fletch Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 https://deadspin.com/whos-keeping-the-nhl-out-of-quebec-city-1833781497 '...The Islanders are joined at the bottom of the attendance rankings by the Florida Panthers, Arizona Coyotes, and Carolina Hurricanes?all wanderers of the league?s expansion-era desert. Season after season, it?s hard to watch the league?s least?cared about teams fail to draw crowds or drum up fan interest and not think about the hockey-mad city that the NHL, even in its time of overexpansion, has continued to leave out in the cold: Quebec City...' 'In 2015, the idea of the NHL returning to Quebec City was supposed to have traversed the distance between wishful thinking and tangible idea when the Videotron Centre opened. The arena, constructed with $370 million in public funding...?I?ve covered events there, and it?s legitimately NHL-worthy,? says TSN reporter John Lu, who covers the Montreal Canadiens.' '...The real reason Bettman keeps driving his league into American frontiers even as recent expansion teams continue to struggle is that he desires new markets above all else. Pre-existing hockey fans in Quebec City, many of whom may already be spending their time and money on the Canadiens or Leafs, don?t offer much in the way of expanding the game?s reach. New hockey cities mean new fans and TV deals and, hopefully, lots of new money.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted December 7, 2019 Author Share Posted December 7, 2019 https://business.financialpost.com/financial-post-magazine/why-canada-the-rightful-home-of-hockey-may-never-be-home-to-another-nhl-franchise '...It can be easy, even comforting, to conclude that the problem must be them: them being the league, its American-sunbelt-loving-New-York-City-headquartered commissioner, Gary Bettman, and the majority of American owners behind him, hell bent on propping up marginal franchises in Florida, Arizona and the Carolinas, while forgoing slam dunk propositions such as the Nordiques 2.0. Much less appetizing to consider is the alternative, which is that the problem is us: our population, 75-cent dollar, relative lack of billionaire would-be hockey team owners, corporate parochialism and collective inability to grasp, or rather fully admit, that Canada, although the rightful home of hockey, may never be home to another NHL franchise.' '...To understand why not, it helps to do the math...Looking at it, the financials aren’t great,” he says of the prospects for an eighth Canadian NHL franchise. “It is a thin investment, there is not a lot of earnings in it, and you need a rich person.”...Hence the need for a rich person, a billionaire at minimum, which in Canada limits the pool to about 100 potential buyers' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted December 7, 2019 Author Share Posted December 7, 2019 This is a tough dynamic for me. It suggests that you should take the Minnesota franchise out of Minneapolis and move it to San Antonio. San Antonio is the seventh largest city, Minneapolis 46th https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population It's a much larger market... and it's not like Minnesota fans will stop watching hockey. There's the Blues, the Blackhawks, Red Wings. Is the NHL just a business (see no Olympics but some kind of world hockey tournament run by NHL)? Or do we want to keep some NHL franchises in Canada, upper Midwest, Colorado, Northeast, and places where hockey is beloved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sod16 Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Get your facts straight. The Twin Cities are the 16th largest metro and San Antonio is 24th. The Wild doesn't even play in Minneapolis. FLA has just been a bust for so long that it's time to stop trying. They've steeply discounted tickets for decades and will never ween fans onto seats priced near the league average. Carolina only generates interest when it is winning, and not enough even then. Those two teams would do well to be moved to Quebec City. I'm willing to give Arizona a break, for now, because the team was just so mismanaged and is stuck in such an ill situated arena. Jury is out on Vegas. Let's see what it looks like after they've missed the playoffs a few times. When Bettman first came in he said 3 NY teams was one to many, but he switched his thinking, and keeping the Islanders became a commitment beyond all logic. Now they will be here for good, and five years from now, after the new arena effect has worn off, they will be struggling to sell seats and especially suites. For a team that was better than any other over a long period and won three cups, the Devils still don't have the following that they should. Never had never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Get your facts straight. The Twin Cities are the 16th largest metro and San Antonio is 24th. The Wild doesn't even play in Minneapolis. FLA has just been a bust for so long that it's time to stop trying. They've steeply discounted tickets for decades and will never ween fans onto seats priced near the league average. Carolina only generates interest when it is winning, and not enough even then. Those two teams would do well to be moved to Quebec City. I'm willing to give Arizona a break, for now, because the team was just so mismanaged and is stuck in such an ill situated arena. Jury is out on Vegas. Let's see what it looks like after they've missed the playoffs a few times. When Bettman first came in he said 3 NY teams was one to many, but he switched his thinking, and keeping the Islanders became a commitment beyond all logic. Now they will be here for good, and five years from now, after the new arena effect has worn off, they will be struggling to sell seats and especially suites. For a team that was better than any other over a long period and won three cups, the Devils still don't have the following that they should. Never had never will.Fletch sourced his population rankings, can you source yours? Before you tell him to get his facts straight and all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted December 8, 2019 Author Share Posted December 8, 2019 Get your facts straight. The Twin Cities are the 16th largest metro and San Antonio is 24th. The Wild doesn't even play in Minneapolis. FLA has just been a bust for so long that it's time to stop trying. They've steeply discounted tickets for decades and will never ween fans onto seats priced near the league average. Carolina only generates interest when it is winning, and not enough even then. Those two teams would do well to be moved to Quebec City. I'm willing to give Arizona a break, for now, because the team was just so mismanaged and is stuck in such an ill situated arena. Jury is out on Vegas. Let's see what it looks like after they've missed the playoffs a few times. When Bettman first came in he said 3 NY teams was one to many, but he switched his thinking, and keeping the Islanders became a commitment beyond all logic. Now they will be here for good, and five years from now, after the new arena effect has worn off, they will be struggling to sell seats and especially suites. For a team that was better than any other over a long period and won three cups, the Devils still don't have the following that they should. Never had never will. https://business.financialpost.com/financial-post-magazine/why-canada-the-rightful-home-of-hockey-may-never-be-home-to-another-nhl-franchise 'Expansion, of course, is one way to get a team. The other is a relocation scenario, where a U.S.-based dumpster-fire of a hockey situation reaches Atlanta Thrashers-sized proportions, and the team/league cries uncle and heads north. Cast against this scenario is Bettman, a man who hates to admit failure, and rightly so, because failing is bad for business...The NHL’s existing strategy might even be paying off, depending on one’s perspective. Auston Matthews, Maple Leafs star and a former No. 1 overall NHL pick, grew up in the Phoenix suburbs as a Coyotes fan; the Arizona State University men’s hockey team in nearby Tempe has emerged as a U.S. college hockey power; and youth hockey enrollment in the state has quadrupled since the Coyotes arrived in 1996. Hockey has a toehold in Arizona, like it or not. Equally evident is that the Coyotes continue to lose gobs of money, reportedly close to US$20 million a year.' IMO, a franchise has to be mismanaged, hemorrhaging money, and alienating it's fan base to the point where there is not evidence it will become financially viable, before relocation is a possibility. For fans - this is good. Quebec mourns the loss of the Nordiques, like Hartford mourns the loss of the Whalers, and Minnesota mourned the loss of the Stars before the Wild came. Bettman's strategy has been to add franchises in the Sunbelt (and now the Pacific Northwest) and have patience to wait for the community to fall in love with hockey. In Dallas it has worked like a charm. I would just prefer that the NHL takes care of communities that love hockey. The Quebec-Montreal rivalry was awesome. Hamilton-Toronto would be a great rivalry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Get your facts straight. The Twin Cities are the 16th largest metro and San Antonio is 24th. The Wild doesn't even play in Minneapolis. FLA has just been a bust for so long that it's time to stop trying. They've steeply discounted tickets for decades and will never ween fans onto seats priced near the league average. Carolina only generates interest when it is winning, and not enough even then. Those two teams would do well to be moved to Quebec City. I'm willing to give Arizona a break, for now, because the team was just so mismanaged and is stuck in such an ill situated arena. Jury is out on Vegas. Let's see what it looks like after they've missed the playoffs a few times. When Bettman first came in he said 3 NY teams was one to many, but he switched his thinking, and keeping the Islanders became a commitment beyond all logic. Now they will be here for good, and five years from now, after the new arena effect has worn off, they will be struggling to sell seats and especially suites. For a team that was better than any other over a long period and won three cups, the Devils still don't have the following that they should. Never had never will. Hot take? Went to the Rangers/Panthers game down in Sunrise a few weeks back....cannot possibly disagree more. Arena is nice, product is decent, place was PACKED with Panthers gear. Lots of Rangers fans, sure, but such is Florida. They've had issues, but they're pretty overblown aside from perhaps the arena location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 https://business.financialpost.com/financial-post-magazine/why-canada-the-rightful-home-of-hockey-may-never-be-home-to-another-nhl-franchise 'Expansion, of course, is one way to get a team. The other is a relocation scenario, where a U.S.-based dumpster-fire of a hockey situation reaches Atlanta Thrashers-sized proportions, and the team/league cries uncle and heads north. Cast against this scenario is Bettman, a man who hates to admit failure, and rightly so, because failing is bad for business...The NHL’s existing strategy might even be paying off, depending on one’s perspective. Auston Matthews, Maple Leafs star and a former No. 1 overall NHL pick, grew up in the Phoenix suburbs as a Coyotes fan; the Arizona State University men’s hockey team in nearby Tempe has emerged as a U.S. college hockey power; and youth hockey enrollment in the state has quadrupled since the Coyotes arrived in 1996. Hockey has a toehold in Arizona, like it or not. Equally evident is that the Coyotes continue to lose gobs of money, reportedly close to US$20 million a year.' IMO, a franchise has to be mismanaged, hemorrhaging money, and alienating it's fan base to the point where there is not evidence it will become financially viable, before relocation is a possibility. For fans - this is good. Quebec mourns the loss of the Nordiques, like Hartford mourns the loss of the Whalers, and Minnesota mourned the loss of the Stars before the Wild came. Bettman's strategy has been to add franchises in the Sunbelt (and now the Pacific Northwest) and have patience to wait for the community to fall in love with hockey. In Dallas it has worked like a charm. I would just prefer that the NHL takes care of communities that love hockey. The Quebec-Montreal rivalry was awesome. Hamilton-Toronto would be a great rivalry. Hate on Bettman all you want...he's largely succeeded with that strategy. Minnesota to Dallas? Win Expanding to Miami? Win, until they moved to Sunrise. Expanding to Anaheim? Win Moving Quebec to Denver? Win Moving Winnipeg to Phoenix? Win, until they left Phoenix for Glendale. This has become a bigger and bigger loser year over year. Moving Hartford to Carolina? Middling, I'd probably lean win. Expanding to Nashville? Win Expanding to Atlanta? Outright loss. Expanding to Minnesota? Win Expanding to Columbus? Win Moving Atlanta to Winnipeg? Win, for now. Expanding to Vegas? Big win. It's pretty safe to say that the biggest mistakes the NHL has made over the last 20 years with regard to team placement were "try Atlanta again" and "let urban sprawl cities commute away from downtown to games" Bluntly, from a business perspective, why are you putting a team in Quebec City, or Hamilton, or Halifax? You've got a bunch of people that at this juncture have rooted for Montreal or Toronto, or potentially even Ottawa for nearly 25 years - so for success, fan loyalty has to change. Further, you've got to generate 30% additional revenue per ticket to match USD, and each of them is immediately the smallest market in the NHL. It's a massive risk. On the other side, you've got a 7 million person metro area with literally no hockey representation in Houston (and a history of supporting the Aeros, and an arena, and desire for a team) and a near 20% population growth since 2010, you've got a similar deal in Atlanta (not that they should try that one again), you've got 4 million people in Seattle with no NBA and an upcoming NHL team where there's a 15% growth since 2010. You've also got markets like San Antonio, Portland, Orlando, Charlotte, and Austin, all of which are under-served by pro sports and growing at insane clips (15%+ growth since 2010 and over 2 million people in the market). Almost all of these markets have a history of supporting at least a local minor league team (Rampage, Winterhawks, Solar Bears, Checkers, Stars), and almost all of which have an NHL quality arena ready. I get the nostagia of QC and the desire of Hamilton and Halifax and Saskatoon and Regina, but it's just not a logical thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Get your facts straight. The Twin Cities are the 16th largest metro and San Antonio is 24th. The Wild doesn't even play in Minneapolis. FLA has just been a bust for so long that it's time to stop trying. They've steeply discounted tickets for decades and will never ween fans onto seats priced near the league average. Carolina only generates interest when it is winning, and not enough even then. Those two teams would do well to be moved to Quebec City. I'm willing to give Arizona a break, for now, because the team was just so mismanaged and is stuck in such an ill situated arena. Jury is out on Vegas. Let's see what it looks like after they've missed the playoffs a few times. When Bettman first came in he said 3 NY teams was one to many, but he switched his thinking, and keeping the Islanders became a commitment beyond all logic. Now they will be here for good, and five years from now, after the new arena effect has worn off, they will be struggling to sell seats and especially suites. For a team that was better than any other over a long period and won three cups, the Devils still don't have the following that they should. Never had never will. Vegas is a great market even if the the Knights suck.People will fly in and buy tickets to see their team on the road. It's bulletproof. Was going to go this weekend, didn't work out. But went 2 years ago, and the arena is fantastic. Even if ticket sales get slow(and so far they haven't) , the casinos will buy them up and comp people. Bettman is a tool, but Vegas is one thing the NHL got very right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Hate on Bettman all you want...he's largely succeeded with that strategy. Minnesota to Dallas? Win Expanding to Miami? Win, until they moved to Sunrise. Expanding to Anaheim? Win Moving Quebec to Denver? Win Moving Winnipeg to Phoenix? Win, until they left Phoenix for Glendale. This has become a bigger and bigger loser year over year. Moving Hartford to Carolina? Middling, I'd probably lean win. Expanding to Nashville? Win Expanding to Atlanta? Outright loss. Expanding to Minnesota? Win Expanding to Columbus? Win Moving Atlanta to Winnipeg? Win, for now. Expanding to Vegas? Big win. It's pretty safe to say that the biggest mistakes the NHL has made over the last 20 years with regard to team placement were "try Atlanta again" and "let urban sprawl cities commute away from downtown to games" Bluntly, from a business perspective, why are you putting a team in Quebec City, or Hamilton, or Halifax? You've got a bunch of people that at this juncture have rooted for Montreal or Toronto, or potentially even Ottawa for nearly 25 years - so for success, fan loyalty has to change. Further, you've got to generate 30% additional revenue per ticket to match USD, and each of them is immediately the smallest market in the NHL. It's a massive risk. On the other side, you've got a 7 million person metro area with literally no hockey representation in Houston (and a history of supporting the Aeros, and an arena, and desire for a team) and a near 20% population growth since 2010, you've got a similar deal in Atlanta (not that they should try that one again), you've got 4 million people in Seattle with no NBA and an upcoming NHL team where there's a 15% growth since 2010. You've also got markets like San Antonio, Portland, Orlando, Charlotte, and Austin, all of which are under-served by pro sports and growing at insane clips (15%+ growth since 2010 and over 2 million people in the market). Almost all of these markets have a history of supporting at least a local minor league team (Rampage, Winterhawks, Solar Bears, Checkers, Stars), and almost all of which have an NHL quality arena ready. I get the nostagia of QC and the desire of Hamilton and Halifax and Saskatoon and Regina, but it's just not a logical thing to do.Carolina made one serious mistake, which is being in Raleigh rather than Charlotte. Speaking of sprawl, who is signing up to attempt to drive to the Belmont demolition derby at the Cross Island/Throgs Neck/LIE some weeknight at 7pm? I understand Barclays is terrible for hockey, but fail to see how this would be any better than the Coliseum. And further how that arena books enough events in competition with Barclays, The Rock, the Coliseum and MSG (which is a partner in Belmont). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted December 8, 2019 Author Share Posted December 8, 2019 Hate on Bettman all you want...he's largely succeeded with that strategy. Minnesota to Dallas? Win Expanding to Miami? Win, until they moved to Sunrise. Expanding to Anaheim? Win Moving Quebec to Denver? Win Moving Winnipeg to Phoenix? Win, until they left Phoenix for Glendale. This has become a bigger and bigger loser year over year. Moving Hartford to Carolina? Middling, I'd probably lean win. Expanding to Nashville? Win Expanding to Atlanta? Outright loss. Expanding to Minnesota? Win Expanding to Columbus? Win Moving Atlanta to Winnipeg? Win, for now. Expanding to Vegas? Big win. It's pretty safe to say that the biggest mistakes the NHL has made over the last 20 years with regard to team placement were "try Atlanta again" and "let urban sprawl cities commute away from downtown to games" Bluntly, from a business perspective, why are you putting a team in Quebec City, or Hamilton, or Halifax? You've got a bunch of people that at this juncture have rooted for Montreal or Toronto, or potentially even Ottawa for nearly 25 years - so for success, fan loyalty has to change. Further, you've got to generate 30% additional revenue per ticket to match USD, and each of them is immediately the smallest market in the NHL. It's a massive risk. On the other side, you've got a 7 million person metro area with literally no hockey representation in Houston (and a history of supporting the Aeros, and an arena, and desire for a team) and a near 20% population growth since 2010, you've got a similar deal in Atlanta (not that they should try that one again), you've got 4 million people in Seattle with no NBA and an upcoming NHL team where there's a 15% growth since 2010. You've also got markets like San Antonio, Portland, Orlando, Charlotte, and Austin, all of which are under-served by pro sports and growing at insane clips (15%+ growth since 2010 and over 2 million people in the market). Almost all of these markets have a history of supporting at least a local minor league team (Rampage, Winterhawks, Solar Bears, Checkers, Stars), and almost all of which have an NHL quality arena ready. I get the nostagia of QC and the desire of Hamilton and Halifax and Saskatoon and Regina, but it's just not a logical thing to do. From a business perspective you're right, and I don't have a leg to stand on. An NHL franchise in Houston would be a financial success. The community would care about the NFL Texans, NBA Rockets, MLB Astros, and their alma mater (U of Texas, Texas A&M, U of Houston, whomever), with the new NHL franchise fifth in the pecking order. The NHL franchise would make gobs of money, die-hards would develop for the team, but the larger community would be more interested in the other sports. Compared to Quebec, Hamilton, etc where hockey is the no.1 sport. Yes the US dollar will always put the Canadian franchises at a disadvantage. But when there was six teams, you had a pretty good chance of getting a Canadiens-Bruins Stanley Cup final, or a Maple Leafs-Rangers Stanley Cup final. The NHL is better when at least one team from Canada makes a deep playoff run. With all the expansion to the US and the advantage of the US dollar we are more likely to get a Sunbelt team in the SCF than a team from Canada. Maybe that's good from a financial perspective to grow the NHL (Vegas's run). But there's something magical about teams like the 1989 Calgary Flames that is just less and less likely to happen. Which would be worse, a Carolina-Arizona Stanley Cup Finals, or a Quebec-Hamilton Stanley Cup Finals? Tough call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Hot take? Went to the Rangers/Panthers game down in Sunrise a few weeks back....cannot possibly disagree more. Arena is nice, product is decent, place was PACKED with Panthers gear. Lots of Rangers fans, sure, but such is Florida. They've had issues, but they're pretty overblown aside from perhaps the arena location.DO they still have an entire section tarped off? Hate on Bettman all you want...he's largely succeeded with that strategy. Minnesota to Dallas? Win Expanding to Miami? Win, until they moved to Sunrise. Expanding to Anaheim? Win Moving Quebec to Denver? Win Moving Winnipeg to Phoenix? Win, until they left Phoenix for Glendale. This has become a bigger and bigger loser year over year. Moving Hartford to Carolina? Middling, I'd probably lean win. Expanding to Nashville? Win Expanding to Atlanta? Outright loss. Expanding to Minnesota? Win Expanding to Columbus? Win Moving Atlanta to Winnipeg? Win, for now. Expanding to Vegas? Big win. It's pretty safe to say that the biggest mistakes the NHL has made over the last 20 years with regard to team placement were "try Atlanta again" and "let urban sprawl cities commute away from downtown to games" Bluntly, from a business perspective, why are you putting a team in Quebec City, or Hamilton, or Halifax? You've got a bunch of people that at this juncture have rooted for Montreal or Toronto, or potentially even Ottawa for nearly 25 years - so for success, fan loyalty has to change. Further, you've got to generate 30% additional revenue per ticket to match USD, and each of them is immediately the smallest market in the NHL. It's a massive risk. On the other side, you've got a 7 million person metro area with literally no hockey representation in Houston (and a history of supporting the Aeros, and an arena, and desire for a team) and a near 20% population growth since 2010, you've got a similar deal in Atlanta (not that they should try that one again), you've got 4 million people in Seattle with no NBA and an upcoming NHL team where there's a 15% growth since 2010. You've also got markets like San Antonio, Portland, Orlando, Charlotte, and Austin, all of which are under-served by pro sports and growing at insane clips (15%+ growth since 2010 and over 2 million people in the market). Almost all of these markets have a history of supporting at least a local minor league team (Rampage, Winterhawks, Solar Bears, Checkers, Stars), and almost all of which have an NHL quality arena ready. I get the nostagia of QC and the desire of Hamilton and Halifax and Saskatoon and Regina, but it's just not a logical thing to do.How do you define "win"? Carolina fans come when they win games. I wouldn't call that a win. The tickets need to be sold no matter what the on-ice product looks like. Don't think we can call Vegas a win yet, either. They rigged the expansion draft to help ensure success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 DO they still have an entire section tarped off? Didn't notice anything like that. Top tier seemed pretty full. How do you define "win"? Carolina fans come when they win games. I wouldn't call that a win. The tickets need to be sold no matter what the on-ice product looks like. Don't think we can call Vegas a win yet, either. They rigged the expansion draft to help ensure success. I'm defining a win as "did they create a successful enough community around the franchise for the team to be fiscally competitive". Carolina's done enough there, IMO, certainly as they've come back to relevance. That the team has done quite a bit of losing hasn't helped. Vegas is absolutely a win. They went into a city with no pro sports and build a community around VGK. Rigged is a very harsh word for the expansion draft rules; that McPhee exploited them is simply good GMing. That's part of good business too - if you're spending 500 million dollars for a team in an area where building a fanbase and community is critical, you'd best have players to get excited about. It also, very clearly, worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Didn't notice anything like that. Top tier seemed pretty full. I'm defining a win as "did they create a successful enough community around the franchise for the team to be fiscally competitive". Carolina's done enough there, IMO, certainly as they've come back to relevance. That the team has done quite a bit of losing hasn't helped. Vegas is absolutely a win. They went into a city with no pro sports and build a community around VGK. Rigged is a very harsh word for the expansion draft rules; that McPhee exploited them is simply good GMing. That's part of good business too - if you're spending 500 million dollars for a team in an area where building a fanbase and community is critical, you'd best have players to get excited about. It also, very clearly, worked. So your "win" is not based on any real metric? Because the other teams you're calling "wins" are all at the bottom of the league in terms of PCT attendance, and overall valuation. Most are well below league average. So I'm feel pretty good about saying Arizona, Carolina, Columbus, Florida are not at all "wins". Vegas is undoubtedly too soon to tell. When that team starts losing, if they still draw, sure it's a win. Remains to be seen. Fine, we won't say their draft was rigged rigged. We'll say they've had the most generous expansion rules of all time to help ensure they did not fail...They weren't limited to the dregs of the league and most everyone agrees on that. And they won't have to lose anyone to Seattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 So your "win" is not based on any real metric? Because the other teams you're calling "wins" are all at the bottom of the league in terms of PCT attendance, and overall valuation. Most are well below league average. So I'm feel pretty good about saying Arizona, Carolina, Columbus, Florida are not at all "wins". Vegas is undoubtedly too soon to tell. When that team starts losing, if they still draw, sure it's a win. Remains to be seen. Fine, we won't say their draft was rigged rigged. We'll say they've had the most generous expansion rules of all time to help ensure they did not fail...They weren't limited to the dregs of the league and most everyone agrees on that. And they won't have to lose anyone to Seattle. I'd safely say that both Miami and Phoenix were wins. Moving them out of the city centers was an absolute fool move and is probably the chief reason they're not higher on those lists, and why they're not really wins today...though they were at the time. As I said, Carolina is a middling thing. It's a win in the sense that they got out of Hartford (where it would have been much worse, nostalgia be damned), and seeded a pretty solid hockey market. It's a loss in the sense that they're in the wrong NC city (as alluded above) and frankly, there were probably a few other markets that could have been better fits had the Whalers hung on longer. I'd also probably say that while Raleigh wasn't the right spot when they moved, it may very well be now. Regardless, most expansion and relocation under Bettman has been pretty successful; I don't know why they'd change their strategy to drop a team in some frozen metropolis that nobody will want to play in for lack of parks or sunlight. (I kid) I disagree with Vegas, though I sense we're not going to see eye to eye on this one. The expansion fee was monstrous given franchise valuations, and one of the big mistakes from past expansions was precisely what you said - leaving them with the dregs. The old expansion rules generally meant that they were walloped for years, dating back to the '67 expansion. Ottawa, SJ, Tampa, Florida, Anaheim, Nashville, Atlanta, Minnesota, and Columbus all suffered mightily from those rules. It took these teams the better part of 5-6 years to be remotely competitive, with the exception of the Panthers and that crazy "Sharks knock out Detroit" series. You don't want that when breaking into a market; it's bad business. For once, a professional sports league took the "good for the market" perspective and not the "take our scraps" perspective, and I applaud it. It let McPhee build a contender right from the jump and bring that town into the game in a big way. If revenue and attendance and interest are critical, you need something marketable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 From a business perspective you're right, and I don't have a leg to stand on. An NHL franchise in Houston would be a financial success. The community would care about the NFL Texans, NBA Rockets, MLB Astros, and their alma mater (U of Texas, Texas A&M, U of Houston, whomever), with the new NHL franchise fifth in the pecking order. The NHL franchise would make gobs of money, die-hards would develop for the team, but the larger community would be more interested in the other sports. Compared to Quebec, Hamilton, etc where hockey is the no.1 sport. Yes the US dollar will always put the Canadian franchises at a disadvantage. But when there was six teams, you had a pretty good chance of getting a Canadiens-Bruins Stanley Cup final, or a Maple Leafs-Rangers Stanley Cup final. The NHL is better when at least one team from Canada makes a deep playoff run. With all the expansion to the US and the advantage of the US dollar we are more likely to get a Sunbelt team in the SCF than a team from Canada. Maybe that's good from a financial perspective to grow the NHL (Vegas's run). But there's something magical about teams like the 1989 Calgary Flames that is just less and less likely to happen. Which would be worse, a Carolina-Arizona Stanley Cup Finals, or a Quebec-Hamilton Stanley Cup Finals? Tough call. Quebec-Hamilton by far. The endless whining about the Leafs never winning a cup and two Canadian expansion teams making it would be insufferable, bordering on torturous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 I'd safely say that both Miami and Phoenix were wins. Moving them out of the city centers was an absolute fool move and is probably the chief reason they're not higher on those lists, and why they're not really wins today...though they were at the time. As I said, Carolina is a middling thing. It's a win in the sense that they got out of Hartford (where it would have been much worse, nostalgia be damned), and seeded a pretty solid hockey market. It's a loss in the sense that they're in the wrong NC city (as alluded above) and frankly, there were probably a few other markets that could have been better fits had the Whalers hung on longer. I'd also probably say that while Raleigh wasn't the right spot when they moved, it may very well be now. Regardless, most expansion and relocation under Bettman has been pretty successful; I don't know why they'd change their strategy to drop a team in some frozen metropolis that nobody will want to play in for lack of parks or sunlight. (I kid) I disagree with Vegas, though I sense we're not going to see eye to eye on this one. The expansion fee was monstrous given franchise valuations, and one of the big mistakes from past expansions was precisely what you said - leaving them with the dregs. The old expansion rules generally meant that they were walloped for years, dating back to the '67 expansion. Ottawa, SJ, Tampa, Florida, Anaheim, Nashville, Atlanta, Minnesota, and Columbus all suffered mightily from those rules. It took these teams the better part of 5-6 years to be remotely competitive, with the exception of the Panthers and that crazy "Sharks knock out Detroit" series. You don't want that when breaking into a market; it's bad business. For once, a professional sports league took the "good for the market" perspective and not the "take our scraps" perspective, and I applaud it. It let McPhee build a contender right from the jump and bring that town into the game in a big way. If revenue and attendance and interest are critical, you need something marketable.Just 2 things... 1. The league approved the moves for Yotes and Panthers. So if relocation is a problem, it's his problem. 2. It doesn't matter how much Vegas paid... The point of the argument is that they got a competitive team out of the gate so no one knows how that fan base will react (aka disappear) when the good fortune they were handed dries up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sod16 Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 Fletch sourced his population rankings, can you source yours? Before you tell him to get his facts straight and all... Of please. These numbers are not in dispute. Here are the figures. Also, the population of cities is not very relevant because it is a function of how the lines are drawn. Some cities are drawn tightly and others more expansively and include what you would consider suburbs. Hence, metro figures are what is relevant. Many older cities, like Boston, only include urban cores. Older Northern cities tend to have more confined borders than many sunbelt cities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 Of please. These numbers are not in dispute. Here are the figures. Also, the population of cities is not very relevant because it is a function of how the lines are drawn. Some cities are drawn tightly and others more expansively and include what you would consider suburbs. Hence, metro figures are what is relevant. Many older cities, like Boston, only include urban cores. Older Northern cities tend to have more confined borders than many sunbelt cities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areasThx for the link.:thumbs: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 Just 2 things... 1. The league approved the moves for Yotes and Panthers. So if relocation is a problem, it's his problem. 2. It doesn't matter how much Vegas paid... The point of the argument is that they got a competitive team out of the gate so no one knows how that fan base will react (aka disappear) when the good fortune they were handed dries up. 1. Even so, that leaves....8 or 9 wins to 3 losses. 2. That's fair. Interesting experiment though; I'd reckon fans attrit less quickly when they've got some immediate glory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 1. Even so, that leaves....8 or 9 wins to 3 losses. 2. That's fair. Interesting experiment though; I'd reckon fans attrit less quickly when they've got some immediate glory. By your math alone, sure. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderer34 Posted July 12, 2021 Share Posted July 12, 2021 Hate on Bettman all you want...he's largely succeeded with that strategy. Minnesota to Dallas? Win As painful as it was at the time to lose the North Stars, eventually Dallas has actually supported the Stars Expanding to Miami? Win, until they moved to Sunrise. I agree 100%!!! Huizenga, while it seemed fair, should've left the Panthers in Miami since it makes logical sense to keep NHL teams in major cities like Montreal, Toronto, NYC, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, and Detroit, not nearby the Everglades and I also agree Sunrise is a poor location to place any professional sports team. Huizenga was a great owner but the Panthers should've stayed in Miami. Tampa Bay Lightning is successful not just because or their recent Stanley Cup champions, but a major part of that is Amalie Arena, located in Tampa. Expanding to Anaheim? WinAgree Moving Quebec to Denver? Win Similar to how MN lost the North Stars, all the Nordiques needed was a new arena, but the way Marcel Aubut tried to bring a third blue chip center in Lindros, drafted him, then forced to trade him for Forsberg, Ricci, Simon and company and had to leave QUE for COL just to win not one but two cups with Patrick Roy, it's a win for COL, but a major loss for QUE and I hope QUE gets their hockey hockey team back ASAP! Moving Winnipeg to Phoenix? Win, until they left Phoenix for Glendale. This has become a bigger and bigger loser year over year. It's the biggest loss for the NHL overall!!! Moving the team to Quebec will help that franchise. If not, the Coyotes will shrivel in the desert! Moving Hartford to Carolina? Middling, I'd probably lean win.It's more of a loss for these reasons: it's not in the biggest city in NC (Charlotte), there's little to no fan support for the Hurricanes and thus there's way more support for the Panthers, the Hornets, and even college basketball and football over professional hockey, Raleigh isn't a traditional hockey market, and while they have a Stanley Cup victory, mind you hockey was in it's nadir in the 2000s with the cancelled season in 2004-05 plus hockey in general was declining so I'm not surprised that the typical NC sports fan doesn't remember when the Hurricanes won. They'll probably remember when Duke or UNC won the NCAA national championship over the Hurricanes lone championship. In general, hockey just doesn't have strong support just ask Atlanta! Expanding to Nashville? Win Okay, but I'd like to see a team in Milwaukee over Nashville, my opinion Expanding to Atlanta? Outright loss. Losing two NHL franchises is pitiful and I don't see any hope that ATL will get a third in a long time. Expanding to Minnesota? Win Agree Expanding to Columbus? Win I'm willing to giving CBJ a chance, even though Columbus is more of a college town and Ohio State is more popular than the Blue Jackets Moving Atlanta to Winnipeg? Win, for now. It's a win for not just Winnipeg, but for Manitoba and Canada as well and further proof that having 6 million people in a market doesn't make it a strong hockey market! Expanding to Vegas? Big win.Time will tell whether the VGK survives in Vegas, but the VGK deserves a chance, although I'm no fan of keeping a sports team in Vegas due to gambling interests and unsavory influences. It's pretty safe to say that the biggest mistakes the NHL has made over the last 20 years with regard to team placement were "try Atlanta again" and "let urban sprawl cities commute away from downtown to games" Bluntly, from a business perspective, why are you putting a team in Quebec City, or Hamilton, or Halifax? You've got a bunch of people that at this juncture have rooted for Montreal or Toronto, or potentially even Ottawa for nearly 25 years - so for success, fan loyalty has to change. Further, you've got to generate 30% additional revenue per ticket to match USD, and each of them is immediately the smallest market in the NHL. It's a massive risk. I agree, Atlanta was overall a major failure for both the Flames and the Thrashers. Both teams made the playoffs, but could never generate any fanfare the way the Nordiques, the Jets, and the Whalers did due to geography as well as maybe demographics. Metro Atlanta may be much bigger in population than Winnipeg, Quebec, and Hartford, but it doesn't make it a strong hockey market. With the exception of CA, TX, and FL, outside of those states, hockey just isn't a strong enough sport than football, baseball, or basketball outside of CA, TX, and FL. There's enough expats from the Northeast, the Midwest, and even in Canada to support the Kings, the Ducks, the Sharks, the Stars, the Panthers, and the Lightning, and you have strong fan bases for those teams as opposed to the Coyotes, the Thrashers, and the Hurricanes. Winnipeg deserved to get the Jets back because they have a new arena plus fans who are willing to support the Jets through thick and thin, The same can happen to Quebec if Buttman can get his head out the owners' asses and understand that you have to place hockey teams in strong markets, not bigger markets like Phoenix and Atlanta which doesn't have a strong fan base for hockey. The only 90's expansion team I'm willing to helping is the Florida Panthers. They're a victim or location, not fan support, especially when the Panthers haven't even been competitive until the past couple of seasons, thanks to Coach Q. Only way to save the Panthers is to renovate the FTX Arena and make it suitable for hockey and move the team to Miami. I can understand moving the Dolphins from the Orange Bowl to Miami Gardens due to infrastructure, but moving the Panthers from Miami to Sunrise was a huge mistake on late owner Huizenga's part, even though it seemed fair to move the Panthers to Broward to centralize the fan base. Miami is too lucrative of a city and a market to not have a professional sports team as Miami currently has four and a fifth pro sports team would help Miami and the NHL out. On the other side, you've got a 7 million person metro area with literally no hockey representation in Houston (and a history of supporting the Aeros, and an arena, and desire for a team) and a near 20% population growth since 2010, you've got a similar dean Atlanta (not that they should try that one again), you've got 4 million people in Seattle with no NBA and an upcoming NHL team where there's a 15% growth since 2010. You've also got markets like San Antonio, Portland, Orlando, Charlotte, and Austin, all of which are under-served by pro sports and growing at insane clips (15%+ growth since 2010 and over 2 million people in the market). Almost all of these markets have a history of supporting at least a local minor league team (Rampage, Winterhawks, Solar Bears, Checkers, Stars), and almost all of which have an NHL quality arena ready. If there was enough space to place a hockey team since with Seattle, there's 32 NHL teams, I'd give Houston and NHL team. Only problem is that with the mathematics, plus during playoff time, where eight teams from each conference compete with one another and the other half stays at home, having 32 NHL teams is perfect because it balances all those teams when it comes to the playoffs. Orlando will never get an NHL due to being too close to Tampa Bay, likewise San Antonio, while not close to Houston, is close enough and ditto to Dallas, Portland had a better chance of getting a baseball team than a hockey team, and Austin, as big as it is, is just not a strong pro sports town and more of a college town, similar to Columbus. I get the nostagia of QC and the desire of Hamilton and Halifax and Saskatoon and Regina, but it's just not a logical thing to do. Ask the hockey fans in Winnipeg. If Winnipeg can get a hockey team back in Manitoba, then Quebec fans are able to attract hockey back to Quebec City and even ditto for Hartford!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted July 12, 2021 Share Posted July 12, 2021 Time will tell whether the VGK survives in Vegas, but the VGK deserves a chance, although I'm no fan of keeping a sports team in Vegas due to gambling interests and unsavory influences. I agree, Atlanta was overall a major failure for both the Flames and the Thrashers. Both teams made the playoffs, but could never generate any fanfare the way the Nordiques, the Jets, and the Whalers did due to geography as well as maybe demographics. Metro Atlanta may be much bigger in population than Winnipeg, Quebec, and Hartford, but it doesn't make it a strong hockey market. With the exception of CA, TX, and FL, outside of those states, hockey just isn't a strong enough sport than football, baseball, or basketball outside of CA, TX, and FL. There's enough expats from the Northeast, the Midwest, and even in Canada to support the Kings, the Ducks, the Sharks, the Stars, the Panthers, and the Lightning, and you have strong fan bases for those teams as opposed to the Coyotes, the Thrashers, and the Hurricanes. Winnipeg deserved to get the Jets back because they have a new arena plus fans who are willing to support the Jets through thick and thin, The same can happen to Quebec if Buttman can get his head out the owners' asses and understand that you have to place hockey teams in strong markets, not bigger markets like Phoenix and Atlanta which doesn't have a strong fan base for hockey. The only 90's expansion team I'm willing to helping is the Florida Panthers. They're a victim or location, not fan support, especially when the Panthers haven't even been competitive until the past couple of seasons, thanks to Coach Q. Only way to save the Panthers is to renovate the FTX Arena and make it suitable for hockey and move the team to Miami. I can understand moving the Dolphins from the Orange Bowl to Miami Gardens due to infrastructure, but moving the Panthers from Miami to Sunrise was a huge mistake on late owner Huizenga's part, even though it seemed fair to move the Panthers to Broward to centralize the fan base. Miami is too lucrative of a city and a market to not have a professional sports team as Miami currently has four and a fifth pro sports team would help Miami and the NHL out. If there was enough space to place a hockey team since with Seattle, there's 32 NHL teams, I'd give Houston and NHL team. Only problem is that with the mathematics, plus during playoff time, where eight teams from each conference compete with one another and the other half stays at home, having 32 NHL teams is perfect because it balances all those teams when it comes to the playoffs. Orlando will never get an NHL due to being too close to Tampa Bay, likewise San Antonio, while not close to Houston, is close enough and ditto to Dallas, Portland had a better chance of getting a baseball team than a hockey team, and Austin, as big as it is, is just not a strong pro sports town and more of a college town, similar to Columbus. Ask the hockey fans in Winnipeg. If Winnipeg can get a hockey team back in Manitoba, then Quebec fans are able to attract hockey back to Quebec City and even ditto for Hartford!!! I don't even mind that you played necromancer with a near 2 year old post to give this response because it's thoughtful. I'll disagree with you on a few items - the Canes absolutely have a fanbase that loves them - at least when they're winning - and while I'll give you that the location isn't perfect for the Carolinas, the Research Triangle is one of the fastest growing areas in the USA (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill - the area has a population of over 2M now). That's fine. I think, ideally, you flip the Checkers and the Canes, but Charlotte isn't so much bigger (~500k people), nor is it massively inaccessible (I think it's like 2 hours and 20 minutes to Raleigh from Charlotte). The Panthers and Coyotes can be "rescued" some by changing arenas. I'm in FL, and man, that arena in Sunrise is just so out of the way it's crazy. Get them downtown with the Heat at all costs - they'll sell out. Their problem isn't location as in Florida, it's location as in "not downtown". It doesn't help that BankAtlantic Center or whatever they're calling it now isn't really a great venue either. It's rather outdated. Orlando's a city around the same size as Raleigh; the team here can't be an ECHL team. The support for the Magic is mediocre, the support for the Solar Bears is solid enough, but the support for the Lightning is insane. You'll see Lightning flags and billboards basically anywhere south of Disney. Orlando's proven they'll embrace expansion of a certain quality (Orlando City SC never fails to sell out, for example) - get the Lightning to affiliate the Solar Bears as an AHL team and build the obvious bridge as they've been doing with Austin and Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted July 14, 2021 Share Posted July 14, 2021 Get your facts straight. The Twin Cities are the 16th largest metro and San Antonio is 24th. The Wild doesn't even play in Minneapolis. FLA has just been a bust for so long that it's time to stop trying. They've steeply discounted tickets for decades and will never ween fans onto seats priced near the league average. Carolina only generates interest when it is winning, and not enough even then. Those two teams would do well to be moved to Quebec City. I'm willing to give Arizona a break, for now, because the team was just so mismanaged and is stuck in such an ill situated arena. Jury is out on Vegas. Let's see what it looks like after they've missed the playoffs a few times. When Bettman first came in he said 3 NY teams was one to many, but he switched his thinking, and keeping the Islanders became a commitment beyond all logic. Now they will be here for good, and five years from now, after the new arena effect has worn off, they will be struggling to sell seats and especially suites. For a team that was better than any other over a long period and won three cups, the Devils still don't have the following that they should. Never had never will. Vegas is gold-plated. The locals very much like any major sports league finally gave it a shot. Even if the VGK start to suck, you will always have fans building a vacation out of a trip to Las Vegas. Only down side is it wasn't done sooner. Islanders' new arena is in a really rough spot traffic wise. 7PM weeknight game where 3 major highways clog with traffic every evening rush hour; good luck with that. After the shiny new car smell thing goes away, might not be a sure thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddious Posted July 14, 2021 Share Posted July 14, 2021 Vegas also has people traveling there year round and the knights, like any show on the strip are going to sell tix. Last time I went to Vegas was the year right before they played their first season but you bet your ass I am going to a game next time I go- regardless of how good they are. I may be in the minority but I think it’s a good strategy by betman. You’ll never grow the game if you keep it out of non-hockey markets. Phoenix and Florida need tinkering but even those markets can work I think. I have no problem with where any other organization is. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now