Quebec Speculation (re: Canadian division)

[CanadianCoyote]

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.

In a bleakly humorous way...had Bettman got his way the first go around, the Nordiques may have had a salary cap and revenue sharing to keep them afloat for a while longer.

 

[Nordskull]

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?

No. Simply put. Nobody will take a illogical risk.

 

[mouser]

In a bleakly humorous way...had Bettman got his way the first go around, the Nordiques may have had a salary cap and revenue sharing to keep them afloat for a while longer.

It’s interesting question. If the 1995 CBA had included a cap like Bettman and many of the owners wanted, would Quebec have been able to stabilize and survive? The arena and financial issues were significant, but a 1995 cap could have been a potential road to stability. I’m sure it’s been discussed in length years ago.

For those not familiar with the 1994 CBA negotiations, there was a lockout for the 1994-95 season with a salary cap being one of the major goals of the NHL owners. The lockout lasted into 1995 and eventually a group of bigger market owners caved on the cap and voted for a CBA agreement against Bettman’s recommendations to not settle without including a cap. The 1994-95 season was shortened to 48 games and Quebec, Winnipeg and Hartford would relocate in the following years. The cap would wait till a decade later.

Bettman would go on to consolidate his power as commissioner following the 1994-95 CBA negotiations to require a supermajority of owners to overrule his CBA recommendations, rather then a simple majority. Leading up to the lost 2004-05 season and implementation of the salary cap.

Who knows what the NHL landscape might look like had the cap been implemented in 1994-95 instead of 2005? And it’s not limited to teams relocating. Franchise values would have changed, expansion interest and bids could have have changed. Some of the late 1990’s expansion teams like Atlanta and Florida (yes, I know their early playoff run, but it wasn’t financially sustainable) might have established earlier success in their markets under a cap system that could have carried over to better situations for those franchises today. Maybe Arizona and Colorado become expansion teams in instead of relocation teams.

 

[alko]

For those not familiar with the 1994 CBA negotiations, there was a lockout for the 1994-95 season with a salary cap being one of the major goals of the NHL owners.

Just curious: How high should be the cap?

 

[KevFu]

It’s interesting question. If the 1995 CBA had included a cap like Bettman and many of the owners wanted, would Quebec have been able to stabilize and survive? The arena and financial issues were significant, but a 1995 cap could have been a potential road to stability. I’m sure it’s been discussed in length years ago.

I don't think so. It's not like the Nordiques owner sold the team because he HAD to spent himself into oblivion to compete. The issue was lack of revenue generation. Between the weak Canadian dollar, the old antiquated arena with low revenue streams, and the low media rights potential from no competing networks in TV or radio on the English-speaking side.

Preventing everyone from spending big money wouldn't have solved those issues at all. He'd still have less revenue than everyone else.

A salary cap might have made things worse for Quebec. In their last year, 9 teams spent over 25% more than the Nordiques, 3 spent 25% less than they did, and 14 teams were in the middle. Quebec was 17th of 26 teams in payroll.

The average payroll was $16 million. Let's say they set the cap at $20 million and the floor at $12 million. Well, 5 teams would have to move $13 million worth of quality players and where are they going to land? Places like BOS and PHI who were about average payroll, and MON who was below average. That would have made them worse than 17th in payroll.

At the end of the day, Aubut sold the team because he couldn't bring in revenue in an old arena, with no competition for media rights and a weak dollar prevented him from funding the losses. They were like the Islanders of the 2000s, but without the TV contract. Unless a local owner was willing to pay for the team's survival, a cap wasn't going to help them.

 

[Centrum Hockey]

I don't think so. It's not like the Nordiques owner sold the team because he HAD to spent himself into oblivion to compete. The issue was lack of revenue generation. Between the weak Canadian dollar, the old antiquated arena with low revenue streams, and the low media rights potential from no competing networks in TV or radio on the English-speaking side.

Preventing everyone from spending big money wouldn't have solved those issues at all. He'd still have less revenue than everyone else.

A salary cap might have made things worse for Quebec. In their last year, 9 teams spent over 25% more than the Nordiques, 3 spent 25% less than they did, and 14 teams were in the middle. Quebec was 17th of 26 teams in payroll.

The average payroll was $16 million. Let's say they set the cap at $20 million and the floor at $12 million. Well, 5 teams would have to move $13 million worth of quality players and where are they going to land? Places like BOS and PHI who were about average payroll, and MON who was below average. That would have made them worse than 17th in payroll.

At the end of the day, Aubut sold the team because he couldn't bring in revenue in an old arena, with no competition for media rights and a weak dollar prevented him from funding the losses. They were like the Islanders of the 2000s, but without the TV contract. Unless a local owner was willing to pay for the team's survival, a cap wasn't going to help them.

If the NHL ever went back to Quebec city you would think acquiring the land where Colisée once stood and other land around the stadium for redevelopment would be a priority for the ownership group. Non hockey revenue streams are important for small market Canadian teams.

 

[CanadianCoyote]

I don't think so. It's not like the Nordiques owner sold the team because he HAD to spent himself into oblivion to compete. The issue was lack of revenue generation. Between the weak Canadian dollar, the old antiquated arena with low revenue streams, and the low media rights potential from no competing networks in TV or radio on the English-speaking side.

But we're assuming the cap comes in alongside a revenue sharing model with this hypothetical.

I mean, it's certainly not good still, but the Nordiques were never an unprofitable team, and their main problem was the same as Winnipeg's; the way player salaries were skyrocketing at the time. And with that, all the small-market teams were squeezed because they just couldn't rake in the kind of cash a Toronto, Los Angeles or New York could.

A capped maximum of salary for any team forces the max back down simply because teams then need to fit their rosters under a certain threshold, and revenue sharing gives smaller-market teams some help with finances.

The Pens don't pay Lemieux 11 million dollars in a salary-cap NHL, and the Rangers don't spend money like it's nothing to buy up as many players as they can in that system, either, both of which make the lives of teams like Québec a bit easier because there's more talent to go around.

With the cap and revenue sharing in place, Aubut can probably afford to renovate the Colisée to more modern standards because he's getting a steady flow of income from that revenue-sharing model and, with a competitive team at the time, attendance would keep rising (even though it was never very bad at any point).

 

[Mightygoose]

If Quebec would have got a new arena in the 90s but still no cap and revenue sharing, I think they would have survived albeit in a tough place until the 2005 cap came in.

The new arena would have had them keep up enough. I think Winnipeg would have too

 

[Yukon Joe]

If Quebec would have got a new arena in the 90s but still no cap and revenue sharing, I think they would have survived albeit in a tough place until the 2005 cap came in.

The new arena would have had them keep up enough. I think Winnipeg would have too

Going back to the mid-90s and the Save the Jets campaign... the problem wasn't in getting a new arena. The problem wasn't that they wouldn't be profitable even with a new arena.

No, the problem is that nobody was able or willing to cover the ongoing losses of the team until the new arena would be built. The owner at the time Barry Shenkarow was a lawyer for crying out loud - he didn't have huge assets or a big family business to rely on.

 

[KevFu]

But we're assuming the cap comes in alongside a revenue sharing model with this hypothetical.

I mean, it's certainly not good still, but the Nordiques were never an unprofitable team, and their main problem was the same as Winnipeg's; the way player salaries were skyrocketing at the time. And with that, all the small-market teams were squeezed because they just couldn't rake in the kind of cash a Toronto, Los Angeles or New York could.

A capped maximum of salary for any team forces the max back down simply because teams then need to fit their rosters under a certain threshold, and revenue sharing gives smaller-market teams some help with finances.

The Pens don't pay Lemieux 11 million dollars in a salary-cap NHL, and the Rangers don't spend money like it's nothing to buy up as many players as they can in that system, either, both of which make the lives of teams like Québec a bit easier because there's more talent to go around.

With the cap and revenue sharing in place, Aubut can probably afford to renovate the Colisée to more modern standards because he's getting a steady flow of income from that revenue-sharing model and, with a competitive team at the time, attendance would keep rising (even though it was never very bad at any point).

I don't think revenue sharing makes a sizeable dent in the ability of the Nordiques to continue playing in that venue. The Saddledome was 30 years newer than the Colisee, and it's 1994 renovation was 37 million CAD. There was no way to bring it up league average standards, and even if they did, virtually everyone in the NHL got a new arena from 1994-2007 --- 24 new NHL buildings in 13 years.

I'm extremely pro-Quebec for the NHL (and Montreal back in MLB. And I think the NBA should add Seattle and Montreal). I'm just saying they couldn't sustain the massive change occurring in NHL revenues playing in an arena built in the 1940s.

 

[dkitson16]

But we're assuming the cap comes in alongside a revenue sharing model with this hypothetical.

I mean, it's certainly not good still, but the Nordiques were never an unprofitable team, and their main problem was the same as Winnipeg's; the way player salaries were skyrocketing at the time. And with that, all the small-market teams were squeezed because they just couldn't rake in the kind of cash a Toronto, Los Angeles or New York could.

A capped maximum of salary for any team forces the max back down simply because teams then need to fit their rosters under a certain threshold, and revenue sharing gives smaller-market teams some help with finances.

The Pens don't pay Lemieux 11 million dollars in a salary-cap NHL, and the Rangers don't spend money like it's nothing to buy up as many players as they can in that system, either, both of which make the lives of teams like Québec a bit easier because there's more talent to go around.

With the cap and revenue sharing in place, Aubut can probably afford to renovate the Colisée to more modern standards because he's getting a steady flow of income from that revenue-sharing model and, with a competitive team at the time, attendance would keep rising (even though it was never very bad at any point).

I can't recall if there was ever talk of renovating Le Colisee? It may not have been possible to upgrade it for the number of luxury boxes . club seats and overall seating needed.

Aubut wanted the Province to fund a $125M new arena. The government wouldn't as they were in the process of closing about 9 hospitals due to the bad economy. They offered to buy out Aubut and a small relief package. Quebec also had already spent or tagged the infrastructure money the Feds had sent for other purposes. THe Feds would give them no more funding for an arena, possibly because the Provincial government was a Separatist government. They may not have accepted the federal money if offered.

Aubut claimed to have lost $10 million in the last season, so he wasn't about to hold out any longer without the promise of a new arena, a salary cap and losses being covered until the arena was built.

 

[HugoSimon]

2019: QC won't get a team until the economics of the leagues changes, it's a safe bet but the league is far more interested in expanding across the US to get that much desired TV deal.

2020: The league is loosing near 2 full years of revenue. The tv deal is pretty much shot. The league has a very very serious concern of facing contraction.

I find it really hard to take these arguments seriously. The Bettman era of expansion is beyond dead. Quebec is like Winnipeg, a safe bet in times of desperation. Well times are quite desperate.

I don't know what new math people have been studying but the league is loosing money, not only is it loosing money so much of its value is based on speculation. Speculation that people would really want a mass tv deal. Speculation that the big 3 would face so much competition for team ownership that hockey would be a viable alternative for team strapped cities. Speculation that the NHL would be seen as a stable bet for future owners with big gate revenues and a Canadian market that is filling the league with money.

None of those things hold true.The TV deal is gonna shrink, there's a risk the Canadian deal will shrink, the Big 3 teams becoming more available, making them a much better purchase option.

I'm sticking with my bet that Ottawa will goto QC before anywhere else. But that doesn't change the fact that the league is relatively unstable.

I mean the dogma on here gets a bit absurd, if the league isn't in trouble now are you capable of even stating what could be worst? To deny the vulnerability of the league is to amplify the speculative nature of the league.

This isn't just about the NHL.

TV networks are concerned, the vast majority of people who use to play are not, there are potentially owners where combinations of NFL/NBA/MLB teams are in trouble. This is bigger than Bettman.

 

[King_Stannis]

I will say, a lot of the "not in your dreams is QC ever coming back" smarminess from some is reminiscent of gscarpenter talking about Winnipeg coming back circa 2009 or so.

 

[End on a Hinote]

I will say, a lot of the "not in your dreams is QC ever coming back" smarminess from some is reminiscent of gscarpenter talking about Winnipeg coming back circa 2009 or so.

I remember another poster, a Preds fan named "nomorekids" from around 2004 who was so incredibly adamant that the NHL was never returning to Winnipeg that he would always go out of his way and mock those with any shred of hope it would happen. It got to the point of border line trolling how he would go on and on and on about how the Jets were never retuning to Winnipeg and would relentlessly mock those who though otherwise. He had a field day when, in 2004, HNIC proclaimed the the NHL would return to Winnipeg within the next decade.

One of my earliest thoughts when the Jets came back in 2011, was wondering what was going through his head at that moment.