Back In The Game?

[Milo Meningocele]

There's so many uninformed and stupid opinions in this thread that I'm not even going to wade into it to begin to debunk it.

Let's just say a lot of you need to do a lot of research before you go about asking for teams to be contracted.

So you're just here to call everyone stupid, and not offer your own opinions? At least that BigMac joker contributed his own wacky thoughts.

[dfwabel]

I remember way back in the late 80's/early 90's Ziegler announced the NHL would embark on a 7 team expansion over a 10 year period or something. Milwaukee & Seattle were actually going to be the first 2 cities to join but the ownership groups backed out.

This led to Ottawa recieveing an NHL team. Even though I think those could be viable markets for the NHL, I'm glad they did not recieve a team in 1992. Oh nostalgia.

Not to revive history, but Zeigler and the NHL wanted a flat $50M franchise fee. Tampa and Ottawa did not refuse to pay it, but the St. Pete Ownership group wanted to deal. From a 2004 Tampa Tribune story by former sports editor Tom McEwen:

In 1989, Commissioner Ziegler, a genuinely nice man who then and now has a home at Stuart, FL, on Florida?s East Coast, remains a consultant for the Chicago Blackhawks and remains on the NHL Board of Governors, declared he and his associates wanted to plan for an expansion to at least 30 teams in the 90?s. Ziegler wanted to move west and south. Hall of Fame player and general manager Phil Esposito, was on that study committee.

The NHL governors in a meeting in Palm Beach, with Ziegler still the (president), heard expansion presentations in early December, 1990, from St. Pete and Tampa separately, Miami, Ottawa, and others. The NHL wanted a flat fee for the franchise.

Ziegler, looking back to that pivotal meeting, remembers it well.

?St. Petersburg wanted to negotiate the franchise fee. Tampa and Ottawa did not challenge that. Furthermore, we did not like the Dome in St. Pete for the permanent home. Espo was very popular and I had seen all the successes with the other franchises with Tampa the home."

My point is/was that that round of expansion, including Florida and Anaheim in 1993 season, were started by Zeigler.

[The_Admiral]

I'm glad Ottawa has its team, but Milwaukee and Seattle would've been interesting. Having to build an NHL-ready arena in Seattle would've kept the Supersonics from ever having to move, one could extrapolate. Both cities are unfit to host the NHL here in 2009, however.

[dfwabel]

I may also post this on the thread in "Sports Logos" just to have others keep being overspeculative on this story.

A U.S. bankruptcy judge set May 19 as the next hearing date in the debate over who controls the Phoenix Coyotes, a decision that will play a major role in whether the team stays in Glendale or moves to Canada.

After an initial hearing Thursday before Judge Redfield T. Baum in downtown Phoenix, Coyotes owner Jerry Moyes and the National Hockey League each laid claim to the franchise.

The NHL contends Moyes, who has invested in the team since 2001, had no right to place the team into bankruptcy protection on Tuesday and agree to sell it to Canadian billionaire Jim Balsillie, who wants to move the franchise to southern Ontario. The league said it has been in control of the team since last fall, when it loaned the Coyotes money.

Moyes disagreed, saying he still owns the team.

Bill Daly, NHL deputy commissioner, told reporters he's confident the team will play the 2009-10 season in Jobing.com Arena and that a new owner will emerge and keep the team in Arizona.

(Credit: The Arizona Republic)

[rams80]

Rams80 is being unnecessarily contrarian, I feel.

Ummmm.....no.

I'll leave that to you and oddball.

[SenatorJake]

I may also post this on the thread in "Sports Logos" just to have others keep being overspeculative on this story.

A U.S. bankruptcy judge set May 19 as the next hearing date in the debate over who controls the Phoenix Coyotes, a decision that will play a major role in whether the team stays in Glendale or moves to Canada.

After an initial hearing Thursday before Judge Redfield T. Baum in downtown Phoenix, Coyotes owner Jerry Moyes and the National Hockey League each laid claim to the franchise.

The NHL contends Moyes, who has invested in the team since 2001, had no right to place the team into bankruptcy protection on Tuesday and agree to sell it to Canadian billionaire Jim Balsillie, who wants to move the franchise to southern Ontario. The league said it has been in control of the team since last fall, when it loaned the Coyotes money.

Moyes disagreed, saying he still owns the team.

Bill Daly, NHL deputy commissioner, told reporters he's confident the team will play the 2009-10 season in Jobing.com Arena and that a new owner will emerge and keep the team in Arizona.

(Credit: The Arizona Republic)

Thanks for posting that. I find it funny that Bettman is now saying that the league has been running the Coyotes since last fall when he had been vehemently denying that the league had been running the team as recently as about a month ago.

[MC Buffalo]

Now let me give you a view from this side of town....

Being a Sabres fan, the last thing I want is a team in Hamilton. Some estimates put the percentage of our season ticket holders who come from Southern Ontario at around 20%. I don't think it is quite that high but regardless the Sabres do have a strong following in SO since our media markets overlap. The Sabres survive on a very thin line between profit and loss, a team that close could cut into that.

I have heard reports that Balsille may actually prefer to go to a suburb North of Toronto (sorry I don't recall the name off the top of my mind) rather than Hamilton. I think this is a great alternative (for us at least) since Toronto shouldn't have any problem supporting two teams. If NY can support three (well 2.5, the Islanders are actually on a lot of short lists when contraction is discussed) TO can support 2.

My first choice would also be Winnipeg though, Even as an American I HATED when the Jets and Nordiques moved. I loved when there were 21 teams and 7 were in Canada. It seemed like a perfect mix of US-Canadian Teams.

No matter where the Coyotes move, IF it's in Canada they should consider the name JETS, as long as it doesn't offend the faithful in Winnipeg it would be nice to see the JETS back in the NHL in some form.

[rams80]

If Balsillie wants to move the Coyotes to Southern Ontario, that idiot commissioner Bettman should step aside & let it happen. I'm not Canadian, but why do I feel that he has an anti-Canadian bias. If Balsillie wanted to move the team to Kansas City or another US city, Bettman wouldn't try to stop it. I also don't buy Bettman's statement "We fix the problems we don't run out on cities" REALLY?! Ask Quebec, Hartford, & Winnipeg. While I think that the NHL would benifit with more teams in Canada, there are US markets that would make great hockey markets: Kansas City, Houston, Milwaukee, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Portland OR., etc. I would have included Cleveland, but Ohio already has a team (Columbus Blue Jackets)

Should the Coyotes happen to move to Southern Ontario, that would mean that one of the existing Eastern Conference teams will have to move to the Western Conference (most likely Pittsburgh would be that team)

Possible NHL realignment

Eastern Conference

Northeast - Hamilton (PHX), MTL, OTT, TOR, BUF

Atlantic - BOS, PHI, NYR, NYI, NJ

Southeast - WSH, TB, FLA, CAR, ATL

Western Conference

Central - PIT, CHI, DET, CLB, STL

Northwest - COL, MIN, EDM, CGY, VAN

Pacific - DAL, NSH, LA, ANA, SJ

That's my 2 cents

The only way to fix those problems involves having a working human cloning machine to double the population of those markets. There were fundamental issues with those markets that cannot be corrected no matter how much time and effort is put into it. Phoenix is, with admittedly a lot of work, correctable. Atlanta is correctable. Nashville is correctable.

Also...Pittsburgh to the Western Conference is a nonstarter. As is Nashville to the Pacific Division.

Seattle might work if only you could fit both a NHL rink and a decent amount of fans into the arena.

Do you work for Gary Bettman's radio show?

No, but it's easier and feasible to build an interest in hockey in large US markets than it is to double to population of a group of 3 markets that were only in the league for a generation, and at that because Canada nearly revolted on the NHL.

Revolted? How? By continually being the ones who make up a third of the revenue of this league despite only having 6 teams? By being the only country to broadcast NHL games nationally on a channel that is in the average citizen's home (TSN/CBC/Sportsnet/RDS)? By filling our newscasts with NHL highlights even when a Canadian team is not involved? You can't question the Canadian public's loyalty to the NHL, you'd be better off questioning our loyalty to beer and donuts.

Where's Phoenix's loyalty to NHL? Miami or Atlanta's loyalty? I don't see them in the seats at the arena. I see barely any news coverage for the NHL in those local markets. I think many citizens of those cities are unaware they even have an NHL franchise. I question their loyalty to the NHL and I have a basis to do so.

OK...way back during the WHA/NHL "war," there were multiple merger proposals. Said merger proposals typically failed to pass because a large enough minority of the NHL's teams voted them down. Said segment typically included Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal (last 2 I'm sure of, Vancouver less so.) Originally, the last merger deal in 1979 also died thanks to said Canadian teams voting it down-which more likely than not would have meant that Winnipeg, Quebec City, Edmonton, and Hartford would have died with the rest of the WHA. At this point a rather sizable chunk of the Canadian hockey fanbase, especially in the affected markets rose up in a campaign of petitioning, protest, and harassment, directed at such entities as Molson. This and only this, got the Canadian teams, and by extension, the NHL to agree to a "merger".

(My copy of The Rebel League is currently sitting on a bookshelf 4+ hours away from me, so I can't cite page numbers, but this is pretty much taken from my memory of reading that.)

---------------------------------------------------------------

More practically, yes, Canada contributes 40% of the league's revenue, but you wouldn't go much above that number even if you moved 4 or 5 teams up there. Canada is tapped out as a market. There aren't any new customers that would bring a dramatic increase of revenue into the league's coffers. All a team in Hamilton/Southern Ontario would do is redistribute some of that disposable income away from existing teams. At the same time, that redistribution factor means the teams dumping into the revenue sharing pool would NOT welcome a team up there, because the existence of this team eats into their own revenues.

[KJTALBOT]

Hamilton Roughnecks, though I doubt it will happen.

A roughneck is another name for steel worker or one who works in a steel factory.

[MC Buffalo]

Hamilton Roughnecks, though I doubt it will happen.

A roughneck is another name for steel worker or one who works in a steel factory.

I thought that was the "unofficial" name for the semi-skilled (no one who does this kind of work should be called unskilled) workers on Oil-Rigs?

[SenatorJake]

If Balsillie wants to move the Coyotes to Southern Ontario, that idiot commissioner Bettman should step aside & let it happen. I'm not Canadian, but why do I feel that he has an anti-Canadian bias. If Balsillie wanted to move the team to Kansas City or another US city, Bettman wouldn't try to stop it. I also don't buy Bettman's statement "We fix the problems we don't run out on cities" REALLY?! Ask Quebec, Hartford, & Winnipeg. While I think that the NHL would benifit with more teams in Canada, there are US markets that would make great hockey markets: Kansas City, Houston, Milwaukee, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Portland OR., etc. I would have included Cleveland, but Ohio already has a team (Columbus Blue Jackets)

Should the Coyotes happen to move to Southern Ontario, that would mean that one of the existing Eastern Conference teams will have to move to the Western Conference (most likely Pittsburgh would be that team)

Possible NHL realignment

Eastern Conference

Northeast - Hamilton (PHX), MTL, OTT, TOR, BUF

Atlantic - BOS, PHI, NYR, NYI, NJ

Southeast - WSH, TB, FLA, CAR, ATL

Western Conference

Central - PIT, CHI, DET, CLB, STL

Northwest - COL, MIN, EDM, CGY, VAN

Pacific - DAL, NSH, LA, ANA, SJ

That's my 2 cents

The only way to fix those problems involves having a working human cloning machine to double the population of those markets. There were fundamental issues with those markets that cannot be corrected no matter how much time and effort is put into it. Phoenix is, with admittedly a lot of work, correctable. Atlanta is correctable. Nashville is correctable.

Also...Pittsburgh to the Western Conference is a nonstarter. As is Nashville to the Pacific Division.

Seattle might work if only you could fit both a NHL rink and a decent amount of fans into the arena.

Do you work for Gary Bettman's radio show?

No, but it's easier and feasible to build an interest in hockey in large US markets than it is to double to population of a group of 3 markets that were only in the league for a generation, and at that because Canada nearly revolted on the NHL.

Revolted? How? By continually being the ones who make up a third of the revenue of this league despite only having 6 teams? By being the only country to broadcast NHL games nationally on a channel that is in the average citizen's home (TSN/CBC/Sportsnet/RDS)? By filling our newscasts with NHL highlights even when a Canadian team is not involved? You can't question the Canadian public's loyalty to the NHL, you'd be better off questioning our loyalty to beer and donuts.

Where's Phoenix's loyalty to NHL? Miami or Atlanta's loyalty? I don't see them in the seats at the arena. I see barely any news coverage for the NHL in those local markets. I think many citizens of those cities are unaware they even have an NHL franchise. I question their loyalty to the NHL and I have a basis to do so.

OK...way back during the WHA/NHL "war," there were multiple merger proposals. Said merger proposals typically failed to pass because a large enough minority of the NHL's teams voted them down. Said segment typically included Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal (last 2 I'm sure of, Vancouver less so.) Originally, the last merger deal in 1979 also died thanks to said Canadian teams voting it down-which more likely than not would have meant that Winnipeg, Quebec City, Edmonton, and Hartford would have died with the rest of the WHA. At this point a rather sizable chunk of the Canadian hockey fanbase, especially in the affected markets rose up in a campaign of petitioning, protest, and harassment, directed at such entities as Molson. This and only this, got the Canadian teams, and by extension, the NHL to agree to a "merger".

(My copy of The Rebel League is currently sitting on a bookshelf 4+ hours away from me, so I can't cite page numbers, but this is pretty much taken from my memory of reading that.)

---------------------------------------------------------------

More practically, yes, Canada contributes 40% of the league's revenue, but you wouldn't go much above that number even if you moved 4 or 5 teams up there. Canada is tapped out as a market. There aren't any new customers that would bring a dramatic increase of revenue into the league's coffers. All a team in Hamilton/Southern Ontario would do is redistribute some of that disposable income away from existing teams. At the same time, that redistribution factor means the teams dumping into the revenue sharing pool would NOT welcome a team up there, because the existence of this team eats into their own revenues.

That's pretty interesting stuff... I did not know that.

Hey, I do agree with you that expansion in Canada is not a priority. I never claimed that it was. You questioned the Canadian public's loyalty to the NHL by saying we had "revolted" against the league. I then proceeded to turn the argument around by questioning the southern US public's loyalty to the NHL. I never said: "OMG you guyz... we relly need more teamz in Canada. Bring back Winipeg, Quobec and Harford!!!!!!!1111!!!!eleven!!!!!!!"

As I've stated before, I think that the NHL should expand to markets in the northern United States where the game is already popular and has a decent fanbase on top of having room for growth. These are markets where there's winter and people play winter sports. The interest for a game like hockey would seem more likely and any rational person would have to agree with this. It will take time and investments from these markets, but Rome wasn't built in a day. For now let's get rid of this Phoenix team that is hurting the league as a whole by hemorraging obscene amounts of money.

[rams80]

This is why, as a Pheonix fan, that this is so hypocritical; they ask for Phoenix, Carolina, Atlanta, etc, but thou shall not harm the Kings, Sharks, Stars, Blues, etc.

1. The Kings run the Staples Centre, they're fine. If they've been in no danger of relocation for 42 years, they're in no danger now.

2. The Sharks have a huge fanbase and are in no danger.

3. See #2

4. The Blues are back, this year, anyway; also, 42 years, no danger, etc.

Minor point of order, they have been in danger, just not since the Reagan administration.

[dfwabel]

This is why, as a Pheonix fan, that this is so hypocritical; they ask for Phoenix, Carolina, Atlanta, etc, but thou shall not harm the Kings, Sharks, Stars, Blues, etc.

1. The Kings run the Staples Centre, they're fine. If they've been in no danger of relocation for 42 years, they're in no danger now.

2. The Sharks have a huge fanbase and are in no danger.

3. See #2

4. The Blues are back, this year, anyway; also, 42 years, no danger, etc.

Minor point of order, they have been in danger, just not since the Reagan administration.

Think Saskatoon Blues. It was darn close to happening.

[Burmy]

This is why, as a Pheonix fan, that this is so hypocritical; they ask for Phoenix, Carolina, Atlanta, etc, but thou shall not harm the Kings, Sharks, Stars, Blues, etc.

1. The Kings run the Staples Centre, they're fine. If they've been in no danger of relocation for 42 years, they're in no danger now.

2. The Sharks have a huge fanbase and are in no danger.

3. See #2

4. The Blues are back, this year, anyway; also, 42 years, no danger, etc.

Minor point of order, they have been in danger, just not since the Reagan administration.

Think Saskatoon Blues. It was darn close to happening.

SASKATOON!

They deserve at LEAST an AHL team.

[charger77]

Didn't the Blues even lose their draft picks during that mess?

Hard to imagine Saskatoon as a pro sports city.

-Dan

[rams80]

The problem with the Northern US is that it is at its worst, shrinking in terms of population, more typically stagnant, and at the rare best, not growing as fast as the rest of the country. That is why looking to the South and West is important.

Going on a more case by case basis....

Kansas City would be a prime target....and likely will get a team in the next few years (to keep that arena out of the NBA's paws if nothing else)

Portland would be the next best choice; it is a strong city with a fairly new arena.

Seattle would be a good choice if you could comfortably play NHL hockey in Key Arena, sadly you can't, and Seattle doesn't seem to be in the mood to build a new arena to correct that.

Hartford....still has its old arena and is too small.

Cleveland and Milwaukee are most likely tapped out due to having to support (indirectly in the latter case) baseball, basketball, and football teams.

Cincinnati is too close to Columbus.

Baltimore....might finally be building an arena. Can anyone refresh my memory on that. If not, the current arena is far from NHL quality.

Would you consider Norfolk "North" or "South". IIRC they entered an expansion bid for one of the last four teams...now they need to build a new arena to be considered, but that might be an interesting place to explore.

[Bleujayone]

The Hamilton Steelheads- from the TV series "Power Play" 1998-2000

Short-lived "Playmakers"-like hockey drama about the fictitious NHL Hamilton Steelheads. The name came from the fact that Hamilton is deeply rooted with the steel industry and a steelhead is a type a trout that can be found in the Great Lakes. (actually come to think of it, they can be found in a lot of places) The logo itself was a goalie wearing a suit of steel armor and a welder's mask in place of the usual goalie mask.

Steelheads Logo

Not saying it's the best choice, but it's more local oriented than Coyotes

[dfwabel]

As I've stated before, I think that the NHL should expand to markets in the northern United States where the game is already popular and has a decent fanbase on top of having room for growth. These are markets where there's winter and people play winter sports. The interest for a game like hockey would seem more likely and any rational person would have to agree with this. It will take time and investments from these markets, but Rome wasn't built in a day. For now let's get rid of this Phoenix team that is hurting the league as a whole by hemorraging obscene amounts of money.

We will be close to 20 years away from when the pre-Bettman expansion teams were announced or started playing. So we are two full U.S. Census (Censai) since those markets were selected. Outside of Ottawa, they were in non-northern markets and were selected by design. Even if in the past 5-14 years, if a major, northern city build a new arena, their populations have diminished greatly. Look at Detroit and Buffalo for existing cities and Milwaukee and Cleveland for "eligible cities" with newer facilities. Which cities are now NHL ready in the northern US?

They would have been forced to moved if they received franchises back then and are not viable now. The cities with expanding areas, like Northern DC, would not get a team due to the Caps not wanting to share the population

[rams80]

This is why, as a Pheonix fan, that this is so hypocritical; they ask for Phoenix, Carolina, Atlanta, etc, but thou shall not harm the Kings, Sharks, Stars, Blues, etc.

1. The Kings run the Staples Centre, they're fine. If they've been in no danger of relocation for 42 years, they're in no danger now.

2. The Sharks have a huge fanbase and are in no danger.

3. See #2

4. The Blues are back, this year, anyway; also, 42 years, no danger, etc.

Minor point of order, they have been in danger, just not since the Reagan administration.

Think Saskatoon Blues. It was darn close to happening.

SASKATOON!

They deserve at LEAST an AHL team.

Not unless they ALSO guarantee a subsidy of every flippin' mile of road travel in what is still supposed to be a bus league THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

/They have a WHL team. Isn't that enough?

[SenatorJake]

As I've stated before, I think that the NHL should expand to markets in the northern United States where the game is already popular and has a decent fanbase on top of having room for growth. These are markets where there's winter and people play winter sports. The interest for a game like hockey would seem more likely and any rational person would have to agree with this. It will take time and investments from these markets, but Rome wasn't built in a day. For now let's get rid of this Phoenix team that is hurting the league as a whole by hemorraging obscene amounts of money.

We will be close to 20 years away from when the pre-Bettman expansion teams were announced or started playing. So we are two full U.S. Census (Censai) since those markets were selected. Outside of Ottawa, they were in non-northern markets and were selected by design. Even if in the past 5-14 years, if a major, northern city build a new arena, their populations have diminished greatly. Look at Detroit and Buffalo for existing cities and Milwaukee and Cleveland for "eligible cities" with newer facilities. Which cities are now NHL ready in the northern US?

They would have been forced to moved if they received franchises back then and are not viable now. The cities with expanding areas, like Northern DC, would not get a team due to the Caps not wanting to share the population

This is true, but like I said, the NHL needs a new direction and this will take time. Cities will eventually build arenas. Americans are always building new sports facilities as history has shown us.

On the topic of population decline. I would still take a hockey friendly market (ie. Milwaukee or Portland) over an uninterested metropolis (ie. Atlanta or Miami). The fact of the matter is that revenue in the NHL is extremely gate driven. No butts in the seats = no money.