To me contraction isnt an option. The talent is not watered down at all. The sport is being played by way more kids than ever before, and also the inclusion of European players makes the overall talent level many times what it was when there were 21 teams. Contraction would make the NHL completely second-rate in the public's eye and it would also cut down on overall television revenue.
I disagree. As far as contraction, the NHL has long been looked at as being 2nd or even 3rd rate in the eye of the sports world.(Public)
And so you see, I have come to doubt All that I once held as true I stand alone without beliefs The only truth I know is you.
I think contraction and revenue sharing are totally separate issues....
I would support moving a couple of teams, but not contraction.
There really isnt much reason for it (contraction). There are still places open that would support hockey/and/or be appealing markets for the NHL to explore.
Seattle
Houston
Kansas City
Quebec
Toronto II
Saskatoon (buyers interested, no NHL interest yet).
I think contraction and revenue sharing are totally separate issues....
I would support moving a couple of teams, but not contraction.
There really isnt much reason for it (contraction). There are still places open that would support hockey/and/or be appealing markets for the NHL to explore.
Seattle
Houston
Kansas City
Quebec
Toronto II
Saskatoon (buyers interested, no NHL interest yet).
they tried KC...it failed
Toronto 2 will never happen, the leafs will not share their market
Houston - no more teams in the south
Seattle - maybe
Quebec and Saskatoon - I think the NHL should wait and see how things go in Winnipeg first, if the team doesn't make the playoffs consistently will the fans continue to support it, that is yet to be seen.
I'm all for contraction...I think 2 things really motivated expansion...$$$ and the belief that the talent pool in Europe was equal to or as great as the talent pool in Canada...which it is not...but that's the NHL ownership problem for not doing proper market research to see if their was enough talent to stock 5-6 more teams.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
0
Options
81
Needing a ride to Forest Hills and a ounce of weed. Please inquire within. Thanks. Or not. Posts: 58,276
lets be honest....they will never contract a team.
I think contraction and revenue sharing are totally separate issues....
I would support moving a couple of teams, but not contraction.
There really isnt much reason for it (contraction). There are still places open that would support hockey/and/or be appealing markets for the NHL to explore.
Seattle
Houston
Kansas City
Quebec
Toronto II
Saskatoon (buyers interested, no NHL interest yet).
exactly....Seattle would be a great rivalry for Van...the Nordiques never should have left...Toronto II is a natural - the Leafs can f themselves, they have a monopoly on a market that could support five teams.....Kansas has a great arena and would be a good spot to grow the game (when was the failure you're talking about lukin?)....Houston....dunno....huge market, but I'm leary of another southern/texan team, esp with Dallas trying to turn a corner.
I don't think Saskatoon's rink is big enough right now, they'd need a big expansion....but judging by the province-wide support of their CFL team enjoys (the entire province seems to come to Edmonton every time they play here) - they would have some of the most rabid fans in the NHL. Plus, they're fun to pick on Shame it's not really on the radar.
I think Winnipeg's fans will support their team no matter what (as Saskatoon and Quebec City would). Corp support may be more fickle, but if the fans keep showing up, the corps will keep supporting them too. Things have changed since they left the first time. Look at the Oil back then...we were averaging 6-7k fans a game, and it was blamed on our on-ice performance. Well....we've finished last/second last three years running...and have sold out every home game during that run.
I think contraction and revenue sharing are totally separate issues....
I would support moving a couple of teams, but not contraction.
There really isnt much reason for it (contraction). There are still places open that would support hockey/and/or be appealing markets for the NHL to explore.
Seattle
Houston
Kansas City
Quebec
Toronto II
Saskatoon (buyers interested, no NHL interest yet).
they tried KC...it failed
Toronto 2 will never happen, the leafs will not share their market
Houston - no more teams in the south
Seattle - maybe
Quebec and Saskatoon - I think the NHL should wait and see how things go in Winnipeg first, if the team doesn't make the playoffs consistently will the fans continue to support it, that is yet to be seen.
I'm all for contraction...I think 2 things really motivated expansion...$$$ and the belief that the talent pool in Europe was equal to or as great as the talent pool in Canada...which it is not...but that's the NHL ownership problem for not doing proper market research to see if their was enough talent to stock 5-6 more teams.
It has been speculated the NHL is poised to announce an expansion team for Markham, Ontario, as well as Quebec City, once the lockout is over
Here is a good article on the forces that will make it happen: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1353 ... ill-happen
Also, I disagree with the league being watered down and the rest of the world failing to pick up the slack from Canadians. Although I agree Canada is the best, they had 14/30 first rounders in this year's draft. It used to be a much higher of a %.
Also look at the WJC. Not too long ago it was Canada by a landslide. Now there are other nations that are able to compete and win Gold.
You also need to take into account how much more advanced and sophisticated player development, training, nutrition, etc have become in the past 20 years.
I do agree that Houston/KC are cringeworthy... But if there is a team flailing in the wind with no owner, and a buyer in one of those cities, the NHL would be all over that as opposed to contraction. Especially Houston which is like the 5th biggest US TV market.
Bleacher Report? Really? That's like the righties posting fox news articles.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; WF Center 10/21/13; WF Center 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; WF Center 4/28/16; WF Center 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; SeaHearNow Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
i really don't think any of those markets will work ... today, pro sports survives on season tickets and corporate sponsors and/or huge tax grants ...
i just don't think there is the corporate sponsorship in these smaller markets ... maybe seattle but definitely not Quebec City or Saskatoon ... Houston is a poor choice considering Dallas is a well run franchise and yet they have some of the lowest attendance numbers ... Kansas ... I just don't think of hockey when it comes to Kansas ... and as far as Toronto goes ... the city is not going to support another franchise especially if it's run anywhere like the leafs ... markham is full of asians - building an arena there isn't going to change the fact they aren't a huge hockey demographic ...
i really don't think any of those markets will work ... today, pro sports survives on season tickets and corporate sponsors and/or huge tax grants ...
i just don't think there is the corporate sponsorship in these smaller markets ... maybe seattle but definitely not Quebec City or Saskatoon ... Houston is a poor choice considering Dallas is a well run franchise and yet they have some of the lowest attendance numbers ... Kansas ... I just don't think of hockey when it comes to Kansas ... and as far as Toronto goes ... the city is not going to support another franchise especially if it's run anywhere like the leafs ... markham is full of asians - building an arena there isn't going to change the fact they aren't a huge hockey demographic ...
Hockey in Toronto tends to not do well when it isnt the Leafs.
I was able to easily score tickets to the Memorial Cup in the Hershey Centre and I swear the game wasnt sold out. I have been to Brampton games with a couple hundred people tops.
I think contraction and revenue sharing are totally separate issues....
I would support moving a couple of teams, but not contraction.
There really isnt much reason for it (contraction). There are still places open that would support hockey/and/or be appealing markets for the NHL to explore.
Seattle
Houston
Kansas City
Quebec
Toronto II
Saskatoon (buyers interested, no NHL interest yet).
exactly....Seattle would be a great rivalry for Van...the Nordiques never should have left...Toronto II is a natural - the Leafs can f themselves, they have a monopoly on a market that could support five teams.....Kansas has a great arena and would be a good spot to grow the game (when was the failure you're talking about lukin?)....Houston....dunno....huge market, but I'm leary of another southern/texan team, esp with Dallas trying to turn a corner.
I don't think Saskatoon's rink is big enough right now, they'd need a big expansion....but judging by the province-wide support of their CFL team enjoys (the entire province seems to come to Edmonton every time they play here) - they would have some of the most rabid fans in the NHL. Plus, they're fun to pick on Shame it's not really on the radar.
I think Winnipeg's fans will support their team no matter what (as Saskatoon and Quebec City would). Corp support may be more fickle, but if the fans keep showing up, the corps will keep supporting them too. Things have changed since they left the first time. Look at the Oil back then...we were averaging 6-7k fans a game, and it was blamed on our on-ice performance. Well....we've finished last/second last three years running...and have sold out every home game during that run.
Kansas City Scouts
Toronto owns the territory...they're not going to give it up, and if they do it'd probably be 200-300 million.
as for Quebec and Saskatoon...whats wrong with the league waiting five years to see how Winnipeg does.
The Oilers have a promising future...that helps.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Hockey in Toronto tends to not do well when it isnt the Leafs.
I was able to easily score tickets to the Memorial Cup in the Hershey Centre and I swear the game wasnt sold out. I have been to Brampton games with a couple hundred people tops.
exactly ... there's just a lot of options now to spend dollars in the city ... both publicly and corporately ... toronto is hockey mad but not enough to support another franchise ... i'd sooner put a team in Hamilton and hope for the best there ...
There really isnt much reason for it (contraction). There are still places open that would support hockey/and/or be appealing markets for the NHL to explore.
Seattle
Houston
Kansas City
Quebec
Toronto II
Saskatoon (buyers interested, no NHL interest yet).
they tried KC...it failed
Toronto 2 will never happen, the leafs will not share their market
Houston - no more teams in the south
Seattle - maybe
Quebec and Saskatoon - I think the NHL should wait and see how things go in Winnipeg first, if the team doesn't make the playoffs consistently will the fans continue to support it, that is yet to be seen.
I'm all for contraction...I think 2 things really motivated expansion...$$$ and the belief that the talent pool in Europe was equal to or as great as the talent pool in Canada...which it is not...but that's the NHL ownership problem for not doing proper market research to see if their was enough talent to stock 5-6 more teams.
It has been speculated the NHL is poised to announce an expansion team for Markham, Ontario, as well as Quebec City, once the lockout is over
Here is a good article on the forces that will make it happen: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1353 ... ill-happen
Also, I disagree with the league being watered down and the rest of the world failing to pick up the slack from Canadians. Although I agree Canada is the best, they had 14/30 first rounders in this year's draft. It used to be a much higher of a %.
Also look at the WJC. Not too long ago it was Canada by a landslide. Now there are other nations that are able to compete and win Gold.
You also need to take into account how much more advanced and sophisticated player development, training, nutrition, etc have become in the past 20 years.
I do agree that Houston/KC are cringeworthy... But if there is a team flailing in the wind with no owner, and a buyer in one of those cities, the NHL would be all over that as opposed to contraction. Especially Houston which is like the 5th biggest US TV market.
They can't just put an expansion team in Toronto...the leafs have a vested interest...I doubt anyone has even talked to the leafs about how much they want in terms of $$$, and I'm not convinced the leafs want share the market.
Quebec City doesn't even have an NHL arena in place.
Take a look at the last 4 cup winners and the concentration of Canadian players is extremely high...I belief at least 50 % are canucks and probably higher.
As for the world juniors we've medaled in 13 strait years and have 10 golds since '93 and only failed to medal in '98.
Since the NHL began participating in the Olympics we're the only country to strike gold more than once.
The league really over estimated european talent to help fill the expansion rosters. The league is watered down.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
i really don't think any of those markets will work ... today, pro sports survives on season tickets and corporate sponsors and/or huge tax grants ...
i just don't think there is the corporate sponsorship in these smaller markets ... maybe seattle but definitely not Quebec City or Saskatoon ... Houston is a poor choice considering Dallas is a well run franchise and yet they have some of the lowest attendance numbers ... Kansas ... I just don't think of hockey when it comes to Kansas ... and as far as Toronto goes ... the city is not going to support another franchise especially if it's run anywhere like the leafs ... markham is full of asians - building an arena there isn't going to change the fact they aren't a huge hockey demographic ...
Hockey in Toronto tends to not do well when it isnt the Leafs.
I was able to easily score tickets to the Memorial Cup in the Hershey Centre and I swear the game wasnt sold out. I have been to Brampton games with a couple hundred people tops.
The Memorial should never have been held there...Mississauga junior hockey draws terrible.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Then he sold St Mikes and they are now the Missisauga "Steelheads".
unless Im mistaken.
I think thats what they call themselves...I don't think junior hockey does well in the Toronto area as far as attendance. Now the junior hockey players have or are in the process of unionizing.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I often go to Niagara IceDogs games in St Catherines. Its a blast and they pack their building (although it is small).
And back to the thread... it looks like players are coming out and shooting down the proposal... and baby huey came out with a statement that deflates any hope.
thing is every time there is a negotiation ... it will always be players making concessions ... so, it's 50/50 now but next go around it will be 45-55 ... this is a negotiation that starts off with the players making concessions on where they are currently ... they are constantly negotiation away where as the owners are always taking ...
the league has seen excellent growth and record breaking revenues ... why is it that the players must always give in?
thing is every time there is a negotiation ... it will always be players making concessions ... so, it's 50/50 now but next go around it will be 45-55 ... this is a negotiation that starts off with the players making concessions on where they are currently ... they are constantly negotiation away where as the owners are always taking ...
the league has seen excellent growth and record breaking revenues ... why is it that the players must always give in?
agreed, but this time the players have to agree or else everyone turn on them.
Hockey should contract, not expand. IF any deserves a team its Hartford. I'd like to see
Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
i really don't think any of those markets will work ... today, pro sports survives on season tickets and corporate sponsors and/or huge tax grants ...
i just don't think there is the corporate sponsorship in these smaller markets ... maybe seattle but definitely not Quebec City or Saskatoon ... Houston is a poor choice considering Dallas is a well run franchise and yet they have some of the lowest attendance numbers ... Kansas ... I just don't think of hockey when it comes to Kansas ... and as far as Toronto goes ... the city is not going to support another franchise especially if it's run anywhere like the leafs ... markham is full of asians - building an arena there isn't going to change the fact they aren't a huge hockey demographic ...
Talk about generalizations.....you must never have been to a Canucks home game :roll:
Van 92.07.21 / Van 98.07.19 / Sea 98.07.22 / Tor 98.08.22 / Sea 00.11.06 / Van 03.05.30/ Van 05.09.02/ Gorge 06.07.22 & 23 / EV Van 08.04.02 / Tor 09.08.21 / Sea 09.09.21 & 22 / Van 09.09.25 / Van 11.09.25 / Van 13.12.04 / Pem 16.07.17 / Sea 18.08.10
I'm on the players side as well. A revenue cut to below 50% is absurd. And why should the players save the owners from handing out bad contracts? The owners need to manage their businesses better.
C'mon i am completely 'jones-ing' for hockey.
doesnt 50-50 seem to be fair,
unless that has since been taken off the table ?
Oh and far as further expansion,
maybe Seattle could get a team.
PJam it all up.
:wave:
For the ones who had a notion, a notion deep inside
That it ain't no sin to be glad you're alive
ORGAN DONATION SAVES LIVES http://www.UNOS.org
Donate Organs and Save a Life
Edmonton councillors walk away from arena project, deal collapses
The deal to build a new arena for the Edmonton Oilers collapsed Wednesday, with city councillors pointing the finger of blame at Oilers owner Daryl Katz and his last-minute demands for millions more in taxpayers money.
Stephen Mandel said it was time to send a message.
“It’s wrong to hold us up for ransom,” said Mandel.“This is not a council that said, ‘Don’t do a deal’ — but what do we do when we have a partner that says, ‘We want more money, and you pay for it?” he said.
“I’m not saying we should say no to Mr. Katz, but all the information that I’ve had an opportunity to see does not justify council giving him another six million dollars a year.”
Mandel made the comments after councillors voted unanimously to walk away from the deal agreed to last year with Katz to build the $475-million arena, starting in 2013.
Katz was not in council chambers when the decision was reached. He has been asked twice in recent weeks to meet with council in public to resolve the negotiating logjam but has refused, saying the two sides are so far apart there’s no reason to meet.
The original deal had taxpayers and ticket-buyers building the rink with the Oilers spending about $15 million a year in lease payments and operating costs and keeping almost all the profits.
It went off the rails a month ago when Katz said he’d had a second look at the numbers and needed millions more, including a $6 million a year in operating subsidies for the arena.
Mandel said he can’t judge the merits of the demand because the Oilers have not made their case.
“I don’t know what else we do. I’m not sure where we go,” said Mandel.
“Someone has to be willing to at least put information forward to justify their case.
“We need to send a message (to Katz) that you got a fair deal and stand up to that fair deal or show us why it isn’t a fair deal,” said Mandel.
“And I can tell you he has not shown us.”
Katz officials were not immediately available for comment.
Earlier Wednesday, councillor Kerry Diotte said it’s “shameful” to debate handing over money without any information from Katz.
“How can we even consider giving any tax money to a billionaire team owner when we haven’t seen detailed financials. That’s just not fair,” Diotte said to city manager Simon Farbrother.
Farbrother said no NHL teams divulge their financial information.
Not so, said Diotte.
“In Scottsdale (Arizona), when the Phoenix Coyotes first went there, they tried to sell (the city) on doing a deal without the financials and they told them to get lost. I suggest we do the same thing.”
Farbrother said the two sides have agreed to disagree on the $6 million subsidy, and that in his analysis Katz will “clearly make sufficient revenue to cover any obligations that come with operating the arena.”
But Farbrother said the two sides have dug in on the issue and there’s no movement in sight.
“Will we have an agreement in the next two to four weeks?” asked Coun. Dave Loken.
“In the absence of significant movement on the ($6 million) operating subsidy (by either side) we don’t think you will have an agreement,” said Farbrother.
“Is there any chance there (will be) significant movement on the Katz side of the table?” Loken asked.
“I don’t believe we’ve been given any confidence in that, no,” said Farbrother.
Under the original deal, city taxpayers and ticket buyers would pay to build the arena, which, with land, borrowing costs and surrounding infrastructure factored in, is now effectively at $700 million and rising.
The Oilers would keep all profits from NHL games, trade shows, concerts and other events for 11 months out of the year. The team would also keep naming rights for the building (worth up to $3 million a year), along with $2 million a year from the city for a decade for advertising.
Concession sales alone are pegged at $20 million a year.
In return, the Oilers would pay the city $5.5 million a year for 35 years and pay to operate and run the arena, estimated at $10 million a year.
The Oilers are worth about $212 million, good for middle of the pack in the NHL, and the team regularly sells out Rexall Place.
But Katz, who bought the team in 2008, has said the franchise is losing money.
He also said the city can afford his new demands because the arena will spur retail, office, and residential buildings around it that will bring in an estimated $2 billion more in tax revenues over 20 years.
However councillors were told by Farbrother that the arena will actually bring in about a quarter of that figure, $584 million, and that almost all of that money would be needed to pay off construction of the rink.
The negotiations have turned acrimonious in recent weeks, with both Katz officials and councillors publicly accusing each other of bad-faith bargaining.
Three weeks ago, Katz threatened to move the team to Seattle if the arena did not get built. He later apologized in newspaper ads after angry fans vented outrage on social media sites.
But Katz has not publicly ruled out moving the team as a last resort.
The Oilers are playing at 38-year-old Rexall Place, one of the oldest facilities in the NHL.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
wow that's really bad for the fans of the Oilers. i hope bettman doesn't let the Oilers move to Seattle. if any team should move to Seattle, it's the coyotes.
Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
Don't mean to totally derail, but this would be a lame thread on it's own - if you don't care about the Edmonton arena, stop reading....
ok,... I've kinda been avoiding the whole arena thing for personal reasons (and laziness)... I spent a couple of hours trying to get myself up to speed and now I'm confused as hell! There are some scary conspiracy theories floating around about Katz wanting to move/sell the Oilers (not just because of the whole Seattle visit and subsequent apology from Katz)
The fact that Katz demanded millions more a year in subsidies without justifying his numbers, and refusing to appear before council makes it seem like he's trying to tank the deal. Wouldn't discuss the numbers, just said he reviewed it and wants more.
Now, with Katz hardlining and the Rexal lease set to expire in 2 years...if he threatens to move/sell, all we have is Bettman and the BOG to protect us, right?...what freaked me out was a post on hfboards, saying 'remember when Katz, Bettman, and Mandel met in NYC - Bettman said he and the BOG would support a move if the arena deal fell thru....'....after the Seattle visit, in an attempt to calm Oil fans, Bettman said 'with a new arena there should be no reason to have any doubts about the future of the Oilers in Edmonton.".....with a new arena.
Imagine Bettman drooling over a 2nd Toronto team with that young talent to create a rivalry? Starting a team in Seattle with that kind of promise? Or that huge Houston tv market, with the Houston Oilers pushing for a Cup within a couple years? Is that enough to scam the Oilers out of Edmonton and then give US the fucking Coyotes or Blue Jackets in a couple years once the arena deal is worked out? fuck me....
Thing is...the City of Edmonton's release said the City plans to review options on going ahead with the arena without Katz...like...fuck me again! They went from 'no public money for the arena'....to 'we'll pay 125 million, Katz pays 100', to 'we'll just build it ourselves' ......So was this Katz's tactic all along - to not contribute to the arena at all? Could the city really go ahead on the building without a tenant? And if they did...would Bettman dare let the Oilers move anyway?
fuck it, i'm goin to bed.
Thing is...the City of Edmonton's release said the City plans to review options on going ahead with the arena without Katz...like...fuck me again! They went from 'no public money for the arena'....to 'we'll pay 125 million, Katz pays 100', to 'we'll just build it ourselves' ......So was this Katz's tactic all along - to not contribute to the arena at all? Could the city really go ahead on the building without a tenant? And if they did...would Bettman dare let the Oilers move anyway?
fuck it, i'm goin to bed.
it's almost like seattle supersonics all over again ...
Don't mean to totally derail, but this would be a lame thread on it's own - if you don't care about the Edmonton arena, stop reading....
ok,... I've kinda been avoiding the whole arena thing for personal reasons (and laziness)... I spent a couple of hours trying to get myself up to speed and now I'm confused as hell! There are some scary conspiracy theories floating around about Katz wanting to move/sell the Oilers (not just because of the whole Seattle visit and subsequent apology from Katz)
The fact that Katz demanded millions more a year in subsidies without justifying his numbers, and refusing to appear before council makes it seem like he's trying to tank the deal. Wouldn't discuss the numbers, just said he reviewed it and wants more.
Now, with Katz hardlining and the Rexal lease set to expire in 2 years...if he threatens to move/sell, all we have is Bettman and the BOG to protect us, right?...what freaked me out was a post on hfboards, saying 'remember when Katz, Bettman, and Mandel met in NYC - Bettman said he and the BOG would support a move if the arena deal fell thru....'....after the Seattle visit, in an attempt to calm Oil fans, Bettman said 'with a new arena there should be no reason to have any doubts about the future of the Oilers in Edmonton.".....with a new arena.
Imagine Bettman drooling over a 2nd Toronto team with that young talent to create a rivalry? Starting a team in Seattle with that kind of promise? Or that huge Houston tv market, with the Houston Oilers pushing for a Cup within a couple years? Is that enough to scam the Oilers out of Edmonton and then give US the fucking Coyotes or Blue Jackets in a couple years once the arena deal is worked out? fuck me....
Thing is...the City of Edmonton's release said the City plans to review options on going ahead with the arena without Katz...like...fuck me again! They went from 'no public money for the arena'....to 'we'll pay 125 million, Katz pays 100', to 'we'll just build it ourselves' ......So was this Katz's tactic all along - to not contribute to the arena at all? Could the city really go ahead on the building without a tenant? And if they did...would Bettman dare let the Oilers move anyway?
fuck it, i'm goin to bed.
Thats not a bad read...
But I dont think the NHL will allow the Oilers to move, even temporarily. They wont want bad press for at least a few years
Comments
All that I once held as true
I stand alone without beliefs
The only truth I know is you.
I would support moving a couple of teams, but not contraction.
There really isnt much reason for it (contraction). There are still places open that would support hockey/and/or be appealing markets for the NHL to explore.
Seattle
Houston
Kansas City
Quebec
Toronto II
Saskatoon (buyers interested, no NHL interest yet).
they tried KC...it failed
Toronto 2 will never happen, the leafs will not share their market
Houston - no more teams in the south
Seattle - maybe
Quebec and Saskatoon - I think the NHL should wait and see how things go in Winnipeg first, if the team doesn't make the playoffs consistently will the fans continue to support it, that is yet to be seen.
I'm all for contraction...I think 2 things really motivated expansion...$$$ and the belief that the talent pool in Europe was equal to or as great as the talent pool in Canada...which it is not...but that's the NHL ownership problem for not doing proper market research to see if their was enough talent to stock 5-6 more teams.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I don't think Saskatoon's rink is big enough right now, they'd need a big expansion....but judging by the province-wide support of their CFL team enjoys (the entire province seems to come to Edmonton every time they play here) - they would have some of the most rabid fans in the NHL. Plus, they're fun to pick on
I think Winnipeg's fans will support their team no matter what (as Saskatoon and Quebec City would). Corp support may be more fickle, but if the fans keep showing up, the corps will keep supporting them too. Things have changed since they left the first time. Look at the Oil back then...we were averaging 6-7k fans a game, and it was blamed on our on-ice performance. Well....we've finished last/second last three years running...and have sold out every home game during that run.
It has been speculated the NHL is poised to announce an expansion team for Markham, Ontario, as well as Quebec City, once the lockout is over
Here is a good article on the forces that will make it happen:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1353 ... ill-happen
Also, I disagree with the league being watered down and the rest of the world failing to pick up the slack from Canadians. Although I agree Canada is the best, they had 14/30 first rounders in this year's draft. It used to be a much higher of a %.
Also look at the WJC. Not too long ago it was Canada by a landslide. Now there are other nations that are able to compete and win Gold.
You also need to take into account how much more advanced and sophisticated player development, training, nutrition, etc have become in the past 20 years.
I do agree that Houston/KC are cringeworthy... But if there is a team flailing in the wind with no owner, and a buyer in one of those cities, the NHL would be all over that as opposed to contraction. Especially Houston which is like the 5th biggest US TV market.
WF Center 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; WF Center 4/28/16; WF Center 4/29/16;
Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; SeaHearNow Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
i just don't think there is the corporate sponsorship in these smaller markets ... maybe seattle but definitely not Quebec City or Saskatoon ... Houston is a poor choice considering Dallas is a well run franchise and yet they have some of the lowest attendance numbers ... Kansas ... I just don't think of hockey when it comes to Kansas ... and as far as Toronto goes ... the city is not going to support another franchise especially if it's run anywhere like the leafs ... markham is full of asians - building an arena there isn't going to change the fact they aren't a huge hockey demographic ...
well it was in The Hockey News a week ago as well.
I was able to easily score tickets to the Memorial Cup in the Hershey Centre and I swear the game wasnt sold out. I have been to Brampton games with a couple hundred people tops.
Kansas City Scouts
Toronto owns the territory...they're not going to give it up, and if they do it'd probably be 200-300 million.
as for Quebec and Saskatoon...whats wrong with the league waiting five years to see how Winnipeg does.
The Oilers have a promising future...that helps.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
exactly ... there's just a lot of options now to spend dollars in the city ... both publicly and corporately ... toronto is hockey mad but not enough to support another franchise ... i'd sooner put a team in Hamilton and hope for the best there ...
They can't just put an expansion team in Toronto...the leafs have a vested interest...I doubt anyone has even talked to the leafs about how much they want in terms of $$$, and I'm not convinced the leafs want share the market.
Quebec City doesn't even have an NHL arena in place.
Take a look at the last 4 cup winners and the concentration of Canadian players is extremely high...I belief at least 50 % are canucks and probably higher.
As for the world juniors we've medaled in 13 strait years and have 10 golds since '93 and only failed to medal in '98.
Since the NHL began participating in the Olympics we're the only country to strike gold more than once.
The league really over estimated european talent to help fill the expansion rosters. The league is watered down.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The Memorial should never have been held there...Mississauga junior hockey draws terrible.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Glad I got a chance to go at the very least.
Then he sold St Mikes and they are now the Missisauga "Steelheads".
unless Im mistaken.
I think thats what they call themselves...I don't think junior hockey does well in the Toronto area as far as attendance. Now the junior hockey players have or are in the process of unionizing.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I often go to Niagara IceDogs games in St Catherines. Its a blast and they pack their building (although it is small).
And back to the thread... it looks like players are coming out and shooting down the proposal... and baby huey came out with a statement that deflates any hope.
thing is every time there is a negotiation ... it will always be players making concessions ... so, it's 50/50 now but next go around it will be 45-55 ... this is a negotiation that starts off with the players making concessions on where they are currently ... they are constantly negotiation away where as the owners are always taking ...
the league has seen excellent growth and record breaking revenues ... why is it that the players must always give in?
Hockey should contract, not expand. IF any deserves a team its Hartford. I'd like to see
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
Talk about generalizations.....you must never have been to a Canucks home game :roll:
Hartford 5-13-06, 6-27-08, 10-25-13
Mansfield, MA 6-30-08, 6-28-08, 7-2-03, 7-3-03, 7-11-03, 8-29-00, 8-30-00, 9-15-98, 9-16-98
Worcester 10-15-13, 10-16-13
doesnt 50-50 seem to be fair,
unless that has since been taken off the table ?
Oh and far as further expansion,
maybe Seattle could get a team.
PJam it all up.
:wave:
That it ain't no sin to be glad you're alive
ORGAN DONATION SAVES LIVES
http://www.UNOS.org
Donate Organs and Save a Life
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/h ... le4618449/
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The deal to build a new arena for the Edmonton Oilers collapsed Wednesday, with city councillors pointing the finger of blame at Oilers owner Daryl Katz and his last-minute demands for millions more in taxpayers money.
Stephen Mandel said it was time to send a message.
“It’s wrong to hold us up for ransom,” said Mandel.“This is not a council that said, ‘Don’t do a deal’ — but what do we do when we have a partner that says, ‘We want more money, and you pay for it?” he said.
“I’m not saying we should say no to Mr. Katz, but all the information that I’ve had an opportunity to see does not justify council giving him another six million dollars a year.”
Mandel made the comments after councillors voted unanimously to walk away from the deal agreed to last year with Katz to build the $475-million arena, starting in 2013.
Katz was not in council chambers when the decision was reached. He has been asked twice in recent weeks to meet with council in public to resolve the negotiating logjam but has refused, saying the two sides are so far apart there’s no reason to meet.
The original deal had taxpayers and ticket-buyers building the rink with the Oilers spending about $15 million a year in lease payments and operating costs and keeping almost all the profits.
It went off the rails a month ago when Katz said he’d had a second look at the numbers and needed millions more, including a $6 million a year in operating subsidies for the arena.
Mandel said he can’t judge the merits of the demand because the Oilers have not made their case.
“I don’t know what else we do. I’m not sure where we go,” said Mandel.
“Someone has to be willing to at least put information forward to justify their case.
“We need to send a message (to Katz) that you got a fair deal and stand up to that fair deal or show us why it isn’t a fair deal,” said Mandel.
“And I can tell you he has not shown us.”
Katz officials were not immediately available for comment.
Earlier Wednesday, councillor Kerry Diotte said it’s “shameful” to debate handing over money without any information from Katz.
“How can we even consider giving any tax money to a billionaire team owner when we haven’t seen detailed financials. That’s just not fair,” Diotte said to city manager Simon Farbrother.
Farbrother said no NHL teams divulge their financial information.
Not so, said Diotte.
“In Scottsdale (Arizona), when the Phoenix Coyotes first went there, they tried to sell (the city) on doing a deal without the financials and they told them to get lost. I suggest we do the same thing.”
Farbrother said the two sides have agreed to disagree on the $6 million subsidy, and that in his analysis Katz will “clearly make sufficient revenue to cover any obligations that come with operating the arena.”
But Farbrother said the two sides have dug in on the issue and there’s no movement in sight.
“Will we have an agreement in the next two to four weeks?” asked Coun. Dave Loken.
“In the absence of significant movement on the ($6 million) operating subsidy (by either side) we don’t think you will have an agreement,” said Farbrother.
“Is there any chance there (will be) significant movement on the Katz side of the table?” Loken asked.
“I don’t believe we’ve been given any confidence in that, no,” said Farbrother.
Under the original deal, city taxpayers and ticket buyers would pay to build the arena, which, with land, borrowing costs and surrounding infrastructure factored in, is now effectively at $700 million and rising.
The Oilers would keep all profits from NHL games, trade shows, concerts and other events for 11 months out of the year. The team would also keep naming rights for the building (worth up to $3 million a year), along with $2 million a year from the city for a decade for advertising.
Concession sales alone are pegged at $20 million a year.
In return, the Oilers would pay the city $5.5 million a year for 35 years and pay to operate and run the arena, estimated at $10 million a year.
The Oilers are worth about $212 million, good for middle of the pack in the NHL, and the team regularly sells out Rexall Place.
But Katz, who bought the team in 2008, has said the franchise is losing money.
He also said the city can afford his new demands because the arena will spur retail, office, and residential buildings around it that will bring in an estimated $2 billion more in tax revenues over 20 years.
However councillors were told by Farbrother that the arena will actually bring in about a quarter of that figure, $584 million, and that almost all of that money would be needed to pay off construction of the rink.
The negotiations have turned acrimonious in recent weeks, with both Katz officials and councillors publicly accusing each other of bad-faith bargaining.
Three weeks ago, Katz threatened to move the team to Seattle if the arena did not get built. He later apologized in newspaper ads after angry fans vented outrage on social media sites.
But Katz has not publicly ruled out moving the team as a last resort.
The Oilers are playing at 38-year-old Rexall Place, one of the oldest facilities in the NHL.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
ok,... I've kinda been avoiding the whole arena thing for personal reasons (and laziness)... I spent a couple of hours trying to get myself up to speed and now I'm confused as hell! There are some scary conspiracy theories floating around about Katz wanting to move/sell the Oilers (not just because of the whole Seattle visit and subsequent apology from Katz)
The fact that Katz demanded millions more a year in subsidies without justifying his numbers, and refusing to appear before council makes it seem like he's trying to tank the deal. Wouldn't discuss the numbers, just said he reviewed it and wants more.
Now, with Katz hardlining and the Rexal lease set to expire in 2 years...if he threatens to move/sell, all we have is Bettman and the BOG to protect us, right?...what freaked me out was a post on hfboards, saying 'remember when Katz, Bettman, and Mandel met in NYC - Bettman said he and the BOG would support a move if the arena deal fell thru....'....after the Seattle visit, in an attempt to calm Oil fans, Bettman said 'with a new arena there should be no reason to have any doubts about the future of the Oilers in Edmonton.".....with a new arena.
Imagine Bettman drooling over a 2nd Toronto team with that young talent to create a rivalry? Starting a team in Seattle with that kind of promise? Or that huge Houston tv market, with the Houston Oilers pushing for a Cup within a couple years? Is that enough to scam the Oilers out of Edmonton and then give US the fucking Coyotes or Blue Jackets in a couple years once the arena deal is worked out? fuck me....
Thing is...the City of Edmonton's release said the City plans to review options on going ahead with the arena without Katz...like...fuck me again! They went from 'no public money for the arena'....to 'we'll pay 125 million, Katz pays 100', to 'we'll just build it ourselves' ......So was this Katz's tactic all along - to not contribute to the arena at all? Could the city really go ahead on the building without a tenant? And if they did...would Bettman dare let the Oilers move anyway?
fuck it, i'm goin to bed.
it's almost like seattle supersonics all over again ...
Thats not a bad read...
But I dont think the NHL will allow the Oilers to move, even temporarily. They wont want bad press for at least a few years