A 32 team league.

[Seanconn*]

Because it's owned by a guy who hasn't been interested in sharing it with his NBA toy.

If Paul Allen had wanted a team, he almost certainly would have gotten one in the early or late 90s expansions. On the whole Allen has showed an antipathy for the NHL - although rumor has it he was kicking the tires in Phoenix at the time Burke sold the franchise to Ellman.

that's sucks. A Microsoft co founder doesn't want to spend a little extra cash to get an NHL team, won't let another owner bring one to Portland because he owns the arena... or he just doesn't like hockey enough to take their rent money.

Houston still makes sense, so does Milwaukee, and so do Seattle and Austin if you can build an arena.

Seattle must be considering building a new arena...

 

[Killion]

Seattle must be considering building a new arena...

Actually no, their not. The Sonics of the NBA pretty much split because of it. No appetite for public financing of an arena in Seattle. Portlands locked thanks to Allen, who apparently has no interest in hockey or the NHL, quite content with the Trailblazers. Thats the problem out here on the coast. No ownership group interest & or no building..... Austins an interesting suggestion. Close to $2M inhabitants, and youve gotta love a place whose unofficial slogan is "Keep Austin Weird".

 

[Pinkfloyd]

You don't dump a hockey franchise into a non hockey market and hope that in a few years the team will win the Stanley Cup thus fans will jump on board.

As we know it can take 10, 20, 30 ,40 years for a cup.
6 years is nothing and either is the 15 or so they have been in the desert.

In a hockey market the fans will be there regardless of a cup.

First of all, it's incredibly short-sighted to simply put teams in hockey markets and expect overall success and expansion of the sport. It's also not required to win a Cup to get the fans to jump on board either. However, being competitive is an absolute must in a new market. That isn't asking too much from any franchise. Losing annually for six years most definitely hurts your ability to sell tickets. That is simply reality. Look at where a bunch of traditional market teams were at during their down years in attendance.

The league is looking to grow and there's nothing wrong with that. The fact is that the league has succeeded in turning markets that weren't hockey markets prior to their arrival into hockey markets and have done so w/o the team winning the Cup (see SJ, STL, NSH, and LA). If Phoenix had maintained, to some extent, their ability to make the playoffs as they had in their first few years in Phoenix, they wouldn't have been in this situation and they would've had respectable attendance numbers like they had up until this whole fiasco started.

 

[KevFist]

And I'd like to explain for the 50 billionth time..... The ONLY reason the Atlanta Flames were moved to Calgary is because Tom Cousins, owner of the team, lost his tail at epic proportions on the real estate market in the late 70's. Attendance figures were very good, and the product on this ice was exceptional.

Had Cousins not needed the cash, the Flames would more than likely have stayed in Atlanta, and we wouldn't even be talking anything about Atlanta relocation.

 

[Dado]

However, being competitive is an absolute must in a new market. That isn't asking too much from any franchise.

Yes, it is. The bigger the league, the greater the number of teams who will flat out fail to be competitive.

And it's not really their fault - it's just the law of large numbers - there is a very limited amount of management talent to go 'round - the more teams you compete with, the more you eliminate the random component and the more you remain stuck running what ya brung.

 

[Dado]

Attendance figures were very good, and the product on this ice was exceptional.

If the business was printing money, why couldn't a local owner be found?

 

[leoleo3535]

First of all, it's incredibly short-sighted to simply put teams in hockey markets and expect overall success and expansion of the sport. It's also not required to win a Cup to get the fans to jump on board either. However, being competitive is an absolute must in a new market. That isn't asking too much from any franchise. Losing annually for six years most definitely hurts your ability to sell tickets. That is simply reality. Look at where a bunch of traditional market teams were at during their down years in attendance.

The league is looking to grow and there's nothing wrong with that. The fact is that the league has succeeded in turning markets that weren't hockey markets prior to their arrival into hockey markets and have done so w/o the team winning the Cup (see SJ, STL, NSH, and LA). If Phoenix had maintained, to some extent, their ability to make the playoffs as they had in their first few years in Phoenix, they wouldn't have been in this situation and they would've had respectable attendance numbers like they had up until this whole fiasco started.

I think it's incredibly short-sighted to simply put teams in non hockey markets and expect overall success and expansion of the sport.

 

[Killion]

And I'd like to explain for the 50 billionth time....

If the business was printing money, why couldn't a local owner be found?

No need Kevin, got yer back; quite the different era. Back in the Day, Zieger & the League were running around in Wooly Mammoth togs, Cash was King, and the Flames were in fact running low on reserves. I rather doubt much of an effort was made to even find local investors. Though attendance was fairly good, the team well managed by Cliff Fletcher, the lack of a local TV deal combined with the WHA wars which had just ended & Tom Cousins' financial shorts left the door wide open for an exit. Along comes a consortium led by none other than Nelson Skalbania with a then record offer of $16M to buy & move the team to Calgary, and the rest is history.

Should it have been allowed to happen?. IMO, no. However, thats just the way league operated pretty much from the earliest days of expansion in 67-68 right on up to the most recent additions of Minny & Columbus. Footprint, size, location, demographics, whatever criteria that should be applied never really has been when really its all been based on insider dealings & monetary gains. Also through the 70's, teams were awarded to places like Oakland & KC for the sole purpose of shutting out the WHA. Perhaps the most interesting of the lot, still around & losing boatloads by the decade are the NY Islanders who only owe their existence to the fact that the WHA had designs on the market; the NHL hastily awarding a franchise to LI without the least bit of due dilly. Through happenstance, and despite itself, the league has managed itself better than well under Bettman, and it remains to be seen just how it extricates itself from its ill conceived and avaricious decisions of 10, 20, 30 & 40 years ago.

 

[Hoser]

And I'd like to explain for the 50 billionth time..... The ONLY reason the Atlanta Flames were moved to Calgary is because Tom Cousins, owner of the team, lost his tail at epic proportions on the real estate market in the late 70's. Attendance figures were very good, and the product on this ice was exceptional.

Attendance was mediocre. Not all-out terrible, just 'okay'. They were usually near the bottom with the Golden Seals/Barons and Scouts/Rockies. I don't have the figures on hand but from what I recall they were usually around 15th in an 18 team league.

Had Cousins not needed the cash, the Flames would more than likely have stayed in Atlanta, and we wouldn't even be talking anything about Atlanta relocation.

What about a local buyer? Glenn Ford supposedly offered to buy the team, but his offer was reportedly only half of what Skalbania offered.

 

[MoreOrr]

I think it's incredibly short-sighted to simply put teams in non hockey markets and expect overall success and expansion of the sport.

In fact it would be very short-sighted to simply put teams in cities that are essentially already hockey markets. Doing that alone and the League would basically stay static. Expanding into at least potential growth markets is in fact the opposite of a "short-sighted" strategy. Now of course, you just can't put a team in a non-hockey market and simply set back and expect the market to grow without giving it any further attention. There needs to be good management, you need to give the fans a team that they can get excited about, and then ultimately after some time you discover if the market does in fact grow to the potential you hoped for.

 

[KevFist]

Hoser, see post above you.

 

[leoleo3535]

In fact it would be very short-sighted to simply put teams in cities that are essentially already hockey markets. Doing that alone and the League would basically stay static. Expanding into at least potential growth markets is in fact the opposite of a "short-sighted" strategy. Now of course, you just can't put a team in a non-hockey market and simply set back and expect the market to grow without giving it any further attention. There needs to be good management, you need to give the fans a team that they can get excited about, and then ultimately after some time you discover if the market does in fact grow to the potential you hoped for.

Really....so avoid hockey markets......place teams in non hockey markets and then ultimately after some time you discover if this was a good idea.
You and Bettman sing from the same song book....good luck to you both.

 

[ElGuapo]

Houston should be near the top of the next American city to get a team. Texas is second in the country in population and only has one team. I think a team in Houston would do very well. San Antonio is a no, they don't have an arena(the Spurs arena is built for basketball, has that ledge for hockey like the Suns arena did for the Coyotes). Plus their only major league team is a beloved NBA team that plays during the same season. Austin is an interesting suggestion, with an arena it might not be a bad idea. I think it's a similar size to Columbus and both are college towns. Will never happen though.

 

[LeftCoast]

Because it's owned by a guy who hasn't been interested in sharing it with his NBA toy.

If Paul Allen had wanted a team, he almost certainly would have gotten one in the early or late 90s expansions. On the whole Allen has showed an antipathy for the NHL - although rumor has it he was kicking the tires in Phoenix at the time Burke sold the franchise to Ellman.

I wouldn't rule Paul Allen or Portland out entirely. While it is true, that other than the very nascent Phoenix talks with Ellman, Paul Allen has not shown any interest in the NHL, it doesn't mean the door is forever closed.

Tod Leiweke, the CEO or Paul Allen's Vulcan Sports empire (Seattle Seahawks, Portland Trail Blazers and Seattle Sounders FC) left Vulcan Sports to become the CEO and part owner of the Tampa Bay Lightning. Who replaced Leiweke? Peter McLoughlin, who was formerly CEO of the St, Louis Blues.

Tod's brother Tim Leiweke is CEO of Anschutz Entertainment Group which not only owns the LA Kings (and is part owner of Allen's Sounders' rival the LA Galaxy of MLS), but is the Arena Manager for Paul Allen's Rose Garden in Portland.

Paul Allen now has multiple personal and professional connections to current and former NHL owners. Certainly his connections to the Leiweke brothers, Anschutz and Peter McLoughlin would be positives in terms of (if not ownership) at least having an NHL tenant for the Rose Garden in Portland.

Edited: Also, Paul Allen is apparently not opposed to sharing the Rose Garden with a hockey team because the Portland Winterhawks play almost half of their home games at the Rose Garden.

 

[Killion]

What about a local buyer? Glenn Ford supposedly offered to buy the team, but his offer was reportedly only half of what Skalbania offered.

The league & Ziegler were far more "flexible" back then Hoser. Ford lowballs while Skalbanias' offer's "record setting" for the time. No brainer for Cousins. See ya. Mind the Chinooks'. Ya'll come back now, y'hear?....

 

[MoreOrr]

Really....so avoid hockey markets......place teams in non hockey markets and then ultimately after some time you discover if this was a good idea.
You and Bettman sing from the same song book....good luck to you both.

You bolded my response to your post. But I'll repeat it for you again:

"it would be very short-sighted to simply put teams in cities that are essentially already hockey markets."

I didn't say that teams shouldn't be put in cities that are essentially already hockey markets, I said that it would be short-sighted only/simply to put teams is those types of markets.

But sometimes, if the already established market is quite small, then there really isn't a whole lot to be gained by putting a team there. Whereas if the non-established market is particularly large then there is possibility of significant growth potential. I would say that that's the logic that the League has employed, that and the idea of simply trying to broaden the geographical range of the NHL. The problem for the most part seems to be that they put some of those new franchises in the hands of people who did a very poor job of managing the growth potential in those cities. And because of that, in some cases we may never know if the growth potential was fully tapped or not.

 

[Killion]

Really....so avoid hockey markets......place teams in non hockey markets and then ultimately after some time you discover if this was a good idea. You and Bettman sing from the same song book....good luck to you both.

Well no, just a minute leoleo, Orr wasnt advocating any such thing. He was suggesting a combination of both traditional & non-traditional market expansions & or relocations, and only after plenty of due diligence. Secondly, Gary Bettman is NOT responsible for the non-existent mis-nomer called "The Sunbelt Expansion". Those plans were drawn up in the 80's under John Ziegler & Company, a flat out cash grab. Bettman was simply tasked with overseeing its execution (along with securing a broadcast deal & bringing cost certainty) & then justifying it with logic. Id bet you folding money that if asked privately & he was being completely honest about it, he'd point to Ziegler & others for saddling him with so much grief most of which was based entirely on greed.

 

[Killion]

I would say that that's the logic that the League has employed, that and the idea of simply trying to broaden the geographical range of the NHL.

Ya, ya see MoreOrr, I have a problem with this assumption as it gives the NHL credit where none is due. If you go back & dissect virtually every single transaction & wave of expansion, including several relo's, WHA & team amalgamations and or consolidations, your going to find self interests at play. You will not find the kind of logic & aforethought you suggest has taken place. The league is notorious for justifying what are really just avaricious designs after the fact with at often times highly amusing & creative logic.

 

[MoreOrr]

I'm thinking that this post/question might be worthy of a thread of its own, but I'll put it here:

What mix, proportion-wise, would be good for the League to have? The League has branched out into what were new markets, so logically in many cases a certain percentage of markets in the League could need support during the growth process. It's just part of growing the League and growing a broader fanbase in general. So again, what would be a good proportion to have, of financially strong teams and those still struggling, in order to keep the League in balance?

And once a equilibrium is established, on the positive side with significant economic revenues, then does it become logical to begin looking for other potential growth markets?

And where do you think the League stands currently?

 

[JMROWE]

I'd like to hear an explanation for this.

Teams most likely to move
Coyotes
Thrashers
Panthers
Blue Jackets

On the Bubble
Islanders
Predetors

Posible NHL. Cities
Winnipeg
Hamilton
Quebec City
Portland
Kansas City
Seattle
Millwaukee
Houston

In my opinion 4 teams will relocate within the next 10 years along with 2 expansion teams .

 

[MoreOrr]

Ya, ya see MoreOrr, I have a problem with this assumption as it gives the NHL credit where none is due. If you go back & dissect virtually every single transaction & wave of expansion, including several relo's, WHA & team amalgamations and or consolidations, your going to find self interests at play. You will not find the kind of logic & aforethought you suggest has taken place. The league is notorious for justifying what are really just avaricious designs after the fact with at often times highly amusing & creative logic.

Well yes, I see your point, that really there wasn't any design, the League just expanded where the money took it. But I suppose just to carry my argument a small step further, one could say that those new owners who did become part of the League with their expansion franchises, that they saw those cities as potential growth markets. They weren't previously part of the League, but they were to become part of the League, and you can almost be sure that they used that "growth" argument as part of their selling package to get the League to let them join in.

 

[Duke749]

Teams most likely to move
Coyotes
Thrashers
Panthers
Blue Jackets

On the Bubble
Islanders
Predetors

Posible NHL. Cities
Winnipeg
Hamilton
Quebec City
Portland
Kansas City
Seattle
Millwaukee
Houston

In my opinion 4 teams will relocate within the next 10 years along with 2 expansion teams .

You didn't explain why you think a team with 93% capacity in attendence should move though.

 

[Dado]

There are currently a dozen teams - more than a third of the league - that have gone 5 or more seasons without winning a playoff round.

I fail to see how adding even more teams to that bucket is going to make the league better.

 

[JMROWE]

You didn't explain why you think a team with 93% capacity in attendence should move though.

Which team are refering to & I know it is not the thrashers

 

[Duke749]

Which team are refering to & I know it is not the thrashers

See below...

I do belive that we will see a 32 team NHL. within the next 10 years & here is what i see happening 4 relocations along with 2 expansion team

4 out of 7 will relocate
Coyotes
Thrashers
Panthers
Islanders
Blue Jackets
Predetors

Posible cites for expansion & relocation
Winnipeg
Hamilton
Quebec City
Portland
Seattle
Kansas City
Cleveland

I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Maybe I should underline it, change it to red, and make it some funky font.