Has Quebec City been priced out of the NHL?

[MNNumbers]

I still don't get the argument about Detroit, yes Detroit-Toronto is a good sell. But Detroit-Chicago is the highest rated regular season broadcast game in history. You're trying to sell advertising to networks, that's a big deal. St. Louis, Minnesota and Nashville do well tv wise against Detroit. Buffalo, Ottawa, Florida?
It still makes no sense to me. If Detroit-Toronto is such a big sports rivalry, how come they are not in the same division in baseball or basketball? Quebec would increase Canadian viewership. 1 million fans would watch Montreal-Quebec between French and English networks.

It's a simple solution. Tv times are generally altered by 30 minutes as I said. Travel is moot. As with 32 teams I am guessing that 48 games will be played home and away outside the division, with 34 within. So Detroit loses one, maybe two homes dates with To. They draw Dallas instead of Florida. Nashville instead of Tampa, Colorado is the farthest rival but any hockey fan of my era remembers Detroit and Colorado as the best rivalry of the late 90, early millennium.

To me it's the simple solution to boost the NHL's brand. Detroit is a flagship franchise, which has lost its lustre since realignment. Quebec would increase general revenues over Arizona. Bring another passionate hockey city to the fold, with travelling fans to help the bottom line of the NHL and some cities which struggle to fill their rinks.

But I'm not selling to networks if I am the Detroit ownership. I am selling to my local broadcaster, and this are the figures that he knows.

Look, I don't want to argue, Voyageur, but go back through some of the threads here on re-alignment. Search for, I think, Fugu's posts. Or, is it LS? I can't remember. In any case, one of the global-type moderators here is a Wings fan, and they are adamant that the local $$ is much much better for the Wings when they are Eastern aligned. And, that Detroit took it on the chin for the sake of the league for too long, and now that they are east, there is no going back.

The only possible chink in that armor are the comments from BEFORE realignment, in which the proposal which was NOT approved by the NHLPA had Detroit and Columbus in the Central, playing a schedule like you describe above, and the Detroit people were OK with it....AS LONG AS the schedule was h/a with everyone, and the rest in your own group (division, but they were calling them 4 conferences at that time). Whether those comments still hold true, having had several years in the NE again, we don't know.

ETA: I actually would put Quebec (in the case of AZ>>QC) in the Central, and alter the schedule particularly to give them an extra game every year versus Det, Tor, Buf, Mont, Ott and Bos. Not perfect, but, imo, the best possible compromise.

 

[voyageur]

But I'm not selling to networks if I am the Detroit ownership. I am selling to my local broadcaster, and this are the figures that he knows.

Look, I don't want to argue, Voyageur, but go back through some of the threads here on re-alignment. Search for, I think, Fugu's posts. Or, is it LS? I can't remember. In any case, one of the global-type moderators here is a Wings fan, and they are adamant that the local $$ is much much better for the Wings when they are Eastern aligned. And, that Detroit took it on the chin for the sake of the league for too long, and now that they are east, there is no going back.

The only possible chink in that armor are the comments from BEFORE realignment, in which the proposal which was NOT approved by the NHLPA had Detroit and Columbus in the Central, playing a schedule like you describe above, and the Detroit people were OK with it....AS LONG AS the schedule was h/a with everyone, and the rest in your own group (division, but they were calling them 4 conferences at that time). Whether those comments still hold true, having had several years in the NE again, we don't know.

ETA: I actually would put Quebec (in the case of AZ>>QC) in the Central, and alter the schedule particularly to give them an extra game every year versus Det, Tor, Buf, Mont, Ott and Bos. Not perfect, but, imo, the best possible compromise.

I completely empathize and understand how the Wings got screwed. But they built up the league as a hockey city. And yes I am going on posthumous statements of Ilitch, where he wasn't opposed to being in the Central.

Again the NHL needs an American TV contract. The big fish of NBC are the Metro franchises, Boston, Detroit and Chicago. I think L.A. and Vegas are new kids to the block.
I think if Fox/ESPN take over you are going to see less Sunday afternoon hockey, and more primetime Saturday hockey.

Detroit-Chicago is a big deal any sport. Even the Big 10. I heard Patrik Kane talk about how it is strange that the rivalry no longer exists.

I think Jacobs and some of the brass will push hard for Houston as Arizona's destination. I can't see Houston being a nationally broadcast team though, the fanbase will be like Dallas, good, but not overreaching, or passionate.


I just see more TV dollars in play with Detroit in the Central, I followed the ratings of them pre realignment, and Quebec as a TVA mainstay, giving Bell more control over the Habs, which they own part of. Maybe even a deal to broadcast the Canadiens on la Soirée du Hockey again, Saturday nights. In other words good for business.

 

[MNNumbers]

^^^ Totally agree on Jacobs wanting Houston. Problem is that Fertitta doesn't want to pay what he would have to pay.

It's a big puzzle. I don't know what will happen, but it will be interesting watching it unfold....

 

[Kimota]

More to this, I doubt the Molsons (and others on the BOG), want to be affiliated with the wingnut PQ Party and their Sovereignty ambissions

They didn't mind politics when they got a big fat check and Quebecor got the National rights to the Habs.

Money talks.

It's more like they don't want to give up a piece of the pie.

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

I don' think the entry fee has priced Quebec or any team out of the NHL. But after the initial enthusiasm in the first few years does Quebec have enough NHL paying customers to sustain a break even point to the owners? I don't think so. The TV market will not be helped having Quebec, as now the about the same amount of viewers/money in Canada will have to shared by one additional team.

So whether it's Seattle or Houston, is the franchise a a money maker (or at least break even) for the owner is the question. The other owners don't want to subsidize any more team. Just a point, the NHL is not a profit making organization. It's the 31 owners who make or lose money. The NHL is just the organization that administrates the rules of that the owners, players and other parties have made.

Detroit hated been in the western conference. The travel was awful for it's players and travel was very expensive. Any additional dollars made having a Chicago as rival was easily lost with travel and the loss of TV money when so many game were broadcast from the later times zones in the Central, Mountain and Pacific.

Bettman promised a big TV national US contract when he became commissioner. Hasn't happened yet an will never happen. Not saying it was Bettman's fault, but with 80m team salary cap, it shows the NHL is way behind the the MLB, NHL, NBA as a desired sports watching by Americans and therefore revenues are comparatively low.

 

[voyageur]

I don' think the entry fee has priced Quebec or any team out of the NHL. But after the initial enthusiasm in the first few years does Quebec have enough NHL paying customers to sustain a break even point to the owners? I don't think so. The TV market will not be helped having Quebec, as now the about the same amount of viewers/money in Canada will have to shared by one additional team.

So whether it's Seattle or Houston, is the franchise a a money maker (or at least break even) for the owner is the question. The other owners don't want to subsidize any more team. Just a point, the NHL is not a profit making organization. It's the 31 owners who make or lose money. The NHL is just the organization that administrates the rules of that the owners, players and other parties have made.

Detroit hated been in the western conference. The travel was awful for it's players and travel was very expensive. Any additional dollars made having a Chicago as rival was easily lost with travel and the loss of TV money when so many game were broadcast from the later times zones in the Central, Mountain and Pacific.

Bettman promised a big TV national US contract when he became commissioner. Hasn't happened yet an will never happen. Not saying it was Bettman's fault, but with 80m team salary cap, it shows the NHL is way behind the the MLB, NHL, NBA as a desired sports watching by Americans and therefore revenues are comparatively low.

Two things: Winnipeg made the playoffs once in six years, didn't win a playoff game. Fans still came, night in night out.

Quebec consistently outdrew Winnipeg in attendance in their first NHL foray.

The Detroit that got killed by travel, was in an era when you played 32 games against your division (5 team) and 30 within your conference. 20 against the other conference. Playoffs 1-8 had Detroit getting ousted by Calgary, S.J, Anaheim. And getting the Yotes back to back years.

Different schedule now. Guaranteed 32 games against the Eastern Conference once you hit 32 teams.

I would not be surprised if there are only 2 games homes and away against the other teams in the conference down the road. Although I think 4 games against your own division (28) and 20 vs the other division is also possible. With a reduced schedule.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I completely empathize and understand how the Wings got screwed. But they built up the league as a hockey city. And yes I am going on posthumous statements of Ilitch, where he wasn't opposed to being in the Central.

Again the NHL needs an American TV contract. The big fish of NBC are the Metro franchises, Boston, Detroit and Chicago. I think L.A. and Vegas are new kids to the block.
I think if Fox/ESPN take over you are going to see less Sunday afternoon hockey, and more primetime Saturday hockey.

Detroit-Chicago is a big deal any sport. Even the Big 10. I heard Patrik Kane talk about how it is strange that the rivalry no longer exists.

I think Jacobs and some of the brass will push hard for Houston as Arizona's destination. I can't see Houston being a nationally broadcast team though, the fanbase will be like Dallas, good, but not overreaching, or passionate.


I just see more TV dollars in play with Detroit in the Central, I followed the ratings of them pre realignment, and Quebec as a TVA mainstay, giving Bell more control over the Habs, which they own part of. Maybe even a deal to broadcast the Canadiens on la Soirée du Hockey again, Saturday nights. In other words good for business.

one major thing you forgot, voyageur, WASN'T TORONTO in that SAME DIVISIONAL ALIGNMENT WITH CHICAGO/DETROIT, WHAT WAS THE CENTRAL DIVISION Comprised of 3 O-6 teams, the CURRENT Atlantic has that now WHEN YOU add BOS/MTL, you're slighting Columbus too in that argument.....

 

[voyageur]

I never know how to respond to you, but think about this logically. Toronto-Montreal is a real rivalry. Every sport, does not matter if it is sport even.

Detroit-Chicago, NFC North, NBA central division, MLB Central division, interstate rivalry in the Big 10. Gordie Howe vs Bobby Hull. Yzerman vs. Roenick, Toews vs Datsyuk.

The NHL is missing out, only because Detroit got screwed by the league year in year out.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I never know how to respond to you, but think about this logically. Toronto-Montreal is a real rivalry. Every sport, does not matter if it is sport even.

Detroit-Chicago, NFC North, NBA central division, MLB Central division, interstate rivalry in the Big 10. Gordie Howe vs Bobby Hull. Yzerman vs. Roenick, Toews vs Datsyuk.

The NHL is missing out, only because Detroit got screwed by the league year in year out.

uh, before the Central was created in MLB, voyageur, teams like Milwaukee and Detroit, as well as Cleveland were in the East, and that includes Illitch's Tigers, so how is that equitable, care to explain why Houston and Texas are in the same division in the AL, BOTH Central time zone teams in the West, and Milwaukee and Houston did what Detroit, Columbus, and Toronto did when the NHL Realigned, Detroit is an ETZ market, we were told, why Chicago is a CTZ market, that's just the way it was devised.

 

[Hal1971]

Give your heads a shake.

When will you people realize that QC will never get a team. Well, unless another Atlanta situation happens........and that will never happen. The league learned their lesson.
Does anyone really believe we'd have the Jets in Winnipeg if Seattle, Houston, KC, bum**** Idaho wanted a team?

And the reason the NHLPA and players say nothing......they couldn't give a **** about another team in Canada.

NHL players survey: 21 of 31 say Quebec City should be next for expansion

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...n-quebec-city-olympics-stanley-cup/653569001/

 

[zetajerk]

NHL players survey: 21 of 31 say Quebec City should be next for expansion

NHL players survey: 21 of 31 say Quebec City should be next for expansion

What are they supposed to say? No? And have to put up with death threats and harassment for them and their families if anyone finds out who said it? Lip service. They might want Quebec around for the small temporary rise in the cap it may cause, but they won't play there. I wouldn't say that if we haven't been seeing this pattern for as long as free agency has been a thing and teams have arrived in warm, laid back locations.

 

[Hal1971]

What are they supposed to say? No? And have to put up with death threats and harassment for them and their families if anyone finds out who said it? Lip service. They might want Quebec around for the small temporary rise in the cap it may cause, but they won't play there. I wouldn't say that if we haven't been seeing this pattern for as long as free agency has been a thing and teams have arrived in warm, laid back locations.

21 of them choosed Quebec over Seattle or Houston...

"USA TODAY Sports polled 31 high-profile players at the NHL/NHL Players' Association media tour and 21 (67.7%) chose Quebec as the venue the league should next embrace.
Seattle finished second in the survey with nine votes, and Houston totaled one vote."

 

[zetajerk]

21 of them choosed Quebec over Seattle or Houston...

"USA TODAY Sports polled 31 high-profile players at the NHL/NHL Players' Association media tour and 21 (67.7%) chose Quebec as the venue the league should next embrace.
Seattle finished second in the survey with nine votes, and Houston totaled one vote."

High profile players won't play in Canada. QC has the same detractors as the rest of small town Canada. We've seen this for decades. Meaningless article.

 

[Hal1971]

High profile players won't play in Canada. QC has the same detractors as the rest of small town Canada We've seen this for decades. Meaningless article.

Winnipeg build a pretty good team for a place where no one wants to play...
But it's in response to people saying that no player want quebec in the league, it's not true... Will quebec have difficulty attract players, yeah. Just like Ottawa, Mtl, Win, Calgary, Edmonton.... or small US market...

 

[Bixby Snyder]

The only survey that matters is the one taken by the owners when they vote on expansion, what the players think is irrelevant.

 

[Killion]

The only survey that matters is the one taken by the owners when they vote on expansion, what the players think is irrelevant.

Unfortunately so Atticus. On the one hand I understand the NHL's perspective on this, that the players & PA's opinion on where franchises are located, how many teams in the NHL itself absolutely irrelevant.... on the other as stakeholders, not just "employee's" (which is another debate altogether) concerned about the game & its future, sustainability, their paychecks... their opinion SHOULD matter. And thats my opinion.

 

[Melrose Munch]

What are they supposed to say? No? And have to put up with death threats and harassment for them and their families if anyone finds out who said it? Lip service. They might want Quebec around for the small temporary rise in the cap it may cause, but they won't play there. I wouldn't say that if we haven't been seeing this pattern for as long as free agency has been a thing and teams have arrived in warm, laid back locations.

High profile players won't play in Canada. QC has the same detractors as the rest of small town Canada. We've seen this for decades. Meaningless article.

21 of them choosed Quebec over Seattle or Houston...

"USA TODAY Sports polled 31 high-profile players at the NHL/NHL Players' Association media tour and 21 (67.7%) chose Quebec as the venue the league should next embrace.
Seattle finished second in the survey with nine votes, and Houston totaled one vote."

NHL players survey: 21 of 31 say Quebec City should be next for expansion

NHL players survey: 21 of 31 say Quebec City should be next for expansion

Guys, they want Quebec because it will provide an increase in the cap. So the players want Quebec as a team because it will increase revenue. The real issue is while the players will want Quebec's business, they don't to actually play there. The real test will be Quebec's first offseason, and how much player movement it gets.

Winnipeg build a pretty good team for a place where no one wants to play...
But it's in response to people saying that no player want quebec in the league, it's not true... Will quebec have difficulty attract players, yeah. Just like Ottawa, Mtl, Win, Calgary, Edmonton.... or small US market...

This is the best way to put it.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Two things: Winnipeg made the playoffs once in six years, didn't win a playoff game. Fans still came, night in night out.

Quebec consistently outdrew Winnipeg in attendance in their first NHL foray.

The Detroit that got killed by travel, was in an era when you played 32 games against your division (5 team) and 30 within your conference. 20 against the other conference. Playoffs 1-8 had Detroit getting ousted by Calgary, S.J, Anaheim. And getting the Yotes back to back years.

Different schedule now. Guaranteed 32 games against the Eastern Conference once you hit 32 teams.

I would not be surprised if there are only 2 games homes and away against the other teams in the conference down the road. Although I think 4 games against your own division (28) and 20 vs the other division is also possible. With a reduced schedule.

one major thing you forgot, voyageur, WASN'T TORONTO in that SAME DIVISIONAL ALIGNMENT WITH CHICAGO/DETROIT, WHAT WAS THE CENTRAL DIVISION Comprised of 3 O-6 teams, the CURRENT Atlantic has that now WHEN YOU add BOS/MTL, you're slighting Columbus too in that argument.....

I never know how to respond to you, but think about this logically. Toronto-Montreal is a real rivalry. Every sport, does not matter if it is sport even.

Detroit-Chicago, NFC North, NBA central division, MLB Central division, interstate rivalry in the Big 10. Gordie Howe vs Bobby Hull. Yzerman vs. Roenick, Toews vs Datsyuk.

The NHL is missing out, only because Detroit got screwed by the league year in year out.

uh, before the Central was created in MLB, voyageur, teams like Milwaukee and Detroit, as well as Cleveland were in the East, and that includes Illitch's Tigers, so how is that equitable, care to explain why Houston and Texas are in the same division in the AL, BOTH Central time zone teams in the West, and Milwaukee and Houston did what Detroit, Columbus, and Toronto did when the NHL Realigned, Detroit is an ETZ market, we were told, why Chicago is a CTZ market, that's just the way it was devised.

voyageur, you have to let this go. Detroit does not want to be in the west. They have said their biggest rival is Toronto. And how is Detroit-Toronto not a real rivalry? It's much older then Toronto-Ottawa, which is as manufactured as it gets. Detroit was the Leafs number two rival behind Montreal for much of the 20th century. Hutch is right.

 

[LeHab]

Imagine the riots if Nordiques were to win SC tonight combine with G7 protesters.

 

[mouser]

Guys, they want Quebec because it will provide an increase in the cap. So the players want Quebec as a team because it will increase revenue. The real issue is while the players will want Quebec's business, they don't to actually play there. The real test will be Quebec's first offseason, and how much player movement it gets.
This is the best way to put it.

If the owners want Seattle over Quebec isn’t it because they believe Seattle will increase their own personal revenues? Whether that comes via a bigger US TV deal, additional sponsorships, increased attention or other means.

If any of those objectives come to fruition then it will increase NHL revenue and hence the Cap as well.

 

[Melrose Munch]

If the owners want Seattle over Quebec isn’t it because they believe Seattle will increase their own personal revenues? Whether that comes via a bigger US TV deal, additional sponsorships, increased attention or other means.

If any of those objectives come to fruition then it will increase NHL revenue and hence the Cap as well.

This is also true, but expansion in general means increased revenues. I'm just not concerned that Quebec will be 95 percent homegrown players like Winnipeg and Buffalo.

 

[End on a Hinote]

Imagine the riots if Nordiques were to win SC tonight combine with G7 protesters.

Dude, just watch the last 15 minutes of Bruce Almighty.

 

[Hennessy]

Unfortunately so Atticus. On the one hand I understand the NHL's perspective on this, that the players & PA's opinion on where franchises are located, how many teams in the NHL itself absolutely irrelevant.... on the other as stakeholders, not just "employee's" (which is another debate altogether) concerned about the game & its future, sustainability, their paychecks... their opinion SHOULD matter. And thats my opinion.

As a mod, I look forward to where you think Evolve Media needs to go next.

 

[Killion]

As a mod, I look forward to where you think Evolve Media needs to go next.

.... "as a Mod" and a volunteer, one of many here, no financial interests in Evolve/Crave... where or how I think it should grow & "evolve".... well.... obviously I'm not calling the shots but if I was.... and given the downturn in registrations & general chat board usage, frequency & volume, more & more people gravitating to FB, twitter & so on, then yes, here too some reinvention required. A re-think.

This is the largest hockey chatboard in existence, love the place so for sure hope Evolve does adapt, kicks it all up a few more notches & maintains its relevancy, preeminent positioning as the #1 destination to discuss all things hockey...

If I was in Management, ownership, I'd be talking to the NHL itself, all of the minor pro, NHLPA & PHPA, Junior & NCAA teams, the KHL & IIHF, various Hockey Hall's of Fame & Sports Halls of Fame, European Elite Leagues & so on, signing them to working agreements as partners & sponsors WITHOUT any editorial or content control, authority.... contributer though, absolutely. Press releases, announcements with direct-feed & so on. Polls & feedback etc.

Idealistic you say? Never go for that? Oh yes indeed, yes they would. We have the audience, hard core & casual. Volumes. So a fully integrated multi-platform with links to League sites, teams etc top to bottom. News feeds. Live feeds of games, some free some subscription. Shop. Live Chat with League personnel, players, media pundits & reporters etc. You the Members ask them questions, make suggestions. Debate. "WTF you doin Shanny"? That sort of thing. No holds barred but at the same time respectful. Moderated. You name it. All right here.

 

[Jetster231]

High profile players won't play in Canada. QC has the same detractors as the rest of small town Canada. We've seen this for decades. Meaningless article.

Uh... Laine..Matthews come on man. Scheifele.