Has Quebec City been priced out of the NHL?

[SunDancer]

I wouldn’t confuse “willingness to go under the right circumstances” with “unwillingness to go at all.”

Maybe ... but if those "right circumstances" are as narrow and limited as they are, then that "willingness" doesn't really mean much.

 

[Tawnos]

Maybe ... but if those "right circumstances" are as narrow and limited as they are, then that "willingness" doesn't really mean much.

They aren't all that narrow. QC is currently being held back by geography and really nothing more.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Why don't they lure the Flames to QC ?
And the Sens move on to Calgary. Melnyk might work well with the egoistic mayor.

What would be the point of that?

 

[Ernie]

What would be the point of that?

There's no point. A certain kind of people just like taking pot shots at Nenshi.

 

[Wingsfan 4 life]

Priced out? Maybe, but IMO its more Bettman and Co. view QC as the red-headed stepchild and other markets as the star high school QB.

 

[KevFu]

Priced out? Maybe, but IMO its more Bettman and Co. view QC as the red-headed stepchild and other markets as the star high school QB.

The NHL views QC as a fat guy who wants to get on the teeter-totter. They are trying to find three guys (Vegas, Seattle, Houston) to get on the other side first.

 

[saffronleaf]

Ultimately this is a U.S.-based league with the vast majority of its teams in the U.S. The decision-makers are the heads of the teams, most of which are American. Their primary agenda is to expand to markets in the U.S. where hockey is not popular. Forget expansion, even existing Canadian teams are at high-risk. Look at how the league did everything within its power to keep the Coyotes in Arizona. Compare that to how they treat Calgary, eagerly proclaiming that they will leave the market at the earliest opportunity.

The sooner we Canadians realize this, the more realistic we can be about things. I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL's ideal set up is one in which the only Canadian teams are Toronto and Montreal, if that. The NBA and MLB only have one Canadian team, and I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL has similar aspirations.

 

[saffronleaf]

The NHL views QC as a fat guy who wants to get on the teeter-totter. They are trying to find three guys (Vegas, Seattle, Houston) to get on the other side first.

That makes sense. They probably want a balance between markets that are interested in hockey and will consistently generate revenue (like QC) and markets that will perennially be unpopular and on the receiving end of generous handouts (like Houston).

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

That makes sense. They probably want a balance between markets that are interested in hockey and will consistently generate revenue (like QC) and markets that will perennially be unpopular and on the receiving end of generous handouts (like Houston).

how is Houston a handout, if the Wild were there?

 

[Melrose Munch]

Ultimately this is a U.S.-based league with the vast majority of its teams in the U.S. The decision-makers are the heads of the teams, most of which are American. Their primary agenda is to expand to markets in the U.S. where hockey is not popular. Forget expansion, even existing Canadian teams are at high-risk. Look at how the league did everything within its power to keep the Coyotes in Arizona. Compare that to how they treat Calgary, eagerly proclaiming that they will leave the market at the earliest opportunity.

The sooner we Canadians realize this, the more realistic we can be about things. I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL's ideal set up is one in which the only Canadian teams are Toronto and Montreal, if that. The NBA and MLB only have one Canadian team, and I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL has similar aspirations.

If they players didn't avoid playing in Canada, this would not be a big issue.

 

[saffronleaf]

If they players didn't avoid playing in Canada, this would not be a big issue.

I'm sure the players play a role as well but its ultimately the NHL making these decisions. The NHL is embarrassed to have Canadian teams.

 

[Bixby Snyder]

That makes sense. They probably want a balance between markets that are interested in hockey and will consistently generate revenue (like QC) and markets that will perennially be unpopular and on the receiving end of generous handouts (like Houston).

I think you have it backwards, it's not Houston that would at the receiving end of generous handouts.

 

[saffronleaf]

I think you have it backwards, it's not Houston that would at the receiving end of generous handouts.

That's what they said about Phoenix. Oh, look at that market! Population growing rapidly, lots of corporate HQs, what could go wrong?

QC will sell out consistently and the Canadian TV deal will continue to grow at a crazy pace, but the league couldn't care less.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

That's what they said about Phoenix. Oh, look at that market! Population growing rapidly, lots of corporate HQs, what could go wrong?

QC will sell out consistently and the Canadian TV deal will continue to grow at a crazy pace.

no it hasn't QC couldn't support pro hockey so it was sold to Colorado, saffron, it barely supports junior hockey as it is, and btw, Arizona has survived

 

[Melrose Munch]

I'm sure the players play a role as well but its ultimately the NHL making these decisions. The NHL is embarrassed to have Canadian teams.

I would not use the term embarrassed and I wouldn't say all Canadian teams, the prairies yeah, I mean no other league has those cities. They rarely get FAs as well. Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are fine. More Montreal and Toronto. I agree with your previous post.

 

[BattleBorn]

There's one city in Canada that's likely capable of supporting a team that doesn't have a team.

Literally every other city has one. Doesn't sound like a league embarrassed about Canada to me.

 

[TheLegend]

That's what they said about Phoenix. Oh, look at that market! Population growing rapidly, lots of corporate HQs, what could go wrong?

QC will sell out consistently and the Canadian TV deal will continue to grow at a crazy pace, but the league couldn't care less.

Your revision of Arizona history is a bit off.

Arizona was a place like what most here seem to think QC is being made into. A landing spot for some wayward team with no home.

Only the big difference is, the NHL wasn’t interested in Arizona as a market at the time that the Jets 1.0 franchise were caught in limbo after their original destination (Minnesota) tanked on them. They went as far as telling Jerry Colangelo (owner of the Suns) who was about to build a new downtown arena a couple years earlier they “wouldn’t be going there in his lifetime.”

So the Coyotes ended up in Arizona... not because of any desire to go there. But out of desperation.

QC wanted a team. It went out and built an arena for a team. But it’s run into the issue of being in the wrong geographical location and a poor national currency. But if a team out there needs a landing spot they are ready... willing ... and able to host one.

 

[MNNumbers]

There's one city in Canada that's likely capable of supporting a team that doesn't have a team.

Literally every other city has one. Doesn't sound like a league embarrassed about Canada to me.

Which of Hamilton and QC do you not think is capable of doing a team?

Just curious.

Nevertheless, I agree with your overall point.

 

[BattleBorn]

Which of Hamilton and QC do you not think is capable of doing a team?

Just curious.

Nevertheless, I agree with your overall point.

QC can likely handle. Hamilton can too, but I lump Hamilton into that "not going to happen for other reasons" group along with Ontario, CA and Aurora, IL.

 

[KevFu]

Their primary agenda is to expand to markets in the U.S. where hockey is not popular. Forget expansion, even existing Canadian teams are at high-risk. Look at how the league did everything within its power to keep the Coyotes in Arizona. Compare that to how they treat Calgary, eagerly proclaiming that they will leave the market at the earliest opportunity.

You are 100% wrong. That has nothing to do with Canada vs USA -- except when it comes to the country's local policies on building taxpayer-funded arenas.

EVERY "This team could move" statement by the NHL is followed by "without a new arena/lease."

Wanted a new arena and didn't get one:
North Stars (USA): Moved when lease was up/close enough to end they could buy their way out.
Jets 1.0 (CAN): Moved when lease was up/close enough to end they could buy their way out.
Nordiques (CAN): Moved when lease was up/close enough to end they could buy their way out.
Whalers (USA): Moved when lease was up/close enough to end they could buy their way out.
Islanders (USA): Moved within the same market, but out of the county that didn't build for them.

That's not USA vs CAN. Same result for teams in both nations.

Had a while to go on lease, but was unhappy with arena situation:
Oilers (CAN): Got lease concessions. Later got a new arena.
Devils (USA): Got lease concessions. Later got a new arena.
Predators (USA): Got lease concessions.

Again, teams in the same situation in difference countries, same result.

Wanted a new arena, made overt or thinly veiled relocation threats:
Sabres (USA): (no specific destination). City caved and built an arena.
Penguins (USA): visited Kansas City. City caved and built a new arena.
Oilers (CAN): visited Seattle. City caved and built a new arena.

USA or Canada. Same result.


There's no real Canadian comparison to the Coyotes. But what's happened with them falls in line with the NHL's "Build it" mantra:
Coyotes (USA): wanted to sell to move. NHL said "We get to decide that. Not you." BECAUSE they had a a taxpayer funded arena. There were lease renegotiations. They're still there (and now want a new arena)

Thrashers (USA): Basically got kicked out of their arena. So they moved instantly. To Canada. With very little efforts to keep them in Atlanta, because no owner would want to lease Phillips from ASG.

The NHL is always going to say "Build them a new arena, or they will move." And "You just built them an arena, so we'll fight for them to stay through their lease." Because those things keep cities willing to build arenas and gift them to the owners.

And that's going to be true whether it's in Canada or USA.

 

[Tawnos]

You are 100% wrong. That has nothing to do with Canada vs USA -- except when it comes to the country's local policies on building taxpayer-funded arenas.

EVERY "This team could move" statement by the NHL is followed by "without a new arena/lease."

Wanted a new arena and didn't get one:
North Stars (USA): Moved when lease was up/close enough to end they could buy their way out.
Jets 1.0 (CAN): Moved when lease was up/close enough to end they could buy their way out.
Nordiques (CAN): Moved when lease was up/close enough to end they could buy their way out.
Whalers (USA): Moved when lease was up/close enough to end they could buy their way out.
Islanders (USA): Moved within the same market, but out of the county that didn't build for them.

That's not USA vs CAN. Same result for teams in both nations.

Had a while to go on lease, but was unhappy with arena situation:
Oilers (CAN): Got lease concessions. Later got a new arena.
Devils (USA): Got lease concessions. Later got a new arena.
Predators (USA): Got lease concessions.

Again, teams in the same situation in difference countries, same result.

Wanted a new arena, made overt or thinly veiled relocation threats:
Sabres (USA): (no specific destination). City caved and built an arena.
Penguins (USA): visited Kansas City. City caved and built a new arena.
Oilers (CAN): visited Seattle. City caved and built a new arena.

USA or Canada. Same result.


There's no real Canadian comparison to the Coyotes. But what's happened with them falls in line with the NHL's "Build it" mantra:
Coyotes (USA): wanted to sell to move. NHL said "We get to decide that. Not you." BECAUSE they had a a taxpayer funded arena. There were lease renegotiations. They're still there (and now want a new arena)

Thrashers (USA): Basically got kicked out of their arena. So they moved instantly. To Canada. With very little efforts to keep them in Atlanta, because no owner would want to lease Phillips from ASG.

The NHL is always going to say "Build them a new arena, or they will move." And "You just built them an arena, so we'll fight for them to stay through their lease." Because those things keep cities willing to build arenas and gift them to the owners.

And that's going to be true whether it's in Canada or USA.

Great post, although IIRC it wasn’t that no owner would lease Phillips from ASG. Rather that ASG wouldn’t lease Phillips to the hockey team no matter the owner, including themselves.

 

[Hobble]

I think there are big price discrepancies when comparing relocations like Jets, and expansion like Seattle/Quebec.

Highly doubt QC would have to pay 500M for Hurricanes or Panthers.

 

[LeHab]

I think there are big price discrepancies when comparing relocations like Jets, and expansion like Seattle/Quebec.

Highly doubt QC would have to pay 500M for Hurricanes or Panthers.

They would likely pay that or more but current owners would receive less due to debt + reloc fees. This is assuming the franchise can be relocated.

 

[garbageteam]

I would not use the term embarrassed and I wouldn't say all Canadian teams, the prairies yeah, I mean no other league has those cities. They rarely get FAs as well. Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are fine. More Montreal and Toronto. I agree with your previous post.

Yeah, but other leagues have teams in cities like Green Bay, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma, Memphis, Jacksonville and Milwaukee. These aren't exactly major global icons either. You put teams where your markets are as long as there is a critical mass of support.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Yeah, but other leagues have teams in cities like Green Bay, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma, Memphis, Jacksonville and Milwaukee. These aren't exactly major global icons either. You put teams where your markets are as long as there is a critical mass of support.

Those leagues are all bigger. And as @saffronleaf said, the NHL clearly has a mandate to expand in the us. Small market Canada be damned. And frankly I don't agree with it, it's alienating canadian fans.