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
01-01-2013, 03:51 PM
  #101
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
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?
Time Warner/Turner ended up being bogged down as a result of the never-ending AOL-TW merger saga. If no one ever got that idea into their heads, the Thrashes would still be in Atlanta and be having some on-ice success as well.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 04:04 PM
  #102
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Time Warner/Turner ended up being bogged down as a result of the never-ending AOL-TW merger saga. If no one ever got that idea into their heads, the Thrashes would still be in Atlanta and be having some on-ice success as well.
Yeah nobodies fault, the NHL could not have known things would go south, so if something happens and the owners get buyers remorse or cold feet, they should be able to sell to anyone, scammers, liars, made men. Anyone at all as long as they at least pretend to keep the team local.

Its great to know that the NHL has such a thorough and extensive vetting for expansion applicants.

sandysan is online now  
Old
01-01-2013, 05:51 PM
  #103
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
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.
Cleveland is rebounding quite nicely thank you very march. There is over a billion dollars of development in the downtown core (within a 15 minute walk of the arena). I don't think its ready yet but 5-7 years down the line its possible as a destination for a relocated team

aqib is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 05:57 PM
  #104
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
This will be the only way to make the media forget the lockout. It gives the appearance of growth and of course introduce new people into the game. Besides we can't turn back now and if the players lose this would be nice compensation. I don't want to do this but it's beyond obviously

I think we need to go to 36

Quebec City
Atlanta*
Houston
Seattle
San Antonio**
Hamilton, ON


* We need to go back to Atlanta. It's the capital of the south. Enough said.

** San Antonio is a fast growing city in the southwest with money and can bring in the parts of the southwest

Houston is self explanatory.
No we don't need to go back to Atlanta. Its failed twice. This pursuit of a big TV contract isn't realistic. We tried and it doesn't happen. Just because there are a lot of people in Atlanta doesn't mean there are fans who will pay NHL prices for hockey. By that logic we should put a team in Mexico City. Its the biggest city in North America.

As for San Antonio, how does their minor league team draw?

Move the Yotes to QC. Expand to Seattle and Southern Ontario (either GTA or Hamilton) and then let the next distressed team move into the other GTA slot.

aqib is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 06:11 PM
  #105
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 4,846
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
As for San Antonio, how does their minor league team draw?
Top 10 for several years iirc. The problem is the AT&T Center is a lot like the Barclays Center which is less than ideal for hockey.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 06:25 PM
  #106
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
Cleveland is rebounding quite nicely thank you very march. There is over a billion dollars of development in the downtown core (within a 15 minute walk of the arena). I don't think its ready yet but 5-7 years down the line its possible as a destination for a relocated team
And 21 counties within an hour drive, so even as the 5,000,000 population of Northeast Ohio spreads out, the logistics make travel to Cleveland a lot easier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
No we don't need to go back to Atlanta. Its failed twice. This pursuit of a big TV contract isn't realistic. We tried and it doesn't happen. Just because there are a lot of people in Atlanta doesn't mean there are fans who will pay NHL prices for hockey. By that logic we should put a team in Mexico City. Its the biggest city in North America.

As for San Antonio, how does their minor league team draw?

Move the Yotes to QC. Expand to Seattle and Southern Ontario (either GTA or Hamilton) and then let the next distressed team move into the other GTA slot.
Disagree on Atlanta.

San Antonio would be a lot better off if the old IHL Dragons weren't an absolute clown show. They fought with the CHL Iguanas over the arena lease, won, and folded anyway. The ownership was so touch-and-go that (so I've heard) players would race to the bank with their paycheck since the team payroll account might be empty by the time the later guys arrived.

I think that that whole thing stunted the Iguanas (who came back a year later), and then the Rampage. It didn't cause irreparable damage, in my opinion, but it caused a short-term stagnation.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 06:38 PM
  #107
The Legend
Stamkos in 2016
 
The Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Actually, expansion causes an increase in scoring across the league.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=174
Scoring does not equal quality....

The Legend is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 07:07 PM
  #108
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
This will be the only way to make the media forget the lockout. It gives the appearance of growth and of course introduce new people into the game. Besides we can't turn back now and if the players lose this would be nice compensation. I don't want to do this but it's beyond obviously

I think we need to go to 36

Quebec City
Atlanta*
Houston
Seattle
San Antonio**
Hamilton, ON


* We need to go back to Atlanta. It's the capital of the south. Enough said.

** San Antonio is a fast growing city in the southwest with money and can bring in the parts of the southwest

Houston is self explanatory.
The NHL arguably needs to contract or relocate 2 to 4 franchises and you want to add 6 new ones, 2/3rds in non-traditional markets? Keep dreaming.

Each time you add a team you dilute the talent level of the entire league and decrease each team's chances of ever winning a cup or advancing further in the playoffs.

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 07:19 PM
  #109
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,602
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.
Ok, I understand your point... to some extent.

I can agree that many arguing for retroactive expansion into Canada often do not consider that only one Canadian city bid in 1997 (and a poor one at that) and none in 1999. They also don't consider that Winnipeg and Quebec were in no position at the time to attempt to mount a serious bid.

Having said that, very few bring up the likes of Saskatoon and Halifax. It comes up occasionally and usually very little support because it is so impractical to have an NHL in cities of 200,000-400,000.

Hamilton, however, is a little bit of a different case. They did submit two bids in the 1990's expansion, the latter of which was rather poor, as you brought up. The 1991 bid was one of the better bids there, but the NHL effectively scuttled it by placing unreasonable demands on the potential ownership and then demonstrating a massive double standard with one of the winning bids, Tampa.

htpwn is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 07:26 PM
  #110
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Ok, I understand your point... to some extent.

I can agree that many arguing for retroactive expansion into Canada often do not consider that only one Canadian city bid in 1997 (and a poor one at that) and none in 1999. They also don't consider that Winnipeg and Quebec were in no position at the time to attempt to mount a serious bid.

Having said that, very few bring up the likes of Saskatoon and Halifax. It comes up occasionally and usually very little support because it is so impractical to have an NHL in cities of 200,000-400,000.

Hamilton, however, is a little bit of a different case. They did submit two bids in the 1990's expansion, the latter of which was rather poor, as you brought up. The 1991 bid was one of the better bids there, but the NHL effectively scuttled it by placing unreasonable demands on the potential ownership and then demonstrating a massive double standard with one of the winning bids, Tampa.
To be fair, the double standard was used with Ottawa as well. They were awarded a team on the basis of possibly having an arena down the road, which wasn't assured even after a full season on the ice. In Roy MacGregor's book "Road Games", he references this repeatedly. Most painful by proxy is to read that Quebec was prepared to offer Joe Sakic, Owen Nolan, and their top prospect (Peter Forsberg) for the #1 overall pick in 1993, which was declined since the entire Palladium project might be aborted if there wasn't a marketable star like Alexandre Daigle. There's also a reference to the scouts preferring Chris Pronger to Daigle, but Daigle being the pick on the same basis.

I can think of two reasons why the 1990 Hamilton bid didn't take:
1) The NHL saw the lack of premium seating in Copps Coliseum and, in a rare stroke of foresight, realized that there would have to be substantial upgrades and renovations in the near future to keep the team financially competitive. However, given that the NHL in 1990 was still very much being run by a group of short-sighted pinheads, this seems highly unlikely.

2) The NHL was threatened by Buffalo and Toronto over cutting into the immediate area with another team and, rather than press the issue, backed down in the threat of (at minimum) massive PR backlash or (at worst) significant legal action. Given John Ziegler's notorious spinelessness, this seems substantially more likely.

For what it's worth, I don't have any personal objection to another team in southern Ontario. I do have questions that have yet to be answered, and I am strongly opposed to the idea of relocating anyone into that territory at the expense of expansion.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 07:29 PM
  #111
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
To be fair, the double standard was used with Ottawa as well. They were awarded a team on the basis of possibly having an arena down the road, which wasn't assured even after a full season on the ice. In Roy MacGregor's book "Road Games", he references this repeatedly. Most painful by proxy is to read that Quebec was prepared to offer Joe Sakic, Owen Nolan, and their top prospect (Peter Forsberg) for the #1 overall pick in 1993, which was declined since the entire Palladium project might be aborted if there wasn't a marketable star like Alexandre Daigle. There's also a reference to the scouts preferring Chris Pronger to Daigle, but Daigle being the pick on the same basis.

I can think of two reasons why the 1990 Hamilton bid didn't take:
1) The NHL saw the lack of premium seating in Copps Coliseum and, in a rare stroke of foresight, realized that there would have to be substantial upgrades and renovations in the near future to keep the team financially competitive. However, given that the NHL in 1990 was still very much being run by a group of short-sighted pinheads, this seems highly unlikely.

2) The NHL was threatened by Buffalo and Toronto over cutting into the immediate area with another team and, rather than press the issue, backed down in the threat of (at minimum) massive PR backlash or (at worst) significant legal action. Given John Ziegler's notorious spinelessness, this seems substantially more likely.

For what it's worth, I don't have any personal objection to another team in southern Ontario. I do have questions that have yet to be answered, and I am strongly opposed to the idea of relocating anyone into that territory at the expense of expansion.
Hell, the Leafs and the Habs weren't thrilled with putting a team in Ottawa ffs.

SaintPatrick33 is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 07:31 PM
  #112
bobbop
Henrik's Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 4,815
vCash: 500
The changes in the new CBA will help the weaker teams, especially for the first 2-3 years. Once revenue and salaries grow, weaker teams will be back in the same position. At that point, owners will be looking for new revenue sources and there will be two new teams -- which I believe will be Toronto (So. Ontario, Markham or whatever) and Seattle.

bobbop is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 07:35 PM
  #113
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Hell, the Leafs and the Habs weren't thrilled with putting a team in Ottawa ffs.
So ? You think they want to dilute their market share ? It does not surprise me Toronto and mtl don't want Ottawa, or Toronto and buffalo don't want Hamilton or Toronto does not want Toronto 2.
I don't see why this is surprising. Am I missing something ?

sandysan is online now  
Old
01-01-2013, 07:37 PM
  #114
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
So ? You think they want to dilute their market share ? It does not surprise me Toronto and mtl don't want Ottawa, or Toronto and buffalo don't want Hamilton or Toronto does not want Toronto 2.
I don't see why this is surprising. Am I missing something ?
And yet certain people complain about AMERICAN cities getting expansion teams instead of Canadian cities. Those people might want to direct their complaints quite a bit closer to home.

SaintPatrick33 is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 07:42 PM
  #115
96
Esq.
 
96's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,649
vCash: 500
I like the idea of eventually expanding to 32 teams. Add teams in Quebec City and either Portland or Seattle. That would give Canada an even 8 teams (1/4 of the league) and make for 8 divisions of 4 teams each. If a team like the Coyotes continues to struggle financially, relocation is a possibility with places such as Kansas City potential new markets.

I am completely opposed to European expansion.

96 is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 08:23 PM
  #116
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
And yet certain people complain about AMERICAN cities getting expansion teams instead of Canadian cities. Those people might want to direct their complaints quite a bit closer to home.
The american teams would oppose expansion markets into their territory as well. The caps and flyers would likely oppose Baltimore. This is a simple business thing, its not ( as much as some would like it to be) a us/Canada thing. Isn't there enough of this already?

sandysan is online now  
Old
01-01-2013, 08:32 PM
  #117
Mightygoose
Registered User
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,268
vCash: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by 96 View Post
I like the idea of eventually expanding to 32 teams. Add teams in Quebec City and either Portland or Seattle. That would give Canada an even 8 teams (1/4 of the league) and make for 8 divisions of 4 teams each. If a team like the Coyotes continues to struggle financially, relocation is a possibility with places such as Kansas City potential new markets.

I am completely opposed to European expansion.
I think 32 is the endgame short term as well.

Like the 8 division NFLish style realignment. Put the 8 Canadian teams in two 4 team divisions. It would guarantee 2 of those teams would make the playoffs and have home ice advantage in the 1st round, in turn would make the next Canadian TV rights be worth even more.

It would also avoid the chance of any US based team being 'alone' with four or more Canadian based teams.

Mightygoose is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 08:36 PM
  #118
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
The american teams would oppose expansion markets into their territory as well. The caps and flyers would likely oppose Baltimore. This is a simple business thing, its not ( as much as some would like it to be) a us/Canada thing. Isn't there enough of this already?
The US vs Canada thing isn't coming from the US side of the border. It's invariably a one-way street where abuse gets heaped on American teams and the solutions put forward for every team that has even a wiff of "trouble" is to move that team to Canada.

SaintPatrick33 is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 08:51 PM
  #119
broinwhyteridge
bro license revoked!
 
broinwhyteridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
This will be the only way to make the media forget the lockout. It gives the appearance of growth and of course introduce new people into the game. Besides we can't turn back now and if the players lose this would be nice compensation. I don't want to do this but it's beyond obviously

I think we need to go to 36

Quebec City
Atlanta*
Houston
Seattle
San Antonio**
Hamilton, ON


* We need to go back to Atlanta. It's the capital of the south. Enough said.

** San Antonio is a fast growing city in the southwest with money and can bring in the parts of the southwest

Houston is self explanatory.
Great - our current 4th liners will become 2nd liners. Bound to help the quality.

broinwhyteridge is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 08:59 PM
  #120
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoser View Post
Words cannot express how awful this idea is.
exactly.

If anything, the number of teams should be reduced to 28. And that's not likely to happen either.

Butch 19 is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 10:14 PM
  #121
mercury
Registered User
 
mercury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: South Philly/SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 11,091
vCash: 500
Add teams in Houston and Portland, move Columbus to Quebec and Phoenix to Seattle.

Eastern Conference

Adams Division:
Quebec
Montreal
Toronto
Boston
Buffalo
Ottawa
Pittsburgh
Detroit

Patrick Division:
NYR
NYI
NJ
Philly
Washington
Carolina
Florida
Tampa Bay

Norris Division:
Chicago
St. Louis
Minnesota
Nashville
Dallas
Houston
Winnipeg
Colorado

Smythe Division:
Vancouver
Portland
San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim
Edmonton
Calgary
Seattle

mercury is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 10:25 PM
  #122
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
The US vs Canada thing isn't coming from the US side of the border. It's invariably a one-way street where abuse gets heaped on American teams and the solutions put forward for every team that has even a wiff of "trouble" is to move that team to Canada.
What do you expect, its in the charter of the " screw the american markets" cabal that we are all members of. Oh no........Ive said to much already.

Making us the boogeyman and inventing reasons for why we are the reason for your lot in life isnt going to help your markets. I think your efforts can be better spent than defending against a non existent conspiracy.

sandysan is online now  
Old
01-01-2013, 11:26 PM
  #123
objectiveposter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
I think 32 is the endgame short term as well.

Like the 8 division NFLish style realignment. Put the 8 Canadian teams in two 4 team divisions. It would guarantee 2 of those teams would make the playoffs and have home ice advantage in the 1st round, in turn would make the next Canadian TV rights be worth even more.

It would also avoid the chance of any US based team being 'alone' with four or more Canadian based teams.
so seattle and quebec get expansion teams...

western conference:

vancouver
edmonton
calgary
winnipeg

seattle
san jose
anaheim
la

phoenix
dallas
colorado
minnesota

detroit
chicago
columbus
st louis

eastern conference:
toronto
ottawa
montreal
quebec city

boston
rangers
islanders
devils

philadelphia
pittsburgh
buffalo
washington

florida
tampa
carolina
nashville


top team in each division gets seeds 1-4...

objectiveposter is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 11:35 PM
  #124
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury View Post
Add teams in Houston and Portland, move Columbus to Quebec and Phoenix to Seattle.
Who's going to pay for Columbus to break the new lease that runs through 2039, while also finding a way to make whole the local government that just bought Nationwide Arena in a deal that was conditional upon the lease anyway?

That'd run a good $250 million right there...that's not even including the cost of the team or any of the other residual costs. It'd run a good $500 million or more to just pack up Columbus and move them.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 11:41 PM
  #125
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,266
vCash: 500
What is 32 teams to prove? More Proof that NHL is a follower? NHL needs to lead. 36 or 40 teams. If we have to do this, then cover every part of the map.

Melrose Munch is online now  
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 07:44 AM.

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.