Possible return of the Quebec Nordiques?

[Troy McClure]

Such a laughable statement. What exactly does that mean?

Nothing really. I just like throwing it out there to inform people that there is a hockey presence in Texas. I'm not claiming hockey is more popular in Texas than Canada, but it is more popular than most Canadians realise. It's not laughable though because it's true.

Local investors? What Canadian teams rely on local investors now? Maybe Edmonton. The local investors are the ones sitting in the seats every single night.

Every team depends on local investors not as direct part owners but as people to buy up box suites, buy up the expensive seats near the glass, and to buy lots of advertising. Bigger markets can charge more for all of those things. That's where the local investors come in.

 

[baston]

Wow I totally missed that comment from Bill Daly :

"There's no reason to think Houston or Kansas City would be considered ahead of Quebec or Winnipeg (for relocation). There are still too many empty seats in markets like Carolina and Florida, even though attendance is up in those markets"

 

[rwilson99]

Wow I totally missed that comment from Bill Daly :

"There's no reason to think Houston or Kansas City would be considered ahead of Quebec or Winnipeg (for relocation). There are still too many empty seats in markets like Carolina and Florida, even though attendance is up in those markets"

That's a nice way of saying they will be given the same consideration... the economics of the numbers will strongly favor Houston and Kansas City.

 

[baston]

Houston and Kansas City,

 

[Troy McClure]

Houston and Kansas City,

Hey, I'd rather see a team in Saskatoon or Winnipeg than Quebec City. Quebec City has NHL hockey much closer than either of those cities.

 

[baston]

Hey, I'd rather see a team in Saskatoon or Winnipeg than Houston or Kansas City.

Of course, I'd rather have a team in my city than in Winnipeg cause no Nords fan will ever cheer for Montreal, but I'd be happy to see the NHL back in Winnipeg because it belongs there.

The NHL will never be able to sell hockey is the southern states and make it a major sports. Football, Baseball, Basketball are too strong. Eh, even poker and bowling are popular than hockey in america.

I don't give a damn how much money there is in Houston and Kansas City. That whole expansion decade in the South has hurt the nhl and the sport in every aspect, and I don't think we can assume that the last decade has been pretty good financially for the league.

Getting NFL tickets is hard as hell, and there is no reason to accept the fact that it is a lot different in the NHL. Yes, I live only 3 hours away from Montreal, but I haven't been able to get any tickets so far this season.

I'll plan a trip to Caroline or Florida. Will be less expansive for me to get good seats.

 

[Transported Upstater]

Hey, I'd rather see a team in Saskatoon or Winnipeg than Houston or Kansas City.

Of course, I'd rather have a team in my city than in Winnipeg cause no Nords fan will ever cheer for Montreal, but I'd be happy to see the NHL back in Winnipeg because it belongs there.

The NHL will never be able to sell hockey is the southern states and make it a major sports. Football, Baseball, Basketball are too strong. Eh, even poker and bowling are popular than hockey in america.

I don't give a damn how much money there is in Houston and Kansas City. That whole expansion decade in the South has hurt the nhl and the sport in every aspect, and I don't think we can assume that the last decade has been pretty good financially for the league.

Getting NFL tickets is hard as hell, and there is no reason to accept the fact that it is a lot different in the NHL. Yes, I live only 3 hours away from Montreal, but I haven't been able to get any tickets so far this season.

I'll plan a trip to Caroline or Florida. Will be less expansive for me to get good seats.

While I take offense at the Sun Belt bashing (and in thise case, you have missed the point entirely on why there are teams in the Sun Belt), I agree with you about the Quebec-Montreal thing. I loved the Quebec-Montreal games. Never a rivalry like it; totally unique. I'm not saying it was the biggest rivalry in the league, but IMO was the most interesting from a cultural standpoint.

I thought it was a stupid idea to bring Montreal's AHL affiliate there.

 

[Troy McClure]

The NHL will never be able to sell hockey is the southern states and make it a major sports.

They said the same thing when the North Stars moved in 93, and they were wrong. You are being way too shortsighted.

That whole expansion decade in the South has hurt the nhl and the sport in every aspect, and I don't think we can assume that the last decade has been pretty good financially for the league.

How has expansion to the south hurt the NHL? How has it hurt the sport? How has it caused financial problems? The problems came from big market teams spending like crazy and driving prices up which forced smaller teams to spend beyond their means. That had nothing to do with expansion to the South. You are wrong, and you are reaching here for the sole reason that you don't like it.

Getting NFL tickets is hard as hell, and there is no reason to accept the fact that it is a lot different in the NHL.

Each team plays only 8 home games a year. Apples and oranges here.

 

[kdb209]

I think it's not against QC, but they're like #5 on the priority list of expansion.

Even when you consider immediate team movements, they aren't on the radar. Kansas City is building, Houston will be building, and even Winnipeg has something in the works.

Hopes and dreams don't build arenas, investors with deep pockets do

Houston doesn't need to build - it already has the brand spanking new Toyota Center - home of the Houston Rockets - and an interested potential owner (Les Alexander) who already owns the Rockets and controls the Toyota Center.

As soon as Alexander expressed an interest in the NHL, Houston immediately jumped to the #1 slot as the favorite in the next relocation derby.

 

[kdb209]

Wow I totally missed that comment from Bill Daly :

"There's no reason to think Houston or Kansas City would be considered ahead of Quebec or Winnipeg (for relocation). There are still too many empty seats in markets like Carolina and Florida, even though attendance is up in those markets"

Unfortunately Daly (or Bettman) really have little say in the matter - it's pretty much up to the existing and potential future team owners. If Mario (as a hypothetical example) gives up after he loses the slots game and decides he wants to move it will be up to the Penguin's Owners (not the league) to decide where he will move to. If he decides to sell, it will be to whatever highest bidder they decide to - subject only to the minumum league financial requirements to avoid any future Spano-gate type of situations.

The league has little control over where a current team owner may move or whom he might sell to. The league could try to block a sale or move but would just lose millions of dollars in legal bills - just ask the NFL and Al Davis.

 

[baston]

Each team plays only 8 home games a year. Apples and oranges here.

You go and try to get one quality Red Sox ticket please. They only play 82 games a year at home.

How has expansion to the south hurt the NHL? How has it hurt the sport?

Too many teams, resulting in a diluted product, which gets about no exposure there (I know for Florida and Carolina, never been to Dallas so can't say much about that franchise). The NHL is spending too much money and time on trying to sell it's product in a region that has no ice and no past history with the game when it is already sold in other markets.

I watched a Carolina - Ottawa game in the beginning of the season on tv (the game Gerber litterally stole, outstanding performance), it was soooo sad to see. The best team in the league and there was absolutely nobody in the place. More than 50% of the seats (those we could see) were empty. How can that be good for the league? How can Raleigh be a better city than Hartford, Quebec, Winnipeg?

Look, I understand there are hardcore hockey fans in cities like Raleigh, Miami, Tampa, Dallas, and, losing a team is always a sad thing to see. We lost "Nos amours" (Our loved ones), a.k.a. the Montreal Expos but THIS WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I can tell that the coverage was very, very good in the province of Quebec (No hockey in summer, so they had all the attention) but we're not a baseball market. The NHL should wait before trying to move those southern teams though ... see if the fan base can grow a little faster.

The Southern U.S.A. is NOT a hockey market and will never be IMO. Hockey will always be a marginal sport in those regions.

In business, you find a niche where you can get a big market share and you develop from that point. Hockey is alone in Canada and can never think about being as popular as football, basketball and baseball in the states. It's always better to be the best and the biggest in your market than being a small fish in the ocean. It's sad to say but your fellow citizens like poker on tv and bowling more than hockey and it will always be that way.

Really, the NHL needs to stop thinking about Houston and Kansas City and come back to Canada. With the new CBA, every decent city can support a team financially. And, then, if you wanna develop new markets, go over Europe. There is plenty of money in Russia and hockey is already extremely popular there. The product is already sold in Russia, Finland, Sweden, Slovakia, etc. Gary, go get your money and stop being a jackass, please.

 

[rwilson99]

And, then, if you wanna develop new markets, go over Europe. There is plenty of money in Russia and hockey is already extremely popular there. The product is already sold in Russia, Finland, Sweden, Slovakia, etc. Gary, go get your money and stop being a jackass, please.

I'm gonna call a spade a spade...

This is bonafide Anti-American stupidity.

You think there have been expenses and struggles developing markets in the South and then suggest incontinental expansion where Hockey will be 2nd to International Football/Soccer.

The arenas in Russia and most of Europe seat around 10,000. Unemployment rates in most of these countries are 10% or more. The US is the biggest economy on earth and population shifts clearly favor markets like KC and Houston.

Try to find a fact or two to support one of your opinions.

 

[baston]

Anti-American stupidity?

This has nothing to do with racism and anti-americanism. This has to do with the fact that some of the cities where the NHL decided to move in the last 10 years don't have a clue about hockey, and while it is not impossible, selling the sport to those places has been and wil be extremely hard.

I'll try to find a fact or two, coming from the CIA World Factbook :

Canada
Unemployment rate: 7% (2004)

Czech Republik
Unemployment rate: 10.6% (2004 est.)

Finland
Unemployment rate: 4.3% (2004 est.)

Germany
Unemployment rate: 10.6% (2004 est.)

Russia
Unemployment rate: 8.3% plus considerable underemployment (2004 est.)

Slovakia
Unemployment rate: 13.1% (31 December 2004 est.)

Sweden
Unemployment rate: 5.6% (2004 est.)

Switzerland
Unemployment rate: 3.4% (2004 est.)

United States
Unemployment rate: 5.5% (2004 est.) (about 6% in Texas and 5,1% in Missouri)

Only the old communist countries are over 10%, but there is a s***load of money in Moscow for example. There is no doubt in my mind that Moscow is a large enough market city who can financially support an NHL franchise.

There was a rumour during the lockout that some overseas big entrepreneurs wanted a start a new super league : http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/02/13/929881-sun.html

First, there's the fan base. The numbers are definitely there. Europe has twice the population of North America in half the area. Also, hockey is already an established sport, which is more than can be said for places like Nashville, Carolina, Atlanta and a number of other American cities in which the NHL is based.

Travel costs would be much lower than they are in North America.

You wouldn't have to entice European fans with promotions, or explain to them how icing works. Of the eight countries taking part in last year's World Cup, six were based in Europe. And of those six, five were considered to be competitive.

The sixth was Germany, but that may be the most lucrative market of all for a European league. Hanover, Hamburg, Cologne and Nuremberg all have large new arenas, and German hockey interest is well established.

Anyways, this has nothing to do with anti-americanism and I'd be glad to see a team in Portland or Hartford for example. This is all about growing the league in places where a lot of people didn't have a clue about hockey.

Now, I do not say we need to move every Southern team. We need to give those team a chance by waiting and seeing if the fan base can grow.

But I know and I'm sure you know that, while, for example, Houston is a growing city with a lot of money, it will be harder to sell the sport there than it would be in Quebec City or in Moscow, in Stockholm, in Oslo, etc. It's a big risk / big win situation. Because yes, if the NHL succeed in developping the Southern U.S.A. market, it is gonna be great for the league. All I am saying is that, developping new markets in other regions of the world would be 10 times easier, and, while it might not be as rewardng as Houston, would bring new tv contracts and new extremely big fan bases to the NHL

 

[jester099]

I think in a lot of southern cities, Hockey is like the flavor of the month...

They win, people will go and see the show, get entertained, they loose, people will do something else...

Perfect exemple in Florida. one team is loosing, nobody show up, The other is the Stanley Cup holder, packed every night. Earlier in their history, the Panthers had more success, reaching the SC finals, people went to see them. Tampa was lousy, nobody went...

Flame me all you like, but I think Dallas was fortunate to have success right from the start. I can't wait to see how people will react when they fall in the standings... Colorado is different, because it was already a hockey city before they moved there, even if they had success right from the start.
Washington is loosing, nobody shows even if they have one of the most explosive player in the league...

In the south, I'm pretty sure this is always going to be the case, people will find other things to do if the team doesn't have success one particular year...

With cities like QC and Winnipeg, with die hard fans, people will go all the time, no matter where the team is in the standings. That's why those are the cities you want to build the league around.

 

[Sotnos]

Try to find a fact or two to support one of your opinions.

I really don't think that'll happen. Like a lot of other southern hockey haters, all his arguments are based on emotion and prejudice.

So glad to see this is still open though, woot!

 

[Sotnos]

With cities like QC and Winnipeg, with die hard fans, people will go all the time, no matter where the team is in the standings. That's why those are the cities you want to build the league around.

That's incorrect, and I'm sure someone can whip out the attendance statistics quicker than I can (which you'll then make excuses for).

 

[AdmiralPred]

Wow, this thread outlasted my Dec. 11 lock date prediction. Nice work!!

Still the same ole, same ole being touted by the same types of people in these threads. I too was in the "What the hack are all these teams doing in the South" boat back in the 90's, but after attending a few games and visiting a few cities on numerous occasions, there are a lot more hockey fans than I imagined there would have been. If it's going to be good for the NHL and good for the sport, I'm not sure why this should be an issue. All I see in the expansion/relocation threads are the regurgitation of attendance stats, weather reports, population tables, and now, unemployment rates and none of it seems very relavant on it's own. All this with a well-placed Google search, and a lot of speculation to back up some crazy notion that a city 'deserves' a NHL team.

 

[mzon]

I think in a lot of southern cities, Hockey is like the flavor of the month...

They win, people will go and see the show, get entertained, they loose, people will do something else...

Unlike say...Chicago, Boston, and Pittsburgh?

Perfect exemple in Florida. one team is loosing, nobody show up, The other is the Stanley Cup holder, packed every night. Earlier in their history, the Panthers had more success, reaching the SC finals, people went to see them. Tampa was lousy, nobody went...

Flame me all you like, but I think Dallas was fortunate to have success right from the start. I can't wait to see how people will react when they fall in the standings... Colorado is different, because it was already a hockey city before they moved there, even if they had success right from the start.
Washington is loosing, nobody shows even if they have one of the most explosive player in the league...

Do you think the fact that Colorado has been a powerhouse team almost ever year has anything to do with their attendance?

In the south, I'm pretty sure this is always going to be the case, people will find other things to do if the team doesn't have success one particular year...

With cities like QC and Winnipeg, with die hard fans, people will go all the time, no matter where the team is in the standings. That's why those are the cities you want to build the league around.

********. With a few notable exceptions (Toronto) no team will have consistently good attendance with a losing team, no matter where they are.

 

[jester099]

Unlike say...Chicago, Boston, and Pittsburgh?



Do you think the fact that Colorado has been a powerhouse team almost ever year has anything to do with their attendance?



********. With a few notable exceptions (Toronto) no team will have consistently good attendance with a losing team, no matter where they are.

Montreal went 7 years out of the playoffs and still had one of the best attendences in the league.

Edmonton and Calgary get relatively high attendances even if they missed the playoffs a lot in the last 5-10 years...

QC had a lousy team for many years before they moved out, and they had a lot of attendance...

Nothing to compare to the Florida disaster if you ask me...

Hockey is bigger in Canada than in the US... The fact that pittsburgh, chicago, and Boston struggle just goes to proove it.

All those cities have football, baseball and 2 out of 3 have basketball... In Canada, there is only hockey...

 

[baston]

Originally Posted by jester099
With cities like QC and Winnipeg, with die hard fans, people will go all the time, no matter where the team is in the standings. That's why those are the cities you want to build the league around.


That's incorrect, and I'm sure someone can whip out the attendance statistics quicker than I can (which you'll then make excuses for).

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/NHL-Business/NHL-attendance.htm

An average of 15,080 (there are 15 339 seats at the Colisée, and a lot of them are behind columns and tvs so you don't see **** ... that means almost every game was sold out on the crappyest year ever.) with a record of 12 wins - 61 losses - 7 ties - 31 points. We were last in the league in 88-89, 89-90, 90-91, only San Jose had a worst record in 91-92 (expansion team) ... that's 4 years of terrible, terrible hockey that explains why Colorado was such a powerhouse ... we got Sakic, Sundin, Nolan, Lindros with all those good picks. And with those terrible results, games were still sold out (most of them). When the team played vs Montreal, we could have easily filled a 60 000 seats stadium. On some nights, tickets were very, very hard to get, so you had to sit in front of the tv and hope you could get a ticket for a game vs a boring team.

With an average attendance of 15 080, 10 teams would be under Quebec this season : http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2006

Sidney Crosby filled the Colisée every time he came in the last two years with Rimouski. With Lemieux, Palffy, Recchi, Fleury and another NHL team on the ice, not only would we have an attendance of 15 000, but we'd easily get to 20 000.

Washington with 12 000 and Ovechkin is just crazy. Same thing for the Islanders and the Devils. 3 teams in the New York City area is wayyy too much.

Anyways.

Attendance wasn't why the Nordiques left. Te Nordiques left because Marcel Aubut is very close to Bettman and knew what was coming with the player's salary. He was one of the 8 comissionners that really, really didn't want to sign the CBA in 95. The league wanted to end the lockout, so, they signed that crappy deal. The rest is history. Aubut is a clever businessman, he sold the team before losing any money (like a lot of teams did after).

And, because he is a very clever businessman, with the new CBA, he knows a franchise would be very successful in Quebec once again, so, that's why he's starting to talk about getting a team.

What other facts do you guys need? Games were sold out when the team was a disaster ... I think you guys from the South are the ones being emotional.

 

[Troy McClure]

Hockey is bigger in Canada than in the US... The fact that pittsburgh, chicago, and Boston struggle just goes to proove it.

Again, so what. When Mario sits down to listen to sales pitches from various cities, do you think he's going to care one bit about how much more popular hockey is in Canada? Of course not. He's going to move the team to the city that can make his team the most money. If that happens to be a Canadian city, good for you, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

 

[baston]

Again, so what. When Mario sits down to listen to sales pitches from various cities, do you think he's going to care one bit about how much more popular hockey is in Canada? Of course not.

I'm not 100% sure about that one ... Maybe 99.9%, but not 100%

Anyways, an american investor could buy a team and move it to Canada. The Habs are now owned by a guy from Colorado.

 

[Hawkalyzer]

Hockey is bigger in Canada than in the US... The fact that pittsburgh, chicago, and Boston struggle just goes to proove it.

1. Pittsburgh has the worst arena (smallest too) in the NHL. A new stadium could do wonders for the Penguins

2. Chicago: You don't know anything about the business of hockey if you don't know why Chicago "struggles" with attendance.

3. Boston: Hardly struggling attendance wise.

 

[jester099]

1. Pittsburgh has the worst arena (smallest too) in the NHL. A new stadium could do wonders for the Penguins

2. Chicago: You don't know anything about the business of hockey if you don't know why Chicago "struggles" with attendance.

3. Boston: Hardly struggling attendance wise.

Someone used the arguments that the southern cities were not the only one to struggle in an attemp (I guess) to proove that those cities are as good hockey places as any. He mentioned those 3 cities in particular.

I'm sure there are numerous reasons why some cities struggle attendence wise, but the fact is someone would be hardpressed to show that at any point in time, no matter what the reason, hockey had trouble at the gate in any city in Canada... even in cities where the best players leave year after year like Edmonton.

It wasn't a post to condemn hockey fan in those markets... that wasn't the point.

I was just expressing my opinion that in general, people in Canada are more into hockey than people in the US. I think that's a pertty safe assumption.

 

[jester099]

Again, so what. When Mario sits down to listen to sales pitches from various cities, do you think he's going to care one bit about how much more popular hockey is in Canada? Of course not. He's going to move the team to the city that can make his team the most money. If that happens to be a Canadian city, good for you, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

So nothing... I totally agree with you. It's all about who'll buy the team.

It was just in response to someone who tried to convince me that southern states were as good places as any for hockey teams...