A 32 team league.

[MoreOrr]

And if pigs had wings, they could fly. If, instead of Moyes, Phoenix had had a competent owner who...

• paid 1 million/year to a competent coach instead of 8 or 9 million per year to Gretzky
• used rational logistics instead of draining the Coyotes finances to prop up his failing logistics company

and if there was an arena in downtown Phoenix, or even Scottsdale, then the Coyotes would be a thriving franchise today. Practice differs from theory, and you rarely get perfect owners and arenas. Following your criteria, Phoenix should be golden, as well as probably a dozen large and several mid-size US cities I've never heard of. I think we would be better off discussing situations which have the necessary components in place. I would also add to your criteria, that the franchise owner has access to additional revenue streams. Concessions/parking are one example. Winnipeg has an arena at the small end of the scale, owned by the potential franchise owner, who is the 20th richest man on the planet. He will be able to last through the lean years. Quebec City has an arena coming soon, and a potential franchise owner who owns a cableco that would use the hockey team on its sports channel. So additional revenue there.

Portland has an arena, but not an owner who is enthusiastic about an NHL team.

Seattle lacks a modern arena. The arena was built for the Seattle Worlds Fair in 1962, with a major renovation in the 1990s.

Kansas City has an arena, but no serious ownership group.

I believe that there has been expressions serious interest from the Houston area, and the Toyota Center does seat 17,800 for hockey. Any others that I'm missing?

BTW, nothing personal about Gretzky. Any corporate HR type will tell you that being competent at a technical job is a totally different skillset from being a competent manager of the people doing that technical job. Yes, Wayne Gretzky was "The Great One" on the ice, but not behind the bench. OTOH, Don Cherry was a long-time journeyman minor leaguer who played exactly one game in the NHL, but had a much better coaching career than Gretzky.

All that, and all you simply had to say was: Most of those places either do not have someone who could be a serious candidate as an owner or do not have an adequate arena or both.

And then I would come back with this response: We're discussing whether Expansion could be viable for the League, but of course without viable Expansion options then logically Expansion won't happen.

However, if any of those cities mentioned become viable Expansion options, then why couldn't the League expand to those cities?

 

[knorthern knight]

However, if any of those cities mentioned become viable Expansion options, then why couldn't the League expand to those cities?

If they become viable, by all means. Maybe we should clarify "viable" so we're not talking past each other.

The US housing crash was due in part to a lot of sub-prime loans. Some borrowers had to borrow 90% plus of the market value of their homes. When tough times came, the homes went "underwater" (market value below mortgage remaining) and the owners walked away. A viable NHL owner (or group) should be able to finance the team purchase themselves, and show sufficient wealth to finance 5 to 10 years of initial losses. If they need "creative financing" merely to buy a team, that should be a red flag to the NHL. Hulsizer in Phoenix looks like a sub-prime loan on steroids. He is being financed by City of Glendale to the tune $197 million to buy a team with a face value of $170 million

 

[jacketracket*]

To the dismay of many Columbus fans, the Blue Jackets are not for sale either.

True.

An earlier - badly misguided - post had Columbus ownership "lumped in" with a group of owners who had allegedly used their ownership merely to increase their realty holdings/personal wealth.

You know the drill - blanket statement, little (if any) accuracy.

 

[Dampland]

If the NHL was set on adding two more teams, I would like to see Seattle get a team.

Then you could put Seattle, Van ,Calgary & Edmonton in the same division.

Get Minnesota out of the NW, and into a division with their old rivals like St.Louis & Chicago, maybe Detroit and Dallas too.

 

[MoreOrr]

If they become viable, by all means. Maybe we should clarify "viable" so we're not talking past each other.

The US housing crash was due in part to a lot of sub-prime loans. Some borrowers had to borrow 90% plus of the market value of their homes. When tough times came, the homes went "underwater" (market value below mortgage remaining) and the owners walked away. A viable NHL owner (or group) should be able to finance the team purchase themselves, and show sufficient wealth to finance 5 to 10 years of initial losses. If they need "creative financing" merely to buy a team, that should be a red flag to the NHL. Hulsizer in Phoenix looks like a sub-prime loan on steroids. He is being financed by City of Glendale to the tune $197 million to buy a team with a face value of $170 million

My point about viable is not that many of those cities that were listed as places to consider don't currently have fanbases that could support an NHL team, but that many of them aren't current viable options because there either isn't a potential owner who wants to put a team there or that there isn't an arena. Again, the point being that Expansion could happen for the NHL, but that some of the cities that could work in such an Expansion aren't currently available options. But as regards to Contraction, there are at least enough "viable" options available to turn to for re-location rather than going the Contraction route.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

It sounds to me the only cities that are already to go for an NHL. team are Winnipeg & Hamilton with prospective owners waiting in the wings & arenas only needing a few upgrades Winnipeg & Hamilton should be the first 2 in line for an NHL. team ethier via relocation or expansion .

If Vegas had a line on what cities will get NHL franchises, Hamilton would be the longest of long shots.

 

[Grudy0]

I'll give this a go, with a caveat that the "needing relocation" has more to do with feasible economics, and the strong potential for NHL support is simply that, with the ability to have an arena and a possible ownership group in place.

|Teams with strong potential for needing Relocation|Cities with likely potential to be able to support an NHL team
1.| Phoenix (NHL owns team; Glendale not viable)| Winnipeg (Thomson mentioned as a viable owner; MTS Centre OK for NHL)
2.| Islanders (Lease on Nassau Coliseum ends in 2015; needs replacment arena)| Quebec (building new arena, backing from Quebecor?)
3.| Atlanta (but there are local groups looking to purchase) | Hamilton (always a bridesmaid)
4.| | Kansas City (new arena, no ownership group has stepped forward)
5.| | Houston (interest in Oilers several years ago; largest US market without team)
6.| | Portland (interest in Penguins; unknown)
7.| | Milwaukee (I think it would be a good rivalry if Blackhawks don't ask for indemnification)
8.| |

However, the only "true" relo candidate right now is the Coyotes. There are other franchises that may require a change of ownership group (just like how the Lightning righted their ship).

And then there are ownership groups in Canada that wouldn't mind to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get teams.

 

[Gormo]

Expansion would be awesome. There aren't yet enough marginal teams-in-trouble - we should add more!

Yes. Yes! Fantastic idea!

AND we should keep moving further south!

Belize City Banshees
Bogota Bengals
Sao Paulo Stealth
Santiago Chilis

 

[CBCnutcase]

Salt Lake City, Utah
San Antonio, Texas
Indianapolis, Indiana

These cities could be possible for relocated franchises. I think San Antonio does not have a suitable NHL arena.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

San Antonio will not switch leagues, there was a backlash when the Rampage were born when it went from the Central to AHL....

WVC( not SLC) is where the Grizzlies play, doubt you'll see movement there;

Indianapolis=Lexington & Louisville, basketball majority rules, CBC

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

Salt Lake City, Utah
San Antonio, Texas
Indianapolis, Indiana

These cities could be possible for relocated franchises. I think San Antonio does not have a suitable NHL arena.

None of them have a suitable arena. The stadiums in all three cities are optimized for basketball, so the capacity drops down to ~13k for hockey:

This is the AT&T Center in San Antonio. Conseco Fieldhouse in Indy and Whatever-it's-Called Stadium in SLC have the same configuration.

 

[bleuet]

Yes. Yes! Fantastic idea!

AND we should keep moving further south!

Belize City Banshees
Bogota Bengals
Sao Paulo Stealth
Santiago Chilis

Mexico city Gringos
Rio Carnavals
Punta Cana Snowbirds laugh
Argentina Gold

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

Argentina Gold

Wouldn't Silver be more appropriate?

 

[Killroy*]

Salt Lake City, Utah
San Antonio, Texas
Indianapolis, Indiana

These cities could be possible for relocated franchises. I think San Antonio does not have a suitable NHL arena.

I can't figure out why people keep saying San Antonio is a suitable place for relocation, especially over Phoenix and Atlanta. Have any of you guys been there before? At most, SA will only have 1 professional sports franchise - the Spurs. The only other city in Texas that could support an NHL team is Houston. Anyone who mentions Austin or San Antonio needs to get their head checked.

 

[bleuet]

Wouldn't Silver be more appropriate?

Argent!

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

I can't figure out why people keep saying San Antonio is a suitable place for relocation, especially over Phoenix and Atlanta. Have any of you guys been there before? At most, SA will only have 1 professional sports franchise - the Spurs. The only other city in Texas that could support an NHL team is Houston. Anyone who mentions Austin or San Antonio needs to get their head checked.

Not saying I disagree, but why exactly?

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Not saying I disagree, but why exactly?

likely, because Minnesota's in Houston, w/ 80% ownership; SA, has the Spurs & ancillary revenue (which now includes the Austin Toros, btw); otherwise Dallas w/ the Stars franchise now there in Cedar Park has the hockey end of Austin covered....

 

[Seanconn*]

Austin is the capital of Texas, with a metro population close to 2 million.

it could work if they got an arena.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

I'll give this a go, with a caveat that the "needing relocation" has more to do with feasible economics, and the strong potential for NHL support is simply that, with the ability to have an arena and a possible ownership group in place.

|Teams with strong potential for needing Relocation|Cities with likely potential to be able to support an NHL team
1.| Phoenix (NHL owns team; Glendale not viable)| Winnipeg (Thomson mentioned as a viable owner; MTS Centre OK for NHL)
2.| Islanders (Lease on Nassau Coliseum ends in 2015; needs replacment arena)| Quebec (building new arena, backing from Quebecor?)
3.| Atlanta (but there are local groups looking to purchase) | Hamilton (always a bridesmaid)
4.| | Kansas City (new arena, no ownership group has stepped forward)
5.| | Houston (interest in Oilers several years ago; largest US market without team)
6.| | Portland (interest in Penguins; unknown)
7.| | Milwaukee (I think it would be a good rivalry if Blackhawks don't ask for indemnification)
8.| |

However, the only "true" relo candidate right now is the Coyotes. There are other franchises that may require a change of ownership group (just like how the Lightning righted their ship).

And then there are ownership groups in Canada that wouldn't mind to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get teams.

I've heard rumours that the Milwaukee Bucks of the NBA are one of the franchises rumoured for relocation or contraction, one of the reasons being the arena itself.

Is this true?

The arena is only 22 years old. YOu would think they could spend $100 million or so to upgrade the concessions, replace seats, add suites, etc. to get another 20-30 years out of it rather than spend $300-$400 million on a brand new arena.

Regardless, I would think an NHL team would not be considered for Milwaukee until an upgrade of some kind is guaranteed.

 

[JLP]

Tired of Canadians subsidizing Buttman's degradation of our game. Cut the leeches and make it 24 teams.

 

[Duke749]

I have a question about Florida. I know a lot of people are always throwing their name out there for relocation, but they havn't made the playoffs in a decade and are advertising to fans of other teams, yet they are averaging 15,500 a night. Maybe i'm missing something, but considering their situation, I think that's pretty good.

 

[Grudy0]

I've heard rumours that the Milwaukee Bucks of the NBA are one of the franchises rumoured for relocation or contraction, one of the reasons being the arena itself.

Is this true?

Senator Herb Kohl owns the Bucks, and has done so for just over 25 years. The guy that had Bradley Center built, Lloyd Pettit, was the guy behind the Milwaukee bid for a 1992 NHL expansion team, but ultimately had to pull out because Dollar Bill down the road wanted more money for indemnification than the expansion fee would have been.

I'm guessing by looking at the Bradley Center now that it probably was built before the club seating and luxury box fad that started with United Center in 1991(?). It is in need of renovations or replacement.

 

[htpwn]

I have a question about Florida. I know a lot of people are always throwing their name out there for relocation, but they havn't made the playoffs in a decade and are advertising to fans of other teams, yet they are averaging 15,500 a night. Maybe i'm missing something, but considering their situation, I think that's pretty good.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=883019

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

I've heard rumours that the Milwaukee Bucks of the NBA are one of the franchises rumoured for relocation or contraction, one of the reasons being the arena itself.

Is this true?

The arena is only 22 years old. YOu would think they could spend $100 million or so to upgrade the concessions, replace seats, add suites, etc. to get another 20-30 years out of it rather than spend $300-$400 million on a brand new arena.

Regardless, I would think an NHL team would not be considered for Milwaukee until an upgrade of some kind is guaranteed.

The Bucks will never move as long as Herb Kohl owns the team. The problem with the Bradley Center is a lack of luxury suites and the smallest lower bowl in the NBA. The arena was built for hockey, that's why they talk about needing a new arena because the sightlines for basketball are extremely poor if you're not sitting between the baskets.

If Milwaukee was to ever get an NHL team (not likely) they would need to either upgrade the Bradley Center before the team moved or get a new stadium approved and get approval from the NHL to play in the Bradley Center as is for a few years until the new stadium is built.

 

[jacketracket*]

None of them have a suitable arena. The stadiums in all three cities are optimized for basketball, so the capacity drops down to ~13k for hockey:

Would have been more than enough for the Jets, based on previous attendance.