Possible return of the Quebec Nordiques?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jamiebez

Registered User
Apr 5, 2005
4,025
327
Ottawa
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.
He did. It's called "a salary cap" ;)

I'm being facetious here: I'm not claiming that the cap was only for Nashville, Atlanta, etc, but it does create a system that allows smaller-revenue teams to compete.

My ultimate point (as usual on these threads) is that it's not so ludicrous to suggest that Quebec or Winnipeg (as smaller revenue teams) are viable locations for a profitable franchise.
 

Gnashville

HFBoards Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2003
13,683
3,510
Crossville
jester099 said:
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.
No disagreement here but the CBA helps struggling US teams also. No team is looking to relocate and are not through the 1st year of the new CBA I'm sure the Owners will give it more than 1 year, atleast 5. I honestly Wish the NHL would expand to Winnipeg and Quebec in about 3 or 4 years. 32 teams is about the right size.
 
Last edited:

snorkyller

Registered User
Dec 8, 2005
10
0
An NHL team at Quebec city, with an new arena, would get soldout with an attendance of at least 19000 every game.... There's no doubt about it! Just as Montreal is doing. There's no difference between Montreal fans and Quebec fans. They are all crazy fans. Just remember the Canadiens-Quebec rivalty.

So what's the problem? Is it new arena? Is it just that? What is the problem with building a new arena in an incredible hockey market like Quebec city?!!?

They managed to build new 20000 places arenas in Florida and they're getting even less attendance than those the Nordiques was getting in his old 15000 places Colisee...

I watched the Devils-Flames game yesterday and I could not believe my eyes as much the New Jersey arena was empty. There could be no more than 2000 people there. They give 13000 of attendance in the stats on nhl.com... 13000??? That's a lie!

The loose of Winnipeg and Quebec team come from the big boss of the nhl. They wanted to expand the nhl in new markets and they just stole good franchises to some cities to start well new ones in the USA. And now they're trying to save USA franchise by lying on their attendance... Pathetic!!!
 

AdmiralPred

Registered User
Jun 9, 2005
1,923
0
snorkyller said:
An NHL team at Quebec city, with an new arena, would get soldout with an attendance of at least 19000 every game.... There's no doubt about it! Just as Montreal is doing. There's no difference between Montreal fans and Quebec fans. They are all crazy fans. Just remember the Canadiens-Quebec rivalty.
Didn't the owner in Quebec sell out the fans?

And wasn't there a time when many players complained about playing in Quebec? Maybe it was the arena, but there were some grumblings about players not wanting to live there.


snorkyller said:
They managed to build new 20000 places arenas in Florida and they're getting even less attendance than those the Nordiques was getting in his old 15000 places Colisee...
I think they play basketball there too. Do the Miami Heat play in the same arena as the Panthers? That might be part of the reason for 20,000 seats. That and the occasional game or series that you can sellout with that many seats in hand.

I'm thinking that on the overall, in any professional sport, only a few select clubs will sellout most all of their games, year after year, regardless of the day of the week or the team that blows into town.


snorkyller said:
The loose of Winnipeg and Quebec team come from the big boss of the nhl. They wanted to expand the nhl in new markets and they just stole good franchises to some cities to start well new ones in the USA. And now they're trying to save USA franchise by lying on their attendance... Pathetic!!!
I don't think it was any great consperacy by the 'big boss' of the NHL to get those teams out of their respective cities. I think the owners of the Nords and the Jets pretty much sold everyone out when they couldn't get the deals they wanted.
 

Gnashville

HFBoards Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2003
13,683
3,510
Crossville
snorkyller said:
I watched the Devils-Flames game yesterday and I could not believe my eyes as much the New Jersey arena was empty. There could be no more than 2000 people there. They give 13000 of attendance in the stats on nhl.com... 13000??? That's a lie!

The loose of Winnipeg and Quebec team come from the big boss of the nhl. They wanted to expand the nhl in new markets and they just stole good franchises to some cities to start well new ones in the USA. And now they're trying to save USA franchise by lying on their attendance... Pathetic!!!
So you were able to count the people from the TV?
The biggest lie is that Bettmam moved Quebec and Winnipeg. Those teams failed and the Owners moved them!!!!!! the blame lies in those cities not in Bettman. The cities refused to build the arenas and the teams moved.
 

jester099

Registered User
Aug 19, 2005
2,022
0
Montreal
Gnashville said:
So you were able to count the people from the TV?
The biggest lie is that Bettmam moved Quebec and Winnipeg. Those teams failed and the Owners moved them!!!!!! the blame lies in those cities not in Bettman. The cities refused to build the arenas and the teams moved.

Actually, I think the blame is more on the screwed economics of the game at the time...
 

HansH

Unwelcome Spectre
Feb 2, 2005
5,294
482
San Diego
www.mib.org
1) Tampa Bay is in trouble? Does the person who made that statement pay ANY attention to the actual attendance figures? #2 out of 30, more than 20,000 a game, outdrawing sold-out Detroit, and behind only Montreal... but sure, they're in trouble.

2) Guy laLiberte (sp?) may indeed want to build an arena -- but what would make that more economically viable than new arenas in KC or Houston? The new arena in Winnipeg is proof positive that "build it and the NHL will come" is a fallacy. Now, yes, a new Montreal arena would almost certainly be a better bet than the Winnipeg arena (because it would be NHL-sized, not the "NHL lite" sizing that Winnipeg went with), but would Guy also be owning the franchise? If not, you still have to find someone willing to risk their own money on a team -- which has been absent since the 'Diques left.

3) I believe the term "minor league Canada" wasn't meant as an insult to Canada, calling the country "minor league", but was describing the markets that people are discussing -- right now, Winnipeg is part of "minor league Canada", and Toronto is part of "major league Canada".
 

Gnashville

HFBoards Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2003
13,683
3,510
Crossville
jester099 said:
Actually, I think the blame is more on the screwed economics of the game at the time...
Somewhat true, but how can people say "Pittsburgh doesn't care about hockey because they won't build them a new arena" and then say Winnipeg and Quebec deserve team. When those cities would have never lost their teams if they would have built arenas. Why blame the NHL, Bettman, Nashville, Carolina, Phoenix, Tampa, ECT.? Because they stepped up to the plate with modern arenas. Expansion was going to happen regardless, so why give Winnipeg or Quebec a team in the same old decrepit arenas when other cities were willing to build modern and profitable ones? BTW I don't believe either city applied for expansion in 96. How could Bettman award them a team when they didn't even have a proposal?
 

jester099

Registered User
Aug 19, 2005
2,022
0
Montreal
HansH said:
2) Guy laLiberte (sp?) may indeed want to build an arena -- but what would make that more economically viable than new arenas in KC or Houston? The new arena in Winnipeg is proof positive that "build it and the NHL will come" is a fallacy. Now, yes, a new Montreal arena would almost certainly be a better bet than the Winnipeg arena (because it would be NHL-sized, not the "NHL lite" sizing that Winnipeg went with), but would Guy also be owning the franchise? If not, you still have to find someone willing to risk their own money on a team -- which has been absent since the 'Diques left.

http://ahl.leaguestat.com/stats/statdisplay.php?type=standings

http://ahl.leaguestat.com/stats/schedule.php?type=attendance

Houston has one of the best teams in the AHL, are in the middle of the league for attendence at under 5000 / game.

http://www.lhjmq.qc.ca/lang_fr/inde...seasonSubType=&report=TeamsAttendenciesAtHome

http://www.lhjmq.qc.ca/lang_fr/inde...e=&report=standings_TeamsStandingsForPlayoffs

Quebec draws over 7 000 / game with a junior team.

You can say all you like, people in Houston don't care about hockey. People in Quebec city do. Quebec is a decent Hockey city, Houston is nowhere in sight when it comes to hockey.

I don't care how big Houston is, you just can't say for sure a team in Houston would draw more than in Quebec. Chances are they would be WAY more people attending in QC.
 

jester099

Registered User
Aug 19, 2005
2,022
0
Montreal
Gnashville said:
Somewhat true, but how can people say "Pittsburgh doesn't care about hockey because they won't build them a new arena" and then say Winnipeg and Quebec deserve team. When those cities would have never lost their teams if they would have built arenas. Why blame the NHL, Bettman, Nashville, Carolina, Phoenix, Tampa, ECT.? Because they stepped up to the plate with modern arenas. Expansion was going to happen regardless, so why give Winnipeg or Quebec a team in the same old decrepit arenas when other cities were willing to build modern and profitable ones? BTW I don't believe either city applied for expansion in 96. How could Bettman award them a team when they didn't even have a proposal?

I DON'T think they should give them a team if they don't build a new arena... That would be stupid IMHO...

I'm not sure that Quebec felt it could compete even with a new Arena... The owner thought the economics were really screwed, and he decided to sell when the owners gave in to the players in the CBA negociations...

I think it would have been difficult for QC under the old CBA, and that now, without being one of the richest, they can compete...
 

AdmiralPred

Registered User
Jun 9, 2005
1,923
0
jester099 said:
And out come the attendance stats. Took a lot longer than I thought.


jester099 said:
You can say all you like, people in Houston don't care about hockey. People in Quebec city do. Quebec is a decent Hockey city, Houston is nowhere in sight when it comes to hockey.

I don't care how big Houston is, you just can't say for sure a team in Houston would draw more than in Quebec. Chances are they would be WAY more people attending in QC.
Where's Squiddy?
 

jester099

Registered User
Aug 19, 2005
2,022
0
Montreal
AdmiralPred said:
And out come the attendance stats. Took a lot longer than I thought.

Seams to me it's a better base than just going out saying Houston is a better market for Hockey than QC based on nothing...
 

AdmiralPred

Registered User
Jun 9, 2005
1,923
0
jester099 said:
Seams to me it's a better base than just going out saying Houston is a better market for Hockey than QC based on nothing...
I only comment because this is when the attendance-stats posting battle begins in the expansion/relocation threads. A few attendance tables and links get posted, then come the "this market is better" comments, a few more junior/AHL/1978 Atlanta Flames attendance stats are posted, followed by a few digs against some non-traditional markets, thread gets locked. Repeat.
 

HansH

Unwelcome Spectre
Feb 2, 2005
5,294
482
San Diego
www.mib.org
You _cannot_ make a comparison of AHL attendance to NHL attendance in a market, period. Just look at Minnesota -- the IHL Moose failed and became the Winnipeg Moose, but the NHL Wild are _very_ successful. Low attendance at a low level does not mean a higher level won't be more successful -- the UHL in Binghamton was a 2k/night disaster, but the AHL in the same city is trucking along at 4k and above.

Add that to the fact that you can't compare the AHL in Houston to juniors in Canada, and your stats, while interesting, are meaningless to this discussion.

It's about the Benjamins -- and yes, the difference between a Benjamin and a hundred Loonies also factors in. Corporate size and sponsorship (and willingness to spend on a team) also factor in, no matter how "nowhere on the map" you believe a city is for hockey.

It comes down to money. Who's going to pay more for the Capitals franchise to move them into their new arena -- Alexander, Baldwin (in KC), or some unnamed nebulous owner in an arena that MIGHT be built by the guy who runs Cirque?

Plus -- Houston _has_ their arena, KC is already underway on their arena. Quebec has a rumor and a dream, and nothing more. When it's time to pull the plug on Pittsburg or Washington (which IMO will be sooner rather than later), and there are two existing buildings in the US, competing with a rumor and a dream in QC, then who will the Pens or Caps sell to, hm?
 

jester099

Registered User
Aug 19, 2005
2,022
0
Montreal
HansH said:
You _cannot_ make a comparison of AHL attendance to NHL attendance in a market, period. Just look at Minnesota -- the IHL Moose failed and became the Winnipeg Moose, but the NHL Wild are _very_ successful. Low attendance at a low level does not mean a higher level won't be more successful -- the UHL in Binghamton was a 2k/night disaster, but the AHL in the same city is trucking along at 4k and above.

Add that to the fact that you can't compare the AHL in Houston to juniors in Canada, and your stats, while interesting, are meaningless to this discussion.

It's about the Benjamins -- and yes, the difference between a Benjamin and a hundred Loonies also factors in. Corporate size and sponsorship (and willingness to spend on a team) also factor in, no matter how "nowhere on the map" you believe a city is for hockey.

It comes down to money. Who's going to pay more for the Capitals franchise to move them into their new arena -- Alexander, Baldwin (in KC), or some unnamed nebulous owner in an arena that MIGHT be built by the guy who runs Cirque?

Plus -- Houston _has_ their arena, KC is already underway on their arena. Quebec has a rumor and a dream, and nothing more. When it's time to pull the plug on Pittsburg or Washington (which IMO will be sooner rather than later), and there are two existing buildings in the US, competing with a rumor and a dream in QC, then who will the Pens or Caps sell to, hm?

but still, moving a franchise is not something you do overnight... It took something like 5 years to move the expos...

That they already have an arena in Houston or KC to me isn't a good reason to choose them over another city... If they have the certainty that the arena will be built in time, they shouldn't ignore a candidate...

We could argu all day, and I understand the argument that there is more people, but it's really the only argument for those city and to me, it's not the only factor to take into consideration... All the other factors in my mind would point to Winnipeg / Quebec (assuming that an arena is built and an investor decides to buy a team)
 

QcS

Registered User
Sep 13, 2003
2,045
0
au Québec!
Visit site
AdmiralPred said:
Didn't the owner in Quebec sell out the fans?

And wasn't there a time when many players complained about playing in Quebec? Maybe it was the arena, but there were some grumblings about players not wanting to live there.

The owner did not "sell out" the fans.. he made a business decision and it proved to be the best one. No one is arguing that Québec could have been viable with the 90's version of the NHL salary structure.. at least, not competitively. The salaries were going up at ridiculous speed and Aubut felt they would have lost the team (and he would have lost a lot of money) eventually.

Québec fans were pissed at him at the time, but later realized why he did what he did.

As for the players not wanting to play in Québec, other than Eric Lindros i don't recall any. A lot of players have wanted out of many cities in the NHL, that's not typical of Québec. In fact, i remember some players really loving playing there. It's quite a spectacular city, and it's a perfect example of what a hockey city is like. Another poster mentioned it, but the Québec Remparts are drawing great crowds. I have visited many cities in North America, and i must say that i still think Québec City is one of the (if not THE) most beautiful.

A complex combining the Cirque du Soleil with an NHL team would work GREAT there.
Plus, imagine the crazy rivalries a division with Montréal, Québec, Toronto, Ottawa and Boston would have. :)
 

AdmiralPred

Registered User
Jun 9, 2005
1,923
0
jester099 said:
but still, moving a franchise is not something you do overnight... It took something like 5 years to move the expos...

That they already have an arena in Houston or KC to me isn't a good reason to choose them over another city... If they have the certainty that the arena will be built in time, they shouldn't ignore a candidate...

We could argu all day, and I understand the argument that there is more people, but it's really the only argument for those city and to me, it's not the only factor to take into consideration... All the other factors in my mind would point to Winnipeg / Quebec (assuming that an arena is built and an investor decides to buy a team)
Those are two VERY big assumptions. Assuming an investor comes in and an arena is built in Oshkosh, Wisconsin an NHL team will come. *Yes, obvious exaggeration*
 

futurcorerock

Registered User
Nov 15, 2003
6,831
0
Columbus, OH
jester099 said:
but still, moving a franchise is not something you do overnight... It took something like 5 years to move the expos...

That they already have an arena in Houston or KC to me isn't a good reason to choose them over another city... If they have the certainty that the arena will be built in time, they shouldn't ignore a candidate...

We could argu all day, and I understand the argument that there is more people, but it's really the only argument for those city and to me, it's not the only factor to take into consideration... All the other factors in my mind would point to Winnipeg / Quebec (assuming that an arena is built and an investor decides to buy a team)
There you go comparing apples and oranges again

The Expos came under ownership of Major League Baseball for much of that time

Ballparks and Stadiums are two different animals, you can host a wide variety of events in an offseason at an arena to draw in addition revenue. This is why the hockey-exclusive arenas didn't go out of business with the lockout.

As far as your comparison of AHL and NHL attendance figures... pathetic. Houston has the largest non-NHL supported TV market in North America. They outrank places like Nashville and Columbus who DO have franchises.
 

AdmiralPred

Registered User
Jun 9, 2005
1,923
0
Leph28 said:
The owner did not "sell out" the fans.. he made a business decision and it proved to be the best one. No one is arguing that Québec could have been viable with the 90's version of the NHL salary structure.. at least, not competitively. The salaries were going up at ridiculous speed and Aubut felt they would have lost the team (and he would have lost a lot of money) eventually.

Québec fans were pissed at him at the time, but later realized why he did what he did.

As for the players not wanting to play in Québec, other than Eric Lindros i don't recall any. A lot of players have wanted out of many cities in the NHL, that's not typical of Québec. In fact, i remember some players really loving playing there. It's quite a spectacular city, and it's a perfect example of what a hockey city is like. Another poster mentioned it, but the Québec Remparts are drawing great crowds. I have visited many cities in North America, and i must say that i still think Québec City is one of the (if not THE) most beautiful.

A complex combining the Cirque du Soleil with an NHL team would work GREAT there.
Plus, imagine the crazy rivalries a division with Montréal, Québec, Toronto, Ottawa and Boston would have. :)
That's cool. I had thought there was a more shaddy situation surrounding Aubut and the sale. As for the players, I also thought that the Lindros situation had just brought a much bigger issue to light. It's been a while since I have thought of or revisited the issue.

And yes, the rivalries. I do vaguely remember them being mentioned way back in the old (pre-SportsChannel America) ESPN days.
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
AdmiralPred said:
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? ;)


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


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.


Weren't the Moose booted out of Minnesota when the Wild were created/XCEL built, and didn't their ownership state they aren't moving again and even Phoenix (the former Jets ) moved to Glendale last year.
 

snorkyller

Registered User
Dec 8, 2005
10
0
It is clear for everyone in Quebec that at least 75% of the reason why Marcel Aubut sold the Quebec Nordiques is to get himself millions of $$$. Everyone his angry at him for that. But Aubut just got benefit of the situation as any other at his place would have done. The problem is not him but the fact that the NHL did nothing to help the Nordiques and the Jets, knowing the economic reality in Canada.

You can't say that the Canada governement didn't want to show the money to build new arenas because it is an economic issue. It's the simple fact that there's pretty much more money in USA that in Canada.

We can't build new arenas everywhere here in Canada as they can do in USA!!!

NHL was expanding at this time. The priority was to sell hockey in USA and to help teams and new franchises in USA. At the same time, they were teams in bigs difficulties in Canada, even the powerfull Nordiques which was a Stanley cup contender. To help Winnipeg and Quebec wasn't a priority for the NHL and we saw the result.

I think that the NHL, with his expansion in the US, set the economic realities whithin the league that broke definitely all the chances of survival for Winnipeg and Quebec.

The Montreal Expos baseball team wasn't able to survive because of weak attendances. So I wonder how a hockey team in Washington or in Florida could survive to weak attendances.

When I went in Florida in 2001, I asked informations to go at a Panthers game and I was not able to find anyone who know what is the "Florida Panthers". :amazed:

I don't know any player other than Lindros who didn't want to live in Québec City
 

AdmiralPred

Registered User
Jun 9, 2005
1,923
0
CHRDANHUTCH said:
AdmiralPred said:
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.
Weren't the Moose booted out of Minnesota when the Wild were created/XCEL built, and didn't their ownership state they aren't moving again and even Phoenix (the former Jets ) moved to Glendale last year.
I don't know the Moose situation, you tell me. All I know is The Wild came into the league and the Moose moved to Manitoba.

And what does the Coyotes and Glendale have to do with anything? They're still the Phoenix Coyotes are they not? Still in the same market?
 

jester099

Registered User
Aug 19, 2005
2,022
0
Montreal
futurcorerock said:
There you go comparing apples and oranges again

The Expos came under ownership of Major League Baseball for much of that time

Ballparks and Stadiums are two different animals, you can host a wide variety of events in an offseason at an arena to draw in addition revenue. This is why the hockey-exclusive arenas didn't go out of business with the lockout.

As far as your comparison of AHL and NHL attendance figures... pathetic. Houston has the largest non-NHL supported TV market in North America. They outrank places like Nashville and Columbus who DO have franchises.

I never compared AHL and NHL, I'm not stupid.

I compared, Junior and AHL. It's not the best comparison, but I would tend to think AHL (a professinal league) has more attendance than Junior in the first place... This was only meant to proove that people in Quebec are crazy about hockey while people in Houston are more indiferent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->