I'd have to go with Nashville here. Let's look at it this way and be as dispassionate as possible. As an owner my only obligation is to maximize profit for myself and any other investors or individuals I owe money to. Let's split the difference between the Pens almost sale and the Blues sale and say that I bought the team for about $162.5 Million.
I like your analysis, but I have to disagree with both the ultimate goal being to maximize profit, and whether or not you maximize profit, revenue or take losses right at the beginning. More on the second part later.
I think the ultimate goal is to increase franchise value. The points you've raised factor into this in different ways, but really any owner - leaving out personal reasons - should really only be worried about franchise value.
Now how do I go about maximizing profit? Maximizing gains while minimizing losses, naturally. Each and every fan should be seen as a revenue source. I don't care about them as people, I don't care that they feel their market "deserves" their team - all I care about is getting them into the arena and getting their money.So I want as many revenue sources as possible coming in, thus I want a growing market.
I think you are mixing up your short- and longterm goals and strategies. At the very beginning and part of the decision on whether or not to buy any team is market growth rate (population in this case) and current target market size. Both are factors. Using Chicago and Nashville as examples, it probably will be many, many years - perhaps decades - before Nashville can be on equal footing with Chicago as far as market size. That's probably why Chicago already has several major league sports teams based there, and its highly doubtful any of them are leaving... in spite of Chicago's less than stellar growth rate vis-a-vis the Southern cities.
On the point of maximizing profit, Irish Blues and I have kicked this can around before, however if you are trying to "grow" a market, maximizing profit should be deferred for a future date. You are saying the right thing, but what you failed to realize is that the pursuit of market share often means a strategy that does not allow for simultaneous profit maximization. In a sense, you are investing in your future by delaying the collection of profits now. Financially you do not want to incur too many losses and obviously you have to be able to service your debt and other expenses, but you should be figuring out how much more you gain in 5-10+ years vs. your profit this year if you choose a strategy that makes market share the top goal.
Toronto is in a position to maximize profits. A newly established team won't be there for some time.
I want the ability to say that each year there are more and more potential revenue sources. Nashville's got that - growing at roughly 16.7% in the last census and still growing about, 4% over the national average. Chicago, meanwhile, is growing, but at a bit over half the rate (9%) and is under the national average. Boston, too, is growing, but at an even slower rate (2.6%). [ snip ]
It just means I can sell them one of mine after they (or their children) buy into Predators hockey. It also must be said that it's likely that Chicago or Boston aren't going to see increased fan growth - it's likely that everybody who ever is or will be a Bruins or Blackhawks fan is around. The fanbase has matured, so to speak. While I'll still make jersey sales and souvenier sales, I'd wager that these sales are roughly a slow constant. In Nashville though, every newcomer in that 16.7% and every local who has never been to a hockey game in their life is a potential jersey/team puck/assorted other memorabilia sale. The fanbase is "younger," so to speak, and I can come in during the sales spike and ride it for a bit before it cools as Chicago and Boston's have with the combination of the right marketing and putting a winning team on the ice.
You've listed some very good reasons as to why a place like Nashville deserves consideration as a place that can support a major league sport. The harder question, which has no easy answer, is what is it that makes people like "hockey" (the professional sport)?
At least in the case of Chicago with it's
unique [Wirtzian] history, Chicago may be like a new, and hugely untapped market. It once was a huge hockey city, and hockey was a Top 3 sport there. The NBA wasn't even on the radar then, and tickets were impossible to find. All the games were broadcast on WGN-TV, reaching thousands of fans across the US and Canada. I have to digress. I was at a Wings game last week, and sitting next to me was a guy who - as it turned - grew up in a neighboring city in Northwest Indiana. I think I'm about 7 years older than him. So, I said, you must've grown up as a Hawks fan [I did]. No, the response went, I was mostly able to tune in Leafs games on TV so I was a Leaf fan until I moved to Michigan in the early 1990's. He said you could only watch Hawks games on pay-per-view in those days. He didn't remember the WGN days-- which really were the only exposure I had to the Hawks as a kid. I was shocked by this... in Blackhawk country? The power of television really should not be underestimated.
Speaking of a consistently winning team, it's another reason why I'd go for the Predators. It's a young team, but they know success within the last couple years. Further, I think it bears to be said that Nashville can be a potentially lucrative draw to sign players. "Where would you rather play, sir...for a Canadian team or an original 6 team where just a slump will cause you to be castigated in the local media or down here where, the chances of that are a bit less? Where would you rather play, a team in the Northeast Division where it's up in the air as to what happens or down here where, as of late, we've been one of the strongest teams in the division? Sure that could change, but that's why we're trying to sign you and not someone else"
This might be a reason to buy Nashville right now, but to dump the Panthers or Coyotes. Teams have to be able to survive the lean times.
Lastly, it can't be understated that from a business perspective the South is pretty lucrative. Low tax rates for me, a corporate entity? Low cost of living means I can pay my employees less than what I'd have to in Boston or Chicago and they'll STILL be happy? A city with only one other major sports franchise to challenge me for fan dollars? Sign me up!
However, each teams situation is different. Nashville has a good deal as far as city and arena support, but they lack support from the corporate sector. Tampa has now won the Cup, is selling out, but doesn't have a very friendly tax environment with regard to some of its arena issues and associated revenues. In spite of selling out all its games, I don't think they're making very much money even with a cap in the $39-44 MM range. As far as what you have to pay employees in Chicago (I don't know about Boston)... you've never been to the United Center, have you? I think there's a lot of low cost labor in the immediate area.
Perhaps the most compelling argument for Chicago is BobbyOrr's post earlier, pointing out what Toronto, NY and Detroit revenues are compared to Chicago. I do believe with the right ownership group and most importantly a return to general broadcasting of all Hawks games would find a receptive market. There's no reason to think they could not eclipse Detroit's levels. There are more than enough companies (greater than the Detroit area) to draw upon, and a huge population base. Hockey as a sport is established in Chicago. It's played in high schools, colleges and rinks all around the area. The area produces NHL-caliber players. People already "know" what the sport is... they've mostly given up on Wirtz, not the NHL.
(what he always wanted to be since he played in a band for a while) and sell more wine, beer or Coke or whatever he sells. 
