When will the league be interested in expanding again?

[CHRDANHUTCH]

That logic doesn't fly with me. Everyone on the East Coast is close together. You could say the same thing about Philly being between DC/NY. The Baltimore Orioles between PHI/DC; the Mets being 8 miles from the richest team in sports, etc.

A Whaler return wouldn't make them the 5th most popular team in the region by default. For starters, there's a generation of NHL fans in Connecticut who WERE Whalers fans and only like one of those other four teams because their team left.



I don't think that's necessarily true, either. I wasn't watching a ton of Whaler games since I was in the Islanders/Devils local TV market on SportsChannel, and the odds of seeing the Whalers on national TV weren't great. But that's because they made bad trades and couldn't financially compete in the no-cap, no revenue sharing NHL of the late 80s, early 90s.

Winnipeg, Quebec and Minnesota couldn't compete financially in that era, either; but that doesn't mean those MARKETS aren't good. They couldn't compete because they had antiquated arenas without "modern" revenue streams.

Which brings me to the key point: The time period of the Whalers existence was while sports was changing from "sell them a ticket, get fans into the arena quickly, get them out quickly, sell them a beer and a hot dog" into a massive entertainment industry.


So people look at Hartford Whalers attendance like "14,230 average in 1987? And that's one of their better years? That market can't hold up. That's 29th in the NHL, and Coyotes/Panthers/Islanders/Senators level of "there's a massive problem there that needs to be addressed. Not what you want to add to your league"

But the era was different:
Average NHL attendance during the history of the Hurricanes: 17,089 (1997-2020)
Average NHL attendance during the history of the Whalers: 13,922 (1975-1997) (For two 22-year blocks)

The Whalers' 14,230 attendance in 1987 was ABOVE LEAGUE AVERAGE.

no guarantee but who is building a newer version of XL Center to attract a franchise, Kev..... that has to be a part of the narrative just as the Islanders struggled for years at the Coliseum....

good luck convincing the CT Development Regional Authority to help facilitate that

 

[KevFu]

in a time where markets like Houston or Atlanta are available, what's the appeal of Hartford to the NHL over those kinds of big name markets besides "bringing the Whalers back"?

I don't disagree with that. Hartford is probably going to lose an expansion bid process to places like Atlanta, Quebec, Southern Ontario, Houston, Portland, San Diego, Austin, etc. Hartford would be the 4th or 5th best Eastern candidate.

But that also WASN'T THE QUESTION I was replying to. The question was "how many other markets don't have an NBA team that the NHL would consider expanding to in the US?" And the NHL would consider Hartford.


Which brings me to a new question for the group: When it comes to how strongly the NHL listens on expansion, how much weight do you think there is between MARKET for a new team, and WHO THE (potential) OWNER is?


Hartford isn't viewed as a serious expansion candidate; but that's because there hasn't been a serious person making calls to the NHL about a team in Hartford. The NHL unexpectedly jumped from 24 to 26 in a year because Disney and Blockbuster were serious owners who wanted in. Hartford does not have that, which is why their chances are all nostalgic pipe-dream.


But hypothetically: at the Islanders' opening night of new UBS Arena, Gary Bettman is in the owners' suite and the guy next to him leans over and says "How great would it be to have a night like this in Hartford? I miss the Whalers." Bettman looks up, and it's New York Mets owner Steve Cohen (and his $14 billion dollars).

THAT changes things significantly, doesn't it?

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I don't disagree with that. Hartford is probably going to lose an expansion bid process to places like Atlanta, Quebec, Southern Ontario, Houston, Portland, San Diego, Austin, etc. Hartford would be the 4th or 5th best Eastern candidate.

But that also WASN'T THE QUESTION I was replying to. The question was "how many other markets don't have an NBA team that the NHL would consider expanding to in the US?" And the NHL would consider Hartford.


Which brings me to a new question for the group: When it comes to how strongly the NHL listens on expansion, how much weight do you think there is between MARKET for a new team, and WHO THE (potential) OWNER is?


Hartford isn't viewed as a serious expansion candidate; but that's because there hasn't been a serious person making calls to the NHL about a team in Hartford. The NHL unexpectedly jumped from 24 to 26 in a year because Disney and Blockbuster were serious owners who wanted in. Hartford does not have that, which is why their chances are all nostalgic pipe-dream.


But hypothetically: at the Islanders' opening night of new UBS Arena, Gary Bettman is in the owners' suite and the guy next to him leans over and says "How great would it be to have a night like this in Hartford? I miss the Whalers." Bettman looks up, and it's New York Mets owner Steve Cohen (and his $14 billion dollars).

THAT changes things significantly, doesn't it?

ironically, no, Kev:

since when do the Islanders control Hartford, when they already own Bridgeport...... Hartford is Rangers territory once Karmanos sailed for Carolina, specifically, Greensboro, then Raleigh, then you got to fight them for the trademark rights to the Whalers brand.... that's why Baldwin was shunned in Hartford for the 18 month foolishness of the Connecticut Whale being a major pro franchise, not the NWHL version of it.

 

[KevFu]

Cohen isn't affiliated with the Islanders in any way shape or form. He's just filthy rich. I was just using the Islanders arena opening for the hypothetical situation of Cohen and Bettman talking to one another.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Cohen isn't affiliated with the Islanders in any way shape or form. He's just filthy rich. I was just using the Islanders arena opening for the hypothetical of having Cohen and Bettman talk.

same answer to the hypothetical, Kev....

Hartford is Rangers territory, good luck trying to deal with MSG or Spectra on either if that were realistically possible.....

 

[PCSPounder]

Both countries are set to peak mid-century and then decline.

Colleges are already dealing with a decline in school-age population. Especially smaller colleges, but some universities are being impacted as well.

 

[KevFu]

ironically, no, Kev:

since when do the Islanders control Hartford, when they already own Bridgeport...... Hartford is Rangers territory once Karmanos sailed for Carolina, specifically, Greensboro, then Raleigh, then you got to fight them for the trademark rights to the Whalers brand.... that's why Baldwin was shunned in Hartford for the 18 month foolishness of the Connecticut Whale being a major pro franchise, not the NWHL version of it.

There's two types of territory: Operating and TV.
TV Territory divides the map up among all the members leaving no inch uncovered. The Rangers and Islanders and Devils all share Hartford (Not sure on Boston. Someone help me out there?)
Operating is the 50 mile radius, and Hartford is not within the Rangers' operating territory.

The Rangers own the operating territory for Hartford at the AHL level. Which doesn't really matter for adding an NHL team to the market.

 

[PCSPounder]

And Inland Empire... is the size of Boston or San Francisco/Oakland (not counting San Jose). Bigger than Seattle, Detroit, etc. And growing at a higher rate than Boston and many other NHL markets. A team in Redlands would be outside the Kings/Ducks territorial rights.


If the NHL would consider San Diego, with 3.3 million people, and no NBA or NFL team.... then why wouldn't they consider Inland Empire with 4.6 million people and no NBA, NFL or MLB team?

#1 - When you build in greater Los Angeles, “the money” owners want is west of 405, not east of Pomona.

#2- A substantial portion of that population works in Los Angeles proper. That part of the population isn’t getting home in time for face off. (NOTE- I’m still grumbling about getting stuck around Expo Park before 5 on a Friday 18 months ago and missing most of the 1st period in Ontario.)

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

There's two types of territory: Operating and TV.
TV Territory divides the map up among all the members leaving no inch uncovered. The Rangers and Islanders and Devils all share Hartford (Not sure on Boston. Someone help me out there?)
Operating is the 50 mile radius, and Hartford is not within the Rangers' operating territory.

The Rangers own the operating territory for Hartford at the AHL level. Which doesn't really matter for adding an NHL team to the market.

again same response as to the original Whalers, Kev.....

there's no guarantee that if the NHL returns to Hartford, there may not be an TV Outlet..... there are reports now circulating just as it was over NBCSN that NBC Sports regional networks could be facing the same ending as the national cable network even as hypothetical as this is realistically.....

you're not getting Hartford nor Bridgeport under that hypothetical scenario to cede either market over to a new ownership unless Cohen buys either MSG or the Islanders outright like he did the Mets...

the Devils nor the Sabres figure into any hypothetical scenarios either on the TV Side of it since the three NY Teams and the Devils split the NY Market.

 

[golfortennis]

Which brings me to a new question for the group: When it comes to how strongly the NHL listens on expansion, how much weight do you think there is between MARKET for a new team, and WHO THE (potential) OWNER is?

That all depends on whether the owners or Bettman have more influence on the process. IF it's the owners, they will choose poorly.

I think you have to start market first, though. Unless someone wants to risk running losses, you need a place where the revenue potential exists. An owner can run into trouble in their finances, and it can be a difficult thing to find another owner in a weak market.

 

[KevFu]

None of that is deal-breaking. Those are after the fact details on expansion

1. AHL territory is irrelevant. Hartford and Bridgeport have AHL territory. If an NHL team comes into the territory, those guys are on their own.
The Denver/Colorado Grizzlies... moved to Utah when the Avalanche showed up.
The Atlanta Knights... moved to Omaha when the Thrashers showed up.

Those teams CAN STAY and keep operating their AHL teams, they just don't because who's going to an AHL game when the NHL team is playing? The Rangers bought in to that AHL market to try and make those fans Rangers fans when the Whalers left; because people are more likely to drive to MSG for Ranger game than from Binghamton to MSG (which is 177 miles),


2. If the NHL expands, the TV territory will be adjusted.
If there's an NHL team that exists in the future, they're going to find a TV partner no matter who it is. And it won't be hard for Hartford because there's a ton of options.

Why would Cohen need to buy MSG Network to get a TV deal? (MSG is a subsidiary of Cablevision, like the Rangers are; the Islanders are on MSG because MSG bought SportsChannel and the Islanders had a sweet SportsChannel contract clause that MSG had to buy out). The Devils are on MSG because they had a bidding war. MSG wants the sports properties because fans of the team will choose Cablevision for their cable TV provider. They get into carriage fights for MSG on other providers all the time (so does YES).

YES tried to get the Devils last time, but MSG offered more.

And then you have SNY, which has a contract with UConn for football and women's basketball and caters to that market already.
And in our hypothetical... it's the Mets network that Cohen has done due diligence on already. He didn't buy it from the Wilpon's with the Mets purchase, but did get an exclusive bid window to purchase it. The rumor is that the Wilpons have SNY in such debt that Cohen might just start his own network when the Mets deal with SNY is up in 2026. And if that happens, then our hypothetical Cohen-owned Hartford Whalers will definitely be on that network.

 

[StreetHawk]

That all depends on whether the owners or Bettman have more influence on the process. IF it's the owners, they will choose poorly.

I think you have to start market first, though. Unless someone wants to risk running losses, you need a place where the revenue potential exists. An owner can run into trouble in their finances, and it can be a difficult thing to find another owner in a weak market.

I agree. You can’t be locked into an owner. It’s the market and determining if it’s in a location that would be attractive to find another owner. Economics have to make sense.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

None of that is deal-breaking. Those are after the fact details on expansion

1. AHL territory is irrelevant. Hartford and Bridgeport have AHL territory. If an NHL team comes into the territory, those guys are on their own.
The Denver/Colorado Grizzlies... moved to Utah when the Avalanche showed up.
The Atlanta Knights... moved to Omaha when the Thrashers showed up.

Those teams CAN STAY and keep operating their AHL teams, they just don't because who's going to an AHL game when the NHL team is playing? The Rangers bought in to that AHL market to try and make those fans Rangers fans when the Whalers left; because people are more likely to drive to MSG for Ranger game than from Binghamton to MSG (which is 177 miles),


2. If the NHL expands, the TV territory will be adjusted.
If there's an NHL team that exists in the future, they're going to find a TV partner no matter who it is. And it won't be hard for Hartford because there's a ton of options.

Why would Cohen need to buy MSG Network to get a TV deal? (MSG is a subsidiary of Cablevision, like the Rangers are; the Islanders are on MSG because MSG bought SportsChannel and the Islanders had a sweet SportsChannel contract clause that MSG had to buy out). The Devils are on MSG because they had a bidding war. MSG wants the sports properties because fans of the team will choose Cablevision for their cable TV provider. They get into carriage fights for MSG on other providers all the time (so does YES).

YES tried to get the Devils last time, but MSG offered more.

And then you have SNY, which has a contract with UConn for football and women's basketball and caters to that market already.
And in our hypothetical... it's the Mets network that Cohen has done due diligence on already. He didn't buy it from the Wilpon's with the Mets purchase, but did get an exclusive bid window to purchase it. The rumor is that the Wilpons have SNY in such debt that Cohen might just start his own network when the Mets deal with SNY is up in 2026. And if that happens, then our hypothetical Cohen-owned Hartford Whalers will definitely be on that network.

multiple issues for a hypothetical isn't it Kev?

 

[KevFu]

multiple issues for a hypothetical isn't it Kev?

I just don't follow you. I'm saying those would not be issues at all.

Just like it wasn't for Vegas to get a TV deal, or Seattle to get a TV deal. And the Hartford market has far more options that Seattle and Vegas did, because most markets have one RSN, and Hartford has 3 or 4.

The AHL thing isn't a factor either. The Wolf Pack don't prevent Hartford from getting an NHL team. The Gulls don't prevent San Diego, the Texas Stars don't prevent Austin, if the Quebec Aces/Citadelles or Hamilton Bulldogs were still there, they wouldn't stop Quebec City or the Hamilton from getting NHL teams either.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

I just don't follow you. I'm saying those would not be issues at all.

Just like it wasn't for Vegas to get a TV deal, or Seattle to get a TV deal. And the Hartford market has far more options that Seattle and Vegas did, because most markets have one RSN, and Hartford has 3 or 4.

The AHL thing isn't a factor either. The Wolf Pack don't prevent Hartford from getting an NHL team. The Gulls don't prevent San Diego, the Texas Stars don't prevent Austin, if the Quebec Aces/Citadelles or Hamilton Bulldogs were still there, they wouldn't stop Quebec City or the Hamilton from getting NHL teams either.

As much as I hate to agree with Hutch, Hartford doesn't even get the time of day from an NHL expansion consideration stand point. But not for his moronic AHL market ownership assumption, which has been proven wrong countless times.

Hartford wasn't even the most popular team in the metro area when the Whalers were around. The Rangers were more popular, not by a huge margin but still were, and the Bruins were a little bit behind the Whalers in popularity. All of Southern Connecticut has always been firmly entrenched as part of the New York sports market and it has been well-documented Southern Connecticut never supported the Whalers to any extent.

The XL Center is not a NHL arena and never has been. It is a tiny arena with almost no room to expand. There are a good number of tiny corporate suites, but not enough of them and no space to expand them or add more. They're also not building a new one at all. The XL Center is staying as-is in terms of NHL readiness. Even the $55 million the state is investing into the arena isn't enough to move the needle in that regard.

It's a small market. It is smaller than the metro areas of Richmond, Virginia Beach, New Orleans, and plenty of other markets that aren't getting a NHL team anytime soon. Culturally and sports-wise, it has always been split between Boston and New York going back well before the Whalers were around. Look up the "Munson-Nixon Line" for documented evidence of this split. Even the TV networks split Connecticut and have since before the Whalers left.

So it's a small market. It's a small market that doesn't and won't have a NHL-ready arena. It's a small market that doesn't and won't have a NHL-ready arena that once housed the second most popular NHL team in the market and close to the third most popular NHL team in the state. If it weren't for the NHL opting to buy out the WHA instead of continuing to fight them, Hartford and NHL would never be mentioned in the same sentence. It's not only unrealistic and moronic to consider Hartford a possible NHL market, it's even more illogical to think the NHL considers it a NHL market. It's even more outrageous to think any fiscally responsible owner would want to put a NHL team in Hartford.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I just don't follow you. I'm saying those would not be issues at all.

Just like it wasn't for Vegas to get a TV deal, or Seattle to get a TV deal. And the Hartford market has far more options that Seattle and Vegas did, because most markets have one RSN, and Hartford has 3 or 4.

The AHL thing isn't a factor either. The Wolf Pack don't prevent Hartford from getting an NHL team. The Gulls don't prevent San Diego, the Texas Stars don't prevent Austin, if the Quebec Aces/Citadelles or Hamilton Bulldogs were still there, they wouldn't stop Quebec City or the Hamilton from getting NHL teams either.

YOU claimed Hartford is a hypothetical scenario....
there are multiple issues in Hartford just as there were when Karmanos sailed to Greensboro, Kev, before he landed in Raleigh....

Comcast itself is a player there whether it's the arena management or the Television end, but since when is pro hockey been televised in New England since the Whalers left Connecticut.... the only reason the AHL tried the regional approach is to fulfill the contract the Whalers left behind....

if the rumors of Comcast shutting down the NBC regional sports networks come to pass must be considered just as the impacts of shuttering NBCSN was when it was first brought up....

very few teams independent of sport have their games televised either locally or regionally now (Boston's THE exception with a few Worcester games now being sprinkled in and among NESN's territory, it's either internet radio or other means of broadcast).

 

[Cacciaguida]

I'd be willing to have an AHL Whalers comeback if that what it takes.

 

[KevFu]

As much as I hate to agree with Hutch, Hartford doesn't even get the time of day from an NHL expansion consideration stand point.

Hartford wasn't even the most popular team in the metro area when the Whalers were around.

The XL Center is not a NHL arena and never has been.

It's a small market.

Yeah, you're not agreeing with Hutch or disagreeing with me. You're saying true things that don't matter.

Imagine someone saying that Minnesota or Winnipeg is never getting a team again because their arena is old and terrible.

That's irrelevant and pointless because to in order to get a new team, Winnipeg and Minnesota built new arenas.


I wasn't responding to "Who's ready now?" I was responding to "Which non-NBA markets would the NHL consider?"

The NHL will conside any serious owner who has $2 billion dollars and makes a phone call. Period. They may not expand there, but they are going to STRONGLY consider any person with the ability to write them a check and asks them about a team.

 

[KevFu]

YOU claimed Hartford is a hypothetical scenario....
there are multiple issues in Hartford just as there were when Karmanos sailed to Greensboro, Kev, before he landed in Raleigh....

Comcast itself is a player there whether it's the arena management or the Television end, but since when is pro hockey been televised in New England since the Whalers left Connecticut.... the only reason the AHL tried the regional approach is to fulfill the contract the Whalers left behind....

if the rumors of Comcast shutting down the NBC regional sports networks come to pass must be considered just as the impacts of shuttering NBCSN was when it was first brought up....

very few teams independent of sport have their games televised either locally or regionally now (Boston's THE exception with a few Worcester games now being sprinkled in and among NESN's territory, it's either internet radio or other means of broadcast).

That's a lot of words (which I don't mind), that say nothing.

If a guy comes to the NHL with the ability to write a check for a billion dollars (not that $1 billion is the price, but I mean that the owner has the money to make it happen), the NHL is GOING TO LISTEN. PERIOD.

And any secondary thing like a TV deal will sort itself out if he is serious and has a decent market. The "holy trinity" has been, and always will be "owner, market, arena." If you have all three, you're fine.

So I'm not saying that a guy with a billion dollars to spare could put a team in like, Needles California, or Houma Louisiana, because the NHL will consider the market, and what happens when that first owner is done and the team is for sale.

But Hartford isn't St. George, Utah. It's a top 50 market in the US. It meets the market requirement. So any expansion candidacy that is serious will have an arena plan, and therefore, the NHL considers it.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

Yeah, you're not agreeing with Hutch or disagreeing with me. You're saying true things that don't matter.

Imagine someone saying that Minnesota or Winnipeg is never getting a team again because their arena is old and terrible.

That's irrelevant and pointless because to in order to get a new team, Winnipeg and Minnesota built new arenas.


I wasn't responding to "Who's ready now?" I was responding to "Which non-NBA markets would the NHL consider?"

The NHL will conside any serious owner who has $2 billion dollars and makes a phone call. Period. They may not expand there, but they are going to STRONGLY consider any person with the ability to write them a check and asks them about a team.

I'm disagreeing with you. But that's an easy thing to do.;

Minnesota and Winnipeg actively looked for new arenas. Connecticut has actively not looked for new arenas and actively said they are upgrading what they already have. So there's difference number one.

Hartford doesn't have anyone with $2 billion who wants to own a hockey team. No expansion bids made since the team left. No ownership group. Nothing.

Hartford is the 48th biggest metro population in the United States. In a small market where the original Whalers weren't even the most popular team in the market and were nearly the third most popular team in the state. Hartford flat out doesn't have the market. They have been missing two of the three in your holy trinity and never had the third. Hartford doesn't even get the time of day. Same thing as if a billionaire wants to put a team in Birmingham, AL.

And no the NHL won't consider any serious owner with the money to make it happen. They told Fertitta to get lost so quickly his head is still spinning two years after the fact and he's only opened his oversized yapper one time since he ran home with his tail between his legs. And that's with the highly desirable market and highly desirable arena in Houston. But Hartford? Yeah, sure the NHL will consider it (sarcasm)...

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

That's a lot of words (which I don't mind), that say nothing.

If a guy comes to the NHL with the ability to write a check for a billion dollars (not that $1 billion is the price, but I mean that the owner has the money to make it happen), the NHL is GOING TO LISTEN. PERIOD.

And any secondary thing like a TV deal will sort itself out if he is serious and has a decent market. The "holy trinity" has been, and always will be "owner, market, arena." If you have all three, you're fine.

So I'm not saying that a guy with a billion dollars to spare could put a team in like, Needles California, or Houma Louisiana, because the NHL will consider the market, and what happens when that first owner is done and the team is for sale.

But Hartford isn't St. George, Utah. It's a top 50 market in the US. It meets the market requirement. So any expansion candidacy that is serious will have an arena plan, and therefore, the NHL considers it.

I disagree...

the trend is going away from TV, Kev, media-wise at the minor league level, and it will soon expand that to the current levels in the NBA/NHL in Boston, which in some aspects has already occurred...

the scenario has already been played where NBCSB allowed the Revolution to leave them for a lesser tier outlet within MASS INSTEAD OF being shown region-wide.... there are now questions arising as to the future of NBC Universal regionally, not including the decision to shutter NBCSN by the end of 2021, which is why the NHL bolted to ESPN/Turner instead of being subleted to USA/CNBC....

 

[edog37]

I think contraction should be the next discussion.

you volunteering your team first?

 

[KevFu]

I'm disagreeing with you. But that's an easy thing to do.;

Minnesota and Winnipeg actively looked for new arenas. Connecticut has actively not looked for new arenas and actively said they are upgrading what they already have. So there's difference number one.

Hartford doesn't have anyone with $2 billion who wants to own a hockey team. No expansion bids made since the team left. No ownership group. Nothing.

Hartford is the 48th biggest metro population in the United States. In a small market where the original Whalers weren't even the most popular team in the market and were nearly the third most popular team in the state. Hartford flat out doesn't have the market. They have been missing two of the three in your holy trinity and never had the third. Hartford doesn't even get the time of day. Same thing as if a billionaire wants to put a team in Birmingham, AL.

And no the NHL won't consider any serious owner with the money to make it happen. They told Fertitta to get lost so quickly his head is still spinning two years after the fact and he's only opened his oversized yapper one time since he ran home with his tail between his legs. And that's with the highly desirable market and highly desirable arena in Houston. But Hartford? Yeah, sure the NHL will consider it (sarcasm)...

I don't understand why you guys are arguing the viability of markets or realistic possibility of a hypothetical. That's not the question I was asked. Your issues aren't with my answers, they're with the relevancy of the question.

Everything you list as a reason not to expand somewhere is the result of the consideration.

You said it yourself: Houston is a desirable market. Allow me to rephrase your next sentence: "But CONSIDERING Fertitta ran his mouth, the NHL wasn't interested in dealing with him."


Gary Bettman is more likely to listen to engage in a conversation with the billionaire calling him to ask about getting a team in Birmingham than he is to take a phone call from the Legacy Aces asking about a second GTA team again.

Is Birmingham a long shot? Of course. But the NHL would be very stupid not to listen to WHY a guy thinks that an NHL team in Birmingham would work. What does this guy see that we're not seeing? What data does he have? I'd very much like to see his pitch because people don't get the $2 billion it takes to buy an NHL expansion team by being stupid and making terrible investments.

And of course, whether or not you expand, you want to increase your rolodex of billionaires. Will research on Birmingham inform how the NHL handles situations in Florida and Arizona or elsewhere? "Hey, I think your plan for selling NHL hockey in SEC Country could work... but I think it's more likely to work in a bigger market... how would you feel about keeping the Panthers in South Florida?" That kind of thing.


Now, if you're like "Kev, this is just minutia and semantics: you would technically have to consider anything on some level before rejecting it.
Like, 'Hey Gary, I want to put a team in Tajikistan' No, that's too far. You just considered the distance of Tajikistan so you considered it!"

I agree. Which is why my original comment was intended to be a flippant "Anyone with $2 billion makes them consider it" and everyone jumped down my throat about individual markets.

 

[Hockeyholic]

Atlanta deserves a shot with good owners and a decent team.

When they team won, the fans were there.

 

[DuckyGirard]

A bit, sure. But ACC only has so many seats, and Toronto is Canada's business centre. The number of people who want season tickets for hockey is massive, and very few of them are the same people who want Raptors tickets. Corporations might have to make decisions, but even there, it's not the same thing.

I see you're from NY. It's a very different market up here. The BLue Jays have to be good to generate over 50% attendance, the Raptors can flip back to a similar situation very easily after the championship aura fades. I would argue those three franchises would be more concerned with another hockey team showing up rather than the other way around. If you ranked Toronto sports, it would be 1)Leafs, 2)leafs playoffs if applicable, 3)leafs preseason, 4)leafs offseason, 5 leafs draft, 6)the rest of the NHL. &)Whichever other franchise is doing ok. If the BLue Jays can make the playoffs they may reach #3 on that list. Raptors have to be serious Finals contenders to do the same. TFC is still pretty much a niche market.

(ETA: I apologize if that reads as a bit condescending. Not my intention. Just that your points are valid in most markets in the US, because all franchises are quite popular. There's just no comparison I can see in Toronto. It's like saying a hockey team in Leicester, England will compete for season tickets against the soccer club. It's almost a non-entity.)

Another franchise in GTA would be a money printing machine for that owner.

Honestly it's borderline insulting when people question the math.

If it was strictly filling arenas I think it's easy to imagine filling 6 to 7 arenas across southern ontario.

Obviously the arena issue isn't the only problem.

But at this point only a fool would question the viability of another team.

It's entirely an issue of how much money would the leafs/league want.

I actually think a double expansion is the most viable option. Two teams both offering money to the leafs may be the more effective option. Specifically if one is in Hamilton and the other is in Markham etc.

I don't think the leafs are interested in "sharing/splitting" a market. You basically have to give them enough money that they simply don't care what happens to their position within the local environment but instead are focused on the national.

Alternatively an option that may make more sense is some sort of quasi splitting of the team/market. One ownership group gets the team/branding, while the other gets ownership of downtown Toronto.

The leafs branding has no need to be downtown Toronto. Toronto II could be viable if you give them that Arena. Put the leafs in the suburbs and they'll still be full for now and the rest of time.