Future Relocation Possibilities

Buck Aki Berg

Done with this place
Sep 17, 2008
17,325
8
Ottawa, ON
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.

Fine, you got me - Atlanta is eleven feet to the west of Detroit. Let's move them into the western conference - who's your fifth in the southeast? Do you want to pluck one of the three NYC teams, which would make no sense at all, or do you want to take Philadelphia away from their natural rivals, which would make no sense at all?
 

IU Hawks fan

They call me IU
Dec 30, 2008
28,516
2,813
NW Burbs
I love how people try to argue that Atlanta is more "western" than Detroit. Stop using latitude and use how far they are from the coast, and then tell me which team is more east coast.
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
I'm only keeping the relevant parts of the post where I have a discrepancy...
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.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.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.

Are you sure that you're not confusing two related but separate things? I'm not absolutely sure on this myself, but my understanding is that each team has a deemed territory that goes beyond the 50 mile exclusion limit, and if new team is located inside that territory then a certain fee must be paid to the existing team. My area of uncertainty about this is: How does the League establish the area of that extended territory in case of each existing team? I think that even when Ottawa got the Senators that there was still some fee that had to be paid to Toronto, though maybe I'm wrong.

Nevertheless, even if what I said above is true, I suppose that doesn't in itself necessarily mean that your wrong about what you're saying.
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
Fine, you got me - Atlanta is eleven feet to the west of Detroit. Let's move them into the western conference - who's your fifth in the southeast? Do you want to pluck one of the three NYC teams, which would make no sense at all, or do you want to take Philadelphia away from their natural rivals, which would make no sense at all?

I wasn't trying to "get you" on any specific point, I was merely pointing out that simple dividing line as you discribed isn't exactly true. And I'm certainly not arguing that Atlanta should be in the West and Columbus in the East. I'm arguing, as I've always been arguing, that they should dump the East-West Conference divide altogether (or any strict east-west, north-south concept), for something more suitable to the League's actual team distribution dynamic.
 

Buck Aki Berg

Done with this place
Sep 17, 2008
17,325
8
Ottawa, ON
I wasn't trying to "get you" on any specific point, I was merely pointing out that simple dividing line as you discribed isn't exactly true. And I'm certainly not arguing that Atlanta should be in the West and Columbus in the East. I'm arguing, as I've always been arguing, that they should dump the East-West Conference divide altogether (or any strict east-west, north-south concept), for something more suitable to the League's actual team distribution dynamic.

Fair enough (forgive me; people have trotted out longitude, proceeded by jumping up and down and screaming about which teams "deserve" to be in which conference :laugh:) - but the bottom line is that the names of the divisions are just names, and only vaguely reflect geographical position. People think the divisions are silly because Dallas is in the Pacific division, despite being nowhere near it; meanwhile nobody breathes a word about Boston or Florida not being in the Atlantic division, despite being closer to the Atlantic Ocean than Pittsburgh. It would be like calling me a hypocrite because I drive a Ford Taurus, despite actually being a Virgo :laugh:
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
I love how people try to argue that Atlanta is more "western" than Detroit. Stop using latitude and use how far they are from the coast, and then tell me which team is more east coast.

You're right. Using latitude and longitude is almost as meaningless as dividing the Conferences by East-West or North-South. On two points: 1) Hockey originated as a winter sport, but we all should realize that those more winter-like conditions go much deeper south in the interior of the continent than they do on the coasts; and 2) It's not as if the position of the continent is exactly parallel with the longtude lines.

If someone really wants to fabricate an East-West or North-South dynamic for the teams in the League, it would more appropriately look like this:

13538381-33d


Based on that, Toronto is in a sense more "west" in the League than Atlanta.

** Side Note: If I were aligning based on that, I'd make one slight alternation by flipping the Detroit and Chicago.
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
WHOEVER'S touting Austin as a future site must have forgotten one thing.... why did Iowa fail and essentially tht franchise was awarded to Dallas as part of their original proposal to promote Austin,just as it happened w/SA....

Texas Stars replaced the CHL Ice Bats, just as the Rampage replaced the Iguanas when they came up/got promoted; just like OKC HAD to replace the Blazers for the opportunities...

same w/ Houston,you think that the Aeros are an institution there, they are deemed as such, name one other contiguous standing franchise that's still here tht's been in multiple league's; Alexander's only connection is the arena and the day will be coming tht the Rockets won't be under Alexander ownership.
 

Hamilton Tigers

Registered User
Mar 20, 2010
1,374
4
Hamilton
FWIW...

Top 10 Major Cities of the Future (populations over 750,000)

! New york, New York US
2 Chicago Illinois US
3 Houston Texas US
4 Toronto Ontario Canada
5 Atlanta Georgia US
6 Montreal Quebec Canada
7 Boston Massachusetts US
8 Austin Texas US
9 Miami Florida US
10 San Jose California US





Top 10 Large Cities of the Future (population 250,00 - 750,00)

1 Pittsburgh Pennsylvania US
2 Halifax Nova Scotia Canada
3 Charlotte North Carolina US
4 Mississauga Ontario Canada
5 Las Vegas Nevada US
6 Victoria British Columbia canada
7 Windsor Ontario Canada
8 St Louis Missouri US
9 Hamilton Ontario Canada
10 Quebec City Quebec Canada

http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/american-cities-of-the-future.pdf
 

Grudy0

Registered User
Mar 16, 2011
1,878
122
Maryland
However, I have read descriptions that described the fees paid to the Flyers as fees for television rights, not territorial indemnification fees.
I'm not sure how to read it.

From International sports law and business, Volume 1 By Aaron N. Wise, Bruce S. Meyer, the footnote on page 290 states:
Reportedly, contingent on a move to Nashville, the Devils reached agreement with the Rangers, Islanders and Flyers regarding the disposition of the balance of the outstanding territorial indemnification due each of those clubs. When the Devils moved from Colorado to New Jersey, the Devils' owner agreed to pay the Rangers $9.2m, the Islanders $8m, and the Flyers $2.5m for invading their respective protected territories.​
I just don't know if it was regarding television revenues or, as the footnote states, territorial indemnification for invading their respective territories. More on this...
Are you sure that you're not confusing two related but separate things? I'm not absolutely sure on this myself, but my understanding is that each team has a deemed territory that goes beyond the 50 mile exclusion limit, and if new team is located inside that territory then a certain fee must be paid to the existing team. My area of uncertainty about this is: How does the League establish the area of that extended territory in case of each existing team? I think that even when Ottawa got the Senators that there was still some fee that had to be paid to Toronto, though maybe I'm wrong.

Nevertheless, even if what I said above is true, I suppose that doesn't in itself necessarily mean that your wrong about what you're saying.
So let's assume there is a different kind of territory, such as an extended television territory. When the Devils moved in 1982, I don't believe there was an extended territory as most team broadcasts were on some kind of local station.

I'd love to figure out, whether in the bylaws or constitution itself, there is some other process to determine television boundaries. But I do have a difficult time believing the Flyers received $2.5 million because of infringing on the television boundaries; the southern part of New Jersey would have had a difficult time of ever watching a Devils game in 1982.
 

Requoter

Registered User
Dec 15, 2006
131
5
Dallas
We don't need more teams in the NHL. We need less. What we need is to get rid of all the sun belt teams that are nothing but dead weight to the league, return teams to QC, Winnipeg and maybe put one in Hamilton.
 

schulzte

Registered User
Oct 20, 2007
28
4
We don't need more teams in the NHL. We need less. What we need is to get rid of all the sun belt teams that are nothing but dead weight to the league, return teams to QC, Winnipeg and maybe put one in Hamilton.

A stupid generalization. Modern hockey teams have failed in the North and the South. Winnipeg, Hartford, Quebec, Minnesota, Colorado, Kansas City, Oakland, Cleveland and Atlanta have moved in the past. There are only two warm weather cities in the bunch.

There are only four teams in the league that could be deemed "failing" right now, the Islanders, Thrashers, Coyotes and Panthers. Nashville, Carolina, and Tampa Bay have all improved attendance dramatically since the lockout. The Stars and Sharks have been wildly successful, and both LA teams usually have solid attendance despite the fickle nature of the LA sports fan and lots of competition. Remember that the Kings are 44 years old.

My top relocation/expansion prospects

1. Kansas City: There is a brand new arena waiting for a tenant in a city without major winter sports, college or pro. No, Kansas City is not the Sun Belt. Its cold there. Yes, the Scouts failed, but so did the Rockies and Seals. The NHL went back and succeeded in these cases, and would here too.

2. Milwaukee: The Wisconsin Badgers 70 miles away sell 13,000 tickets a game. Milwaukee has always supported the Admirals well, and they have and NHL ready building tomorrow. I think a hockey team could move in and usurp the very stagnant NBA Bucks very quickly, except the arena is owned by the owner of the basketball team, so that probably won't happen until that situation changes.

3. Seattle: I wish the NHL could find a way to make this work. The NBA stupidly vacated a huge, sports crazy city. There is no major winter sports other than UW basketball. If they could just get a building that worked. The Tacoma Dome is a horrendous venue, but it does have an ice plant; perhaps the seating could be reconfigured to work better for a hockey team.

4. Houston: Huge City, NHL Capable arena, decades of hockey history with the Aeros, and would make a nice rivalry with Dallas

5. Quebec: NHL could play at Coliseum for a while, with a new rink on the drawing boards. Quebec and Winnipeg are similar sized cities, but Quebec has a larger outlying population to draw from and a better attendance history.

6. Winnipeg: Has an arena that is a little too small and can't really be expanded. The city would be nuts over the team for a while, but there is little surrounding the city besides wheat fields, so it would be difficult to draw fans from very far away. It will all lie on the city of Winnipeg if the Coyotes move there.
 
Last edited:

knorthern knight

Registered User
Mar 18, 2011
4,120
0
GTA
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.
And to add to the confusion, how many Canadians would look at a map and consider Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin as being "Midwest"?
 

Shawa666

Registered User
May 25, 2010
1,602
3
Québec, Qc, Ca
And to add to the confusion, how many Canadians would look at a map and consider Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin as being "Midwest"?
To my canadian mind, KS, MO are clearly southern states, ND and SD are goruped with MT in the "there be nothing here" category. IA, IL, IN, MI, MN, OH are the mid west and/or Great Lakes
 

JMROWE

Registered User
Apr 2, 2010
1,372
52
Hamilton Ontario
When Hamilton finally gets there NHL. team that we rightfully deserve they would ehtier play at newly renovated Copps Coliseum or at new arena in Aldershot .
 

Darlotto99

Registered User
Jul 23, 2010
356
0
Bolton, ON
the following teams to be relocated: Carolina, Nashville, Atlanta, Florida, Phoenix, Tampa Bay , NY Islanders.

New NHL city's :Baltimore, Portland, Seattle, Houston, Milwaukie, Winnipeg, Quebec

New Divsion set up

East

Philadelphia Flyers
New York Rangers
Boston Bruins
New Jersey Devils
Pittsburgh Penguins
Washington Capitals
Baltimore Colts (NY Islanders)

Detroit Red Wings
Chicago Black Hawks
Toronto Maple Leafs
Montreal Canadians
Quebec Nordics (Nashville)
Ottawa Senators
Buffalo Sabres
Columbus Blue Jackets

West

Colorado Avalanche
St Louis Blues
Dallas Stars
Houston Chargers (Tampa Bay)
Anaheim Ducks
San Joes Sharks
Los Angelus Kings

Minnesota Wild
Milwaukee Thrashers (Atlanta)
Vancouver Canucks
Seattle Hurricanes (Carolina)
Portland Panthers (Florida)
Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers
Winnipeg Jets (Phoenix)


Detroit, Chicago and Columbus would move to the East to balance out the confrences.

okay i chose those city's for a reason to build the game and put teams in markets that i belive will have a chance to be better markets then the teams I want to relocate.
also to build rivalrys to grow the game Montreal/Quebec, Seattle/Vancouver/Portland, Houston/Dallas, Washington/Baltimore, Winnipeg/3 Western Teams, Minnisota/Milwaukie

also with Detroit, Chicago and Columbus in the East it helps balance out the confrences.
 
Last edited:

OG6ix

Registered User
Apr 11, 2006
4,453
1,350
Toronto
The NHL should have more teams in the Pacific Northwest. I'd rather teams be there than in Winnipeg or Hamilton.
 

Duke749

Savannah Ghost Pirates
Apr 6, 2010
47,750
22,632
Canton, Georgia
okay i chose those city's for a reason to build the game and put teams in markets that i belive will have a chance to be better markets then the teams I want to relocate.
also to build rivalrys to grow the game Montreal/Quebec, Seattle/Vancouver/Portland, Houston/Dallas, Washington/Baltimore, Winnipeg/3 Western Teams, Minnisota/Milwaukie

also with Detroit, Chicago and Columbus in the East it helps balance out the confrences.

You're quoting your own post? Why? Your idea of relocation is incredibly niave.
 

OrangeZebra

Unregistered User
Mar 3, 2011
3,102
1
New York
I know this is probably the least plausible of any suggestions, but how come nobody ever suggests teams in the upper northeast (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire)? I know it would be a tough market being squeezed between the Atlantic and northeast, but with a little re-alignment it could work. If we can put a team in the desert, we can do anything
 

selkie

Registered User
Feb 9, 2009
448
0
Niceville, FL
Lack of an acceptably-sized metro area. And the relatively large coastal parts of New Hampshire are probably within Boston's exclusive rights territory anyways.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->