Jump to content

Expansion Decision May Come As Soon As December 7.


ScottM

Recommended Posts

nhl-expansion.png

 

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/fates-of-quebec-city-and-las-vegas-now-rest-in-hands-of-six-powerful-men/

 

We may be barely two months away from finding out if there will be two new NHL teams for the 2017-18 season. The executive committee of the Board of Governers will begin meeting that day, and may determine the fates of the two bids at that time.

 

The bid for Las Vegas probably looks pretty clear from the league's perspective, but the weakened Canadian dollar may affect the Quebec bid. That said, Quebec has the advantage of not having to finance an arena since they have a brand new facility ready to go.

 

Random fact that I did not know until reading this article: former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney is a member of the presentation group for Quebec City.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get the NHL's Vegas love.  It has financial and lack of fan disappointment written all over it. Quebec City should be a great success, though, due in part with their natural rivalry with the Habs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. Money talks. I just don't see how they will draw enough attendance for any sustenance there.

 

It'll go on life support just like the Coyotes in a few years. And just like the Coyotes, Bettman will stubbornly refuse to let the team go anywhere. There are three certainties in life: death, taxes, and the idiocy of Gary Bettman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll go on life support just like the Coyotes in a few years. And just like the Coyotes, Bettman will stubbornly refuse to let the team go anywhere. There are three certainties in life: death, taxes, and the idiocy of Gary Bettman.

 

To think the NFLPA and many fans have hatred for Goodell..he looks like a genius next to Bettman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like Bettman even a little bit.

 

But there is no metric by which you can say that the league isn't objectively more popular and more valuable than it was when he took over.

 

If you want to know why the owners love him - that's it.

 

#moneytalks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like Bettman even a little bit.

 

But there is no metric by which you can say that the league isn't objectively more popular and more valuable than it was when he took over.

 

If you want to know why the owners love him - that's it.

 

#moneytalks

No doubt, but then he opens his mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like Bettman even a little bit.

 

But there is no metric by which you can say that the league isn't objectively more popular and more valuable than it was when he took over.

 

If you want to know why the owners love him - that's it.

 

#moneytalks

 

Very true, but I'd argue it has little to do with Bettman. I think it would have happened regardless of who was commissioner, only we might not have seen some of the stupidity we've seen. Assuming I'm right, it's conceivable that the league could be doing even better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true, but I'd argue it has little to do with Bettman. I think it would have happened regardless of who was commissioner, only we might not have seen some of the stupidity we've seen. Assuming I'm right, it's conceivable that the league could be doing even better.

Absolutely possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true, but I'd argue it has little to do with Bettman. I think it would have happened regardless of who was commissioner, only we might not have seen some of the stupidity we've seen. Assuming I'm right, it's conceivable that the league could be doing even better.

Bettman demanded his Super Majority clause. So it is him 1000%!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  Here is a question....if indeed Quebec comes into the fold, there will an absolute necessity that they are placed with geographic rivals the Habs and Sens in that division....so if Quebec is added, which team leaves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


And it appears Saskatoon is off.

 

Sakatoon has barely 1/4 million people in it (260,000). Winnipeg is three times that. Edmonton 1.1 million.

 

Aside from another team in Tronno (be it "Hamilton" or wherever) the Canadian market is tapped out once Quebec comes online.

 

Hell, the Rochester Metro has four times Saskatoon's Metro population.

 

You want an NHL team in Rochester?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  @radoran  I know where you are going with population stats, but what the Toon lacks in population, it gains in interest. I have no doubt that over 80% of the Toons residents would be ready and willing to buy into an NHL team in the way of ticket sales. Thing is, they would be a very poor draw for the rest of the NHL when they are on the road....I have a feeling the NHL, specifically the owners and Board of Govs would not like that one bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I know where you are going with population stats, but what the Toon lacks in population, it gains in interest. I have no doubt that over 80% of the Toons residents would be ready and willing to buy into an NHL team in the way of ticket sales

 

And I totally respect that. But this is a situation where they have to be able to support a team spending $50-70M on an annual basis in salary. The median income in Saskatoon (2006 - last numbers readily available) was $49,000.

 

If they wanted to be a Green Bay - probably the closest analog there is - that's great. But they don't have Milwaukee's 2 million people 2 hours away - they have Regina's 210K 2.5 hours away.

 

And they don't have the NFL revenue sharing, merchandising agreement or television contract.

 

Now, putting all that aside - who's paying the $500M franchise fee? And building a 15,000-seat arena?

 

 

 

And who's got incriminating photos of the NHL Board of Governor's at the Girl Scout Jamboree to convince them to vote them in? :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I totally respect that. But this is a situation where they have to be able to support a team spending $50-70M on an annual basis in salary. The median income in Saskatoon (2006 - last numbers readily available) was $49,000.

 

If they wanted to be a Green Bay - probably the closest analog there is - that's great. But they don't have Milwaukee's 2 million people 2 hours away - they have Regina's 210K 2.5 hours away.

 

And they don't have the NFL revenue sharing, merchandising agreement or television contract.

 

Now, putting all that aside - who's paying the $500M franchise fee? And building a 15,000-seat arena?

 

 

 

And who's got incriminating photos of the NHL Board of Governor's at the Girl Scout Jamboree to convince them to vote them in? :ph34r:

 

You'd need a new one, no doubt, but Saskatoon already has a 15,000+ seat arena. The SaskTel Centre can hold 15,195 for hockey.

 

If you could get people to drive from Regina on a regular basis, Saskatoon works. I'm just not so sure you could. As hockey crazed as the province is, that's still a lot to ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is Sabres territory.  They are the parent team.  In the late 60s Rochester would have worked also, as Buffalo would have driven up the Thruway 1 hr away and filled the place.  Many fans from Rochester are at the Sabres games.  There was talk of putting a baseball team halfway between the two cities.  The Bills practice in Rochester.  Buffalo and Rochester go together like peanut butter and jelly.  No long any chance Rochester would have an NHL team.  There was one year, the year Buffalo entered the NHL when Vancouver was Rochester's parent team and then the Bruins for a few years when the Cincinatti Swords were the Sabres farm team.  But soon after the marriage came between the Sabres and Amerks.  I do not see that ending.

 

Right, so take a place that's 1/4 the size with a town even smaller two and a half hours away.

 

That's Saskatoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...