Which city has potential to have 2 or more NHL teams
- Thread starter alko
- Start date
Tom ServoMST3K
In search of a Steinbach Hero
justafan22
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2014
- 11,629
- 6,249
Yup. Toronto proper is not a hockey town, it's a leafs city. There are more sports registrations for swimming/basketball/soccer than hockey within the city limits.
Herby
Now I can die in peace
I think the Bears are to market dominant for a second NFL team to ever be considered for Chicago. It would be a Lakers/Clippers situation at best, probably even worse. I think Chicago would have a better shot with a 2nd NBA team, especially since the Bulls have been largely irrelevant for the last 2 decades. But I don't see any of the leagues adding to an already established market.
KevFu
Registered User
I think the only way a second team happens is a Rogers/Bell divorce as MLSE owners. Since that would be quite messy (i.e. each side would want the other to walk away, and each side would want the price of walking away to be so high it crushes the other), so using the territorial rights fee of an expansion teams as "phantom dollars" makes sense and serves everyone's best interest.
I.E. - The owner retaining MLSE has to buy out the other party for $7 gajillion, plus $750 million. The party walking away gets an expansion team in GTA for $750 million, but has to pay a rights fee to MLSE of $7 gajillion. The $7 gajillion wash out, so $750 goes from MLSE to the other 31 clubs.
Oh, and the NHL brokers it and says "we will sign off on this... if you both sign this document which specifically says your territory ends at the outer limits of Hamilton."
Everyone wins.
Here's the thing... OF COURSE any new team is starting as the redheaded stepchild to the established team. But that doesn't mean anything significant. The Clippers sold for $2 billion. The Mets and Angels are 6th and 8th on the most valuable list (White Sox 14th because of their stadium).
Same thing with a second Toronto team. A number of fans would say "I'm in on the new team because..
1. I wasn't around 100 years ago when the Leafs were formed but I can be in on this team since day one.
2. The Leafs haven't won a Cup in 60 years, might as well try my luck with the new team.
3. Leafs tickets are ridiculously hard to get.
And then you have kids. It's not about RIGHT NOW. It's about decades and centuries. Kids will make their team choice. The Arizona Diamondbacks wear non-traditional uniforms to appeal to kids because the adults grew up with someone else as their favorite team. They need to win 8-year olds, because anyone over 40 had a team before they existed.
No matter who it is, the second team is going to be a pretty solid franchise financially based on sheer volume of potential fans to draw from.
Toronto has changed A LOT. There was a time where the CFL's Argonauts were a big thing in Toronto now people won't even go to their games if they are given free tickets. Junior hockey teams have been driven out of the GTA over the years as well. I really don't see another NHL team being anything other than a novelty. Toronto would be ripe for a NFL team and a place like Hamilton might be good for a NHL team.
Montrealer
What, me worry?
Montreal makes zero sense when there's an arena in Quebec City ready for a team. The latter would easily serve local Montreal fans who are looking for another option while having a better local base.
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
A Clippers situation at best is still incredibly profitable, though. Clippers are a longstanding whipping boy, but they're really only small compared to the Lakers. Half of the NBA probably wishes they were in the Clippers financial situation.
cheswick
Non-registered User
I get what you're saying but your numbers don't make sense. MLSE had got to be worth at least $3B (conservatively, Forbes has both the Raps and Leafs worth $1.4B a piece plus own argos, Toronto FC etc). So each entity has $1.125B value in it (37.5%). Post transaction you have MLSE worth $2B, ($750m is being paid to acquire 37.5% of MLSE in a two Toronto NHL team world). So retaining entity prior has $1.125 value, pays $750M and ends up with $1.5B value (75% of $2B value). They are over compensating. If you're arguing that the value of MLSE after the new team is added is north of $2B, the leaving party is not being compensated enough for giving up their 37.5% share.
Last edited:
Yukon Joe
Registered User
Why not Vancouver? 2.5 million in Metro Vancouver, no other winter sport competition other than the WHL Giants. Build an arena in, I dunno, Surrey, so you try to attract from a different geographic area.
Whether someone has enough $$$ to indemnify the Aquelini's is a valid question, but I think it could work.
Whether someone has enough $$$ to indemnify the Aquelini's is a valid question, but I think it could work.
KevFu
Registered User
Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to put an adequate value on MLSE. Because that's the problem...
Anyone can use a valuation system like Forbes to say "what's fair." But Forbes' valuation and real life sale prices are two different things because Forbes can't assign MOTIVATION to buyer/seller.
The reason I'd assume a Bell/Rogers divorce is messy is because the motivations would be identical. "We want sole control, we'll pay you to walk away." And the question of "how much would it take for you to walk away?" will not be answered with a fair valuation of MLSE. It would be an astronomically higher number than that.
So you're right the deal would probably have to be "Fair Valuation of MLSE + phantom number like $7 gajillion" and then the expansion costs would be "Fair valuation for GTA2 expansion + phantom number like $7 gajillion" and GTA2 would be far less than MLSE, because MLSE comes with an arena and teams in the NBA, MLS, AHL, G-League, and the minor league arena.
So maybe it's really "Fair MLSE Value + Buy Out cash" = "GTA2 Expansion fee + New Arena Cost + Territorial Rights Fee."
The point is that Buy Out Cash and Territorial Rights Fee cancel each other out.
The other aspect would be they'd need matching TV deals for BOTH TEAMS similar to the their current arrangement, and that contract would take some time. And that's the arrangement that the NHL needs to sign off on, and could use as leverage to liberate the Hamilton market.
KevFu
Registered User
The second Toronto team would be a novelty... at first. So were the Mets. It was the cute little thing like "Look, we've got something for all of you to love: Dodger Blue, Giants Orange, Casey Stengel" and they sucked and everyone knew it, and it was funny. But they were fun. It was more like a circus than a baseball team
(One hilarious story was that earliest version of fantasy sports was a 'Run pool' where people divided up the league's teams and got their runs scored for the day. Guy calls up the Mets ticket office and says 'How many runs did the Mets score today?" Operator says "19!" and the guy says "That's great! Did they win?")
Anyhow, the point is... over time, that changed. Don't get me wrong, we're still a punchline because our owners have been incompetent. But 1969 when we became GOOD, we became "just another baseball team." And during the only stretch where we had good ownership (God Bless Nelson Doubleday), the Mets were no joke in the 1980s.
As a laughing stock, the team would be as valuable as the Mets/Clippers.
If they're run well, they'd be a juggernaut. Because if they're winning Cups and the Leafs are in the lottery... guess who the kids in Toronto are going to pick.
In both New York and the Bay Area, the number of fans for the two teams in the region have peaks and valleys. People my age (38-45) are WAY MORE LIKELY to be Mets/Athletics fans. People in the 25-35 range are way more likely to be Yankees/Giants fans. Because the Mets/A's were playoff contenders and won World Series in the 1984-1992 range. But the Yankees won 5 World Series from 1996-2009 and the Giants won 3 from 2010-2014.
Kids will follow the winner, and 6 million people are producing more kids.
where's the 2nd arena for Winnipeg, if you've got minimum three hockey teams using MTS Bell?
Barclay Donaldson
Registered User
A lot of NHL teams sell out every game, doesn't mean they can handle a second NHL franchise.
Tom ServoMST3K
In search of a Steinbach Hero
DowntownBooster
Registered User
I think he was just making a little joke. The Jets sell out every game but we couldn't handle another NHL team here in Winnipeg.
Minneapolis and St Paul. Xcel Energy Center and Target Center. I think there are enough fans who'd bail on the Wild and enough who would stay on. But these long standing teams where they're institutions, people aren't going to bail on most of them. Would make for a fun little rivalry.
Absolutely not. Sure there are lots of hockey fans. But, you've got all 4 major sports, plus MLS in the metro, and it's only 3M people total. There isn't corporate dollars enough to make this work.
Nope. Winnipeg didn't even sell out every playoff game last season.
Source: Winnipeg WCF games aren't selling out
GuelphStormer
Registered User
no question, GTA2. yes, an MLSE divorce is a viable route to that, especially given the exclusive club /nutty costs involved in a GTA2. but Scotiabank Arena is now 20yo, and while it's still one of the busiest venues in the world, a proximate, new arena in the hammer or even out towards KW could prove complicating. it wouldn't shock me if they continued to share ownership of both Scotiabank arena as well as the new one, but each own respective nhl franchises. smart nhl owners make money from venues.
