Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,136
    vCash
    1500

    Contract - Expand - Relocate - Stay course

    The four options are easy. Should the NHL...Contract teams (get rid of some), Expand, Relocate certain teams, or stay the course with the 30 teams they have right now.

    Give your best argument for each one. Let us know what you think the NHL will do and what you would do.

    If you want to get rid of teams...let us know what teams and why.
    If you want to expand the league...let us know what city and why.
    If you want to relocate teams...let us know what teams and where you will relocate.
    If you want to stay the course...let us know why 30 teams and the current cities are the way to go.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,136
    vCash
    1500
    I think the NHL is going to look towards expansion. It isn't what I personally would like to see, but at the end of the day I think it makes too much sense not to.

    The NHL is a business. Overall, they are doing very well right now as a league. Businesses like the NHL are in the business of making money. I believe that adding TWO teams is what the NHL will do. There are a couple of cities that would be out West (or the NHL can make some conference swaps) that the NHL is likely to consider. Seattle, Kansas City, Quebec and I am sure there is somewhere else in Canada that makes sense.

    As of right now, 16 teams in the Eastern Conference and 14 teams in the Western Conference. It makes absolutely no sense to me and I would like to see it be even across the board. Some might want to make it 14/14, 15/15 with relocation, but I think the NHL will go for 16/16 before it downsizes.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    24,698
    vCash
    1000
    Ehhh.....



    You have two teams that must go within five years. Yes Phoenix just re-signed or whatever, but that team is not making money. It's been a failure. Keep in mind it's not even in Phoenix, it's in Scottsdale I think. Team would have made sense in "Phoenix" but too late. You're not going to build an arena a bit away if this team has failed. It has to be moved eventually.

    Phoenix would make sense in Seattle. They've got a good core of players, and Seattle is wanting a sports team. Seattle has an NFL and MLB team and I think they do well. Seattle would have instant rivalries with Vancouver. New team with a core of OEL, Boedker, Yandle, etc isn't bad.

    The other is Florida. You can get tickets for as little as $2. That speaks enough. I think their tickets before that are actually more expensive than Tampa Bay's. Regardless Tampa and Florida both aren't needed. Florida's been rebuilding for like a decade now. Had a Stanley Cup final in the late 90s (shocking) and haven't had a star player up front since Pavel Bure. Players don't want to stay there. Simple.

    This team needs to be moved to Quebec City. I know, I know, Quebec's failed before but so has Winnipeg. The way they relocated to Winnipeg was actually genius. They sold season tickets for like 2-3 years right away if I'm not mistaken. Winnipeg's a below average team that's selling like crazy. May be 25th in total attendance per game, but that small arena 100% sells each time. Quebec would be smart to do the same too. Quebec is big enough for another team for sure.


    The other team to be considered is New Jersey. They're losing serious money. The NHL has done everything that they've can. The NHL has two teams in New York (thank god the Islanders are moving to Brooklyn or they'd be here too/may potentially). NJ's been the second/third biggest franchise in terms of "franchise" since the early 90s but they're losing money with good teams. I'd seriously look into research in Milwaukee. They do good numbers with Nashville's affiliate, and have a decen tpopulation. Not far out from Chicago too.


    I'm fine with 30 teams. It spreads out the talent just fine. However, some franchises are doomed. 30 teams can work, but they need to be put in the right spots for success.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    24,698
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by Boom! View Post
    I think the NHL is going to look towards expansion. It isn't what I personally would like to see, but at the end of the day I think it makes too much sense not to.

    The NHL is a business. Overall, they are doing very well right now as a league. Businesses like the NHL are in the business of making money. I believe that adding TWO teams is what the NHL will do. There are a couple of cities that would be out West (or the NHL can make some conference swaps) that the NHL is likely to consider. Seattle, Kansas City, Quebec and I am sure there is somewhere else in Canada that makes sense.

    As of right now, 16 teams in the Eastern Conference and 14 teams in the Western Conference. It makes absolutely no sense to me and I would like to see it be even across the board. Some might want to make it 14/14, 15/15 with relocation, but I think the NHL will go for 16/16 before it downsizes.
    Eh. Western Canada is absolutely covered. You'd have Montreal and Quebec City both in Quebec. In Ontario you have Ottawa and Toronto. There's been talk about Hamilton in the past, but I'm not sure how great that would be. At the same time, Ontario has a lot of people and bandwagon fans. Open to a new team, bu tnot many will jump off the Maple Leafs, and they look like a playoff team within two years again. I've never seen as many Maple Leaf fans as there is now. Not since the early 2000s at least.

    Hamilton would be the only place. Two teams in Toronto IMO doesn't make sense. You have enough sports teams despite Toronto being a top five city in North America. You have the Maple Leafs, Raptors, Blue Jays, Argonauts, Bills couple times, Rock, and Toronto FC. You then have the Marlies, and an OHL team if I'm not mistaken. I'm probably missing a sports team in Toronto here.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,136
    vCash
    1500
    ^^^ What Winnipeg did was very smart.

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/spo...251640191.html

    The question I had was...after that period of 3 years, how would the renewals look? Looked that up and found the above article that is just a week old. Things are looking good for Winnipeg right now.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    24,698
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by Boom! View Post
    ^^^ What Winnipeg did was very smart.

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/spo...251640191.html

    The question I had was...after that period of 3 years, how would the renewals look? Looked that up and found the above article that is just a week old. Things are looking good for Winnipeg right now.
    Winnipeg has one sports team though too, and were without one for years. That's pretty similar to Quebec City, though not Seattle/Milwaukee/Kansas City. Winnipeg's on their way up, and with the smaller arena, it's real loud. There's a reason why players are re-signing despite it being Western Conference.

    Quebec having a 14,000-15,000 arena and doing that makes a lot of sense.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    10,462
    vCash
    1000
    The NHL is going to look towards expansion because its a business and my guess is that it is why the conferences are unbalanced since expansion will happen in the near future

    I personally believe the league should contract 2 teams (Phoenix and Florida) it will improve the leagues finances, and improve teams around the league. It will keep players happy since it will help bring the cap up faster and it will keep owners happy since it's 2 less teams to share profits with, especially since these 2 teams operate at a significant loss

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    24,698
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by SensandRaps View Post
    The NHL is going to look towards expansion because its a business and my guess is that it is why the conferences are unbalanced since expansion will happen in the near future

    I personally believe the league should contract 2 teams (Phoenix and Florida) it will improve the leagues finances, and improve teams around the league. It will keep players happy since it will help bring the cap up faster and it will keep owners happy since it's 2 less teams to share profits with, especially since these 2 teams operate at a significant loss
    Pretty much, yeah. Sportsnet's deal with the NHL is massive. It was 5.2B over 10+ years. I think that's split evenly. That's going to save a bunch of the US markets. As much as it sucks, that's what's going to happen.

    Just looked a bit more and there was 11 teams losing money last year. All in the United States. If I had to guess, I'd go with Dallas, New York Islanders, Phoenix, New Jersey, Colorado, Nashville, Florida, and I actually don't know who else. Carolina perhaps.

    That new deal should allow for those 10 teams to continue to lose money for awhile, meanwhile making money as I would guess from new franchises.

    That Sportsnet was absolutely massive.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,117
    vCash
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by BranWingss View Post
    Eh. Western Canada is absolutely covered. You'd have Montreal and Quebec City both in Quebec. In Ontario you have Ottawa and Toronto. There's been talk about Hamilton in the past, but I'm not sure how great that would be. At the same time, Ontario has a lot of people and bandwagon fans. Open to a new team, bu tnot many will jump off the Maple Leafs, and they look like a playoff team within two years again. I've never seen as many Maple Leaf fans as there is now. Not since the early 2000s at least.

    Hamilton would be the only place. Two teams in Toronto IMO doesn't make sense. You have enough sports teams despite Toronto being a top five city in North America. You have the Maple Leafs, Raptors, Blue Jays, Argonauts, Bills couple times, Rock, and Toronto FC. You then have the Marlies, and an OHL team if I'm not mistaken. I'm probably missing a sports team in Toronto here.
    Hamilton (or anywhere between Buffalo and Toronto) probably makes sense. But, two huge roadblocks:

    1.) It would cost the Maple Leafs money. They'd have lower demand, and ticket prices could fall. Slightly, but every dollar counts in a business.

    2.) It could destabilize the Sabres. It is really annoying when Leafs fans swarm Buffalo for Leafs games, given they're willing to outspend Sabres fans 2:1 on the cost of living difference, but those ticket sales help the Sabres. We can't be sure the Sabres could keep selling out without that influence.

    Both of these "roadblocks" are really things that are "good for the fans" (lower prices and less traveling competitors fans) but each are also a threat to the fans in terms of the long term health of their team. Give it a few years (or maybe even 5-10) and I think we'll have movement on something like Hamilton. Let the Sabres get the Harbor Center up and running (and profitable) first. See if the USD vs CAD stabilize and see how profitable Toronto is at that point.


    "Hater" is a term used by weak minded people in the face of legitimate criticism.
    -Scott van Pelt

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,117
    vCash
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by SensandRaps View Post
    The NHL is going to look towards expansion because its a business and my guess is that it is why the conferences are unbalanced since expansion will happen in the near future

    I personally believe the league should contract 2 teams (Phoenix and Florida) it will improve the leagues finances, and improve teams around the league. It will keep players happy since it will help bring the cap up faster and it will keep owners happy since it's 2 less teams to share profits with, especially since these 2 teams operate at a significant loss
    Agree, but, since it is harder to expand than it is to contract, I don't think they want to get rid of a team when at any point in the future they would want to add a team. I think they're willing to pay off teams that lose money for a decade to avoid the pain of adding a team from scratch.


    "Hater" is a term used by weak minded people in the face of legitimate criticism.
    -Scott van Pelt

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    West Side
    Posts
    4,456
    vCash
    1500
    i don't can't see anywhere else to relocate/expansion that makes sense outside of milwaukee, seattle and quebec city. of course with milwaukee lots opeople are hawks fans so that might not work.

    the panthers need to go.

    the problem with phoenix is their barn is in the boonies with no access to the train system. it took me over an hour on the freeway to get to the rink from Mesa. they really should've built Jobing.com downtown by Chase Field and where the Suns play because it's easily accessible. Or they should've even built it on Arizona State Campus or at least within it's vicinity for the young people who can easily afford the cheap tickets.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    West Side
    Posts
    4,456
    vCash
    1500
    i'd say just stay the course and hope that some of the owners can invest in hockey in the communities to grow it. then it becomes generational and more sustainable. you can look at Dallas, California teams and to a lesser extent Nashville which has made progress.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,117
    vCash
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by statquo View Post
    i don't can't see anywhere else to relocate/expansion that makes sense outside of milwaukee, seattle and quebec city. of course with milwaukee lots opeople are hawks fans so that might not work.

    the panthers need to go.

    the problem with phoenix is their barn is in the boonies with no access to the train system. it took me over an hour on the freeway to get to the rink from Mesa. they really should've built Jobing.com downtown by Chase Field and where the Suns play because it's easily accessible. Or they should've even built it on Arizona State Campus or at least within it's vicinity for the young people who can easily afford the cheap tickets.
    I think the NHL agrees that the relocation targets are small right now and that is why they're not actively doing anything. They have enough money to eat the issues with the bad market teams and they will wait for ideal scenarios to open up before acting.


    "Hater" is a term used by weak minded people in the face of legitimate criticism.
    -Scott van Pelt

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Aurora, CO (HT Queens, NY)
    Posts
    11,336
    vCash
    1500
    Phoenix is a very interesting case. They have a solid team, the owner spends money, they just cannot draw the fans.

    The Panthers on the other hand, horribly run team and they actually stand 30 in payroll, worse then the NYI.

    http://www.capgeek.com/

    I think -

    A. Teams should be moved if they cannot generate good amount of income. Examples - Coyotes, Atlanta Thrashers(now WP Jets), Panthers.

    B. Teams shouldn't be forced to relocate if there owners are jerks. It's time for the league to crack down on these cap floorish teams. It kills the sport when other teams with owners that care put competitive payroll on ice, you shouldn't be allowed to keep putting the same crappy product on the ice every year (NYI before Brooklyn lease, OTT, some more teams prop to lazy to list)

    I'm not following the proper question/format all I am saying is that you need to look at why teams relocate - it's because the league/team cannot draw money from that given area, (Arizona)

    If we were to expand... We could easily do it right now. Seattle is ready for some hockey and so is Quebec, I'm all for it.

    As for relocate, look at what I said on top. Teams like FLA, and PHX should relocate since they are not generating proper revenue regardless of standings.

    Stay the course? It's fine but it's the cheap owners we should go after.

    Wang, Melnyk, Cigarra, etc.

    Owners like these kill the game... NYI, OTT, NSH are some hardy fans. Game and the fans deserve better just my two cents.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5,857
    vCash
    2708
    The league is going to do whatever is profitable, there's no secret. If they could get away with putting a team in every city while paying the players slave wages, it would happen.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •