[News] Utah Jazz owners formally ask NHL to begin expansion process to bring a team to Utah

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by butterfly

An also-ran Toronto team would be in the top half of the league for profitability.

Would it?

I remember when the Quebec Nordiques were basically shut out of HNIC broadcasts in the regular season. Molson owned the Montreal Canadiens at that time, and was also HNIC's principal sponsor, and Molson did not want the Nordiques to compete with the Habs, full stop. And the Nordiques were not even in the same city!

The problem with a second Toronto team would be much worse, because the Leafs are 75% owned by the two largest private media companies in Canada. Neither Bell nor Rogers is going to give any airtime to a team that directly competes against the Leafs in their home market. Corporate sponsors are going to keep supporting the Leafs, not wasting their money on tickets to see a team that their business partners and clients don't care about. A second Toronto team could do very well at the box office, but it would get clobbered on ancillary revenues.

Now add in the fact that any expansion team in Toronto would have to pay a nine-figure indemnity to the Leafs before it even got started. I don't think there's a good case to be made that they would ever be profitable enough to pay that off.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

Wait, now I need to now ask my LDS friends what the deal is with pink lemonade?

My guess is they can't drink anything that contains Caffeine (Word of Wisdom) and the lemonade is a substitute.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Would it?

I remember when the Quebec Nordiques were basically shut out of HNIC broadcasts in the regular season. Molson owned the Montreal Canadiens at that time, and was also HNIC's principal sponsor, and Molson did not want the Nordiques to compete with the Habs, full stop. And the Nordiques were not even in the same city!

The problem with a second Toronto team would be much worse, because the Leafs are 75% owned by the two largest private media companies in Canada. Neither Bell nor Rogers is going to give any airtime to a team that directly competes against the Leafs in their home market. Corporate sponsors are going to keep supporting the Leafs, not wasting their money on tickets to see a team that their business partners and clients don't care about. A second Toronto team could do very well at the box office, but it would get clobbered on ancillary revenues.

Now add in the fact that any expansion team in Toronto would have to pay a nine-figure indemnity to the Leafs before it even got started. I don't think there's a good case to be made that they would ever be profitable enough to pay that off.

Forget about the nine-figure indemnity for a moment, though I think you're spot on about it.

If you had a ton of money and the league granted you an expansion franchise, with carte blanche of where to put it, where would you choose?

I'd choose a second Toronto team and hardly even think about it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

Wait, now I need to now ask my LDS friends what the deal is with pink lemonade?

Huh....You have LDS friends? I figured they'd burn you at the stake as a heathen.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Dion

My guess is they can't drink anything that contains Caffeine (Word of Wisdom) and the lemonade is a substitute.

That's it precisely.

Probably the lemonade is pink because, by LDS standards, that's living it up and being edgy.

I've had LDS friends and worked for an LDS boss in the past. Wonderful people for the most part, but holy doodle, are they ever strait-laced.

[wpgflamesfan]

Originally Posted by Dion

My guess is they can't drink anything that contains Caffeine (Word of Wisdom) and the lemonade is a substitute.

This, along with the lemonade, seem to no longer be the case. The Mormons love their dirty sodas (i.e. Swig).

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Would it?

I remember when the Quebec Nordiques were basically shut out of HNIC broadcasts in the regular season. Molson owned the Montreal Canadiens at that time, and was also HNIC's principal sponsor, and Molson did not want the Nordiques to compete with the Habs, full stop. And the Nordiques were not even in the same city!

The problem with a second Toronto team would be much worse, because the Leafs are 75% owned by the two largest private media companies in Canada. Neither Bell nor Rogers is going to give any airtime to a team that directly competes against the Leafs in their home market. Corporate sponsors are going to keep supporting the Leafs, not wasting their money on tickets to see a team that their business partners and clients don't care about. A second Toronto team could do very well at the box office, but it would get clobbered on ancillary revenues.

Now add in the fact that any expansion team in Toronto would have to pay a nine-figure indemnity to the Leafs before it even got started. I don't think there's a good case to be made that they would ever be profitable enough to pay that off.

Yes, this is all of what I meant under "protectionist stuff". To me, the ironic thing is that everyone could probably make more money by allowing it to happen and be as profitable as possible. Instead of driving what would otherwise be a profitable addition to your organization into the ground with protectionist fees and media blackouts etc..split the fans, create rivalries, ticket prices for both can increase, jersey sales, more player jobs, all the rest, the NHL is a revenue share league with a capped employee budget, so the more profitable each team is, the better off it all is. The Leafs should be comfortable enough with their own organization to recognize that it will be profitable and popular regardless of another team. Millions of people will continue to be die hard Leafs fans not different than the NY Jets or Mets. It's a 100 year old team. Toronto has a huge international population that would probably jump at the chance to support a new team, even more so if it faces a bunch of stupid league adversity.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Coach

Yes, this is all of what I meant under "protectionist stuff". To me, the ironic thing is that everyone could probably make more money by allowing it to happen and be as profitable as possible.

More money would be made in total, but MLSE wouldn't be making it.

A thought just occurred to me: Ticket prices for the Maple Leafs are sky-high, no? Historically, they've been practically unobtainable. A second NHL team in Toronto would make that shortage disappear, and give hockey fans an alternative to being gouged by the Leafs. I'm thinking prices, at least for the cheaper seats, would have to come down (or at least not be jacked up every year). That takes money directly out of MLSE's pocket.

If Bell and Rogers were agile, forward-thinking organizations, they would take that in stride and look to make the money back again (and maybe more) through partnerships with the expansion team. But ‘agile’ and ‘forward-thinking’ are about the last adjectives I would ever apply to the management of those two companies. I can't remember a time when they accepted a change to their business model without a lot of kicking and screaming. The status quo is their hill to die on.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Utah Ukelele's since many folks of Samoan heritage tend to end up in Utah.

If they're going for the alliteration, how about Utah UTI's?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

More money would be made in total, but MLSE wouldn't be making it.

A thought just occurred to me: Ticket prices for the Maple Leafs are sky-high, no? Historically, they've been practically unobtainable. A second NHL team in Toronto would make that shortage disappear, and give hockey fans an alternative to being gouged by the Leafs. I'm thinking prices, at least for the cheaper seats, would have to come down (or at least not be jacked up every year). That takes money directly out of MLSE's pocket.

If Bell and Rogers were agile, forward-thinking organizations, they would take that in stride and look to make the money back again (and maybe more) through partnerships with the expansion team. But ‘agile’ and ‘forward-thinking’ are about the last adjectives I would ever apply to the management of those two companies. I can't remember a time when they accepted a change to their business model without a lot of kicking and screaming. The status quo is their hill to die on.

To your first point: yes, in the short term it MAY put ticket prices for MLSE lower, but probably only at the bottom end and marginally.

To your second point: Exactly. Arguably the above brings in more fans that were priced out before who can continue to be Leafs fans and bestow Leafs fandom upon their kids etc..

Now you have a "subway series", heated fan interactions, a whole other team to cover with lunacy on your sports networks. Your sponsorships don't change. Tim Hortons is not going to stop advertising at Rogers Centre they just will ALSO advertise at Toronto2.

It's what I meant in the first place, if they had any long term vision they would just let it happen unhindered.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Is it really though? Aside from the ####show that is Arizona, and Winnipeg being hit hard by economic conditions in a market that has no margin for error, every other market appears to have ideal support. Carolina and Florida were markets that were hated on due to low attendance, but those teams have been competitive of late, and have gotten fans to stick around as a result. And Columbus has been abysmal for most of the franchise's history, but still do get a crowd.

Well I think Arizona is a big enough of a joke to pause any further expansion into western N.A. markets, no?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

Well I think Arizona is a big enough of a joke to pause any further expansion into western N.A. markets, no?

Salt Lake City is more like a Denver than a Phoenix, in that it is a winter sports city.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Locke

Huh....You have LDS friends? I figured they'd burn you at the stake as a heathen.

And baptize him afterward.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Salt Lake City is more like a Denver than a Phoenix, in that it is a winter sports city.

I just mean they should sort that situation out before expanding in the west.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Salt Lake City is more like a Denver than a Phoenix, in that it is a winter sports city.

With a more respected owner and likely a more realistic path towards a new arena.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Coach

To your first point: yes, in the short term it MAY put ticket prices for MLSE lower, but probably only at the bottom end and marginally.

Teams have been building 17,000-seat arenas instead of 20,000 because the addition of 3,000 cheaper seats would depress the prices they are able to charge for the other 17,000. People in the business talk plainly about this as propping prices up by maintaining scarcity.

Now instead of adding 3,000 cheap seats, add another 17,000. That's not just going to affect ticket prices marginally.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Coach

The Utah Hockey Club of Latter Day Saints

Maybe a shorter name like Utah - The 2nd Coming. I hear that announcer's voice nice, loud and clear!

[thefoss1957]

The ECHL Utah Grizzlies play at the 12,600 seat Maverick Center in West Valley City, a west side suburb of SLC. I have been to hockey games at the Delta Center back before the E Center (now Maverick Center) was built, and the Grizz were IHL, and the Mav Center for the ECHL version of the Grizz. Mav center is cozy with great sight lines, the DC was about 8000 seats bigger, and not as intimate an experience. You can hear everything, from most seats at the Mav. There is some appetite for hockey in Utah. The ECHL Grizz draw around 5500 per game in non-covid years, I would think NHL level competition would improve on that. Also, more Utah High Schools have added Hockey over the past decade, the sport is growing here.



It is also wrong to call SLC a one team town, MLS' Salt Lake Real draws 18000 to 20000, and if some of that fan base can be captured for top level hockey, it can be a profitable experiment. Unlike Phoenix, SLC's population is, mostly, permanent and home grown.


I live about 180 miles East of SLC, near the Colorado border, and have, for the past 38 years. We usually make the trip through the 2 mountain passes for two weekends of minor league hockey per year, despite minimal marketing, I would think that heavier NHL level marketing would draw from a larger geographic area, including Southern Wyoming and Western Colorado on a more intense basis.

[activeStick]

Already mentioned, but it's pretty hilarious that this was released the same day the Team Canada stuff came out.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

MLS' Salt Lake Real draws 18000 to 20000, and if some of that fan base can be captured for top level hockey, it can be a profitable experiment.

It's a bit of a step up from 17 MLS home games to 41 NHL home games. I don't doubt that Salt Lake Real fans will become part of an NHL club's fanbase, but it's going to take a lot more than that.

I think Salt Lake would be a good location for an NHL team, but not an automatic success. It will take a big investment of money, time, effort, and patience to make it pay off.