Well, then, you seem to be at an impasse. You don't understand why they remain, and yet, remain they do. So, you can join your friends here in their 12th year of holding their collective breath, or find something more productive to do, perhaps?
Quebec Speculation (re: Canadian division)
- Thread starter Dynamite Kid
- Start date
Well, then, you seem to be at an impasse. You don't understand why they remain, and yet, remain they do. So, you can join your friends here in their 12th year of holding their collective breath, or find something more productive to do, perhaps?
Fatass
Registered User
- Apr 17, 2017
- 22,108
- 14,030
I think “Legend” explained it well. The cost to move the team could be in the 100’s of millions. That’s prohibitive for sure. Add that to revenue sharing, and maybe the Coyote’s owner is financially better off staying put?
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
So.... how does any team make money in Quebec City?? Certainly the ticket sales would increase but the Coyotes (as anyone else) would be paying rent to play there, just like they are now. What other revenue streams would he get??
Local TV?? Nope. That's locked up.
Consessions? They get part of that now.
Plus it would cost Meruelo a huge relo fee (see above post about what the NFL teams paid) just to get in the door. How long does it take to recover it??
It isn't that simple.
CanadianCoyote
Registered User
Considering the Phoenix metro is one of the largest markets in the United States? Hell no. You don't "grow the game" in the US by moving from a giant Southwestern city with loads of potential hockey fans to gain to...a decently-sized Canadian city that's mostly Francophonic and many of which already watch the NHL and are hockey fans. Plus, losing a market like Phoenix for a market like Québec would not do the NHL's already-mediocre US TV deal any favors.
And the difference between Phoenix and Houston in terms of market size is so minute it's not really worth moving there, either. The league would be much better off expanding to Houston and having Houston, Dallas and Phoenix all together rather than sacrificing one to get another.
After all...that's the configuration that the other three major sports leagues have.
Last edited:
Mightygoose
Registered User
With the NFL moves as of late, perhaps all of them post merger, it was the existing owner moving the team. They're all related to getting a better stadium deal in the new location. Rams back to LA was a little different as Kroenke privately built the stadium.
With the Coyotes, moving to Houston to Quebec would require selling the team (or have enough equity of it) since both those locations have operators in place. I don't think Meruelo would be much further ahead moving the team himself to any of those places. But if he financially taps out, all bets are off with a year to year lease.
CanadianCoyote
Registered User
Also, we have to remember that millionaires and such are really only getting richer over the pandemic, anyways, so I doubt Meruelo's losing money currently.
Mightygoose
Registered User
Owners may or may not get richer during the pandemic. The bigger question how 'rich' is the business?
It's common for owners to lose money on the team but make it back on the sale. With the effect of Covid with no light at the end of the tunnel yet the total losses to make a sale worthwhile to be made whole (or ahead) will come sooner.
How many are looking at their team thinking they reached that point? Having a season that's not on their best interest could trigger it. Having multiple reach that decision means many problems with few solutions available.
It's common for owners to lose money on the team but make it back on the sale. With the effect of Covid with no light at the end of the tunnel yet the total losses to make a sale worthwhile to be made whole (or ahead) will come sooner.
How many are looking at their team thinking they reached that point? Having a season that's not on their best interest could trigger it. Having multiple reach that decision means many problems with few solutions available.
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,209
- 8,616
1. The Raiders move from/to/from Oakland is a quite different situation than Phoenix. I'll let you do some homework on that one.
2. The same question can be asked of [owner] in [market where everyone says the owner's team is losing money]. The up-front cost required to be paid to earn alleged profits in [new market where everyone says a team is guaranteed profits] may dwarf (present value of those future profits over some period of time + expected appreciation in franchise value). In that case, it makes more financial sense to stay put and take operating losses now and make it up on expected appreciation of franchise value at some point down the road when the franchise is sold. The question is then whether the owner has enough cash flow across all business units to float until then.
Not to mention, not every owner may have business reasons for not wanting to make a profit on the sports franchise. I'm positive we've covered that angle multiple times in the past.
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,209
- 8,616
That line continues to be as tiresome as it is incorrect.
In all honesty, Vancouver got screwed. It had 6 seasons (5 full + a lockout-shortened season) to build a fan base as an expansion team that had to start from scratch and was fairly quickly handcuffed by shitty decisions by then-GM Stu Jackson. That + a rapidly declining Canadian dollar made the team terrible and an unpopular destination for players. Its first 3 seasons + the lockout-shortened 4th it went 58-240. The franchise's best season was its last one at 23-59. People would have supported a losing team for the first couple of years; they weren't going to support a shitty team for years on end with inept management.
Also didn't help that for nearly 2 full years, the Grizzlies were the target of an attempted buy-and-move by Bill Laurie which the NBA bitterly fought. Tends to make it difficult to get local businesses to commit $$$ to high-end suites and tickets. 4 days after Laurie dropped his bid, Michael Heisley bought the team with the NBA's backing and claimed he was committed to keep the Grizzlies in town, in less than 3 weeks was already looking for a new home somewhere in the U.S., and 2 months after buying the team decided "oops, sorry - did I say I was committed to Vancouver? I really meant I'm committed to moving the team out of Vancouver" and the NBA rolled over like a content lap dog.
[The Grizzlies continue to reportedly lose money and are one of the lower-valued franchises in the NBA, illustrating that perhaps Vancouver wasn't all of the problem.]
1. Relocation money generally goes to the other owners. They like their money up-front, not in installments over years.
2. The elimination of revenue sharing money going to a Coyotes franchise relocated to [insert new location] wouldn't reduce the total revenue sharing burden. If anything, the total burden would increase as the relocated Coyotes started (allegedly) generating more revenues. Every other team who got revenue sharing would get a little more; someone who doesn't get revenue sharing would start getting it.
saskriders
Can't Hold Leads
Don't move any teams. A few years after covid (2025ish) expand to Houston and Quebec. Then a few years after that expand again to a nicer 36 with a west and east team (preferably NE as that would allow Florida and Tampa to join the metro.
Blue Warriors
Registered User
What relocation fee was paid when the Jets 1.0 , the Nordiques and the Whalers moved? My bet: close to zero.
Scandale du Jour
JordanStaal#1Fan
By then, they'll claim the arena in Quebec City is too old and expend to an South East market instead.
They are not coming to Quebec City unless they are forced to.
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,209
- 8,616
Find some past thread where the problems associated with a Quebec City bid have been addressed. Insert it here. When some of those problems are addressed - and it probably starts with don't have a Canadian dollar that trades at $1.30 or worse to the U.S. dollar - then we can talk about Quebec City as a future NHL location.
Scandale du Jour
JordanStaal#1Fan
Oh, I agree, 100%.
TV contract potential, footprint, Canadian dollar, etc. Name it, did not change, won't change. Even if the Canadian dollar was at parity, they still would not be interested. Sucks, but I understand why and I have accepted it. The league letting the Avs using the logo is another proof than no team is coming back here in the near future.
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,209
- 8,616
Same was said about Winnipeg. I think it's possible another team goes back to Canada, but it's going to take quiet, behind-the-scenes worth like the Chapmans did for years. That said, the basic demographics for Quebec City are a huge obstacle. This isn't 1984 where you could sell out seats at $5-7 per and a sizeable swath of the population could afford tickets and club/luxury boxes were exceedingly rare and not a linchpin of team finances. I don't know who's dropping $150-250 or more for lower-level seats, 41+ times a year, concessions included or not. I don't know who's putting up $250-500K or more for boxes for a season with a 5-10 year commitment.
It could happen. I just think it's going to be a bigger struggle than many want to admit, because the devotion and energy of Jose Quebecois Fan isn't going to be enough to foot the bill.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
The reason you see NFL teams move more often is that the NFL is the#1 sport in the US by a mile and cities will bend over backwards to try to entice teams to move.
Nobody in the us is offering such sweet arena deals as the Rams or Raiders got to NHL franchises.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
TNSE paid $110 mil to ASG, and $60 mil to the NHL in relocation fees, presumably to be distributed to the other 29 teams. This was also the first (and so far only) time a relocation charge was levied in the NHL.
Fatass
Registered User
- Apr 17, 2017
- 22,108
- 14,030
The cost to move an NHL team appears prohibiting, but would Quebec City want a team so badly they do like some of the US cities did for the NFL teams - make an offer the NHL owner can’t refuse?
Um.....I think the Rams have built their own stadium with private money. Chargers are paying rent to the Rams. Raiders did get public money, yes. In the interest of correct information.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
Or...
Would an owner get so desperate, and the NHL unable to subsidize that owner, such that the league might be willing to take a hit on franchise value and sell for less than $650 million?
I dunno. These are unprecedented time, but clearly that's about the last thing the NHL would want to do.
QC already built a state-of-the-art facility. The prospective local ownership was given management rights, including naming rights. You can't do much more than that...
Fatass
Registered User
- Apr 17, 2017
- 22,108
- 14,030
Lt Dan
F*** your ice cream!
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
Doesn't matter.... we're talking 2020 now.
The league collected $60 million for Winnipeg 2.0. It was included in the $170 price TNSE paid to acquire the Thrashers.
Blue Warriors
Registered User
It just shows once more that what allows every franchise to stay in their current market was not available to the Nordiques in 95 : a salary cap, revenue sharing, hefty relocation fees and gullible politicians . Fan support doesn’t matter.
