Return of The Nordiques?

[sexualbanana]

I really hope this doesn't happen. Not because I don't think Canada doesn't deserve another team, but because I think it'll cause a lot of instability with other franchises.

MSN Article (http://sports.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cp-article.aspx?cp-documentid=22193270)

[bluetek]

and why might you think that? other franchises in Canada or in general?

Personally I'm all for it, just like I would like to see a team in Hamilton, Winnipeg, and anywhere else in Canada for that matter.

[Hakkola]

Doubt it will happen, think Bettman said the same thing about Winnipeg and some American city.

[Cock Knuckle]

If any financially burdened team were to be relocated, it would belong wherever the billionaire owner wants. If you don't have fans you will not succeed; It just so happens that one very rich fan can make a big difference in a team.

Quebec will have their team fueled by the sale of alcohol (Molson). No playoffs this year? Buy an extra case every trip and indirectly contribute to next year's salary.

Toronto will always fill their seats and sell goods due solely due to apathetic people. These poor suckers will pay some of the most ridiculous prices to see an extremely mediocre team. No cup in 43 years; doesn't matter to management since they sell tickets.


An NHL team owner would have to be considerably mad to consider shit-towne (Winnipeg) or Quebec City.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by bluetek
and why might you think that? other franchises in Canada or in general?

Personally I'm all for it, just like I would like to see a team in Hamilton, Winnipeg, and anywhere else in Canada for that matter.

In general because the cost of moving a team is astronomical, and if the League (which applies to any of the major North American leagues) allows the types of moves then we will start seeing a lot more teams moving around.

[kenny]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


In general because the cost of moving a team is astronomical, and if the League (which applies to any of the major North American leagues) allows the types of moves then we will start seeing a lot more teams moving around.

Statement kind of contradicts itself.

If costs are astronomical, I don't think we'll see "a lot more teams" moving around.

[95teetee]

Originally posted by Cock Knuckle
If any financially burdened team were to be relocated, it would belong wherever the billionaire owner wants. providing Buttman agrees to it.

Probably never happen. Napoleon would greenlight a move to Buttfuck, Arkansas before he'd allow a move to a hockey-mad Canadian city.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


In general because the cost of moving a team is astronomical, and if the League (which applies to any of the major North American leagues) allows the types of moves then we will start seeing a lot more teams moving around.

NHL:
Oakland to Cleveland
Kansas City to Denver, Denver to New Jersey
Atlanta to Calgary
Minnesota to Dallas
Quebec City to Denver
Winnipeg to Phoenix
Hartford to Carolina

NFL:
Baltimore to Indianapolis
Cleveland to Baltimore
St. Louis to Phoenix
Oakland to Los Angeles to Oakland
Los Angeles to St. Louis
Houston to Memphis to Nashville

NBA:
Minnesota to LA (Lakers)
Buffalo to San Diego to LA (Clippers)
Philadelphia to Golden State
St. Louis to Atlanta
Kansas City to Sacramento
New Orleans to Utah
Charlotte to New Orleans
Vancouver to Memphis
Seattle to Oklahoma City

MLB:
Montreal to Washington


These are the relocations in the last 30 or so years, it doesn't seem to be a problem. You relocate if you can't make money (or in some cases, because you want to give a big fuck you to the city). The cost of relocating unprofitable teams is nothing compared to the cost of keeping the team operating in that city. If you're going to lose $300M in Phoenix over however many years, you're fucked. If you pay the money to relocate to a hockey market, you'll make that money back.

[TorqueDog]

Originally posted by sexualbanana
In general because the cost of moving a team is astronomical, and if the League (which applies to any of the major North American leagues) allows the types of moves then we will start seeing a lot more teams moving around. You're talking like this team relocation business is something new.


1. Kansas City Scouts (1974 – 1976) became the Colorado Rockies (1976 – 1982), who we now all know as the New Jersey Devils (1982 – present).

2. Minnesota North Stars (1967 - 1993) became the Dallas Stars (1993 - present)

3. Most importantly, Atlanta Flames (1972–1980) became the team we know and love as the Calgary Flames.

There's a plethora of others. The Whalers, Nordiques, Jets, go ahead and Google the string "Wiki Defunct NHL Teams".


Team relocation is nothing new. If there is a situation where the climate of the current location can no longer support the team properly (Phoenix, Nashville, Atlanta, NY Islanders, etc.), then a smart business decision needs to be made as to either improving the existing climate (NYI needs a new facility), or relocating the team to a place that it can be successful (Hamilton).



Edit: kertejud2 must have just replied after I started typing my post. D'oh! lol

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by kertejud2


NHL:
Oakland to Cleveland
Kansas City to Denver, Denver to New Jersey
Atlanta to Calgary
Minnesota to Dallas
Quebec City to Denver
Winnipeg to Phoenix
Hartford to Carolina

NFL:
Baltimore to Indianapolis
Cleveland to Baltimore
St. Louis to Phoenix
Oakland to Los Angeles to Oakland
Los Angeles to St. Louis
Houston to Memphis to Nashville

NBA:
Minnesota to LA (Lakers)
Buffalo to San Diego to LA (Clippers)
Philadelphia to Golden State
St. Louis to Atlanta
Kansas City to Sacramento
New Orleans to Utah
Charlotte to New Orleans
Vancouver to Memphis
Seattle to Oklahoma City

MLB:
Montreal to Washington



Fair. But I was speaking in terms of recent moves;
Montreal to Washington (MLB): Isn't a great move. This is more because the organization as a whole is really bad from management and down.
Vancouver-Memphis and Seattle-Oklahoma (NBA) are two moves that I thought were pretty abysmal as well. Oklahoma City may still have a chance to turn it around because it's early but ticket sales and sponsorship opportunities are quickly running dry for them.
Quebec City-Colorado (NHL) has, for the most part, been a good move. But even they are starting to see significant drops in attendance after posting some disappointed results in the standings the last few years, resulting in the end of the their 460+ game sell-out streak and now ranks down there with Florida and Phoenix for avg attendance. This in what would have expectedly be a hockey-friendly market.
Charlotte-New Orleans (NBA): Never really liked this move, especially since the Charlotte Bobcats popped into the picture the year after the Hornets moved to New Orleans.
Oakland-Los Angeles-St Louis (NFL): Talking strictly about the teams that have been in Los Angeles only to move out; California has a very strong football program at the grassroots level, so it would go without saying that the Los Angeles area should be able to sustain an NFL team. But that is not to be; There are a number of reasons for it stemming from venue suitability issues with the Los Angeles Collisseum, to better perks packages being offered by other cities (ie. Oakland). But even when they were winning, you would think that there would be enough support from Raiders and/or Rams fans to rationalize keeping a team in that market.

My point is that a sale/relocation doesn't necessarily mean it'll work out in the end for the team. Underachieving organizations have moved from city to city with the only accomplishment being that they've found an entirely new market to disappoint.

At this point, I don't think any of the 4 major sports leagues in North America should be moving or even expanding. If these franchises really are in that much financial trouble where a sale and a relocation seem to be the only option, then you might as well just contract the team and end it altogether.

[HungryJack]

I think the point you're missing with the above post is that , especially in the case of the Avs, the sellouts happened while they were an excellent team.

Once they stopped being even a good team, so did the sellouts.


Coincidence??

I think not. People aren't going to pay to see a shit team, at least not for long. Even in what you can expect to be a hockey-friendly market (even here) if the team isn't producing on-field (or ice, etc), they won't make money just about anywhere.

[masoncgy]

It wasn't that long ago that the Flames were suffering from poor attendance figures and were close to being moved elsewhere too...

In the end, sports franchises are businesses... and businesses will go where the money is...

Interesting how Minnesota hockey fans have been supporting the Wild through thick & thin... unlike the days of the North Stars... ;)

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by HungryJack
I think the point you're missing with the above post is that , especially in the case of the Avs, the sellouts happened while they were an excellent team.

Once they stopped being even a good team, so did the sellouts.


Coincidence??

I think not. People aren't going to pay to see a shit team, at least not for long. Even in what you can expect to be a hockey-friendly market (even here) if the team isn't producing on-field (or ice, etc), they won't make money just about anywhere.

That was my point. It seems the general idea is that moving a struggling team is the fix-all for a team's problems. A new team is typically going to receive a very strong welcome from the community for the first year, then it's up to the organization to put out a winning product.

OKC's new ownership thought moving out of Seattle would resolve some of their financial problems with a strong package from OKC. Unfortunately, the Thunder are still stuck in the cellar and their attendance is severely lacking. Time will tell whether they can turn things around, but when you have lottery picks refusing to play for you, it's going to be hard.

[stev0]

I can't see it happening anytime soon... but would be pretty sweet!

[Ajay]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=294991

Looks like QC is looking a lot sooner than later to become home to the NHL again.

I think Bettman and the mayor of QC meeting was a preamble to possibly bring a struggling US team (i.e. Phoenix, Nashville, Florida) to Canada in a few years time when they have the infrastructure in place.

In the salary cap times a smaller city like QC can support a NHL team. Would rather see WPG get a new team before them but meh, another CDN team would be sweet nonetheless.

[P_D]

you need 2 things to make a team work.

1. FAN SUPPORT
2. CORPERATE SUPPORT

Quebec city has a built in fan base and the mayor just announced a $400M new arena. on top of that they are shooting to hold the Olympics.

[Jlude]

I would love to see winterpeg get a team again.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by Jlude
I would love to see winterpeg get a team again.

Too bad they just recently built a brand-new 14,000 seat arena

[TorqueDog]

Originally posted by sexualbanana
Too bad they just recently built a brand-new 14,000 seat arena 15,015.

Things keeping NHL hockey from returning to Winnipeg:
- Capacity of their brand new arena (can it be increased?)
- Lack of corporate support
- Lack of disposable income amongst Winnipeggers to spend money on NHL tickets.

Using Flames ticket prices vs Moose ticket prices...

Moose season tickets (Copper/Gold/Gold Plus): $840 / $1,092 / $1,544
Flames season tickets (Red 1): $4,388.16

Cheapest possible season ticket price:
Moose Green Zone: $588.00
Flames Black Zone: $837.38

Sources:
http://www.moosehockey.com/seasontickets
http://flames.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=40762


I unfortunately don't see Winnipeg supporting an NHL team given the ticket prices required. You're going to see another Phoenix, cap floor team, losing games, giving away tickets, losing money, and inevitably losing a team for the second time in the city's history.

Oddly enough, Phoenix is actually winning games this season. I don't understand it either.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by TorqueDog
15,015.

Things keeping NHL hockey from returning to Winnipeg:
- Capacity of their brand new arena (can it be increased?)
- Lack of corporate support
- Lack of disposable income amongst Winnipeggers to spend money on NHL tickets.


Either way, it's not big enough

[dharminder]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


Either way, it's not big enough

To be honest I don’t think there is an actual restriction on how big or small the arena has to be to have an NHL team. The problem that would come is that with a smaller arena, you would have to figure out away to stay competitive with bigger arena's.

Example would be say Calgary has 1000 sport check zone tickets at $31, Winnipeg has only 500 seats would have to sell the tickets at $62.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by dharminder


To be honest I don’t think there is an actual restriction on how big or small the arena has to be to have an NHL team. The problem that would come is that with a smaller arena, you would have to figure out away to stay competitive with bigger arena's.

Example would be say Calgary has 1000 sport check zone tickets at $31, Winnipeg has only 500 seats would have to sell the tickets at $62.

There was, don't know if there still is, a League bonus when you avg attendance of 14,000 or more for the season of a couple million dollars per year. Therefore the margin for variance in your attendance is much smaller.