NHL looking to add 2nd Toronto franchise??

silvam14 · 10-22-2008, 12:47 PM

Note to NHL:

Please don't expand anymore. I understand Toronto is a big hockey market, but for God sakes, please re-locate an existing team.

canadiancreed · 10-22-2008, 01:26 PM

Stop making sense when speaking to NHL execs. Reality might seep in between their ears.

Skipaway · 10-22-2008, 02:03 PM

They denied it:

TheStar.com | Sports | Reports of second NHL team in Toronto 'nonsense'

Gastric ReFlux · 10-22-2008, 02:25 PM

What the hell are they doing thinking of putting another franchise in a godforsaken cold location like that?

Mexico! They should be looking at Mexico.

Bobbuttons · 10-22-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gastric ReFlux

What the hell are they doing thinking of putting another franchise in a godforsaken cold location like that?

Mexico! They should be looking at Mexico.

I think hockey could thrive in Alaska!

Renner · 10-22-2008, 03:14 PM

P. Rico and so on.

Gastric ReFlux · 10-22-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobbuttons

I think hockey could thrive in Alaska!

Stop with the crazy talk. Hockey needs to look south.

canadiancreed · 10-22-2008, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gastric ReFlux

Stop with the crazy talk. Hockey needs to look south.

Always wondered what Bettman did instead of work.

GR = Bettman! it's in revalations people!

Le Grande Orange · 10-22-2008, 04:28 PM

Frankly, I'd welcome a second NHL franchise in Toronto. Perhaps the competition would finally get the management of the Maple Leafs to start putting good teams onto the ice instead of the turkeys they've been serving up the last thirteen or so seasons.

I almost wish there was the kind of open league structure seen in European football as opposed to the closed, monopolistic league structure that currently exists in North America...

Chappy · 10-22-2008, 04:34 PM

Makes more sense than the Kansas City rumors.

canadiancreed · 10-22-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chappy

Makes more sense than the Kansas City rumors.

Probably the reason why it was denied so quickly.

kq76 · 10-22-2008, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silvam14

Note to NHL:

Please don't expand anymore. I understand Toronto is a big hockey market, but for God sakes, please re-locate an existing team.

But expanding and then contracting is so much more lucrative. 200+ million for the expansion franchise dispersed amongst the teams in the league (proceeds from a bought team only go to the previous owner), 500+ million to the Leafs. That's a lot of money in your pocket in tough times. Then if Nashville or Phoenix or Atlanta fails, oh well, hurts them, but not everyone else so much.

To the buyer it probably doesn't matter because if you want to move a team to TO the Leafs will still want their money and just buying one but moving it elsewhere will still probably cost around 200+M.

I'm not saying it'll happen because I doubt anyone wants into the Toronto market that badly, but if someone does I don't see much problem with expanding and contracting over just relocation. Yeah, contraction certainly wouldn't look good, but I'm sure the extra money trumps the appearance of a league will failing teams. We already have a good idea that teams are failing so it won't be that much of a PR hit to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

They denied it:

TheStar.com | Sports | Reports of second NHL team in Toronto 'nonsense'

It may have just been started by some writer, but if the NHL wasn't thinking of it before, I'm sure they are now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

I almost wish there was the kind of open league structure seen in European football as opposed to the closed, monopolistic league structure that currently exists in North America...

From that I take it that anybody can start a team cheap there and then work their way up through the divisions?

I wonder if they could get similar money from lower division teams on the brink of moving up by deciding to increase the # of teams in their upper division.

Le Grande Orange · 10-22-2008, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kq76

From that I take it that anybody can start a team cheap there and then work their way up through the divisions?

Yes, but it's more than that: there is no such thing as exclusive territories. That means anyone can set up a team in a city, regardless of how many teams may already be there. With no territorial monopoly, clubs have to remain competitive on the field (rink) or else they risk losing market share to the competing teams in the area.

The Maple Leafs are a pretty good example of what happens when a team has a territorial monopoly over a hungry market: it has no incentive to put anything on the ice other than a barely sufficient team because its monopoly ensures it will get every hockey dollar in the market.

kq76 · 10-22-2008, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Yes, but it's more than that: there is no such thing as exclusive territories. That means anyone can set up a team in a city, regardless of how many teams may already be there. With no territorial monopoly, clubs have to remain competitive on the field (rink) or else they risk losing market share to the competing teams in the area.

The Maple Leafs are a pretty good example of what happens when a team has a territorial monopoly over a hungry market: it has no incentive to put anything on the ice other than a barely sufficient team because its monopoly ensures it will get ever hockey dollar in the market.

Hmm, interesting. I've been in favour of their system for awhile now, but I don't think I ever really thought of it like that. More fuel for the fire.

Bluenoser · 10-22-2008, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Yes, but it's more than that: there is no such thing as exclusive territories. That means anyone can set up a team in a city, regardless of how many teams may already be there. With no territorial monopoly, clubs have to remain competitive on the field (rink) or else they risk losing market share to the competing teams in the area.

The Maple Leafs are a pretty good example of what happens when a team has a territorial monopoly over a hungry market: it has no incentive to put anything on the ice other than a barely sufficient team because its monopoly ensures it will get ever hockey dollar in the market.

They only have a territorial monoply according to themselves and some of the other NHL owners. If someone ever had the gonads and $$$ to pursue it in court, I somehow doubt it would be cut and dried like MLSE seems to believe it would be.

And I seriously pray the NHL never goes to a European football structure. It's fine the way it is.

RchW · 10-22-2008, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceM

They only have a territorial monoply according to themselves and some of the other NHL owners. If someone ever had the gonads and $$$ to pursue it in court, I somehow doubt it would be cut and dried like MLSE seems to believe it would be.

And I seriously pray the NHL never goes to a European football structure. It's fine the way it is.

It never will. Can you imagine 19,000 empty seats in Toronto as they start the 20XX season in the 3rd division. LOL!

Canadian teams are a cash cow for the NHL. It's falling off a little with the rebound in the US $. There's just no way (well it is the NHL

) they would ever do that.

Le Grande Orange · 10-22-2008, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceM

They only have a territorial monoply according to themselves and some of the other NHL owners.

Setting up a rival league is not really a cost-effective way of getting some market competition. The ownership of the Maple Leafs realized long ago that they will always make plenty of money in this town regardless of the kind of team they put on the ice. Without competition they have no incentive to change at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceM

And I seriously pray the NHL never goes to a European football structure.

I'm as used to the North American sports league model as anyone else in North America is. But that doesn't mean the model is above criticism.

Another downside to the closed league structure is that too often it allows a sports team to essentially blackmail its host city into coughing up public tax dollars to help build the private team (business) a new stadium. How often have we seen the "if you don't help up build a new stadium, we're moving to another city" threat used in the last twenty-five years?

That sort of threat is meaningless in an open league structure because of the lack of monopoly territories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RchW

It never will. Can you imagine 19,000 empty seats in Toronto as they start the 20XX season in the 3rd division.

The current Maple Leafs club is arguably a second division (if not third division) team in terms of quality, but the Air Canada Centre will still be filled to capacity all season long. Not to mention the sale of merchandise, television money, etc.

Besides, if one looks at the Premier League, how many of its major clubs have been relegated out of the League during its history? Is Manchester United or Arsenal in danger of being relegated any time soon? Big clubs will nearly always stay in the top division because of their home markets. Also, unlike in a closed league, they can't coast through a season with minimum effort. The threat of relegation (and consequent loss of income and prestige) ensures at least some good measure of effort each year in putting together a competitive team.

canadiancreed · 10-22-2008, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RchW

It never will. Can you imagine 19,000 empty seats in Toronto as they start the 20XX season in the 3rd division. LOL!

they're already that bad, and they're still selling out.

Bluenoser · 10-23-2008, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Without competition they have no incentive to change at all.

It has nothing to do with competition and a lot to do with pride and plain old hockey sense, something MLSE is sorely lacking in in the upper echelons of management.

Your statement about competition could apply to almost any professional franchise that is the sole occupent of a province/state in their particular sport.

Motreal has no "competition" in Quebec, but they have incentive to change because they have pride and a desire to win. Same for Vancouver, Minnesota, or even Atlanta and Nashville. They keep changing and trying to improve, and it's not because they have competition in their respective areas.

marc · 10-23-2008, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceM

And I seriously pray the NHL never goes to a European football structure.

""!!!!! and any other of the major North American sports leagues for that matter.

10-22-2008, 12:47 PM	#1
silvam14 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Dedham, MA Posts: 9,939	NHL looking to add 2nd Toronto franchise?? Note to NHL: Please don't expand anymore. I understand Toronto is a big hockey market, but for God sakes, please re-locate an existing team. __________________ Senior "Nancy Boy" of the OOTP Boards _______________________________________________

10-22-2008, 02:03 PM	#3
Skipaway Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Where you live Posts: 11,017	They denied it: TheStar.com \| Sports \| Reports of second NHL team in Toronto 'nonsense' __________________ Jonathan Haidt: Moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.

10-22-2008, 03:14 PM	#6
Renner Major Leagues Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Connecticut Posts: 416	P. Rico and so on. __________________ I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure-grain alcohol.

10-22-2008, 04:34 PM	#10
Chappy Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 2,721	Makes more sense than the Kansas City rumors. __________________ NPBL - Pennsylvania Freedom AFBL - North Carolina Aviators MLB-Pro - Kansas City Royals

10-22-2008, 01:26 PM	#2
canadiancreed Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 11,660	Stop making sense when speaking to NHL execs. Reality might seep in between their ears.

10-22-2008, 02:25 PM	#4
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	What the hell are they doing thinking of putting another franchise in a godforsaken cold location like that? Mexico! They should be looking at Mexico.

10-22-2008, 04:28 PM	#9
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,644	Frankly, I'd welcome a second NHL franchise in Toronto. Perhaps the competition would finally get the management of the Maple Leafs to start putting good teams onto the ice instead of the turkeys they've been serving up the last thirteen or so seasons. I almost wish there was the kind of open league structure seen in European football as opposed to the closed, monopolistic league structure that currently exists in North America...