972 replies to this topic

[shoeflack]

Gotta love the NHL. If they do one thing well, it's making sure there is always a threat of relocation and possible destination for the Arizona Coyotes.

[FogPub]

Houston's in the southern US, however, which means Bettman et al will support this idea far more fervently than any move to a Canadian city...

[jonny]

The NHL BOG supported the move to Winnipeg pretty fervently. 

[Casual Kev]

The NHL BOG supported the move to Winnipeg pretty fervently. 

 

But muh "Bettman hates Canada" narrative!

[FogPub]

The NHL BOG supported the move to Winnipeg pretty fervently. 

Sure, after a) equally-fervently supporting the foolishness of relocating the original Winnipeg franchise to Phoenix a few decades earlier - news flash: that one hasn't worked out so well; and b) realizing the Atlanta Thrashers franchise was a complete dumpster fire and that moving it to Winnipeg would be the only way to save it.

 

If the NHL was truly interested in growing revenue they'd next get the Panthers out of Florida and put 'em in the GTA.  Then they'd move Carolina back to Hartford or somewhere close, and failing that put that franchise in Quebec.  As for Phoenix...well, they've lost the no-brain option of moving them to Seattle as it now has its own team (and about time too!) so, Houston?  Dallas has somehow worked out OK, maybe Houston can too?  Good natural rivalry, anyway.

[RFS]

Why haven’t they tried more teams in the Midwest/plains states?

[jonny]

Why pro sports teams are where they are comes down to:

1. A rich enough person, that the pro sports league wants to do business with, (see Balsillie, Jim) wants to own a team in city X. 

2. City X has an appropriate arena/stadium/field for that team/league. 

3. The availability of relocation / expansion team(s). 

 

It really is that simple. 

Why isn't there a team in Quebec City? Because criteria #1 and #3 above have not been satisfied. 

 

Why isn't there a second team in Southern Ontario? Because criteria #1, #2 and #3 above have not been satisfied. 

 

There is no grand conspiracy. 

[AllseeingEye]

/\........Re: a second GTA team you both missed the most contentious issue, namely that of team territorial rights.

 

MLSE/Maple Leafs have long contended - for decades in fact - that they have a 50-mile territorial exclusivity safety net preventing any other team from being located within that distance of TO. The NHL's own by-laws would appear to support that view.

 

Section 4.3 of the league’s constitution states that, “No other member of the League shall be permitted to play games (except regularly scheduled League games with the home club) in the home territory of a member without the latter member’s consent. No franchise shall be granted for a home territory within the home territory of a member, without the written consent of such member.”

 

Further the NHL constitution states that, “Any admission of new members with franchises to operate in any additional cities or boroughs shall be subject to the provisions of Section 4.3.”

 

And it goes on to define a home territory as follows: “Home territory with respect to any member, means each member club shall have exclusive territorial rights in the city in which it is located and within 50 miles of that city’s corporate limits.”

 

Gary Bettman OTOH has come out more than once stating all that is needed is a 75% majority vote by the other owners for this to happen. TO contends it would have to be a unanimous 100% vote. Either way it would be bound to be a horrifically litigious experience - and under what circumstance would the league want to tangle in court with the largest hockey market on the planet, and currently the second most valuable property/brand in the NHL at in excess of $1.35 billion dollars?

Edited by AllseeingEye, 13 December 2018 - 06:22 PM.

[Mike K.]

Hmm, the Rangers, Islanders and Devils are in spitting distance of each other as are the Ducks and Kings. It would make sense for there to be a second most-hated franchise somewhere in the Golden Horseshoe.

[jonny]

The league has many times stated that it has the right to place a team wherever it seems fit, including a second team in Toronto.

I personally think a second team in TO is an inevitability, but it'll happen through a move. Ottawa? Hehe

[AllseeingEye]

The league has many times stated that it has the right to place a team wherever it seems fit, including a second team in Toronto.

I personally think a second team in TO is an inevitability, but it'll happen through a move. Ottawa? Hehe

Yup, as stated above......

 

Fact is GTA Sports and Entertainment has been lobbying to build a PPP-based 18-20,000 seat facility in Markham for several years; to date it remains nothing more than a proposal, as it was in 2016 and in 2014, and even before that....

 

Sportsnet.ca did a story on this subject in 2016 and the prognosis for a second team in the GTA is the same today as it was then - medium (at best) to (far more likely) much longer term for any second team to emerge in southern Ontario, mainly due to cost ($700 million to $1 billion for the facility, as yet unbuilt) and, based on the Seattle expansion fee of $650 million USD, a second team in the TO region would likely be looking at well north of $750 million USD as an entry fee.

 

Couple those stratospheric figures with a sagging Canadian buck - currently in the .76 cents US range and dropping - and the fact with Seattle the NHL at long last has two balanced conferences, and any second team in the metro Tronna region is some ways off yet.

Edited by AllseeingEye, 13 December 2018 - 09:09 PM.

[jonny]

I agree, which is why I think if another team comes to Canada it will be via emergency relocation. Miami, Arizona, Carolina, New Jersey, etc.

Hey, I just realized that the Team Canada camp is in Victoria. Bob McKenzie is in town too. Any sightings?

[FogPub]

There's already an NHL-ready rink in Hamilton - it was called the Copps Centre at one time, not sure if it still has that name.

 

As for jonny's 3 criteria:

 

1. If the prospect of owning a team in southern Ontario were to be waved in front of Bell I think they'd snap it up, if only to compete with Rogers.  Quebec has deep-pocketed Videotron looking to own a team.

2. Hamilton has an NHL-ready rink now, so does Quebec.  Building one somewhere else is also a possibility, but expensive.

3. There's several current franchises in dire need of a new place to play: Florida, Arizona, NY Islanders to name a few.

 

A few years ago it was pointed out that there's actually only 8 NHL teams that reliably make money year after year: the original six plus Philadelphia and Vancouver.  That leaves about 22 that might benefit from a move...we'll leave the jury out on Vegas and Seattle for now.

[jonny]

There's already an NHL-ready rink in Hamilton - it was called the Copps Centre at one time, not sure if it still has that name.

 

As for jonny's 3 criteria:

 

1. If the prospect of owning a team in southern Ontario were to be waved in front of Bell I think they'd snap it up, if only to compete with Rogers.  Quebec has deep-pocketed Videotron looking to own a team.

2. Hamilton has an NHL-ready rink now, so does Quebec.  Building one somewhere else is also a possibility, but expensive.

3. There's several current franchises in dire need of a new place to play: Florida, Arizona, NY Islanders to name a few.

 

A few years ago it was pointed out that there's actually only 8 NHL teams that reliably make money year after year: the original six plus Philadelphia and Vancouver.  That leaves about 22 that might benefit from a move...we'll leave the jury out on Vegas and Seattle for now.

 

1. Then why didn't Bell and Videotron submit expansion applications? [They did not.] 

2. Copps Coliseum is not NHL ready. It would require major renovations and updates to meet NHL 2018 standards. Even the city of Hamilton has acknowledged this over the years. 

3. That's up to the owners of those teams. If Aleksander Barkov wants to own the Panthers in Sunrise, the team will be in Sunrise. 

 

Honestly, we have no idea how much money each team makes or loses. These are private enterprises who have no obligation to disclose financial information publicly. 

[AllseeingEye]

There's already an NHL-ready rink in Hamilton - it was called the Copps Centre at one time, not sure if it still has that name.

 

As for jonny's 3 criteria:

 

1. If the prospect of owning a team in southern Ontario were to be waved in front of Bell I think they'd snap it up, if only to compete with Rogers.  Quebec has deep-pocketed Videotron looking to own a team.

2. Hamilton has an NHL-ready rink now, so does Quebec.  Building one somewhere else is also a possibility, but expensive.

3. There's several current franchises in dire need of a new place to play: Florida, Arizona, NY Islanders to name a few.

 

A few years ago it was pointed out that there's actually only 8 NHL teams that reliably make money year after year: the original six plus Philadelphia and Vancouver.  That leaves about 22 that might benefit from a move...we'll leave the jury out on Vegas and Seattle for now.

You realize I presume that Bell & Rogers currently jointly own 37.5% of MLSE each. They are for now partner-owners of the Maple Leafs and associated companies. Videotron is deep-pocketed compared to you and me. They are peanuts compared to most other potential owner-groups in the US.

 

Copps Coliseum, aka First Ontario Place, is in no way fit to host an NHL team at this time; it was built in the mid-80's about the same time as the Saddledome (which Calgary is actively looking at replacing outright due to its shortcomings, which are many) and as Johnny noted would require multiple, multiple millions in renovations and upgrades merely to bring it up to minimum league standards.

 

The NYI have already signed an agreement to move back to a refurbished Nassau Coliseum; I do agree about Arizona - Glendale was a stupid place to locate that team relative to Phoenix and the commute to the arena; Florida is what it is...a hot mess. The Victoria Royals attract more fans at a practice than Florida does to an NHL game: they are likeliest IMO to be the team that re-locates at some point, ideally to Quebec but given the Bettman's strategy of "growing the game" and securing a long term big dollar US television deal, don't be shocked if its Kansas City or Houston.

[jonny]

The rumours of the Houston Rockets owner kicking the tires on the Coyotes makes a lot of sense. I know Houston is southern, but it's gigantic, they have a modern arena and a really keen owner. The Coyotes seem destined for other locales, but that's been the case for twenty-odd years, so who knows. With the Coyotes moving to the Central division, Houston makes a lot of sense. 

 

Regarding "Bettman's strategy of growing the game", let's not forget who Bettman works for. He reports to the league's Board of Governers - i.e. the NHL team owners. He works for the team owners. 

 

Places like QC, Hamilton and Kansas City likely only make sense as relocation landing spots. There's no way paying a $650M expansion team to put a team in QC makes any financial sense whatsoever. Let's keep in mind QC is essentially double the size of Victoria - i.e. not large, but also in one of the poorest regions of the country. 

[LJ]

I was in the T-mobile arena(Knights) in Las Vegas last week. That is one crappy venue. The seats are mounted on metal platforms and everytime someone goes up and down the stairs, and they do that a lot, the seats shake. The concession stands are very simple and small and expensive. The place looks like it has been used for twenty years and needs a refurb. Much prefer the Coyotes venue.

[jonny]

Wow. That's surprising to hear.

[Mike K.]

Meanwhile the Globe is gushing with praise for the arena:

 

"T-Mobile Arena offers architectural features on par with the finest new arenas across North America. But, it wouldn't be Nevada without flashy extras like the nightclub areas in the upper rafters."

[AllseeingEye]

Meanwhile the Globe is gushing with praise for the arena:

 

"T-Mobile Arena offers architectural features on par with the finest new arenas across North America. But, it wouldn't be Nevada without flashy extras like the nightclub areas in the upper rafters."

Note that article is almost a year and half old; not that the LV rink is old but some buildings will age better than others of course. Perhaps because its intended to host boxing and UFC etc., the "seat shaking" was a deliberate design feature presumably to 'enhance' the fan experience.....

 

Never ceases to amaze me the American penchant for uber-hyped marketing. Vegas.....the "entertainment capital of the world". Really. Not (and especially) if you're not into gambling, it isn't. I went once and have less than zero desire to ever go back. Been there, done it, can think of a hundred other places I would rather see. Its not even the entertainment capital of the US IMO (that would be NYC). Regardless to each their own...

 

A friend was down late last season and caught a Knights game. Like LJ he was very underwhelmed with T-MA. In his opinion no NHL arena, and he's been to about 3/4 of them, comes close to the Bell Center in Montreal for the overall experience of presenting an NHL game. Of course if "flash" impresses you then I suppose a facility with a night club would float some peoples' boat. 

Edited by AllseeingEye, 15 December 2018 - 01:25 PM.