Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by JHikka

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.

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.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Berklon

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.

Originally Posted by Berklon

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.

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by Berklon

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.

[Acajack]

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?

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Berklon

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.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by khabibulin

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.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

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

[240glt]

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 ?

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by Berklon

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,

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

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.

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

Originally Posted by 240glt

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".

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by JHikka

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)

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

#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.

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

#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).

[Hybrid247]

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

holy shit i just about fell of my chair

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by JHikka

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

[osmo]

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.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by DAVEinEDMONTON

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?