Potential markets for potential NHL expansion beyond 32

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,545
2,070
Tatooine
At least until the owners receive their next business & personal financial accounting statements. :confused:

Every NHL ownership group is either well enough off that they won't need to sell, or dedicated enough that they won't sell. Most are a combination of the two. It's one of the reasons, or unintended consequence depending on who is asked, Bettman wildly inflated the NHL franchise price: almost exclusively the über rich, and a group of them in the case of some teams, can afford to be at the helm of a NHL franchise. That requires both exponentially high amounts of both money and dedication. No NHL franchise is in any financial trouble.
 

Centrum Hockey

Registered User
Aug 2, 2018
2,092
728
Every NHL ownership group is either well enough off that they won't need to sell, or dedicated enough that they won't sell. Most are a combination of the two. It's one of the reasons, or unintended consequence depending on who is asked, Bettman wildly inflated the NHL franchise price: almost exclusively the über rich, and a group of them in the case of some teams, can afford to be at the helm of a NHL franchise. That requires both exponentially high amounts of both money and dedication. No NHL franchise is in any financial trouble.
The BOG wont let just anyone buy a franchise either. Even if a NHL owner agrees to sell their team to someone like Tilman Fertitta for a bargain price the other 30 or 31 owners can vote to reject it .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Barclay Donaldson

FMichael

Registered User
Dec 22, 2010
5,319
5,280
Wisconsin
Every NHL ownership group is either well enough off that they won't need to sell, or dedicated enough that they won't sell. Most are a combination of the two. It's one of the reasons, or unintended consequence depending on who is asked, Bettman wildly inflated the NHL franchise price: almost exclusively the über rich, and a group of them in the case of some teams, can afford to be at the helm of a NHL franchise. That requires both exponentially high amounts of both money and dedication. No NHL franchise is in any financial trouble.
Coyotes?

They're better now, but man losing $$$ for the better portion of 20 years, and having the city of Glendale pay for much of their expenses was a joke on behalf of Bettman, and the BoG.
 

FMichael

Registered User
Dec 22, 2010
5,319
5,280
Wisconsin
The BOG of wont let just anyone buy a franchise either. Even if a NHL owner agrees to sell their team to someone like Tilman Fertitta for a bargain price the other 30 or 31 owners can vote to reject it .
And it's the BoG led by that fossil Jeremy Jacobs who won't allow for a team to relocate to Quebec City - even though they have their newish 18,000 arena, and a hockey crazy market - albeit small market.
 

Centrum Hockey

Registered User
Aug 2, 2018
2,092
728
And it's the BoG led by that fossil Jeremy Jacobs who won't allow for a team to relocate to Quebec City - even though they have their newish 18,000 arena, and a hockey crazy market - albeit small market.
Atlanta to Winnipeg hurt the NHL when it came to future TV Deals. I know they had no choice but leaving a large market for a hockey crazy small market is not a good business move. Ottawa to QC would probably be the only move that would have a minimal impact on the NHL's bottom line.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
29,257
8,686
Coyotes?

They're better now, but man losing $$$ for the better portion of 20 years, and having the city of Glendale pay for much of their expenses was a joke on behalf of Bettman, and the BoG.

And it's the BoG led by that fossil Jeremy Jacobs who won't allow for a team to relocate to Quebec City - even though they have their newish 18,000 arena, and a hockey crazy market - albeit small market.
Right. Let's ignore that whole "sports leagues should have the right to decide who can be an owner and who can't" aspect that was kind of critical to the NHL's involvement in the Phoenix/Glendale saga (which every other pro sports league came in to support the NHL's position on). Let's also ignore that whole IT'S 18,000 SEATS IN A HOCKEY-CRAZY MARKET ... though it's a small market, a number of players in the 90s hated playing there, and it would be getting crushed right now with the loonie at $1.40CN = $1US part of things.

It's all that stupid Jeremy Jacobs and his meddling friends. Probably his stupid dog, too.
 

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,545
2,070
Tatooine
Coyotes?

They're better now, but man losing $$$ for the better portion of 20 years, and having the city of Glendale pay for much of their expenses was a joke on behalf of Bettman, and the BoG.

Billionaire Alex Meruelo just took over the team in June 2019. His modus operandi is buying distressed assets with high potential, accessing that potential, and holding on to it rather than flipping it for a profit. He made it clear he was in it for the long haul in Arizona. There has been a noticeable improvement in the little time Meruelo as had, which this article explains very well: A look at the Coyotes recent attendance. There is no reason to think that the marked improvement won't continue, and many reasons to believe it will.

The team looking bad for Bettman and the board of governors means absolutely nothing. The Melnyk situation in Ottawa is far worse, and he isn't going anywhere. Bettman is dedicated to Phoenix. The league bought the team to prevent relocation by Balsillie, they told Fertitta to get lost when he tried to buy the Coyotes cheap, the team isn't going anywhere and it certainly isn't going under.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Centrum Hockey

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,499
2,789
Billionaire Alex Meruelo just took over the team in June 2019. His modus operandi is buying distressed assets with high potential, accessing that potential, and holding on to it rather than flipping it for a profit. He made it clear he was in it for the long haul in Arizona. There has been a noticeable improvement in the little time Meruelo as had, which this article explains very well: A look at the Coyotes recent attendance. There is no reason to think that the marked improvement won't continue, and many reasons to believe it will.

The team looking bad for Bettman and the board of governors means absolutely nothing. The Melnyk situation in Ottawa is far worse, and he isn't going anywhere. Bettman is dedicated to Phoenix. The league bought the team to prevent relocation by Balsillie, they told Fertitta to get lost when he tried to buy the Coyotes cheap, the team isn't going anywhere and it certainly isn't going under.

The team is dedicated to phoenix until they are not. They still need a new arena and if that doesn't happen then what?
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,658
2,536
I agree with what other posters have written here. There is no franchise which is at such risk right now that any owner would need to sell at a discounted price. No owner has so many of his eggs in the NHL basket that it would come to that for him (exception might be Ottawa - Melnyk has issues, for sure).

Since it not a financial need, no one will sell, because that would lower the franchise values of all of the teams. The right financial play here is to wait COVID out and see how things develop in the next couple of years.

Long term?? Well, let's ask the obvious question: What is the worst possible outcome of this virus event?
Answer: There aren't enough people willing to risk sitting in an arena with 18,000 other people for a long time. That's the worst. Post-virus, the players will want to play, the owners will want them to play, and the cities will want some form of entertainment happening. People in general, even if they don't want to attend, will still be interested in watching at home - perhaps more so than now.

The effect of that will be, simply, that the league in toto will have less revenue, because much of revenue is ticket sales. So, the cap decreases. Now, let's compare franchises.....If the local ticket sales and local revenue decreases as a percentage of league wide revenue, the teams most hurt financially are the ones who are doing the best right now. In such a scenario, losses for places like AZ and FL actually become more manageable (this ignores the remainder of the owner's portfolio, of course.)

So, conclusion, even long term, it isn't very likely that any franchise has to fold. And, strangely enough, if you consider a post-COVID world, with a new normal driven by fear of viruses and the next pandemic, in which arena seating has much more empty space, it's actually possible that the NHL would emerge healthier, in the sense that the finances of the league would be much more evenly spread between Team 1 and Team 32.

If there is an issue in Ottawa - Melnyk doesn't have a lot of cash, and his biggest asset is the Sens and the arena - that might be the one place where something would need to happen if he can't continue. Based on prior moves, it seems highly likely that what would happen is that the NHL would make every effort to find a buyer to keep the team local. The wise move is never to move quickly..... If that can't happen (and we are deep in the realm of conjecture here.....) and the team must relocate, then Quebec might be an option (it's a lateral move, basically and no one in the states would think poor of the league for that kind of move)...

But who knows.

As for AZ, I agree completely that the franchise has been moving toward a better situation for a couple of years. Since they don't have any responsibility toward the arena, their only losses while this COVID situation continues are going to be payroll, and they may come out better than they went in, actually.
 

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,545
2,070
Tatooine
And it's the BoG led by that fossil Jeremy Jacobs who won't allow for a team to relocate to Quebec City - even though they have their newish 18,000 arena, and a hockey crazy market - albeit small market.

I can't tell if you're actually being serious or not.

The NHL is a business. Québec City would be tied for smallest NHL market with Winnipeg. Winnipeg lost $7 million last year (only 4 teams made less). TSNE openly admits they need a playoff run each year to break even. The only potential owner is PK Péladeau, who admitted the team would never make money and wouldn't even be feasible without his Quebecor company owning the arena.

It's a hockey crazed market. But it would lose money and not offer put new eyes on the league. New markets like Vegas and Seattle offer millions more eyes on TVs and coffers in chests than Québec City could ever offer. While I don't like Jacobs or most of the things that he does, it is one of the most intelligent business decisions the league will ever make. If you add half a million more people in the market, the Nordiques never would have left in the first place. And until they start cloning some French-Canadians to put there or they get very busy in bed during this international pandemic, a team won't return there.
 

Centrum Hockey

Registered User
Aug 2, 2018
2,092
728
The team is dedicated to phoenix until they are not. They still need a new arena and if that doesn't happen then what?
The NHL would take over the team until there is no viable options left in The Arizona area. before they let it get sold to fertitta for his price. Which probably was around 100-200 million and probably would have included selling off assets such as the AHL roadrunners and shedding payroll to reduce the amount of real money he would be losing by buying the team.
 

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,545
2,070
Tatooine
The team is dedicated to phoenix until they are not. They still need a new arena and if that doesn't happen then what?

If your argument is that they need a new arena and the league will not veto a relocation if they can't get one, then you are sorely mistaken. I encourage you to read about the Ottawa Senators arena, Eugene Melnyk's comments at Centennial Classic, and the league's crushing response.

The league is dedicated to the market, not just Meruelo. I'm guessing you've never heard of Jim Balsillie and the league owning and operating the team rather than have him snag it. Fertitta offered them a great arena in a big, untapped market and Bettman told him to get lost. Meruelo is just as dedicated to the market as the NHL. Everything he has done in his brief tenure and everything the NHL has done in the 24 years the team has been in the city has indicated that the team isn't "dedicated to Phoenix until they are not." Quite the opposite actually.

Meruelo is on record as agreeing that the team needs a new arena. I'm guessing you don't know about the Meruelo group, which is a construction and real estate development firm. Like the other businesses Meruelo has bought and developed, it won't be quickly, but it will be done correctly.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,658
2,536
^^^^^^
I'm actually not so convinced that the NHL is committed to any market as much as they are committed to "doing what is best for the other owners financially."

For example, it seems fairly sure that the NHL had plans to relocate to Winnipeg if the City of Glendale didn't offer them 25M twice as a cover for losses and to run the arena (this was shortly after coming out of bankruptcy). So, I think we would say that, if it were necessary, the team could relocate....

But, honestly, right now the league isn't losing anything in Arizona. The only person who might be losing anything is Meruelo. He bought the team, and the losses are his. (Now, I am equally sure that we will never know exactly how much he paid for it - there are so many levels of debt on that franchise (or have been in the past) and it's so easy to send out a press release with obscure claim about price). So, there is no need for the BOG to even think of a relocation.

And, even if everything crashed, and Meruelo dropped the keys on Bettman's desk...The league taking ownership back until the new normal settles in is much preferable to selling to Fertitta on the cheap.

Again, it's not "Arizona as a market" as much as "How can we protect the value of the other franchises" which is the reasoning of the BOG
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bostonzamboni

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,499
2,789
The NHL is still on record saying glendale won't do long term even after Meruelo bought the team. Now that they have a billionare owner with money perhaps they'll get that new arena.
 

FMichael

Registered User
Dec 22, 2010
5,319
5,280
Wisconsin
Right. Let's ignore that whole "sports leagues should have the right to decide who can be an owner and who can't" aspect that was kind of critical to the NHL's involvement in the Phoenix/Glendale saga (which every other pro sports league came in to support the NHL's position on). Let's also ignore that whole IT'S 18,000 SEATS IN A HOCKEY-CRAZY MARKET ... though it's a small market, a number of players in the 90s hated playing there, and it would be getting crushed right now with the loonie at $1.40CN = $1US part of things.

It's all that stupid Jeremy Jacobs and his meddling friends. Probably his stupid dog, too.
Outside of Lindros - who else did't want to play in Quebec?

The Nordiques were never in dire straits like we've seen the Yotes - as in they were never bailed out by the NHL countless years, and had 90% plus capacity in their own barn...Yeah - the Nordiques were relocated, but that was because Bettman, and the BoG were willing to risk a loss in order to be in an American market...It's worked for the Nords/Avs, but not much so for the Jets/Yotes.

As far as the currency exchange goes - as others have mentioned - todays owners have billions to play with, and a group in QC wouldn't be any different...If Winnipeg can make some $$$ - I'm certain a new group in QC can do the same.

The Business Of Hockey
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kimota

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,545
2,070
Tatooine
Outside of Lindros - who else did't want to play in Quebec?

The Nordiques were never in dire straits like we've seen the Yotes - as in they were never bailed out by the NHL countless years, and had 90% plus capacity in their own barn...Yeah - the Nordiques were relocated, but that was because Bettman, and the BoG were willing to risk a loss in order to be in an American market...It's worked for the Nords/Avs, but not much so for the Jets/Yotes.

As far as the currency exchange goes - as others have mentioned - todays owners have billions to play with, and a group in QC wouldn't be any different...If Winnipeg can make some $$$ - I'm certain a new group in QC can do the same.

The Business Of Hockey

The Nordiques were not in dire straits? Owner Marcel Aubut asked Québec's provincial government for a bailout and was rejected by Jacques Parizeau. They never lost money, but they also never handed out big contracts and minimized their expenses in a vain attempt to stay viable. The Nords would have bled money once the rising salaries seen around the turn of the century hit them.

As far as the ownership, Québec City would be different. PK Péladeau's total net worth is $1.5 billion, with most of it being his ownership of Québecor. The cost of a NHL franchise is at least $750 million, so there goes half of all the money he has. Giving out contracts to front office, coaching staff, and everything else that's needed to run a NHL franchise without the puck dropping is going to take up a huge chunk of the rest. Winnipeg isn't making money, I don't know why you think that they are or where you got that from. They lost $7 million last year. It's common knowledge the only way the Jets break even let alone make money is if the have a good playoff run.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,658
2,536
Outside of Lindros - who else did't want to play in Quebec?

The Nordiques were never in dire straits like we've seen the Yotes - as in they were never bailed out by the NHL countless years, and had 90% plus capacity in their own barn...Yeah - the Nordiques were relocated, but that was because Bettman, and the BoG were willing to risk a loss in order to be in an American market...It's worked for the Nords/Avs, but not much so for the Jets/Yotes.

As far as the currency exchange goes - as others have mentioned - todays owners have billions to play with, and a group in QC wouldn't be any different...If Winnipeg can make some $$$ - I'm certain a new group in QC can do the same.

The Business Of Hockey

I thought the Nordiques moved because there was no new arena on the horizon, and with more and more of the teams in the league having new arenas with club seating, etc, the old Colisee Pepsi wasn't going to be a valid place to play in a few years, so before it got bad, Michel Aubut sold the team to Denver. I'm not even sure Bettman was commissioner at that time, and I am sure that the other owners weren't going to take a loss either way - it was all on local ownership.

As for Winnipeg: Same situation. The old Winnipeg Arena had seating for about 10,000, and no boxes or club seats. Ownership was not going to make it with that setup, and they wanted to sell. There are differing reports, but it seems there was a local consortium of 40 or so people who jointly wanted to buy, but the league wanted a single ownership. So, Burke and Gluckstern purchased them.....but they wanted to move to Minneapolis, and they thought they had a deal there. Until the city of Minneapolis decided not to give them a handout. So, they ended up in Phoenix by accident. It was no grand plan, and no "strategy to move to US markets." All local decisions.
 

FMichael

Registered User
Dec 22, 2010
5,319
5,280
Wisconsin
The Nordiques were not in dire straits? Owner Marcel Aubut asked Québec's provincial government for a bailout and was rejected by Jacques Parizeau. They never lost money, but they also never handed out big contracts and minimized their expenses in a vain attempt to stay viable. The Nords would have bled money once the rising salaries seen around the turn of the century hit them.

As far as the ownership, Québec City would be different. PK Péladeau's total net worth is $1.5 billion, with most of it being his ownership of Québecor. The cost of a NHL franchise is at least $750 million, so there goes half of all the money he has. Giving out contracts to front office, coaching staff, and everything else that's needed to run a NHL franchise without the puck dropping is going to take up a huge chunk of the rest. Winnipeg isn't making money, I don't know why you think that they are or where you got that from. They lost $7 million last year. It's common knowledge the only way the Jets break even let alone make money is if the have a good playoff run.
Yeah - I'm a year, or 2 behind the times when it comes to NHL franchise finances - I know in past years with playoff runs they made $$$ - in particular the Jets were in the black 2012-2018.

Winnipeg Jets on the Forbes The Business of Hockey List

I find it humorous with the BoG, and their concern for small Canadian markets while there's more $$$ lost on a handful of American markets.

I'm just nostalgic is all.
 

FMichael

Registered User
Dec 22, 2010
5,319
5,280
Wisconsin
I thought the Nordiques moved because there was no new arena on the horizon, and with more and more of the teams in the league having new arenas with club seating, etc, the old Colisee Pepsi wasn't going to be a valid place to play in a few years, so before it got bad, Michel Aubut sold the team to Denver. I'm not even sure Bettman was commissioner at that time, and I am sure that the other owners weren't going to take a loss either way - it was all on local ownership.

As for Winnipeg: Same situation. The old Winnipeg Arena had seating for about 10,000, and no boxes or club seats. Ownership was not going to make it with that setup, and they wanted to sell. There are differing reports, but it seems there was a local consortium of 40 or so people who jointly wanted to buy, but the league wanted a single ownership. So, Burke and Gluckstern purchased them.....but they wanted to move to Minneapolis, and they thought they had a deal there. Until the city of Minneapolis decided not to give them a handout. So, they ended up in Phoenix by accident. It was no grand plan, and no "strategy to move to US markets." All local decisions.
Bettman has been running things since 1993 so he was there when it all went down concerning the Jets/Nords moving on to gr$$ner pastures.

Attendance wasn't the issue as much as it was Canadian $ vs American $, and the potential for generating revenue via US TV contracts.

Quebec - Quebec Nordiques [NHL] yearly attendance at hockeydb.com

Winnipeg - Winnipeg Jets [NHL, 1979-1996] yearly attendance at hockeydb.com

As far as the TV contract/s - how many people actually watch the Yotes, or Jackets, or Canes on TV? I know I'd tune into a Nords game - especially when they would play the Habs :fight:

I'm getting sentimental here...If there's gonna be a relocation - chances are that franchise would move to Houston.
 

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,545
2,070
Tatooine
Yeah - I'm a year, or 2 behind the times when it comes to NHL franchise finances - I know in past years with playoff runs they made $$$ - in particular the Jets were in the black 2012-2018.

Winnipeg Jets on the Forbes The Business of Hockey List

I find it humorous with the BoG, and their concern for small Canadian markets while there's more $$$ lost on a handful of American markets.

I'm just nostalgic is all.

The league is stronger because of the presence of those teams in non-traditional markets. The Panthers and the Coyotes finally are getting their act together because of poor choices taken in the past by previous ownership. The league is exponentially more viable in Arizona and Florida than Québec City and Saskatoon.

Not every expansion team had a rich ownership group, good arena, and season ticket waiting list like Vegas and Seattle. Tampa Bay was a front for the Yakuza. Good ownership remedied their situation. Now they are a model non-traditional hockey market with regular sellouts in a great arena in a district with booming youth hockey participation. Carolina struggled under the dung pile that is Peter Karmanos until Dundon took over and they are taking off as well. For every franchise that has struggled their entire history like Arizona and Florida, there are franchises that have been successful their entire history like San José and Dallas. Bettman and the NHL did expand too quickly and rushed their expansion in the 80s and 90s. But hockey wouldn't be where it is today without them. Every team now has a rich and dedicated ownership group, all but a handful have excellent arena situations, and hockey's popularity and demand has grown every single since 2000 save 2013 which can be directly associated with the lockout. Nostalgia is nice, but hockey and the NHL is far better off after 2000 than before 2000.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aero 75

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
29,257
8,686
Outside of Lindros - who else did't want to play in Quebec?
Lindros flat out refused to report. Ron Hextall didn't want to move his family there and wasn't upset by any stretch when he was moved after a season. Numerous other players didn't like being in Quebec City because it was notoriously English-unfriendly. This idea that oh, it was just Lindros - the rest of the league was fine with being a Nordique is patently false.

The Nordiques were never in dire straits like we've seen the Yotes - as in they were never bailed out by the NHL countless years, and had 90% plus capacity in their own barn...Yeah - the Nordiques were relocated, but that was because Bettman, and the BoG were willing to risk a loss in order to be in an American market...It's worked for the Nords/Avs, but not much so for the Jets/Yotes.
:facepalm:

1. Quebec was well on its way to being in "dire straits like we've seen the Yotes." Marcel Aubut pulled the plug before it got there.
2. It never got "bailed out by the NHL countless years" because (a) the NHL didn't bail anyone out in that period, (b) player salaries, while growing, were still low enough to be quite manageable for most teams (the loonie was a much bigger deal for Canada-based teams), (c) Aubut et. al weren't total morons like Jerry Moyes, and (d) no one tried to take over the Nordiques in a hostile move against the NHL's wishes. Lots of critical distinctions there: try to take note of them.
3. As has been pointed out numerous times here, Aubut sought out someone who'd keep the franchise in Quebec City. No one showed up. Same story with Winnipeg, except there was actually a last-minute effort to keep the team. It fell through, which meant Shenkarow could either sell to guys who'd move the team to Phoenix or dump it back on the league and face a court battle a la Ralston-Purina and the NHL with the Blues in 1983.
4. The "BoG were willing to risk a loss in order to be in an American market" with the Jets just like they did when they allowed the Oilers to jump from Edmonton to Houston, the 4th-largest market in the United States.



Oh, wait - the BoG didn't do that. Probably because Edmonton actually had a buyer. Which is why Les Alexander refused to pursue another NHL franchise (after having bailed out of the 1997 expansion to pursue Edmonton and then having the Oilers yanked away at the last moment) and we've got 14,008 threads that have discussed Houston getting a team at some point.


As far as the currency exchange goes - as others have mentioned - todays owners have billions to play with, and a group in QC wouldn't be any different...If Winnipeg can make some $$$ - I'm certain a new group in QC can do the same.
Except Winnipeg isn't making money (see the comment above on this and what it needs to turn a profit) and almost certainly gets revenue sharing now as part of that. The question is never "will a place be successful if it's new and shiny." It's what happens when the luster wears off and fans get "treated" to 32-40-10 seasons where the team is largely out of the playoff chase by Christmas that's really important, and far too many fans ignore that.

If anyone wants to step up and say "yeah, we'll shoulder possibly $15-20 million losses for 5 years to have a team in Quebec City" then fine - we can talk. But right now, the only potential owner is saying "I don't know if I can make money" which should tell you a hell of a lot about the long-term viability of the NHL in Quebec City, even with all the allegedly hockey-deranged fans there.
 

FMichael

Registered User
Dec 22, 2010
5,319
5,280
Wisconsin
Lindros flat out refused to report. Ron Hextall didn't want to move his family there and wasn't upset by any stretch when he was moved after a season. Numerous other players didn't like being in Quebec City because it was notoriously English-unfriendly. This idea that oh, it was just Lindros - the rest of the league was fine with being a Nordique is patently false.


:facepalm:

1. Quebec was well on its way to being in "dire straits like we've seen the Yotes." Marcel Aubut pulled the plug before it got there.
2. It never got "bailed out by the NHL countless years" because (a) the NHL didn't bail anyone out in that period, (b) player salaries, while growing, were still low enough to be quite manageable for most teams (the loonie was a much bigger deal for Canada-based teams), (c) Aubut et. al weren't total morons like Jerry Moyes, and (d) no one tried to take over the Nordiques in a hostile move against the NHL's wishes. Lots of critical distinctions there: try to take note of them.
3. As has been pointed out numerous times here, Aubut sought out someone who'd keep the franchise in Quebec City. No one showed up. Same story with Winnipeg, except there was actually a last-minute effort to keep the team. It fell through, which meant Shenkarow could either sell to guys who'd move the team to Phoenix or dump it back on the league and face a court battle a la Ralston-Purina and the NHL with the Blues in 1983.
4. The "BoG were willing to risk a loss in order to be in an American market" with the Jets just like they did when they allowed the Oilers to jump from Edmonton to Houston, the 4th-largest market in the United States.



Oh, wait - the BoG didn't do that. Probably because Edmonton actually had a buyer. Which is why Les Alexander refused to pursue another NHL franchise (after having bailed out of the 1997 expansion to pursue Edmonton and then having the Oilers yanked away at the last moment) and we've got 14,008 threads that have discussed Houston getting a team at some point.



Except Winnipeg isn't making money (see the comment above on this and what it needs to turn a profit) and almost certainly gets revenue sharing now as part of that. The question is never "will a place be successful if it's new and shiny." It's what happens when the luster wears off and fans get "treated" to 32-40-10 seasons where the team is largely out of the playoff chase by Christmas that's really important, and far too many fans ignore that.

If anyone wants to step up and say "yeah, we'll shoulder possibly $15-20 million losses for 5 years to have a team in Quebec City" then fine - we can talk. But right now, the only potential owner is saying "I don't know if I can make money" which should tell you a hell of a lot about the long-term viability of the NHL in Quebec City, even with all the allegedly hockey-deranged fans there.
Well I guess you showed me ...
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
29,257
8,686
Well I guess you showed me ...
Glad I could help. Don't worry, I'm sure though someone else will come along and make the same points though, and someone else will have to explain these things for the 9,003rd time.
 

FMichael

Registered User
Dec 22, 2010
5,319
5,280
Wisconsin
Ehh, ownership was under the impression that the expansion fee was going to be $30 million. The NHL jacked it up to $50 million and expansion draft rules basically only allowed bottom 6 forwards and bottom pair defensemen to be taken so you’re paying $50 million for a team that’s going to be bad for several years.

It’s different now but Fiserv Forum has a really odd set up for their college tournament. I don’t know if it can be improved (I think it could be which is why it’s really weird they set it up the way they did) but I don’t know for sure. If it can, it would be a good building. If it can’t, there’s not a chance.
It was also Jane Pettit's $$$ - not husband Lloyds to burn...When it came down to the finer details I got the impression she lost interest.

Funny how the Bradley Center got bulldozed quickly - although the Fiserv Forum is nice.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad