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.

If the NHL comes back, there has to be a big expansion.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-31-2012, 03:34 PM
  #76
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sawchuk1971 View Post
cross cleveland off the list....

its a browns football town, while the indians and cavs are just too bad to be taken seriously....
Cleveland has always had an extremely passionate following for both the Cavs and the Indians, no matter how bad those teams were.

Things have shifted with the Indians in the last few years, simply because pretty much everyone is smart enough to recognize that MLB's completely broken economic structure means that there's no point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by middletoe View Post
Maybe it's too late anyway, but don't expansion teams need lax officiating in order to get the competitive edge needed in building a fan base from scratch? For this reason expansion worries me.

Also, stars are more fun to watch when they have other stars to play with. So I don't really want to see the talent per team diluted more than it already is.
The expansions of 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 actually saw a series of crackdowns on the ice, which led to a leaguewide surge in power plays.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 07:44 PM
  #77
JetsFlyHigh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotchex View Post
Huh? The statistics are pretty clear. Canada's immigrant population cares about hockey significantly less, on average, than the native-born population. That doesn't mean many immigrants don't become enthusiastic hockey supporters. Your anecdote says nothing about the statistics. You love hockey. Good for you.

You sound like the people who deny that smoking is a health risk by saying they knew a guy who smoked his whole life and lived to be 90. Yeah, that happens. That's how statistics work. Women are shorter than men on average, but some women are really tall and some men are really short. You can't point to a 6 ft tall woman and claim that men aren't taller than women on average. That'd be insane.

Baseball has faced some similar problems. Some demographic groups have sharply lower levels of interest in playing baseball. In particular the % of black kids playing has dropped. That doesn't mean there still weren't large #s of black kids who loved baseball and played it and followed the sport. It would be silly for baseball to ignore the data and insist everything was fine.

Denying reality is rarely wise. Reality always wins in the end. A good definition of reality is - it's the stuff that, even if you don't believe it, doesn't go away.
Huh? What are you talking about? Statistics are numbers, do they tell you what a person prefers or what their opinion is? Statistics are only the "reality" of what you ask, it doesn't define what people are. To be honest, I don't even know how you find something wrong with my post. wow..

JetsFlyHigh is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 08:43 PM
  #78
Legionnaire11
Registered User
 
Legionnaire11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hendersonville
Country: United States
Posts: 2,750
vCash: 500
Not debating that the NHL should or should not expand, just want to highlight one thing when expansion is brought up.

A lot of people start a topic by saying "The NHL should expand to City X", or "Bettman shouldn't have put a team in City Z"...

The expansion process isn't one where the league looks at a map and determines the best city to place a team in. They take bids on expansion, so only cities with an interested ownership group and government can be considered whether the NHL thinks it's a good idea or not.

Having moved to Nashville in '96, I followed the '97 expansion process very closely. It was certainly not a case of Bettman coming to town a delivering a hockey team just on a whim. There was a long process of submitting bids and wooing the league from the owners side, as well as selling the idea to metro government and getting approval/lease for the arena.

A lot of people say "Why did Bettman put a team in Nashville and Atlanta?" He didn't, those two cities were two of the four who had the best proposal as voted by the BoG. The other finalists I believe were Houston and Oklahoma City. Then a handful of other cities that dropped or were rejected earlier such as Indianapolis, Norfolk, Hamilton, Seattle and maybe Hartford?

So it's a lot more than just the right location. It's the right location, with the right owner, right arena, right lease and having them all together (right time).

Legionnaire11 is online now  
Old
12-31-2012, 08:54 PM
  #79
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire11 View Post
Not debating that the NHL should or should not expand, just want to highlight one thing when expansion is brought up.

A lot of people start a topic by saying "The NHL should expand to City X", or "Bettman shouldn't have put a team in City Z"...

The expansion process isn't one where the league looks at a map and determines the best city to place a team in. They take bids on expansion, so only cities with an interested ownership group and government can be considered whether the NHL thinks it's a good idea or not.

Having moved to Nashville in '96, I followed the '97 expansion process very closely. It was certainly not a case of Bettman coming to town a delivering a hockey team just on a whim. There was a long process of submitting bids and wooing the league from the owners side, as well as selling the idea to metro government and getting approval/lease for the arena.

A lot of people say "Why did Bettman put a team in Nashville and Atlanta?" He didn't, those two cities were two of the four who had the best proposal as voted by the BoG. The other finalists I believe were Houston and Oklahoma City. Then a handful of other cities that dropped or were rejected earlier such as Indianapolis, Norfolk, Hamilton, Seattle and maybe Hartford?

So it's a lot more than just the right location. It's the right location, with the right owner, right arena, right lease and having them all together (right time).
Hamilton was the only Canadian city that submitted a bid, and their combination of potential ownership issues as well as arena issues basically doomed it from the start.

Yes, the six finalists were Minneapolis, Atlanta, Columbus, Nashville, Houston, and Oklahoma City. All of them had demonstrated tremendous support for the preceding decade for their minor league teams with the exception of Minnesota; the others were Atlanta (IHL Knights), Columbus (ECHL Chill), Nashville (ECHL Knights), Houston (IHL Aeros), and Oklahoma City (CHL Blazers). This wasn't some random attempt to stick the game somewhere; they were all places that had the arena, had the ownership, and most important, had the market already established and primed.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 10:27 PM
  #80
Pyro Kinesis
Cleveland for LIFE!
 
Pyro Kinesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Youngstown, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 1,186
vCash: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by sawchuk1971 View Post
cross cleveland off the list....

its a browns football town, while the indians and cavs are just too bad to be taken seriously....
Hahaha, that's why Cavs attendance is still among the best. That being said, I would gladly trade the Lake Erie Monsters for an actual NHL team. LEM attendance seems to be up, quite a bit.

Pyro Kinesis is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 10:45 PM
  #81
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetsFlyHigh View Post
Huh? What are you talking about? Statistics are numbers, do they tell you what a person prefers or what their opinion is? Statistics are only the "reality" of what you ask, it doesn't define what people are. To be honest, I don't even know how you find something wrong with my post. wow..
Statistics are reality. Yes. And they show that 50% of the country does not care about hockey. More like 25%. At most.

Melrose Munch is online now  
Old
01-01-2013, 01:45 AM
  #82
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
If that's the logic, then no QC either. Networks have no interest in Quebec City at all.
Believe it or not, TV networks exist outside the United States and they pay the NHL very handsomely for broadcast rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Hamilton was the only Canadian city that submitted a bid, and their combination of potential ownership issues as well as arena issues basically doomed it from the start.

Yes, the six finalists were Minneapolis, Atlanta, Columbus, Nashville, Houston, and Oklahoma City. All of them had demonstrated tremendous support for the preceding decade for their minor league teams with the exception of Minnesota; the others were Atlanta (IHL Knights), Columbus (ECHL Chill), Nashville (ECHL Knights), Houston (IHL Aeros), and Oklahoma City (CHL Blazers). This wasn't some random attempt to stick the game somewhere; they were all places that had the arena, had the ownership, and most important, had the market already established and primed.
I don't see how Hamilton being the only Canadian city to put in a bid in one expansion round, at one given point in time, is particularly relevant?

htpwn is online now  
Old
01-01-2013, 02:12 AM
  #83
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
If that's the logic, then no QC either. Networks have no interest in Quebec City at all.
Canadian TV will though. And they pay almost as much as US Networks.

One more for the good guys.

Kimota is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 02:24 AM
  #84
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: 24,593
vCash: 1
You can cross Cleveland off the list simply because it's a declining city and it's already a bit oversaturated as a sports market as it is. Population and wealth are both dropping in big ways in that town, so there's no reasonable expectation that they're ready, or interested, in supporting an NHL team.

One team in Ohio's enough for now, especially as there are plenty of other markets that make more sense, north, south, east, and west.

No Fun Shogun is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 09:39 AM
  #85
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Hamilton was the only Canadian city that submitted a bid, and their combination of potential ownership issues as well as arena issues basically doomed it from the start.

Yes, the six finalists were Minneapolis, Atlanta, Columbus, Nashville, Houston, and Oklahoma City. All of them had demonstrated tremendous support for the preceding decade for their minor league teams with the exception of Minnesota; the others were Atlanta (IHL Knights), Columbus (ECHL Chill), Nashville (ECHL Knights), Houston (IHL Aeros), and Oklahoma City (CHL Blazers). This wasn't some random attempt to stick the game somewhere; they were all places that had the arena, had the ownership, and most important, had the market already established and primed.
What ownership issues ? isnt this just secret code for the fact that the count hates jim basille ?
if there were team that has ownership issues, how about convicted felon boots del baggio and asg who it was clear never wanted to own the thrash from the beginning and washed their hands of them at the very first possibility.

Ive never thought that having a echl ir ihl team was all that was required to estabish a market. if thats true there are literaly hundreds of places that would be viable. Tremendous support for a whole decade, that's the bar that has to be cleared ?

Ive said it before, in a competition between to potential suitors, having more people who are completely disinterested in the game doe not make it a better market, it means that there are simply more people. if you want to argue that population = market there are many who will agree with you, but that very idea is what got us into this mess. winnepeg is a far better hockey market than any of the southern teams despite having the smallest arena and smallest population. The nordique faithful will travel long distances to fill other peroples stadiums as a public demonstration of how much they are willing to support the diques if they return. this is from a place that lost its team.

sandysan is online now  
Old
01-01-2013, 10:31 AM
  #86
57special
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: MN
Posts: 1,440
vCash: 249
Back to the original question... The NHL should expand to divert public attention from the lockout? Columbus, Phoenix, and Carolina are doing that well? Why not just fire Bettman, and blame him (and Fehr) for the mess? Give him a good chunk of cash and say bye?


I am pessimistic about the growth of hockey in general, especially south of the border. Outside of places such as MI and MN the cost to play hockey is astronomical.


Last edited by 57special: 01-01-2013 at 10:47 AM.
57special is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 12:08 PM
  #87
Gallatin
A Banksy of Goonism
 
Gallatin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 57special View Post
I am pessimistic about the growth of hockey in general, especially south of the border. Outside of places such as MI and MN the cost to play hockey is astronomical.
You must not be aware of the situation in Seattle. The Metro Area has the 14th highest population in the States, along with a high concentration of wealth, and the largest Rec. League Hockey participation levels in the whole country....

Gallatin is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 01:36 PM
  #88
Hoser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,069
vCash: 500
Words cannot express how awful this idea is.

Hoser is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 01:50 PM
  #89
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
I really dont see how you guys can think that the overall talent isnt diluted with more teams. It goes against the very definition of the word. Im not against sun belt teams either. Im for a better quality product. As a hockey fan, am I required to watch substandard product so that other fans are satisified? This issue is more complex than being discussed here. Part of it has to do with the low scoring, shot blocking, interference style today. Teams with 1 scoring line and a bunch of checkers can actually do quite well. See Phoenix. However, entertainment value isnt there.

DuklaNation is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 02:14 PM
  #90
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
I don't see how Hamilton being the only Canadian city to put in a bid in one expansion round, at one given point in time, is particularly relevant?
The poster I quoted mentioned backlash against "Bettman awarding City X a team". In the years since 1997, I've seen it repeatedly said that the following cities should have been awarded expansion teams:
- Winnipeg
- Quebec
- Hamilton
- Halifax
- Saskatoon
- Various points in southern Ontario

I merely mentioned that only one Canadian city even submitted a bid, and that was Hamilton.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
What ownership issues ? isnt this just secret code for the fact that the count hates jim basille ?
if there were team that has ownership issues, how about convicted felon boots del baggio and asg who it was clear never wanted to own the thrash from the beginning and washed their hands of them at the very first possibility.
Good Lord, that's a lot of garbage there.

- "Ownership issues" have nothing to do with that bald midget Balsillie. He wasn't involved in the 1997 expansion bid at all. It was basically Bob Morrow and Terry Whitehead, and it was done so badly that the NHL actually returned the application fee.

- ASG and Del Biaggio weren't in the picture in 1997 at all.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 02:18 PM
  #91
enrothorne
A DJ saved my life
 
enrothorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Downtown Buffalo
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,402
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to enrothorne
As long as the Sabres are in Buffalo, Hamilton will not get a team. Even a very large lump sum isn't enough. The long term negative effects are impossible to outweigh.

enrothorne is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 02:25 PM
  #92
Jet
Moderator
Chevel-takesadayoff
 
Jet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Glasgow
Country: Scotland
Posts: 16,992
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan View Post
Better lower ticket prices because the product will be even worse than it already is.

Welcome 6 new trapping teams that have no talent and just clog up the neutral zone. Look at the way the Wild and Preds had to play early on and look at how awful Atlanta and Columbus were/are...

Expansion is awful for the quality of hockey. But i guess some people don't care about that, they'll watch whatever boring garbage the NHL gives them. But only a select few are like that because the ratings say the product isn't very good to begin with, I guess the solution is to make it worse not better.
This is a huge meme. Talent being spread 'super thin' by expansion is nonsense. There are more hockey players being developed by more nations at a higher rate every year. There are more high-end players coming from nations you would not expect as well -- countries such as Germany and Switzerland.

People who say that there is less talent today in the NHL are simply incorrect. Look at some video from the 80's. There were 9 less teams and if you watch the 3rd and 4th liners stumbling around the ice you will see that the overall level of league talent is at an all time high. Players making millions will do that.

Coaching and better goaltending is the reason you see less dangling and dominant offensive players. This is why people think there is less talent. Not because there actually is, but because the lower end talent in the league has caught up, making it harder for stars to shine.

As for the Atlanta comment, the Jets have never trapped and we were in the playoff hunt till very late and got significantly better in the off season. There will always be bad teams in the league, even if you went down to 16 teams.

__________________
The Olympic Line
Jet is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 02:28 PM
  #93
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
The poster I quoted mentioned backlash against "Bettman awarding City X a team". In the years since 1997, I've seen it repeatedly said that the following cities should have been awarded expansion teams:
- Winnipeg
- Quebec
- Hamilton
- Halifax
- Saskatoon
- Various points in southern Ontario

I merely mentioned that only one Canadian city even submitted a bid, and that was Hamilton.



Good Lord, that's a lot of garbage there.

- "Ownership issues" have nothing to do with that bald midget Balsillie. He wasn't involved in the 1997 expansion bid at all. It was basically Bob Morrow and Terry Whitehead, and it was done so badly that the NHL actually returned the application fee.

- ASG and Del Biaggio weren't in the picture in 1997 at all.
But the NHL decided to award them the teams, no? What difference does the application phase mean if the nhl awards a team to an embezeller, a group who had no interest in actually owning a team and an ownership group that may have been propped up by a Japanese organized crime syndicate ?

If Hamilton did not properly file for expansion, the NHL was certainly influential in preventing a team from relocating to Hamilton. Is Bastille worse than the other three?

sandysan is online now  
Old
01-01-2013, 02:37 PM
  #94
candyman82
Registered User
 
candyman82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 2,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
But the NHL decided to award them the teams, no? What difference does the application phase mean if the nhl awards a team to an embezeller, a group who had no interest in actually owning a team and an ownership group that may have been propped up by a Japanese organized crime syndicate ?

If Hamilton did not properly file for expansion, the NHL was certainly influential in preventing a team from relocating to Hamilton. Is Bastille worse than the other three?
You do realize that the NHL did not "award" franchises to ASG or Del Biaggio, right?

candyman82 is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 03:00 PM
  #95
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by candyman82 View Post
You do realize that the NHL did not "award" franchises to ASG or Del Biaggio, right?
They did award a team to espos group which might have been partly financed to a crime syndicate.

sandysan is online now  
Old
01-01-2013, 03:06 PM
  #96
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by candyman82 View Post
You do realize that the NHL did not "award" franchises to ASG or Del Biaggio, right?
How long did time warner own the thrashers, 3 years? So its okay to award an expansion team then let them sell the team to whomever they want before the paint has dried ? To a group that didn't want the team ?

sandysan is online now  
Old
01-01-2013, 03:09 PM
  #97
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Canadian TV will though. And they pay almost as much as US Networks.

One more for the good guys.
They will pay a lot more for the media rights to teams in Hamilton or Mississauga and Seattle.

TaketheCannoli is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 03:28 PM
  #98
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
But the NHL decided to award them the teams, no? What difference does the application phase mean if the nhl awards a team to an embezeller, a group who had no interest in actually owning a team and an ownership group that may have been propped up by a Japanese organized crime syndicate ?

If Hamilton did not properly file for expansion, the NHL was certainly influential in preventing a team from relocating to Hamilton. Is Bastille worse than the other three?
The NHL did not award a team to Del Biaggio; it went to Craig Leipold (who is not an embezzler). The NHL did not award a team to a group who had no interest; it went to the Turner group (who most certainly did have an interest).

Nice job throwing Tampa in there; if we're going that route, can I bring up the fact that the NY Americans were a team made up of wildcat strikers (the Hamilton Tigers) and owned by an actual crime boss (Big Bill Dwyer)?

Hamilton apparently did apply properly. They simply left the "owner" spot blank, apparently banking on the NHL awarding a team to Hamilton and then finding them an owner.

Mod...


Last edited by Killion: 01-01-2013 at 03:33 PM. Reason: n/reqd..
Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 03:40 PM
  #99
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
The NHL did not award a team to Del Biaggio; it went to Craig Leipold (who is not an embezzler). The NHL did not award a team to a group who had no interest; it went to the Turner group (who most certainly did have an interest).

Nice job throwing Tampa in there; if we're going that route, can I bring up the fact that the NY Americans were a team made up of wildcat strikers (the Hamilton Tigers) and owned by an actual crime boss (Big Bill Dwyer)?

Hamilton apparently did apply properly. They simply left the "owner" spot blank, apparently banking on the NHL awarding a team to Hamilton and then finding them an owner.

Mod...
So its okay to award a team to great looking applicants on paper, who will then flip the team to undesirables that would likely not have qualified if they had applied? TW was awarded a team and walked away three years later, what does that say about how committed they were to keeping a team in Atlanta?

The jets have one year under their belt, what are the chances that the current ownership washes their hands of the jets in the next two years and sells to someone else?

sandysan is online now  
Old
01-01-2013, 03:43 PM
  #100
GreenHornet
Registered User
 
GreenHornet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norcross, GA
Country: Israel
Posts: 308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
How long did time warner own the thrashers, 3 years? So its okay to award an expansion team then let them sell the team to whomever they want before the paint has dried ? To a group that didn't want the team ?
The A$G clowns didn't get their filthy claws on the Thrashers until Sept. 2005. The turning point may have come two years earlier, when Ted Turner was forced out of the picture by Time Warner, who had no interest in retaining ownership of the team.

Your point still stands, the NHL failed miserably in its due diligence of vetting an ownership group whose only goal was the flip the franchise to an out of market buyer as soon as legally possible.

GreenHornet 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 12:08 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.