Future Relocation Possibilities

[worstfaceoffmanever]

NHL.
Winnipeg
Quebec City
Portland
Milwaukee
Kansas City*

NFL.
Los Angeles

NBA.
Kansas City
St. Louis
Las Vegas
Anaheim
Vancouver

MLB.

CFL.
Halifax
Quebec City

MLS.
San Antonio
Atlanta*
Miami/Fort Lauderdale*
Tampa Bay*
San Diego*
Orlando*

I removed all the markets that wouldn't work for a given sport, and added a few here and there (*). I would explain all of them, but it would be a novel.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Cleveland is 140mi from Columbus....no matter how you interpret the territory rules...Cleveland is not in Columbus'. Pittsburgh is about the same distance.

Detroit 'as the crow flies' (like straight over Lake Erie) is probably the closest....and they would still be over 100mi. from Cleveland.

Last I checked the territory is a 50mi radius....even if you believe that Cleveland's territory can't overlap Pittsburgh's, Columbus' and Detroit's territories, essentially making the distance required 100mi, (this is something I don't believe) Cleveland would still be outside of any existing market.

It's a market that is big enough for the MLB, NFL & NBA....and has a 20,000 seat hockey-suitable arena. I don't think Cleveland should be ruled out....

Cleveland is inside the 100 mile limit from Pittsburgh. Go read the Bylaws, it's City limit to City limit. That number is 90 miles between the two City limits. Columbus would be outside the 100 miles, but just barely.

 

[MoreOrr]

Cleveland is inside the 100 mile limit from Pittsburgh. Go read the Bylaws, it's City limit to City limit. That number is 90 miles between the two City limits. Columbus would be outside the 100 miles, but just barely.

Huh? leek, you're usually accurate with your data, but not this time, I don't think so.

First, the NHL Consitution says:
Section 4, Territorial Rights defines a team's home territory as "exclusive territorial rights in the city in which it is located and within 50 miles of that city's corporate limits."
Section 4.3 Territorial Rights of Members states "No other member of the league shall be permitted to play games...in the home territory of a member without the latter member's consent. No franchise shall be granted a home territory within the home territory of a member without the written consent of such member."

So unless Cleveland would want to exclude itself based on a mutual doubling of the "exclusive territorial rights", there would be no problem based that, other than territorial fees that still apply.

Second, 181km / 112miles separate Cleveland and Pittsburgh, so either way the rights issue doesn't apply.


Now, Cleveland is just ever so slightly less than 100 miles from Detroit (96mi), but again unless Cleveland wanted to apply a mutual doubling of the rights exclusion to exclude itself, there is no rule that refers to 100 miles.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Cleveland is inside the 100 mile limit from Pittsburgh. Go read the Bylaws, it's City limit to City limit. That number is 90 miles between the two City limits. Columbus would be outside the 100 miles, but just barely.

I don't need to go read the by-laws....I am well aware of what they say, thank you.

The radius of these City limits is like 30 miles from the centre?

Besides...I don't buy into this '50mi. means 100mi.' malarky.

 

[Grudy0]

This is going to be interesting. So let's break this down a bit...

First, the NHL Consitution says:
Section 4, Territorial Rights defines a team's home territory as "exclusive territorial rights in the city in which it is located and within 50 miles of that city's corporate limits."

Okay. So this isn't a 50-mile radius from the arena; it is a 50-mile "as the crow flies" to the city's corporate limits.

Section 4.3 Territorial Rights of Members states "No other member of the league shall be permitted to play games...in the home territory of a member without the latter member's consent.

So this is how the Rangers received brib... indemnifiacation fees from the expansion Islanders, and then both the Rangers and Islanders received these same fees from the Devils relocation.

It is also how the Kings received $25 million from the Ducks.

No franchise shall be granted a home territory within the home territory of a member without the written consent of such member."

Aha.

So here's where the problem is. And let's use the Milwaukee-Chicago issue. Chicago has "exclusive territorial rights in the city in which it is located and within 50 miles of that city's corporate limits", which is defined as "home territory".

The problem comes with this one sentence of Section 4.3. If Milwaukee were granted a team, its 50-mile home territory would impact the extreme northern part of the Blackhawks 50-mile home territory. So, according to the by-laws, there is no way to grant Milwaukee a team without the Blackhawks consent, as "no franchise shall be granted a home territory within the home territory of another member" unless consent is given.

This is why teams talk about their 100-mile zone.

 

[Smirnov2Chistov]

kinda late on this, but if Seattle had an NHL ready arena would it be in the mix for the Pheonix relocation?

 

[MoreOrr]

This is going to be interesting. So let's break this down a bit...Okay. So this isn't a 50-mile radius from the arena; it is a 50-mile "as the crow flies" to the city's corporate limits.So this is how the Rangers received brib... indemnifiacation fees from the expansion Islanders, and then both the Rangers and Islanders received these same fees from the Devils relocation.

It is also how the Kings received $25 million from the Ducks.Aha.

So here's where the problem is. And let's use the Milwaukee-Chicago issue. Chicago has "exclusive territorial rights in the city in which it is located and within 50 miles of that city's corporate limits", which is defined as "home territory".

The problem comes with this one sentence of Section 4.3. If Milwaukee were granted a team, its 50-mile home territory would impact the extreme northern part of the Blackhawks 50-mile home territory. So, according to the by-laws, there is no way to grant Milwaukee a team without the Blackhawks consent, as "no franchise shall be granted a home territory within the home territory of another member" unless consent is given.

This is why teams talk about their 100-mile zone.

So, what you're saying then is that "the 50 mile radius of one team" can't fall inside "the 50 miles radius of another team"... Not only that the team itself can't be inside the other team's territory, but the territory of any team can't even partly be inside the territory of another. Right?

Okay then, but still a Cleveland territory would not fall inside Pittsburgh's territory, though it would fall slightly inside Detroit's territory.

And based on that then, Hamilton is doubly up **** creek, because it's less than 50 miles from Toronto; and also only 55 miles from Buffalo.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

kinda late on this, but if Seattle had an NHL ready arena would it be in the mix for the Pheonix relocation?

If Seattle had an NHL ready arena, there would be an NBA team in it and Oklahoma City might be going for an NHL team.

 

[MoreOrr]

So here's where the problem is. And let's use the Milwaukee-Chicago issue. Chicago has "exclusive territorial rights in the city in which it is located and within 50 miles of that city's corporate limits", which is defined as "home territory".

The problem comes with this one sentence of Section 4.3. If Milwaukee were granted a team, its 50-mile home territory would impact the extreme northern part of the Blackhawks 50-mile home territory. So, according to the by-laws, there is no way to grant Milwaukee a team without the Blackhawks consent, as "no franchise shall be granted a home territory within the home territory of another member" unless consent is given.

This is why teams talk about their 100-mile zone.

So Grudy0, to continue, if your interpretation is correct (and we really shouldn't be interpreting this, because it's been discussed hundreds of times before), then really London, Ontario is the only workable option (without likely force of objection).
London = 103 miles from Toronto
London = 103 miles from Detroit
London = 122 miles from Buffalo

And yes, as for Milwaukee, it does fall within a 100 mile zone of Chicago, just as Cleveland does with Detroit.

As does Baltimore with Washington, which is worse as it is within 50 miles, just as Hamilton with respect to Toronto.
The same goes for San Francisco (with respect to San Jose), as for Baltimore and Hamilton.

As for Cincinnati, that would be up to some fine measurement, because it's about exactly 100 miles from Columbus.

Richmond, Virginia, could also be out of luck as it's only 98 miles from Washington.

Same goes for Hartford which is 97 miles from New York, and only 92 miles from Boston.

We've just put quite a few Expansion / Relocation options in the odds against category, depending on the wishes of certain current NHL teams.

 

[HamiltonFan]

Could you shed some light on this?

Where have you been the last few decades?? Are you 10 years old? Actually, that would explain a lot, wouldn't it?
The information you seek is well documented, both here and elsewhere. Look it up yourself. Nobody here should have to spoon feed it to you.

 

[Hamilton Tigers]

Besides...I don't buy into this '50mi. means 100mi.' malarky.

Section 4, Territorial Rights defines a team's home territory as "exclusive territorial rights in the city in which it is located and within 50 miles of that city's corporate limits."

Section 4.3 Territorial Rights of Members states "No other member of the league shall be permitted to play games...in the home territory of a member without the latter member's consent. No franchise shall be granted a home territory within the home territory of a member without the written consent of such member."

So if two cities each have a 50 mile radius, 50+50=100.

So right now, Toronto"s exclusive territory includes Mississauga, Oakville and Burlington, all cities that would fall into Hamilton's radius, hence no exclusivity

Isn't that what the NHL bylaw says, or did I misunderstand you?

 

[kdb209]

The problem comes with this one sentence of Section 4.3. If Milwaukee were granted a team, its 50-mile home territory would impact the extreme northern part of the Blackhawks 50-mile home territory. So, according to the by-laws, there is no way to grant Milwaukee a team without the Blackhawks consent, as "no franchise shall be granted a home territory within the home territory of another member" unless consent is given.

This is why teams talk about their 100-mile zone.

Except, I have never heard a team (or the League) talk about a 100-mile zone - only posters on HF Boards.

The NHL Constitution can be read to allow for franchises within 100 miles.

Nowhere does it state that a Member Club must be granted it's full 50 mile radius home territory. That 50 mile radius is just described in the definition of what "Home Territoty" is. There is, however, a specific prohibition against granting one Club a Home Territory within the Home Territory of another Member Club (without their consent).

This could be read as prohibiting Clubs within 50 miles, but allowing them within 100 miles - but in the latter case the overlapping 50-mile radius would be excluded from the new Club's Home Territory.

 

[kombayn]

Best U.S. Markets to relocate too.

1.) Houston, Texas - They have Les Alexander and the Toyota Center with a big market to go along with it. But those pieces have to fall in place.

2.) Portland, Oregon - They have Paul Allen and the Rose Garden Arena in a hockey market. Again, those pieces have to fall in place for it to happen.

3.) Kansas City, Missouri - Convince Matthew Hulsizer to buy the team for $140 million and have AEG who are head of the relocation committee give him a decent lease so the Sprint Center has an anchor tenant.

 

[Kimota]

Forget Texas, Dallas already has a problem with attendances.

 

[Valhuen]

Since we are dabbling in what-ifs, this is what the NHL should look like in 2015 IMHO.


Wales Conference

Adams Division

Boston Bruins
Buffalo Sabres
Montreal Canadians
Ontario Predators
Ottawa Senators
Quebec Nordiques
Toronto Maple Leafs

Patrick Division

Carolina Hurricanes
New Jersey Devils
New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers
Pittsburgh Penguins
Tampa Bay Lightning
Washington Capitals

Campbell Conference

Smythe Division

Anaheim Ducks
Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers
Los Angeles Kings
Portland Panthers
San Jose Sharks
Vancouver Canucks
Winnipeg Jets

Norris Division

Chicago Blackhawks
Columbus Blue Jackets
Colorado Avalanche
Dallas Stars
Detroit Red Wings
Minnesota Wild
St. Louis Blues

Edit: And if one wanted to expand to four eight team divisions, add Kansas City to the Norris and Hartford to the Adams.

Edit part Deux: With this format I would also love to see a return of divisional playoff hockey!

 

[richo]

Since we are dabbling in what-ifs, this is what the NHL should look like in 2015 IMHO.


Wales Conference

Adams Division

Boston Bruins
Buffalo Sabres
Montreal Canadians
Ontario Predators
Ottawa Senators
Quebec Nordiques
Toronto Maple Leafs

Patrick Division

Carolina Hurricanes
New Jersey Devils
New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers
Pittsburgh Penguins
Tampa Bay Lightning
Washington Capitals

Campbell Conference

Smythe Division

Anaheim Ducks
Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers
Los Angeles Kings
Portland Panthers
San Jose Sharks
Vancouver Canucks
Winnipeg Jets

Norris Division

Chicago Blackhawks
Columbus Blue Jackets
Colorado Avalanche
Dallas Stars
Detroit Red Wings
Minnesota Wild
St. Louis Blues

Edit: And if one wanted to expand to four eight team divisions, add Kansas City to the Norris and Hartford to the Adams.

Edit part Deux: With this format I would also love to see a return of divisional playoff hockey!

Please don't revive those asinine division names. People in the U.S. have a hard enough time as it is relating to hockey. Having those division names didn't help anything back in the 80s and 90s. I can't tell you how many times people asked me, why these names? Who's Norris? What's Adams?

Also, I see a strong Canada bias here. You've given up on Nashville. The Preds do pretty well. Advancing in the playoffs and promoting Mike Fisher/Carrie Underwood could push them even more. I'm also not ready to give up on Atlanta and Florida if owners committed to winning would arrive. Phoenix does appear bleak though.

 

[Grudy0]

Except, I have never heard a team (or the League) talk about a 100-mile zone - only posters on HF Boards.

Yes, but we all know that usually where there is smoke, there's fire.

Google, in no specific order, Wirtz, Pettit, Milwaukee, NHL. Milwaukee is 94 miles away from Chicago, and Dollar Bill Wirtz wanted indemnification fees.

The NHL Constitution can be read to allow for franchises within 100 miles.

Nowhere does it state that a Member Club must be granted it's full 50 mile radius home territory. That 50 mile radius is just described in the definition of what "Home Territoty" is. There is, however, a specific prohibition against granting one Club a Home Territory within the Home Territory of another Member Club (without their consent).

This could be read as prohibiting Clubs within 50 miles, but allowing them within 100 miles - but in the latter case the overlapping 50-mile radius would be excluded from the new Club's Home Territory.

All pretty true, except that there doesn't seem to be any section in the bylaws that would have "the overlapping 50-mile radius" "excluded from the new Club's Home Territory".

The home territory is defined as 50 miles from the city's boundaries. I would think there should be a mechanism in the bylaws to reduce overlapping home territories. Actually, there is: written consent from the affected member club.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

Wales Conference

Adams Division

Patrick Division

Campbell Conference

Smythe Division

Norris Division

I don't get the blind love for the division names - they were around for just 20 years, and were changed 18 years ago, which means that the most recent geographical names have pretty much the exact same amount of history as the old ones people cling to for no readily apparent reason.

 

[MoreOrr]

Please don't revive those asinine division names. People in the U.S. have a hard enough time as it is relating to hockey. Having those division names didn't help anything back in the 80s and 90s. I can't tell you how many times people asked me, why these names? Who's Norris? What's Adams?

There really should be some names other than the ones they use currently, because truly there isn't much more "asinine" than "East" and "West" Conferences in a league in which 22 of 30 teams are in the eastern half of the continent.

I agree with keeping geographical Division names, but the East / West Conferences names and format needs to go.

 

[JMROWE]

So you wont go to Vaughan if they get one JM?

That won't happen because 1. MLSE.well never allow another NHL. team to take root in Toronto area 2. it would cost close to 2 billion dollars to put another team in the toronto area 3. no serious ownership group has come forward . So to answer your question no I would not go all the way to vaughn if they get one & I doubt anyone else in Hamilton or southwestern ontario will go ethier .

 

[MoreOrr]

Yes, but we all know that usually where there is smoke, there's fire.

Google, in no specific order, Wirtz, Pettit, Milwaukee, NHL. Milwaukee is 94 miles away from Chicago, and Dollar Bill Wirtz wanted indemnification fees.

All pretty true, except that there doesn't seem to be any section in the bylaws that would have "the overlapping 50-mile radius" "excluded from the new Club's Home Territory".

The home territory is defined as 50 miles from the city's boundaries. I would think there should be a mechanism in the bylaws to reduce overlapping home territories. Actually, there is: written consent from the affected member club.

My interpretation had always been that if the new team didn't mind that its territory would overlap the territory of the existing team, then the only exclusion criteria is that the existing team could say it didn't want the other team to be physically within its 50 miles radius. If a new team wishes to risk sharing part of the territory of an existing team, then so be, the team itself just can't be inside the other team's territory.

Grudy0, your interpretation makes sense, but as kdb209 says, there's never been any mention of a 100 mile territory anywhere on these boards, and it's certainly not clearly stated in any of the NHL Bylaws. So again, I don't think your correct.

There is perhaps this... that the NHL would be wary of putting a new team where territories would overlap, the Bylaw does at least seem to be suggesting that that's not seen as good practice, but that's probably reading it too greyly. I would think though that the League would in fact be wary about such an overlap, and only decide in favor of it if they felt that the market could support it (though again, they might just be more interested in getting those Expansion Fees, and who cares about overlapping territories).

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

There really should be some names other than the ones they use currently, because truly there isn't much more "asinine" than "East" and "West" Conferences in a league in which 22 of 30 teams are in the eastern half of the continent.

There are 15 more teams further west than those in the eastern conference. That's why they called it the Western Conference, and not the "Western Half of North America Conference"

 

[MoreOrr]

There are 15 more teams further west than those in the eastern conference. That's why they called it the Western Conference, and not the "Western Half of North America Conference."

Unfortunately, still not correct, Haymaker.

City, degrees west
Atlanta, 84 23
Detroit, 83 3
Columbus, 83 1

Atlanta is further west than both Detroit and Columbus.

 

[Grudy0]

I'm only keeping the relevant parts of the post where I have a discrepancy...

My interpretation had always been that if the new team didn't mind that its territory would overlap the territory of the existing team..

Right. However, just like Bill Wirtz and Lloyd Pettit, Wirtz was happy to have a team in Milwaukee as long as he received additional fees from Pettit, and Milwaukee is just under 100 miles from Chicago.

Let's take it to the extreme. If I wanted to start an NHL team 51 miles away from the nearest NHL franchise, the existing team has that one sentence to fall back on:

No franchise shall be granted a home territory within the home territory of a member without the written consent of such member.

The existing team has the right to mind that the territory overlaps, and it's built directly into the bylaws.

Grudy0, your interpretation makes sense, but as kdb209 says, there's never been any mention of a 100 mile territory anywhere on these boards, and it's certainly not clearly stated in any of the NHL Bylaws. So again, I don't think your correct.

All I can do is point out what has happened in the past.

The one indemnification fee I left out was the one the Devils paid the Flyers, and those two are almost 90 miles apart.

Remember, I'm not arguing about a 100-mile territory. I'm arguing about overlapping home territories granted by the bylaws.

I would think though that the League would in fact be wary about such an overlap, and only decide in favor of it if they felt that the market could support it (though again, they might just be more interested in getting those Expansion Fees, and who cares about overlapping territories).

But the bylaw itself gives the mechanism to fix an overlap in home territories: written consent by the impacted, existing franchise.

I realize it isn't exactly clear. But the circular legalese in it, as well as past indications and actions (Wirtz demanding a fee from a Milwaukee franchise, the Flyers actually receiving a fee from the Devils) indicates there is truth to my position.

 

[kdb209]

The one indemnification fee I left out was the one the Devils paid the Flyers, and those two are almost 90 miles apart.

However, I have read descriptions that described the fees paid to the Flyers as fees for television rights, not territorial indemnification fees.