If the Predators move to Hamilton....

[T-nerb02]

Or the Baltimore Colts, or the Milwaukee Braves, or....

You mean Boston Braves right?

[Gothamite]

Nah, that was a justified franchise move.

Boston demonstrated that they didn't want the Braves, even when they were a contending team. Pathetic support, even when they were a postseason club.

Hey wait a second, we're back OT.

[Vaytch]

Better forget having a team in Hamilton. Leipold is selling for $50 Million less than with Balsillie to go to Kansas City.

No question in my mind that that dumb ass didn't want to go to Canada...

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=212106&hubname=

[BBM]

Better forget having a team in Hamilton. Leipold is selling for $50 Million less than with Balsillie to go to Kansas City.

No question in my mind that that dumb ass didn't want to go to Canada...

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=212106&hubname=

This is a real shame. I don't know why the NHL insists on shoving their product down the throat of American cities who could care less, when you have starving Canadian fanbases (Hamilton, Winnipeg, etc) DYING for a team. Is KC going to get you TV ratings? Hell no. So why not pack out the arena every night instead?

[jeremyb]

This thread should be changed to "when the Predators move to Kansas City"

[DG_ThenNowForever]

This thread should be changed to "when the Predators move to Kansas City"

I think it should be changed to "When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie..." because everyone likes pizza.

[DEAD!]

This thread should be changed to "when the Predators move to Kansas City"

I think it should be changed to "When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie..." because everyone likes pizza.

.... does everyone also include those that are lactose intolerant?

[Brian in Boston]

I don't know why the NHL insists on shoving their product down the throat of American cities who could care less, when you have starving Canadian fanbases (Hamilton, Winnipeg, etc) DYING for a team.

It's simple, really.

Despite the fact that professional ice hockey doesn't resonate in the collective American sports psyche to the degree that it captivates the hearts and minds of Canadian sports fans, the NHL's American-based franchises still generate 60% of the league's revenues. Additionally, given the success of franchises in several so-called "non-traditional" U.S. markets (Dallas, San Jose, Tampa Bay, etc.), the majority of NHL owners and executives believe that the league's share of the U.S. pro sports marketplace can be grown by introducing the sport in similar American markets. With sizeable U.S. metro area marketplaces such as Houston, Seattle, Portland, Kansas City and Las Vegas still bereft of top-tier pro ice hockey, the league's "suits" are inclined to relocate struggling teams to major American cities until such time as the suitability of all such municipalities as hosts is categorically confirmed or disproven.

Ironically, the rabid appetite Canadians have for major professional ice hockey actually works against the country landing additional NHL franchises. Why? NHL suits look at Canada's population and see a captive audience. NHL executives and owners are convinced that no matter how much grumbling Canadians do over the league's perceived neglect of the die-hard fan-base north of the border, when push comes to shove said Canadian fans aren't going anywhere. They will continue to religiously tune-in to Hockey Night in Canada, snap-up tickets to the games of the existing six Canadian NHL teams when they can be had, and purchase truckloads of licensed merchandise. You know what? The NHL "suits" are right. To their minds, placing franchises in Canadian markets like Hamilton, Winnipeg or Quebec doesn't win them any new fans. It simply "super-serves" existing fans. That strikes them as "preaching to the converted". Further, given Canada's population of 32,852,849 people (fewer people than live in California, by the way), league executives see the Canadian marketplace as representing limited potential for future growth.

Bottom line? Unless a significant percentage of Canadian NHL fans were willing to boycott the league over the issue of ignoring Canadian cities as relocation/expansion targets, the majority of NHL owners and executives are going to remain more inclined to explore opportunities in American cities. Given that the vast majority of Canadians won't be able to tear themselves away from the top-tier of a sport that is practically coded into their DNA, and that not every potential "non-traditional" American city will prove to be a bust, I don't foresee NHL relocation to Canada for quite some time.

[Webhamster]

Despite the fact that professional ice hockey doesn't resonate in the collective American sports psyche to the degree that it captivates the hearts and minds of Canadian sports fans, the NHL's American-based franchises still generate 60% of the league's revenues.

Which isn't hard since U.S.-based teams make up 80% of the member clubs. So what you're really saying is that 6 teams (20%) contribute 40% of the revenue whereas 24 teams can only muster 60%? Something seems out of whack to me there.

I know what you're getting at though. Canada is a limited market. Besides Winnipeg I can't think of any other really good markets that would "help" the NHL at all. Hamilton, Halifax, Quebec City and Saskatoon make up the second tier but have no realistic shot at ever landing a team anyway. How would you market Los Angeles vs. Saskatoon in LA? The owners know that it wouldn't be a very good draw.

[Vaytch]

I don't know why the NHL insists on shoving their product down the throat of American cities who could care less, when you have starving Canadian fanbases (Hamilton, Winnipeg, etc) DYING for a team.

It's simple, really.

Despite the fact that professional ice hockey doesn't resonate in the collective American sports psyche to the degree that it captivates the hearts and minds of Canadian sports fans, the NHL's American-based franchises still generate 60% of the league's revenues. Additionally, given the success of franchises in several so-called "non-traditional" U.S. markets (Dallas, San Jose, Tampa Bay, etc.), the majority of NHL owners and executives believe that the league's share of the U.S. pro sports marketplace can be grown by introducing the sport in similar American markets. With sizeable U.S. metro area marketplaces such as Houston, Seattle, Portland, Kansas City and Las Vegas still bereft of top-tier pro ice hockey, the league's "suits" are inclined to relocate struggling teams to major American cities until such time as the suitability of all such municipalities as hosts is categorically confirmed or disproven.

Ironically, the rabid appetite Canadians have for major professional ice hockey actually works against the country landing additional NHL franchises. Why? NHL suits look at Canada's population and see a captive audience. NHL executives and owners are convinced that no matter how much grumbling Canadians do over the league's perceived neglect of the die-hard fan-base north of the border, when push comes to shove said Canadian fans aren't going anywhere. They will continue to religiously tune-in to Hockey Night in Canada, snap-up tickets to the games of the existing six Canadian NHL teams when they can be had, and purchase truckloads of licensed merchandise. You know what? The NHL "suits" are right. To their minds, placing franchises in Canadian markets like Hamilton, Winnipeg or Quebec doesn't win them any new fans. It simply "super-serves" existing fans. That strikes them as "preaching to the converted". Further, given Canada's population of 32,852,849 people (fewer people than live in California, by the way), league executives see the Canadian marketplace as representing limited potential for future growth.

Bottom line? Unless a significant percentage of Canadian NHL fans were willing to boycott the league over the issue of ignoring Canadian cities as relocation/expansion targets, the majority of NHL owners and executives are going to remain more inclined to explore opportunities in American cities. Given that the vast majority of Canadians won't be able to tear themselves away from the top-tier of a sport that is practically coded into their DNA, and that not every potential "non-traditional" American city will prove to be a bust, I don't foresee NHL relocation to Canada for quite some time.

Of course they do, there are only 6 teams in Canada...if there were more than 6 the 60% of revenues provided would come from Canada instead.

[Your Name Here]

This is a real shame. I don't know why the NHL insists on shoving their product down the throat of American cities who could care less, when you have starving Canadian fanbases (Hamilton, Winnipeg, etc) DYING for a team. Is KC going to get you TV ratings? Hell no. So why not pack out the arena every night instead?

Markets that could care less? You mean like Chicago, New Jersey, and Long Island?

[Gothamite]

I agree that there are plenty of existing teams with pathetic attendance.

The league is in serious trouble. More reason to go with traditionally hockey-friendly markets and not gamble on an untried market.

[gmat]

The league is in serious trouble. More reason to go with traditionally hockey-friendly markets and not gamble on an untried market.

Why I do agree what you are saying, it is a lot worst. KC is not an untried, they have had a few teams over the years that have been unsuccessful, as evident by the fact none of them lasted more than 11 years. A history of KC hockey is located at the following link, you will need to scroll down to the hockey section. http://home.kc.rr.com/starrpower/sports/history.html#hockey

[Brian in Boston]

KC is not an untried, they have had a few teams over the years that have been unsuccessful, as evident by the fact none of them lasted more than 11 years. A history of KC hockey is located at the following link, you will need to scroll down to the hockey section. http://home.kc.rr.com/starrpower/sports/history.html#hockey

With the exception of the Kansas City Scouts, the teams you reference were all minor-league entities. Their success or failure isn't necessarily an adequate indicator of how an NHL franchise would fare in the market.

That said, those teams managed to put together some pretty long runs of bringing ice hockey to Kansas City. Under three different names (Pla-Mors, Greyhounds and Americans), an American Hockey Association franchise played fifteen straight seasons from 1927-28 through 1941-42. After a three-year hiatus during the height of World War II, hockey returned to KC for six straight years (this time in the guise of the United States Hockey League's Pla-Mors and Mohawks) from 1945-46 through 1950-51. The Kansas City Blues of the Central Professional and Central Hockey Leagues set-up shop in the market for five years, from 1967-68 to 1971-72. After a two-year layoff, the NHL's Scouts came calling (1974-76), followed by the Blues (1976-77) and the Red Wings (1977-79) of the CHL; good for five straight seasons. After an eleven-year break, ice hockey was back for an eleven-year run in the guise of the International Hockey League's Kansas City Blades (1990-2001).

Similarly, even the Scouts' two seasons in the marketplace aren't likely to paint an accurate picture of how an NHL team would be welcomed today. The mid-1970s weren't the best time to introduce the sport of major professional ice hockey to the Kansas City Metro Area. The economy in the "Heartland" was taking a beating due to the downturn in the U.S. commodities market and the entire country was facing the oil crisis.

It's been thirty-plus years since an NHL franchise took to the ice in Kansas City. Much has changed in the region. I don't think the failure of the Scouts in 1976 guarantees that another NHL foray into the market would be doomed to failure.