Sports in Canadian culture

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

The NHL doesn't want to come to Quebec City.

The NHL didn't want to be in Winnipeg either, but if they find themselves in a situation where they have no other option like they did there - then they'll do it.

[EpicPonyTime]

Originally Posted by Berklon

The NHL didn't want to be in Winnipeg either, but if they find themselves in a situation where they have no other option like they did there - then they'll do it.

True, but unlike Winnipeg, Quebec City isn't the only city with an owner who'd be interested in a team. Tilman Fertitta wants to bring the NHL to Houston, and unless there are two teams that need to relocate I can't see any scenario where QC wins out against the fourth biggest city in America.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

True, but unlike Winnipeg, Quebec City isn't the only city with an owner who'd be interested in a team. Tilman Fertitta wants to bring the NHL to Houston, and unless there are two teams that need to relocate I can't see any scenario where QC wins out against the fourth biggest city in America.

Yea, Quebec's odds are a lot lower because of that - but they need to be ready just in case other cities fall through.

It's a shame they built the arena for a hockey team that will probably never come. Hamilton knows the feeling and has basically given up after 30+ years of trying.

As for Montreal being interested in the NBA - is there actually any interest in basketball there? I've never heard anything about it - but I've never lived there, so I don't know.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

On that list I think I might put CFL in Halifax above or at least equally likely to NHL in Quebec City.

The others are all super longshots.

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

CFL to Halifax is the only one I see happening within the decade. The NHL doesn't want to come to Quebec City.

The economics of a CFL stadium are admittedly pretty lousy, though. No one is going to build one on their own dime, so it's up to government to save the day.

Mind you, governments build indoor arenas but even in cases where a government signs on to a hot mess of an arena deal, you can kind of, sort of rationalize it by pointing at 100+ event nights a year plus spinoff developments (ICE District type stuff). That kind of thing doesn't happen with football stadiums.

For a metro of 400,000, spending $200 million on a stadium is a daunting proposition. (I know Regina did that and more, but Regina is a serious outlier given that the Riders are a very established team that's practically at the core of their identity.) You look at a US metro of comparable size, and most of their stadiums are going to be either big, old and dumpy (Mobile, AL) or small, old and dumpy (Flint, MI)... and that's despite football being a much bigger deal down there.

So it's still a bit of a longshot IMO. Quebec has the advantage of having a building and an ownership group completely ready to go... now they just wait for two existing NHL teams to hit the skids at the same time (not an impossible prospect given the sheer number of teams... they can't all be firing on all cylinders... all it will take is a combination of a lacklustre team + economic downturn) and then they can swoop down and snatch one.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by esquire

The economics of a CFL stadium are admittedly pretty lousy, though. No one is going to build one on their own dime, so it's up to government to save the day.

Mind you, governments build indoor arenas but even in cases where a government signs on to a hot mess of an arena deal, you can kind of, sort of rationalize it by pointing at 100+ event nights a year plus spinoff developments (ICE District type stuff). That kind of thing doesn't happen with football stadiums.

Indeed. It's a tough sell to ask for $100M+ in government money for 10 nights a year for a team worth a fraction of the amount that you're putting into the stadium itself.

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

The NHL doesn't want to come to Quebec City.

The NHL doesn't gain anything by going to Quebec City over other potential locations. Seattle, Houston, etc. all make more sense financially. QC doesn't offer anything the NHL doesn't already have.

Originally Posted by Berklon

As for Montreal being interested in the NBA - is there actually any interest in basketball there? I've never heard anything about it - but I've never lived there, so I don't know.

Vancouver would make more sense for the NBA...but with the NBA already having a number of less-than-stellar franchise locations why would they add one in a country with a dollar value so low comparative to the USD? Montreal's stretching a fair amount on this one, IMO.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

It's easily one of the least popular sports here, but it could grow a little now...



https://www.thetelegram.com/sports/f...-johns-248232/

The first one ever? That explains the look of puzzlement when I mentioned to my Newfoundland based brother that I was at a football game. I had to say it 3 times. It speaks to how ineffective Canadian culture is at spreading and influencing new regions. To think that it took 69 years for Newfoundland to get its 1st football field.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by isaidso

The first one ever? That explains the look of puzzlement when I mentioned to my Newfoundland based brother that I was at a football game. I had to say it 3 times. It speaks to how ineffective Canadian culture is at spreading and influencing new regions. To think that it took 69 years for Newfoundland to get its 1st football field.

Meanwhile, metro Moncton has eight proper football fields, six with artificial turf, and one in a 10,000 seat stadium. This doesn’t count the two fields in nearby Sackville (a town of 5,000). Sackville albeit is a university town with a U Sports team.

[isaidso]

^^ Gives one hope that football can grow in Newfoundland.

Originally Posted by esquire

NHL to Quebec
MLB to Montreal
NBA to Montreal
NFL to Toronto
CFL to Halifax
NBA to Vancouver

So which of those scenarios is most likely?

CFL in Halifax by 2024
NHL in Quebec City by 2026
NBA in Montreal by 2028
NBA in Vancouver by 2028
MLB in Montreal by 2030

NFL in Toronto by the year 3000 but it folds after the first year.

[Black Star]

2018 world Ball Hockey Championships 45 years and older in Prague. Team Canada.

Gold Medal for Canada. Beat the Czechs in final.

2 Alberta boys on the team. Me from Edmonton on defence and Graham from calgary...he's a sniper.



IMG_7009 by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr



IMG_7033 by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr

IMG_4807 by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr

IMG_6996 by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr

IMG_4821 by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr

[EpicPonyTime]

Congrats Black Star! Thanks for repping the country.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Indeed. It's a tough sell to ask for $100M+ in government money for 10 nights a year for a team worth a fraction of the amount that you're putting into the stadium itself.


The NHL doesn't gain anything by going to Quebec City over other potential locations. Seattle, Houston, etc. all make more sense financially. QC doesn't offer anything the NHL doesn't already have.



Vancouver would make more sense for the NBA..but with the NBA already having some less-than-stellar franchise locations why would they add one in a country with a dollar value so low compared to the USD? Montreal's stretching a fair amount on this one, IMO.

Nearly everything in North American professional sports is transacted in $USD these days. Canadian teams took it hard in the 90s because there was no sophistication around dollar hedging and exchange rates. These days Canadain professional teams have $USD funds and hedge the FX markets to always have a surplus of $USD on hand, plus this also is inverted into cost savings because they can spin non-local revenues, paid in $USD, into savings when they have to disburse payments for services in products that are $CAD.

Also, the NBA is quite healthy and does not have any "dog" markets aside from New Orleans or Memphis. Other markets that may be small suffer more from weak ownership (Sacremento) versus any structural issues with the market itself. Memphis has an issue in that ownership is scared to do a true rebuild as it has a very tight fanbase there and they are worried they will scare them off, while New Orleans has ownership issues after Mr. Benson passed away (similar can be said with Orlando).

I do agree that Vancouver makes much more sense. The NBA did not execute well there the first time, and Vancouver has the demographics that work in today's NBA.

I also agree that Quebec City is a long shot, a small city with little to no corporate base. Winnipeg lucked out in having the NHL against the wall to get back their team, but no way in hell QC gets a team before places such as Houston. Also, NHL can merely just keep QC hostage and use it as a dumping ground for any dead franchises. Winnipeg also got a steal in relocation fees at only $USD $60 million which was before the hyperinflation of franchise values seen in N.A. pro sports. No wayQC is getting a team for less than $USD $150 Million in relocation fees.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by osmo

Nearly everything in North American professional sports is transacted in $USD these days. Canadian teams took it hard in the 90s because there was no sophistication around dollar hedging and exchange rates. These days Canadain professional teams have $USD funds and hedge the FX markets to always have a surplus of $USD on hand, plus this also is inverted into cost savings because they can spin non-local revenues, paid in $USD, into savings when they have to disburse payments for services in products that are $CAD.

Fair points. It's still a difficult sell if the dollar is nowhere near parity and they're not contributing to overall US TV markets and general branding. Vancouver has a better upside because of its East Asian demographics (and disposable income...) along with guaranteed rivalries with Seattle (when the time comes) and Portland. At least the NBA has a quasi-luxury tax system.

Originally Posted by osmo

Also, the NBA is quite healthy and does not have any "dog" markets aside from New Orleans or Memphis. Other markets that may be small suffer more from weak ownership (Sacremento) versus any structural issues with the market itself. Memphis has an issue in that ownership is scared to do a true rebuild as it has a very tight fanbase there and they are worried they will scare them off, while New Orleans has ownership issues after Mr. Benson passed away (similar can be said with Orlando).

You managed to list three in this paragraph alone and I can think of others that are in smaller/more difficult markets than desired (Utah, Milwaukee, Indiana, Charlotte). Nearly half the league's teams lost money in 16-17 even with revenue sharing from the larger teams. It's fine with a massive TV deal worth billions a year but I imagine their incoming expansion markets would want to be more sure-things than risks.

Originally Posted by osmo

I also agree that Quebec City is a long shot, a small city with little to no corporate base. Winnipeg lucked out in having the NHL against the wall to get back their team, but no way in hell QC gets a team before places such as Houston. Also, NHL can merely just keep QC hostage and use it as a dumping ground for any dead franchises. Winnipeg also got a steal in relocation fees at only $USD $60 million which was before the hyperinflation of franchise values seen in N.A. pro sports. No wayQC is getting a team for less than $USD $150 Million in relocation fees.

Absolutely. I would actually wager a second GTA team happening before Quebec City and even that is a longshot in and of itself. The NHL has bigger fish to fry in potential US markets.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Fair points. It's still a difficult sell if the dollar is nowhere near parity and they're not contributing to overall US TV markets and general branding. Vancouver has a better upside because of its East Asian demographics (and disposable income...) along with guaranteed rivalries with Seattle (when the time comes) and Portland. At least the NBA has a quasi-luxury tax system.



You managed to list three in this paragraph alone and I can think of others that are in smaller/more difficult markets than desired (Utah, Milwaukee, Indiana, Charlotte). Nearly half the league's teams lost money in 16-17 even with revenue sharing from the larger teams. It's fine with a massive TV deal worth billions a year but I imagine their incoming expansion markets would want to be more sure-things than risks.



Absolutely. I would actually wager a second GTA team happening before Quebec City and even that is a longshot in and of itself. The NHL has bigger fish to fry in potential US markets.

Seattle is probably as close as it gets to a slam dunk, and Houston will likely be a success due in part to the city's sheer size and economic base. But once you get beyond that there aren't all that many obvious choices.

Does the NHL go back to Atlanta yet again? Or Cleveland? Hartford? Portland? San Diego? Some of those could be successful but the NHL won't bat 1.000 in those types of secondary (except for Atlanta) US markets.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by esquire

Seattle is probably as close as it gets to a slam dunk, and Houston will likely be a success due in part to the city's sheer size and economic base. But once you get beyond that there aren't all that many obvious choices.

Does the NHL go back to Atlanta yet again? Or Cleveland? Hartford? Portland? San Diego? Some of those could be successful but the NHL won't bat 1.000 in those types of secondary (except for Atlanta) US markets.

So how big should the NHL get??

I think it would be pretty maxed out with 36 teams (if it ever gets this far).

[esquire]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

So how big should the NHL get??

I think it would be pretty maxed out with 36 teams (if it ever gets this far).

Why would it have to max out at 36? There will always be hundreds of players in the AHL, ECHL and European leagues to tap into and turn into NHLers. And it's not like the NHL was ever that worried about watering down the product.

I could easily see the day where there will be two conferences with 24 teams each.

As long as the demand exists, the NHL will keep satisfying it.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by esquire

Why would it have to max out at 36? There will always be hundreds of players in the AHL, ECHL and European leagues to tap into and turn into NHLers. And it's not like the NHL was ever that worried about watering down the product.

I could easily see the day where there will be two conferences with 24 teams each.

As long as the demand exists, the NHL will keep satisfying it.

True to a point, but if a league expands too much, in some ways it starts to lose it's "elite" status.

Too many teams means too many players. It gets more difficult for fans to keep track of who's who. Schedules get nightmarish. There is a loss of natural rivalries. Playoff formats become more complex. The chances of seeing your team win a championship become slimmer and slimmer.

Of course, the CHL is a success with three constituent leagues and 60 teams so maybe I'm just talking out of my ass.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

True to a point, but if a league expands too much, in some ways it starts to lose it's "elite" status.

Too many teams means too many players. It gets more difficult for fans to keep track of who's who. Schedules get nightmarish. There is a loss of natural rivalries. Playoff formats become more complex. The chances of seeing your team win a championship become slimmer and slimmer.

Of course, the CHL is a success with three constituent leagues and 60 teams so maybe I'm just talking out of my ass.

When I said two conferences, I meant something along the lines of the CHL where you have an eastern conference and a western conference and rarely the twain would meet outside the playoffs. Of course, it could always be done on the MLB AL/NL model where you have geographic overlap between the conferences. Either way, the point is that there are means of separating the teams into manageable groups.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by esquire

Seattle is probably as close as it gets to a slam dunk, and Houston will likely be a success due in part to the city's sheer size and economic base. But once you get beyond that there aren't all that many obvious choices.

Does the NHL go back to Atlanta yet again? Or Cleveland? Hartford? Portland? San Diego? Some of those could be successful but the NHL won't bat 1.000 in those types of secondary (except for Atlanta) US markets.

Seattle and Houston are easy choices, beyond that it's tough to say. Atlanta is always so tempting but I'm not sure how much appetite there is. Kansas City seems so wishy-washy. San Diego is intriguing. Oklahoma City is intriguing. Salt Lake City....these are all 15+ years out at the earliest.

The NHL is in a pretty good place, though. Nashville and Raleigh, for example, are two places absolutely on the rise as cities and the NHL has an engrained presence in one and a fairly decent one in the other. Big potential in both down the road.

[esquire]

^ Some of those markets will work, some won't. And there will be some surprises... who would have thought that Nashville would become a legitimate hockey hotbed? But the further down the list of TV markets you go, the shakier the propositions become.

[EpicPonyTime]

Originally Posted by JHikka

The NHL is in a pretty good place, though. Nashville and Raleigh, for example, are two places absolutely on the rise as cities and the NHL has an engrained presence in one and a fairly decent one in the other. Big potential in both down the road.

Nashville I understand, but why do you think Raleigh is on the rise? The Hurricanes have been struggling for awhile.