon than the certainty of tiny modest profits.

But all that's to say I don't think the NHL automatically dismisses the value of Quebec. I think we've placed a faulty narrative on "the league" and it's view of Quebec because we know the people of Quebec want a team; No one says the same thing about Hartford, because no one's tried to put an NHL team in Hartford since the Whalers left. Their mayor has said things, but their mayor wasn't offering $500 million at the time, was he?


The most logical explanation is that the price tag on expansion is simply too large for someone from Quebec to buy-in. It's not "market" as much as there's not a LIST of QC billionaires you can sell the team to every decade, since the profit will come from SALE, not ownership.

A modest profits of like $10m a year isn't going to pay off a $2 billion expansion fee until 2230, and you'll be dead, so where's the ROI?

 

[Tawnos]

I get what you're saying, but I don't think the powers that be look at things in such basic terms like that. "Growth Potential" is another way of saying that something "Isn't there yet." Connor McDavid has very little growth potential, because he's THERE. It's just not possible to be much better than that.

It's all about the economic "line" of value, and owners have tended to value to the potential of making big money in a playoff run from the bandwagon than the certainty of tiny modest profits.

But all that's to say I don't think the NHL automatically dismisses the value of Quebec. I think we've placed a faulty narrative on "the league" and it's view of Quebec because we know the people of Quebec want a team; No one says the same thing about Hartford, because no one's tried to put an NHL team in Hartford since the Whalers left. Their mayor has said things, but their mayor wasn't offering $500 million at the time, was he?


The most logical explanation is that the price tag on expansion is simply too large for someone from Quebec to buy-in. It's not "market" as much as there's not a LIST of QC billionaires you can sell the team to every decade, since the profit will come from SALE, not ownership.

A modest profits of like $10m a year isn't going to pay off a $2 billion expansion fee until 2230, and you'll be dead, so where's the ROI?

Growth is the main motivating factor in all big business in our capitalist system. And yeah, you're right about what growth potential is another term for. That's my whole point.

Also, no one says the same thing about Hartford? I do and I'm not the only person who has made this argument. The biggest issue with Hartford is that most of the people in their likely market are already fans of the Bruins or Rangers (or even Islanders). They don't have a high growth potential, and I don't think the league (yes, the league) has any real interest in going back there because of it.

The lack of potential ownership willing and able to pay that price is absolutely a knock on the market. Much like we ask "why couldn't the Coyotes attract a top notch owner," we also have to ask "why aren't there the potential owners in QC?"

 

[KevFu]

Growth is the main motivating factor in all big business in our capitalist system. And yeah, you're right about what growth potential is another term for. That's my whole point.

Also, no one says the same thing about Hartford? I do and I'm not the only person who has made this argument. The biggest issue with Hartford is that most of the people in their likely market are already fans of the Bruins or Rangers (or even Islanders). They don't have a high growth potential, and I don't think the league (yes, the league) has any real interest in going back there because of it.

The lack of potential ownership willing and able to pay that price is absolutely a knock on the market. Much like we ask "why couldn't the Coyotes attract a top notch owner," we also have to ask "why aren't there the potential owners in QC?"

What I meant about Hartford is that there's no owner saying "I have the money." The only person to talk about bringing the NHL back to Connecticut has been politicians.


The faulty narrative is that CITIES get teams. They don't. OWNERS do. (If Les Alexander wrote an expansion check 30 years ago, we'd be debating "where the Dallas/Houston rivalry ranks" and not "where Houston vs Austin ranks on the expansion board.").

The NHL isn't on the hook if an owner loses money, the owner is. It's illogical to me that the NHL would take the view that Quebec is too small when they've been borderline eager on Winnipeg ("If the Coyotes go anywhere, it should be back to Winnipeg!" and shipping the Thrashers there lickity split), which is SMALLER than Quebec.


The NHL's narrative is always going to be what gets their owners free arenas from cities. NOT going to cities that build one wanting a team is BAD for the rest of the league; Not having a team in Quebec after they built an arena is counter to the argument that "All you have to do is keep the arena gravy train flowing." Thus It stands to reason that if PKP had the cash, his arena would have an NHL team in it.

 

[Tawnos]

What I meant about Hartford is that there's no owner saying "I have the money." The only person to talk about bringing the NHL back to Connecticut has been politicians.


The faulty narrative is that CITIES get teams. They don't. OWNERS do. (If Les Alexander wrote an expansion check 30 years ago, we'd be debating "where the Dallas/Houston rivalry ranks" and not "where Houston vs Austin ranks on the expansion board.").

The NHL isn't on the hook if an owner loses money, the owner is. It's illogical to me that the NHL would take the view that Quebec is too small when they've been borderline eager on Winnipeg ("If the Coyotes go anywhere, it should be back to Winnipeg!" and shipping the Thrashers there lickity split), which is SMALLER than Quebec.


The NHL's narrative is always going to be what gets their owners free arenas from cities. NOT going to cities that build one wanting a team is BAD for the rest of the league; Not having a team in Quebec after they built an arena is counter to the argument that "All you have to do is keep the arena gravy train flowing." Thus It stands to reason that if PKP had the cash, his arena would have an NHL team in it.

Winnipeg wasn't an expansion team, and the experience there is proving why QC isn't a good idea.

Of course you need the owner component, but c'mon man, it can't just be about the owner. Do you really think that if David Thomson wanted to own an NHL team in Saskatoon rather than Winnipeg, the NHL would be on board? There's a reason why he wouldn't... and it's the market.

 

[KevFu]

Of course you need the owner component, but c'mon man, it can't just be about the owner. Do you really think that if David Thomson wanted to own an NHL team in Saskatoon rather than Winnipeg, the NHL would be on board? There's a reason why he wouldn't... and it's the market.

I hear your argument. I obviously agree that someone offering $2b and wanting to put an NHL team somewhere like Hattiesburg, Mississippi; the NHL is NOT expanding there. But

#1 - Guys who make enough money to wave $2 billion checks at the NHL aren't dumb enough to think they can make money on hockey in Hattiesburg.
#2 - The NHL is still taking that meeting. They're gonna say "look, Hattiesburg isn't happening. What about Austin or Birmingham?"


My argument is that the assumption that the PKP has the money but the NHL is rejecting Quebec City as a market is probably not correct.

(Supporting evidence being that it runs counter to the narrative they want to project regarding arenas being constructed; and counter to the fact that Winnipeg is smaller than Quebec and the NHL allowed a team to be moved there; and Raleigh, which in the mid-90s was like barely bigger than QC is now, was also an approved relocaton).

I believe the NHL's view is "once you have the cheque" and PKP's in a "Well, about that..." kind of position. And QC is screwed because every second he doesn't have the expansion fee, the price keeps going up and up.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

At the very least, if some Saskatooner offered the NHL a billion dollars, Gary would at least have a sitdown with them... even if only to try to steer them to considering making that offer on behalf of a team to play in a different city.

It'd at least open the door.

 

[Tawnos]

I hear your argument. I obviously agree that someone offering $2b and wanting to put an NHL team somewhere like Hattiesburg, Mississippi; the NHL is NOT expanding there. But

#1 - Guys who make enough money to wave $2 billion checks at the NHL aren't dumb enough to think they can make money on hockey in Hattiesburg.
#2 - The NHL is still taking that meeting. They're gonna say "look, Hattiesburg isn't happening. What about Austin or Birmingham?"


My argument is that the assumption that the PKP has the money but the NHL is rejecting Quebec City as a market is probably not correct.

(Supporting evidence being that it runs counter to the narrative they want to project regarding arenas being constructed; and counter to the fact that Winnipeg is smaller than Quebec and the NHL allowed a team to be moved there; and Raleigh, which in the mid-90s was like barely bigger than QC is now, was also an approved relocaton).

I believe the NHL's view is "once you have the cheque" and PKP's in a "Well, about that..." kind of position. And QC is screwed because every second he doesn't have the expansion fee, the price keeps going up and up.

So then you agree... it isn't just the owner.

 

[KevFu]

So then you agree... it isn't just the owner.

I do, I just don't care about "winning the argument" as much as I care about "discussing the issue."

 

[edog37]

Let's be honest, how many American markets are better than Edmonton, Calgary, or Winnipeg hockey wise? Not many, but the reality is due to pressure, media and taxes, players would rather be in the US where they are anonymous. Maybe they wouldn't welcome the Nordiques back, but they should be aware of the fact hockey is getting less popular in Canada as the days go by.

There are many US markets far superior to Edmonton, Calgary & Winnipeg. This absurd Canadian myth ended a long time ago.

 

[Melrose Munch]

There are many US markets far superior to Edmonton, Calgary & Winnipeg. This absurd Canadian myth ended a long time ago.

Name them!

 

[edog37]

Name them!

The entire Eastern Conference except Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Buffalo, Columbus & New Jersey for starters.


Out west, LA, Minnesota, Chicago, Vegas, Dallas, Colorado & St Louis.

 

[Melrose Munch]

The entire Eastern Conference except Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Buffalo, Columbus & New Jersey for starters.


Out west, LA, Minnesota, Chicago, Vegas, Dallas, Colorado & St Louis.

none of them other than Toronto, Buffalo (good choice).

LA is a so so market. Chicago, meh.

 

[edog37]

none of them other than Toronto, Buffalo (good choice).

LA is a so so market. Chicago, meh.

I didn’t pick the Canadian teams because you asked for US markets. The others stand

 

[Yukon Joe]

There are many US markets far superior to Edmonton, Calgary & Winnipeg. This absurd Canadian myth ended a long time ago.

I think you're just trolling here.

Using Forbes numbers (which are flawed, but all we have) the Edmonton Oilers, with $281 million in operating revenue, are tied for top of the league together with TML. Calgary Flames are at $183 mil operative revenue which puts them middle of the NHL - and if they could ever get that new arena built there's no reason you couldn't see them up there with Edmonton (Calgary is a larger, and generally wealthier city than Edmonton).

Winnipeg is bottom five at $162 mil operating revenue, but I don't think that's shocking. Winnipeg is in the league because of history and because they were in the right place at the right time.

You did miss out on Ottawa also which has the lowest revenue in the league except for Arizona - but again new ownership and a new arena lots of reasons to think that'll go up.

https://www.forbes.com/lists/nhl-valuations/?sh=54551fae4109

So again I don't know what this "absurd myth" is. I don't think anyone ever said that every Canadian market is better than every US market. Obviously teams and markets like NYC, Boston, Chicago are all excellent places to have an NHL franchise. But I'd much rather have a team in a secondary Canadian market like Edmonton then in a secondary US market like St Louis.

 

[Fatass]

There are many US markets far superior to Edmonton, Calgary & Winnipeg. This absurd Canadian myth ended a long time ago.

Perhaps for profitability but certainly not for fan interest. Canadian teams will always be Kings for fan interest compared to US based clubs.

 

[edog37]

I think you're just trolling here.

Using Forbes numbers (which are flawed, but all we have) the Edmonton Oilers, with $281 million in operating revenue, are tied for top of the league together with TML. Calgary Flames are at $183 mil operative revenue which puts them middle of the NHL - and if they could ever get that new arena built there's no reason you couldn't see them up there with Edmonton (Calgary is a larger, and generally wealthier city than Edmonton).

Winnipeg is bottom five at $162 mil operating revenue, but I don't think that's shocking. Winnipeg is in the league because of history and because they were in the right place at the right time.

You did miss out on Ottawa also which has the lowest revenue in the league except for Arizona - but again new ownership and a new arena lots of reasons to think that'll go up.

https://www.forbes.com/lists/nhl-valuations/?sh=54551fae4109

So again I don't know what this "absurd myth" is. I don't think anyone ever said that every Canadian market is better than every US market. Obviously teams and markets like NYC, Boston, Chicago are all excellent places to have an NHL franchise. But I'd much rather have a team in a secondary Canadian market like Edmonton then in a secondary US market like St Louis.

Oh this fake narrative has been in here a long time. It’s why you hear absurd notions that Regina, Saskatoon, & Halifax get mentioned in addition to QC.

And why would you prefer Edmonton over St Louis? That’s absurd.

Perhaps for profitability but certainly not for fan interest. Canadian teams will always be Kings for fan interest compared to US based clubs.

That’s another myth

 

[Yukon Joe]

Oh this fake narrative has been in here a long time. It’s why you hear absurd notions that Regina, Saskatoon, & Halifax get mentioned in addition to QC.

And why would you prefer Edmonton over St Louis? That’s absurd.

People suggesting Saskatoon, Regina or Halifax are widely shot down - including by Canadians.

Edmonton over St Louis isn't absurd at all. Sure, St Louis is larger (metro pop 2.8 mil to 1.4 mil), but Oilers are the dominant #1 sports presence in the market. St Louis the Blues are number two behind the Cardinals, and used to be #3 behind the Rams as well.

And numbers don't lie - Edmonton revenue of $281 mil, St Louis revenue of $184 million.