shrader Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 I can watch any game I want to now. Watching a game played in Winnipeg is way better that watching a game played in Florida or Phoenix. The crowds are better (and by better I mean they are there) and really into it. I was actually talking more about expansion. I would rather see a team in a Canadian city that would fill the seats with avid(rabid) fans than see one in a corporate rich U.S city that would have more luxury boxes than seats with people in them. I care more about the sport and game experience (live and on TV) than I care about how much the NHL is making. I guess I'm just watching with the volume down or other distractions going on in the room because I very rarely notice the crowd noise on TV. So at least personally, that's not something that is going to change my game watching experience one bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 I'm sort of on the fence when it comes to expansion but in the end I'm in favor of it. It sucks that the league will get watered down even further (we've struggled for the better part of the last decade just trying to find competent centers) but after the way they did re-alignment there was really no doubt expansion was coming. I'd like to see two more teams added out west (2 of Seattle, Portland, Vegas, KC) and if they are dying to get another team in Canada maybe they could move the Panthers to Quebec City or whatnot. Personally, I hate that everything has to focus on money but I guess whatever boosts the league coffers will also raise the cap and make it easier for Daddy Warbucks to flash his cash and keep all this talent we've been trying to stockpile. Other than the Sabres merchandise I get for myself or as gifts for family I only attend one or two games a year (whenever it's time to harass the hill folk in Raleigh) and the $160 or so I spend on Center Ice every year. Football it's the same, although Sunday Ticket is twice the price, I can usually get Directv to cut me a deal and get it for half since I'm luckily no longer under contract and can threaten to take my business elsewhere. For some reason they don't seem nearly as willing to negotiate on Center Ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 Okay, I get your main point that the NHL is more likely to land a lucrative TV contract with a few more American teams, all things being equal. I agree that any potential newbie NHL fans in the US won’t give a rat’s as-s about teams from cities in Canada that they’ve never heard of. Now let’s get a few other things straight. There’s no way Halifax or Saskatchewan could support an NHL team There’s no way Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver gets a 2nd team in the next 20 years (or ever) Seattle - maybe one day gets a team - but Portland/KC/Houston/San Antonio/SLC/Milwaukee/Hartford is just plain silly If anything, the NHL has too many teams, as opposed to not enough. Potential new US markets are not going to be impressed by a league that is even more watered down than today’s NHL How about YOU take the emotion out of it? With no Canada, there is no NHL. Period. 1. Perhaps I reached a bit with Halifax and Saskatchewan. Maybe not. 2. Perhaps you misread my post. In no way was I lobbying for those cities to get a 2nd team. 3. Portland and KC are not silly at all. Neither is one of Houston/SA and SLC. A second NW team, a second Texas team, and the SLC or KC market would be good for the league long term. I agree that Hartford, and to a lesser extent Milwaukee is silly. 4. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it's not really relevant to the point of what's good for the league long term. 5. I disagree. The NHL does not need canada. If Canadain teams left the NHL and formed a Canadian Professional Hockey League of 10-14 teams do you really think all them good ol Canadian boys would stay in the great white north for less money? Of course they wouldn't. That league would be the CFL on skates, good luck with that. I can watch any game I want to now. Watching a game played in Winnipeg is way better that watching a game played in Florida or Phoenix. The crowds are better (and by better I mean they are there) and really into it. I was actually talking more about expansion. I would rather see a team in a Canadian city that would fill the seats with avid(rabid) fans than see one in a corporate rich U.S city that would have more luxury boxes than seats with people in them. I care more about the sport and game experience (live and on TV) than I care about how much the NHL is making. If the arena crowd impacts your enjoyment of watching a game on TV, well, I think you in a very small minority on that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) 1. Perhaps I reached a bit with Halifax and Saskatchewan. Maybe not. 2. Perhaps you misread my post. In no way was I lobbying for those cities to get a 2nd team. 3. Portland and KC are not silly at all. Neither is one of Houston/SA and SLC. A second NW team, a second Texas team, and the SLC or KC market would be good for the league long term. I agree that Hartford, and to a lesser extent Milwaukee is silly. 4. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it's not really relevant to the point of what's good for the league long term. 5. I disagree. The NHL does not need canada. If Canadain teams left the NHL and formed a Canadian Professional Hockey League of 10-14 teams do you really think all them good ol Canadian boys would stay in the great white north for less money? Of course they wouldn't. That league would be the CFL on skates, good luck with that. If the arena crowd impacts your enjoyment of watching a game on TV, well, I think you in a very small minority on that one. I'm not sure this is true. How many threads have been devoted to the library Chet and Muffy crowds at the F'NC? Edited September 9, 2014 by SwampD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 I'm not sure this is true. How many threads have been devoted to the library Chet and Muffy crowds at the F'NC? I have no clue. I remember seeing it mentioned here and there, but more of an arena experience as opposed to a TV viewing experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 I have no clue. I remember seeing it mentioned here and there, but more of an arena experience as opposed to a TV viewing experience. The person who was constantly bringing it up was viewing on TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 I'm not sure this is true. How many threads have been devoted to the library Chet and Muffy crowds at the F'NC? Much of this conversation is driven by people who are regularly in that arena though. I'm kind of curious now about how many games per year people on this board go to. I'd start a poll, but I hate poll threads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Halifax and Saskatchewan do not have the corporate base to support an NHL team. Quebec City = same thing. If the NHL put a team back there it would relocate to the US in less than 10 years, IMO. Mark my words. Toronto will have a second NHL franchise before Seattle, Vegas, or any other US city gets one. To pull a weave, you heard it here first. Believe me, Toronto is a done deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 I Halifax and Saskatchewan do not have the corporate base to support an NHL team. Quebec City = same thing. If the NHL put a team back there it would relocate to the US in less than 10 years, IMO. Mark my words. Toronto will have a second NHL franchise before Seattle, Vegas, or any other US city gets one. To pull a weave, you heard it here first. Believe me, Toronto is a done deal. I'll take that bet. I'll even give you three to one odds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BagBoy Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Mark my words. Toronto will have a second NHL franchise before Seattle, Vegas, or any other US city gets one. To pull a weave, you heard it here first. Believe me, Toronto is a done deal. From a corporate base perspective, I agree with you that another team in Toronto is absolutely the smartest way for the NHL to expand. Let's face it - even TWO more metro Toronto teams could be sustainable in the near future. But as a Sabres fan, I don't want this to happen, and I'm really rooting for the Leafs to use their influence to prevent any new teams from emerging anywhere near the Niagara peninsula. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Someone please explain the logic to me of putting a 2nd team in Toronto over Seattle/LV. Save the "Canada deserves it" garbage, how does it make sense for the league? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 I wonder if Windsor wouldn't support a team of their own. Someone please explain the logic to me of putting a 2nd team in Toronto over Seattle/LV. Save the "Canada deserves it" garbage, how does it make sense for the league? The same reason that there is no NFL team in LA currently. People there don't give a ###### and have other interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 I wonder if Windsor wouldn't support a team of their own. The same reason that there is no NFL team in LA currently. People there don't give a ###### and have other interests. I agree with you 100%. However, you did not answer my question. That's fine though, I'm hoping for a Canadian perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 I agree with you 100%. However, you did not answer my question. That's fine though, I'm hoping for a Canadian perspective. Did I not answer your question or did you just not want to hear the answer? If the greater NYC area can support three teams, Toronto can surely support two. I'm sure that there are plenty of fan's that have been disenfranchised by the corporate Leafs, that would that would latch on to a new team (not unlike the division between Mets and Yankees fans). Not that I care, But there is growth there. And besides, hockey jerseys look terrible with skinny jeans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Someone please explain the logic to me of putting a 2nd team in Toronto over Seattle/LV. Save the "Canada deserves it" garbage, how does it make sense for the league? If the 2 biggest US cities can support multiple teams, it's a safe bet the biggest city in CA can support 2. Lots of demand there; lots of corporate $'s. No doubt the suites and regular seats will sell out. 1 & 3 may not be true for the other US cities being mentioned. That stated, other than additional $'s, it does nothing good for the Sabres. And my gut feel is that the league goes to 32 in the next few by expanding in the west. If TO gets a 2nd team, I'd expect it to be relocated and paying a HUUUUUUUGE fee to the Loafs and possibly a fee to the Sabres though at least an order of magnitude, if not 2 orders, less than the one the Loafs get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) Halifax and Saskatchewan do not have the corporate base to support an NHL team. Quebec City = same thing. If the NHL put a team back there it would relocate to the US in less than 10 years, IMO. Mark my words. Toronto will have a second NHL franchise before Seattle, Vegas, or any other US city gets one. To pull a weave, you heard it here first. Believe me, Toronto is a done deal. The idea is very prominent in the hockey media right now, so it's not like we are hearing it here first. The spin does make it sound like a lock at this point though. I would love to see the payoff MLSE will get for it though Edited September 11, 2014 by shrader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Much of this conversation is driven by people who are regularly in that arena though. I'm kind of curious now about how many games per year people on this board go to. I'd start a poll, but I hate poll threads. Now that is a cold knife to the gut. Halifax and Saskatchewan do not have the corporate base to support an NHL team. Quebec City = same thing. If the NHL put a team back there it would relocate to the US in less than 10 years, IMO. Mark my words. Toronto will have a second NHL franchise before Seattle, Vegas, or any other US city gets one. To pull a weave, you heard it here first. Believe me, Toronto is a done deal. I call NFW on this and frankly it makes me even more concerned about your Grigorenko prediction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Did I not answer your question or did you just not want to hear the answer? If the greater NYC area can support three teams, Toronto can surely support two. I'm sure that there are plenty of fan's that have been disenfranchised by the corporate Leafs, that would that would latch on to a new team (not unlike the division between Mets and Yankees fans). Not that I care, But there is growth there. And besides, hockey jerseys look terrible with skinny jeans. No, you did not answer my question. I'll try again. I understand, and conceed, that a 2nd team in Toronto would be well supported and sell out every game. My question is, how is a team in Toronto (or any Canadian city) better for THE LEAGUE than a team in Seattle or LV? If the 2 biggest US cities can support multiple teams, it's a safe bet the biggest city in CA can support 2. Lots of demand there; lots of corporate $'s. No doubt the suites and regular seats will sell out. 1 & 3 may not be true for the other US cities being mentioned. That stated, other than additional $'s, it does nothing good for the Sabres. And my gut feel is that the league goes to 32 in the next few by expanding in the west. If TO gets a 2nd team, I'd expect it to be relocated and paying a HUUUUUUUGE fee to the Loafs and possibly a fee to the Sabres though at least an order of magnitude, if not 2 orders, less than the one the Loafs get. Again, I agree that another team in Toronto would be highly successful in that market. Not relevant to my question. This is getting frustrating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) I think if we got a look at actual revenues we'd see why another team in Toronto makes sense. I'd bet good money the Leafs have revenue streams double that of all but a handful of teams. A second team might cut into their merchandise and sponsorship revenue a bit, but the arena and TV revenue from the new team would all be gravy, new money from people who can't currently share from the Leaf pie. A second Toronto team would be a goal mine for the owner and the NHL. No, you did not answer my question. I'll try again. I understand, and conceed, that a 2nd team in Toronto would be well supported and sell out every game. My question is, how is a team in Toronto (or any Canadian city) better for THE LEAGUE than a team in Seattle or LV? Again, I agree that another team in Toronto would be highly successful in that market. Not relevant to my question. This is getting frustrating. Expansion fees, revenue sharing, merchandise are three ways that come to mind. Edited September 11, 2014 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 No, you did not answer my question. I'll try again. I understand, and conceed, that a 2nd team in Toronto would be well supported and sell out every game. My question is, how is a team in Toronto (or any Canadian city) better for THE LEAGUE than a team in Seattle or LV? Again, I agree that another team in Toronto would be highly successful in that market. Not relevant to my question. This is getting frustrating. I'm with you Hank. I wouldn't bet that there are a significant number of potential hockey fans in the Greater TO that aren't already watching the leafs. The team would succeed, the building would be full, but it would 90% former Leafs fans so the league isn't adding new fans to the numbers. A team in the PNW or midwest would be bringing in new fans; I'd guess that there aren't that many "active" hockey fans there, but some would becone fans if there's a team in their own. (Active means buying gear and/or tickets to games) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 I think if we got a look at actual revenues we'd see why another team in Toronto makes sense. I'd bet good money the Leafs have revenue streams double that of all but a handful of teams. A second team might cut into their merchandise and sponsorship revenue a bit, but the arena and TV revenue from the new team would all be gravy, new pm ye from people who can't currently share from the Leaf pie. A second Toronto team would be a goal mine for the owner and the NHL. I don't see how a 2nd team in Toronto helps move toward a lucrative TV deal in the US. I don't disagree with anything you saying, but I believe a team in the NW suits the NHL better in the big picture. I'm with you Hank. I wouldn't bet that there are a significant number of potential hockey fans in the Greater TO that aren't already watching the leafs. The team would succeed, the building would be full, but it would 90% former Leafs fans so the league isn't adding new fans to the numbers. A team in the PNW or midwest would be bringing in new fans; I'd guess that there aren't that many "active" hockey fans there, but some would becone fans if there's a team in their own. (Active means buying gear and/or tickets to games) Right. Canadians are already "All in" when it comes to hockey. There's nothing to gain there. Your not growing the fan base, expanding the footprint. It doesn't make sense from a business standpoint. TO could probably support three teams, but it's never gonna happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Not sure if this advances your case or hurts it, but the 2011 American TV deal is for just under $2 billion for 10 years. The 2013 Canadian deal is for $4.9 billion over 12. I'm not sure what revenues the league gets a cut of and which are purely local, but I'm sure the local TV deal for a new TO team would beat that of any two American franchises combined. I'm also sure a second TO team would be worth far more to Rogers than Seattle and Vegas would be to NBC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Not sure if this advances your case or hurts it, but the 2011 American TV deal is for just under $2 billion for 10 years. The 2013 Canadian deal is for $4.9 billion over 12. I'm not sure what revenues the league gets a cut of and which are purely local, but I'm sure the local TV deal for a new TO team would beat that of any two American franchises combined. I'm also sure a second TO team would be worth far more to Rogers than Seattle and Vegas would be to NBC. Neither. I'm not sure Canada's TV deal is relevant. As I said, Canada is already all in. The game needs to grow in America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 I call NFW on this and frankly it makes me even more concerned about your Grigorenko prediction. i haven't put much thought into it, but what's your thinking behind the NFW to TOR-II? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Neither. I'm not sure Canada's TV deal is relevant. As I said, Canada is already all in. The game needs to grow in America. It's about money. All revenue sources are relevant. But they aren't going to get new money from national TV deals in either country for another decade. I hear what you're saying: plow the unused soil and if the seed takes it could pay off with fantastic growth down the road. But there is still unused harvestable soil in TO, and it's soil guaranteed to produce a good crop now. Expansion is a fresh revenue stream to tap and Toronto will pay a higher fee than anyone else. They will follow the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.