HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 3:20 PM
Berklon's Avatar
Berklon Berklon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hamilton (The Brooklyn of Canada)
Posts: 2,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
The Oilers, Flames, and Sens have all been spared from relocation in the past twenty years. It's absurd to think the NHL is anti-Canada - it's pro franchise stability for the sake of valuation.
That was in the past because the NHL knew they needed Canadian teams to prop up the league while they try to continue to grow the game in the US. I think their attitude today has changed.

Quote:
The more teams move around the less valuable they are.
The NFL contradicts that statement. Look at how many NFL teams have relocated in the last 20 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 3:28 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
Haru Urara
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 5,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berklon View Post
That was in the past because the NHL knew they needed Canadian teams to prop up the league while they try to continue to grow the game in the US. I think their attitude today has changed.
I think the opposite. Team stability is still tantamount, and the league receives enough revenue from Canadian franchises to make it worth their time. Rogers' hefty USD TV deal doesn't hurt either.

Teams like Quebec, Winnipeg, and Hartford were all moved because of old rinks in small centres with prospective owners in bigger centres and newer rinks. Things would have been different if they had ownership with legitimate plans for new buildings in their locations. Sunbelt expansion was necessary for national TV deals in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berklon View Post
The NFL contradicts that statement. Look at how many NFL teams have relocated in the last 20 years.
The two leagues can barely be compared. The NFL is a beast of a league comparable to no other, in a country with more than their fair share of cities willing to foot public money for stadiums.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 3:32 PM
Jaws Jaws is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berklon View Post
The NFL contradicts that statement. Look at how many NFL teams have relocated in the last 20 years.
Because the NFL is in a whole other stratosphere. In order of importance: gun, God, football, dog, wife.... hockey? Not at all.

But I think the NFL is playing with fire. They are alienating lots of fan bases and coupled with the concussion issue/law suits, their stock isn't going up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 3:55 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 34,748
Regardless, does anyone really think that if the exact same offer as Winnipeg's had been on the table from KC or Seattle, that the Trashers would have gone to Manitoba?
__________________
Vous n'êtes pas écoeurés de mourir, bande de caves?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 4:17 PM
Berklon's Avatar
Berklon Berklon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hamilton (The Brooklyn of Canada)
Posts: 2,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Regardless, does anyone really think that if the exact same offer as Winnipeg's had been on the table from KC or Seattle, that the Trashers would have gone to Manitoba?
Definitely not... the Trashers would've easily been in KC or Seattle.

Seattle was pissing off the NHL for a while with the pains to get an arena deal going, because the NHL really wanted another US city to be available for relocation purposes for either Arizona or Carolina (if they couldn't keep them there) and also wanted them for expansion.

Canada is an afterthought for the NHL and this latest expansion proved it. There really wasn't any reason why Quebec City couldn't have gotten a team, but they were left out while LV was rewarded. Had Seattle also put in a bid, they would've gotten a team as well. But as it stands, only 1 expansion team was awarded because there was only 1 US city. People say the NHL left out QC as a possible relocation destination - but I don't think that's the reason. I think the NHL is desperately waiting for Seattle to get their arena deal or for interest from places like Houston (who just got a new owner and may have interest in a team). You can bet your sweet ass that if Seattle or Houston gets in the game, QC will be ignored and either of those cities will get an expansion team.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 4:52 PM
khabibulin khabibulin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Regardless, does anyone really think that if the exact same offer as Winnipeg's had been on the table from KC or Seattle, that the Trashers would have gone to Manitoba?
Thing is, there was more to the decision than just the "offer". The Winnipeg ownership group put in years of cultivating the relationship with the NHL, and establishing their credibility. They were respectful and sold the NHL board of governors on their professionalism. Having the wealthiest Canadian on your masthead didn't hurt either.

So even if Seattle or KC had the exact same "offer" on the table, if they had not put in the years establishing the relationships that True North did, I believe Winnipeg would have won out. God knows the last thing the NHL needed was another John Spano.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 6:40 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
Haru Urara
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 5,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berklon View Post
Canada is an afterthought for the NHL and this latest expansion proved it. There really wasn't any reason why Quebec City couldn't have gotten a team, but they were left out while LV was rewarded.
....
You can bet your sweet ass that if Seattle or Houston gets in the game, QC will be ignored and either of those cities will get an expansion team.
Quebec doesn't provide any serious market growth for the NHL under a expansion scenario. They make sense as a relocation candidate only. This is beside the point Montreal can make regarding market intrusion. Winnipeg was fortunate to land the Thrashers when they did.

Quebec's unrelenting desire to pay for expansion will leave them continuously used as a bargaining chip for situations like Calgary finds itself in right now.

The NHL is looking for growth and Canada is basically already maxed out for most revenue streams on a league-growth level.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 6:44 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 34,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by khabibulin View Post
Thing is, there was more to the decision than just the "offer". The Winnipeg ownership group put in years of cultivating the relationship with the NHL, and establishing their credibility. They were respectful and sold the NHL board of governors on their professionalism. Having the wealthiest Canadian on your masthead didn't hurt either.

So even if Seattle or KC had the exact same "offer" on the table, if they had not put in the years establishing the relationships that True North did, I believe Winnipeg would have won out. God knows the last thing the NHL needed was another John Spano.
For the record the people in Quebec City have been quietly building those relationships with the NHL as well.
__________________
Vous n'êtes pas écoeurés de mourir, bande de caves?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 7:50 PM
Oilkountry's Avatar
Oilkountry Oilkountry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgarian View Post
Don't forget, a relocation fee is now $200 million, so the Flames aren't going anywhere!
Way cheaper than the half billion dollar expansion fee that Seattle will eventually pay to take the 32nd spot in the NHL that is being saved for them
__________________
I don't want to hear your opinions on facts
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 8:17 PM
240glt's Avatar
240glt 240glt is offline
HVAC guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: EDM ->->-> Okanagan
Posts: 10,601
Economists see little payoff for cities that subsidize pro sports facilities

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...407/story.html

It'll be years before we actually know if Edmonton's deal paid off. We already know it came at a huge cost with some shady back room deals, is it worth it ?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 8:28 PM
Oilkountry's Avatar
Oilkountry Oilkountry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berklon View Post
Canada is an afterthought for the NHL and this latest expansion proved it. There really wasn't any reason why Quebec City couldn't have gotten a team, but they were left out while LV was rewarded.
Can't say I agree, At the time the expansion fee was over 700M CDN and that's a concern for a few reasons. And with Quebec being such a small market their was concern about the revenue sharing program. I think NHL owners are looking for a market to contribute into that system instead of benefiting or being a neutral team like Winnipeg who don't pay in nor withdrawl. AKA Seattle

Also the league was looking for an additional western team to balance things out. That second expansion bid opening was always meant for Seattle. It just makes sense.

The best case scenario for Quebec is that NHL salaries Continue to rise and teams like Florida and Carolina Can't continue to lose money, but both have sweetheart Arena deals so I wouldn't hold your breath, It would take a significant amount of losses to render them nonviable,
__________________
I don't want to hear your opinions on facts

Last edited by Oilkountry; Sep 14, 2017 at 9:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 9:03 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
Haru Urara
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 5,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilkountry View Post
Can't say I agree, At the time the expansion fee was over 700M CDN and that's a concern for a few reasons. And with Quebec being such a small market their was concern about the revenue sharing program. I think NHL owners are looking for a market to contribute into that system instead of benefiting or being a neutral team like Winnipeg that doesn't pay in nor take out. AKA Seattle
Part of the concern with Quebec was the $500MUSD payment and Quebecor's ability to be financially feasible with the CAD hovering around 0.8USD upon startup. Canadian teams have to pay salary in USD and become less viable when the currency they're generating revenue from is 20% less valuable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 9:15 PM
DAVEinEDMONTON DAVEinEDMONTON is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by 240glt View Post
Economists see little payoff for cities that subsidize pro sports facilities

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...407/story.html

It'll be years before we actually know if Edmonton's deal paid off. We already know it came at a huge cost with some shady back room deals, is it worth it ?
Yes, it was worth it.

Also, please provide the details of the "shady back room deals".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 9:33 PM
Oilkountry's Avatar
Oilkountry Oilkountry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
Part of the concern with Quebec was the $500MUSD payment and Quebecor's ability to be financially feasible with the CAD hovering around 0.8USD upon startup. Canadian teams have to pay salary in USD and become less viable when the currency they're generating revenue from is 20% less valuable.
higher ticket prices (which would no doubt exist in QC) can offset the poor CDN dollar. Winnipeg with some of the highest ticket prices in the league at 15,279 seats is middle of the pack in terms of revenue despite drawing significantly less fans than US markets below or equal revenue numbers. I have no doubt the Quebec market could hold it's own in the short term, however...

#1 Like I said before I don't know if they would ever contribute to revenue share which is a big red flag to owners on the BOG such as Chicago,MLSE ect Who continue to prop up the leagues welfare teams. Last thing they want is another struggling franchise requiring funds from other teams to break even and preferably they would like to see another team donating to the cause

#2 With little to no room to grow the fanbase and Television audience, potential profits would basically be capped out right from the get go and that is a scary thought when you think salary and operating costs could increase 30%+ over the next 30 years. The market can only sustain so much gradual extra expenses before the fanbase gets tired of gouging (see jets fans 5 seasons in)
__________________
I don't want to hear your opinions on facts
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 10:12 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
Haru Urara
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 5,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilkountry View Post
#1 Like I said before I don't know if they would ever contribute to revenue share which is a big red flag to owners on the BOG such as Chicago,MLSE ect Who continue to prop up the leagues welfare teams. Last thing they want is another struggling franchise requiring funds from other teams to break even and preferably they would like to see another team donating to the cause
Absolutely, which is why Quebec is only a backup for a relocating team. Why would the NHL expand to Quebec when there are larger markets with more growth potential available? This is, and never will be, a discussion topic revolving around cities deserving franchises. Nobody deserves a franchise. Canada does not get allotted franchises because people like hockey, because we """"own"""" hockey - Cities are allotted franchises because there's a wealthy owner with a big corporate arena willing to host a franchise, and only if that franchise is seen as being beneficial to the league as a whole. Not beneficial to fans, to the league. This is how most sport works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilkountry View Post
#2 With little to no room to grow the fanbase and Television audience, potential profits would basically be capped out right from the get go and that is a scary thought when you think salary and operating costs could increase 30%+ over the next 30 years. The market can only sustain so much gradual extra expenses before the fanbase gets tired of gouging (see jets fans 5 seasons in)
Which is something that a lot of people can't seem to wrap their heads around. Quebec is not a growth market for the NHL. There's already a team there (Montreal) with high revenues for merchandising, local and national TV appeal, and ingrained history. Why would the BoG and NHL want to agitate that team for the sake of regional interest in QC? The NHL already has a market share in Canada and they will have that with or without a team in Quebec. There are better markets with higher growth potential available (see: Vegas, Seattle, Houston).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 10:27 PM
Hybrid247 Hybrid247 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 435
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 11:04 PM
Oilkountry's Avatar
Oilkountry Oilkountry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hybrid247 View Post
holy shit i just about fell of my chair
__________________
I don't want to hear your opinions on facts
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 11:09 PM
Oilkountry's Avatar
Oilkountry Oilkountry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
Absolutely, which is why Quebec is only a backup for a relocating team. Why would the NHL expand to Quebec when there are larger markets with more growth potential available? This is, and never will be, a discussion topic revolving around cities deserving franchises. Nobody deserves a franchise. Canada does not get allotted franchises because people like hockey, because we """"own"""" hockey - Cities are allotted franchises because there's a wealthy owner with a big corporate arena willing to host a franchise, and only if that franchise is seen as being beneficial to the league as a whole. Not beneficial to fans, to the league. This is how most sport works.


Which is something that a lot of people can't seem to wrap their heads around. Quebec is not a growth market for the NHL. There's already a team there (Montreal) with high revenues for merchandising, local and national TV appeal, and ingrained history. Why would the BoG and NHL want to agitate that team for the sake of regional interest in QC? The NHL already has a market share in Canada and they will have that with or without a team in Quebec. There are better markets with higher growth potential available (see: Vegas, Seattle, Houston).
Glad we finally see eye to eye on something. leave it to hockey to bring people together
__________________
I don't want to hear your opinions on facts
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 11:27 PM
osmo osmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,600
We can all agree that Winnipeg got in while the gettin' was good with an at par dollar that significantly kept the fees in check.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2017, 2:36 AM
speedog's Avatar
speedog speedog is offline
Moran supreme
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAVEinEDMONTON View Post
Yes, it was worth it.

Also, please provide the details of the "shady back room deals".
Who provided the up front funding for the ticket levy portion which will be paid back over a couple of decades as well as the Oilers' owner's portion that'll be paid back in lease payments over the next couple of decades as well?
__________________
Just a wee bit below average prairie boy in Canada's third largest city and fourth largest CMA
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:44 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.