Why did Quebec not get a team?

Fixxer

Registered User
Jul 28, 2016
3,224
1,629
Not sure they are SO craving. They want a team and did what was asked of them. They built the place. They found ownership. Sometimes the excuse is they are too vocal, not enough vocal. They did a few invasions to empty arenas. They host preseason games with 10 000 fans paying to see B teams, exactly like Mtl without a proper stadium and no fan support for baseball is doing.

The Boston owner sure seems to hate Quebec.

Heck even the Quebec pee-wee tournament is world famous; 120 teams 200 000 + paying attendance.

Adult ticket is 8$, same as Panthers ticket on Stub Hub...

What I meant by "SO craving", as you stated, Nordiques fans did invade a few empty arenas (I remember in Long Island). They seem a bit desperate to have a team no matter what it takes. I think it gives leverage to the NHL instead of Québec.
I remember when on the show l'Antichambre, they stated that Québec might some day get an expansion team, (which was before Las Vegas got theirs) and Bergie almost crying when he heard the word "expansion", which is starting from the bottom and taking years to grow a competent team..... but the new expansion rules changed that drastically. We'll see how... I was gonna say Houston... lol ... Seattle will do. - I'm a Habs fan first, but I love the sport. Québec would be a nice addition. I only started watching hockey in 96-97, Habs on Francophone television, so I never got to see much of the Nordiques. Anyway. my 2 cents.
 

wadesworld

Registered User
Jan 24, 2011
2,825
493
Nashville, TN
Expansion is not about ticket sales.

Expansion is about improving the TV contract, which is where the real money is. Adding a Canadian city does absolutely nothing to improve the NHL's TV contract. Continuing to expand hockey's popularity in the US does.
 

MSSLYNX

Registered User
Jul 27, 2009
4,009
917
What I meant by "SO craving", as you stated, Nordiques fans did invade a few empty arenas (I remember in Long Island). They seem a bit desperate to have a team no matter what it takes. I think it gives leverage to the NHL instead of Québec. I remember when on the show l'Antichambre, they stated that Québec might some day get an expansion team, (which was before Las Vegas got theirs) and Bergie almost crying when he heard the word "expansion", which is starting from the bottom and taking years to grow a competent team..... but the new expansion rules changed that drastically. We'll see how... I was gonna say Houston... lol ... Seattle will do. - I'm a Habs fan first, but I love the sport. Québec would be a nice addition. I only started watching hockey in 96-97, Habs on Francophone television, so I never got to see much of the Nordiques. Anyway. my 2 cents.

No. Going in masses to an NHL game in a different city, heck country, cannot rub Bettman the wrong way. They are not desperate.

Too bad you missed the great Que-Mtl rivalry.
 

ffh

Registered User
Jul 16, 2016
8,362
5,073
Sounds like lame excuse.
Older folks will remember late 80s Patrick division had 1 more team for quite a few years.
Really older folks will remmber 1974 where California was with Toronto and LA with Mtl!

Nhl played with 2 more teams in a conference for many years. Quickly checked 94-95, 2013-2017. If having even 2 more teams on 1 side was such a problem they would have fixed it faster.

Thing is Florida needs to play Mtl in the East for $$$ reasons.
Lame .right. When 16 of 21 teams made playoffs. You could be under .500 and make playoffs.You don't think teams in the west before Vegas joined had an easier time to make the playoffs. The league is highly competitive you can't have 14 teams with greater odds to make the playoffs then the other 16 teams. Won't even get into would Quebec even want to pay over a billion canadian for a team instead of waiting for a team to relocate.
 

Riddum

Registered User
Nov 5, 2008
5,951
2,003
Montreal
Quebec is given opportunities to show they want a team every year during the preseason and they draw under 10k most of the time.

lol, based on your avatar, I would assume you are a Panthers fan. Well, coming from a panthers fan, that's rich.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MSSLYNX

MSSLYNX

Registered User
Jul 27, 2009
4,009
917
Lame .right. When 16 of 21 teams made playoffs. You could be under .500 and make playoffs.You don't think teams in the west before Vegas joined had an easier time to make the playoffs. The league is highly competitive you can't have 14 teams with greater odds to make the playoffs then the other 16 teams. Won't even get into would Quebec even want to pay over a billion canadian for a team instead of waiting for a team to relocate.

Still the case.
Overtime, shootout and loser point changed the maths (point totals) but you still get under .500 teams in the playoffs. NJ got in with 39 regular AND ot wins last year.

Both Florida teams should be in the Central. But they need the big Snowbirds market.

Seattle will not play in the Central. Decided to move Arizona. Kiss of death if you ask me. They are sent away from their 4 closest rivals. Makes little sense.
 

garbageteam

Registered User
Jan 7, 2010
1,403
641
I still don't think QC is dead in the water, and I'm no eternal optimist. But it certainly looks like it'll be the long game. Otherwise the arena and all the discussions and discourse among the mayor and Videotron should have gone sideways by now. Comments from Daly and Bettman haven't shut that down, unlike if someone had asked about GTA2 or Hamilton. They are still engaged in a process and the NHL still holds their expansion money, with emphasis on "deferment". It's a card the league will hold onto for another several years, and the stadium will still be plenty viable and attractive in 2025.
 

Ahoy there

Always in control of my stick
Nov 10, 2018
1,261
4,274
NC via WI
Three reasons why, in no particular order:

1. Money
2. Money
3. Money

And I'm not referring to ability to fill arenas or personal wealth of the owner(ship group.) Media money and corporate money is the reason. A few years ago in college football, the Big 10 expanded and included Rutgers. Why? I mean, they are historically not a good FB program.

Because it got the Big 10 a piece of the NJ/NY media market.

Not saying it's right or that I agree with it; just answering the OP question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MSSLYNX

Cellee

Registered User
Dec 20, 2014
8,951
6,168
Expansion is not about ticket sales.

Expansion is about improving the TV contract, which is where the real money is. Adding a Canadian city does absolutely nothing to improve the NHL's TV contract. Continuing to expand hockey's popularity in the US does.
Exactly, this league is carried on the back of the Canadian TV market (Roger's deal) already.
 
Last edited:

JRull86

Registered User
Jan 28, 2009
27,392
14,891
South Shore
I'd assume one of FLA or ARZ moves to Quebec rather than expansion. League doesn't need more teams, it needs to move money pits into better positions to succeed.
 

MasterDecoy

Who took my beer?
May 4, 2010
18,355
3,818
Beijing
Molson will do anything he can to prevent Quebec of having a NHL club. I don’t believe a word of what he says when he is saying that he would welcome them back.

And I am not buying the “the rivalry with MTL would be great for business therefore Molson would be for a club in QC”. No business wants to loose at least 20% of its market. Ever.

That’s because you assume ex nordiques fan are cheering for Montreal and I can assure you, that isn’t happening :laugh:
 

stampedingviking

Registered User
Jul 2, 2013
4,217
2,377
Basingstoke, England
Seattle may have the numbers but from what I've heard and read the collective market simply cannot stack up to Quebec when it comes to passion for the game, knowledge of the sport, willingness to invest in the team, etc. Any businessperson worth their salt would do the math and choose Quebec City.
QC has been tried and failed.

seattle could be a huge untapped market just waiting for the right opportunity. More population=bigger market potentially, therefore it's a good decision for any business person.
 

JianYang

Registered User
Sep 29, 2017
17,753
16,114
This is an honest question. And I'm not a super angry Canadian who thinks the NHL hates us. I'm just honestly confused because I thought they had an NHL ready arena and some super rich dude that was willing to pony up. Was it simply the East vs West thing needing to be worked out? Or were there other reasons. The NHL has shown it's willingness to go back to former Canadian markets so I have to believe that isn't it. As a Habs fan I kinda hoped it would happen because that was a damn good rivalry back in the day.

The league has consistently shown that they prefer the raw growth potential of certain US markets over the established Canadian markets.

For Quebec to get in, there needs to be a perfect storm like when Winnipeg came back. A situation where local ownership is not an option, and no other attractive US markets are making a legitimate offer.
 

stampedingviking

Registered User
Jul 2, 2013
4,217
2,377
Basingstoke, England
Seattle has the larger population but how many of them are actually going to spend money on hockey? How many of them are actually going to learn the sport and develop a fanbase? And how would this spending compare with QC? As far as I'm concerned I'd chose the market that knows and loves hockey any day of the week.
The market that is probably, what, 75% tapped out already compared to a brand new virgin opportunity?

Know which one I'd be all in on, sorry QC it's not you.
 

Mike Jones

Registered User
Apr 12, 2007
12,485
2,876
Calgary
QC has been tried and failed.

seattle could be a huge untapped market just waiting for the right opportunity. More population=bigger market potentially, therefore it's a good decision for any business person.
QC failed using an older financial system. Given new realities like the cap things may be different this time.
 

stampedingviking

Registered User
Jul 2, 2013
4,217
2,377
Basingstoke, England
A WHL team is fine but does it come anywhere near what an NHL franchise can do? Quebec City also has a rich hockey history with teams at almost every level (CHL, AHL, NHL, etc) Given a choice between the two markets I'd place an NHL team in QC any day of the week.
What guarantee would you give that it won't fail again?

Your Canadian bias aside, can you not see why such a rich, untapped market would be preferable?
 

Mike Jones

Registered User
Apr 12, 2007
12,485
2,876
Calgary
QC has been tried and failed.

seattle could be a huge untapped market just waiting for the right opportunity. More population=bigger market potentially, therefore it's a good decision for any business person.
As opposed to a market of people who know and love hockey and seem willing to spend a lot of money on it? As I've said before, I'd prefer a market that's good to go any day of the week.
 

Mike Jones

Registered User
Apr 12, 2007
12,485
2,876
Calgary
What guarantee would you give that it won't fail again?

Your Canadian bias aside, can you not see why such a rich, untapped market would be preferable?
No. If I were running a business I'd go where the money, knowledge, passion and vision is. I'd also go where the arena is already built to standards.

BTW - A couple of people have used the word "fail" when describing QC's previous NHL incarnation. Any effective business person has to learn the value of failure in order to be successful. Learning from mistakes is how we grow and mature and giving a market a second chance is a sign of intelligence and maturity. From what I have learned and read QC is ready for their second chance and it's too bad the league is too obsessed with unproven markets to live that out.
 
Last edited:

stampedingviking

Registered User
Jul 2, 2013
4,217
2,377
Basingstoke, England
No. If I were running a business I'd go where the money, knowledge, passion and vision is. I'd also go where the arena is already built to standards.

BTW - A couple of people have used the word "fail" when describing QC's previous NHL incarnation. Any effective business person has to learn the value of failure in order to be successful. Learning from mistakes is how we grow and mature and giving a market a second chance is a sign of intelligence and maturity. From what I have learned and read QC is ready for their second chance and it's too bad the league is too obsessed with unproven markets to live that out.
The corporate money is in Seattle.

The bigger chance to expand the NHL is seattle.

Seattle = bigger opportunity. Simple as.
 

Drake1588

UNATCO
Sponsor
Jul 2, 2002
30,083
2,431
Northern Virginia
The NHL wants to expand to large and underserved markets, with growth potential. The two big cities that meet these criteria are Seattle and Houston.

Winnipeg received a team owing to timing and circumstances. The Atlanta ownership group cratered fast, was looking to sell just as quickly, and Winnipeg was poised at the time to welcome them immediately, with an ownership and building at the ready.

In the event of another such emergency, Quebec is in a great position. Unfortunately, it does position the potential fan base and ownership group to be vultures, but that's more the league's fault than theirs. They just want a team back.

If an Eastern team's ownership situation deteriorates, especially in the Atlantic, then Quebec probably gets the team. If it's Arizona, it's probably Houston, assuming some lead time.
 

Critical Mass

Registered User
Feb 6, 2011
209
195
Vegas and Seattle purchased from the full-service retail market. They got the showroom model with the new franchise smell. It comes with a premium service package and all the bells and whistles. Gary Bettman personally signs a membership plaque and welcome card on behalf of the league.

Quebec City is waiting for a team to appear on Cragislist.
 

Mike Jones

Registered User
Apr 12, 2007
12,485
2,876
Calgary
The corporate money is in Seattle.

The bigger chance to expand the NHL is seattle.

Seattle = bigger opportunity. Simple as.
Good luck to Seattle but QC is the real money maker. It will be interesting to watch and see how the Totems (The name I hope will win out) do.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->