Quebec Nordiques: expansion or relocation

[Melrose Munch]

And the MLB has what to do with this discussion?

about as much as you saying quebec failed. what happed 100 years ago has no bearing on today.

 

[Bixby Snyder]

about as much as you saying quebec failed. what happed 100 years ago has no bearing on today.

Wrong.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Wrong.

Then he can bring up baseball because it has just as much relevance. And the thing is, you're wrong and you don't even understand why.

 

[Bixby Snyder]

Then he can bring up baseball because it has just as much relevance. And the thing is, you're wrong and you don't even understand why.

I don't give a f*** about the Washington Nationals and whatever point you're trying to make. It's a different sport a different league and different financial situation. So lets keep the discussion on the Business of Hockey forum about hockey. So, yes you are wrong as usual.

 

[Bixby Snyder]

and BTW the Nords failed in the mid 90's, that's a lot more recent than 100 years ago, funny how you ignore that and only refer to the 1920's.

 

[Melrose Munch]

I don't give a **** about the Washington Nationals and whatever point you're trying to make. It's a different sport a different league and different financial situation. So lets keep the discussion on the Business of Hockey forum about hockey. So, yes you are wrong as usual.

and BTW the Nords failed in the mid 90's, that's a lot more recent than 100 years ago, funny how you ignore that and only refer to the 1920's.

And what does 22 years ago have to do with 2017. And yes this is a hockey forum. You don't seem to be a fan of the sport, or it's history.

 

[Bixby Snyder]

You don't seem to be a fan of the sport.

Really, is that why I've been a member here since 2005 and supported the expansion of the game into new markets?

 

[Killion]

and BTW the Nords failed in the mid 90's, that's a lot more recent than 100 years ago, funny how you ignore that and only refer to the 1920's.

You were the one who referred to the team failing twice Atticus so stop moving the goalposts around...... Your bottom line opinion, you dont think a return of the Nordiques nor to any Canadian market does anything to "grow the game" or revenues for the NHL and thats fine. Your entitled to that opinion. I strongly disagree..... But please, lets just drop this one time two time three time markets a loser so no way should they ever get a team again meme.

Because once again if that were the case, following that be it any decade of the late 19th through early 21st Century, because if we apply that axiom you'd have to forget about Houston, San Diego, Portland, Seattle, Atlanta, Hartford & Cleveland. All markets that were once home to top tier pro hockey. And that would be foolish. I for one would love to see the NHL in all those markets however, only on a graduated level of entry over many decades & alas, I wouldnt be alive by the time a full expansion like that ever came to flowering if indeed it ever happens at all.... which at the rate this leagues going & operates will be never. Wildly priced themselves out of all but maybe 2 of them.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

And the MLB has what to do with this discussion?

The fact that a league failed twice in a market is not necessarily a gurantee they can't make a market work the third time.

This is an arguement that favors both Quebec and Atlanta.

 

[Nordskull]

ok stepin in this thread that doesnt want to die.

So fed up to read the word "failed"

For me a "failed" market would be one loosing money and brings no interest. The Nordiques never made any deficit and were almost always sold out and their owners decided to sell before loosing money.

Speaking of no deficit can you say the same for AZ, CAR, FLA, and others?

Speaking of interest (crowds) can I remind AZ, CAR, FL and others?

Why waste time on a dead venture?

 

[BKIslandersFan]

ok stepin in this thread that doesnt want to die.

So fed up to read the word "failed"

For me a "failed" market would be one loosing money and brings no interest. The Nordiques never made any deficit and were almost always sold out and their owners decided to sell before loosing money.

Speaking of no deficit can you say the same for AZ, CAR, FLA, and others?

Speaking of interest (crowds) can I remind AZ, CAR, FL and others?

Why waste time on a dead venture?

Considering it's the NHL owners who wants to keep AZ, CAR and FL and its their money...

But yea, I don't know how anyone can say QC failed to begin with. I am sure they will be a success. Maybe not like the Jets, but still.

 

[Nordskull]

Yes

If Quebec was a failed market, I'm entitled to say Arizona, Florida Carolina (former Stanley cup champs) are far worse then Qc city.

A former Stanley cup champion team getting so little interest and support is a disgrace IMHO.

But they will move mountains to keep the franchise south. Cheers.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Yes

If Quebec was a failed market, I'm entitled to say Arizona, Florida Carolina (former Stanley cup champs) are far worse then Qc city.

A former Stanley cup champion team getting so little interest and support is a disgrace IMHO.

But they will move mountains to keep the franchise south. Cheers.

The fact that they are there and NHL is willing to keep them there suggest they aren't failed markets yet. If NHL gives up, then yes, they failed.
And some of the owners who want those teams there are Canadians. No anti-Canadian conspiracy. And the reason why QC can't get a team back is not because of those allegedly failing teams.

The fact of the matter is, any teams (NBA,MLB, NFL, NHL) down here will fail to garner interests if they are awful for certain period of time. Its not an NHL thing.

 

[Whaleafs]

point is they failed twice as an NHL market. As far as I'm concerned the the NHL going to Quebec would be a backwards move just like the NFL going back to Canton or Toledo or any of those original markets. If the NHL is to survive and prosper as a league it needs to expand the fan base and Quebec or any other Canadian city doesn't do that.

point is they failed twice as an NHL market. As far as I'm concerned the the NHL going to Quebec would be a backwards move just like the NFL going back to Canton or Toledo or any of those original markets. If the NHL is to survive and prosper as a league it needs to expand the fan base and Quebec or any other Canadian city doesn't do that.

I obviously knew what your point was considering I only answered due to how absurd it was.

Hey everyone, Quebec City is exactly the same today as it was right after WW1 and the Spanish influenza outbreak.

 

[Yukon Joe]

and BTW the Nords failed in the mid 90's, that's a lot more recent than 100 years ago, funny how you ignore that and only refer to the 1920's.

And the Winnipeg Jets failed in the mid 90s, and have been a smashing success since 2011. And let's not forget our friends in Minnesota who also lost a team, but have been "wildly" successful since their return.

If you want to point to the Nords leaving in '95 as proof a team can't work in QC, you're going to have to work a bit harder than this.

 

[Nordskull]

Lemme ask you

NFL is moving the Raiders to Las Vegas.

This is because Oakland is a failed market for NFL?

 

[Last Rat Standing]

No because the Raiders are sick of playing in an outdated concrete baseball stadium with a city that doesn't want to build a new stadium

 

[Fourier]

point is they failed twice as an NHL market. As far as I'm concerned the the NHL going to Quebec would be a backwards move just like the NFL going back to Canton or Toledo or any of those original markets. If the NHL is to survive and prosper as a league it needs to expand the fan base and Quebec or any other Canadian city doesn't do that.

I've never understood the idea that Canadian markets are saturated for the NHL. I don't think this has ever been true and it is certainly less true today than in any period in the past 20 years at least. Canada's population is changing rapidly with much of the change fueled by immigration. Since the Nord's left the country has seen a 25% increase in our population. Many of these people have no exposure to hockey. Local teams inspire significant growth in interest from many people who otherwise would not invest anything in the game. I saw this clearly in Edmonton, a city that had a rich hockey heritage. And despite this heritage the level of interest in the NHL in the city is in my opinion far far greater than it would be otherwise.

 

[Hal1971]

and BTW the Nords failed in the mid 90's, that's a lot more recent than 100 years ago, funny how you ignore that and only refer to the 1920's.

Ok,Nordiques did not failed in the 90s, Owner decided to sell to pocket big $$$. The real problem at that time was that the colisee was not generating enough money (no luxury box, only 15 000 place, etc) Fan support was there... That problem is solved now with a brand new arena with box and 18 000 places.

I understant your point that the league need to prosper and evolve and yes, you do that by going to new market, but for that, you need to have a strong base. A team that will add to the pool instead of taking from it. That why I think the expansion to quebec was defered, they keep quebec for a relocation. and will expand to a less sure market (seattle).

I'm sorry for Canes fan, but I really think that the Canes will soon end up in quebec and that when Seattle finallise the arena deal, expansion will be awarded.

 

[Killion]

I've never understood the idea that Canadian markets are saturated for the NHL. I don't think this has ever been true and it is certainly less true today than in any period in the past 20 years at least. Canada's population is changing rapidly with much of the change fueled by immigration. Since the Nord's left the country has seen a 25% increase in our population. Many of these people have no exposure to hockey. Local teams inspire significant growth in interest from many people who otherwise would not invest anything in the game. I saw this clearly in Edmonton, a city that had a rich hockey heritage. And despite this heritage the level of interest in the NHL in the city is in my opinion far far greater than it would be otherwise.

No, its almost a specious argument. Doesnt compute. The NHL was as you know extremely reluctant to expand from the late 50's through the early-to-mid-60's and did so as the official story goes to "grow the game & capture broadcast revenues" from the burgeoning television market. Revenues that to this day have proven elusive in the US to say the least paling in comparison to their big league peers over the past 50yrs..... and note that in reality the NHL was more concerned about anti-trust suits having barred the door on Cleveland, LA & elsewhere, cities/owners who in demanding to be let in & denied threatened a rival league, litigation etc.

Now, I've never had, dont have a problem with that objective provided critical thought is applied, that altruistic & benevolent co-op (League, Team, Sponsors) developmental programs accompany the launching of new teams in any given market but unfortunately thats never happened. Check Book Expansion. Take the money & run. New club in a virgin market left to its own devices. Marketing through osmosis. Burdened with huge debt having dropped whatever on the expansion fee, a building in so many cases, major expenses & costs before youve even iced a team & way behind the 8Ball financially before a pucks ever dropped.

As any manufacturer, distributor or retailer, a service provider, a salesperson, a politician or whatever/whomever will tell you, and as is just plain basic good old common sense dictates you go after the low hanging fruit first. Take the paths of least resistance in cultivating crops & taking your product/service to market. You take the most cost effective routes available. You build a base. A Strong foundation. You expand your terrain, prepare & cultivate new lands & markets on the foundations upon which youve built your solid cash crops in the heartlands.

Then & only then do you start looking at interesting export markets but before youve even gotten to that point you have to ask yourself if youve maximized all of the potential revenue streams from the acreage in the heartlands and in the case of the NHL the answer is a resounding NO. No, they have not. They have instead taken paths of extreme resistance, the Commissioner & formerly President of the NHL little more than glorified Firefighters fighting rearguard actions when things go south, blowup in their faces. The lack of critical thought & planning/support with new markets (and labor relations along with marketing) absolutely appalling.

Canada & the Northeastern US are not "maxed out", not even close to it. Billions of rich lands left idle. Revenue's lost, left on the table, revenues they can never recapture, gone, untapped, yet still sitting there (Quebec City & Southern Ontario) completely unserviced, underserved. Low hanging fruit left to rot on the ground season after season after season. You really have to ask yourself, "who does this"? Why?... and as like most things NHL the answers arent pretty & speaks to the institutionalized culture of the Leagues duplicitous self dealing owners who's only real interest is in not growing the game but in growing their own franchise values, keeping costs & expenses to a bare minimum, networking & expanding if possible their own empires be it media, financing, concessions & catering, brewery interests or whatever it might be.

Thats not to broad brush the lot of them, now all 31 BOG's as there are some great owners. Just not enough of them. The good ones, those enlightened are in a minority and as the NHL is run essentially as an autocracy by Jeremy Jacobs, a hierarchy established decades ago by the Norris & Wirtz clan with no change in site anytime soon.... well, how can one not help but be cynical, that collectively & individually this crew & regime like all who proceeded them couldnt find their asses with both hands and a map. That the riches of Quebec City & Southern Ontario have been left to rot on the ground in beyond fertile lands.... and given the implausible reasons and excuses as to why & how that could be.... leaves one almost speechless.

 

[AllezlesBleus]

A new declaration from Bettman on Quebec City at Bob McCown's sports show yesterday (October 3rd).

He is saying that Quebec City was not rejected only deferred just so that Quebec understand that the door is not closed.

It was a Board decision not to go with two new teams because the NHL wanted to offer a deeper expansion draft than they ever done and the Governors considered that losing two players per team was too much.

On Canadian dollar issue: he recognized that the situation got better since then.

The NHL have been in touch with people from Quebec City.

And then this: "I don't want to make any promises but they weren't rejected they were deferred and we know they want a team. And it's a long life in a small world and it's something that at the appropriate time perhaps we'll get an opportunity to focus on."

I have to say, as a Nordiques' fan, it's a little bit of water in what looks like to be a crossing of the desert. It's not much, but it will be enough to keep faith.

For the full interview go here: http://www.sportsnet.ca/590/prime-time-sports/bettman-seattle-china-players-kneeling/

For the bit on Quebec City, go to 5:08

 

[powerstuck]

I think everyone needs a chill-pill. There is currently no plans to further expand in the next 2-3 years and there is no plan to relocate a team (for the next 9 months at least), so it's all a moot point.

Selling a team to someone who wanted to move it elsewhere is a sign of failure ? Of course it is...that's why the league corrected that big massive fail and today they don't only require a majority of other NHL members to approuve a sale of a franchise, but also a majority to agree to a movement of the franchise.

 

[Killion]

It was a Board decision not to go with two new teams because the NHL wanted to offer a deeper expansion draft than they ever done and the Governors considered that losing two players per team was too much.

This is interesting, have not heard this one before. Not sure what to make of that. He's obviously being careful in his choice of words & posture. That the "door isnt shut, deferred, talking with Quebec" etc. I'm just not entirely buying this "teams didnt want to lose 2 players" rationale. Teams can easily afford to lose a couple, 4 or even 6 players beyond their Top 6 Forwards, Top 3 Defenceman & Starting Goaltenders the way the games being played, been played since 04. Could well be a contributing factor amongst others as to why QC wasnt granted a team through Expansion but in the scheme of things pretty far down the list. Overall however, positive interview, QC obviously held back, in abeyance, soft landing spot for sure, just a question of when & which club or whatever other winds buffet the Leagues ships elsewhere requiring Relocation & possible Expansion to compliment such that would see a return of the Nordique.

 

[BattleBorn]

Closing threads at 1,000 was a policy created by a requirement of our old forum software. We've got new forum software now, but we've also got megathreads that have continued through the years 1,000 posts at a time. As such, and because having the PHX megathread always stuck on volume 130 until the end of time seems weird, we're continuing the practice on the BoH for now.

This thread is closed. If something should come up involving Quebec, please feel free to start a new thread. Until then, we'll see you all around!