Another expansion/relocation article with a twist

[The Zetterberg Era]

I agree completely with the bolded. Going into Toronto/SO wouldn't be about growing the game. It's purely a money garb. They can make record expansion fee's due to the supply/demand in the market. And they would make more money from the new Canadian TV deal (or would whenever it gets re-negotiated next time). In addition to being a money grab, it's would also be about adding a team that's completely risk free (ie no chance it fails). As I've said before... where the NHL goes, will be dictated on what the NHLs goals are. If one of those goals is growing the game, then that pretty much removes Canada from the equation. And I'm alright with that.

As for ticking off Det/CBJ, not necessarily. Play the team in the central division with Chicago, Minny, Nashville and Winnipeg. Detroit did it for a decade. That wouldn't increase the travel for those teams all that much, and the TO2/SO team can suck up the additional costs. The TV schedule/timing would suck at times (when they're in the Pacific) but again, not the end of the world. Sure that travel sucks for those players... but c'est la vie.

I think the Toronto2 team is going in the central before either Columbus and Detroit are shipped back, it will be a condition for joining.

 

[gstommylee]

I think the Toronto2 team is going in the central before either Columbus and Detroit are shipped back, it will be a condition for joining.

It would be stupid. And we still not have a balanced league of 16 western teams and 16 eastern teams. I think Quebec gets a team before TOR2 does and Quebec is way more far eastern than TOR is.

Why would that division approve expansion for a city that will increase expenses for that division.

 

[Mightygoose]

I think the Toronto2 team is going in the central before either Columbus and Detroit are shipped back, it will be a condition for joining.

In an odd way, I can see MLSE be open to that. Assuming that the 2nd team is created by a Bell/Rogers split.

Putting GTA 2 in the West, would actuallty mean more combined content (though marginal) since they would only play each other twice a year. Plus if they both make the playoffs the same year (pause for laughter), they would never play each other until the finals, assuming the leauge keeps the 2 conference format.

 

[Riptide]

It would be stupid. And we still not have a balanced league of 16 western teams and 16 eastern teams.

Why would that division approve expansion for a city that will increase expenses for that division.

I guess that depends on how you define balanced. The last alignment was considered balanced even though Detroit and Columbus were in the western conference.

As for the increased travel, even comparing the travel for Phoenix vs SO... there's not much of a difference - and looking on the map, most of those teams appear closer to SO than Phoenix.

 

[gstommylee]

I guess that depends on how you define balanced. The last alignment was considered balanced even though Detroit and Columbus were in the western conference.

As for the increased travel, even comparing the travel for Phoenix vs SO... there's not much of a difference - and looking on the map, most of those teams appear closer to SO than Phoenix.

That's not even how the alignment is set up. Columbus is in the eastern conference and Colorado is in the Central division.

Here how i see it being a balance league

Pacfic- Sea van, por, LA, Ana, SJ, Cal, edm
Central - Col, Phx, Jets, Dallas Chicago, Minn, Nash, STL
Atlantic- Det, TB, Ott, Mon, FL, Buff, Tor, Bos
Metropolitan - Pitts NYL, Car, NJ, Cjb, NYR, WA, Ph

What happens in regards to phx in 5 years is yet to remain seen. Might be easier to get one of detroit or columbus to move back to Western conference on a relocation than it would expansion.

 

[Riptide]

That's not even how the alignment is set up. Columbus is in the eastern conference and Colorado is in the Central division.

I realize that. I was showing that map (first one I came across) as it showed how much closer SO is to the majority of the Central Division (Nashville, Chicago, Winnipeg, STL, Minny) than Phoenix is. As apparently your concern was all about travel.

You deal with Phoenix potentially 5 years from now, if it actually happens, not before hand. And if they have to move, you still have one of Seattle/Portland who could potentially be an option. Or ship them east and deal with the alignment again.

 

[gstommylee]

I realize that. I was showing that map (first one I came across) as it showed how much closer SO is to the majority of the Central Division (Nashville, Chicago, Winnipeg, STL, Minny) than Phoenix is. As apparently your concern was all about travel.

You deal with Phoenix potentially 5 years from now, if it actually happens, not before hand. And if they have to move, you still have one of Seattle/Portland who could potentially be an option. Or ship them east and deal with the alignment again.

There is no Seattle option for coyotes in 5 years. Its Expansion or bust as in No arena will be built (with a NHL first option) with out a guarantee in written by the NHL for a team.

 

[Riptide]

There is no Seattle option for coyotes in 5 years. Its Expansion or bust as in No arena will be built (with a NHL first option) with out a guarantee in written by the NHL for a team.

And again, you do not make plans based on a team moving 5 years from now. You make the best decisions you can now, and deal with Phoenix if it actually happens.

But if that's what Seattle need for a team/arena... then give them the expansion team over Portland. Problem solved.

 

[gstommylee]

And again, you do not make plans based on a team moving 5 years from now. You make the best decisions you can now, and deal with Phoenix if it actually happens.

Sigh you complete misread what i was referring. You mentioned one of seattle/portland its not one of seattle or portland. Seattle will not be a potential relocation destination in 5 years if coyotes has to move.

The seattle arena agreement expires by the time the coyotes potential issue comes up again and its unknown if it'll be extended.

 

[Riptide]

Sigh you complete misread what i was referring. You mentioned one of seattle/portland its not one of seattle or portland. Seattle will not be a potential relocation destination in 5 years if coyotes has to move.

The seattle arena agreement expires by the time the coyotes potential issue comes up again and its unknown if it'll be extended.

I was pretty sure I covered that... but let me try this again. Then you give Seattle the expansion franchise now, and if Phoenix has to move, move them to Portland. Seems pretty simple to me. But again... this is a minor issue that's 5 years off, if it's even going to happen.

 

[gstommylee]

I was pretty sure I covered that... but let me try this again. Then you give Seattle the expansion franchise now, and if Phoenix has to move, move them to Portland. Seems pretty simple to me. But again... this is a minor issue that's 5 years off, if it's even going to happen.

Give the other expansion slot to portland and delay the whole alignment issue to 5 years from if the coyotes have to relocate.

 

[Riptide]

Give the other expansion slot to portland and delay the whole alignment issue to 5 years from if the coyotes have to relocate.

Sure that's an option. Like what I outlined above is. Neither causes any major issues if Phoenix has to move.

 

[gstommylee]

Sure that's an option. Like what I outlined above is. Neither causes any major issues if Phoenix has to move.

but the bigger issue is alignment if let say quebec gets one of two spots then what? They are far more east then a TOR2 team would be.

There would be 2 no (detroit and columbus) right there against quebec city expansion.

 

[Riptide]

but the bigger issue is alignment if let say quebec gets one of two spots then what? They are far more east then a TOR2 team would be.

There would be 2 no (detroit and columbus) right there against quebec city expansion.

There's no way that QC could play in the west. Which means either have unbalanced conferences, or someone (DET/CBJ) moves west. Which is another knock against QC. Honestly, I don't see QC happening anytime soon. I think if expansion does happen, it's SO and Seattle or Seattle and Portland. That's assuming that the NHL wants to keep the number of teams to an even number vs just going to Seattle for now and having 31 teams.

 

[TheTakedown]

And we're all forgetting here one massive, massive + for Hartford that Seattle, Portland, Houston all can't bring to the table. The NHL would be only show in town. No direct sports competition in the marketplace.

absolutely true... the only real competition is the Patriots, but that's all the way up in Foxborough, nowhere near close to Hartford

 

[gstommylee]

absolutely true... the only real competition is the Patriots, but that's all the way up in Foxborough, nowhere near close to Hartford

That still doesn't make it a better destination for a hockey team than Seattle/portland/quebec/tor2 though.

 

[TheTakedown]

Really rivalry with Vancouver is more appealing than Battle of New England, Habs-Whalers, Rangers-Whalers, WHALERS-CANES. Please explain that. Hartford would have a rivalry with EVERY team in the EC Seattle would have whom... Vancouver?? Portland after so many years? Hartford rivalries are already built in and that's what drives ticket sales for the NHL. And then again you have to have viewers to really make the $$, Hartford has been the top non-NHL market the past few SC's ratings wise.

exactly why Rangers-Devils tickets and Rangers-Isles tickets are so damn expensive, REGARDLESS of what arena it is taking place at

 

[gstommylee]

There's no way that QC could play in the west. Which means either have unbalanced conferences, or someone (DET/CBJ) moves west. Which is another knock against QC. Honestly, I don't see QC happening anytime soon. I think if expansion does happen, it's SO and Seattle or Seattle and Portland. That's assuming that the NHL wants to keep the number of teams to an even number vs just going to Seattle for now and having 31 teams.

Nothing suggests its going to be SO. Who is the owner going to be and is there an approved arena plan for said team. Quebec city has an arena being built portland has one now and Seattle has one in the works.

There are more pros for a seattle portland expansion than Seattle SO expansion. It has to do more than just selling out the arena. Seattle will not bring in expansion fee type #s that SO/TOR would so it would not be fair to charge SO/TOR2 one amount then charge Seattle a lower amount.

 

[TheTakedown]

That still doesn't make it a better destination for a hockey team than Seattle/portland/quebec/tor2 though.

it also doesn't by default make Seattle/portland/quebec/tor2 look like a better option either...

Seattle = possible owner, no arena, junior hockey fanbase (apparently that's enough for an NHL team now?)
Portland = no owner, arena to use, no fan base
Quebec = Arena by 2015 (brand new at that), rabid fanbase, billionaire owner
Tor2 = No arena (cannot share ACC), fan base would have to split between leafs and Sabres, possible owner...
Hartford = no arena, no potential owner, rabid fanbase...

Let's be realistic... the ONLY location that will be prepared for expansion in the next several years is QC, and that is it.

It's possible Seattle comes up around then too, but the arena still hasn't broken ground yet.

 

[Riptide]

Nothing suggests its going to be SO. Who is the owner going to be and is there an approved arena plan for said team. Quebec city has an arena being built portland has one now and Seattle has one in the works.

There are more pros for a seattle portland expansion than Seattle SO expansion. It has to do more than just selling out the arena. Seattle will not bring in expansion fee type #s that SO/TOR would so it would not be fair to charge SO/TOR2 one amount then charge Seattle a lower amount.

It's not about fairness. A SO team would become a top 5 valued franchise and revenue earner within a couple of years. So yeah it's gonna cost 1 price for SO/TO and another for Seattle.

As for an arena... if the NHL came knocking and said we want a team in SO in the next 3-5 years, do you honestly think that would be a major stumbling block? You'd have a lineup of owners to choose from. As for the arena, same deal. Rich owner, and a willing and committed NHL (vs the non committal NHL we have now), it wouldn't be a major issue.

Yes QC has a potential owner and are going to have an arena, but I still don't see them getting a team anytime soon. Maybe I'm wrong... but I see the NHL looking at other locations before QC - because somewhat like Hartford, I'm not sure it brings quite enough to the table if there's other options.

 

[gstommylee]

it also doesn't by default make Seattle/portland/quebec/tor2 look like a better option either...

Seattle = possible owner, no arena, junior hockey fanbase (apparently that's enough for an NHL team now?)
Portland = no owner, arena to use, no fan base
Quebec = Arena by 2015 (brand new at that), rabid fanbase, billionaire owner
Tor2 = No arena (cannot share ACC), fan base would have to split between leafs and Sabres, possible owner...
Hartford = no arena, no potential owner, rabid fanbase...

Let's be realistic... the ONLY location that will be prepared for expansion in the next several years is QC, and that is it.

It's possible Seattle comes up around then too, but the arena still hasn't broken ground yet.

I don't think NHL wants quebec city. NHL is more interesting in the pacific northwest than quebec. They are waiting for seattle to get it shovel ready.

Seriously you can't judge on how the fanbase is just cause Seattle and portland have WHL teams. WHL is not NHL. I guarantee you the fanbase will be much higher once both seattle and portland get NHL teams.

Note Sounders went from 4k a game to 26 a game as soon as they joined MLS. Seattle is not a minor team city.

 

[gstommylee]

It's not about fairness. A SO team would become a top 5 valued franchise and revenue earner within a couple of years. So yeah it's gonna cost 1 price for SO/TO and another for Seattle.

As for an arena... if the NHL came knocking and said we want a team in SO in the next 3-5 years, do you honestly think that would be a major stumbling block? You'd have a lineup of owners to choose from. As for the arena, same deal. Rich owner, and a willing and committed NHL (vs the non committal NHL we have now), it wouldn't be a major issue.

Yes QC has a potential owner and are going to have an arena, but I still don't see them getting a team anytime soon. Maybe I'm wrong... but I see the NHL looking at other locations before QC - because somewhat like Hartford, I'm not sure it brings quite enough to the table if there's other options.

I do not think NHL is that interesting to expand to canada while they still have a major untapped region in US.

NHL wants to be in the PNW they talked about it. Rather it remains Seattle and Portland or Seattle and some other city has yet to remain seen.

People in ontario already watch NHL. I may be extreme off on this but i don't think majority of the entire population in the PNW + alaska and parts of montana actually watch hockey. So they have more to gain by expanding into the PNW thus gaining instant 3-way rivalry then just putting a team in Ontario

 

[Betamax*]

I do not think NHL is that interesting to expand to canada while they still have a major untapped region in US.

NHL wants to be in the PNW they talked about it. Rather it remains Seattle and Portland or Seattle and some other city has yet to remain seen.

People in ontario already watch NHL. I may be extreme off on this but i don't think majority of the entire population in the PNW + alaska and parts of montana actually watch hockey. So they have more to gain by expanding into the PNW thus gaining instant 3-way rivalry then just putting a team in Ontario

But I would speculate there's another factor to look at when it comes to expansion or relocation is what kind of fee they can extract from a Seattle and Portland versus a team in Canada and especially one in the GTA or in Toronto @ the ACC which I would speculate would be a lot higher.

I would imagine that their expansion fee would be variable like what teams do when it comes to pricing "premium" home games against top times.

 

[gstommylee]

But I would speculate there's another factor to look at when it comes to expansion or relocation is what kind of fee they can extract from a Seattle and Portland versus a team in Canada and especially one in the GTA or in Toronto @ the ACC which I would speculate would be a lot higher.

I would imagine that their expansion fee would be variable like what teams do when it comes to pricing "premium" home games against top times.

Well the latest rumor in regards to expansion fee for seattle is 275m. i think NHL would actually gain more by having seattle and portland long term than just Seattle and another canada team. canada is better in the short term.

 

[Riptide]

Well the latest rumor in regards to expansion fee for seattle is 275m. i think NHL would actually gain more by having seattle and portland long term than just Seattle and another canada team. canada is better in the short term.

I doubt it's that high. Maybe 200m. But even that seems high when they only charged 60m for Atlanta to move, and the last expansion fee was Minnesota and Columbus (at 80m each). So yeah, I could see 150-200m, but I have a hard time believing it would go too far north of that.

SO on the other hand... easily twice whatever Seattle is charged.