CarlRacki said:
"the majority of the talent (both on the ice and off),"
Here's the problem and a major faulty assumption. If you haven't noticed, the majority of the talent will go where the majority of the money is. The majority if the money is in the states. I'm not sure how much TSN and Sportsnet pay for the NHL (can anyone fill in that blank?), but I'd be surprised it's enough to outweigh the other advantages most large cities in the States have when it comes to corporate revenues, ad revenues, etc.
Exactly. Best case scenario, a rival league will be somewhere in quality between the NHL and AHL - a lot like the former WHA, actually. You'll be able to attract the older stars for more money than they can make in the NHL and a few 4th line/6th defensemen types, and round it out with a bunch of career minor leaguers.
And really, where are teams going to play? There are few NHL cities with second facilities suitable for hockey - even fewer with the ability to support 2 teams. This leaves you in Winnipeg, Quebec, Hamilton, Seattle, Portland, Vegas, Houston, etc. Again - a lot like the old WHA.
Then, where's the money going to come from? You don't have enough of a geographical presence to get a national TV deal in either country. If you're in an NHL market, you have to undercut the NHL on ticket prices. You're in smaller cities, so there's less corporate and ad revenue coming in.
What does this leave you with? A slightly better version of the AHL, with a few big names, some bigger markets and no affiliations (so at least your roster stays intact for a year if you're lucky).
People talk about starting up a league like it's so easy. There's a reason its only been done once if the last 75 years or so - and even that one only lasted 7 years.