Future Relocation Possibilities

Shawa666

Registered User
May 25, 2010
1,602
3
Québec, Qc, Ca
Truly pulling for a return of the Nords and the old Adams division. Thinking on that, if this did come to pass, what would the Northeast look like? Someone would need to get moved elsewhere which would truly hurt many deep rivalries.

Portland is also viable if Paul Allen is involved (as Grudy mentioned above), he certainly has the money and influence to pull it off.

Yes, but I've read somewhere that he wasn't interested in it. I might be wrong. This is why i've placed Portland in the Might work category.
 

Grudy0

Registered User
Mar 16, 2011
1,878
122
Maryland
Good points, much of this depends on where the economy goes from here, and changing demographics also play a major concern few openly discuss (one of the issues facing ATL for example). In the southern markets these are issues to be sure, what would happen in places like NSH or TB if those teams went through long losing droughts? Right now support is looking up in some areas, while question marks remain in others (such as ATL and long-term for FLA).
Nashville's had their issues. So has Tampa Bay. For that matter, so have the Blues, Blackhawks and Capitals. And all that revolves around the fact that if the organization doesn't appear to be attempting to put a worthwhile product on the ice, something has to give. Unless you are the Maple Leafs.
If we ever enter a "post-Bettman" age of more traditional ownership in true hockey markets it would be interesting to see. If we do get to that point I would even support contraction to 28 teams and go back to four divisions (of 7 teams each). The only thing that does bother me is this incessant drive into non-traditional markets that Bettman has been forcing (mainly due to attracting that lucrative TV deal that has never materialized). If and when PHX heads back north, I think this may (hopefully) signal a significant strategic shift for the NHL.
Shift? Yes. And I think this has more to do with the current CBA than anything else.

I do disagree with the assessment that this is all Bettman's fault. The four most recent expansion teams were granted under his tenure, but the BoG had to do the heavy lifting to determine the viable markets. The three WHA teams that moved south happened at the beginning of his tenure, and let's face it, at the time the Canadian dollar was weak and the governments (both Canadian and the State of Connecticut) weren't about to help. And there weren't other viable ownership groups ready to step in. And let's not forget that the television contracts are about to pick up now, after the leader in sports kicked the NHL to the curb. It is pretty good to go from post-lockout a $60 million national TV contract five years ago to over $200 million starting next year.

Besides, there are still a few locations left in the US up north with a firm hockey tradition far more viable than plowing into other potential disastrous markets such as Vegas. Would love to see a team back home in the PNW for example (either Portland or Seattle). For Canada, obviously Quebec and possibly Hamilton/London/Kitchener/etc. Outside of there, and the talk of a second team in the GTA, where else could a team in Canada go? Saskatoon is not large enough IMHO.
Okay, but I'll pull this one back out...

Expansion occurred in 1967 because the TV networks threatend the NHL stating they'd start broadcasting a competing league. That expansion process was so poor that the complaints the NHL left out Vancouver and Buffalo were rectified, as those two were added in 1970. Atlanta and the Islanders were mainly added to lockout the WHA from those markets. Same happened in 1974 with Washington and Kansas City.

Keep in mind during the 1990 expansion process that Seattle and Milwaukee were each going to present to the BoG, and the Seattle group split and withdrew their application, while Milwaukee's was never submitted because they would have had to pay indemnification fees to the Blackhawks and Wirtz.

As always, business takes precedence to common sense.

If the Yotes move, well there would have to be a significant chain of events to occur before the NHL could ever be viable here again in AZ. This is just not a hockey state (unfortunately), there is little tradition. Even at the collegiate level all we have are shoddy club teams not even officially sanctioned at the NCAA level. I really need to get out of here........:help:
Your closest NCAA teams are in the Denver area, and there aren't too many NCAA division I teams nationwide. I'd say California isn't a hockey state, but they are actually starting to produce NHL talent. At that point, it will be a matter of when Phoenix is ready for the NHL (again), just like Minnesota, Atlanta, Colorado and now Winnipeg.
 

Valhuen

Secretary of Defense
Apr 10, 2011
447
0
Tucson via Spokane
Grudy,

Succinct points all around. The next few years will prove to be interesting if nothing else, as so much does not depend directly on the NHL itself (such as the economy in general, and strength of the CAN=US dollar in particular). I certainly expect the next few years to be more active than the last.
 

Buck Aki Berg

Done with this place
Sep 17, 2008
17,325
8
Ottawa, ON
move a team to my basement.

You must have one hell of a basement :D

**

If things go Winnipeg's way, I think a lot of doors will open wrt future relocation opportunites that we never thought possible. I'm sure smaller cities with smaller buildings and billionaires who once said "Too bad our building and city are too small to support this sort of thing" would be investigating TNSE's model to see if they can duplicate the success. Cities that immediately come to mind (having done precisely zero research on the economics or possible ownership groups of these places whatsoever) include Madison, Omaha, and Wichita.

The added bonus of these places is that there would be no other professional sports presence (though you can't underestimate the influence of university sports).
 

danishh

Registered User
Dec 9, 2006
33,018
53
YOW
Targets:
1. Atlanta: team loses money and owners dont have much. Problems well documented in their running thread.
2. Florida: team loses money, so far no sign of 'help me' from owners. Attendance is also less than ideal. ~20 year lease remaining on the publicly held arena, not sure of any out clauses..
3. Long Island: team (supposedly) loses money, wang trying to build new arena, lease runs for another (4? from memory) years, nasseau county supports new arena plans, town of hempstead holding things up. Less than ideal attendance, but arena may have something to do with that.


Destinations:
1. Quebec: Quebecor (media company) supposedly ready as owner, new arena plans confirmed (provincial, local, and privately funded).
2. Kansas City: New arena NHL-ready. No news on potential owner.
3. Houston: NBA arena NHL-ready. No recent news on potential owner. Population demographics make it most lucrative potential US market. Need's Les Alexander's support to share arena, or ideally own the team.
4. Hamilton: Needs new arena plans or copps coliseum renovation plans. No recent news on potential owner. Population demographics make it most lucrative potential Canadian market.
5. Seattle: Needs arena plans, owner. Population demographics make it 2nd most lucrative potential US market.
6. Portland: Needs paul allen's support.
7*. Phoenix/Glendale: Arena NHL-ready. Population demographics make it 3rd most lucrative potential US market. Needs owner.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
Some places which I think would get great fan support include Winnipeg, Quebec, Hamilton, Saskatoon/Regina (although probably not viable for other reasons), London/Kitchener, Toronto (Toronto Arenas?), Montreal (Montreal Maroons?), Milwaukee, Seattle, Portland. Now obviously if a team moves to one location that could eliminate others (ie. if a team moves to Hamilton I don't see a team going to London/Kitchener or a second in Toronto. I highly highly doubt we'd see a second team in Toronto or Montreal to begin with, but I think if there were another team in those cities they would be well supported.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
Targets:
1. Atlanta: team loses money and owners dont have much. Problems well documented in their running thread.
2. Florida: team loses money, so far no sign of 'help me' from owners. Attendance is also less than ideal. ~20 year lease remaining on the publicly held arena, not sure of any out clauses..
3. Long Island: team (supposedly) loses money, wang trying to build new arena, lease runs for another (4? from memory) years, nasseau county supports new arena plans, town of hempstead holding things up. Less than ideal attendance, but arena may have something to do with that.


Destinations:
1. Quebec: Quebecor (media company) supposedly ready as owner, new arena plans confirmed (provincial, local, and privately funded).
2. Kansas City: New arena NHL-ready. No news on potential owner.
3. Houston: NBA arena NHL-ready. No recent news on potential owner. Population demographics make it most lucrative potential US market. Need's Les Alexander's support to share arena, or ideally own the team.
4. Hamilton: Needs new arena plans or copps coliseum renovation plans. No recent news on potential owner. Population demographics make it most lucrative potential Canadian market.
5. Seattle: Needs arena plans, owner. Population demographics make it 2nd most lucrative potential US market.
6. Portland: Needs paul allen's support.
7*. Phoenix/Glendale: Arena NHL-ready. Population demographics make it 3rd most lucrative potential US market. Needs owner.

I know one guy who would probably like to own a Hamilton team ;)
 

Jesus Christ Horburn

Registered User
Aug 22, 2008
13,942
1
I think the next relocation option will be Quebec City.

Hamilton is the wild card. The Leafs and Sabres have fought the possibility in the past, but with the teachers selling their majority share of MLSE and Pegula now running the Sabres, the situation may have changed.
 

Jesus Christ Horburn

Registered User
Aug 22, 2008
13,942
1
I think the next relocation option will be Quebec City.

Hamilton is the wild card. The Leafs and Sabres have fought the possibility in the past, but with the teachers selling their majority share of MLSE and Pegula now running the Sabres, the situation may have changed.
 

Lux Aurumque*

Guest
Quebec City is number one. Within the next 30 years, I also believe that either Saskatoon or Regina will be an option, once the Saskatchewan oil boom begins.

Gotta look at Southern Ontario as a very viable option as well.
 

dronald

Registered User
Mar 4, 2011
1,171
0
Hamilton, ON
The NHL should move a team to Hamilton, plug their ears, close their eyes, make lots of money and start shouting, "LA LA LA" when Toronto starts talking.
 

HamiltonFan

bettman's a Weasel
May 4, 2009
655
2
If the Islanders move I think it will just be down the street to somewhere else on the Island like Queens or Brooklyn.

Quebec City is next for sure. Rich owners, solid arena plan, serviceable temporary arena.

If Southern Ontario ever gets another team, it will be expansion, so the NHL / Leafs / Sabres can squeeze maximum $$$ from the new owner.


Please explain why you believe that NHL/ Leafs/ Sabres can squeeze more money from a new expansion owner, as opposed to a relocation owner.

Why would the price for Southern Ontario be any different for expansion versus relocation?
 

Confucius

There is no try, Just do
Feb 8, 2009
21,890
6,905
Toronto
Best place in the U S for a team is Seattle. In Canada teams would have success in the places we're always reading about. Almost anywhere in S Ont., Winnipeg, and Quebec. I also believe Saskatoon or Regina would be just as successful as the bottom teams presently in the league, but that's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
 

CdnBison

Registered User
Apr 15, 2010
48
0
Manitoba
My two bits

Assuming Winnipeg is a done deal (and I do) that leaves (in Canada):

Quebec - which seems relatively solid at the moment, though the publicly funded arena may be a problem to sell to the populace.

SW Ontario - I think this definitely needs to be looked at. There would definitely be a price to pay if the arena falls into any team territories, though - and with Detroit, Buffalo and Toronto all around, that leaves some limited possibilities. I once heard Vaughn mentioned as a location, and honestly, I liked that idea.

Regina/Saskatoon. I don't think the population is there for long-term success. Even if they split the games between the two cities. Yes, they support the Riders, but 9 games is much different (and cheaper) than 20+.
 

molsonmuscle360

Registered User
Jan 25, 2009
6,587
12
Ft. McMurray Ab
Assuming Winnipeg is a done deal (and I do) that leaves (in Canada):

Quebec - which seems relatively solid at the moment, though the publicly funded arena may be a problem to sell to the populace.

SW Ontario - I think this definitely needs to be looked at. There would definitely be a price to pay if the arena falls into any team territories, though - and with Detroit, Buffalo and Toronto all around, that leaves some limited possibilities. I once heard Vaughn mentioned as a location, and honestly, I liked that idea.

Regina/Saskatoon. I don't think the population is there for long-term success. Even if they split the games between the two cities. Yes, they support the Riders, but 9 games is much different (and cheaper) than 20+.

Yeah, Saskatchewan is another 5-10 years away from an NHL team. Once they start in on their oil projects and get people moving there though I wouldn't be surprised to see a push for a team out of Saskatoon.
 

BadHammy*

Guest
If you move two US teams to Canada, they'll just be coming back in 2025-2030. It's more pragmatic to move a US based franchise to another American city, a more suitable one please...

The real problem is that, as always, the league has no clear long-term plan except "uh, grow hockey in America?" That won't cut it. There are several potential locations in the Pacific NW that could arguably support a team. There are also too few teams in the US Mid-West.

The problem with moving Phoenix is that it will create a major travel problem for basically all teams west of Louisiana. It'd arguably be better to move a southern team, at least, in the short term.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Hamilton is the wild card. The Leafs and Sabres have fought the possibility in the past, but with the teachers selling their majority share of MLSE and Pegula now running the Sabres, the situation may have changed.

Which to my way of thinking may either further slow down a resolution to the matter or alternatively expedite it as the incoming owners in Toronto & probably Pegula could likely use some cash to pay down their debts to purchase.

.Why would the price for Southern Ontario be any different for expansion versus relocation?

Thats a good question, and something Ive mulled over in considering Winnipeg & QC's ambitions in acquiring franchises. Additionally, if we consider recent sale or asking prices (Tampa, NC, St.Louis, Dallas) then whats the median rate for Hamilton?. Remembering our argument over Joyce, in his offer to plunk down $25M instead of $50M (I believe the NHL wouldve retnd' his "deposit" btw, but lets not digress) until he'd determined what the Leafs & Sabers wanted in terms of indemnification, what then is a franchise in Hamilton actually worth?. If were to believe Bob McCown, it could be as much as $700M. Im not buying that, I mean heck, the Habs WITH the building went for less. So lets get real. Lets say its $200M for an Expansion franchise. Copp's'll require app. $200-250M in retro fits & upgrades, the city, province & possibly the Feds kicking in some of it; which then leaves us with how much does Toronto & Buffalo want?.

I dont know the answer to that question. Its really quite complicated. Frankly, I dont think Buffalo's entitled to anything; but I do think the Leafs should receive something, and Im thinking $25M would be fair & sufficient..... Why? Because I think if pressed, the Canadian Competition Bureau would get involved and declare the league & MLSE are breaching anti-trust issues, and $25M is just enough for the NHL & the Leafs to declare a victory of sorts, and not enough to cause grief for an incoming owner. It would appear that the Coyotes are headed back to Winnipeg; I do not think the Thrashers will be moving and would fight like Hell to keep that team alive in Georgia; Bettmans got what?, 3-5yrs left on his contract?, I could see him awarding both QC & Hamilton Expansions prior to leaving office at $200M each, "righting one wrong, fixing another". I sure hope my little theory here proves true, for Id love to see both cities returned to the fold.
 

Rocko604

Sports will break your heart.
Apr 29, 2009
8,562
273
Vancouver, BC
Some places which I think would get great fan support include Winnipeg, Quebec, Hamilton, Saskatoon/Regina (although probably not viable for other reasons), London/Kitchener, Toronto (Toronto Arenas?), Montreal (Montreal Maroons?), Milwaukee, Seattle, Portland. Now obviously if a team moves to one location that could eliminate others (ie. if a team moves to Hamilton I don't see a team going to London/Kitchener or a second in Toronto. I highly highly doubt we'd see a second team in Toronto or Montreal to begin with, but I think if there were another team in those cities they would be well supported.

I was going to mention Milwaukee as well, or even just Wisconsin in general. I know the University of Wisconsin has a huge following for their hockey team. Winning the 2006 Frozen Four in Milwaukee didn't hurt either. However, a strong college hockey following doesn't necessarily guarantee NHL success. Also, I have no idea what the economics are like in Milwaukee and whether the city could support both the Bucks and the NHL.

The location though would make a lot of sense, rivalries with Chicago and Minnesota likely wouldn't take long to forge.
 
Last edited:

Rocko604

Sports will break your heart.
Apr 29, 2009
8,562
273
Vancouver, BC
If you move two US teams to Canada, they'll just be coming back in 2025-2030. It's more pragmatic to move a US based franchise to another American city, a more suitable one please...

The real problem is that, as always, the league has no clear long-term plan except "uh, grow hockey in America?" That won't cut it. There are several potential locations in the Pacific NW that could arguably support a team. There are also too few teams in the US Mid-West.

The problem with moving Phoenix is that it will create a major travel problem for basically all teams west of Louisiana. It'd arguably be better to move a southern team, at least, in the short term.

The first bolded part had me wondering what type of glue you were sniffing, but I see your point. Canadian teams have to rely on a strong Canadian dollar. Right now it's great. 15 years from now is anyone's guess. A weak Canadian dollar was the downfall of Winnipeg and almost Calgary and Edmonton.

As for Phoenix moving, there would have to be some re-shuffling of the divisions, but nothing that would make it that bad. Phoenix moving to Winnipeg would likely open the door for Colorado to go to the Pacific, with Winnipeg joing the NW.

Sure, not a great substitute for the Pacific teams, but in Dallas's case it's better than to have Vancouver joining the Pacific. Minnesota, Calgary and Edmonton would have less travel time going to Winnipeg than Colorado.

Also agree about the Pacific NW gaining a team. As already been said multiple times, Seattle just needs an arena. Might be tough to go up against the Seahawks, UW and a basketball team (which they would surely get with a new building), but I think hockey would be a nice fit.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->