Potential markets for potential NHL expansion beyond 32

[FMichael]

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.




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.

Just to throw some more fuel on the fire...Cuz that's what I do

Years ago I've heard about how 'French' Quebec City is/was (also sorta a area hot bed for succession from English speaking Canada) - just not aware of anyone not wanting to play there outside of Lindros (and now just learning about Hextall)...These past few years I seem to recall a vote that some of the NHLPA polled wouldn't mind having a team there - although that doesn't mean they'd want to play there...In the end it seems just as much political as it is business (Pierre Karl Péladeau not only is very pro-French, but also apparently is despised by the Habs owners the Molson bros).

NHL players survey: Quebec City should be next for expansion

Also - in the past the Jets have had some financial success - how long that'll last remains to be seen.

Winnipeg Jets on the Forbes The Business of Hockey List

Maybe I'm being naive here, but in the end I'd like to think an NHL franchise would do well in QC if the league made an effort to support them like they've been doing over the years for other clubs who've had their ups, and downs.

 

[TheLegend]

So where's the 650m+ $$$ for fees for each coming from if its such a great idea to expand again.

Depends on how many names are left in Bettman's rolodex.

 

[TheLegend]

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

Right now the team is dedicated to the state of Arizona. After all, they bought an AHL franchise and put it in Tucson as a way to bring the state's second largest population center into the sport.

Attendance in Glendale has climbed the past two years. For a location that's supposedly "too far away" from the fans it flies in the face of the "need a new arena" crowd. Having a successful franchise means more in Arizona than where they play. Only have to look as far as the DBacks and Suns to see how being downtown isn't THE formula for success in recent years.

 

[canuckfan75]

They are in no shape to expand for many many years. 32 is what you will have for another 20 years at least

 

[MNNumbers]

Right now the team is dedicated to the state of Arizona. After all, they bought an AHL franchise and put it in Tucson as a way to bring the state's second largest population center into the sport.

Attendance in Glendale has climbed the past two years. For a location that's supposedly "too far away" from the fans it flies in the face of the "need a new arena" crowd. Having a successful franchise means more in Arizona than where they play. Only have to look as far as the DBacks and Suns to see how being downtown isn't THE formula for success in recent years.

And, this is what many of us said....
NHL and Ice Arizona were upset because Glendale used legal means for force a change in the arena management contract, so that IA lost their management fee (it amounted to about a 10M/yr subsidy). Their desire for a new arena carried with it a hope that the new arena would also allow for them to get a nice Arena Management Check.

But the problem never has been location. It has always been ownership and on-ice quality. This is actually probably true as well in most struggling markets....

 

[FMichael]

And, this is what many of us said....
NHL and Ice Arizona were upset because Glendale used legal means for force a change in the arena management contract, so that IA lost their management fee (it amounted to about a 10M/yr subsidy). Their desire for a new arena carried with it a hope that the new arena would also allow for them to get a nice Arena Management Check.

But the problem never has been location. It has always been ownership and on-ice quality. This is actually probably true as well in most struggling markets....

Over the years I've read posts from fans in AZ - I was under the impression that Glendale is a long drive (especially after work during the week).

Not sure if that's a legit excuse, or not...My guess is if the product on the ice were really good you'd see more fans making the trek.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Digging up an old post I made in an older topic, and updating slightly...

Basically, you can hunt and peck around:

Portland - wealthy market with a modern arena with a very rich owner that has seemingly tipped his toe in the NHL's waters from time to time, but it also looks like his group finds the NHL's expansion prices as being too rich of a pill to swallow. Also questionable if they could support two major pro teams with nearly identical schedules as that's splitting the fanbase's disposable income at the same time between the NHL and NBA. Not likely, but possible.

San Diego - has a pretty decent minor league hockey history and with the Chargers gone there is room for disposable income with really only the Padres and NCAA Aztecs as an alternative. That being said, they lack an arena, so that's a humongous hurdle. Not remotely likely.

Sacramento - new arena and all, but I haven't heard remotely any chatter of either the (NBA) Kings ownership or another group being interested. Not likely.

Salt Lake City - a market that I always highlight as a potential longterm expansion candidate, given the market's winter sports history, growth rate, and wealth. Now, that being said, they're still a small market and the geography of the area means that they have a fairly long and narrow market to draw from. Come back to this in a few decades and you'd have a stronger candidate, but not remotely likely in the near future.

Saskatoon or Regina - nobody would deny the rabid fanbase here for sports, but the simple fact of the matter is that either city is far too small for practical consideration. NHL would listen to an expansion proposal politely, but then not remotely consider it. Either city would probably have to at least double if not triple in size for this to have a serious chance.

Houston - seemingly a slam dunk in ever way. Huge market with a big sports scene and an arena ready to go. Only thing lacking is an owner that has access to said arena. If the new Rockets' ownership wants it, they'd probably catapult to the top of the NHL's hit list in a heartbeat, but can't say for sure if they even are remotely interested. Maybe.

San Antonio or Austin - intriguing option here, with both markets having deep sports scenes but fairly limited professional competition. Not seeing an owner standing up here, though. And Austin would need either a new arena or massive upgrades to their collegiate basketball arena. Unlikely for either, and if anything I see San Antonio as adding an NFL team as being far more likely.

Albuquerque or El Paso - I think either has the potential to be solid one-sport markets, but with hockey being the absolute least likely option. Not happening.

Oklahoma City - probably too small to be a combined NBA/NHL town. Unlikely.

Tulsa, Topeka, Wichita, or Omaha - probably all too small to be seriously considered by any major league, and even if they were they'd be dead last in landing free agent talent in all likelihood. Nope.

Kansas City - another seeming slam dunk, but lacking an interested owner. Unlikely.

Milwaukee and Indianapolis - I'm combining these two for a simple reason, as I think they suffer from the same problem. Oversaturation. Namely, I think that both already have too many pro and collegiate teams competing for fan disposable income as it is, and if you throw in an NHL team to the equation you further cannibalize that. Both are possible, but I think that they'd be relocation candidates sooner rather than later.

Louisville - nice-sized untapped market by the big four, but I see them as an NBA or bust city. Unlikely.

Atlanta - huge market with a long sports scene, growing rapidly, a lot of money, an available arena, and a history in the NHL. Obviously a slam dunk. Oh... right... well, maybe not. I wouldn't put it past the NHL, but I'd say that we're a long way's away before the NHL seriously tries a third time in Atlanta. Maybe an expansion partner with Salt Lake City in 2050.

Cleveland or Cincinnati - I'd be shocked. I think that Ohio's going to be a one-team state forever in the NHL.

Hampton Roads - lacking an arena, an owner, and significant local corporate bucks. I think that this region will eventually get a team in some sport when they get their ducks lined up, but I'm not seeing that happening soon or with the NHL first. Unlikely.

Hartford (or elsewhere in Connecticut) - the dream of many, but just never seems to be high on the NHL's hit list as of late. Needs a modern arena, a willing owner, and a huge amount of money. Unlikely.

Hamilton - makes a lot of sense, but Balsillie could've taught a master's level course on how to piss of the NHL Board of Governors, so he was his own worst enemy in many ways. With him seemingly out of the picture, I'm not aware of a willing owner in the area with the capital that the NHL is interested in, and a new arena or major arena upgrades would be needed. Unlikely.

GTA - the holy grail for all intents and purposes. LA and NYC can both support multiple teams, so it seems like the greater Toronto area should easily be able to do so as well. The Leafs are a humongous roadblock though, as they clearly view a monopoly on the region as a valuable asset. They'd fight tooth and nail at every step and likely demand a staggeringly huge indemnity beyond even what the expansion price would be, so we'd be talking about a huge hole to start up in. Unlikely, but would absolutely work.

A second Montreal or Vancouver team - I just don't buy the idea that they're big enough to support two teams in the NHL, and even if they were the expansion and territorial indemnity fees that they'd be charged would be too prohibitive even if the Habs or Nucks were okay with a local competitor.

Quebec City - really should be a no duh, but the NHL just seems like they're more interested in keeping this market in their pocket as an emergency relocation option a la Winnipeg versus actually expanding there.

So, of the options, Houston or Kansas City would probably be the frontrunners if either had interested and viable owners, Portland would be up there if the Allen group decided to open up their pockets, and Quebec City is the wild card that the NHL probably wants to keep in case a team just out and out has to move and there are no local parties interested. In other words, I'm not expecting an expansion past Seattle in the near future. The NHL will be sitting at 32 for a long while.

 

[dkitson16]

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.

Quebec and Winnipeg moved because they couldn't get new arenas that generate real revenues and there was no salary cap yet to contain costs. With new arenas both would have lost money or been AHL level teams to survive financially without a cap. Their old arenas both sat around 15,000.

Manitoba and Winnipeg were willing to put up money. Quebec wasn't. Manitoba had a bad economy but Quebec's was worse. They shut down 9 hospitals right at the time Quebec wanted money for a new arena. Aubut also wanted a casino in the new arena to fund it but the province was concerned it would draw clients for an existing casino nearby, so they refused that plan. Quebec had a separatist government that complicated matters with federal funding to both teams. Manitoba then increased their share, but private investors fell short. Aubut didn't appear to try as hard as Shenkarow to get his arena going. Even the Winnipeg plan grossly underestimated salary costs (estimating 3-4% increases a year when salaries were going up 25% a year) and wouldn't have been viable until a salary cap came in.

Neither had great attendance by todays standards and wouldn't have been eligible for the NHL's revenue sharing for small-market Canadian teams that was introduced after both sales were announced.



Now Winnipeg's CO-owner is one of the richest men in the world and one of the top 2 or 3 in the big 4 north american leagues. His appetite to support the majority owner in losses is another question. And he's not local so we could easily be Toronto 2 or Hamilton if things went really bad.

 

[dkitson16]

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.

Her money but he led the charge for a team. My recollection is they lost interest when the price got jacked up and realized it would take 5-7 years to be competitive under the NHL's expansion draft rules, meaning they would be losing too much money in the initial years to be interested. At $30M and a Vegas style expansion draft (heck even the Anaheim/Florida rules would be better) they would have proceeded (as would many other groups that dropped out in the same era).

 

[FMichael]

Her money but he led the charge for a team. My recollection is they lost interest when the price got jacked up and realized it would take 5-7 years to be competitive under the NHL's expansion draft rules, meaning they would be losing too much money in the initial years to be interested. At $30M and a Vegas style expansion draft (heck even the Anaheim/Florida rules would be better) they would have proceeded (as would many other groups that dropped out in the same era).

Lloyd 'probably' would've paid what the NHL wanted...I believe Jane put the kabosh on that...Some years later they divorced - I wouldn't be too surprised if this was something Lloyd held against her.

I got the impression Lloyd was a true hockey fanatic (did radio play by play for the Blackhawks throughout the 1960s), and Jane was more casual about it.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Likeliness
1. Houston
2. Quebec City
3. Kansas City
4. Portland
5. Milwaukee

Cleveland and Indy are intriguing but down the list imo.

But in all seriousness I can't see the league having more than 32 anytime soon.

And I suspect they will not be the first to go beyond 32 if it happens.

 

[Centrum Hockey]

Digging up an old post I made in an older topic, and updating slightly...

Basically, you can hunt and peck around:

Portland - wealthy market with a modern arena with a very rich owner that has seemingly tipped his toe in the NHL's waters from time to time, but it also looks like his group finds the NHL's expansion prices as being too rich of a pill to swallow. Also questionable if they could support two major pro teams with nearly identical schedules as that's splitting the fanbase's disposable income at the same time between the NHL and NBA. Not likely, but possible.

San Diego - has a pretty decent minor league hockey history and with the Chargers gone there is room for disposable income with really only the Padres and NCAA Aztecs as an alternative. That being said, they lack an arena, so that's a humongous hurdle. Not remotely likely.

Sacramento - new arena and all, but I haven't heard remotely any chatter of either the (NBA) Kings ownership or another group being interested. Not likely.

Salt Lake City - a market that I always highlight as a potential longterm expansion candidate, given the market's winter sports history, growth rate, and wealth. Now, that being said, they're still a small market and the geography of the area means that they have a fairly long and narrow market to draw from. Come back to this in a few decades and you'd have a stronger candidate, but not remotely likely in the near future.

Saskatoon or Regina - nobody would deny the rabid fanbase here for sports, but the simple fact of the matter is that either city is far too small for practical consideration. NHL would listen to an expansion proposal politely, but then not remotely consider it. Either city would probably have to at least double if not triple in size for this to have a serious chance.

Houston - seemingly a slam dunk in ever way. Huge market with a big sports scene and an arena ready to go. Only thing lacking is an owner that has access to said arena. If the new Rockets' ownership wants it, they'd probably catapult to the top of the NHL's hit list in a heartbeat, but can't say for sure if they even are remotely interested. Maybe.

San Antonio or Austin - intriguing option here, with both markets having deep sports scenes but fairly limited professional competition. Not seeing an owner standing up here, though. And Austin would need either a new arena or massive upgrades to their collegiate basketball arena. Unlikely for either, and if anything I see San Antonio as adding an NFL team as being far more likely.

Albuquerque or El Paso - I think either has the potential to be solid one-sport markets, but with hockey being the absolute least likely option. Not happening.

Oklahoma City - probably too small to be a combined NBA/NHL town. Unlikely.

Tulsa, Topeka, Wichita, or Omaha - probably all too small to be seriously considered by any major league, and even if they were they'd be dead last in landing free agent talent in all likelihood. Nope.

Kansas City - another seeming slam dunk, but lacking an interested owner. Unlikely.

Milwaukee and Indianapolis - I'm combining these two for a simple reason, as I think they suffer from the same problem. Oversaturation. Namely, I think that both already have too many pro and collegiate teams competing for fan disposable income as it is, and if you throw in an NHL team to the equation you further cannibalize that. Both are possible, but I think that they'd be relocation candidates sooner rather than later.

Louisville - nice-sized untapped market by the big four, but I see them as an NBA or bust city. Unlikely.

Atlanta - huge market with a long sports scene, growing rapidly, a lot of money, an available arena, and a history in the NHL. Obviously a slam dunk. Oh... right... well, maybe not. I wouldn't put it past the NHL, but I'd say that we're a long way's away before the NHL seriously tries a third time in Atlanta. Maybe an expansion partner with Salt Lake City in 2050.

Cleveland or Cincinnati - I'd be shocked. I think that Ohio's going to be a one-team state forever in the NHL.

Hampton Roads - lacking an arena, an owner, and significant local corporate bucks. I think that this region will eventually get a team in some sport when they get their ducks lined up, but I'm not seeing that happening soon or with the NHL first. Unlikely.

Hartford (or elsewhere in Connecticut) - the dream of many, but just never seems to be high on the NHL's hit list as of late. Needs a modern arena, a willing owner, and a huge amount of money. Unlikely.

Hamilton - makes a lot of sense, but Balsillie could've taught a master's level course on how to piss of the NHL Board of Governors, so he was his own worst enemy in many ways. With him seemingly out of the picture, I'm not aware of a willing owner in the area with the capital that the NHL is interested in, and a new arena or major arena upgrades would be needed. Unlikely.

GTA - the holy grail for all intents and purposes. LA and NYC can both support multiple teams, so it seems like the greater Toronto area should easily be able to do so as well. The Leafs are a humongous roadblock though, as they clearly view a monopoly on the region as a valuable asset. They'd fight tooth and nail at every step and likely demand a staggeringly huge indemnity beyond even what the expansion price would be, so we'd be talking about a huge hole to start up in. Unlikely, but would absolutely work.

A second Montreal or Vancouver team - I just don't buy the idea that they're big enough to support two teams in the NHL, and even if they were the expansion and territorial indemnity fees that they'd be charged would be too prohibitive even if the Habs or Nucks were okay with a local competitor.

Quebec City - really should be a no duh, but the NHL just seems like they're more interested in keeping this market in their pocket as an emergency relocation option a la Winnipeg versus actually expanding there.

So, of the options, Houston or Kansas City would probably be the frontrunners if either had interested and viable owners, Portland would be up there if the Allen group decided to open up their pockets, and Quebec City is the wild card that the NHL probably wants to keep in case a team just out and out has to move and there are no local parties interested. In other words, I'm not expecting an expansion past Seattle in the near future. The NHL will be sitting at 32 for a long while.

Salt Lake City and Sacramento both have arenas built for the NBA only and any NHL team would have a Barclay center like setup.

 

[MNNumbers]

Digging up an old post I made in an older topic, and updating slightly...

Basically, you can hunt and peck around:

Portland - wealthy market with a modern arena with a very rich owner that has seemingly tipped his toe in the NHL's waters from time to time, but it also looks like his group finds the NHL's expansion prices as being too rich of a pill to swallow. Also questionable if they could support two major pro teams with nearly identical schedules as that's splitting the fanbase's disposable income at the same time between the NHL and NBA. Not likely, but possible.

San Diego - has a pretty decent minor league hockey history and with the Chargers gone there is room for disposable income with really only the Padres and NCAA Aztecs as an alternative. That being said, they lack an arena, so that's a humongous hurdle. Not remotely likely.

Sacramento - new arena and all, but I haven't heard remotely any chatter of either the (NBA) Kings ownership or another group being interested. Not likely.

Salt Lake City - a market that I always highlight as a potential longterm expansion candidate, given the market's winter sports history, growth rate, and wealth. Now, that being said, they're still a small market and the geography of the area means that they have a fairly long and narrow market to draw from. Come back to this in a few decades and you'd have a stronger candidate, but not remotely likely in the near future.

Saskatoon or Regina - nobody would deny the rabid fanbase here for sports, but the simple fact of the matter is that either city is far too small for practical consideration. NHL would listen to an expansion proposal politely, but then not remotely consider it. Either city would probably have to at least double if not triple in size for this to have a serious chance.

Houston - seemingly a slam dunk in ever way. Huge market with a big sports scene and an arena ready to go. Only thing lacking is an owner that has access to said arena. If the new Rockets' ownership wants it, they'd probably catapult to the top of the NHL's hit list in a heartbeat, but can't say for sure if they even are remotely interested. Maybe.

San Antonio or Austin - intriguing option here, with both markets having deep sports scenes but fairly limited professional competition. Not seeing an owner standing up here, though. And Austin would need either a new arena or massive upgrades to their collegiate basketball arena. Unlikely for either, and if anything I see San Antonio as adding an NFL team as being far more likely.

Albuquerque or El Paso - I think either has the potential to be solid one-sport markets, but with hockey being the absolute least likely option. Not happening.

Oklahoma City - probably too small to be a combined NBA/NHL town. Unlikely.

Tulsa, Topeka, Wichita, or Omaha - probably all too small to be seriously considered by any major league, and even if they were they'd be dead last in landing free agent talent in all likelihood. Nope.

Kansas City - another seeming slam dunk, but lacking an interested owner. Unlikely.

Milwaukee and Indianapolis - I'm combining these two for a simple reason, as I think they suffer from the same problem. Oversaturation. Namely, I think that both already have too many pro and collegiate teams competing for fan disposable income as it is, and if you throw in an NHL team to the equation you further cannibalize that. Both are possible, but I think that they'd be relocation candidates sooner rather than later.

Louisville - nice-sized untapped market by the big four, but I see them as an NBA or bust city. Unlikely.

Atlanta - huge market with a long sports scene, growing rapidly, a lot of money, an available arena, and a history in the NHL. Obviously a slam dunk. Oh... right... well, maybe not. I wouldn't put it past the NHL, but I'd say that we're a long way's away before the NHL seriously tries a third time in Atlanta. Maybe an expansion partner with Salt Lake City in 2050.

Cleveland or Cincinnati - I'd be shocked. I think that Ohio's going to be a one-team state forever in the NHL.

Hampton Roads - lacking an arena, an owner, and significant local corporate bucks. I think that this region will eventually get a team in some sport when they get their ducks lined up, but I'm not seeing that happening soon or with the NHL first. Unlikely.

Hartford (or elsewhere in Connecticut) - the dream of many, but just never seems to be high on the NHL's hit list as of late. Needs a modern arena, a willing owner, and a huge amount of money. Unlikely.

Hamilton - makes a lot of sense, but Balsillie could've taught a master's level course on how to piss of the NHL Board of Governors, so he was his own worst enemy in many ways. With him seemingly out of the picture, I'm not aware of a willing owner in the area with the capital that the NHL is interested in, and a new arena or major arena upgrades would be needed. Unlikely.

GTA - the holy grail for all intents and purposes. LA and NYC can both support multiple teams, so it seems like the greater Toronto area should easily be able to do so as well. The Leafs are a humongous roadblock though, as they clearly view a monopoly on the region as a valuable asset. They'd fight tooth and nail at every step and likely demand a staggeringly huge indemnity beyond even what the expansion price would be, so we'd be talking about a huge hole to start up in. Unlikely, but would absolutely work.

A second Montreal or Vancouver team - I just don't buy the idea that they're big enough to support two teams in the NHL, and even if they were the expansion and territorial indemnity fees that they'd be charged would be too prohibitive even if the Habs or Nucks were okay with a local competitor.

Quebec City - really should be a no duh, but the NHL just seems like they're more interested in keeping this market in their pocket as an emergency relocation option a la Winnipeg versus actually expanding there.

So, of the options, Houston or Kansas City would probably be the frontrunners if either had interested and viable owners, Portland would be up there if the Allen group decided to open up their pockets, and Quebec City is the wild card that the NHL probably wants to keep in case a team just out and out has to move and there are no local parties interested. In other words, I'm not expecting an expansion past Seattle in the near future. The NHL will be sitting at 32 for a long while.

NFS-

Agreed on GTA.
As for the 4 places you consider somewhat possible:
Houston - the issues with Fertitta having management rights to the Toyota Center, and apparently not enough $$$ or interest to go for hockey is a serious impediment at present.
KC - Arena is nice, but it has been quite well booked (who know, post-COVID). Also the city owns it and says that since it is already well booked, any hockey team is welcome, but there won't be any 'cushy' AMF situation. NHL would have to survive as a tenant. In a place as small as KC, that's a tough go.
QC - Made sense 5 years ago. CAD is way down, and that hurts a lot.
Portland - No one knows what the ownership group at Moda really thinks now that Paul Allen is gone. That hasn't really settled out yet. Paul himself obviously didn't think it was worth the cost.

I'm with you. Given the cost of a team, I can't see it happening anywhere else. If any place gets a team, it's likely to be QC from a relocation from Ottawa (which is long shot, but at least possible) or from Florida (team is bound to the lease until 2023, with heavy buyout provisions in the lease).

 

[MoreOrr]

Are people here seriously discussing possible further expansion? Right now we and the League should be seriously worried about franchises folding due to the economic losses that could likely occur as a result of the shutdown and how long it could last. Or even just having the League restart but without fan attendance.

 

[Bookie21]

Quebec is now out of the running. They puckered up last round of expansion, and burnt their bridge... Couldn't come up with the dough....Quebecor looked for other investors and couldn't find any takers. Add in that the NHL won't touch PKP with a 10 foot pole

 

[TheLegend]

Quebec is now out of the running. They puckered up last round of expansion, and burnt their bridge... Couldn't come up with the dough....Quebecor looked for other investors and couldn't find any takers. Add in that the NHL won't touch PKP with a 10 foot pole

The Canadian dollar is the biggest issue holding them back. League already has a rather dubious assembly of rogues within it's ownership ranks so I doubt PKP would be much different. Remember Bill Daly even said they would still have entertained allowing Jim Balsillie in if he wanted to play by their rules.

 

[alko]

There was some study 9 years ago, that said, 12 Canadian teams could be possible.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

There was some study 9 years ago, that said, 12 Canadian teams could be possible.

That study says Vancouver and Montréal could both support second teams. A study saying things like that is not a study. It is called being unreliable.

 

[powerstuck]

As I said, it would not happen in the 2020s.

Still the question remains. If all 31 current teams + Seattle survive this crisis, I guess we could see expansion processes restart somewhere around 2024-25.

But, if let's say 3 to 5 teams decide this was too much and they cannot remain in the league. We could see one or two businessman jump on the occassion to buy the team, but that many teams being sold/relocated/folded would impact the league in so many ways at a single same moment that it's hard to see how the league would 5 years later turn around and seek expansion.

 

[chauron]

As I said, it would not happen in the 2020s.

Let’s see if more teams need to be relocated due to financial challenges, I think it’s more likely for some team(s) to leave rather than expanding in 20s, 30s, perhaps even 40s.

 

[WildGopher]

Québec City is realistic because it would be the chance for the NHL and Bettman to make things right. He made a big show when he spoke of righting a wrong when True North acquired the unwanted Thrashers from the Atlanta Hawks new ownership group. It's common knowledge, even from probably owners Québecor, that the team wouldn't make money even with a long playoff run. But it would be hockey returning to where it's popular.

Agreed. Quebec deserves to be next and the league needs to "right the wrong." Quebec would have instant success similar to Winnipeg's and some of the renewed rivalries would be great.

 

[TheLegend]

There was some study 9 years ago, that said, 12 Canadian teams could be possible.

That study says Vancouver and Montréal could both support second teams. A study saying things like that is not a study. It is called being unreliable.

The publication in question (for those interested).....

The New Economics of the NHL: Why Canada Can Support 12 Teams | The Mowat Centre

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

Agreed. Quebec deserves to be next and the league needs to "right the wrong." Quebec would have instant success similar to Winnipeg's and some of the renewed rivalries would be great.

The success wouldn’t be financial. If there would be, it would be because they aren’t against the cap. And unfortunately, financial success is more important than anything else. That is reality.

Another reality is that the only rivalry would be with Montréal. But creating a rivalry is not a solid basis for a creating a franchise. That’s only a handful of games each year. There are still 38 or so home dates to fill. Seattle is not being added because of a potential rivalry with Vancouver. Seattle is being added because it is a large, untapped market that adds eyes to the league and has the potential to be in the top half of teams in terms of profitability.

 

[WildGopher]

I think Quebec could be a financial success. And sure, the possibility of rivalries isn't a reason to add a franchise, but rivalries would be a good reason for NHL fans to enjoy having a team back in Quebec. Montreal was their top, but not sole rival. Boston was a natural, especially with the Bruins' historic reach into the Maritimes for fans before Quebec came along. That led to competition on two levels. And because of national TV matchups, Canadian teams tend to build pretty good rivalries with any other Canadian team, regardless of geography. With Hartford gone, Quebec's probably not a natural rival to any U.S. teams other than Boston (at least until a couple heated playoff series happen), but they would have plenty of rivals beyond Montreal. I hope they get a chance to come back.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

I think Quebec could be a financial success. And sure, the possibility of rivalries isn't a reason to add a franchise, but rivalries would be a good reason for NHL fans to enjoy having a team back in Quebec. Montreal was their top, but not sole rival. Boston was a natural, especially with the Bruins' historic reach into the Maritimes for fans before Quebec came along. That led to competition on two levels. And because of national TV matchups, Canadian teams tend to build pretty good rivalries with any other Canadian team, regardless of geography. With Hartford gone, Quebec's probably not a natural rival to any U.S. teams other than Boston (at least until a couple heated playoff series happen), but they would have plenty of rivals beyond Montreal. I hope they get a chance to come back.

Québec City would not be a financial success. They would be tied for smallest market in the league. The next smallest is Winnipeg, which has openly admitted they need a long playoff run in order to break even each season. They likely wouldn't exist without TSNE using them in their business as a loss leader.

Winnipeg is not a huge rival with the other Canadian teams. They're not selling out in other Canadian markets "because the Jets are in town." Those games aren't above average in national TV ratings either.

Boston did not have a rivalry with the Nords. They're not going to have a rivalry with Québec City because they're the closest Canadian market. NYC isn't much further from Montréal than Boston is, yet there is no rivalry. The only reasons the Bruins-Canadians rivalry is a thing is because they faced each other nearly every year in the late 70s, 80s and early 90s. There was nothing special between the teams because they were a natural rival.

You're right that adding a team simply because of rivalries is a horrible reason to add a team. There's +70 other games in the schedule. But then going that you think they would do well because of rivalries. That's just not logical.