Could any metro areas other than New York and LA support multiple teams?

[HugoSimon]

The Leafs won't lose anything if there's another team in Southern Ontario. They have a season ticket holder waiting list that goes on for years. People want to spend money on the NHL and can't. The NHL is losing out by not having 2 teams in Southern Ontario.

This is where I ask the people in this thread who are leafs fans and do not live in southern ontario to please imagine me saying impolite bannable things at them.

The only reason we don't have 2-3 more teams is directly because of the leafs shutting out a team.

You could easily have a Missiauaga-Hamilton-Markham, or Markham-Kitchener-Hamilton expansions.

Maybe 1 of the 3 wouldn't make it, but 2 likely would.

If we're talking about just 1 it's an obvious perpetual sell out.

There's 10 million people in the area. Toronto isn't just a large Canadian city it's the hub of the country.

And most relevant to its being a central hub of the countrty, a massive proportion of the people here have no historic connection to the leafs. Either because their parents aren't from the area or the country, or far more relevantly they are from part of the country that is anti leaf/ Aka alberta/montreal etc.

The team would pretty instantly be between the islanders and oilers in value.

Again even if 100% of leaf fans boycotted the team, and the leafs won a cup they'd still sell out.

Leaf fans are the definitions of gatekeepers that narrative is obnoxious now, and it'd only get worst if they started to lash out at "band wagoners".

Pretty much every time this topic gets brought up, it gets turned into would you as a leaf fan be capable of supporting the second team. As in if the Toronto Marlies were brought into the league do you think leaf fans would support both.

The answer is unclear it's not unimaginable a room full of leafs jerseys could be supporting a second team.

But that isn't the question, it's whether people who hate the leafs, have no connection to the leafs could support the team.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

The three NYC metro teams market themselves towards different portions of the market:

The Rangers primary fanbase is the five boroughs, and suburbs north of The Bronx

The Islanders market themselves towards suburban Long Island

The Devils have the majority of their local fans in the New Jersey side of the metro area

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

The Capitals could probably survive a new Baltimore team without a crippling loss of revenue or fans, but I'm not sure there would be enough of a fan base to support a Baltimore team without Washington fans also contributing (like the Orioles in the pre-Nationals era). The NFL is the only league large enough to really support teams in both cities simultaneously. The Nats have more or less replaced the O's in terms of relevance outside of Baltimore die hards, and the O's attendance has tanked along with their slumping team over the past 2 decades.

I'd be curious if a sports-crazed city like Philadelphia could support two teams in a league, but they've never had divided loyalties before to test that scenario. It kinda harms the "us vs the world" mentality of Philadelphia fans if not all of Philly is unified, but perhaps the in-city rivalry would be intense enough to garnish interest.

Outside of that, it's basically GTA and Chicago as the other possibilities.

Baltimore has no incentive to build a new arena to NBA/NHL standards. Baltimoreans are pretty content with rooting for the Capitals and Wizards. In fact, the Caps should sponsor a new ECHL team in Baltimore that would serve as their ECHL affiliate.

 

[WildGopher]

Baltimore has no incentive to build a new arena to NBA/NHL standards. Baltimoreans are pretty content with rooting for the Capitals and Wizards. In fact, the Caps should sponsor a new ECHL team in Baltimore that would serve as their ECHL affiliate.

The Caps had an ECHL team in suburban Maryland between Washington and Baltimore several years ago - I attended a game or two when I lived out there. The team only lasted a year. You always want hockey to make it to expand the sport, but I'm not sure any second pro hockey team in the Wash/Balt market, at any level, is going to work. They're football and baseball towns, with also a pretty good basketball following - Wizards do OK, and U Maryland and Georgetown bball are pretty popular - but not hockey.

 

[mouser]

From the NHL constitution:

“No other member of the League shall be permitted to play games (except regularly scheduled League games with the home club) in the home territory of a member without the latter member’s consent. No franchise shall be granted for a home territory within the home territory of a member, without the written consent of such member.”

and later:

“Home territory with respect to any member, means each member club shall have exclusive territorial rights in the city in which it is located and within 50 miles of that city’s corporate limits.”

So yeah, according to the league's own regulations, the Leafs do have a claim to territorial control over the city of Hamilton.

Of course, the Canadian Competition Bureau might see things differently, as they did when Basillie wanted to move the Predators to Hamilton 15 years ago.

Apologies for a very late reply. Was going back and re-reading older posts in the thread I missed.

This veto clause is probably illegal under anti-trust laws in both Canada and the USA. The NHL lawyers in the Balsillie/Coyotes bankruptcy case back in 2008-09 took the position that teams do not have veto rights to a team moving into their territory and the veto clause has been superseded by changes in the By-Laws approving ownership changes.

While a team can not veto another team moving into their NHL defined home territory, the judge in the Balsillie/Coyotes case ruled that teams are still entitled to compensation if another team relocates into their defined home territory. This would likely be true for an expansion GTA team as well.

 

[CanadianCoyote]

Besides, we've seen territorial payins in the NHL before; the Rockies had to pay a fee to the Isles and Rangers to move to New Jersey. Wouldn't shock me if the NHL just had a Hamilton team pay some kind of fee to the Leafs and/or Sabres to compensate them.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

The Caps had an ECHL team in suburban Maryland between Washington and Baltimore several years ago - I attended a game or two when I lived out there. The team only lasted a year. You always want hockey to make it to expand the sport, but I'm not sure any second pro hockey team in the Wash/Balt market, at any level, is going to work. They're football and baseball towns, with also a pretty good basketball following - Wizards do OK, and U Maryland and Georgetown bball are pretty popular - but not hockey.

However the Caps won the Cup in 2018

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

However the Caps won the Cup in 2018

Regional interest garner when the local pro team wins the Cup isn't inextricably linked to the region's ability to support minor hockey. St Louis Blues won the Cup in 2019, and there is still no interest in moving a minor league team to their territory. They actually moved their AHL team further away from home. The Manchester Monarchs won the AHL Calder Cup in 2015 as one of the best teams in the league and less than 3 years later they couldn't even support an ECHL franchise. Doing well on the ice and off the ice are two completely different things.

 

[CHIP72]

Toronto could for sure IMO, and Montreal might be able to support a second team.

In all honesty, the Los Angeles area can't really support two NHL teams.

 

[CHIP72]

For me, the really interesting question would be the branding for a second GTA team.

Do you try to sell it as a second Toronto team like the Cubs and the White Sox or do you brand it as a suburban team like the Mets or the Islanders?

The New York Mets play within the limits of New York City, in Queens. They were created to replace the Giants and Dodgers as the National League representative in New York. The Mets have always played within the five boroughs (they played their first two seasons at the Polo Grounds, in upper Manhattan across the Harlem River from Yankee Stadium, in 1962-1963).

 

[CHIP72]

From the NHL constitution:

“No other member of the League shall be permitted to play games (except regularly scheduled League games with the home club) in the home territory of a member without the latter member’s consent. No franchise shall be granted for a home territory within the home territory of a member, without the written consent of such member.”

and later:

“Home territory with respect to any member, means each member club shall have exclusive territorial rights in the city in which it is located and within 50 miles of that city’s corporate limits.”

So yeah, according to the league's own regulations, the Leafs do have a claim to territorial control over the city of Hamilton.

Of course, the Canadian Competition Bureau might see things differently, as they did when Basillie wanted to move the Predators to Hamilton 15 years ago.

The Islanders had to pay the Rangers an indemnity fee when they were created in 1972. The Devils had to pay the Rangers, Islanders, and Flyers (even though Philadelphia is more than 50 miles from East Rutherford, NJ) when the Devils moved to north Jersey in 1982.

 

[Stephen]

The Greater Toronto Area could definitely support a second NHL team, but seeding one in the 2020s is a different question. It would be interesting to see happen as a novelty, but if I had the money to make it happen I don't think I would.

If an expansion team or relocation had set up shop at any point before MLSE I could see them having a foot hold in the market, but I don't see why an ownership group would choose to spend over a billion dollars to presumably pay the $600 million expansion fee and foot the bill for a non downtown arena just to play second fiddle to the Maple Leafs for at least a generation. Why go through all that trouble to be the other team?

 

[Ciao]

Toronto won't support minor-league sports, but it would go nuts for a second NHL team.

It has to be in Toronto, not the GTA.

Whatever it costs for an expansion fee, to indemnify the Leafs, build an arena and capitalize the team itself would seem cheap in hindsight. It would take big, big money, and would be a very good investment.

 

[Zenos]

The Islanders had to pay the Rangers an indemnity fee when they were created in 1972. The Devils had to pay the Rangers, Islanders, and Flyers (even though Philadelphia is more than 50 miles from East Rutherford, NJ) when the Devils moved to north Jersey in 1982.

Interesting that the Flyers had to be payed as well. I'm assuming the rules were different at the time?
Do you have any more details?

 

[CanadianCoyote]

Interesting that the Flyers had to be payed as well. I'm assuming the rules were different at the time?
Do you have any more details?

I assume the Flyers considered the southern parts of New Jersey as their designated territory, and the Devils had to pay them due to encroaching on that.

 

[JMCx4]

The Caps had an ECHL team in suburban Maryland between Washington and Baltimore several years ago - I attended a game or two when I lived out there. The team only lasted a year. You always want hockey to make it to expand the sport, but I'm not sure any second pro hockey team in the Wash/Balt market, at any level, is going to work. They're football and baseball towns, with also a pretty good basketball following - Wizards do OK, and U Maryland and Georgetown bball are pretty popular - but not hockey.

I presume you're referring to the ECHL's Chesapeake Icebreakers. They played for 2 seasons (1997-99) in Upper Marlboro, MD, but were never a Capitals affiliate. With that record straight ... I agree that the Washington/Baltimore market would not materially support a second NHL franchise in the foreseeable future.

 

[Seamus82]

I could only really see a second Toronto team happening if MLSE break up and as part of the arrangement, Bell and Rogers each end up with a Toronto team. It would be fascinating to see how the fan lines would be drawn between the Leafs and a new team. Would a certain region embrace the new team? Or maybe the new team would just soak up all the GTA hockey fans who aren't Leaf fans? I'm a fan of all the big 4 sports, so personally I'd rather Toronto got an NFL team than a 2nd hockey team if I had to chose one or the other, but I think it would be really interesting if it ever happened.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I could only really see a second Toronto team happening if MLSE break up and as part of the arrangement, Bell and Rogers each end up with a Toronto team. It would be fascinating to see how the fan lines would be drawn between the Leafs and a new team. Would a certain region embrace the new team? Or maybe the new team would just soak up all the GTA hockey fans who aren't Leaf fans? I'm a fan of all the big 4 sports, so personally I'd rather Toronto got an NFL team than a 2nd hockey team if I had to chose one or the other, but I think it would be really interesting if it ever happened.

The only way NFL is happening is if someone wanted to build a 1-1.5 billion US stadium for 8 games a year. NFL only wants football style stadiums only.

 

[WildGopher]

The only way NFL is happening is if someone wanted to build a 1-1.5 billion US stadium for 8 games a year. NFL only wants football style stadiums only.

That's probably true. I really don't know why a city that doesn't already have an NFL team would want one. They're an enormous money drain with their greed for exorbitantly priced stadiums that rarely get used, they move around like feral cats from market to market with zero fan loyalty, and they don't do anywhere near the community outreach and service that the other major sports do. Sure, if a town already has a team, I understand the emotional bonds, the boosterism, and all that. But forking over the better part of a billion public dollars when there are so many other needs? For just 10-12 home games a year if the team is lucky, counting pre-season games? No way.

 

[WildGopher]

I presume you're referring to the ECHL's Chesapeake Icebreakers. They played for 2 seasons (1997-99) in Upper Marlboro, MD, but were never a Capitals affiliate. With that record straight ... I agree that the Washington/Baltimore market would not materially support a second NHL franchise in the foreseeable future.

You're right about the affiliation. The Icebreakers had an affiliation with the Hershey Bears at the time Chesapeake Icebreakers hockey team statistics and history at hockeydb.com , but that was several years before Hershey got its affiliation with the Caps. The Caps did try top-level affiliations with two Baltimore teams - the Clippers and Skipjacks - but those didn't last, either.

 

[Fatass]

I could only really see a second Toronto team happening if MLSE break up and as part of the arrangement, Bell and Rogers each end up with a Toronto team. It would be fascinating to see how the fan lines would be drawn between the Leafs and a new team. Would a certain region embrace the new team? Or maybe the new team would just soak up all the GTA hockey fans who aren't Leaf fans? I'm a fan of all the big 4 sports, so personally I'd rather Toronto got an NFL team than a 2nd hockey team if I had to chose one or the other, but I think it would be really interesting if it ever happened.

Looking at how the Coyotes and Panthers are bleeding money (in the Forbe’s team value thread) maybe moving one to the GTA would help the overall finances of the league?

 

[CanadianCoyote]

Looking at how the Coyotes and Panthers are bleeding money (in the Forbe’s team value thread) maybe moving one to the GTA would help the overall finances of the league?

And where, precisely, would they play? Scotiabank has enough events in any given year that it doesn't need a second NHL tenant.

Coca-Cola isn't close to an NHL-standard venue. FirstOntario might work after the renovations are done, but then you have to put up with Buffalo potentially blocking the move or demanding a fee for any move. And good luck suggesting somewhere like Thornhill would be considered even remotely close to an NHL venue.

Plus, moving the Coyotes (already extremely unlikely, since that's giving up a huge American TV market for a decent Canadian one in the year you need a new US TV deal) means you're putting another team, most likely Detroit or Columbus, right back onto the Western Conference shuttle, which ensures both teams will vehemently vote against the idea unless it's an in-conference move.

They moved East specifically because they despised the travel they had in the West, they're not going to give that up without one hell of a fight.

And if we're moving the Panthers, then the GTA as their landing spot still doesn't make sense; the optimal place would be the Videotron Center in Québec; that arena has NHL-caliber facilities, an NHL-caliber rink, a full television studio within the building, it's practically perfect for a landing spot for an Eastern relocation.

Unless the Leafs decide to share Scotiabank, a second GTA team is going to be waiting until FirstOntario's renovations are complete at the very least. And considering how packed that arena is already, there's no real need for a second NHL team there to take up even more dates.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Apologies for a very late reply. Was going back and re-reading older posts in the thread I missed.

This veto clause is probably illegal under anti-trust laws in both Canada and the USA. The NHL lawyers in the Balsillie/Coyotes bankruptcy case back in 2008-09 took the position that teams do not have veto rights to a team moving into their territory and the veto clause has been superseded by changes in the By-Laws approving ownership changes.

While a team can not veto another team moving into their NHL defined home territory, the judge in the Balsillie/Coyotes case ruled that teams are still entitled to compensation if another team relocates into their defined home territory. This would likely be true for an expansion GTA team as well.

Really tough to hostilely take over this group though. To think that some of these owners don't have agreements is always a part of this that I find interesting. You can find the threads especially in expansion/relocation that likely get you to a point where 2/3 vote is hard to get. There are ways to see organizations that likely come together in their own self interests.

I know this was a big rumor about Davidson's ownership in Tampa. That some of the thought was if they didn't work there he could move them to The Palace of Auburn Hills in Suburban Detroit. He was told behind closed doors it would simply never be allowed and a part of that was Ilitch could get the votes to kill it regardless of the non-existence of veto.

I believe there is a group of Detroit, Columbus, Colorado, Dallas, Montreal and Toronto that probably vote in unison on this stuff. I vote down GTA2, QC, or division/conference realignment if you don't like it. Now we only need to collect just a few more votes to turn back things we don't like.

The GTA could absolutely support another team, they would have a harder time than I think some people think in terms of people aren't going to leave the Leafs like some think in my opinion. But I don't doubt the market being able to support more.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Really tough to hostilely take over this group though. To think that some of these owners don't have agreements is always a part of this that I find interesting. You can find the threads especially in expansion/relocation that likely get you to a point where 2/3 vote is hard to get. There are ways to see organizations that likely come together in their own self interests.

I know this was a big rumor about Davidson's ownership in Tampa. That some of the thought was if they didn't work there he could move them to The Palace of Auburn Hills in Suburban Detroit. He was told behind closed doors it would simply never be allowed and a part of that was Ilitch could get the votes to kill it regardless of the non-existence of veto.

I believe there is a group of Detroit, Columbus, Colorado, Dallas, Montreal and Toronto that probably vote in unison on this stuff. I vote down GTA2, QC, or division/conference realignment if you don't like it. Now we only need to collect just a few more votes to turn back things we don't like.

The GTA could absolutely support another team, they would have a harder time than I think some people think in terms of people aren't going to leave the Leafs like some think in my opinion. But I don't doubt the market being able to support more.

Since corporate owns all the Leafs tickets, the average Joe could get tickets GTA2, never know after going to a lot of those games, some might change alliance, and some would support both unless head to head.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Since corporate owns all the Leafs tickets, the average Joe could get tickets GTA2, never know after going to a lot of those games, some might change alliance, and some would support both unless head to head.

My guess is that is not the high revenue guaranteed success some of the Canadian media trumpets. Just like how the Ducks, Devils and Islanders lag behind the Kings and Rangers in significant ways. I don't think Toronto 2 is the money generator most people think. I think it can survive, I think the GTA can support two teams. My guess is that second team is more in the 10-20 range than in the top 10 for the league from a financial impact point. I know Toronto, Buffalo and Detroit will vote against it, so now go find more votes. Having votes against you at the ownership table is a big deal, this is a select club. You have to have an interesting ownership group willing to accept this. Nobody opposed Vegas or Seattle that is important to this question.