If an American market fails to keep an NHL team afloat, this team will simply move to another American market, such as KC, Seattle, Houston, etc. The game really can't grow in Canada in terms of popularity.
According to Wikipedia:
"In the summer of 2004, Burlington businessman Michael Andlauer became majority owner, governor and chairman of the Hamilton Bulldogs. Andlauer was part of the initial group of local business people, who purchased the club from the Edmonton Oilers in 2002."
So I would assume that they would probably hold some rights to the area and be paid off to open it up for an NHL franchise and relocate the AHL team elsewhere.
Yes, I know "Don't feed the trolls", "Keep off the grass", "Beware of...". I couldn't help it. In four assinine posts prior, said poster became the poster-child for all that is wrong with a Canadian hockey fan's perception of a "non-traditional" market.
I wonder how having a team in Hamilton or Quebec can help to grow the game when everybody in those markets already are hockey fans? This will only result is some people switching from the Leafs or the Habs to cheer for this new team but it doesn't create new hockey fans at all.
If an American market fails to keep an NHL team afloat, this team will simply move to another American market, such as KC, Seattle, Houston, etc. The game really can't grow in Canada in terms of popularity.
Yes. I do not believe Nashville has done anything to grow the sport. Neither have Cloumbus or Phoenix. Hamilton/Winnipeg would produce instant sell outs. Canada realizes they need to support their teams and not take them for granted. US hockey fans, for the most part, do not realize that ... except in Hartford.
What are you talking about, Columbus has one of the best new fanbases going. People are always praising Ohio.
Didn't KC already fail once? Why do Atlanta and KC get a second chance when Winnipeg/Quebec/Hartford only get once chance?
OK, maybe I'm wrong about Columbus. I was going on what Ohio residents told me. I (and the media) just don't think of it as a major league city. We are apparently wrong about Columbus. I can admit that. I'm right on the others.
I think you just missed the entire point of his comment. He was saying it's about growing the popularity of the game. Moving a team to Hamilton isn't going to draw more hockey fans just divert them. Moving a team to a fresh market is going to make new hockey fans which is better for the league/sport in general..
Didn't KC already fail once? Why do Atlanta and KC get a second chance when Winnipeg/Quebec/Hartford only get once chance?
It won't really be bad faith negotiations unless the NHL says that he can't move the team as a condition of approval. All Bettman has said so far is that Balsillie has to abide by the existing lease.
When did KC get a second chance?
I doubt the lease allows the owner to engage in actions that serve no other purpose than to deliberately discourage ticket sales so he can break it. He's put the NHL in a tough position.
I didn't miss the point. It just made me think of a question, so I asked it. I'll try again. Why do major (I use the term loosely in KC's case) US cities get multiple chances when other cities are left for dead?
It hasn't. I just read about it being considered. Thanks for answering part of the question. I'm not getting the best responses to my comments/queries.
I just find it funny when it came up that the Pens were moving everyone came out in full force to yell at everyone and call them team stealers but alot of those same people are cheering for another canadian team. Kind of funny when the direction goes from a "Non traditional" hockey market to a Canadian one how everyone reacts.
Anyway it still has to be approved by the NHL and I think this may just hurt his chances. NHL doesn't want to move another team to a place where there is already hockey watching populous they want to expand the game, they can make a whole lot more money that way. Do you make more money when one person stops using one of your products just to use another? Well Balsillie will make more money, NHL wont. I think the NHL will do just about everything in their power to stop Balsillie from moving the team to Hamilton.
Because owners/ownership groups in those cities (Atlanta, Minnesota, and I suppose you could argue San Jose, and potentially coming soon KC) have put their money where there mouth is (bought a team or paid an expansion fee) and as (or more) importantly secured new arenas.
Has an ownership group stepped forward in Winnipeg or Quebec or Hartford and tried to put it's money on the table and buy a team and build/secure an NHL calibre arena (The MTS Centre falls just a bit short).
The only way Winnipeg or Quebec is going to get a team is the Balsillie route - a rich local owner being willing to overpay for an existing franchise, willing to build an arena, and be potentially willing to suffer losses in a below average NHL market.
I didn't miss the point. It just made me think of a question, so I asked it. I'll try again. Why do major (I use the term loosely in KC's case) US cities get multiple chances when other cities are left for dead?
Balsillie forked over $220M for the team and will therefore be able to move it wherever the heck he wants. I would assume the only way the NHL could possibly block the move is to find another owner who will match Balsillie's price, or buy control of the team themselves and flip it to a new owner and take the loss. Both seem pretty unlikely to me.
1. Atlanta's problem the first time around wasn't lack of fan support, it was lack of stable ownership. Atlanta had a plan to bring stable ownership and market a team; that's why they got a 2nd chance.Didn't KC already fail once? Why do Atlanta and KC get a second chance when Winnipeg/Quebec/Hartford only get once chance?
Hmm so I'm guessing you don't understand how this works. To buy the team he has to sign an agreement with the NHL which will include the same clause he rejected with pittsburgh which wouldn't allow him to move the team for 7 years. Even Leopold stated that clause would be inacted at the sales press conference. As long as their is a lease in place he wont beable to move the team and the clause that would get them out of the lease will have to be enacted in a time frame that is BEFORE Balsille could even get approval for the league so it's not in his hands.
I didn't miss the point. It just made me think of a question, so I asked it. I'll try again. Why do major (I use the term loosely in KC's case) US cities get multiple chances when other cities are left for dead?
Hmm so I'm guessing you don't understand how this works. To buy the team he has to sign an agreement with the NHL which will include the same clause he rejected with pittsburgh which wouldn't allow him to move the team for 7 years. Even Leopold stated that clause would be inacted at the sales press conference. As long as their is a lease in place he wont beable to move the team and the clause that would get them out of the lease will have to be enacted in a time frame that is BEFORE Balsille could even get approval for the league so it's not in his hands.