HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

NHL to Expand 2 teams in Canada - THN

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-14-2012, 07:45 PM
  #876
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleaf View Post
Is that because of the lease situation? Columbus is a nice city, too bad they can't get more fans in the building.
Too Bad the fans can't get a better team to play in front of them after 12 years! No one can really in all honesty blame the fans of Columbus.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 08:42 PM
  #877
candyman82
Registered User
 
candyman82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 2,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleaf View Post
Is that because of the lease situation? Columbus is a nice city, too bad they can't get more fans in the building.
They sold out for a while, but the team has blown for so long that many fans are fed up. And yes, the lease situation binds them to Nationwide Arena until 2039

candyman82 is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 09:10 PM
  #878
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingJet View Post
Six places I would expand to are:

Canada: Quebec City, Saskatoon and if their moving a team in the Toronto Area, I say put it in Hamilton.

USA: Seattle, Kansas City and Milwaukee, Houston wouldn't be a bad idea, same with Oklahoma City, but I think Utah isn't a bad idea Either

Quebec Nordiques/Voyagaurs
Saskatoon... Can't think of one
Hamilton Steelers
Seattle Thunderbirds/Americans/Totems
Kansas City Bullets?
Utah Miners
Oklahoma City Oaks
Hamilton Steelhawks, bro!

DyerMaker66 is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:12 PM
  #879
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,485
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Saskatoon could happen..... in a century or so. Until the 2100's, not gonna happen.

I'd be half willing to lay odds that Atlanta will get a third team before Saskatoon gets their first NHL team.

As for OKC..... also a way's off, in all likelihood, if at all. More likely than not, the NBA will cover the market for a while until they eventually get an NFL team, and that'll be that for the very foreseeable future.

Salt Lake City does make a lot of sense as a longterm expansion goal for the NHL, given their ever-increasing market size and wealth, but they're still probably at least two decades off from being serious contenders for an NHL team, imho. If the NHL and USA Hockey were halfway intelligent, though, they'd be investing in promoting the hell out of the game in Utah and increasing youth hockey participation in order to pave the way for an eventual team.

Kansas City makes sense now, except they've shown no inclination of having a potential owner or ownership consortium stepping up.
forgetting 2 things aren't you, NFS:

Utah Grizzlies ownership were involved in dual lawsuits, one w/ Dallas and then cutting PHX One yr into a 3 yr deal, bc they had no control (franchise sold to Gilbert in CLE, while the Grizzlies continue in the E, there's no arena in SLC, THEY play in West Valley City, site of the 06 Olympics)....

OKC's franchise is jointly owned by Prodigal (same as the CHL Blazers), and the Oilers, who ran the Road Runners, in both TOR/EDM, THT'S why Cox Convention Center still exists, since Chesapeake Energy/Thunder control tht arena.

CHRDANHUTCH is online now  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:00 AM
  #880
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 21,736
vCash: 1
Well.... considering that I did mention that Salt Lake City's at least two decades away from being a serious NHL relocation/expansion candidate, didn't really think arena issues was worth being brought up. By the time that they do, the Jazz will probably have a new arena either built or being planned anyway, so it's a moot point.

As for OKC, they're a longshot no matter how you look at it, but the existence of CHL and AHL teams would likely be tossed aside if an NHL team was seriously coming to town. The Thunder's owners might very likely be the frontrunners, too. But, again, almost assuredly not going to happen.

No Fun Shogun is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:44 AM
  #881
Fenway
Registered User
 
Fenway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 495
vCash: 374
The Florida Panthers have by far the smallest fanbase in the NHL. Last year they averaged 3,000 TV homes for televised games.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/J...N-ratings.aspx

TV deals make or break an NHL franchise today.

A team in Quebec will have a strong French TV cable contract and most likely an English presence on Sportsnet from Montreal to Newfoundland.

The Leafs most likely would love a team in Markham as they would get the TV rights to the new team. ( This is not unlike the Rangers controlling the TV rights of the Devils and Islanders )

Markham is a lock because it will NOT hurt Buffalo. Hamilton would hurt the Sabres because it would be a less hassle option for fans in Niagara Township on the QEW corridor. ( border crossings are a pain in this post 911 world )

Nothing else in Canada will work in this cable TV world. Winnipeg is the same size as Buffalo and Providence. TSN can sell it to Manitoba and Saskatchewan but viewer numbers are limited.

Fenway is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:22 AM
  #882
InjuredChoker
Registered User
 
InjuredChoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: LTIR or golf course
Posts: 14,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
"Losing money" is borderline worthless as an indicator.

San Jose has lost money because they spend it on players:
2008: $44 payroll, +$2.4
2009: $54 payroll, -$5.0
2010: $57 payroll, -$6.2
2011: $65 payroll, -$7.8

Isn't this what everyone is clamoring for in the revenue sharing threads? "There's no incentive to improve your team!"

San Jose is what you'd WANT: They spend money to increase revenues. They lose money because they CHOOSE to lose money.
The Sharks are most like a loss-leader for the arena, which the team operates.

Even without the sweet lease that gives them all the arena revenues, their $27.5 in operating losses since buying the team in 2002 will be offset by the franchise rising $64 million in value over the purchase price since then. They'll make back all their losses on the team via the sale of the team when they decide to do so; and the team's success brings in more arena revenue.

If a team didn't invest in payroll and spent only what they can afford (which the league no longer allows), their revenue streams would be stagnant, their team value would be stagnant, and their franchise value doesn't go up.
Are these Forbes numbers?

InjuredChoker is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 10:20 AM
  #883
daveleaf
Registered User
 
daveleaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faidh ar Rud Eigin View Post
Just about every team you mentioned isn't struggling. Where do you get your information from?
That was from Hockey Central oh, about a month ago. With the CBA neg going on I am sure that information is floating around out there amongst all kinds of sources. Some of it is fancy accounting, some of it is legit.

daveleaf is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 11:56 AM
  #884
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 21,736
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenway View Post
The Florida Panthers have by far the smallest fanbase in the NHL. Last year they averaged 3,000 TV homes for televised games.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/J...N-ratings.aspx

TV deals make or break an NHL franchise today.

A team in Quebec will have a strong French TV cable contract and most likely an English presence on Sportsnet from Montreal to Newfoundland.

The Leafs most likely would love a team in Markham as they would get the TV rights to the new team. ( This is not unlike the Rangers controlling the TV rights of the Devils and Islanders )

Markham is a lock because it will NOT hurt Buffalo. Hamilton would hurt the Sabres because it would be a less hassle option for fans in Niagara Township on the QEW corridor. ( border crossings are a pain in this post 911 world )

Nothing else in Canada will work in this cable TV world. Winnipeg is the same size as Buffalo and Providence. TSN can sell it to Manitoba and Saskatchewan but viewer numbers are limited.
Except it doesn't break the Panthers, though. They're used as a loss leader by their ownership's local development plans, which are making money for them overall. They're willing to be in the red with the Panthers if it helps them make greater profits elsewhere, so their smaller TV audience is a moot point. Plus, depending on how the CBA negotiations go, they might cover up a significant amount of the red ink from the Panthers with a greater piece of the pie and possibly even more revenue sharing dollars, so doubt that they'd give 'em up now.

And Markham's far from a lock. There's still no evidence that the Leafs are interested in giving up their monopoly of the GTA/southern Ontario market even if they get an indemnity and TV rights out of it from a new team. Plus, isn't their arena deal kind of falling apart?

No Fun Shogun is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:41 PM
  #885
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kemisti View Post
Are these Forbes numbers?
Only ones I've got.

KevFu is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:10 PM
  #886
isles31
Poster Excellont
 
isles31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,945
vCash: 500
The NHL isnt going to expand. The damage from this lockout is going to actually have teams contract. This entire thing is so stupid and the fact that expansion is even mentioned as the BOG and PA are destroying the game more and more each day is a joke

isles31 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:11 PM
  #887
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by isles31 View Post
The NHL isnt going to expand. The damage from this lockout is going to actually have teams contract. This entire thing is so stupid and the fact that expansion is even mentioned as the BOG and PA are destroying the game more and more each day is a joke
They aren't going to contract. Why contract when you can easily relocate a team to Seattle, Quebec city and another Ontario team for example.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:11 PM
  #888
candyman82
Registered User
 
candyman82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 2,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by isles31 View Post
The NHL isnt going to expand. The damage from this lockout is going to actually have teams contract. This entire thing is so stupid and the fact that expansion is even mentioned as the BOG and PA are destroying the game more and more each day is a joke
Explain your logic here.

candyman82 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:38 PM
  #889
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 27,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by isles31 View Post
The NHL isnt going to expand. The damage from this lockout is going to actually have teams contract. This entire thing is so stupid and the fact that expansion is even mentioned as the BOG and PA are destroying the game more and more each day is a joke
I couldn't disagree more.

We'd see relocation before we see teams contracted.

And with the press reporting, that new expansion fees could be as much as $400m-$500m per team, I expect we will see expansion in the next 1-2 seasons.

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/blog/ey...eached-why-not

CREW99AW is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 05:21 PM
  #890
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 21,736
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by isles31 View Post
The NHL isnt going to expand. The damage from this lockout is going to actually have teams contract. This entire thing is so stupid and the fact that expansion is even mentioned as the BOG and PA are destroying the game more and more each day is a joke
Contraction will only happen if there isn't at least one open market willing to pay big money for a team. The NHL will freaking relocate into Saskatoon before they contract, and I have a better shot at owning a team then either of those scenarios happening right now.

No Fun Shogun is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 09:50 PM
  #891
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Orr, you know I love your Mix East And West agenda.

However, there's a number of things I'd change.
If you're adding six markets, why not use the markets themselves to solve why W-E conferences don't work?

For example, if we add QUE and Southern Ontario, we have 18 ETZ teams. Why not simply add four more in the WEST instead of Atlanta (who's lost a team twice)?

TOR, BUF, PIT, DET, CBJ, SO ONT
BOS, QUE, MON, OTT, WAS, CAR
NYR, NYI, NJD, PHI, FLA, TB

MIN, CHI, STL, NSH, DAL, Houston
WIN, EDM, CAL, COL, PHX, Salt Lake
LA, ANA, SJS, VAN, SEA, Portland

Houston is larger than MIL, MIL is right on top of CHI while HOU is four hours from DAL.

Salt Lake is smaller than KC or MIL, but would give Colorado a regional rival.
Ok fine. As usual, you suggest a road of less resistance. So how's this:

WestEast
PACIFICNORTHEAST
VancouverMontreal
San JoseBoston
Los AngelesNY Islanders
AnaheimNY Rangers
Phoenix / SeattleNew Jersey
PortlandQuebec City
- -
NORTHWESTBORDER
EdmontonOttawa
CalgaryToronto
WinnipegBuffalo
MinnesotaDetroit
ColoradoColumbus
Phoenix / Salt LakeSouthern Ont
- -
CENTRALATLANTIC
DallasFlorida
St LouisTampa Bay
NashvilleCarolina
ChicagoWashington
Houston / Kansas CityPhiladelphia
Tulsa / MilwaukeePittsburgh

Expansion 1 = Blue, Expansion 2 = Red, Expansion 3 = Purple


Last edited by MoreOrr: 11-16-2012 at 10:05 PM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 11:58 PM
  #892
Faidh ar Rud Eigin
Modhnóirí Claonta
 
Faidh ar Rud Eigin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Transcendent
Country: Guernsey
Posts: 15,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleaf View Post
That was from Hockey Central oh, about a month ago. With the CBA neg going on I am sure that information is floating around out there amongst all kinds of sources. Some of it is fancy accounting, some of it is legit.
Hockey Central is bad at getting inside information with regards to hockey related information, let alone financial details.

Faidh ar Rud Eigin is online now  
Old
11-17-2012, 05:58 AM
  #893
InjuredChoker
Registered User
 
InjuredChoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: LTIR or golf course
Posts: 14,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Ok fine. As usual, you suggest a road of less resistance. So how's this:

WestEast
PACIFICNORTHEAST
VancouverMontreal
San JoseBoston
Los AngelesNY Islanders
AnaheimNY Rangers
Phoenix / SeattleNew Jersey
PortlandQuebec City
- -
NORTHWESTBORDER
EdmontonOttawa
CalgaryToronto
WinnipegBuffalo
MinnesotaDetroit
ColoradoColumbus
Phoenix / Salt LakeSouthern Ont
- -
CENTRALATLANTIC
DallasFlorida
St LouisTampa Bay
NashvilleCarolina
ChicagoWashington
Houston / Kansas CityPhiladelphia
Tulsa / MilwaukeePittsburgh

Expansion 1 = Blue, Expansion 2 = Red, Expansion 3 = Purple
I like those. Except..

How would Montreal feel being in different division than Ottawa and Toronto and vice versa?

InjuredChoker is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 10:27 AM
  #894
bodybreak
We're Back!
 
bodybreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,246
vCash: 500
More travel involved for Boston doing it this way, but it keeps great rivals together:

Boston
Montreal
Ottawa
Quebec
Toronto
Southern Ont


Buffalo
Columbus
Detroit
New Jersey
NYI
NYR

bodybreak is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 10:30 AM
  #895
Hamilton Tigers
Registered User
 
Hamilton Tigers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybreak View Post
More travel involved for Boston doing it this way, but it keeps great rivals together:

Boston
Montreal
Ottawa
Quebec
Toronto
Southern Ont


Buffalo
Columbus
Detroit
New Jersey
NYI
NYR
If Hamilton were to get a team, I'd prefer to have it in Buffalo's division. I think that would be good for both teams.

Hamilton Tigers is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 10:41 AM
  #896
isles31
Poster Excellont
 
isles31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by candyman82 View Post
Explain your logic here.
Fans are disgusted. Diehard in big cities will eventually come back, but teams like Columbus hardly have people show up as it is. This is going to make it worse. Maybe relocation will happen, and not contraction, but i think people are seriously underestimating the damage that will be done by this ridiculous labor dispute.

And how big of a draw will hockey be in a Seattle? They couldnt keep their basketball team...nobody shows up to Mariners games.

isles31 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 11:54 AM
  #897
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to SaintPatrick33
Quote:
Originally Posted by isles31 View Post
Fans are disgusted. Diehard in big cities will eventually come back, but teams like Columbus hardly have people show up as it is. This is going to make it worse. Maybe relocation will happen, and not contraction, but i think people are seriously underestimating the damage that will be done by this ridiculous labor dispute.

And how big of a draw will hockey be in a Seattle? They couldnt keep their basketball team...nobody shows up to Mariners games.
I suggest you check out "Sonicsgate". It wasn't lack of fan support that caused the Sonics to move.

SaintPatrick33 is online now  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:24 PM
  #898
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kemisti View Post
I like those. Except..

How would Montreal feel being in different division than Ottawa and Toronto and vice versa?
How would Vancouver feel in a different Division from Calgary and Edmonton? But my thinking is that it's not a good thing to have too many Canadian teams in the same Division. So where Vancouver would get Seattle in that new alignment (assuming Seattle gets a team), Montreal gets Boston. Plus Vancouver gets a PTZ alignment, and Montreal gets Quebec City.

As for Ottawa and Toronto,... Yes, it's not a great arrangement for Ottawa, being separated from what is its closest geographic rival, but it still has Toronto and a potential other Ontario rival with a 2nd team in southern Ontario. As for Toronto, no sympathy is needed there, not with Toronto still being in the same Division with Ottawa, another southern Ontario team, Buffalo, and the old rival Detroit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton Tigers View Post
If Hamilton were to get a team, I'd prefer to have it in Buffalo's division. I think that would be good for both teams.
Absolutely! Separating Buffalo from the southern Ontario teams just wouldn't make much sense at all. Although, as Buffalo, Detroit, Columbus Division wouldn't be a bad arrangement at all.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:34 PM
  #899
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to SaintPatrick33
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
How would Vancouver feel in a different Division from Calgary and Edmonton? But my thinking is that it's not a good thing to have too many Canadian teams in the same Division. So where Vancouver would get Seattle in that new alignment (assuming Seattle gets a team), Montreal gets Boston. Plus Vancouver gets a PTZ alignment, and Montreal gets Quebec City.
Of course for years Toronto was in the Norris division while Montreal was in the Adams and it wasn't much of a problem.

SaintPatrick33 is online now  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:50 PM
  #900
startainfection
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 5,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by revoluutio View Post
Eww, as if the limited talent pool isn't spread thin enough already...
you dont think there are 50 players in the ahl, khl, sel, ect that could play in the nhl effectively at this point in time?

startainfection is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:15 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.