San Francisco for the NHL

Status
Not open for further replies.

Puckschmuck*

Guest
Quick question. Everyone talks about how Hamilton won't get into the NHL because it's "too close" to Toronto and Buffalo (I believe people have said there is a 50 mile radius for territories or something like that). But what about NY, having both the Rangers and Islanders? How far apart are those arenas? Is there a confict of territory infringement between those two teams?

Pardon my ignorance, as I know next to nothing about NYC or Long Island.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boy Hedican

Homer Jr, friends call me Ho-Ju
Jul 12, 2006
5,084
1,166
Earff
Though I think the Canadian cities deserve their teams first, I would look out for Seattle/Portland and Wisconsin in the future to have their teams. But thinking about any city that could have the NHL, I was thinking about the city of San Francisco and how well would they handle the NHL. The positives are there but there negatives to having the NHL there.


Pro: The city is a affluent/progressive city, which the NHL tends to do well in(Montreal, Boston, New York, and Minnesota).


Con: There is no arena built and the city isn't going to do anything about it. Also they would be competing with the Sharks in the Bay Area and the Sharks have developed a fantastic fanbase for a city that doesn't have any hockey history. This right here kills their chance at getting any NHL team there, unless the Sharks want to move away from San Jose, which is a 00000001% chance of that happening at the moment.

You basically started and ended your thread in one post. The con's are the reasons it WON'T happen, not a "bad" or "negative" of it occurring.

That said, its a terrible idea. San Francisco is NOT a sports town at all. PERIOD. The people of SF are nothing like the people of the major cities you mentioned. SF is a great city in its own ways, but not for major sports. Most SF Giants and Niner fans are mainly from the South Bay (SJ being the heart of it). This is why the Giants are throwing a fit regarding the A's moving down to SJ. So you'd basically have zero fan base. Maybe some crackheads from the tenderloin would sport the jersey, but that's about it.
 

Boy Hedican

Homer Jr, friends call me Ho-Ju
Jul 12, 2006
5,084
1,166
Earff
Quick quesion. Everyone talks about how Hamilton won't get into the NHL because it's "too close" to Toronto and Buffalo (I believe people have said there is a 50 mile radius for territories or something like that). But what about NY, having both the Rangers and Islanders? How far apart are those arenas? Is there a confict of territory infringement between those two teams?

Pardon my ignorance, as I know next to nothing about NYC or Long Island.

Google maps can answer that Q for you. But the real answer is...

NY Metro Population .... 18,897,109

simply put, there's enough love and money to go around.
 

Puckschmuck*

Guest
Google maps can answer that Q for you. But the real answer is...

NY Metro Population .... 18,897,109

simply put, there's enough love and money to go around.

Regardless of population size, the argument from many against a Hamilton team is that it's within this 50 mile no infringment on another teams terriotory. So if the Islanders and Rangers are within 50 miles of eachother, doesn't this cause a breach of this supposed regulation? Is this perhaps overlooked simply because of NYC metro population?

This is what I'm getting at.
 

Boy Hedican

Homer Jr, friends call me Ho-Ju
Jul 12, 2006
5,084
1,166
Earff
Yeah, but San Francisco is the anchor of the metropolitan area. Of course there are more people in the satellite cities and suburbs, because San Francisco proper is really small, but it hasn't stopped people from going to Giants/49ers games.

You have no clue what you're talking about. San Jose (and the Silicon Valley) has become the anchor of the Bay Area (population, size, economy).
 

Boy Hedican

Homer Jr, friends call me Ho-Ju
Jul 12, 2006
5,084
1,166
Earff
Regardless of population size, the argument from many against a Hamilton team is that it's within this 50 mile no infringment on another teams terriotory. So if the Islanders and Rangers are within 50 miles of eachother, doesn't this cause a breach of this supposed regulation? Is this perhaps overlooked simply because of NYC metro population?

This is what I'm getting at.

Sorry, I don't have an answer in regards to the territory. But I imagine the general population of the area and the NHL as a business saw it as a good idea.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,238
13,606
Folsom
Quick question. Everyone talks about how Hamilton won't get into the NHL because it's "too close" to Toronto and Buffalo (I believe people have said there is a 50 mile radius for territories or something like that). But what about NY, having both the Rangers and Islanders? How far apart are those arenas? Is there a confict of territory infringement between those two teams?

Pardon my ignorance, as I know next to nothing about NYC or Long Island.

There is but once you're there, there's no retroactive infringement claims to be made. The Islanders only exist because of the WHA. The Devils only exist because they had to pay off three teams to go there.

Those were also different times so you can't draw any real conclusions or justifications from then to now.
 

StoneColdFlower*

Guest
I think that the Cali market is crowded right now.

They need a team in the US Northwest (Seattle or Portland) and a second team in Texas (Houston or Austin).

A real Quebecois would be peeved off enough that one sunbelt state has more teams than Quebec, let alone two. Hell, I'm an Ontario Anglo and I find ONE sunbelt state with more teams than Quebec to be highly disrespectful.
 

goleafsgo87*

Guest
Give me a break 4 teams in california? The ducks can't even sell there games and im sure ppl from san fran cheer for the sharks san fran and san jose is about one hour. Interesting they say hamilton dont deserve a team but then it takes about a hour as well but it's in canada where hockey sells. If a team goes to san fran it will be a bloody shame. Infact i believe atleast 6 teams in the nhl don't deserve a team so why even bring a team into san fran It's quite stupid and won't make money at all.
 

Rick Nash homework

Registered User
Jun 5, 2010
805
0
Massachusetts
You basically started and ended your thread in one post. The con's are the reasons it WON'T happen, not a "bad" or "negative" of it occurring.

That said, its a terrible idea. San Francisco is NOT a sports town at all. PERIOD. The people of SF are nothing like the people of the major cities you mentioned. SF is a great city in its own ways, but not for major sports. Most SF Giants and Niner fans are mainly from the South Bay (SJ being the heart of it). This is why the Giants are throwing a fit regarding the A's moving down to SJ. So you'd basically have zero fan base. Maybe some crackheads from the tenderloin would sport the jersey, but that's about it.

I have never been to the city, so tell me what it's like there. How bad is San Fransisco as a sports town in it's self?
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,395
Charlotte, NC
Give me a break 4 teams in california?

I hate when people say things like this.

You realize that California has more people in it than Canada does, right? You realize that the distance between the border between the CA/Mexico and CA/Oregon borders is over 750mi, right? You realize that the driving distance between the two largest metro areas in California is greater than the driving distance between the two largest metro areas in Canada, right? From the pure basic numbers and not discussing things like tradition, it's not that far out there.

The fact that we are talking about California having 4 teams shouldn't be THAT big of a surprise. I personally think that the geographics of putting two teams in the Bay Area while one already exists in San Jose isn't the best idea. I think if a 4th team were ever to be viable in California, it'd be in San Diego. It's never going to happen.

But that doesn't mean it's absolutely ludicrous to even bring up the topic.
 
Last edited:

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Regardless of population size, the argument from many against a Hamilton team is that it's within this 50 mile no infringment on another teams terriotory. So if the Islanders and Rangers are within 50 miles of eachother, doesn't this cause a breach of this supposed regulation? Is this perhaps overlooked simply because of NYC metro population?

This is what I'm getting at.

It wasn't infringement because in 1972 the Rangers consented - in return a territorial rights fee.

It wasn't infringement with the Devils in 1983, because the Isles & Rangers consented - in return for territorial right fees.

If Toronto consented, presumably in return for a rights fee or some other compensation, then it would not be infringement.

Now, the League's position is that it's relocation policy under By-Law 36 allows for relocation with a simple majority vote of the BoG with no single tam veto, so theoretically the League could approve a relocation with no compensation - but it is very unlikely that a majority would approve unless the Leafs gave consent and agreed to a compensation deal.
 

New User Name

Registered User
Jan 2, 2008
12,863
1,696
I hate when people say things like this.

You realize that California has more people in it than Canada does, right? You realize that the distance between the border between the CA/Mexico and CA/Oregon borders is over 750mi, right? You realize that the driving distance between the two largest metro areas in California is greater than the driving distance between the two largest metro areas in Canada, right? From the pure basic numbers and not discussing things like tradition, it's not that far out there.

The fact that we are talking about California having 4 teams shouldn't be THAT big of a surprise. I personally think that the geographics of putting two teams in the Bay Area while one already exists in San Jose isn't the best idea. I think if a 4th team were ever to be viable in California, it'd be in San Diego. It's never going to happen.

But that doesn't mean it's absolutely ludicrous to even bring up the topic.

The number of people in a location isn't relevant. It's the number of fans willing to shell out hard earned money that's relevant.

I don't agree that just because an area has more people, chances are there's more hockey fans. Especially in US cities that have baseball, basketball and football.
 

New User Name

Registered User
Jan 2, 2008
12,863
1,696
A real Quebecois would be peeved off enough that one sunbelt state has more teams than Quebec, let alone two. Hell, I'm an Ontario Anglo and I find ONE sunbelt state with more teams than Quebec to be highly disrespectful.

Give me a break 4 teams in california? The ducks can't even sell there games and im sure ppl from san fran cheer for the sharks san fran and san jose is about one hour. Interesting they say hamilton dont deserve a team but then it takes about a hour as well but it's in canada where hockey sells. If a team goes to san fran it will be a bloody shame. Infact i believe atleast 6 teams in the nhl don't deserve a team so why even bring a team into san fran It's quite stupid and won't make money at all.

You guys are forgetting one important thing.

The NHL is an American league with 6 Canadian teams. Everything is geared to increase hockey popularity in the US and if that means something in Canada has to suffer, like times of games, so sad, too bad.

Even the Canadian players don't care. You would think at least ONE would stand up and say something....but no.

It's been 17 years since a Canadian based team won the Cup, and it's not looking good for this year. Do the Canadian players care? NACIH.
 

Grudy0

Registered User
Mar 16, 2011
1,878
122
Maryland
Regardless of population size, the argument from many against a Hamilton team is that it's within this 50 mile no infringment on another teams terriotory. So if the Islanders and Rangers are within 50 miles of eachother, doesn't this cause a breach of this supposed regulation? Is this perhaps overlooked simply because of NYC metro population?

This is what I'm getting at.

It wasn't infringement because in 1972 the Rangers consented - in return a territorial rights fee.
The Islanders paid the Rangers $4 million.
It wasn't infringement with the Devils in 1983, because the Isles & Rangers consented - in return for territorial right fees.
The Devils were on the hook for $9.2 million to the Rangers, $8 million for the Islanders, and $2.5 million for the Flyers.

The Ducks (and the Panthers) paid $50 million in expansion fees, but $25 million of the Ducks' fee went directly to the Kings.
If Toronto consented, presumably in return for a rights fee or some other compensation, then it would not be infringement.

Now, the League's position is that it's relocation policy under By-Law 36 allows for relocation with a simple majority vote of the BoG with no single tam veto, so theoretically the League could approve a relocation with no compensation - but it is very unlikely that a majority would approve unless the Leafs gave consent and agreed to a compensation deal.
Exactly.

Let's not forget the first couple or so seasons that the Sharks did play out of the Cow Palace in San Francisco.

However, there are rather new arenas without major league tenants. And there are currently plenty of teams for sale. Movement to San Francisco cannot be an option until someone actually expresses interest and an arena is built in San Francisco. Ask the 49ers of the NFL how gratuitous the City of San Francisco is to provide a newer stadium. The 49ers have only been asking for 20 years.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Let's not forget the first couple or so seasons that the Sharks did play out of the Cow Palace in San Francisco.

Ahh, the Palace of Fine Cows brings back such fond memories.

If you ever went to a game in late February - after the Sharks were forced on the road for 3 weeks due to the Grand National Rodeo - believe me, you would NOT forget it. There indeed was a reason it was called the Cow Palace.
 

Corey Perry*

Guest
You have no clue what you're talking about. San Jose (and the Silicon Valley) has become the anchor of the Bay Area (population, size, economy).

I think he was thinking that San Francisco is in a way, the "main city". People say they visit San Francisco, not Oakland or San Jose. I agree that population and economy wise, SJ is the anchor, but he was thinking.....more traditionally???

Basically, San Francisco is considered a world wide famous city, SJ isn't. That's his point, but its stupid nevertheless
 

HabsByTheBay

Registered User
Dec 3, 2010
1,216
22
London
Has anybody here produced hard evidence that the South Bay is the bulk of Giants season ticket holders? Because I've been googling and I haven't seen it. The only quote I've seen is some commenter on the Internet who says "18%" of season ticket holders are from Santa Clara County.

Anyway, San Francisco is a perfectly good sports town...for sports in San Francisco. Warriors? Don't really care (unless they throw the City unis back on). Sharks? Who?

So that leaves the Giants, the 49ers and high school sports. The 49ers want to do their chicken run to Santa Clara because they'll get free stadium there and people are pissed. So that leaves those Catholic high school rivalry games and the Giants. We love those.
 

BigT2002

Registered User
Dec 6, 2006
16,285
232
Somwhere
I'm not sure about Houston having a team but Austin is good choice if the NHL wants a second team in Texas. The city has no competition in any of the pro sports, so a NHL team would be good start to see how well of a sports market it is. Second off it has a educated/wealthy/progressive group of people, which usually can help a NHL team or two. There was a poll not too along go saying the NHL had the most tech savvy, well educated fan base of any pro sport.

Houston already has an AHL team

And here is why Austin does not work:
22337800.jpg


College Football is literally King in the Lonestar State, most importantly in Austin. It goes until January typically for Texas with exception to last season where iit was literally the first time in a decade to not make the bowl game. Right now spring practice is going on, and they sell out the stadium. Food for thought.

Best places for teams:

Seattle, WA - No NBA team and the NFL team would be #1 but wouldn't hit too hard on the demographics
Milwaukee, WI - Share the arena with the Bucks
Portland, Maine - New England and close to Canada

About the only three that need it. If you are doing one in Texas, San Antonio would most likely be the best bet.

Portland is a great great sports city.

Where do the Trail Blazers play?

IIRC, Portland is one of the teams that was heavily debated about being on the top of the chopping block if the NBA were to contract any of the teams. They weren't #1, but they certainly were up there. And Houston is a terrible choice, I'm sorry. Two reasons...the Aeros can't even get close to selling out their games so what makes you think a failed product from another city (e.g. Phoenix) moving there is going to be any different? Next thing, and someone has to say it here is the demographics of H-Town and tell me if you can think of another city out there that has a NHL team that is failing and everyone believes should be moved....

According to the 2010 Census, Whites made up 50.5% of Houston's population, of which 25.6% were non-Hispanic whites. Blacks or African Americans made up 23.7% of Houston's population. American Indians made up 0.7% of Houston's population. Asians made up 6.0% of Houston's population while Pacific Islanders made up 0.1%. Individuals from some other race made up 15.2% of the city's population, of which 0.2% were non-Hispanic. Individuals from two or more races made up 3.3% of the city's population. People of Hispanic or Latino origin made up 43.8% of Houston's population.[106]

2010 Census figures indicated a population of 420,003 - 22.4% lower than 2009 estimates of 540,921.[144] The huge difference between the 2010 official count and the 2009 estimates caused many to question the reliability of the 2010 count, including Atlanta mayor Kasim Reed.[145]

According to the 2010 census, the racial composition of the city of Atlanta was as follows:

Black or African American: 54.0%
White: 38.4% (Non-Hispanic Whites: 36.3%)
Asian: 3.1%
Native American: 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 0.0%
Some other race: 2.2%
Two or more races: 2.0%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 5.3%

Please be honest with this and keep it away from the nasty type comments. But in all honesty, while the game has made huge headway in the African American community, the hispanic community is basically NON EXISTENT. What do you think Houston would be able to do? Out of the 2,099,000 (according to 2010 Census) only about 1,100,000 are white. How many are transplants from other regions where hockey is huge probably is not that high. Not to mention Football is STILL the #1 sport in the Lonestar state and the Texans always have a huge rating because of it. Hockey isn't going to tap into that demographic, I'm sorry. Houston is not Dallas where there was a massive amount of transplant movement with new money taking over the city. This would be like putting a team in San Diego.
 
Last edited:

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,395
Charlotte, NC
The number of people in a location isn't relevant. It's the number of fans willing to shell out hard earned money that's relevant.

I don't agree that just because an area has more people, chances are there's more hockey fans. Especially in US cities that have baseball, basketball and football.

Expansion has never been about, and never will be about, where there are more actual hockey fans. Expansion is about where there are more potential hockey fans.

Of course population statistics are relevant. In 1999, there were more hockey fans in Regina than there were in Nashville. But it would have been a terrible move for the NHL to put a team in Regina, whereas it's looking more and more like it was a good move to put a team in Nashville (13% increase in ticket sales for 10-11, first high school building a rink on campus, etc).

Population is an important factor in the ability of a market to support a team. It's not the only factor and may not be the biggest factor, but it's still an important one.
 

Fibs Perfection

Registered User
Mar 28, 2011
41
0
Michigan
Why can't the state of Wisconsin get an NHL team? Because of Chicago? Because cities like Milwaukee and Madison can't support one? Milwaukee has an MLB team. Because of college hockey? Green Bay has a little over 100k people and they seem to do fine with an NFL team.
 

HabsByTheBay

Registered User
Dec 3, 2010
1,216
22
London
The Packers are an anomaly. Using them as a representative example of anything doesn't make sense.

Besides, even with all that, they don't exist if Milwaukee has an NFL team. They are Milwaukee's representative, for all intents and purposes.

So it's Milwaukee or bust for the NHL.
 

krudmonk

Registered User
Jan 12, 2006
5,509
0
Sannozay
Has anybody here produced hard evidence that the South Bay is the bulk of Giants season ticket holders? Because I've been googling and I haven't seen it. The only quote I've seen is some commenter on the Internet who says "18%" of season ticket holders are from Santa Clara County.

Anyway, San Francisco is a perfectly good sports town...for sports in San Francisco. Warriors? Don't really care (unless they throw the City unis back on). Sharks? Who?

So that leaves the Giants, the 49ers and high school sports. The 49ers want to do their chicken run to Santa Clara because they'll get free stadium there and people are pissed. So that leaves those Catholic high school rivalry games and the Giants. We love those.
I think there was a study (of questionable veracity) a few years back about 49ers season ticket holders which showed that many came from south. But that includes the peninsula, too. As for the Giants, I think they have caught on all over Northern California so that sounds like a bunk statement, saying that their fanbase is mainly from the South Bay.

But I do agree that in SF city limits, there are far fewer sports fans than typical of a city that size/prominence.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Has anybody here produced hard evidence that the South Bay is the bulk of Giants season ticket holders? Because I've been googling and I haven't seen it. The only quote I've seen is some commenter on the Internet who says "18%" of season ticket holders are from Santa Clara County.

I can't speak to absolute numbers, but I have heard statements on the radio (KQED's Forum, IIRC) from Giants' a spokesperson in defending the Giants' territorial rights to the Santa Clara County that there are more Giants STHs from Santa Clara than San Francisco (or any of the 9 other Bay Area counties).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->