Top 5 NHL Expansion Cities (hint: #1 is not Seattle)

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I think another team in Toronto would be a massive failure comparable to the Phoenix fiasco. Leafs nation is strongly passionate about their team. There's no way any of them will switch allegiances.

I completely disagree. I know a lot of people who grew up in the GTA that were not Leafs fans. With Buffalo and Detroit so close by, a lot of people were happy to embrace a team that was not the Leafs, even if it meant having to cross the boarder to attend home games.

There are so many people in that area that are hungry for NHL hockey and are unable to go to Leafs games (either due to ticket prices or unavailability) that they would be thrilled to have another local team to cheer for.

They don't even have to place the team directly in Toronto. Hamilton would work just as well. The only way I can see it becoming a "Phoenix fiasco" is if they put the new team in Guelph and tried to rely upon people driving in from surrounding towns.

[TurnedTheCorner]

1 -5: Canada whooo #### yo ubettman

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern

They forgot Saskatoon!

They definitely didn't

I heard Saskatoon couldn't sellout the World Juniors, or the Memorial Cup. There is only about 250,000 people in that city and would require 7% of their population to attend games in order to sellout a 17,500 building.

I know some people think the love for the Riders would equal an equally as rabid of fanbase for a hockey team but I don't agree. It is easy enough to sellout Mosaic in Regina 9 times a year (mostly on the weekend) but I don't think Saskatoon will consistently sellout a hockey rink when the Blue Jackets are in town on a Tuesday in January.

[Resolute 14]

Ahh, the dog days of summer. When some nobody's blog generates this much discussion.

Speaking of Houston, they just lost their AHL team. The franchise moved to Des Moines, Iowa.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Ahh, the dog days of summer. When some nobody's blog generates this much discussion.

Speaking of Houston, they just lost their AHL team. The franchise moved to Des Moines, Iowa.

So you are saying there is a vacancy for hockey that should be filled by an NHL team?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

If Quebec was given an expansion team that creates 30+ jobs for NHL players. Sure, they wouldn't likely be able to attract the marquee players of the game but I'm sure lots of players would love to play in the NHL in Quebec than in the AHL for another franchise. Plus Winnipeg has been able to sign a few average NHLers and lock-up a few of their young guys long-term without issue, despite being a "low desirable" place to play. A team back in Quebec would be a massive success.

I'm not doubting it would work, I just feel as though there are at least 3 other options I would consider before Quebec.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Ahh, the dog days of summer. When some nobody's blog generates this much discussion.

Speaking of Houston, they just lost their AHL team. The franchise moved to Des Moines, Iowa.

It was mentioned above, but it's worth mentioning again that it wasn't an attendance issue or poor market issue, it was an inability to come to terms with the building operator issue. Houston averaged just under 7,000 fans a game last season, good for 7th in the league. For comparison Hamilton averaged 5,342 and Abbotsford was near league worst at 3,778.

[GreenLantern]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

They definitely didn't

I heard Saskatoon couldn't sellout the World Juniors, or the Memorial Cup. There is only about 250,000 people in that city and would require 7% of their population to attend games in order to sellout a 17,500 building.

I know some people think the love for the Riders would equal an equally as rabid of fanbase for a hockey team but I don't agree. It is easy enough to sellout Mosaic in Regina 9 times a year (mostly on the weekend) but I don't think Saskatoon will consistently sellout a hockey rink when the Blue Jackets are in town on a Tuesday in January.

[N-E-B]

Lot of Canadians and Oil and Gas $ in Houston. Similar to Calgary. I think a team would be great there, and I guarantee it would outdraw the Stars. It would also set up a nice little Texas rivalry. I'm all for a Houston team.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by FlamingLonghorn

7? Astros, Texans, Dynamo, Rockets, ...?

Should be 8 without any MLS teams.

NHL (1): Dallas
NFL (2): Houston, Dallas
NBA (3): San Antonio, Houston, Dallas
MLB (2): Houston, Dallas (Texas)

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Ahh, the dog days of summer. When some nobody's blog generates this much discussion.

Speaking of Houston, they just lost their AHL team. The franchise moved to Des Moines, Iowa.

To be clear they lost the Aeros not because of fan support but because the Honda center pushed the Aeros out due to raising the rent to astronomical levels. In Des Moines the Stars will be paying a fraction of the rent.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Lot of Canadians and Oil and Gas $ in Houston. Similar to Calgary. I think a team would be great there, and I guarantee it would outdraw the Stars. It would also set up a nice little Texas rivalry. I'm all for a Houston team.

Color me surprised that Houston's AHL attendance was 7th in the league last year. Never really thought Houston would be a viable NHL destination given their location in the deep south of football country, but it's definitely an interesting option. But in terms of who "deserves" a team more, it would probably be Quebec or Seattle. Relocation might be a good option for Houston. Move Florida to Houston, give Seattle and Quebec expansion teams and boom ... 16 teams in each Conference and the divisional playoff format will make a lot more sense.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Should be 8 without any MLS teams.

NHL (1): Dallas
NFL (2): Houston, Dallas
NBA (3): San Antonio, Houston, Dallas
MLB (2): Houston, Dallas (Texas)

Yeah I thought he was talking about Houston only, because honestly the other markets would have no effect on team's attendance or interest in Houston so no point in bringing them up. It is getting to the size where they could carry 2 teams in the same league (NBA/NFL/MLB) a la Chicago/NY/LA.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Color me surprised that Houston's AHL attendance was 7th in the league last year. Never really thought Houston would be a viable NHL destination given their location in the deep south of football country, but it's definitely an interesting option.

It's not all that surprising, really. The Houston Aeros were one of the most successful teams in the WHA. Their owner, Kenneth Schnitzer, wanted to bring the team into the NHL, but the NHL was only willing to accept four WHA franchises. He also tried to buy an existing NHL franchise and move it to Houston, but the NHL wouldn't allow that either. If the league hadn't been so stubborn, the Aeros might have taken over the Cleveland Barons' franchise in 1978 and brought NHL hockey to Houston.

Instead, the Barons merged with the Minnesota North Stars and the NHL contracted to 17 teams. The Aeros folded, along with several other WHA clubs that the NHL refused to accept in any merger deal. One of those was the Calgary Cowboys. In fact, the Cowboys folded a year before the Aeros. From that, a hardcore troll could make the case that Houston is a better hockey market than Calgary.

Unfortunately, it's all moot now. From all I've read, Leslie Alexander does not want a hockey team in his arena anymore — not even an AHL team. And there really is no other arena in Houston that could house an NHL team, unless someone wants to buy the old Summit back from Lakewood Church and reconvert it.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by lifetimefan

That's like asking, "Do you have any idea how large Canada is?"

Realistically, Texas has 3 urban centers capable of supporting top level pro sports - Houston, Dallas and San Antonio.
Make no mistake, hockey will forever take a back seat to football, baseball and basketball in Texas.

And to college football, and to high school football. And probably other forms of football.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Still, I think Houston would be a good fit. It would be an instant rival with Dallas, and would help strengthen the Dallas market as well IMO.

If a lousy market like Florida gets two teams, it's hard to justify Texas not deserving two teams.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It's not all that surprising, really. The Houston Aeros were one of the most successful teams in the WHA. Their owner, Kenneth Schnitzer, wanted to bring the team into the NHL, but the NHL was only willing to accept four WHA franchises. He also tried to buy an existing NHL franchise and move it to Houston, but the NHL wouldn't allow that either. If the league hadn't been so stubborn, the Aeros might have taken over the Cleveland Barons' franchise in 1978 and brought NHL hockey to Houston.

Instead, the Barons merged with the Minnesota North Stars and the NHL contracted to 17 teams. The Aeros folded, along with several other WHA clubs that the NHL refused to accept in any merger deal. One of those was the Calgary Cowboys. In fact, the Cowboys folded a year before the Aeros. From that, a hardcore troll could make the case that Houston is a better hockey market than Calgary.

Unfortunately, it's all moot now. From all I've read, Leslie Alexander does not want a hockey team in his arena anymore — not even an AHL team. And there really is no other arena in Houston that could house an NHL team, unless someone wants to buy the old Summit back from Lakewood Church and reconvert it.

I am not sure if Alexander is against an NHL team, he just wants more $$$ on the lease. The Aeros couldn't afford that, an NHL team might be able to. I am not saying the next team should go to Houston. Seattle would be a really good destination as would Portland. I also wonder if San Fran could support a team with San Jose being so close. There is so much $$$$ in that area and a new arena coming for the Warriors on the SF side of the bay.

[Nehkara]

I think for the health of the league, the best expansion locations would be:

1. Markham - A license to print money.

2. Quebec - Nostalgia + Canada = a license to print money.

3. Seattle - Large city, natural rivalry, very close proximity to Canada.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FlamingLonghorn

I am not sure if Alexander is against an NHL team, he just wants more $$$ on the lease.

From what I've read, an NHL team cannot be placed in the Toyota Center unless Alexander personally owns it (or grants permission), and he has said publicly that he has no interest in owning an NHL team (or granting the said permission). He has the power to keep hockey out of the arena, and he is using it.

Apparently, this dates back to some bad blood between Alexander and Chuck Watson, who owned the Houston Aeros and controlled the Summit, back in the later 1990s. Alexander wanted Watson to let the Rockets out of their lease early. Watson wouldn't do it unless he had an equal interest in the new arena that both men wanted to build. Much hoo-ha ensued. Alexander got sole control of the Toyota Center, and ever since, he has been slowly wreaking revenge on Watson and the game of hockey. That's the story I've read, at any rate.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

I think for the health of the league, the best expansion locations would be:

1. Markham - A license to print money.

Markham is a licence to print money if and only if the city is dumb enough to build the proposed arena at public expense — and it's starting to look like that won't happen.

Anyway, while I am quite sure that an NHL team in Markham could sell out every night, it would have a mighty rough time in other respects. First off, the corporate presence in Toronto is just that — it's in Toronto. There is great prestige and PR value for a company in owning a suite at the Air Canada Centre; a suite at a barn in the suburbs would be distinctly second-best. It would therefore sell for its actual value as entertainment, not much more — certainly nothing like the price of ACC suites, which have enormous amounts of snob value built into the price.

Secondly, the Leafs would move heaven and earth to keep the Markham team off the air and out of the local media; and since Rogers and Bell jointly own the Leafs, that means no Markham team on TSN or Sportsnet. Remember when Molson was the primary sponsor of Hockey Night In Canada, and Carling O'Keefe owned the Nordiques? You never saw Nordiques games on HNIC (though it's true, La Soirée du Hockey was another matter). Multiply that feud by 100 gazillion (because this is the Leafs, and the one thing they know how to manufacture is soap opera) and you get some idea how hard they would try to make a Markham team fail.

Thirdly, a Markham team would begin life with several hundred million dollars of debt to service, thanks to the enormous territorial fee that the Leafs would be able to extort. MLSE has huge clout in the NHL, and even if the league wanted to thwart the Leafs' wishes, MLSE has something like $80 million a year in free cash flow from the Leafs alone. I'm sure they would pour every dollar of that into a legal battle against the league rather than give up one inch of their territory. This is, after all, the same franchise that opposed a team in Hamilton, opposed a team in Ottawa, opposed the WHA merger (because that put three more teams in Canada) — even fought tooth and nail to keep Vancouver from getting an NHL team. They eventually lost all those battles except, significantly, the Hamilton one, because Hamilton was actually within their 50-mile exclusive radius. I can't see them allowing another team into that territory without massive compensation.

If the City of Markham doesn't pay for the arena, then an owner would have to spend, say, $400 million for a building, $250m or so for an expansion franchise, and probably another $250m in indemnities to the Leafs. That doesn't leave much change out of a billion dollars. There are several billionaires who would like to own NHL teams but don't yet. But their capital is largely tied up in the businesses that made them billionaires, and if they tried to sell out and convert their assets to cash, most of them wouldn't be billionaires for very much longer. That means they would have to borrow to raise that kind of money, and the debt-servicing costs would weigh heavily on an expansion team that was already second fiddle in its own market.