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.

What if canadian teams created their own league?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-19-2010, 04:10 PM
  #51
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 13,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyhopeful View Post
I'd be all for a Canadian league. Like most things in Life timing is evertything and now is the time for a Canadian League. Lets say in 10 or twenty years Hockey really catches on in the U S. Since the NHL is controlled by Americans where will they get the teams to supply the American demand. A U S city will build an arena to attract a team. Add in some tax incentives and teams like Edmonton, Calgary even Ottawa, will move. For example KC offers Edmonton a new arena and perks totalling 400 million plus, my guess is Katz says, it's been a slice Edmonton but see ya.

I don't believe the NHL will fight to stay in Edmonto. etc.. Wait too long the Canadian league won't work. Now is the time to do it, yesterday was better, but whatever.
This assumes several things, namely:
1) That interest in hockey in America continues to grow (this will happen)
2) That American cities are willing to build an arena in the hopes that they can attract a team, or
2A) Barring that, that they have a proposal on the table and an existing arena to act as a temporary home
3) That the NHL wouldn't fight to keep Canadian teams in Canada (the precedent was set with Buffalo, Ottawa, Edmonton, Pittsburgh, and Phoenix that the league opposes relocation)
4) That the NHL would rather relocate than expand

I don't see your post coming to fruition because it doesn't mesh with how the league has handled financially troubled teams over the last 14 years. A 32-team league with teams in two new cities makes a great deal more sense than a 30-team league with two teams having moved, and the expansion fees and other benefits of realignment into eight divisions would make it worthwhile.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 05:53 PM
  #52
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 6,061
vCash: 500
Can someone explain why the Toronto Maple Leafs or Montreal Canadiens would leave a league that they have been members of since 1917? Or for that matter, why any of the newer teams would? I just don't see it happening. Does anyone think there is a business case that would convince them?

And do Canadians really want a hockey leauge without the Stanley Cup? Because I don't think the NHL would give up it very easily. And if they did give it up, I suspect the price would be high such as the "Canadian Hockey League" agreeing to never place a team in the U.S. or having to let players leave if they wanted to join the NHL.

rojac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 06:04 PM
  #53
Gnashville
Never trade Weber
 
Gnashville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
The Leafs are fighting to keep teams out of Canada not to have more there. Why would any owner that struggled in the Past (Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary) and received assistance from the league want to do this and risk losing fan interest. All of the Canadian Team owners voted against Baldsilly, this is just a pipe dream never would happen.

Gnashville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 07:53 PM
  #54
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
And do Canadians really want a hockey leauge without the Stanley Cup? Because I don't think the NHL would give up it very easily. And if they did give it up, I suspect the price would be high such as the "Canadian Hockey League" agreeing to never place a team in the U.S. or having to let players leave if they wanted to join the NHL.
Is the Stanley Cup owned by the NHL? I thought that rule was that rival leagues may challenge for the cup if they want.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 08:26 PM
  #55
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,169
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Is the Stanley Cup owned by the NHL? I thought that rule was that rival leagues may challenge for the cup if they want.
The trustees of the Stanley Cup ceded control of the Cup to the NHL in 1947.

During the lockout there was an attempt to argue that the NHL had violated it's agreement with the trustees and to revert the cup back to an independent challenge cup. Free Stanley went nowhere - and the freestanley.com domain name has been abandoned

http://www.mlnsports.com/hockey/feat...005/02/09.html

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 09:01 PM
  #56
Raym11
Phaneuf sucks
 
Raym11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,692
vCash: 500
and why do the canadian teams want to create their own league anyways? lol Canadian teams dont care about more canadian teams, they make more money with less canadian teams.

Raym11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 10:57 PM
  #57
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
The trustees of the Stanley Cup ceded control of the Cup to the NHL in 1947.

During the lockout there was an attempt to argue that the NHL had violated it's agreement with the trustees and to revert the cup back to an independent challenge cup. Free Stanley went nowhere - and the freestanley.com domain name has been abandoned

http://www.mlnsports.com/hockey/feat...005/02/09.html
I thought there was some provision in that 1947 deal that if another elite? league challenged for the cup then the NHL would have to accept? I do seem to remember reading that the WHA tried to challenge for it but the NHL refused.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 11:09 PM
  #58
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,169
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
I thought there was some provision in that 1947 deal that if another elite? league challenged for the cup then the NHL would have to accept? I do seem to remember reading that the WHA tried to challenge for it but the NHL refused.
The agreement with the Trustees pretty much gave the NHL complete authority unless and until someone can convince an Arbitration Board that the NHL is not "the world's leading professional hockey league as determined by its playing caliber".

Quote:
1. The Trustees hereby delegate to the League full authority to determine and amend from time to time the conditions for competition of the Stanley Cup, including the qualifications of challengers, the appointment of officials, the apportionment and distribution of all gate receipts, provided always that the winners of this trophy shall be the acknowledged World's Professional Hockey Champions.

2. The Trustees agree that during the currency of this agreement they will not acknowledge or accept any challenge for the Stanley Cup unless such a challenge is in conformity with the condition specified in paragraph one (1) thereof.

3. The League undertakes the responsibility for the care and safe custody of the Stanley Cup including all necessary repairs and alterations to the cup and sub-structure as may be required from time to time, and further undertakes to insure the Stanley Cup for its full insurable value.

4. The League hereby acknowledges itself to be bound to the Trustees in the sum of One Thousand Dollars, which bond is conditioned upon the safe return of the Stanley Cup to the Trustees in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, and it is agreed that the League shall have the right to return the trophy to the Trustees at any time.

5. This agreement shall remain in force so long as the League continues to be the world's leading professional hockey league as determined by its playing caliber, and in the event of dissolution or other termination of the National Hockey League, the Stanley Cup shall revert to the custody of the trustees.

6. In the event of default in the appointment of a new trustee by the surviving trustee, the "Trustees" hereby delegate and appoint the Governors of the International Hockey Hall of Fame in Kingston, Ontario, to name two Canadian trustees to carry on under the terms of the original trust, and in conformity with this Agreement.

7. And it is further mutually agreed that any disputes arising as to the interpretation of this Agreement or the facts upon which such interpretation is made, shall be settled by an Arbitration Board of three, one member to be appointed by each of the parties, and the third to be selected by the two appointees. The decision of the Arbitration Board shall be final.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 12:13 AM
  #59
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
The agreement with the Trustees pretty much gave the NHL complete authority unless and until someone can convince an Arbitration Board that the NHL is not "the world's leading professional hockey league as determined by its playing caliber".
Ah ok. Thanks for that.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 01:17 AM
  #60
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 13,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raym11 View Post
and why do the canadian teams want to create their own league anyways? lol Canadian teams dont care about more canadian teams, they make more money with less canadian teams.
That's one of the reasons Harold Ballard opposed the expansion to Vancouver in 1970, the relocation of Atlanta to Calgary, and the absorption of the WHA's Canadian teams.

Either that or he was just an ass.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 01:35 AM
  #61
Brodie
Moderator
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 11,848
vCash: 500
If we indulge in the impossible fantasy at the heart of this thread, we might as well give this new Canadian league the Stanley Cup. It is the Dominion Challenge Cup, after all... Canada even added a second Dominion, so by all means give it to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
However it should be noted though that the football/hockey argument aren't exactly the same as the Argonauts football team has been in Toronto since 1873 and there's actually people who believe that football was invented at the University Of Toronto. So its a little less of an "untraditional market" than many of the sunbelt hockey franchises but the general reaction seemed the same.
Not really. If you found out that British soldiers had played field hockey on the ice (the origin of the game in Canada) in Jamestown, Virginia 100 years before the first record of such a game in Canada, would you suddenly say the Southeast deserves hockey?

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 03:54 AM
  #62
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
That's one of the reasons Harold Ballard opposed the expansion to Vancouver in 1970, the relocation of Atlanta to Calgary, and the absorption of the WHA's Canadian teams.

Either that or he was just an ass.
There's that and he was a total ass.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 08:17 AM
  #63
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,854
vCash: 500
What would make more sense is a second tier league like the AHL but make it exclusively Canadian. Have higher salaries and ticket prices than the AHL to attract the better pro players that can't make it in the NHL.

Cities like Winnipeg, Hamilton and Quebec City just aren't big enough to support NHL hockey unless they (a) either bring the salary cap down or (b) provide massive government support to make it happen. But they can and would support something a step above the AHL, especially if it was Canadian based.

Frozenice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 10:35 AM
  #64
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenice View Post
What would make more sense is a second tier league like the AHL but make it exclusively Canadian. Have higher salaries and ticket prices than the AHL to attract the better pro players that can't make it in the NHL.

Cities like Winnipeg, Hamilton and Quebec City just aren't big enough to support NHL hockey unless they (a) either bring the salary cap down or (b) provide massive government support to make it happen. But they can and would support something a step above the AHL, especially if it was Canadian based.
You're essentially proposing a return to the IHL. It worked in Quebec City for a year or two (but the attendance numbers were hugely inflated because they gave a large proportion of free tickets away), then it went downhill.

The problem with lesser leagues in markets that have experienced NHL hockey in the past is that people clearly recognize it's a lesser league, and just won't support it unless there's really something special about it (junior hockey's the only example I can think of). There's nothing special about AHL+.

barneyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 10:52 AM
  #65
edog37
Registered User
 
edog37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Washington DC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
You're essentially proposing a return to the IHL. It worked in Quebec City for a year or two (but the attendance numbers were hugely inflated because they gave a large proportion of free tickets away), then it went downhill.

The problem with lesser leagues in markets that have experienced NHL hockey in the past is that people clearly recognize it's a lesser league, and just won't support it unless there's really something special about it (junior hockey's the only example I can think of). There's nothing special about AHL+.
explain Toronto then.....

edog37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 11:02 AM
  #66
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
You're essentially proposing a return to the IHL. It worked in Quebec City for a year or two (but the attendance numbers were hugely inflated because they gave a large proportion of free tickets away), then it went downhill.

The problem with lesser leagues in markets that have experienced NHL hockey in the past is that people clearly recognize it's a lesser league, and just won't support it unless there's really something special about it (junior hockey's the only example I can think of). There's nothing special about AHL+.
More like a hockey version of the CFL. The AHL is doing fine in Winnipeg and Hamilton, there are a lot of people who just want to go out and watch a decent hockey game at a price they can afford even in places like Toronto or Montreal. There are a lot of cities like Saskatoon, Halifax, London, Thunder Bay and St. John's who could be possible franchise locations.

Frozenice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 01:01 PM
  #67
Brodie
Moderator
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 11,848
vCash: 500
If you're proposing a second AAA-level league comprised entirely of Canadian clubs, I like the idea.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 02:33 PM
  #68
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenice View Post
What would make more sense is a second tier league like the AHL but make it exclusively Canadian. Have higher salaries and ticket prices than the AHL to attract the better pro players that can't make it in the NHL.
Not likely but you're close. A Canadian league separate from the NHL and if they can pay more per player than NHL teams do. So be it. Second tier would not work, take the Marlies for example.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 04:27 PM
  #69
Moobles
Registered User
 
Moobles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,551
vCash: 500
The best situation for a new league to rise up in competition would be during a lockout. It takes competent ownership willing to accept losses however, which are hard to come by.

I see no benefit in excluding American cities. No matter how you spin it, a fundamental problem with all major sports is they sell the rights to participate in the league, they don't sell the rights to run a franchise. With that in places, teams will always move, small but potentially viable markets getting ignored, and profits won't reach their potential /rant.

Better to hope QC and WPG make it back into the NHL I think .

Moobles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 04:47 PM
  #70
RandV
It's a wolf
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,586
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaientai View Post
Let' say that it did happen and the six Canadian teams would secede and form their own league.....and for arguments sake took the Cup with them. Here is a scenario then......the remaining American teams streamline and then have their own league. Which would be more profitable? In theory, the American one would due to the sheer numbers of the US (even if it is only supported in the Northern cities). More money = better players. Thus the elite Canadian players would likely go to the American league. Similar to how the elite Europeans play here. For the money. It could result into a hockey equivalent of the CFL (a good league, but devoid of the elite players)
Or alternatively, you could consider how it would be if it was that way from the start. In an alternate reality, rather than expand into the US the NHL remained a Canadian league which is the best outcome for Canadian league proponents since they wouldn't have to deal with the anarchy of breaking away from the NHL.

So what would that look like? Well without the Canadian talent on display it's unlikely hockey in the US would grow to what it is today and it would be even more of a fringe sport than it is now. Canadians will see all there best players playing at home in Canada, but without the American $$$ likely won't be able to afford to pull all the best talent out of Europe, and rather would be more on par with Russia. So there you go, it would basically be a Canadian Elite League, not too different from the various Elite Leagues across Europe, and likely dominated by the big $$$ in Toronto & Montreal.

Who wins? The Europeans obviously, because there wouldn't be a super league taking all the best players to a different continent. I don't see why any Canadian would want this.

(Note that you could also play the what if game if the Europeans decided to cross borders and place teams in only the biggest cities.)

RandV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 05:12 PM
  #71
Axe Man
Brooklyn Bound
 
Axe Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Islander Country
Country: United States
Posts: 811
vCash: 500
I have always gotten the impression on HF that Canadiens don't like the fact that there are so many teams in the US. I can kind of understand their point. I say we give it a shot and let Canada have it's own league. We may have some weak franchises in the States right now but we also have enough strong ones to survive without the Canadien teams. I'll bet the Eastern conference alone minus the Canadien teams would thrive.

Axe Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 05:29 PM
  #72
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Van Halen View Post
I have always gotten the impression on HF that Canadiens don't like the fact that there are so many teams in the US. I can kind of understand their point. I say we give it a shot and let Canada have it's own league. We may have some weak franchises in the States right now but we also have enough strong ones to survive without the Canadien teams. I'll bet the Eastern conference alone minus the Canadien teams would thrive.
I don't think its necessarily that. I don't think people really have an issue with the fact that Phoenix has a franchise or Tampa has a franchise, as much as they sound like they do. I think the majority of these people simply want 2 or 3 more Canadian franchises and the weaker franchises (which coincidentally happen to be mostly made up of sunbelt markets) usually take the "you don't deserve NHL hockey, Winnipeg/Quebec/So. Ont. does more so, move the teams up north" 'slamming' more often than not. I have a feeling that if Winnipeg and Quebec had teams and So. Ont. had a second team, few people would even care about Phoenix going to bankruptcy or Atlanta having 5000 people attend games. The ones that do care and are crazy enough to believe that NHL hockey can work in a city of 200000 (in the case of Saskatoon) should be ignored entirely IMO.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 05:52 PM
  #73
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
I don't think its necessarily that. I don't think people really have an issue with the fact that Phoenix has a franchise or Tampa has a franchise, as much as they sound like they do. I think the majority of these people simply want 2 or 3 more Canadian franchises and the weaker franchises (which coincidentally happen to be mostly made up of sunbelt markets) usually take the "you don't deserve NHL hockey, Winnipeg/Quebec/So. Ont. does more so, move the teams up north" 'slamming' more often than not. I have a feeling that if Winnipeg and Quebec had teams and So. Ont. had a second team, few people would even care about Phoenix going to bankruptcy or Atlanta having 5000 people attend games. The ones that do care and are crazy enough to believe that NHL hockey can work in a city of 200000 (in the case of Saskatoon) should be ignored entirely IMO.
Exactly!

If we were paying $4 a gallon for gas and the guys in Alabama were paying $12 a gallon. They wouldn't be too happy if they were denied a bigger supply to lower their price per gallon. Never mind adding that tuscon was helping us keep our gas prices at $4. Then we add the best line, well you already have gas in Alabama.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 06:38 PM
  #74
Blackwater13*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 1,232
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymaker View Post
What would happen if we Canadians finally got this silly chip off our shoulders?



Care to show your math on this one?



When did Canadian teams get more than one vote each? And what do existing Canadian teams stand to gain by getting more Canadian teams? Five of six Canadian teams already sell out 41 home dates a year - will they get super-duper sellouts with more Canadian teams?
ZING!

Blackwater13* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 10:46 PM
  #75
Badger36
Registered User
 
Badger36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 2,296
vCash: 500
The NHL would die if the Canadian teams left and formed their own league??? LOL Get real! You're greatly overestimating the importance of the Canadian teams.
The NHL would be fine and it would open up the possibility of teams in new places that are deserving of a team (Wisconsin, for example).
Really, the only downside to the Canadian teams leaving the NHL would be that we'd have to listen to the Canadians brag about how the CHL is, "real" hockey and that the NHL champion isnt a legit champion because they didnt have to beat a Canadian team to win the cup.

Badger36 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:19 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.