The NHL backdrop, how many teams will the league have?
- Thread starter WingsFan95
- Start date
MayDay
Registered User
WingsFan95
Registered User
Would be great for someone here to tell me why it's 0%.
As far as I know after Winnipeg the prospective relocation spots are:
Kansas City
Hamilton
Quebec City
I'm not sure any of the above would work outside of Hamilton.
I can certainly see the NHL downsizing to 28 teams.
As far as I know after Winnipeg the prospective relocation spots are:
Kansas City
Hamilton
Quebec City
I'm not sure any of the above would work outside of Hamilton.
I can certainly see the NHL downsizing to 28 teams.
optimus2861
Registered User
I just got to thinking, that if this were happening in the 70s, both the Thrashers and Coyotes would probably have been contracted. Sports is a very different business these days. Leagues don't want to contract teams except as an absolute last resort.
RandR
Registered User
- May 15, 2011
- 1,910
- 423
I agree with your point, but I wonder why that is so. If the NHL can't find a legitimate buyer for Phoenix next year and Glendale stops funding $25 million of their losses (both quite possible), then from a hockey standpoint I don't see what is so bad about contracting the league to 28 teams by taking down either Columbus or Florida along with Phoenix. Sure the optics are bad, but I can't imagine that still trumps the money that existing owners are losing annually to prop up that franchise.
The best reason I can think is that if teams "never" fold then that raises the price of the weakest franchises because prospective new owners can be assured that, barring bankruptcy, they can always recoup at least part of their investment.
The league can always expand back again in the future, and expansion fees are likely to be higher than relocation fees.
I put the chance of the league contracting 1 or 2 teams at 25%. Too many teams are in trouble, and I think the alternative locations (Kansas City, Quebec, Toronto area) all have issues.
WingsFan95
Registered User
Depends on how you define "near future". I expect at least two team reduction over the next decade. And the NHL won't be the only league to do so.
With the number of teams in the US declining, one could argue contraction is already happening.
yanokovich
Registered User
1-Quebec City
2-Kansas City
3-Hamilton
4-Houston
5-Portland
6-Seattle
7-Las Vegas
8-Orlando
9-Milwaukee
10-San Antonio
11-Cleveland
12-Hartford
13-Cincinnati
14-Salt Lake City
15-San Diago
2-Kansas City
3-Hamilton
4-Houston
5-Portland
6-Seattle
7-Las Vegas
8-Orlando
9-Milwaukee
10-San Antonio
11-Cleveland
12-Hartford
13-Cincinnati
14-Salt Lake City
15-San Diago
JackBurton
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 464
- 0
Sports leagues in general will contract over the next 20-30 years as the population ages and shrinks.
Most economic and business models, on all levels, up until this point have always assumed population and markets will keep growing over the long-term. That's going to change and with it will bring in some radical changes in all business. 20 years from now, there will simply be less athletes and less fans simply due to a lower population growth, if not reduction.
Mind you, 20 years after that, things will start to grow and expand again as the population stabilizes and politicians pursue aggressive policies to attract immigrants to supplement the workforce.
Most economic and business models, on all levels, up until this point have always assumed population and markets will keep growing over the long-term. That's going to change and with it will bring in some radical changes in all business. 20 years from now, there will simply be less athletes and less fans simply due to a lower population growth, if not reduction.
Mind you, 20 years after that, things will start to grow and expand again as the population stabilizes and politicians pursue aggressive policies to attract immigrants to supplement the workforce.
MayDay
Registered User
???
Maybe in parts of Europe or Japan.
But the population of the US is projected to continue growing at least through mid-century, and probably longer. Owing to higher birthrates than most of the rest of the First World, as well as higher rates of immigration.
JackBurton
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 464
- 0
They population may increase, but overall workforce and disposable income will fall. Almost ever year since the 1970's has seen a lower number of entries into the workforce. This, along with a later and later entry into the workforce and greater retirement numbers will, for all intents and purposes, shrink the population of working age, and along with it, the numbers of those with disposable income and those with athletic ability.
And I'm not sure I quite buy birthrates remaining stable over the next couple of decades. As people retire around the world, governments are going to be facing cash crunches (bigger than now), in a decade or two. Governments will borrow like mad, drive up interest rates, and decrease the overall feasibility for most people to have children for a while. Also, the amount of immigration that will be required to maintain the workforce in North America will be substantial. A complete reversal of all American immigration policies and beliefs will happen. The entire Western World is going to be fighting for immigrants, throwing all sorts of money and bonuses at them. Unfortunately, America will be behind in this respect, simply do to some of the hostility that exists towards immigrants in certain segments.
MayDay
Registered User
Despite the hostility from the right-wing fringe, the US still lets in a lot of immigrants legally (not even counting illegal immigration).
Compared to countries that are having real demographic problems (such as Japan), the US has a very open immigration policy.
JackBurton
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 464
- 0
True. Japan though has a strong cultural traditional that generally makes its difficult for immigrants to integrate. They're more likely to start exerting influence over coastal regions of China and SE Asia to exert favorable economic deals than open the immigration floodgates.
And yes, comparatively, the U.S. does have fairly lax immigration standards, but the entire system is designed to limit the number each year. There's only so many, out of the millions that want to, that can immigrate. This very line of thinking, of imposing limits, needs to change, and thought paradigms are harder to change than policies. The idea needs to go from limits to quotas.
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
Truth be told, I think it's more likely for the NHL to expand in the next 20 years than it is to contract, even if individual team problems persist. I think a 32-team league is the eventual future of the league, with either four eight-team divisions or eight four-team divisions.
The cities are about 4 hour drive from each other. They are also on opposite coast of the States. They don't infringe on each other.
btn
Gone Hollywood
I am pretty sure the NHLPA will be asked to either take a major payroll cut or lose 30-60 NHLPA jobs at the next CBA/Lockout.
The status quo is simply unfeasable for the NHL moving forward. The lions share of the NHL's growth right now is just due to a very strong Canadian dollar. That is not a very good long term plan for the NHL, unless they become like Southwest Airlines which was an oil and gas trading company that had an airline department that was losing money for some time. Perhaps the NHL can set up some kind of ForEx division.
The status quo is simply unfeasable for the NHL moving forward. The lions share of the NHL's growth right now is just due to a very strong Canadian dollar. That is not a very good long term plan for the NHL, unless they become like Southwest Airlines which was an oil and gas trading company that had an airline department that was losing money for some time. Perhaps the NHL can set up some kind of ForEx division.
Last edited:
WingsFan95
Registered User
I'm not saying they infringe but perhaps Florida having only one NHL team gives it a bigger market share.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Payroll is not why most of the teams that lose money do so. 10 of the 16 teams that lost money in 2010 had over 50% debt/value. Of course, the league is going to sell the need to reduce payroll to the fans exactly this way... "we lose money"
The league won't contract because there is no reason to. There are buyers available. I firmly believe that if ASG was wanting to package all three pieces together, the Thrashers would likely be staying in Atlanta in the long run. If the last resort is relocation, then so be it, but there will always be buyers for NHL teams.
btn
Gone Hollywood
I would disagree, several teams would be quite happy to run at a much lower payroll than the salary floor...and if they did I think many would probably cut their losses almost entirely.
The NHLPA will be asked to make some tough decisions in two years.
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
Can't imagine the Lightning being happy about a team moving less than two hours away.
San Antonio doesn't have an arena.
If there were buyers available, there would not be relocation to a tiny market like Winnipeg and the league would not be going into a third season of owning a team.
Big league sports in the US is heading for a significant downsizing, and the NHL won't be exempt.
Big league sports in the US is heading for a significant downsizing, and the NHL won't be exempt.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Circumstance? There's so much more going on in both the ATL and PHX situations than a lack of buyers. In fact, I would venture to say that the search process for buyers has been truncated in both situations, due to legal issues in Arizona and terrible ownership in Georgia. And the fact is that as soon as the door opened up for relocation, a buyer existed. I'm not suggesting that there won't be more relocation. There just won't be contraction.
5-10 years and I think we'll be talking about what two cities will be awarded expansion franchises.
