So is everyone opposed to expansion?
- Thread starter 190Octane
- Start date
Snap Wilson
Registered User
- Sep 14, 2003
- 5,838
- 0
After years of advocating expansion, I finally have to say that I'm against it, especially if the league is going to structure itself with a salary cap.
Talent isn't at an all time high. Look at the career AHLers dotting the league: Bates Battaglia, Glen Metropolit, etc. Every team has a guy like this now. Look at teams struggle to find six halfway decent defensemen.
With a ceiling set on salaries in the NHL, mid-level foreign-born players are finding it more comfortable to stay home. Heck, even some prospective homegrown talent has decided to try their luck overseas, since it pays more than the AHL. These are the guys who would be expansion players.
Not that I'm advocating it, but it wouldn't break my heart for the league to cut a few teams. I wouldn't be rooting for it, because it would suck for any city to lose a hockey team, but I'm starting to agree with those that believe talent is spread too thin.
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
I wouldn't oppose new teams. But, now is not the time. Some time after the next CBA is the right time.
Hartford HockeyFan
Registered User
- Apr 14, 2006
- 428
- 0
I am against expansion. The league is too spread out as it is and half the nhl barns are not even filling to capacity. I think it would be wrong for the nhl to look towards expanding more. 
what's with everyone so fired up about returning the NHL TO Winnipeg----to all those who advocate it stop because it's not going to happen realistically and then there is the current ownership of the Vancouver affiliate is against it as well where do u propose we move the Manitoba AHL franchise to if and when it happens which is very unlikely to begin with.
discostu
Registered User
I think for the NHL to expand, it must believe that the new franchise will be so stable, that it will be among the upper half of revenue generating teams.
With revenue sharing, if a team is in the lower half, it will be draining money from the rest of the league. If a team is a revenue sharer, it means that it will need to cough up more cash every year. If a team is currently a revenue receiver, it means that it will get a smaller piece of the pie.
Also, players won't be too enthusiastic about a lower revenue team coming in. Sure, it means more jobs for the 20 or so players that will be added, but, if that team is generating less revenue than league average, then, the cap goes down. For the league's elite players, that will put more downward pressure on their salary, given the player maximum.
The new CBA means that the current owners have to think long and hard before expanding. Before, they could just collect the additional revenue from the franchise fee, and let the teams fend for themselves. If they struggle, they were on their own. Now, it isn't so simple.
With revenue sharing, if a team is in the lower half, it will be draining money from the rest of the league. If a team is a revenue sharer, it means that it will need to cough up more cash every year. If a team is currently a revenue receiver, it means that it will get a smaller piece of the pie.
Also, players won't be too enthusiastic about a lower revenue team coming in. Sure, it means more jobs for the 20 or so players that will be added, but, if that team is generating less revenue than league average, then, the cap goes down. For the league's elite players, that will put more downward pressure on their salary, given the player maximum.
The new CBA means that the current owners have to think long and hard before expanding. Before, they could just collect the additional revenue from the franchise fee, and let the teams fend for themselves. If they struggle, they were on their own. Now, it isn't so simple.
TheDanceOfMaternity
Registered User
30 teams is the right number IMO. Baseball and Basketball have 30 teams, and they both greatly outsell the NHL. Maybe if you got 80,000 fans to go to every game, you could squeeze in 2 more teams like the NFL.
saskganesh
Registered User
no. I fear change.
returning to divisional playdowns is not a selling point for me, I much prefer the current structure.
returning to divisional playdowns is not a selling point for me, I much prefer the current structure.
Hartford HockeyFan
Registered User
- Apr 14, 2006
- 428
- 0
I say no to both. I am against moving teams and against expansion. No more teams are needed in an overcrowded NHL. Also no more team should be moving. Relocation is absurd and not done. We have moved way to many teams already. Keep the teams in the cities they are currently in and thats it.
Jazz
Registered User
I personally want to see a team in Seattle, so Vancouver would have a close rival....
But Seattle is not ready for the NHL yet (arena, demand etc).
But Seattle is not ready for the NHL yet (arena, demand etc).
not realistic ? you're entitled to your opinion but there are currently 10 teams (one third of the entire nhl) drawing less than the seating capacity of the mts centre.
florida 14,625
anaheim 14,524
phoenix 14,335
boston 14,310
atlanta 14,306
chicago 12,840
washington 12,624
new jersey 12,276
st. louis 11,161
ny islanders 10,768
The Jets left Winnipeg for Phoenix in 1995 but if Mark Chipman has his way, the NHL will come back one day. Chipman, chairman of True North Sports & Entertainment, which owns the MTS Centre and the AHL's Manitoba Moose, definitely believes the new salary cap NHL can work in Winnipeg.
"We've done our homework with other Canadian NHL teams and gained an understanding of the new economics and we think that there's a reasonable possibility that it would be viable here," Chipman said Thursday from Winnipeg. "The other issue has been, how do you get your hands on a team? Frankly, at that kind of acquisition price (Balsillie is believed to have paid US$175 million), it wouldn't be realistic to suggest anybody in this community ever could. But we could certainly be a partner for somebody because we have a building."
Some also view Winnipeg's MTS Centre as a little small.
"I don't think that's the case," said Chipman. "The only reason we're
even being talked about nowadays is because we have an arena that is capable of hosting an NHL team. I wouldn't accept the notion that the arena is too small, we have an NHL-quality arena. We're also known to be a very solid hockey market."
"The NHL knows of our current status," said Chipman. "It will continue to be a look-and-see approach for us, not just in terms of Pittsburgh but any other opportunities that might present itself over the next couple of years." - http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app?articleid=280567&page=NewsPage&service=page - october 5/06.
this doesn't read like chipman's against it to me.
does it matter. if winnipeg gets the chance to get an nhl team, the moose will be an afterthought.
pretty good work.
How many suites have each of these teams sold? I thought I read Atlanta had 80+ suites sold. That's a pretty good penny, those can go for over 200k a year.
How many suites have each of these teams sold? I thought I read Atlanta had 80+ suites sold. That's a pretty good penny, those can go for over 200k a year.
Phousse
Registered User
On a standpoint that it's fun seeing new teams, I'm all for it. But from a business standpoint, now is not the time.
If you can get the Leafs to allow a second teamin the Toronto market it makes expansiion more interesting.
Then you only need one more team to balance it. But I doubt they will let another team in Toronto
Then you only need one more team to balance it. But I doubt they will let another team in Toronto
wildcat48
Registered User
That's bang on correct....not to mention the new MTS Center currently hold 15,505 and has 45 suites. The building can be expanded to to 17,505 and they can add another 20 suites because that was built into the original design of the building.
Winnipeg is a perfect hockey market and so is Quebec City if they ever could build a new building.
- Feb 23, 2006
- 18,515
- 4,126
I wouldn't mind seeing the league expand if only for the 8 team divisions. I'm not a big fan of having to play same four divisional rivals for a combined total of 32 games every season. I would also prefer a Canada only expansion, but this is not to say that I think such would be financially justified.
PecaFan
Registered User
Sorry, Divisional playoffs totally suck. It leads to lesser teams getting playoff spots and home ice advantage while better teams miss the playoffs entirely, get harder matchups or get screwed out of home ice, simply because of the strength of the divisions they are in.
It gives you early matchups that should be saved until later in the playoffs, things like the 110 point first place team playing the 108 second place team in one division, meanwhile 88 point team plays 87 point team in the other division.
Nope, conference playoffs are definitely something the NHL has right.
I'm not against expansion per se, the west definitely needs more teams. Relocation of some eastern teams would be preferable, if troublesome.
It gives you early matchups that should be saved until later in the playoffs, things like the 110 point first place team playing the 108 second place team in one division, meanwhile 88 point team plays 87 point team in the other division.
Nope, conference playoffs are definitely something the NHL has right.
I'm not against expansion per se, the west definitely needs more teams. Relocation of some eastern teams would be preferable, if troublesome.
190Octane
Registered User
The reason why I mentioned Winnipeg is for expansion is they're the only city in Western Canada that I thought would be feasable.
I'm not that up on Canadian geography though so if someone has a better option feel free to to mention it.
Also, two teams in the West makes more sense when you already have a few teams in the Western conference starting their games at 4:30 PST.
I'm not that up on Canadian geography though so if someone has a better option feel free to to mention it.
Also, two teams in the West makes more sense when you already have a few teams in the Western conference starting their games at 4:30 PST.
