Mightygoose
Registered User
Agreed on that front but why not have them apply too? Especially in the light that expansion is not guaranteed much the last process. Assuming the Rockets owner even wants and expansion team.
NHL to Seattle Volume XIII - UPDATE 12/7 NHL will accept Seattle application - Expansion fee $650 M
- Thread starter tony d
- Start date
- Status
Agreed on that front but why not have them apply too? Especially in the light that expansion is not guaranteed much the last process. Assuming the Rockets owner even wants and expansion team.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
brewski420
Registered User
It's obvious to me that the NHL wants into Seattle before the NBA. They really need not be in any rush, NBA is not coming anytime soon, but to become a tenant in Key before them seems to be a reason for what they did today.
The NBA is clearly not going to expand for years but the NHL has that incentive imo.
The NBA is clearly not going to expand for years but the NHL has that incentive imo.
EightyOne
My posts are jokes. And hockey is just a game.
- Nov 23, 2016
- 12,697
- 12,034
If there is a one or two or even three year lead time on a team being created, why cant that team start drafting players/signing FA and just operating as an AHL club for a few years? Then you wouldnt HAVE to poach talent from established teams?
LadyStanley
Registered User
WRT possible new division alignment....There will be changes, regardless.
Adding Seattle and Colorado, subtracting Edmonton and Calgary -- would probably add travel to all other Pacific Division teams (as they won't have the bus ride between the two Alberta cities -- more travel). Might reduce travel a bit for Central Division teams. But it would group PT/AZ/MT in Pacific and MT/CT in Central.
Depending on whether Arizona stays in/near Glendale/Phoenix/Scottsdale or new team gets to Houston, that might be different.
Nope. VGK wasn't allowed to do so. Could not sign any players until they were a NHL franchise 3/1/17. (It's just not the way the NHL works.)
Unless you're getting juniors who need to marinate or collegians, would they like to sit and not play waiting for NHL team to be available? (Realize 18 and 19 year olds cannot play in AHL unless they are from Europe.)
Adding Seattle and Colorado, subtracting Edmonton and Calgary -- would probably add travel to all other Pacific Division teams (as they won't have the bus ride between the two Alberta cities -- more travel). Might reduce travel a bit for Central Division teams. But it would group PT/AZ/MT in Pacific and MT/CT in Central.
Depending on whether Arizona stays in/near Glendale/Phoenix/Scottsdale or new team gets to Houston, that might be different.
Nope. VGK wasn't allowed to do so. Could not sign any players until they were a NHL franchise 3/1/17. (It's just not the way the NHL works.)
Unless you're getting juniors who need to marinate or collegians, would they like to sit and not play waiting for NHL team to be available? (Realize 18 and 19 year olds cannot play in AHL unless they are from Europe.)
Answer: their markets are too small.
Houston is the largest market in North America without a franchise.
superdeluxe
NAFO
Bixby Snyder
IBTFAD
They may be great hockey cities but they are not major league markets. And with big American markets willing to pay 600+ million for expansion teams the days of the NHL being viable in those cities is coming to an end.
Too far south and away from the core population. I am not even sure if the ice planet is being added back. It just not worth the it just for a year or two.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Kent Wa but the arena is too small holds 6k. Comcast arena for the silvertips only holds 8k. Comcast arena is a bit far north.
mouser
Business of Hockey
You have to think about it from the mindset of a current NHL team owner. How much does placing an expansion team in City X benefit me in the long run?
A team in QC is probably middle of the pack revenue-wise and a stable franchise. Is it going to increase the revenues and franchise values of the other 31 owners? Probably not by that much. The Canadian Rogers TV contract is already huge and if it was hypothetically renegotiated with QC included today it would be a small bump. Is a QC team going to increase league-wide sponsorships?
New teams in the biggest American markets have a greater potential to increase the NHL brand, next U.S. TV deal, and draw more sponsors. Whether that potential ultimately delivers or not.
Another way to look at it from an Owner view:
- Would you prefer to add a new team in the smallest Canadian market without an NHL team? or
- Would you rather add a new team in an American market that's larger then many of the existing American NHL markets?
LadyStanley
Registered User
Calgary-Edmonton
NHL teams may fly, but many fans and pundits take the bus.
Some eastern conference teams take the train between some cities.
YMMV
NHL teams may fly, but many fans and pundits take the bus.
Some eastern conference teams take the train between some cities.
YMMV
I'd be okay with this if Alberta had decided to get rid of Daylight Savings Time as they had the chance to do earlier this year. They didn't so. . .
They add almost no NHL fans. Who in those cities is not watching NHL hockey now? The teams they would "steal" fans from aren't going to allow them without a serious fight. Compare that to Las Vegas where there are thousands of fans at every game and many more watching on TV that would have never gone to an NHL game and few might have even watched one on TV.
Oilers Propagandist
Relax junior, it’s just a post.
It does matter, Oilers and flames are already at the tops in the league in terms of travel. No need to add more
LeafalCrusader
Registered User
Prefer the 4 divisions model per conference instead of 2. 8 teams in a division is too many. Don't feel any rivalry with half the teams and only play the divisional rivals 4 times a year some 3 times.
And going to 8 division kills rivalries. The league in a west east format isn't geographically setup to where 8 division 2 conferences work. This isn't baseball or the NFL.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Another aspect of your first point: Quebec City probably raises the cap and the floor without the potential to have much impact on central revenues. Aside from the expansion fee, which isn’t inconsiderable, a team in QC is more likely to hurt every other team’s bottom line in the long run.
In the case of Seattle (and Houston), either you have a team that helps you increase the next TV contract’s value and brings in the merchandising money that you can get from a big metro area or you have a team that provides a little drag on the salary midpoint. Either way, the other owners bottom line is helped.
Those fans in QC are also not paying for tickets and a team in QC would likely increase the value of the next Canadian TV contract which is still larger than the US contract. So I don't entirely agree with the point that adding another small market Canadian team adds no value to the league.
However, I do agree that a successful franchise in Houston and/or Seattle has the potential to add more revenue to the league. But that's the rub in in nontraditional markets isn't it .... lots of potential thAt sometimes goes unfulfilled when fourth or fifth on the sports ladder.
Quite frankly I'll wait and see when the novelty wears off in Vegas (and the Raiders move there), before I declare them a success story.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
GDT: ECQF: Game 3 - New York Rangers @ Washington Capitals, 7pm ET, TNT, MSG- Latest: Chalfdiggity3
Upcoming events
-
Victoriaville Tigres @ Drummondville Voltigeurs - Game 1Wagers: 1Staked: $25.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Belleville Senators @ Toronto Marlies -Belleville Senators leads series 1-0Wagers: 4Staked: $440.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Game 1 W-B/Scranton Penguins @ Lehigh Valley Phantoms - Lehigh Valley Phantoms leads series 1-0Wagers: 4Staked: $180.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
