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.
Paul Kelly says QC & Toronto to get expansion teams; Daly disputes assertion
Funny most people on here think we have too many teams and yet saying we need to add two more teams to accomidate more canadian expansion because adding another team in a city where the leafs are a religion is going to be a success
There are enough people in Toronto have been sufficiently alienated by the Leafs by 40 years of mediocrity (save 1993, 1994, and 1999), high ticket prices, and corporate climate at the ACC, not to mention transplants from all over Canada that have no allegiance to the Leafs, to carve out a decent market in the region. And if they can ice a competitive team while beating the Leafs' ticket prices (shouldn't be too hard), more will come.
This idea (two expansion cities in Canada, one in Quebec City and a second in the Toronto area) is the biggest no-brainer this league has seen in some time. Quite frankly, I'm surprised the deals haven't been announced.
I don't see a downside...
- more jobs for the NHLPA
- with the way young hockey players are developing these days, the league won't get watered down like in the past. Nowadays, 18-year-old and 19-year-old players increase the pool of available talent. And the 40-year-old players are in better shape, too.
- expanding to Canada lessens the urgency of these two new franchises to be good right away. The two new organizations can build from scratch without the need of a 'big splash'.
- instant, natural rivalries with Montreal and Toronto, plus the possibility of several more.
- if other NHL teams continue to have problems, and relocation is required, Seattle is still out there as a possibility.
- 32 teams could be easier to rearrange in terms of realignment, either with four divisions of 8 or maybe even eight divisions of four.
- more money in the kitty for the league.
- expansion draft. Could be exciting. It draws attention.
And I'm sure I'm forgetting several other points. I really hope this happens soon. I'm giddy about the idea of seeing the Quebec Nordiques back in the big league.
This idea (two expansion cities in Canada, one in Quebec City and a second in the Toronto area) is the biggest no-brainer this league has seen in some time. Quite frankly, I'm surprised the deals haven't been announced.
I don't see a downside...
- more jobs for the NHLPA
- with the way young hockey players are developing these days, the league won't get watered down like in the past. Nowadays, 18-year-old and 19-year-old players increase the pool of available talent. And the 40-year-old players are in better shape, too.
- expanding to Canada lessens the urgency of these two new franchises to be good right away. The two new organizations can build from scratch without the need of a 'big splash'.
- instant, natural rivalries with Montreal and Toronto, plus the possibility of several more.
- if other NHL teams continue to have problems, and relocation is required, Seattle is still out there as a possibility.
- 32 teams could be easier to rearrange in terms of realignment, either with four divisions of 8 or maybe even eight divisions of four.
- more money in the kitty for the league.
- expansion draft. Could be exciting. It draws attention.
And I'm sure I'm forgetting several other points. I really hope this happens soon. I'm giddy about the idea of seeing the Quebec Nordiques back in the big league.
If I do remember right, Nordiques/Bruins games were also quite a show. Another instant rivalry from both sides.
As long as the Nordiques get back in the league first, I would love to see another Toronto team.
Seriously, Nords 2.0 should have happened yesterday.
It would be nice to see the NHL focus on putting teams in areas where the fans actually are, not where the never-actually-going-to-be-realized 'potential' money is.
You think QC is building an arena for ***** and giggles? They have a promise in pocket. Either the Coyotes, or an expansion team. That's how the NHL does business. Having 'concerned citizens' torpedo a nice arena isn't going to make the league jump for joy when discussing expanding Toronto. It just makes them leery, and likely puts Toronto 2 behind Seattle.
Qc needs an arena because their closes competitor for everything (hockey, shows, disney on ice...) is Centre Bell in Montreal (roughly 250 km away).
If you build an arena in Markham without a principal tenant, Leafs will keep getting all the shows, all the hockey and all the disney on ice and others.
Yesterday on a late radio show, Dany Dube (TVA sports i think) said that among elements that would make a 2nd team work in Toronto is the fact that the 2nd team could do a more families friendly approach. Leafs tickets are so expensive only rich families get to enjoy the hockey (most of the time). So the new team could build up with that fan base. Have prices more in line with league average to start with. Another point is, the list of people on Leafs list waiting for season tickets will NEVER EVER get to 0, NEVER. Some people spend at long as 10-15 years waiting to get a chance at season tickets. A 2nd team would make that list cut in half (maybe) but would not make it get down to 0, not even close. Same applies with enterprises who are willing to get some sponsorship and/or luxury boxes with Leafs, there is a waiting list for that aswell.
Finally, he said that some of the Leafs sponsors are strong enough to be able to have luxury boxes and sponsorship in two different teams/arenas without any problems.
Last edited by powerstuck: 01-30-2013 at 09:04 AM.
half the city hates the Leafs and supports other NHL teams...
6.4 million people in a hockey first area = no brainer for 2 teams.
agreed. GTA2 would instantly have sufficient fanbase to support it. no question whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkhamNHL
disagree
Another Toronto team would easily be in the top 4 or 5 in revenues..
i think you misunderstood his point. of course it would be an instant sell-out for years, but if capital costs to initially secure it (ie., expansion fee, indemnification fee, etc.) were sufficiently high, even those huge revenues might not be enough to actually turn a profit.
You think QC is building an arena for ***** and giggles? They have a promise in pocket. Either the Coyotes, or an expansion team. That's how the NHL does business. Having 'concerned citizens' torpedo a nice arena isn't going to make the league jump for joy when discussing expanding Toronto. It just makes them leery, and likely puts Toronto 2 behind Seattle.
That's one big load of BS. QC is building an arena because the taxpayers are paying for it. There's a reason why not a single dime of private funds will be spent in that building, no one in their right mind would agree to do so in such a small market that failed less than 20 years ago.
Qc needs an arena because their closes competitor for everything (hockey, shows, disney on ice...) is Centre Bell in Montreal (roughly 250 km away).
If you build an arena in Markham without a principal tenant, Leafs will keep getting all the shows, all the hockey and all the disney on ice and others.
i doubt that very much. a suburban arena would have a very dramatic impact on the ACC's monopoly on big ticket events/tours. the ACC is now 14 years old and is no longer a state of the art arena. mlse is not worried about hockey ticket sales, they are (still) worried about a competing venue. the markham motoroladome is their worst nightmare, hence the likely demand for a massive indemnification fee, as well as complete broadcast rights for any new nhl team that might eventually find itself north of the 401.
i can easily see the big tour promoters choosing the markham motoroladome over the acc, if only for it being an easier in-out. acc ain't that special anymore.
That's one big load of BS. QC is building an arena because the taxpayers are paying for it. There's a reason why not a single dime of private funds will be spent in that building, no one in their right mind would agree to do so in such a small market that failed less than 20 years ago.
What is your definition of a small market that failed?
That's one big load of BS. QC is building an arena because the taxpayers are paying for it. There's a reason why not a single dime of private funds will be spent in that building, no one in their right mind would agree to do so in such a small market that failed less than 20 years ago.
Bull. Hockey team or not, Quebec is building a new arena to replace the one that was built when Mackenzie King was Prime Minister. It's long past its lifespan.
Hamilton , Quebec City , Seattle , Houston & Kansas City in 10 years & all Markham will be left with is white elephant thats if they bulid that arena .
i doubt that very much. a suburban arena would have a very dramatic impact on the ACC's monopoly on big ticket events/tours. the ACC is now 14 years old and is no longer a state of the art arena. mlse is not worried about hockey ticket sales, they are (still) worried about a competing venue. the markham motoroladome is their worst nightmare, hence the likely demand for a massive indemnification fee, as well as complete broadcast rights for any new nhl team that might eventually find itself north of the 401.
i can easily see the big tour promoters choosing the markham motoroladome over the acc, if only for it being an easier in-out. acc ain't that special anymore.
While this might be true for some family shows, I think most concerts etc. are averse to suburban arenas because they don't like liabilities for drunk driving etc. Look at how quickly Prudential Center muscled Izod out of dominance, same with Barclays and Nassau Coliseum. Urban arenas are considered "hipper", more lucrative, and most importantly, accessible to mass transit so your drunk fans won't be driving home, killing a few people in the process.
Ideally, PHX and CBJ would move to Seattle and Quebec City respectively, but in reality, PHX will move to one of those cities and we will get expansion teams in the remaining one and Toronto2.
Because there is no guarantee of getting a team.. If the NHL said we want to put another team in Toronto, there would probably be a few cities competing to get an arena built, then it's a no brainier....
I sense some doubt about believing what Paul Kelly has to say.
I have to say, I have some doubts as well, and the fact that there are hitches with getting an arena built in Markham seems to support such doubts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
You think QC is building an arena for ***** and giggles? They have a promise in pocket. Either the Coyotes, or an expansion team. That's how the NHL does business. Having 'concerned citizens' torpedo a nice arena isn't going to make the league jump for joy when discussing expanding Toronto. It just makes them leery, and likely puts Toronto 2 behind Seattle.
Quebec City getting a team is one thing, the Toronto area getting a 2nd team is quite another.
Not saying it isn't going to happen, but... uncertainty about it would certainly explain the hold up in getting the construction of a new arena approved and started.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2525
They're not opposed to the arena. They're opposed to the funding arrangement.
Even though I would love to see a second team (or a third) I agree NO taxpayer money should be used to build an arena.
Now that they've voted to continue the process I hope protections are in place to protect taxpayer investments.
My personal opinion....a team in Markham would be a gold mine.
Makes sense. Why any amount of public funding for an arena in which an NHL would probably make its owners tons of money?
and two new teams for expansion in two or three years
Markham
Seattle
?
Which one will it be?
If the thought that Canadian franchises would be more likely to be enthusiastic about paying expansion fees than American cities, then I can I see Seattle used as a relOcation home.
Also American tv networks would want into the northwest
i doubt that very much. a suburban arena would have a very dramatic impact on the ACC's monopoly on big ticket events/tours. the ACC is now 14 years old and is no longer a state of the art arena. mlse is not worried about hockey ticket sales, they are (still) worried about a competing venue. the markham motoroladome is their worst nightmare, hence the likely demand for a massive indemnification fee, as well as complete broadcast rights for any new nhl team that might eventually find itself north of the 401.
i can easily see the big tour promoters choosing the markham motoroladome over the acc, if only for it being an easier in-out. acc ain't that special anymore.
I don't know. If that is true, Markham should go and build an arena, NHL or not. Because, if they don't get NHL they will have everysingle Saturday night open, while Leafs, playing at home will not be able to do it.
My point is, we would like to have the NHL, but the arena is needed without it anyway because all the big names stop at Centre Bell because the next stop is not good enough for them, in 2 and half years, they will be stopping in Quebec aswell because they will have a modern arena.
If Markham builds an arena without NHL they can bring in huge profits and not pay a dime in indemnification fees to MLSE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe
If the thought that Canadian franchises would be more likely to be enthusiastic about paying expansion fees than American cities, then I can I see Seattle used as a relOcation home.
Also American tv networks would want into the northwest
Relocation will happen first. Also expanding by two teams, all in east (north-east) will force you to do something ASAP about Winnipeg and two more teams in east. And last news says NHL and NHLPA are not on the same track when it comes to realignment of divisions and associations.
