Potential markets for potential NHL expansion beyond 32

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,531
2,058
Tatooine
You should not focus only to North America. In 10-20 years there will be (maybe) possible to travel from New York to London in 2-3 hours, from LA to Tokyo in 4-5 hours. Then it could be possible to expand this league beyond North America.

This isn't true, hasn't ever been true, and will never be true.

The technology for this kind of travel has been around since for 50 years. These flights have been available since the Concorde flights. It hasn't happened in the 50 years since the technology has existed, what the heck makes you think it's any time in the near future?

Plus, there is no huge regional league in Europe where easy travel exists. It is still almost entirely domestic leagues. Even the league's that are considered "regional," like the EBEL, 8/12 teams are in Austria and there's 1 team in each other close countries tightly clustered together.

In addition, there's no city that could make the NHL's business model work. Arenas aren't big enough, attendance isn't high enough, teams don't make anywhere near enough money for the NHL. These teams are barely breaking even as things are right now.IIHF - European attendance ranking

Why can't we people get their heads out of their butts and let domestic leagues around the world keep improving individually rather than try and keep thinking that an international league is the way to go. Absolute stupidity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oknazevad

dkitson16

Registered User
Jul 23, 2017
87
68
They wouldn't be anyone's primary team. No matter how big or wealthy Toronto is, being "the second favorite team" isn't going to be profitable enough to offset the costs.



Nords owner Marcel Aubut sold the team when he saw that within two years the team would be massively unprofitable. They never lost money, but with the rising salaries and Québec City's decreasing ability to compete with bigger markets left the writing on the wall. The new arena didn't change anything. Québec City is just too small. They're the same size and a less profitable market than Winnipeg, and Winnipeg lost more than $7 million last year. Canada is maxed out on teams, as much as it would be nice to see more. The markets are simply too small. There's a big difference between being a nice, big junior market and a NHL market.



The Rangers have a metro area 3 times bigger than Toronto. They valued the indemnity fees they received more than the market share they would lose. Toronto doesn't.

Nords lost plenty of money, at least at the end.

At the beginning of the 1993-94 season Aubut predicted losses of $5, $7 and $10 million over the next three seasons.

In lockout year (94-95)Aubut predicted losses of $8M if there was no lockout and $10M if there was a lockout. By the end of the season he was expecting to lose $10M.

With no new arena deal in site and no salary cap, the losses would continue to sky rocket and he sold.
 

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,531
2,058
Tatooine
Nords lost plenty of money, at least at the end.

At the beginning of the 1993-94 season Aubut predicted losses of $5, $7 and $10 million over the next three seasons.

In lockout year (94-95)Aubut predicted losses of $8M if there was no lockout and $10M if there was a lockout. By the end of the season he was expecting to lose $10M.

With no new arena deal in site and no salary cap, the losses would continue to sky rocket and he sold.

It's fairly common knowledge the Nordiques actually never lost money. When Aubut sold the team, the financial predictions were the next season he would start losing a lot of money. You're right that costs were going to keep increasing and revenues were going to keep decreasing, and the team was not going to be viable and still wouldn't be viable, but I haven't ever found anything that indicated the Nordiques ever posted a loss as members of the NHL.

ESPN.com - NHL - Quebec loves hockey, not NHL
Throwback Thursday: New look for Nordiques, if they stayed in Quebec - TheHockeyNews

If you have something that says otherwise I would like to see it.
 

dkitson16

Registered User
Jul 23, 2017
87
68
It's fairly common knowledge the Nordiques actually never lost money. When Aubut sold the team, the financial predictions were the next season he would start losing a lot of money. You're right that costs were going to keep increasing and revenues were going to keep decreasing, and the team was not going to be viable and still wouldn't be viable, but I haven't ever found anything that indicated the Nordiques ever posted a loss as members of the NHL.

ESPN.com - NHL - Quebec loves hockey, not NHL
Throwback Thursday: New look for Nordiques, if they stayed in Quebec - TheHockeyNews

If you have something that says otherwise I would like to see it.

First your Hockey New link confirms the losses. Expected losses for 94-95 were $10 million.

ESPN diputes this, but several things are possible:

Aubut was lying about the losses, to get a new arena.
Several newspaper reporters and books misquoted Aubut.
ESPN reporter was sloppy, and didn't do proper research, or looked at total profit / loss after sale was done because after Aubut and partners sold, the profit on the sale more than compensated for the losses.

My sources:

The NHL A Centennial History, D'Arcy Jenish - pg 349 in my version

A bunch of newspaper articles behind a paywall (no I didn't have access to local papers so it's all AP and CP reports and the like)
Oct 13, 1993 Medicine Hat News
Oct 9, 1994 Brandon Sun
Dec 24, 1994 Winnipeg Free Press
Feb 19, 1995 Arlington Heights (Chicago) Daily Record
 

TheWhiskeyThief

Registered User
Dec 24, 2017
1,625
496
You should not focus only to North America. In 10-20 years there will be (maybe) possible to travel from New York to London in 2-3 hours, from LA to Tokyo in 4-5 hours. Then it could be possible to expand this league beyond North America.
And dont worry about players. In the 90s they sure asked the same question.

In the 90s the available talent pool doubled with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the growth of USA hockey.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Your first statement says it all. Why would there be a "first owner" willing to roll the dice on Toronto II when they expansion fees are going to be north of $650 million (Seattle fee)?

Second decision is whether you want to build a state of the art arena, let's say $650 million similar to Little Caesars Arena in Detroit, or rent out Scotiabank Arena ice from MLSE. I don't think that would be something a new owner would want.

So you're already down $1.3 billion. And you're the no brand new team who may or may not build a Vegas Golden Knights? Ok let's say you do build a competitive hockey product.

Now are you going to position yourself as a cheaper alternative to the Maple Leafs after those start up costs? Do you want to spend the next 50 years trying to capture market share a la Clippers and Mets? I could see an off brand Toronto II NHL team being pretty cool in this city if we always had them. But to start up in 2020? Makes no sense other than trying to capitalize on the market's appetite for the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Ridiculous. The math at the beginning is "fine" but you run off the rails with the non-sense of "taking 50 years to capture the market share of the Clippers and Mets" absurdity at the end. Do you think the Mets only became popular 8 years ago?

The Clippers arrived in LA in 1985. (during the middle of a Lakers run where they won 5 championships in the decade). The Clippers are the second worst franchise by winning percentage in NBA history and have never made the Conference Finals in their history, let alone made an NBA Finals or won a championship. And the Clippers are STILL worth a ton of money.

Your point is that even if you made $80 million a year in operating income, which would be the fourth best NHL franchise profit wise, it would take 17 years to "make back" your $1.3 billion investment in a Toronto franchise. But you're totally forgetting the value of selling the franchise at any moment. After 17 years, you've made back your investment... AND OWN THE ASSET.

17 years ago, the Leafs were valued at $263 million. That's a 5.7x increase in value over 17 years. You buy Toronto II for $1.3 billion because in 20 years, they'll be worth $7.5 billion, and selling the franchise is all profit at that point.
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,849
51,516
Ridiculous. The math at the beginning is "fine" but you run off the rails with the non-sense of "taking 50 years to capture the market share of the Clippers and Mets" absurdity at the end. Do you think the Mets only became popular 8 years ago?

The Clippers arrived in LA in 1985. (during the middle of a Lakers run where they won 5 championships in the decade). The Clippers are the second worst franchise by winning percentage in NBA history and have never made the Conference Finals in their history, let alone made an NBA Finals or won a championship. And the Clippers are STILL worth a ton of money.

Your point is that even if you made $80 million a year in operating income, which would be the fourth best NHL franchise profit wise, it would take 17 years to "make back" your $1.3 billion investment in a Toronto franchise. But you're totally forgetting the value of selling the franchise at any moment. After 17 years, you've made back your investment... AND OWN THE ASSET.

17 years ago, the Leafs were valued at $263 million. That's a 5.7x increase in value over 17 years. You buy Toronto II for $1.3 billion because in 20 years, they'll be worth $7.5 billion, and selling the franchise is all profit at that point.

A little bit curious why you seem to be pushing Toronto II so hard.

I think if Toronto II always existed, it would be fine. They would survive and have a niche market built up over time, their own identity. I don’t think the economics make sense to start in 2020.

Frame it another way. Boston is a marquee franchise in MLB. They have a rabid fan base in New England and around the world. Does it make financial sense for MLB to stick another franchise in that market? Who would it be serving?

Do you really think an NHL property is going to be worth $7.5 billion in 20 years time?
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
In the 90s the available talent pool doubled with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the growth of USA hockey.

The talent pool for the NHL is just fine to expand. Dozens of roster spots go to rookies who aren't ready for the NHL yet and got their job over a veteran because either the team is rebuilding so why spend on a veteran, or the team is at the cap and can't afford a veteran.

The concept of "not enough talent" for expansion is a total myth because it implies that "playing hockey" (or any sport for that matter) is just ONE SKILL, when it's multi-faceted. It's not just getting a roster spot, but getting a roster spot on a team that fits your style that leads to success. More teams makes it easier for players to find a job where they fit in better.

There IS a finite number of elite players, but we judge elite players based on the numbers they put up, and opportunity to put up numbers creates more elite number players. So more secondary guys will look elite, more tertiary guys will look secondary, more fringe guys will look like role players, and no one will really tell the difference in overall quality of the league.
 

TheWhiskeyThief

Registered User
Dec 24, 2017
1,625
496
The talent pool for the NHL is just fine to expand. Dozens of roster spots go to rookies who aren't ready for the NHL yet and got their job over a veteran because either the team is rebuilding so why spend on a veteran, or the team is at the cap and can't afford a veteran.

The concept of "not enough talent" for expansion is a total myth because it implies that "playing hockey" (or any sport for that matter) is just ONE SKILL, when it's multi-faceted. It's not just getting a roster spot, but getting a roster spot on a team that fits your style that leads to success. More teams makes it easier for players to find a job where they fit in better.

There IS a finite number of elite players, but we judge elite players based on the numbers they put up, and opportunity to put up numbers creates more elite number players. So more secondary guys will look elite, more tertiary guys will look secondary, more fringe guys will look like role players, and no one will really tell the difference in overall quality of the league.

But you will. The change in scoring rates just with Vegas was noticeable, when Seattle joins, it will jump again.

Meanwhile, asides from the USA, the talent pool is rather static.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
A little bit curious why you seem to be pushing Toronto II so hard.

I think if Toronto II always existed, it would be fine. They would survive and have a niche market built up over time, their own identity. I don’t think the economics make sense to start in 2020.

Frame it another way. Boston is a marquee franchise in MLB. They have a rabid fan base in New England and around the world. Does it make financial sense for MLB to stick another franchise in that market? Who would it be serving?

Do you really think an NHL property is going to be worth $7.5 billion in 20 years time?

Pushing so hard? I have no interest in a second Toronto II team. You, however, as a Leafs fan, seem really insecure about a second team in the market (maybe because if they won a Cup before you did....?). I'm not talking trash on you and your team with that. I'm simply making an educated guess.

I'm a Mets fan. We're the red-headed step-child to the Yankees. Everyone knows it. No one really cares about it. My life as a Mets fan doesn't revolve around "catching up" to the Yankees, because that will never happen. We could win 20 championships in a row, and Yankees fans will still say "You're still at 22, we're at 27."

It doesn't make sense for a second MLB team in Boston, because the massive Red Sox fan base -- as you correctly point out - is made up of the 15 million people in New England (And all the New Englanders who left the area and remain Sox fans). Boston itself is probably too small for two teams, and while New England is certainly a big enough region for two teams, it really doesn't have a another top 40 population center that would be a good place for a team: Providence or Hartford.

And baseball has way more untapped areas than New England. The situation you describe would be better illustrated in California:

Bay Area: San Francisco/Oakland (12 US metro area) has 2 teams. Their TV footprint also includes 26 Sacramento (NBA/MLS), 35 San Jose (NHL/MLS/AHL/A+), 54 Fresno (AAA), 77 Stockton (AHL/A+), Modesto (A+).

Southern California: Los Angeles (2 metro area) has 2 teams. Their TV footprint includes Inland Empire. Inland Empire (Ontario/Riverside/San Bernadino) has 4.9 million people and is the #13 metro area in the US. They have an AHL team and a A+ baseball team. SOME LEAGUE SHOULD PUT A TEAM IN INLAND EMPIRE.

Also, MLB has untapped markets in Montreal, Portland, Nashville, Vancouver, San Antonio/Austin, Charlotte, etc.


My point here is that: I don't have a personal attachment to any potential expansion market, besides missing the Expos and Nordiques a little bit. I'm not "pushing GTA2" as an NHL market because I really want it to happen. I'm arguing with you because you're saying dumb things: It doesn't make economic sense to have a second team in GTA? That's crazy talk.

The NHL would be better with teams in Hamilton and GTA2. Actually making it happen would be the hard part, because there's only one way to do it: A Rogers/Bell MLSE divorce settlement.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
But you will. The change in scoring rates just with Vegas was noticeable, when Seattle joins, it will jump again.

Meanwhile, asides from the USA, the talent pool is rather static.

That's not a lack of talent. That's lack of balance. The scoring rate went up (20 goals per season, per team) by adding Vegas. Which means we didn't have a bunch of incompetent forwards join the league; and since the additional starting goalie was splitting the Fleury/Murray platoon in Pittsburgh, it wasn't lack of goaltending.

Basically, the supply of good NHL defensemen was lower than the supply of good NHL forwards. That's correct.
Just like MLB expansion: Pitching is worse because the supply of hitters was greater than supply of pitchers, so offense went up and more homers were hit.

Now, tell me how more goals and home runs is bad for hockey and baseball to sell to fans?

More markets have more fans seeing more highlights. Sounds like positive growth to me.
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,849
51,516
Pushing so hard? I have no interest in a second Toronto II team. You, however, as a Leafs fan, seem really insecure about a second team in the market (maybe because if they won a Cup before you did....?). I'm not talking trash on you and your team with that. I'm simply making an educated guess.

I'm a Mets fan. We're the red-headed step-child to the Yankees. Everyone knows it. No one really cares about it. My life as a Mets fan doesn't revolve around "catching up" to the Yankees, because that will never happen. We could win 20 championships in a row, and Yankees fans will still say "You're still at 22, we're at 27."

It doesn't make sense for a second MLB team in Boston, because the massive Red Sox fan base -- as you correctly point out - is made up of the 15 million people in New England (And all the New Englanders who left the area and remain Sox fans). Boston itself is probably too small for two teams, and while New England is certainly a big enough region for two teams, it really doesn't have a another top 40 population center that would be a good place for a team: Providence or Hartford.

And baseball has way more untapped areas than New England. The situation you describe would be better illustrated in California:

Bay Area: San Francisco/Oakland (12 US metro area) has 2 teams. Their TV footprint also includes 26 Sacramento (NBA/MLS), 35 San Jose (NHL/MLS/AHL/A+), 54 Fresno (AAA), 77 Stockton (AHL/A+), Modesto (A+).

Southern California: Los Angeles (2 metro area) has 2 teams. Their TV footprint includes Inland Empire. Inland Empire (Ontario/Riverside/San Bernadino) has 4.9 million people and is the #13 metro area in the US. They have an AHL team and a A+ baseball team. SOME LEAGUE SHOULD PUT A TEAM IN INLAND EMPIRE.

Also, MLB has untapped markets in Montreal, Portland, Nashville, Vancouver, San Antonio/Austin, Charlotte, etc.


My point here is that: I don't have a personal attachment to any potential expansion market, besides missing the Expos and Nordiques a little bit. I'm not "pushing GTA2" as an NHL market because I really want it to happen. I'm arguing with you because you're saying dumb things: It doesn't make economic sense to have a second team in GTA? That's crazy talk.

The NHL would be better with teams in Hamilton and GTA2. Actually making it happen would be the hard part, because there's only one way to do it: A Rogers/Bell MLSE divorce settlement.

I don't feel insecure about an NHL 2 team in Toronto, in some alternate universe where the Toronto II team always that would be pretty cool just to have from a rivalry point of view. From a civic pride perspective, the GTA, Golden Horseshoe, etc. probably deserves more NHL representation than places like Los Angeles and New York do. Hamilton would be fine, they'd have a bit more of a distinct flavour though it feels like you'd be replicating the Buffalo Sabres, but closer.

My only issue is for that NHL team to be starting at the ground floor right now in 2020 going up against MLSE as a corporate juggernaut that basically owns everything in the city except the Blue Jays. It's going to be expensive, the market position is going to be awkward (you're going to be a budget option to the Leafs after those expansion and arena fees?). If the Toronto II's came in before the Raptors merger and opening of the Air Canada Centre, I could see another team taking root. Right now, not really, unless it's just a crazy billionaire who wants that toy.
 

TheWhiskeyThief

Registered User
Dec 24, 2017
1,625
496
That's not a lack of talent. That's lack of balance. The scoring rate went up (20 goals per season, per team) by adding Vegas. Which means we didn't have a bunch of incompetent forwards join the league; and since the additional starting goalie was splitting the Fleury/Murray platoon in Pittsburgh, it wasn't lack of goaltending.

Basically, the supply of good NHL defensemen was lower than the supply of good NHL forwards. That's correct.
Just like MLB expansion: Pitching is worse because the supply of hitters was greater than supply of pitchers, so offense went up and more homers were hit.

Now, tell me how more goals and home runs is bad for hockey and baseball to sell to fans?

More markets have more fans seeing more highlights. Sounds like positive growth to me.
And you’re entirely missing the concept of diminishing returns.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,400
2,742
I don't feel insecure about an NHL 2 team in Toronto, in some alternate universe where the Toronto II team always that would be pretty cool just to have from a rivalry point of view. From a civic pride perspective, the GTA, Golden Horseshoe, etc. probably deserves more NHL representation than places like Los Angeles and New York do. Hamilton would be fine, they'd have a bit more of a distinct flavour though it feels like you'd be replicating the Buffalo Sabres, but closer.

My only issue is for that NHL team to be starting at the ground floor right now in 2020 going up against MLSE as a corporate juggernaut that basically owns everything in the city except the Blue Jays. It's going to be expensive, the market position is going to be awkward (you're going to be a budget option to the Leafs after those expansion and arena fees?). If the Toronto II's came in before the Raptors merger and opening of the Air Canada Centre, I could see another team taking root. Right now, not really, unless it's just a crazy billionaire who wants that toy.

A very very expensive toy. Team fees (expansion or purchase/relocation) arena costs (all private) then paying off buffalo and the leafs only to be basically 2nd fiddle in the toronto market. An all private arena is going to be hard to get a ROI with out enough dates.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,400
2,742
No to Quebec,the league doesnt want to get involved with the politics ....

We don't even know who would be the actually ownership group if quebec were to get the team back. The person that put in the bid in 2015 didn't have enough money to buy and operated it.
 

topshelf15

Registered User
May 5, 2009
27,993
6,005
We don't even know who would be the actually ownership group if quebec were to get the team back. The person that put in the bid in 2015 didn't have enough money to buy and operated it.
You could be right,I wouldnt mind another Canadian team ,and Quebec is a beautiful province ...But the lure of US dollars may have them waiting a little longer
 

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,531
2,058
Tatooine
You could be right,I wouldnt mind another Canadian team ,and Quebec is a beautiful province ...But the lure of US dollars may have them waiting a little longer

The fact that the NHL isn't expanding again let alone whatever you mean by "the lure of US dollars" certainly means Québec City won't be getting a team anytime even in the medium- to long-term future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: topshelf15

topshelf15

Registered User
May 5, 2009
27,993
6,005
The fact that the NHL isn't expanding again let alone whatever you mean by "the lure of US dollars" certainly means Québec City won't be getting a team anytime even in the medium- to long-term future.
Our dollar is trading around .70 cents to the US dollar,so it means exactly how I wrote it ....More money in big US markets
 

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,531
2,058
Tatooine
Our dollar is trading around .70 cents to the US dollar,so it means exactly how I wrote it ....More money in big US markets

I would have thought you meant more money available total, not just the exchange rate. Expanding to Vegas, a metro population of over 2 million with a huge economy, minimal sports competition, and widely sought after television rights offers far more money than Québec City. Seattle is double the size of Vegas in every aspect with just football to compete with for half the season. And those two markets offer millions of eyes and tens of millions of dollars that weren't being spent on hockey before.
 

topshelf15

Registered User
May 5, 2009
27,993
6,005
I would have thought you meant more money available total, not just the exchange rate. Expanding to Vegas, a metro population of over 2 million with a huge economy, minimal sports competition, and widely sought after television rights offers far more money than Québec City. Seattle is double the size of Vegas in every aspect with just football to compete with for half the season. And those two markets offer millions of eyes and tens of millions of dollars that weren't being spent on hockey before.
Quebec city while beautiful was never a draw,it made money back in the day...But there were some drawbacks,such as the french language debate...That made people uncomfortable,including some players,coaches and others...

Now I do believe that Quebec,s younger generation is far more receptive and willing to work with this.. Than the past one,but it still lingers a little...
 

Centrum Hockey

Registered User
Aug 2, 2018
2,089
727
Quebec city while beautiful was never a draw,it made money back in the day...But there were some drawbacks,such as the french language debate...That made people uncomfortable,including some players,coaches and others...

Now I do believe that Quebec,s younger generation is far more receptive and willing to work with this.. Than the past one,but it still lingers a little...
The NHL has been content on having Quebec's younger generation of fans embracing the hab's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: topshelf15

tank44

Registered User
Feb 1, 2012
639
163
Seattle, WA
If the owners do need an influx of cash due to the COVID recession, expansion does make sense. 1 in Canada (GTA2/Hamilton..... Quebec) and 1 in US (Houston................) would make the biggest bang for the buck and future TV revenues. Bring them online in 2021 with Seattle.
 

Centrum Hockey

Registered User
Aug 2, 2018
2,089
727
If the owners do need an influx of cash due to the COVID recession, expansion does make sense. 1 in Canada (GTA2/Hamilton..... Quebec) and 1 in US (Houston................) would make the biggest bang for the buck and future TV revenues. Bring them online in 2021 with Seattle.
Houston blew there chance by not taking advantage of the time period when seattle was in the arena politics stage. Even if Seattle was ultimately still chosen for team 32 at the very least it would have shown Houston was serious about nhl hockey.
 

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,531
2,058
Tatooine
Quebec city while beautiful was never a draw,it made money back in the day...But there were some drawbacks,such as the french language debate...That made people uncomfortable,including some players,coaches and others...

Now I do believe that Quebec,s younger generation is far more receptive and willing to work with this.. Than the past one,but it still lingers a little...

It is a bit deceptive to say they made money. The Nordiques made money until owner Marcel Aubut saw the financial reports indicating the team would start losing huge amounts of money in the immediate future and he dumped the team at the first opportunity to COMSAT in Colorado. Québec City would have drew continuously decreasing revenues and NHL expenses were and are continuously increasing.

While Québec as a whole is far more receptive to Anglos than it was 25 years ago, their ability to support a team to NHL standards still isn't there. Winnipeg's TNSE has to own and operate their own arena along with multiple properties around the arena in order to have the barely financially viable because the team as a singular asset loses money. Québec City and Winnipeg are fairly comparable NHL markets. If Winnipeg's ownership group needs to have all of these other assets to keep the Jets financially viable, the Québec City as it is doesn't have a prayer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: topshelf15

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->