NHL To Expand to Las Vegas in 2017

[Guest habs1952]

The NHL would put a team in Timbuktu for 500 million.

[Habs=stanleycup]

The NHL would put a team in Timbuktu for 500 million.

Exactly. Anywhere but Canada as long as Mr. Bettman is still NHL Commissioner.

[BigTed3]

Viewer ratings for the finals were apparently extremely low this year, averaging about 20% of what the NBA finals are drawing. It's one of the lowest-rated finals in recent years. But yes, the NHL can keep believing that the southern US can draw fans in. It doesn't.

[Guest habs1952]

Viewer ratings for the finals were apparently extremely low this year, averaging about 20% of what the NBA finals are drawing. It's one of the lowest-rated finals in recent years. But yes, the NHL can keep believing that the southern US can draw fans in. It doesn't.

Playing in June doesn't help the ratings.

[Habs=stanleycup]

Viewer ratings for the finals were apparently extremely low this year, averaging about 20% of what the NBA finals are drawing. It's one of the lowest-rated finals in recent years. But yes, the NHL can keep believing that the southern US can draw fans in. It doesn't.

Hopefully an indicator that Canadians have stopped watching due to the imbalance and favoritism. I can only speak for myself but I boycotted watching the playoffs after the Habs were out during the regular season.

[jeff33]

good to know that we will sacrifice a player we want so we can foot the bill for another hockey team to exist in the desert and play to an empty stadium

[vegasrick]

You know, they have sold 14,000 season tickets already, and all the nice, expensive corporate boxes were sold out very quickly. The T-Mobile Arena is a very nice place for sports and concerts. And this town has grown. There might not be very many empty seats after all.

That said, it does seem odd that the league would be expanding when there are a lot of empty seats in off-market arenas, and as mentioned earlier, the viewer ratings for this year's Stanley Cup Finals were rather low. I'm chalking some of that up to a league that wants to influence games for a desired outcome, instead of letting the players play and the refs ref. Fans are probably getting tired of seeing the same favoritism over and over. I know I am. Even the Sharks players were saying that Crosby cheats at faceoffs but never gets tossed out of the circle.

But I'm still sticking to my story: that the Las Vegas Black Knights (or whatever they will be called) will raise the Stanley Cup before the Canadiens do.

[Guest Regis2]

But I'm still sticking to my story: that the Las Vegas Black Knights (or whatever they will be called) will raise the Stanley Cup before the Canadiens do.

They will move to another city before that happens

[Habberwacky]

They may sell all the tickets to hotels and corporations to comp people but if people don't use the tickets and go to the games it is going to look ugly. Hopefully not somethng that wears thin too quickly. Hopefully they can keep the sand off the ice. This may help to buffer a move of the Coyotes in the near future. Definitely not my first choice or in my top ten as a choice but cold hard cash rules.

[vegasrick]

They will move to another city before that happens

In that case, I will revise my prediction as follows:

The

A. Seattle

B. New Orleans

C. Wichita

D. Springfield

Black Knights will raise the Stanley Cup before the Canadiens do.

[BigTed3]

Very clear that Quebec City got the short straw from the NHL. In Bettman's own words, Quebec did everything right and had a very impressive plan for an expansion franchise. However, they were advised to withdraw their bid for three reasons. As cited by Bettman, these were

1. The fluctuating, weak Canadian dollar made adding a franchise in Canada a risk

2. The geographic imbalance in the league made it impossible to add another franchise in the East

3. The NHL only felt there was room for one expansion team and preferred Las Vegas

So let me refute these points.

The Canadian dollar is weak, it's true. Revenues may be hurt by this, and the bottom line will be hit since players are paid in US dollars. BUT... there are already 7 teams in Canada and frankly, some of the league's most profitable franchises are Canadian. What these teams lack in the economic strength of their currency, they make up for with fan support and marketing. In fact, Canadian teams as a group are the ones paying into revenue sharing to help prop up the money-losing franchises in the Southern US. Teams like Florida, Phoenix, Columbus, Carolina... those are the teams that need help financially and all of those teams deal in US dollars and have more favorable tax situations than Quebec.

The geographic imbalance is fictional. You could if you wanted to move an Eastern conference team back into the Western conference. Detroit's been there, Toronto's been there, Columbus has been there, Winnipeg's been in the East. Teams are movable. Sure, to move a team like Columbus means that team has to travel more, but by adding Las Vegas, now you have 20 teams in the Eastern/Central time zones traveling long distances to yet another southwestern location. So this whole idea about adding travel is bogus. The league as a whole would travel less by adding Quebec than by adding Las Vegas. The league could have very easily added Quebec and moved a squad like Columbus over and let that be the end of it. It's not anyone's fault that hockey is better-appreciated in Canada and in the North and it's not anyone's fault that there are more hockey-loving, bigger metropolises in the East than the West. The league should adapt to that, not create a fictional belief that there are an equal number of hockey centers in the Southwest as there are in the Northeast.

Lastly, the idea that the league could only add one franchise is bogus. They should be contracting based on the talent pool and lack of support for existing franchises but that's another story. Given that the league decided to expand, there is no reason they couldn't have gone to 32 teams instead of 31. In fact, the league is almost certainly headed there at some point, in order to create parity between divisions and have four groups of eight teams. Maybe the league is waiting for Seattle to get its act together and doesn't want to acknowledge that. But what's clear is that Bettman and company have chased money and chased their Southern US ambition over trying to make the league better and giving everyone a fair shake. The reasons cited against Quebec are weak at best and lies at worst.

[Habs=stanleycup]

Yup Bettman has always had a slant against Canadian teams. Time to get a new commissioner. One who will be fair and above bribes. One who will recognize the sport for where it was conceived; Hockey Night In Canada. A little respect please.

[BigTed3]

Here's Pat Hickey of the Montreal Gazette on the subject:

http://montrealgazette.com/sports/hockey/nhl/pat-hickey-nhl-commissioner-gary-bettman-doles-out-another-face-wash-to-canada

It might seem like a small deal to most people that Vegas was chosen over Quebec, but it represents another facet to the bigger issue of Canada being ridden down by Bettman, and Canadian owners not speaking up for themselves.

[Habs=stanleycup]

The main gist from that article for me is:

'The decision is a slap in the face not only to the folks in Quebec City but to the entire hockey community in Canada and it ensures that NHL commissioner Gary Bettman will continue to hear boos any time he walks into a Canadian NHL arena that isn’t in Winnipeg.'

'Bettman appears hurt any time people suggest that the NHL doesn’t give Canada the respect it deserves, but the reality is that the league is becoming more Americanized with each passing year.'

Hurt indeed Mr. Bettman! I'm sure those are crocodile tears.

[BigTed3]

An article from Don Macpherson in the Gazette today basically saying that Geoff Molson is 100% on board with not having a team return to Quebec, contrary to what he's been saying publicly. Molson stated the Habs would welcome a return of their rival, but Macpherson points out that the league owners, including Molson, unanimously voted against allowing Quebec in. Macpherson also points out the Habs voted against the Nords joining in 1979 because they were worried the team would infringe upon their territory and profit and only caved in after a boycott of Molson products. It's hard to say what is true. Without a doubt, the Habs support within the province has increased in recent years since the Nordiques moved. From a financial point of view, it makes little sense for Molson to share a piece of the pie. From a hockey one, re-creating that rivalry and upping the impact of the game within the province does.

[Habs=stanleycup]

An article from Don Macpherson in the Gazette today basically saying that Geoff Molson is 100% on board with not having a team return to Quebec, contrary to what he's been saying publicly. Molson stated the Habs would welcome a return of their rival, but Macpherson points out that the league owners, including Molson, unanimously voted against allowing Quebec in. Macpherson also points out the Habs voted against the Nords joining in 1979 because they were worried the team would infringe upon their territory and profit and only caved in after a boycott of Molson products. It's hard to say what is true. Without a doubt, the Habs support within the province has increased in recent years since the Nordiques moved. From a financial point of view, it makes little sense for Molson to share a piece of the pie. From a hockey one, re-creating that rivalry and upping the impact of the game within the province does.

Emphasis in bold: Only because the Habs have become the new political whipping post for the Quebec French media (in my opinion).

If only we had an alternate Quebec team, we might actually be able to get down to the business of winning Stanley Cups again.

[Graeme-1]

Very clear that Quebec City got the short straw from the NHL. In Bettman's own words, Quebec did everything right and had a very impressive plan for an expansion franchise. However, they were advised to withdraw their bid for three reasons. As cited by Bettman, these were

1. The fluctuating, weak Canadian dollar made adding a franchise in Canada a risk

2. The geographic imbalance in the league made it impossible to add another franchise in the East

3. The NHL only felt there was room for one expansion team and preferred Las Vegas

So let me refute these points.

The Canadian dollar is weak, it's true. Revenues may be hurt by this, and the bottom line will be hit since players are paid in US dollars. BUT... there are already 7 teams in Canada and frankly, some of the league's most profitable franchises are Canadian. What these teams lack in the economic strength of their currency, they make up for with fan support and marketing. In fact, Canadian teams as a group are the ones paying into revenue sharing to help prop up the money-losing franchises in the Southern US. Teams like Florida, Phoenix, Columbus, Carolina... those are the teams that need help financially and all of those teams deal in US dollars and have more favorable tax situations than Quebec.

The geographic imbalance is fictional. You could if you wanted to move an Eastern conference team back into the Western conference. Detroit's been there, Toronto's been there, Columbus has been there, Winnipeg's been in the East. Teams are movable. Sure, to move a team like Columbus means that team has to travel more, but by adding Las Vegas, now you have 20 teams in the Eastern/Central time zones traveling long distances to yet another southwestern location. So this whole idea about adding travel is bogus. The league as a whole would travel less by adding Quebec than by adding Las Vegas. The league could have very easily added Quebec and moved a squad like Columbus over and let that be the end of it. It's not anyone's fault that hockey is better-appreciated in Canada and in the North and it's not anyone's fault that there are more hockey-loving, bigger metropolises in the East than the West. The league should adapt to that, not create a fictional belief that there are an equal number of hockey centers in the Southwest as there are in the Northeast.

Lastly, the idea that the league could only add one franchise is bogus. They should be contracting based on the talent pool and lack of support for existing franchises but that's another story. Given that the league decided to expand, there is no reason they couldn't have gone to 32 teams instead of 31. In fact, the league is almost certainly headed there at some point, in order to create parity between divisions and have four groups of eight teams. Maybe the league is waiting for Seattle to get its act together and doesn't want to acknowledge that. But what's clear is that Bettman and company have chased money and chased their Southern US ambition over trying to make the league better and giving everyone a fair shake. The reasons cited against Quebec are weak at best and lies at worst.

I think you may be understating the issues with the Canadian dollar, especially timing wise. It's one thing for existing franchises to weather the storm, another to add a franchise at a time when it's going to struggle to stay profitable (especially after having to pay the expansion fee in US dollars). Canada lost 2 teams (almost more) before largely due to the dollar. Quebec City is a tough sell in the best of times because of a small fan-base with relatively limited upside, but at least with a good dollar it could offer a degree of stability. Now it's in a situation where it's just as likely to become a problem child as some of the US franchises. Vegas also has risks but at least counters those with potential big upside. Quebec City absolutely should get a franchise, but this is about the worst possible timing.

I agree the other two arguments are kind of silly. While the NHL obviously doesn't want to force Columbus or Detroit to the West again, this seems like an odd thing to block adding a new franchise. And given the NHL obviously wants 32 teams I'm not sure waiting a few years will really make much of a difference - although in their defense I guess it does limit the risk if things really go south. Also, nothing to do with expansion, but I disagree that the league should contract based on talent given the talent pool to draw from is larger than ever (DGB did a nice article on it awhile ago: http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/14334574/nhl-talent-dilution-not-blame-drop-goal-scoring),but I agree based on franchise stability any expansion seems a bit strange.

[BigTed3]

I think you may be understating the issues with the Canadian dollar, especially timing wise. It's one thing for existing franchises to weather the storm, another to add a franchise at a time when it's going to struggle to stay profitable (especially after having to pay the expansion fee in US dollars). Canada lost 2 teams (almost more) before largely due to the dollar. Quebec City is a tough sell in the best of times because of a small fan-base with relatively limited upside, but at least with a good dollar it could offer a degree of stability. Now it's in a situation where it's just as likely to become a problem child as some of the US franchises. Vegas also has risks but at least counters those with potential big upside. Quebec City absolutely should get a franchise, but this is about the worst possible timing.

I agree the other two arguments are kind of silly. While the NHL obviously doesn't want to force Columbus or Detroit to the West again, this seems like an odd thing to block adding a new franchise. And given the NHL obviously wants 32 teams I'm not sure waiting a few years will really make much of a difference - although in their defense I guess it does limit the risk if things really go south. Also, nothing to do with expansion, but I disagree that the league should contract based on talent given the talent pool to draw from is larger than ever (DGB did a nice article on it awhile ago: http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/14334574/nhl-talent-dilution-not-blame-drop-goal-scoring),but I agree based on franchise stability any expansion seems a bit strange.

The thing about the Canadian dollar is that it has always been at risk of fluctuating and always will be. The league had no problem moving a team to Winnipeg recently, and I don't think this was done with the expectation the Canadian dollar would stay on par with the American dollar forever. Winnipeg and Quebec are fairly comparable in size as well. My main argument however is this: in Canada, you have a fairly solid fanbase that loves hockey and will follow the sport no matter what. Quebec City is very much still a hockey town, they have a committed ownership group, and they have a fanbase that continues to support the Remparts and the Canadiens. Some of the cities in the Southern US might be larger cities with more potential to grow, but history teaches us that just hasn't happened in the majority of cases. Atlanta failed twice. Carolina is failing. Florida was failing badly until their recent success, but fan support seems very contingent on winning and is questionably sustainable. Phoenix has been a disaster.

Yes, Las Vegas has supposedly sold 14,000 season tickets, but many people feel like a lot of those season tickets have been sold to companies and casinos for distribution and don't actually represent a permanent fanbase. So how sustainable will that be? If other professional sports leagues move into the city, how well will the NHL do in retaining fan interest over football, basketball, or baseball? To me, Las Vegas poses more questions than Quebec, and if anything, despite the weak Canadian dollar, Canadian franchises are the ones currently supporting revenue sharing while many American franchises are the ones doing the taking.

[habsisme]

I think the dollar being low is almost a silver lining for all parties involved because they think by the time they get a team dollar should be better but I think the real reason is that there are 16 teams in the east. I am willing to bet ANYTHING that QC will not get a team until there is another western team added (Seatle) OR if a team relocates. It will be a 3-5 year wait

[BigTed3]

I think the dollar being low is almost a silver lining for all parties involved because they think by the time they get a team dollar should be better but I think the real reason is that there are 16 teams in the east. I am willing to bet ANYTHING that QC will not get a team until there is another western team added (Seatle) OR if a team relocates. It will be a 3-5 year wait

Agreed. I think Seattle is the next foreseen expansion project. And given there is no prospective owner for now, that is why Bettamn "closed this round of expansion." If the plan was to make Quebec City next, they would be looking at how to go ahead with it. I think Quebec gets a team if someone in the East (like Fla, Car, NYI, or Clb) decides to relocate.

[Graeme-1]

The thing about the Canadian dollar is that it has always been at risk of fluctuating and always will be. The league had no problem moving a team to Winnipeg recently, and I don't think this was done with the expectation the Canadian dollar would stay on par with the American dollar forever. Winnipeg and Quebec are fairly comparable in size as well. My main argument however is this: in Canada, you have a fairly solid fanbase that loves hockey and will follow the sport no matter what. Quebec City is very much still a hockey town, they have a committed ownership group, and they have a fanbase that continues to support the Remparts and the Canadiens. Some of the cities in the Southern US might be larger cities with more potential to grow, but history teaches us that just hasn't happened in the majority of cases. Atlanta failed twice. Carolina is failing. Florida was failing badly until their recent success, but fan support seems very contingent on winning and is questionably sustainable. Phoenix has been a disaster.

Yes, Las Vegas has supposedly sold 14,000 season tickets, but many people feel like a lot of those season tickets have been sold to companies and casinos for distribution and don't actually represent a permanent fanbase. So how sustainable will that be? If other professional sports leagues move into the city, how well will the NHL do in retaining fan interest over football, basketball, or baseball? To me, Las Vegas poses more questions than Quebec, and if anything, despite the weak Canadian dollar, Canadian franchises are the ones currently supporting revenue sharing while many American franchises are the ones doing the taking.

That's true, but I look at it kind of like buying a new car after losing your job. Sure, you could lose your job at any point and you'd be stuck paying the loan on that car, but the timing still feels really bad.

In Winnipeg's case, no one was predicting the dollar would tank the way it did, if they could, I wonder if the NHL would have allowed relocation? Additionally, there's a difference between relocation and expansion. Given the NHL will never realistically contract, the NHL had to put the Thrashers somewhere and Winnipeg was the best option, they weren't making a choice to add a new team or not. That's why I expect Quebec will get a relocation team rather than an expansion team: a stable but low-ceiling Canadian market feels more like somewhere you move a struggling franchise than somewhere you expand into.

I agree the "high-ceiling" argument hasn't worked all that well, although the teams in Florida and California have both been decent successes. And it's hard to blame owners for wanting the potential for high-growth.

I also agree Vegas has a lot of questions, but it's also a metro area of 2 million people without a big-four sports team - getting in first will be a good chance to build a fan-base among locals. If you could build a decent fan-base plus pad gate-revenues (in a gate-driven league) with tourists, the numbers could look really good. Another league moving in is a risk, but who knows if that will actually happen soon or ever (versus: the low Canadian dollar isn't a risk, it's reality right now). Vegas certainly has more questions than Quebec, but also significantly more potential upside.

Have you seen any recent revenue sharing numbers? I haven't been able to find any from the past year. I'm sure even with the dollar Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver are paying into revenue sharing, but I'd be surprised if the other 4 teams were.

Agreed. I think Seattle is the next foreseen expansion project. And given there is no prospective owner for now, that is why Bettamn "closed this round of expansion." If the plan was to make Quebec City next, they would be looking at how to go ahead with it. I think Quebec gets a team if someone in the East (like Fla, Car, NYI, or Clb) decides to relocate.

The problem in Seattle isn't so much the owner (Victor Coleman is apparently interested, although I have no idea how serious he is), it's the arena. It's extremely unlikely either the public or private sector funds an NHL arena on its own, meaning Seattle needs an NBA team before it gets an NHL team. Making things worse is there's no decent temporary home (KeyArena is sometimes discussed, but it's an awful venue for hockey, and would be the smallest and oldest arena in the league -> even for a couple years it's probably not a viable option). I don't doubt the NHL has interest, but if they're waiting on Seattle they may be waiting a long time and basically depending on another league.

[Graeme-1]

To add to the Seattle point: Seattle's kind of a catch-22 for the league. Seattle won't get a team unless the NBA moves in first, but that means the NHL would be expanding into a medium-sized market that already has NFL, MLB, NBA and MLS teams. The NHL would be much better off moving into an NBA-less Seattle, but the arena situation means that won't happen.

[BigTed3]

Have you seen any recent revenue sharing numbers? I haven't been able to find any from the past year. I'm sure even with the dollar Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver are paying into revenue sharing, but I'd be surprised if the other 4 teams were.

I haven't seen the actual revenue sharing numbers for the past year, but a couple of years ago, the Habs, Leafs, Canucks, and Oilers were all in the top 5 teams (along with the Rangers) in terms of net profit. From 2014-15, the 7 Canadian teams apparently accounted for 37% of league revenue, which is an extremely disproportionate amount.

As of November last year, Forbes also published an evaluation of team's valuations in which they also included statements on revenues. The Canadian teams ranked as follows in net worth: Habs (2), Leafs (3), Canucks (6), Oilers (12), Flames (15), Sens (18), and Jets (20), and these Canadian teams did even better in terms of net operating income for the year (Mtl moves up to 1st, Tor still 3rd, Van 5th, Cal 7th, Ott 8th, Edm 11th, Wpg 13th). so 7 of the top 13 teams were Canadian. The teams that reported net operating losses included Anaheim, Colorado, St. Louis, Tampa, the Isles, Carolina, Arizona, and Florida. In addition, Columbus, Nashville, New Jersey, Minnesota, LA, and Detroit, and Buffalo barely posted positive returns. That's 15 franchises that are treading water and being supported by Canadian franchises to some degree. Las Vegas to me, falls into the latter category of being likely to need help, whereas Quebec is more likely to behave like Winnipeg or Ottawa.

[Graeme-1]

I haven't seen the actual revenue sharing numbers for the past year, but a couple of years ago, the Habs, Leafs, Canucks, and Oilers were all in the top 5 teams (along with the Rangers) in terms of net profit. From 2014-15, the 7 Canadian teams apparently accounted for 37% of league revenue, which is an extremely disproportionate amount.

As of November last year, Forbes also published an evaluation of team's valuations in which they also included statements on revenues. The Canadian teams ranked as follows in net worth: Habs (2), Leafs (3), Canucks (6), Oilers (12), Flames (15), Sens (18), and Jets (20), and these Canadian teams did even better in terms of net operating income for the year (Mtl moves up to 1st, Tor still 3rd, Van 5th, Cal 7th, Ott 8th, Edm 11th, Wpg 13th). so 7 of the top 13 teams were Canadian. The teams that reported net operating losses included Anaheim, Colorado, St. Louis, Tampa, the Isles, Carolina, Arizona, and Florida. In addition, Columbus, Nashville, New Jersey, Minnesota, LA, and Detroit, and Buffalo barely posted positive returns. That's 15 franchises that are treading water and being supported by Canadian franchises to some degree. Las Vegas to me, falls into the latter category of being likely to need help, whereas Quebec is more likely to behave like Winnipeg or Ottawa.

The Forbes data is the most recent I've seen as well. The operating income to me isn't particularly useful to compare the overall strength of a market though (eg. it suggests Colorado and Phoenix are equally good markets, which isn't remotely true): it speaks more to how the current management is managing expenses than overall market strength. Minnesota is a good example of a relatively strong hockey market that appeared to not manage its expenses well based on the Forbes data.

In terms of revenue (somewhat better indicator) Winnipeg (the most direct comparison for Quebec) looks pretty reasonable, but much of the 2014-2015 season was before the worst of the dollar's slide: I'd be interested to see last season's numbers. And going by the net worth, they are still in the bottom half of the league.

None of this is to say I think the league should avoid Quebec City, I think they can and will support an NHL team. But when you're talking about expansion, it seems reasonable not to want to add an expansion franchise where the best case is a team in the bottom half of the league financially - and that best case probably isn't going to happen while the dollar is depressed. Could Vegas be in the bottom half? Absolutely. But they could also be in the top half (there's really no city in a remotely comparable situation, so anything's possible), which is presumably what the owners bought into. I want Quebec to get a team, it just feels like relocation is the much more likely path.

[Habs_Hockey_Nutz]

Vegas could sign Alex Kovalev... and call it Russian Roulette it would be a gamble.