Possible return of the Quebec Nordiques?

Status
Not open for further replies.

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
jester099 said:
HansH said:
What many of you are forgetting is that a good "hockey town" is not always a good "NHL town". There are plenty of markets where they love hockey to death, that would never be able to support the financial realities of an NHL team, even with the current CBA.

Kansas City (new arena, 2008) and Houston (New arena, 2003) are FAR more likely to get NHL Teams than any Canadian market, Quebec included -- because they have a better potential for financial rewards. Anschutz knows squat about hockey (as the Kings' performance has shown), but he knows real estate, and he'll get himself an anchor tenant for the KC arena, whether it be NHL or NBA or both. Winnipeg is out of the running because their arena condemns them to the bottom half or third of the attendance rankings, even if they sold out every night. Quebec may love their hockey, but they don't love the NHL as much as Les Alexander would in order to pair the Rockets with an NHL team in his NHL-ready arena.

It's dollars and cents. Any argument that trashes KC and Houston (or Dallas) on grounds that they're not "as good hockey cities" is completley irrelevant.

How much money can owners make -- that is the ONLY question to answer, period. And the potential is more in KC and Houston, at the moment, than it is in Quebec and Winnipeg. Now, might teams there fail? Sure -- and THEN it would be time to visit the Quebec and Winnipeg options. But not until then.
I'm not sure in the hockey world this is always true... I think a lot of other factors than profits come into play...

Sure profits are a big part of the equation, but if it was only profits, teams like the Oilers would've already folded IMHO.

With the new CBA, cities like Edmonton and Quebec and Winnipeg have the means to be competitive, and that with a lot of work from influantial and rich people may be all that is needed to bring back hockey to these cities...
Sorry to burst your rose colored glasses, but HansH is spot on.

The NHL is business, and dollars and cents are what will dictate where teams go. In this, the NHL is no different from any other sport. Inertia may keep a team in market when an owner might do better elsewhere (your comparisons to Edmonton) and some owners may be willing to lose money for some period of time in the name of ego or civic pride, but if and when an owner decides to sell or move a team, you can be sure that nothing will really matter but economics.

It's not (and never has been) is Winnepeg or Quebec a better "hockey town" than Atlanta or Carolina or <insert your favorite non-traditional market here>. The question is, if and when any current NHL owner decides to sell or move, where can he (or a new owner) make the most money. It's not up to you or me or even Gary Bettman - it's up to the current owners. So if an owner thinks he can make more money by moving to Portland or Houston or KC or OKC or a new owner in those cities is willing to pay more for the franchise, that's where they will move (or be sold to).

The decision is purely financial, based on market size, potential corporate support, availability of state-of-the-art facilities, sweetheart lease deals etc.

Just because the new CBA may allow a team to survive in Winnepeg or Quebec does not mean that there is any reason why a team would move there if there were more lucrative opportunities available. And the same CBA that may make the NHL more viable in those cities also makes today's weaker franchises more viable where they are, so they are less likely to move.

The best (and probably only) possibility for teams in Quebec or Winnepeg is expansion, when the league has some say in the process - the league gets the same expansion fee no matter who they choose. But I don't see expansion on the horizon untill at least the end of this CBA.
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
kdb209 said:
Sorry to burst your rose colored glasses, but HansH is spot on.

The NHL is business, and dollars and cents are what will dictate where teams go. In this, the NHL is no different from any other sport. Inertia may keep a team in market when an owner might do better elsewhere (your comparisons to Edmonton) and some owners may be willing to lose money for some period of time in the name of ego or civic pride, but if and when an owner decides to sell or move a team, you can be sure that nothing will really matter but economics.

It's not (and never has been) is Winnepeg or Quebec a better "hockey town" than Atlanta or Carolina or <insert your favorite non-traditional market here>. The question is, if and when any current NHL owner decides to sell or move, where can he (or a new owner) make the most money. It's not up to you or me or even Gary Bettman - it's up to the current owners. So if an owner thinks he can make more money by moving to Portland or Houston or KC or OKC or a new owner in those cities is willing to pay more for the franchise, that's where they will move (or be sold to).

The decision is purely financial, based on market size, potential corporate support, availability of state-of-the-art facilities, sweetheart lease deals etc.

Just because the new CBA may allow a team to survive in Winnepeg or Quebec does not mean that there is any reason why a team would move there if there were more lucrative opportunities available. And the same CBA that may make the NHL more viable in those cities also makes today's weaker franchises more viable where they are, so they are less likely to move.

The best (and probably only) possibility for teams in Quebec or Winnepeg is expansion, when the league has some say in the process - the league gets the same expansion fee no matter who they choose. But I don't see expansion on the horizon untill at least the end of this CBA.

The NHL would have to pay big $ to claim stake to Winnipeg cause isn't it now home to the developmental affiliate of the Vancouver Canucks and the site of the 2005-06 Rbk AHL All Star Classic.

As for Quebec, didn't Montreal find there was no local ownership group to run their development franchise and why the Citadelles are now in Hamilton.
 

Kimota

ROY DU NORD!!!
Nov 4, 2005
39,188
14,060
Les Plaines D'Abraham
Gnashville said:
You're dealing in emotion, Owners are dealing in reality.

Believe me when I saw Bettman and the NHL has been living in a dream World for far too long, not in reality and everybody sort-of knows that now with everything that happened in the last ten years. Putting franchises all over the states and hoping hockey will catch on is a failed model that didn`t make sens, will never make sens. Bringing back hockey in places where there`s already a culture there makes sens, it`s logical. The NHL just had to provide these towns with mecanisms so everybody would have a fighting chance economicly. The best way to do things the NFL has it down to the "t". They don`t make ******** out-of-this-World crazy decisions, they stick to their guns and go to markets that has a strong football base. And they build slowly, not throwing everything on the wall to see what sticks the moment it smells money. What Bettman did was cheap, short-term cash-ins because new consentions were too attractive.
 

Kimota

ROY DU NORD!!!
Nov 4, 2005
39,188
14,060
Les Plaines D'Abraham
Oh yea and the Ottawa moving to Québec thing was a JOKE made by the poster. The Senators moving there would defeat the purpose of hockey returning to more Canadian cities.

I think several US cities are still in trouble...and nobody said the owners had to be from Canada.

Teams I would see moving are
Washington
Pittsburg
Carolina
New Jersey
Long Island
Phoenix
Anaheim
Buffalo
Florida
Tamp Bay

..even Atlanta.
 

rwilson99

Registered User
Kimota said:
Oh yea and the Ottawa moving to Québec thing was a JOKE made by the poster. The Senators moving there would defeat the purpose of hockey returning to more Canadian cities.

Exactly what would be the purpose of putting more NHL teams in minor league Canada?

It certainly wouldn't be to make more money.
 

jester099

Registered User
Aug 19, 2005
2,022
0
Montreal
kdb209 said:
Sorry to burst your rose colored glasses, but HansH is spot on.

The NHL is business, and dollars and cents are what will dictate where teams go. In this, the NHL is no different from any other sport. Inertia may keep a team in market when an owner might do better elsewhere (your comparisons to Edmonton) and some owners may be willing to lose money for some period of time in the name of ego or civic pride, but if and when an owner decides to sell or move a team, you can be sure that nothing will really matter but economics.

I'm pretty sure that's wrong, and that the future will proove you wrong.

The past has already... If it was nothing but economics like you say, there would be no teams in Edmonton and Calgary anymore...

If it was only a matter of economics, nobody would have ever owned a Hockey franchise apart from Detroit and NYR under the old CBA, because the economic of the game was scr*wed and that almost no team could compete financialy with those teams.

There are other factors than economics. I think that's a fact that's undisputable. In a lot of the cities in the NHL, hockey is not a sound investment, period. There are thousands of better invesments than a hockey team. That alone should be enough to convince you the economics is not the only factor.
 

AdmiralPred

Registered User
Jun 9, 2005
1,923
0
Kimota said:
Believe me when I saw Bettman and the NHL has been living in a dream World for far too long, not in reality and everybody sort-of knows that now with everything that happened in the last ten years. Putting franchises all over the states and hoping hockey will catch on is a failed model that didn`t make sens, will never make sens. Bringing back hockey in places where there`s already a culture there makes sens, it`s logical. The NHL just had to provide these towns with mecanisms so everybody would have a fighting chance economicly. The best way to do things the NFL has it down to the "t". They don`t make ******** out-of-this-World crazy decisions, they stick to their guns and go to markets that has a strong football base. And they build slowly, not throwing everything on the wall to see what sticks the moment it smells money. What Bettman did was cheap, short-term cash-ins because new consentions were too attractive.
It helps that the NFL is god amongst pro sports in the U.S. It also helps that each team's share of television revenues pretty much covers their cap. The NHL has a firm following with its core fans, if the goal of the NHL is to increase the viewership and popularity of the sport, then I think their model, which is a work in proccess, seems to be successful to this point. And what do the Sens have to do with it? ;)

Kimota said:
Teams I would see moving are
Washington
Pittsburg
Carolina
New Jersey
Long Island
Phoenix
Anaheim
Buffalo
Florida
Tamp Bay

..even Atlanta.
Wow! No Nashville???? Don't comment.

CHRDANHUTCH said:
The NHL would have to pay big $ to claim stake to Winnipeg cause isn't it now home to the developmental affiliate of the Vancouver Canucks and the site of the 2005-06 Rbk AHL All Star Classic.

As for Quebec, didn't Montreal find there was no local ownership group to run their development franchise and why the Citadelles are now in Hamilton.
If the NHL or an owner really wanted to set up shop in either of these locals, I am sure that there wouldn't be much of a problem relocating the minor league franchise, and I am sure that if any money were to be paid it would be peanuts in comparisson to the transaction that brought the NHL franchise to that city to begin with.
 

AdmiralPred

Registered User
Jun 9, 2005
1,923
0
jester099 said:
kdb209 said:
Sorry to burst your rose colored glasses, but HansH is spot on.

The NHL is business, and dollars and cents are what will dictate where teams go. In this, the NHL is no different from any other sport. Inertia may keep a team in market when an owner might do better elsewhere (your comparisons to Edmonton) and some owners may be willing to lose money for some period of time in the name of ego or civic pride, but if and when an owner decides to sell or move a team, you can be sure that nothing will really matter but economics.
I'm pretty sure that's wrong, and that the future will proove you wrong.

The past has already... If it was nothing but economics like you say, there would be no teams in Edmonton and Calgary anymore...

If it was only a matter of economics, nobody would have ever owned a Hockey franchise apart from Detroit and NYR under the old CBA, because the economic of the game was scr*wed and that almost no team could compete financialy with those teams.

There are other factors than economics. I think that's a fact that's undisputable. In a lot of the cities in the NHL, hockey is not a sound investment, period. There are thousands of better invesments than a hockey team. That alone should be enough to convince you the economics is not the only factor.
I think that you are taking the bolded statement out of context and without regard to the rest of kdb's statement. The comments about owner ego and civic pride help make Edmonton, Calgary, and the like feasable. Whereas a sale and/or move would be based more on economics.
 

Troy McClure

Suter will never be scratched
Mar 12, 2002
47,587
15,478
South of Heaven
Kimota said:
Believe me when I saw Bettman and the NHL has been living in a dream World for far too long, not in reality and everybody sort-of knows that now with everything that happened in the last ten years. Putting franchises all over the states and hoping hockey will catch on is a failed model that didn`t make sens, will never make sens.
Have you ever been to any of these cities? Do you even know what you're talking about? My guess is no. Go check out the number of kids hockey teams in all those cities. It is a growing sport. You have to be patient. Those kids that grow up playing are the fans the league cares about because they're the real future of the NHL in the US.

jester099 said:
The past has already... If it was nothing but economics like you say, there would be no teams in Edmonton and Calgary anymore...
Very true, and you can thank your hero Bettman for making sure those teams were able to stay. The NFL also supports the Green Bay Packers, a team in a very small market that would have moved years ago if not for the NFL's revenue sharing plan. Can a league support some teams in small, fan-crazy places? Yes, but they can't support too many of them.

jester099 said:
If it was only a matter of economics, nobody would have ever owned a Hockey franchise apart from Detroit and NYR under the old CBA, because the economic of the game was scr*wed and that almost no team could compete financialy with those teams.
How do you figure? With roster limits of 23 players, those teams could only buy so many good players. That still left many good players available to other teams like New Jersey.

jester099 said:
I think that's a fact that's undisputable. In a lot of the cities in the NHL, hockey is not a sound investment, period. There are thousands of better invesments than a hockey team. That alone should be enough to convince you the economics is not the only factor.
The fact that there are teams in those cities owned by rich and intelligent businessmen should tell you all you need to know about hockey being a good investment. You're saying it is a bad investment with nothing to support your claim other than the fact you think so. That's not a good way to draw a conclusion.
 

jester099

Registered User
Aug 19, 2005
2,022
0
Montreal
Troy McClure said:
How do you figure? With roster limits of 23 players, those teams could only buy so many good players. That still left many good players available to other teams like New Jersey.
Sure there were players left, but how seriously can a team like the Oilers compete with a team like the Red Wings in the financial mess of the 90's ? Sure the Rangers Screwed up big time, but it doesn't change the fact they had a huge financial advantage over other teams. Teams with a lot of money could fail, but it was very difficult, if not impossible for a team with a big financial disadvantage to have a very successful team year after year...

When means are very disproportionate, it makes it very difficult for teams with lesser revenus to have any kind of sustained success... Look at baseball with the devil rays... Do you think this is a good investment ? When do you think they'll start winning... they have something like 7 times less means than the Yankees...
 

jester099

Registered User
Aug 19, 2005
2,022
0
Montreal
Troy McClure said:
The fact that there are teams in those cities owned by rich and intelligent businessmen should tell you all you need to know about hockey being a good investment. You're saying it is a bad investment with nothing to support your claim other than the fact you think so. That's not a good way to draw a conclusion.

For someone that has 100 000 $, it is very important that his 100 000 $ is very well invested, and that his investment is rock solid, and that he don't loose all.

For a guy who'se annual revenu is 100 000 $, and who has 10 000 000 $ in his bank account, that 100 000 $ can be gambled, spent on entertainment or whatever...

When you have a owner of a hockey team that is the #1 guy in Wallmart or something, I'm not sure this is still an investment as much as an entertainment expense for him... Sure nobody likes to loose money, but for some people, loosing 1 millions is like me loosing 1000 $... I can live with that even if I don't like it...

I don't think it's a secret that most franchises were loosing money under the old CBA... That can't be a very good investment...
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
Chili said:
I'm not reading into it but I still find it interesting that the holders of the Cup would be on the bottom in road attendance...but they certainly appear to be drawing well at home.
They always have been a terrible road draw and the Cup isn't going to change that, but who cares? The fans show up at home in droves, that's what counts.
 

jamiebez

Registered User
Apr 5, 2005
4,025
327
Ottawa
rwilson99 said:
Exactly what would be the purpose of putting more NHL teams in minor league Canada?

It certainly wouldn't be to make more money.
I understand that southern-US based fans are a little ticked off by all the relocation threads, but I think this anti-Canadianism is a little bit uncalled for. I'm all for a good jingoistic pi$$ing contest, but claiming that the NHL isn't making money in Canada is just nonsense.

For instance, you may be surprised to know:
- the Canadian national TV contracts are worth more in guaranteed money ($65M Canadian between CBC and TSN) than the US ones
- the Canadian teams are all in the top half of the league in attendance. Also, ticket prices were not cut substantially (if at all) in any Canadian market
- at last check, the Canadian teams were all turning a profit
- Many major sponsors (Labatt, McDonalds and Home Depot) ONLY sponsor the NHL in Canada, despite having major brand presense in the US.

If not for the Canadian teams, there wouldn't be a league to speak of.

Is suggesting that one or two more teams in Canada might be more profitable then financially struggling US franchises really that difficult to grasp?
 

Gnashville

HFBoards Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2003
13,683
3,510
Crossville
Kimota said:
Believe me when I saw Bettman and the NHL has been living in a dream World for far too long, not in reality and everybody sort-of knows that now with everything that happened in the last ten years. Putting franchises all over the states and hoping hockey will catch on is a failed model that didn`t make sens, will never make sens. Bringing back hockey in places where there`s already a culture there makes sens, it`s logical. The NHL just had to provide these towns with mecanisms so everybody would have a fighting chance economicly. The best way to do things the NFL has it down to the "t". They don`t make ******** out-of-this-World crazy decisions, they stick to their guns and go to markets that has a strong football base. And they build slowly, not throwing everything on the wall to see what sticks the moment it smells money. What Bettman did was cheap, short-term cash-ins because new consentions were too attractive.
What facts do you have to back any of this up?

Bettman never moved a single team!!!!! Owners did. That is a fact.
Only 4 teams have been added since Bettman!!! That is a fact.
Hockey is growing in those areas you consider crazy!! That is a fact.

Without Bettman Edmonton and Calgary would have moved (that is my Opinion)
 

Gnashville

HFBoards Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2003
13,683
3,510
Crossville
jamiebez said:
- at last check, the Canadian teams were all turning a profit
I guess you missed the Ottawa went bankrupt memo. Calgary had to go to the cup finals to turn a profit last season. Edmonton has been strugling for years.
 
Last edited:

jester099

Registered User
Aug 19, 2005
2,022
0
Montreal
Gnashville said:
What facts do you have to back any of this up?

Bettman never moved a single team!!!!! Owners did. That is a fact.
Only 4 teams have been added since Bettman!!! That is a fact.
Hockey is growing in those areas you consider crazy!! That is a fact.

Without Bettman Edmonton and Calgary would have moved (that is my Opinion)

Bettman created an environment where those teams, and many american teams, could survive and compete.

The teams are staying there because of the fan support, and their passion about the game. The teams are their to stay because the fans care about those teams...

I find the Economics rules all theory kindda funny... It feels like we're just about to hear that it would be a good thing for the NHL to move the Habs to Houston because Houston is a bigger city...
 

jamiebez

Registered User
Apr 5, 2005
4,025
327
Ottawa
Gnashville said:
jamiebez said:
- at last check, the Canadian teams were all turning a profit
I guess you missed the Ottawa went bankrupt memo. Calgary had to go to the cup finals to turn a profit last season. Edmonton has been strugling for years.
Ottawa went bankrupt because they were undercapitalized for years, since the inception of the franchise, really. It had nothing to do with how much money they bring in.

Edmonton "struggling for years" is a myth. Since they changed their ownership structure and renovated Northlands Coliseum (in 1998, IIRC) they have consistently turned a modest profit despite being a mediocre team.

Calgary has been up and down. They made money in 4 of the last 7 years (including last year) despite missing the playoffs in almost all of those years.
 

znk

Registered User
Nov 5, 2005
25,477
22
Montreal
puckhead103 said:
i thought quebec had a new mayor (who is a man)who is in favor of building a new arena?
It's actualy the opposite. Quebec now has the mayoress who was in an other city and who has always been opposed to everything that touches sports.
 

AdmiralPred

Registered User
Jun 9, 2005
1,923
0
jester099 said:
*snip*...I find the Economics rules all theory kindda funny... It feels like we're just about to hear that it would be a good thing for the NHL to move the Habs to Houston because Houston is a bigger city...
For the more articulate posters in this thread, that is not what they are arguing when they bring economics into the picture.
 

Gnashville

HFBoards Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2003
13,683
3,510
Crossville
jester099 said:
Bettman created an environment where those teams, and many american teams, could survive and compete.

The teams are staying there because of the fan support, and their passion about the game. The teams are their to stay because the fans care about those teams...

I find the Economics rules all theory kindda funny... It feels like we're just about to hear that it would be a good thing for the NHL to move the Habs to Houston because Houston is a bigger city...
Bettman also created the Canadian assistance plan that for years kept those franchises solvent.
Imagine what would happen if he came up with the Southern US assistance plan. Canadians would be screaming for his public beheading, and saying he should let those teams die. He saved hockey in most parts of Canada. Quebec and Winnipeg were too far gone to save.
 

AdmiralPred

Registered User
Jun 9, 2005
1,923
0
Gnashville said:
Bettman also created the Canadian assistance plan that for years kept those franchises solvent.
Imagine what would happen if he came up with the Southern US assistance plan. Canadians would be screaming for his public beheading, and saying he should let those teams die. He saved hockey in most parts of Canada. Quebec and Winnipeg were too far gone to save.
I always thought the owners of those franchises sold everyone out when they couldn't get their way.
 

jester099

Registered User
Aug 19, 2005
2,022
0
Montreal
Gnashville said:
Bettman also created the Canadian assistance plan that for years kept those franchises solvent.
Imagine what would happen if he came up with the Southern US assistance plan. Canadians would be screaming for his public beheading, and saying he should let those teams die. He saved hockey in most parts of Canada. Quebec and Winnipeg were too far gone to save.

I agree under the old CBA, there was probably no place for those cities...

Now is different, and those cities would probably do better if they get a new arena than many bigger cities in the state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->