When will the league be interested in expanding again?

[DuckyGirard]

I don't know about. They would siphon from the Leafs/REd Wings/Sabres, etc. I don' think you have many fans who are either/or. And a number of fans of those teams you listed are not hockey fans, period.

My thought has always been Canada is pretty much tapped out, but a franchise would be "successful" compared to some in the US because there is a such a Leafs base that can be siphoned for a critical mass.

I would look at OHL revenue before saying that. I honestly think they're playing with fire.

When it starts becoming about billion dollar expansion fees, the reemergence of a WHA doesn't seem so far off.

People make the assumption that only major league teams can take market share from other major league teams.

In my opinion a small league could really eat up a lot of territory fast. Specifically places like Hamilton and Quebec city.

Like I get to sports purist no one has an interest in a "minor league" sports. But in my experience living in London Ontario, people don't care about the skill, they care whether or not it feels like a big deal.

 

[DuckyGirard]

I don't disagree with you... I'm just replying to the original question: When will the league be interest in expanding again.

The high costs would make expansion OWNERS hard to find, but the LEAGUE would be interested.

I do disagree with you on point 4 though: We're always at Peak Population, and that peak keeps rising every year. The population of the World didn't go down during World War II, or during plagues, or because of COVID. And Urban population keeps going up. It was 44% back in 1996, 25 years ago, and now it's at 56% (worldwide). In the US, it's gone for 77% of 82% And that's important because the determining factor of expansion is "untapped markets."

The 1990 average Metro population for the smallest places that got teams in the 1990s was 1.74 million (Denver, Tampa, San Jose, Columbus, Nashville).

There are THIRTEEN US Cities with 1.74 million people, no NHL team AND a population growth rate of 7% or higher.

Globally we're passing our peak birthrates, soon less and less babies will be born per year. Most of the globe is very concerned about a demographic collaspe. Thankfully it's mostly in Latin American/Europe/Asia where it's a problem. American will keep growing but only as other parts of the world loose all their younger folk to emigration.

Places like China, Japan Europe are quite openly peaking in terms of local born youth/new consumers.

That being said it seems obvious Houston/Austin/Southern Ontario are getting teams. There's just too much population and economic growth.

I actually think we'll see a string of expansion agreements being announced by the end of 2022.

Unlike the other teams we really are working with 2 countries.

I think a reasonable prediction is a new team will arrive every other year starting in 2024ish until we hit 44-48 teams. I think the relative success of the North division may have a big affect on changing how the league sees its future.

There seems to be real evidence that our government is gonna go for even higher rates of immigration. Rougly 400-500k people per year. At which point you're introducing a new NHL market every other year.

Most relevantly it appears that growth isn't headed towards Toronto but the minor cities all across the country.

Obviously immigrants aren't goto hockey fans. But the population growth will bring economic growth to places like QC where a local born fanbase is awaiting corporate money.

I think the sport in general has a real stockholm syndrome when it comes to Toronto. People make the Toronto Chicago-Boston comparison when it doesn't hold up. The "hockey" demographic are increasingly going elsewhere in the country and the province.

 

[KevFu]

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.

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.

I think a Rogers/Bell divorce towards expansion is the way to go; where someone walks away from MLSE but gets a new team. Of course, the issue with "Downtown Toronto" is that MLSE also has the Raptors at the same venue.

And if I'm the NHL, I'm not only trying to ENCOURAGE an MLSE divorce and GTA2, but I'm sneaking language in there that makes both sides relinquish territorial compensation for Hamilton getting a team.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

I think a Rogers/Bell divorce towards expansion is the way to go; where someone walks away from MLSE but gets a new team. Of course, the issue with "Downtown Toronto" is that MLSE also has the Raptors at the same venue.

And if I'm the NHL, I'm not only trying to ENCOURAGE an MLSE divorce and GTA2, but I'm sneaking language in there that makes both sides relinquish territorial compensation for Hamilton getting a team.

I don't think NHL has any interest in Hamilton even if MLSE did not object.

 

[Bucky_Hoyt]

I think a Rogers/Bell divorce towards expansion is the way to go; where someone walks away from MLSE but gets a new team. Of course, the issue with "Downtown Toronto" is that MLSE also has the Raptors at the same venue.

And if I'm the NHL, I'm not only trying to ENCOURAGE an MLSE divorce and GTA2, but I'm sneaking language in there that makes both sides relinquish territorial compensation for Hamilton getting a team.

NYC market is already oversaturated with NHL teams and is easily double the population of greater Toronto.

Even if the NHL goes the relo route over expansion - which I still think is more likely - adding a 2nd team in Toronto AND a team in Hamilton ain't gonna happen. If you throw Buffalo in the mix, 4 teams is just getting damned silly.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I think a Rogers/Bell divorce towards expansion is the way to go; where someone walks away from MLSE but gets a new team. Of course, the issue with "Downtown Toronto" is that MLSE also has the Raptors at the same venue.

And if I'm the NHL, I'm not only trying to ENCOURAGE an MLSE divorce and GTA2, but I'm sneaking language in there that makes both sides relinquish territorial compensation for Hamilton getting a team.

the only way Hamilton becomes legitimate is to have an MLSE Team as their primary tenant, Kev, and then you'd have to rename both the Vancouver and Edmonton arenas from Rogers, if not Rogers Centre isn't included in that discussion....

remember, Mississauga already has that with Raptors 905..... which is by default an MLSE Team.

 

[DuckyGirard]

I don't think NHL has any interest in Hamilton even if MLSE did not object.

I suggest you google map Hamilton-Kitchener-Waterloo.

There's this thing called the Ontario Greenbelt. It ensures the bulk of future population growth will be outside Toronto.

The area has roughly 2 million people and will be more than 3 million by the end of the decade.

It leaves a massive chunk of meat for Toronto, and taps into an area that is undeserved.

My preference is building a new Arena in Kitchener and potentially using both Arenas for some period of time.

Kitchener-Waterloo already has 600k in the area, roughly 150 to the north in Guelph, 150 to the south in Brantford(Gretzky's hometown), 500 k in the west with London and another million plus with Hamilton+Niagara., not to mention a whole lot of people from the west of Toronto who would find it easier driving out of the city than trying to drive downtown.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

I suggest you google map Hamilton-Kitchener-Waterloo.

There's this thing called the Ontario Greenbelt. It ensures the bulk of future population growth will be outside Toronto.

The area has roughly 2 million people and will be more than 3 million by the end of the decade.

It leaves a massive chunk of meat for Toronto, and taps into an area that is undeserved.

My preference is building a new Arena in Kitchener and potentially using both Arenas for some period of time.

Kitchener-Waterloo already has 600k in the area, roughly 150 to the north in Guelph, 150 to the south in Brantford(Gretzky's hometown), 500 k in the west with London and another million plus with Hamilton+Niagara., not to mention a whole lot of people from the west of Toronto who would find it easier driving out of the city than trying to drive downtown.

What about corporate support? All that people means nothing without corporate money.

 

[DuckyGirard]

What about corporate support? All that people means nothing without corporate money.

Proximity to the GTA ensures that's not to much of a concern. This isn't just generic sprawl. The green belt itself ensures there's gonna be a large concentration of money on the outside edge of the boarder.

Toronto's realestate pricing is insane a whole lot of VP's/executives etc are pushing hard to get their offices moved outside of Toronto.

 

[KevFu]

NYC market is already oversaturated with NHL teams and is easily double the population of greater Toronto.

Even if the NHL goes the relo route over expansion - which I still think is more likely - adding a 2nd team in Toronto AND a team in Hamilton ain't gonna happen. If you throw Buffalo in the mix, 4 teams is just getting damned silly.

The difference is that the NHL in NYC is the 4th or 5th most popular sport (which is fine. They financials work because enough people care). And while Southern Ontario is half the size of NYC Metro area, but Southern Ontario cares twice as much about hockey (or more) as NY does.

New York City (20 million people) has: Yankees, Mets, Giants, Jets, Knicks, Nets, Islanders, Rangers, Devils.
Southern Ontario (10 million people) has: Blue Jays, Raptors, Leafs; and would have GTA2, Hamilton.

The distance from Peterborough to St. Catherine's is more than the distance from the Connecticut portions of the NYC Metro area to Baltimore. And if you add in the 4 Philly teams, 2 Baltimore teams... that's 15 teams for like 30 million people.

So the 10 million people in Southern Ontario can't handle 5 teams, 3 in the sport they love the most, while that area of the US can handle 15 (and 4 in the sport they love the most?).

Yes, I agree that Buffalo would need some level of protection, like a minority ownership stake in Hamilton TV rights so like 10 percent of TV revenues in perpetuity instead of a lump sum to offset the STH who live in Canada. But it's totally doable.

 

[Bucky_Hoyt]

The difference is that the NHL in NYC is the 4th or 5th most popular sport (which is fine. They financials work because enough people care).

Do they, though?

Has there actually been a period of time where all 3 NHL teams have had stable ownership, made a profit and had competitive teams, simultaneously?

It's like watching a game of 3-card Monte: "Follow the struggling team."

And, that's with "America-level" money.

There's a reason why you aren't seeing 3 teams in any of the other major sports leagues in NYC.

And, you want to see this happening in Toronto with a far smaller economy?

 

[Tawnos]

The difference is that the NHL in NYC is the 4th or 5th most popular sport (which is fine. They financials work because enough people care). And while Southern Ontario is half the size of NYC Metro area, but Southern Ontario cares twice as much about hockey (or more) as NY does.

New York City (20 million people) has: Yankees, Mets, Giants, Jets, Knicks, Nets, Islanders, Rangers, Devils.
Southern Ontario (10 million people) has: Blue Jays, Raptors, Leafs; and would have GTA2, Hamilton.

The distance from Peterborough to St. Catherine's is more than the distance from the Connecticut portions of the NYC Metro area to Baltimore. And if you add in the 4 Philly teams, 2 Baltimore teams... that's 15 teams for like 30 million people.

So the 10 million people in Southern Ontario can't handle 5 teams, 3 in the sport they love the most, while that area of the US can handle 15 (and 4 in the sport they love the most?).

Yes, I agree that Buffalo would need some level of protection, like a minority ownership stake in Hamilton TV rights so like 10 percent of TV revenues in perpetuity instead of a lump sum to offset the STH who live in Canada. But it's totally doable.

I think you run into a geographic area problem with this discussion, in regards to where you put a team that's accessible to enough fans to make it viable. The GTA alone is twice the physical size of the NYC Metro Area, not even getting into Southern Ontario as a whole. There are about 800,000 people in the Hamilton metro, for example, which covers an area of 530 square miles. Yes, teams can pull from somewhat outside their metro area, but bear with me. Nassau County has 1.4 million people living in 450 sq mi. Bergen and Essex Counties in NJ (locations of the Meadowlands and Newark) have 1.6m people in 380 sq mi. Orange County, CA (location of Anaheim) has 3 million people in 940 sq mi. My point here is that it's not simply the size of the population that makes the Islanders, Devils, or Ducks viable. When you're talking about a secondary team in a market (which is what a Hamilton team would be), that proximity of of the fan base becomes all important.

There's plenty of population nearby to the Hamilton Metro. My question is, are there enough people who would travel the slightly under an hour time it takes to get there from Kitchener, rather than the slightly over an hour time it takes to get to Toronto?

 

[DuckyGirard]

Do they, though?

Has there actually been a period of time where all 3 NHL teams have had stable ownership, made a profit and had competitive teams, simultaneously?

It's like watching a game of 3-card Monte: "Follow the struggling team."

And, that's with "America-level" money.

There's a reason why you aren't seeing 3 teams in any of the other major sports leagues in NYC.

And, you want to see this happening in Toronto with a far smaller economy?

Toronto's economy isn't "far smaller" it has population growth rates similar to texas. New York is in population/growth stagnation. Size doesn't matter as much as the behaviours of those people. There's not much to do in Toronto's winters, and yet most people live in tight cramped condos/apartment buildings, and the people are young.

3rd team logic doesn't apply, because in reality we know you're talking about the 9th or 10th team in the city.

Baseball is almost entirely the off season sport, an off season where most people are doing summer related activities. In winter it's Raptors and Leafs.

For people that drive downtown Toronto isn't the best place for an arena. For all intents and purposes the downtown is the extreme south of the city. A place more centrally located in the metro would tap into a massive audience that aren't gonna be season ticket owners downtown.

Hamilton is more comparable to Connecticut, it's part of the area but it's independent enough to have it's own arena. On it's own it isn't that big, but it is surrounded by 1.5 million people.

 

[DuckyGirard]

There's plenty of population nearby to the Hamilton Metro. My question is, are there enough people who would travel the slightly under an hour time it takes to get there from Kitchener, rather than the slightly over an hour time it takes to get to Toronto?

Hamilton is far easier to get to. Getting to downtown Toronto from Kitcherner by 7:30 pm is a major pain. It isn't just the time driving it's finding affordable parking, and often using the transit once you get there to reach the arena.

The traffic/transit/parking issue is an issue for more than half the population.

The best comparison is SanJose-Oakland-SanFransico-Sacremento only Toronto gets a harsher winter meaning there's far less to do for half the year.

 

[Shiba]

Do they, though?

Has there actually been a period of time where all 3 NHL teams have had stable ownership, made a profit and had competitive teams, simultaneously?

It's like watching a game of 3-card Monte: "Follow the struggling team."

And, that's with "America-level" money.

There's a reason why you aren't seeing 3 teams in any of the other major sports leagues in NYC.

And, you want to see this happening in Toronto with a far smaller economy?

I can’t speak for the Devils since I’m not too familiar with their finances, but the Islanders are about to be very profitable with owning a state of the art arena on highly valuable land. The Rangers obviously just print money being in MSG, so that’s 2/3 of the teams’ finances being secure.

 

[KevFu]

We use population as a metric simply because it's an easy baseline. Obviously the percentage of people in a market who like a given product isn't going to be consistent to the decimal place across the board at every locale: Quebec would be more pre-disposed to being hockey fans than say, Birmingham.

But you can look at a league, look at population sizes and say "Well, a city needs at least X number of people in the metro area to be in the discussion."


The Geography component isn't that big of a deal as it seems. Because while -- let's use the Arizona Coyotes, or Tampa Bay Lightning and Rays as examples -- the venue being in a place that limits how many people of the greater market can actually get to gets to buy tickets seems like a negative for attendance; the amount of revenue that comes from TV just as significant, if not more.

I.E. - The Islanders stayed put because they had a $35 million TV contract in the New York metro area, and they wouldn't get that in Kansas City.

The people who live in Sacramento are either Giants or A's fans in baseball, and the average fan living there is going to be watching far more games on TV than they attend. Maybe they watch 50 on TV and attend 2. That's fine.

 

[KevFu]

Do they, though?

Has there actually been a period of time where all 3 NHL teams have had stable ownership, made a profit and had competitive teams, simultaneously?

Your metrics are relatively meaningless. The Islanders were in a terrible financial situation and a complete mess on the ice for 25 years because of their horrible lease.
With a mix of unstable (Gluckstern & Milstein/ John Spano era) and very stable ownership (Wang era, then to Ledecky & Malkin). And what happened? Did the team move? Go bankrupt? Nah, they just chugged along in mediocrity until someone fixed the issue.


FIFTEEN YEARS ago, the Coyotes were the worst financial team in the league and there were 75 megathreads about letting the CEO of Blackberry to rescue them.

You realize how dumb that looks in hindsight? Do the Coyotes still have the worst financials in the NHL 15 years later? Sure. Do they sell more than Blackberry does? Yes. Blackberry is basically toast.


So maybe after all this time we need to reassess the significance of things like attendance, "making a profit" or having all three teams be good at the same time.

 

[KevFu]

Do they, though?
There's a reason why you aren't seeing 3 teams in any of the other major sports leagues in NYC.

And, you want to see this happening in Toronto with a far smaller economy?

The reason there aren't 3 teams in the other sports is because it's astronomically expensive to the point of impossible to pull off when everyone has territorial rights.

It's practically impossible to get a SECOND TEAM in a market:
- The AL and NL were separate leagues with separate offices, and they cut a deal to allow the AL to get a team in Los Angeles and the NL to get a team in New York as a trade-off.
- The NFL TV rights are divided AFC and NFC, so the NFL worked a deal to put a team from each league in Los Angeles at the same time.

The Giants/Jets, Rangers/Islanders, Knicks/Nets are both in New York because of league mergers.
Chicago has two baseball teams because they pre-date Major League Baseball and sports weren't a global industry in the 1880s.
LA has two hockey teams because the Kings owner needed cash fast and wanted the rights fees from the Ducks.

None of that stuff is applicable.

There's an opening for a second GTA team under ONE CONDITION: Instead of Bell/Rogers co-owning the Leafs, Bell/Rogers own one team each in GTA.

 

[Bluto]

San Diego is about to build a nice new arena and will try to attract NHL/NBA.
Houston is in the running for a team.
Quebec has an NHL ready arena and wants a team.
Kansas City has an NHL ready arena and wants a team.
Toronto could get a second team if Bell and Rogers divorce.
I could even see a team in Austin with the right investors.

If Florida/Arizona don't relocate to any of those cities, and a billionaire comes in and wants a team, I'm sure the NHL owners won't be too upset to accept a $5-700 million expansion fee to make up for some of the financial losses from the pandemic.

 

[TheGreenTBer]

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

When they team won, the fans were there.

I can't think of another situation like Atlanta, where the owner of the team also owned the only NHL-capable arena in town yet wanted nothing to do with the NHL almost from the beginning so in the end they basically abandoned and eventually evicted the team. I'm pretty sure they actually prevented a local sale of the Thrashers by some legal loophole contained within a MOU that they signed with some other party as well.

I think the NHL could have worked there.

 

[Hockeyholic]

I can't think of another situation like Atlanta, where the owner of the team also owned the only NHL-capable arena in town yet wanted nothing to do with the NHL almost from the beginning so in the end they basically abandoned and eventually evicted the team. I'm pretty sure they actually prevented a local sale of the Thrashers by some legal loophole contained within a MOU that they signed with some other party as well.

I think the NHL could have worked there.

Yep.

More money for everyone if the NHL is in Atlanta over QC.

It's not like the Thrashers weren't supported when they were good either. They are just like any other NHL market sans maybe Toronto and Montreal. Junk team = less fans.

 

[KevFu]

I don't think NHL has any interest in Hamilton even if MLSE did not object.

The fundamental problem with gauging the NHL's interest in an expansion market is that the league really only sees significant revenue from expansion via the fee itself.

Yes, adding big untapped TV markets is helpful for new TV deals. But generally speaking, it's all carved up. Houston and Atlanta are the only big fish left.


The reason the NHL seems disinterested in Hamilton isn't because of Hamilton. It's because Hamilton hasn't had an owner with the pockets deep enough to make the investment. And the reason the pockets aren't deep enough is because MLSE's dollar amount on territorial rights fees are "Over My Dead Body" and not an actual number.

The NHL seems disinterested because Hamilton is a non-starter. However, if an MLSE divorce removes that roadblock, then Hamilton is no different than anywhere else: if someone has the check, the NHL will hear their pitch.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

San Diego is about to build a nice new arena and will try to attract NHL/NBA.
Houston is in the running for a team.
Quebec has an NHL ready arena and wants a team.
Kansas City has an NHL ready arena and wants a team.
Toronto could get a second team if Bell and Rogers divorce.
I could even see a team in Austin with the right investors.

If Florida/Arizona don't relocate to any of those cities, and a billionaire comes in and wants a team, I'm sure the NHL owners won't be too upset to accept a $5-700 million expansion fee to make up for some of the financial losses from the pandemic.

What the heck are you talking about?

San Diego definitely is not getting a NHL team. No potential owner has come forward, and that arena plan got derailed last month.
Houston is not in the running for a team. You need to read something from the last two years if you aren't up to date on the situation in Houston.
Québec has wanted a team since the minute the Nordiques left. They haven't gotten one despite half a dozen legitimate chances. That also doesn't mean they're qualified to get a team.
Kansas City's only potential owner, Lamar Hunt Jr., has said on multiple occasions he is happy with the ECHL and doesn't want to pay the going rate for a NHL team. He even rejected the opportunity to buy an AHL franchise.
Toronto metro has the potential to get a second team in the near impossible scenario where Bell and Rogers divorce *and* they find someone willing to front the king's ransom the Leafs will demand for a second team *and* they build another arena *and* they find someone with the +$2 billion required to accomplish this task.
Austin? Now you're just throwing open markets out there.

If you're going to peddle relocation targets for two teams that have had their long-term futures more stable than ever at this point in time, at least peddle ones that stand up. Unless you're goal was to have the entire scenario, both relocation and relocation targets, be an outrageous hypothetical, in that case well done.

 

[Bluto]

What the heck are you talking about?

San Diego definitely is not getting a NHL team. No potential owner has come forward, and that arena plan got derailed last month.
Houston is not in the running for a team. You need to read something from the last two years if you aren't up to date on the situation in Houston.
Québec has wanted a team since the minute the Nordiques left. They haven't gotten one despite half a dozen legitimate chances. That also doesn't mean they're qualified to get a team.
Kansas City's only potential owner, Lamar Hunt Jr., has said on multiple occasions he is happy with the ECHL and doesn't want to pay the going rate for a NHL team. He even rejected the opportunity to buy an AHL franchise.
Toronto metro has the potential to get a second team in the near impossible scenario where Bell and Rogers divorce *and* they find someone willing to front the king's ransom the Leafs will demand for a second team *and* they build another arena *and* they find someone with the +$2 billion required to accomplish this task.
Austin? Now you're just throwing open markets out there.

If you're going to peddle relocation targets for two teams that have had their long-term futures more stable than ever at this point in time, at least peddle ones that stand up. Unless you're goal was to have the entire scenario, both relocation and relocation targets, be an outrageous hypothetical, in that case well done.

Ah didn't realize that the San Diego arena got derailed.
The rest are plausible if a billionaire comes forward with the cash for an expansion. It's all about the green and the NHL just lost a lot of revenue due to Covid. If a billionaire wanted to put a team in the middle of nowhere Montana to play in a rink in his own personal mansion with no crowds and came up with 500 million for the franchise fee, they'd give him a franchise. Shit, I'd do that if I had Bezos money.
I never said there were any billionaires currently, just proposing situations in which the NHL could/would expand. It's all about the cash.

You're a bit too emotionally invested to be this much of a complete jerk in the conversation. My advice to you is to take a break and watch some happy time videos and drink some water and cool off a bit there, champ. I'm sorry that you took my post so personally. Congrats on being a massive jerk for no reason.

<3

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

Ah didn't realize that the San Diego arena got derailed.
The rest are plausible if a billionaire comes forward with the cash for an expansion. It's all about the green and the NHL just lost a lot of revenue due to Covid. If a billionaire wanted to put a team in the middle of nowhere Montana to play in a rink in his own personal mansion with no crowds and came up with 500 million for the franchise fee, they'd give him a franchise. Shit, I'd do that if I had Bezos money.
I never said there were any billionaires currently, just proposing situations in which the NHL could/would expand. It's all about the cash.

You're a bit too emotionally invested to be this much of a complete jerk in the conversation. My advice to you is to take a break and watch some happy time videos and drink some water and cool off a bit there, champ. I'm sorry that you took my post so personally.

<3

That is patently untrue. Just because a billionaire pops up doesn't mean the NHL will give them a team.

Case in point is Houston. NHL-ready market, arena, and billionaire Fertitta. But the NHL told Fertitta to get lost so quickly it was actually funny. Everything that came out of his meeting with Daly read like a comedy. So you're flat out wrong about the billionaire part.

If you can't handle being shown line by line where you say illogical and flat out incorrect things, that's on you. No emotion on my end. This is all serious stuff.