The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Is there any way the Leafs actually support a team in Markham?
I mean they're owned by Bell (TSN) and Rogers (Sprotsnet) so 82 more Toronto based games + new rivalries and stories with the two existing Ontario teams. I don't really see how they'd lose in this situation.
Am I crazy for thinking that hockey would fail in Seatle? They'll have to share that building with another team... I know it's not exactly the same as Atlanta, but we did do something like that in Atlanta and it didn't work out. Quebec and Toronto should be getting teams before a market which is yet to be a proven market.
If the NHL is crying about losing money then why on earth aren't they moving these money losing teams to markets they know will succeed? Nobody is expecting the Canadian dollar to do a nosedive anytime soon, so I don't know why Quebec city isn't first in line.
The owners are saying that they don't want to up the revenue sharing too much, but it sounds like they're going to have to do it. They're going to have more teams to share revenue with if they end up moving a team to some market which has 90% casual fans.
Am I crazy for thinking that hockey would fail in Seatle? They'll have to share that building with another team... I know it's not exactly the same as Atlanta, but we did do something like that in Atlanta and it didn't work out. Quebec and Toronto should be getting teams before a market which is yet to be a proven market.
If the NHL is crying about losing money then why on earth aren't they moving these money losing teams to markets they know will succeed? Nobody is expecting the Canadian dollar to do a nosedive anytime soon, so I don't know why Quebec city isn't first in line.
The owners are saying that they don't want to up the revenue sharing too much, but it sounds like they're going to have to do it. They're going to have more teams to share revenue with if they end up moving a team to some market which has 90% casual fans.
The Kings share a building with two NBA teams. The Blackhawks share a building. So do the Rangers. That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but I'd bet there's more.
The Kings share a building with two NBA teams. The Blackhawks share a building. So do the Rangers. That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but I'd bet there's more.
Toronto, Boston, New Jersey (but not anymore), Philadelphia, Washington, Colorado, and Dallas round out the list.
Several teams share buildings. Bruins/Celtics, Sixers/Flyers, Caps/Bullets, Leafs/Raptors, Devils and Nets did for a long time, then the Devils left, then the Nets followed them to Newark before heading to Brooklyn. Rangers/Knicks, Lakers/Kings/Clippers, Avalanche/Nuggets, Wild/Timberwolves, Stars/Mavericks,
Good luck getting Pittsburgh and Philly to agree to split up.
Also, good luck getting NBC to agree to get Pittsburgh out of the NBC friendly division they are in.
These things are about more than just geography.
Did you not see my post? They did it twice already making it 3 isn't going to change anything. This is one of those instances where keeping Pittsburgh with Philly is more of a hassle and would wreck what ever balance there is in the east just like in 1974 and 1993. How stupid is it to put teams from Florida with teams from Canada just to preserve 1 so called rivalry? Philly and Pitt aren't even in the same division in other sports and it works for them. Just like how everyone except the NBA keeps the NY teams separated.
NBC can go screw as they're already on the hook for 9 more years so the NHL can do whatever it wants.
Just for TV NHL(as of now):
CBC division - Mon, Tor, Van, Win, Cal, Edm, Ott
NBC division - Chi, Det, NYR, Phil, Bos, Pit, Wash, Buf
NBCSN division - SJ, St.L TB, LA, Min, Dal. Ana, Nash
OTA division - Fla, NYI, Phx, Col, Col, Car, NJ
Did you not see my post? They did it twice already making it 3 isn't going to change anything. This is one of those instances where keeping Pittsburgh with Philly is more of a hassle and would wreck what ever balance there is in the east just like in 1974 and 1993. How stupid is it to put teams from Florida with teams from Canada just to preserve 1 so called rivalry? Philly and Pitt aren't even in the same division in other sports and it works for them. Just like how everyone except the NBA keeps the NY teams separated.
NBC can go screw as they're already on the hook for 9 more years so the NHL can do whatever it wants.
Just for TV NHL(as of now):
CBC division - Mon, Tor, Van, Win, Cal, Edm, Ott
NBC division - Chi, Det, NYR, Phil, Bos, Pit, Wash, Buf
NBCSN division - SJ, St.L TB, LA, Min, Dal. Ana, Nash
OTA division - Fla, NYI, Phx, Col, Col, Car, NJ
If anything, I would love to see the NFL and MLB go to an East-West format instead of the American-National. However, it was done based on the merging of two leagues and they stuck with it. For a LONG time the American and National Leagues were completely separate, just came together for the World Series. Everyone knows about the AFL-NFL.
Here is what I would love to see in the NFL. Even set up a computer game like this once, although I know it would never happen in real life.
Western Conference
Norris
Packers
Bears
Rams
Vikings
Central
Bengals
Saints
Chiefs
Colts
Midwest
Broncos
Cardinals
Cowboys
Texans
Pacific
Seahawks
Niners
Raiders
Chargers
I know, I know, people don't want to ruin current rivalries. I love hating the cowboys and skins. Jets fans love hating the dolphins and bills. However, new rivalries will form real fast.
Human Conference
mythical creatures division
Giants
seahawks
Saints
Titans
industrial division
jets
packers
steelers
Bills (change the concept from "Buffalo Bill" to "Dollar Bill"
Pillage division
Bucs
Raiders
Patriots
Vikings
Old West Division
Niners
Chiefs
Redskins
Texans
Originally, this had the Titans as the Oilers, thus in the industry division and the Bills in the Mythical creatures division.
You messed up, switch the Seahawks and the Bills then the Browns and the Bills then it would be right. The Browns former alt logo was an elf or something. A Seahawk is a name of a plane/boat. The Bills can stay an animal in that scenario.
Did you not see my post? They did it twice already making it 3 isn't going to change anything. This is one of those instances where keeping Pittsburgh with Philly is more of a hassle and would wreck what ever balance there is in the east just like in 1974 and 1993. How stupid is it to put teams from Florida with teams from Canada just to preserve 1 so called rivalry? Philly and Pitt aren't even in the same division in other sports and it works for them. Just like how everyone except the NBA keeps the NY teams separated.
NBC can go screw as they're already on the hook for 9 more years so the NHL can do whatever it wants.
Just for TV NHL(as of now):
CBC division - Mon, Tor, Van, Win, Cal, Edm, Ott
NBC division - Chi, Det, NYR, Phil, Bos, Pit, Wash, Buf
NBCSN division - SJ, St.L TB, LA, Min, Dal. Ana, Nash
OTA division - Fla, NYI, Phx, Col, Col, Car, NJ
if you have ever seen a game with the habs or leafs in tampa or florida, you would understand why it makes sense.
besides at least one of those teams will be gone soon
I think this move was pretty obvious with the proposed alignment put forth by the NHL last year. 4 division and two with only 7...
I think this makes a lot of sense and would add tons of revenue to the league. Adding two teams to Canada, and moving Phoenix to Seattle would really help the league, at least on the money front.
I do think this is a bad idea for the actual product of the NHL. But who cares about that when money talks.
If the NHL was smart, which they are not for the fact that they are expanding now and not contracting, these would be the divisions:
West: Seattle(Phoenix), LA, Anahiem, San Jose, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Colorado
MidWest: Detroit, Toronto #2, Dallas, Minnesota, Winnepeg, Chicago, St Louis, Columbus
Northeast: Montreal, Quebec, Toronto Leafs, Ottawa, Buffalo, Boston, NY Rangers, NY Islanders
East: New Jersey, Philly, Pittsburgh, Washington, Tampa Bay, Florida, Carolina, Nashville
These divisions work time zone wise. The two Toronto teams are in different divisions to allow the new franchise to grow and separate itself from the Leafs. The current Atlantic division is split for overall league prosperity. It makes no sense to put the Rangers, Flyers, Penguins, and now Washington into one division. Those four franchises are among the most profitable and have good fan bases, though that hasn't always been the case with Pittsburgh and Washington. It makes sense geographically keeping all the "southern teams" together and playoff wise. Under the current proposal, only one of those teams (rangers, caps, pens, flyers) could make the semifinals. Now two can. Plus you have an original six feel to the Northeast division. Philly would not like losing the New York rivalries but they have one of the largest fan followings in the US and should take one for the good of the league and help out the Southern franchises.
No matter how it happens I think that after 45 years people in Toronto need to finally have a team.
Just because we haven't had a Stanley Cup champion or any recent success doesn't mean we haven't had a team. And how good do you really think an expansion team would be?
A second team here wouldn't go over very well. You get some Leafs haters here, but most of them are pretty loyal to another franchise. Outside of that the vast majority of hockey fans are Leafs fans. This isn't a market where a second team would be successful. They'd be the Islanders part 2. There are far too many entire families and generations of families who are Leafs fans (among hockey fans). We've dealt with a losing team for 7 seasons and people aren't jumping ship. Fans here are far to loyal to change allegiance to an expansion team. Their support would be minimal among hardcore hockey fans in the GTA.
Maybe Hamilton can support a team, but would the NHL really sink the Buffalo market like that? And would Buffalo and Toronto allow a team in their territory? I doubt it. If (and it's unlikely that it happens) the NHL expands in Canada we'll see teams in Quebec City and Hamilton. There won't be another team in the GTA.
if you have ever seen a game with the habs or leafs in tampa or florida, you would understand why it makes sense.
besides at least one of those teams will be gone soon
cool story on telling nbc to screw.
Let me guess, because old farts show up right? Just like in baseball, Rays-Yankees/Red Sox are popular since only fans of the road teams bother showing up. Still a stupid reason to align them together.
Which one? The one with the lease til 2030(Florida) or the one possibly getting a new arena(Tampa)?
It is a cool story since NBC has no say in the matter since they're in year 2 of a 10 year deal. It's not like it's going to stop them airing all the Flyer and Ranger games that they want anyway. Besides they(Philly & the NY trio) can use the Florida markets more than Canada since there is already an MLB connection with Miami & Philly and NY & Miami and Tampa and a NFL connection with Philly & Wash and NY & Miami.
Just because we haven't had a Stanley Cup champion or any recent success doesn't mean we haven't had a team. And how good do you really think an expansion team would be?
A second team here wouldn't go over very well. You get some Leafs haters here, but most of them are pretty loyal to another franchise. Outside of that the vast majority of hockey fans are Leafs fans. This isn't a market where a second team would be successful. They'd be the Islanders part 2. There are far too many entire families and generations of families who are Leafs fans (among hockey fans). We've dealt with a losing team for 7 seasons and people aren't jumping ship. Fans here are far to loyal to change allegiance to an expansion team. Their support would be minimal among hardcore hockey fans in the GTA.
Maybe Hamilton can support a team, but would the NHL really sink the Buffalo market like that? And would Buffalo and Toronto allow a team in their territory? I doubt it. If (and it's unlikely that it happens) the NHL expands in Canada we'll see teams in Quebec City and Hamilton. There won't be another team in the GTA.
There are enough people who have become fans of random teams just out of disgust for the Leafs that they would not have a problem picking up a new team. The big difference between the Islanders and a second Toronto team is that Markham is a better location than Long Island (I have lived in both Long Island and the GTA) If you live in Long Island you almost have to work in NYC. Getting to the Nassau Coliseum by a 7:05 start is nearly impossible if you get out of work 530 or later. The GTA has a decidedly northern sprawl there are plenty of office parks going up in the York Region and there is a train station right next to the proposed arena. So they won't suffer from a lot of the issues the Islanders do.
Several teams share buildings. Bruins/Celtics, Sixers/Flyers, Caps/Bullets, Leafs/Raptors, Devils and Nets did for a long time, then the Devils left, then the Nets followed them to Newark before heading to Brooklyn. Rangers/Knicks, Lakers/Kings/Clippers, Avalanche/Nuggets, Wild/Timberwolves, Stars/Mavericks,
The Wild play at Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul and the Timberwolves play at Target Center in Minneapolis.
The funniest thing about those two playing in the same arena is that they have different capacities for the Clippers and the Lakers. I think it is only a small handful of seats but still...how do they configure it differently from one to the other!
Sure it would. If people could afford tickets to see them, when they can't afford Leafs tickets, the team would do very well. Once they became competitive they would do even better (especially if the Leafs still aren't competitive).
Quote:
We've dealt with a losing team for 7 seasons and people aren't jumping ship.
Because there is no other local option.
Quote:
Fans here are far to loyal to change allegiance to an expansion team. Their support would be minimal among hardcore hockey fans in the GTA.
I disagree. I think they would support both teams.
How would they do an expansion without dealing with a needed realignment?
The four conferences idea that the NHL floated a year or so back was the main reason why so many people, myself included, started thinking that the NHL was seriously contemplating an expansion, though. It was practically built with the idea of accommodating teams being added and/or Phoenix relocating. If QC and Markham both get teams, it might be a tad difficult to maneuver the two eastern conferences without breaking up rivalries, but their last proposal included fluctuating around putting the two Florida teams in with Canada, so they're clearly willing to be creative to protect major rivalries like Toronto/Montreal, Philly/Pittsburgh, Chicago/Detroit, etc.
I'm sure that they'd think of something, even if would be as drastic as splitting up Florida and Tampa Bay, something that both fanbases would decry but no one to north of Jacksonville would care at all about.
But if instead of QC and Markham it was QC and Seattle (and Houston if one of those other markets got a relocation), realignment would be relatively easy into the four conference set up, even if it was ultimately identical to the one that got proposed and shot down by the NHLPA.
The four conferences idea that the NHL floated a year or so back was the main reason why so many people, myself included, started thinking that the NHL was seriously contemplating an expansion, though. It was practically built with the idea of accommodating teams being added and/or Phoenix relocating. If QC and Markham both get teams, it might be a tad difficult to maneuver the two eastern conferences without breaking up rivalries, but their last proposal included fluctuating around putting the two Florida teams in with Canada, so they're clearly willing to be creative to protect major rivalries like Toronto/Montreal, Philly/Pittsburgh, Chicago/Detroit, etc.
IF Expansion is indeed seriously being considered, it is so as an offer to the PA,... more jobs.
The funniest thing about those two playing in the same arena is that they have different capacities for the Clippers and the Lakers. I think it is only a small handful of seats but still...how do they configure it differently from one to the other!
Did you not see my post? They did it twice already making it 3 isn't going to change anything. This is one of those instances where keeping Pittsburgh with Philly is more of a hassle and would wreck what ever balance there is in the east just like in 1974 and 1993. How stupid is it to put teams from Florida with teams from Canada just to preserve 1 so called rivalry? Philly and Pitt aren't even in the same division in other sports and it works for them. Just like how everyone except the NBA keeps the NY teams separated.
