[Rumour] Forbes. NHL could announce relocation in June

[Coach]

the league is missing big potential earnings from a 2nd Toronto team. So dumb.

[FlamesAddiction]

Interesting chart, but odd that they would put Saint John/Moncton and especially Thunder Bay/Sudbury in the same markets. Thunder Bay and Sudbury are like a 12 hour drive apart from each other.

Quebec City is ready IMO. I honestly don't think the new arena would have went ahead if they didn't have a reason to believe that they would get a team in the next few years. I also wouldn't say that they have zero relevance in the U.S. It's a world class city.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by polak

Isn't Florida's lease unreal? The team loses money but the ownership make hand over fist on the arena? Can't see them giving that up.

I think Arizona to Las Vegas is what we're hearing about. I doubt Quebec is getting a team any time soon. Last thing the NHL will want to add is another small market Canadian team with zero relevance in the US.

Las Vegas is pegged as an expansion market. It is far more lucrative that way. Plus, the arena isn't ready yet.

On relocating Phoenix - that could only happen now if the city successfully terminated the lease (or mutually agreed to). That just isn't going to happen inside of four weeks. Government doesn't move that fast. June 2016? Perhaps. Otherwise, you're pretty much waiting for that year five escape clause.

Cali Flames Fan's confidence in the Florida market notwithstanding, they are a likely relocation target. As others noted though, the Draft being held there indicates they aren't going anywhere right now. There's no real smoke anywhere else either.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MattyC

the league is missing big potential earnings from a 2nd Toronto team. So dumb.

A potential owner for a second Toronto team is missing big potential earnings. But if GTA2 were to generate stratospheric revenues to even a significant percentage of what the Leafs do, that would create huge pressure on other markets because of how it would necessarily raise the cap floor.

The GTA should have another team anyway, but the ramifications of adding that team are pretty complex.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

A potential owner for a second Toronto team is missing big potential earnings. But if GTA2 were to generate stratospheric revenues to even a significant percentage of what the Leafs do, that would create huge pressure on other markets because of how it would necessarily raise the cap floor.

The GTA should have another team anyway, but the ramifications of adding that team are pretty complex.

I have often wondered how the NHLPA can pressure the NHL in this situation. Do they have any moves in this? Because they certainly have stakes.

The talk after the lockout was the league and players are now partners. The league also said that if the players agreed to a cap based on revenue, that the league and players would work together to find ways to keep increasing revenue. By stonewalling another potential GTA team, it seems to disregard the spirit in which the NHLP agreed to a cap.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I have often wondered how the NHLPA can pressure the NHL in this situation. Do they have any moves in this? Because they certainly have stakes.

The talk after the lockout was the league and players are now partners. The league also said that if the players agreed to a cap based on revenue, that the league and players would work together to find ways to keep increasing revenue. By stonewalling another potential GTA team, it seems to disregard the spirit in which the NHLP agreed to a cap.

There isn't much the union can do to pressure the owners in this regard, beyond pestering them. The "partnership" that is spoken of referred game-related strategies (i.e.: creating the outdoor classic) and marketing. Franchise transfers, expansion and contraction are business operations, which is the domain of the owners. The union, for instance, doesn't get a cut of any expansion or relocation fees or any percentage of a franchise sale. By the same token though, they aren't responsible for covering any of Phoenix's losses.

I suppose if the union wanted to, it could have made expanding another team into the GTA a demand in the last CBA negotiation. Personally though, I'm not sure that would have been a hill the union would be willing to die on.

[troutman]

Beside GTA, a team between London and Kitchener-Waterloo (put it in Woodstock on the 401 - IIRC, Balsillie once bought a big piece of land for this) would be a strong market. Also outside TOR's exclusive zone.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...emo05a-eng.htm

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2.../19356601.html

2.5M in SW Ontario:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwestern_Ontario

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Las Vegas is pegged as an expansion market. It is far more lucrative that way. Plus, the arena isn't ready yet.

On relocating Phoenix - that could only happen now if the city successfully terminated the lease (or mutually agreed to). That just isn't going to happen inside of four weeks. Government doesn't move that fast. June 2016? Perhaps. Otherwise, you're pretty much waiting for that year five escape clause.

Cali Flames Fan's confidence in the Florida market notwithstanding, they are a likely relocation target. As others noted though, the Draft being held there indicates they aren't going anywhere right now. There's no real smoke anywhere else either.

True about the expansion part and the dollars that go with. But if the league plans on expansions anyway, it doesn't matter if its Vegas, Seattle or QC who are paying the fees, since the expansion fee will get paid one way or the other. The coyotes are leaving Arizona, it's just a matter of time. Why not move them to Orleans Arena in LV until the new rink is done. Like I said in another thread, that might actually prove to be a great move.

I would literally be like a kid in a candy store if the NHL moved from Arizona to LV.

[nik-]

I really feel the second GTA team market is being overrated. That region is more Leafs fans than hockey fans. They'll do fine and sell out, at least at the start. And for sure they will be stronger than Florida and Arizona. However, it's not like they instantly become a top 10 market other than the hype.

They'll have a lot of "I'll support this team because the Leafs suck" protest fans ... but if the Leafs ever turn it around like the early 90's it will quickly erode.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by nik-

I really feel the second GTA team market is being overrated. That region is more Leafs fans than hockey fans. They'll do fine and sell out, at least at the start. And for sure they will be stronger than Florida and Arizona. However, it's not like they instantly become a top 10 market other than the hype.

They'll have a lot of "I'll support this team because the Leafs suck" protest fans ... but if the Leafs ever turn it around like the early 90's it will quickly erode.

Yes, but if said team goes on a SCF run, you'll have a generation of new fans who will be die hard. Islanders have a following despite living in the shadow of the Rags.

Heck, look what the Flames accomplished this year bringing in new fans. Winning solves everything.

And if it's not a top 10 market, it will be top 15 for sure. There's no way the anti-Leafs don't make money.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by nik-

I really feel the second GTA team market is being overrated. That region is more Leafs fans than hockey fans. They'll do fine and sell out, at least at the start. And for sure they will be stronger than Florida and Arizona. However, it's not like they instantly become a top 10 market other than the hype.

They'll have a lot of "I'll support this team because the Leafs suck" protest fans ... but if the Leafs ever turn it around like the early 90's it will quickly erode.

Personally, I think the Leafs have pretty much reached the peak that the market allows. It has become such an exclusive ticket, that many young people and new Canadians in the GTA these days don't bother with the Leafs or the NHL at all.

The GTA is at 6 million people now but I would wager that the NHL isn't keeping up with that growth and that there are diminishing returns at this point. A 2nd team would probably help more than hinder.

It would be like having one McDonald's in a densely populated area of a city. If the line-ups are out the door, eventually people are going to give up going and will find an alternative (maybe even a better option). McDonald's would be stupid to not put in a 2nd restaurant close by to cater to the demand and avoid having patrons go somewhere else.

[Knut]

Putting the team in Woodstock would lead to a lot of driving for everyone in that area. It would be too far for Toronto and Hamilton drivers to be season ticket holders.

With RIM failing Waterloo does not have the tech money it used to. I definitely think the other team would have to be in the GTA. You could put it in Milton on the very western outskirts and still draw from the Kitchener, Waterloo, Guelph area.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Hesla

Putting the team in Woodstock would lead to a lot of driving for everyone in that area. It would be too far for Toronto and Hamilton drivers to be season ticket holders.

Right - it would depend on fans from London and K-W, Guelph, Brantford etc.

Woodstock is about 30-40 km from each of those cities. Kanata is 22 km from downtown Ottawa (but I think traffic there is worse at rush hour).

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

True about the expansion part and the dollars that go with. But if the league plans on expansions anyway, it doesn't matter if its Vegas, Seattle or QC who are paying the fees, since the expansion fee will get paid one way or the other. The coyotes are leaving Arizona, it's just a matter of time. Why not move them to Orleans Arena in LV until the new rink is done. Like I said in another thread, that might actually prove to be a great move.

I would literally be like a kid in a candy store if the NHL moved from Arizona to LV.

The difference is value. Much like how the Flames are worth only a fraction of the Maple Leafs, an expansion franchise in a place like Seattle may be worth only a fraction of an expansion franchise in a place like Las Vegas. There is likely more money to be extracted from expansion into Vegas than to Seattle.

As far as just relocating the Coyotes into Orleans' arena temporarily goes, the lease prevents that. Until the lease is terminated or until the team reaches the time where their exit clause becomes available, they are locked in. And I doubt it is much of a concern for the league at this point, as those costs and losses are the owner's and city's problem.

Beyond that, those 13,000 commitments to a Las Vegas team were sold with the understanding they would be paying for a seat in the new rink. Going to Orleans arena instead - even temporarily - would essentially be a bait and switch.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by troutman

Right - it would depend on fans from London and K-W, Guelph, Brantford etc.

Woodstock is about 30-40 km from each of those cities. Kanata is 22 km from downtown Ottawa (but I think traffic there is worse at rush hour).

These numbers make me laugh. Everything in the greater LA area is minimum 1 hour away and you simply get used to it.

My dad bitches that my sister and bro in law live in south Calgary & my parents live in north Calgary. Even tho it's like a 20 minute drive since he is basically inner city.

[polak]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Quebec City is ready IMO. I honestly don't think the new arena would have went ahead if they didn't have a reason to believe that they would get a team in the next few years. I also wouldn't say that they have zero relevance in the U.S. It's a world class city.

World class city? Not even close. Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, those are world class cities if you go by name recognition.

Having a nice old district and a big hotel does not make a world class city. There are hundreds of cities in Europe like Quebec City.

If you want to go by the actual accepted "Global Cities" rankings then its even worse for QC's relevance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city

Cities like Edmonton, Winnipeg and QC don't even rank in the top 100 in these, with Calgary rarely appearing far down as well.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by polak

World class city? Not even close. Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, those are world class cities if you go by name recognition.

Having a nice old district and a big hotel does not make a world class city. There are hundreds of cities in Europe like Quebec City.

If you want to go by the actual accepted "Global Cities" rankings then its even worse for QC's relevance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city

Cities like Edmonton, Winnipeg and QC don't even rank in the top 100 in these, with Calgary rarely appearing far down as well.

Sorry, I didn't realize that Vancouver was the cutoff point for world class. Anyway, who mentioned anything about "Global City"? It's not even remotely the same concept as calling a city a "world-class city". The French speaking world is fairly large and Quebec City has a lot of name recognition on that level and it's not like it is unheard of in the rest of the world. The place is always filled with visitors from all over the world (Americans and Europeans especially).

Quebec City is a provincial capital in a fairly influential G7 country. It hosts several national and international events, and it's core is UNESCO world heritage site. I think that makes it a world class city. World class does not have mean on the same level as Montreal or Toronto (I didn't realize that was the standard).

[Bandwagon Surfer]

Originally Posted by troutman

I don't raise the ratings as a revenue issue, but as a measure of local interest.

Hockey avidity is another measure:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...e-stanley-cup/





http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dai...arborough.aspx

Wow, all of those possible markets look pretty bad. From my understanding the bottom half of the actual markets are not making money, so I do not see the point in adding another bottom half team.

Some how low population and high interest, these do not look to have the room for enough growth to be worthwhile. The others have high population but no interest, without a convincing story on how to grow interest they do not look worthwhile.

Has similar analysis been done on European markets? Travel from New York to LA is not that different than New York to Europe.

[Finger Cookin]

Those avidity numbers and media market numbers are out of date and not very useful when examining where things stand currently.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Interesting chart, but odd that they would put Saint John/Moncton and especially Thunder Bay/Sudbury in the same markets. Thunder Bay and Sudbury are like a 12 hour drive apart from each other.

The markets listed are media markets as defined by Nielsen and Numeris. They're not metro areas or census areas.