Chances for second Toronto-area NHL team could be dead by September

[doniceage]

The prospect of a 20,000-seat rink, and the chance of any NHL team that might come with it, could be dead by the end of September if the deputy mayor of Markham has his way.

Jack Heath, originally a supporter of the GTA Centre in the Toronto suburb of Markham, has put forward a motion to effectively kill the financial framework for the arena. Heath will put his motion to Markham council Sept. 17, with a vote coming a week later.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...daily_20130818

[theboxbreaker96]

I never will understand why it is necessary to have two teams in the same city or close to it. New York why have two teams in new York and this does not include the devils. It would be different if they were on the other side of the state. Same in football baseball and basketball. LA does the same things 3 MLB teams in the same region.

I think there are so many more city's deserving of a team than to put two in the same city. I understand Toronto, NY, and LA are very big city's nut there is no reason to put two teams within 25 miles of each other. That's my opinion!

[Wickabee]

The one reason to put teams so close together is if people will watch it. If a city like New York can support multiple teams, then why not?

[mooneyes]

why not? my guess would be old school greed, something or someone persuaded the Mayor of Markham do an about face....

[Wickabee]

Yeah...Bettman...

[ravens_creed]

I have no doubt that a team in Markham could and would be successful, but that deputy mayor has his stuff together, as his reasons for changing his mind come down to acknowledgement of the new owners in Phoenix and New Jersey, and that Seattle and Quebec City would be the next most likely destinations. That sounds about right to me.

[Wickabee]

I have no doubt that a team in Markham could and would be successful, but that deputy mayor has his stuff together, as his reasons for changing his mind come down to acknowledgement of the new owners in Phoenix and New Jersey, and that Seattle and Quebec City would be the next most likely destinations. That sounds about right to me.

It ignores the fact though that Southern Ontario has been gunning for a second team for a long time and the NHL hasn't been disinterested by the idea. I will admit though that Seattle is gunning pretty hard for a team (seems like the NBA would like to see the NHL there before they go back and the city needs both to support the proposed arena anyway) and Quebec City is suddenly jealous of Winnipeg...no one wants to be jealous of Winnipeg. Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver even Calgary of Halifax sure, but not Winnipeg. Never Winnipeg. (No offense to those who love Winnipeg and/or call it home. I've never been, I'm sure it's nice but this is the stereotype and QC doesn't want to be looking up at you...truth be told QC doesn't want to be looking up at anyone). There's also the perennial rumours of Kansas City. Texas, somewhat ironically, actually has a fairly deep hockey history (same with California) and I'm not talking about the Stars (Kings, Ducks or Sharks). Maybe a team in Houston? San Antonio?

There's a lot of places for the NHL to expand and most sit on the fence of making sense in once way and not in another. I love the idea of Seattle having an NHL franchise and I know that Pacific Northwest hockey love is not exclusive to the area north of the 49th parallel. The Seattle Thunderbirds and Portland Winterhawks (both WHL major junior) do quite well in their respective cities, as do the Spokane Chiefs, Everett Silvertips and Tri-City Americans. Now, you've got all these junior teams in the US division of the WHL and only 2/5 are really outside what one might call a "Seattle NHL fanbase", those being Spokane and Portland.

But wait.

I live in Kelowna, a five to six hour drive from Vancouver and plenty of people here go down to Vancouver for Canucks games all the time. A quick look at Google Earth tells me that Portland-Seattle is about 2.5-3 hours while Spokane to Seattle is give or take a 4 hour drive, so maybe they aren't outside the local fanbase.

Seattle looks like a great place to expand to me and I don't think QC is taking no for an answer. Markham/So. Ont. has fallen down the list of potential expansion sites, but its still there. Rather, it was.

[30ranfordfan]

Markham (Toronto #2, whatever you want to call it) would definitely work. Read the tea leaves though.....


They were trying to do it Winnipeg's way. Build an arena, shut up about it, and wait for a team that HAS to move - and pounce. Either that, or get ready to open the wallets for expansion.

From the get-go, the people behind the arena have insisted that the building would be viable without an NHL team, or any other "regular" tenant. I never bought that for a second, they were simply giving the answers they needed to give.

For what it's worth - I think that a second team in Toronto would likely be the absolute best spot they could put a team. There is nowhere on earth with more corporate dollars looking to spend it on hockey. The Leafs are not capable to taking all the money that people would like to give them, because there are only so many seats, so many boxes, so many adds, etc.

I also think that a second team in Toronto doesn't even negate the idea that another team elsewhere in Southern Ontario would work. It would (likely) kill any (slim) chance Hamilton has for getting a team, but I don't think there is any desire to go there anyway, as it would most certainly harm the Sabres.

If you look at geography, Woodstock would be a fantastic site too. Lots of open land to build (and then build around the arena - there'd be a fortune to be made in development) with easy access to both the 401 & 403. Woodstock is home to a massive Toyota plant (there's your obvious title sponsor on the building) and while it only has about 40,000 people..... it's a reasonably short drive from Kitchener / Waterloo / Cambridge / Guelph Brantford (200k, 100k, 120k,130k, 90k respectfully) and not all that far from London (Nearly 400k). You could never have a team called 'Woodstock' but they could be the 'Ontario' somethings.

You're also only a bit over an hour away from Mississauga, Burlington, Oakville, Hamilton - and while Toronto would technically be closer for all those cities, it'd be quicker to get to Woodstock (by car) most days.


Anyway, back to Markham....

I think there was likely some belief they could pull a Winnipeg / Kevin Costner deal here. "If you build it, they will come." Get the arena, and some failing franchise will fall into your lap. With the Coyotes and Devils now with new ownership, it looks less and less likely that will happen (relocation). It's very possible that they've been told they're already too far down any hypothetical expansion list (I do suspect Quebec City is the top of it) though I would think that the $$$$ the league could demand from another Toronto team - it would put them right at the top too.


I think there will be expansion. I think it's fairly obvious for two reasons:

1. The league fought like crazy to keep expansion fees outside of "Hockey Related Revenues" in the last CBA (that one we just had a lockout for). That means players don't get a nickel of expansion fees, it all goes to the owners. This tells me that they plan to expand, and they plan to do it before this CBA expires.

2. The unbalanced conferences. They said it was a 3 year move - and then there is possible changes again. I'll bet that in year 4 (that would be the 2016-17 season) the league will be at 32 teams.


There are lots of places the league could expand to, but aside from the obvious (money) it's going to come down to three things: A building (do you have one??) Ownership (does some rich dude actually want a team in that city??) and geography (they really need two more Western teams before anymore Eastern teams.... and a 50/50 split if they continue to expand beyond 32).


I'd suggest that any new teams are going to come from this list:

Toronto #2
South Western Ontario (not Toronto)
Quebec City

Seattle
Kansas City
Las Vegas
Houston
Oklahoma City
Atlanta


I think some of those cities are rather unlikely, but that's the list I think you'd have to work from. Even Atlanta. It's a huge city, the NHL has failed there twice before - but if someone with deep pockets comes along and says that they can make it work, wouldn't surprise me in the least if they got another kick at the can.

OKC may seem like an odd choice to a lot of people, but they had quite a good hockey following before local ownership messed it up. They were getting 10k+ most games for an ECHL team. Then local owners wanted to go bigger, and signed an affiliate deal with the Oilers. This meant that there was no hockey in OKC for a year.... because the ECHL team left, while they were waiting for the Oilers to be able to put their team there. The year with no hockey was also the first with the NBA.... and while I would never suggest that hockey would be as popular in town as basketball.... I don't think the timing helped the current state. It's a market that would be considered, I'm sure.

Houston is another huge city without a team, it would only make sense to look there. That was the rumored destination for the Oilers, back in the 1990s when Pocklington was going to sell.

The NHL might actually be desperate enough to be the first "major" sports league to set up shop in Vegas. I'm sure Casinos would be buying tickets to comp guests, so It think they'd be fine @ the gate. It's still a growing city, and their own pro-sports team would probably be welcomed.

Kansas City has the best arena in North America, that isn't being used by any team. It's owned by Philip Anschutz' 'AEG' (you might have heard of him - he owns the Kings, and a lot of other arenas around the USA).

Seattle, now without basketball, is another that makes a lot of sense.... after a new arena will be built.

(I won't get anymore into the Canadian teams, their merits are all pretty obvious)



I think 32 teams is inevitable, and to the league's advantage. I don't think they need to get any bigger than that, at least not for a long, long time...... but you all know it's coming. It's going to be 36 team league by 2040, and I'll bet 40 teams by 2050. That will let them add another round to the playoffs, the season is going to take even longer to play, the owners & players will keep getting richer.

[Wickabee]

The biggest problem as I understand it, is that everyone wants an arena built, the NBA back and an NHL franchise. The money is there, city support, both fans and council, is there, both leagues are interested...but no one wants to make the first move. The city doesn't want to break ground until two tenants are secured. Neither league will do more than window shop until an arena is built. Meanwhile there are millionaire/billionaires just itching to get the NBA back into Seattle and also want the NHL because, let's face it, Seattle is as much a hockey town as just about any other in the US.

In my mind expanding to Seattle or Portland (who has also expressed passing interest in the NHL) is interchangeable.

[30ranfordfan]

Yeah, Seattle / Portland - I think one would work as well as the other (though Seattle is probably the bigger 'name' city).

Kind of a chicken and egg thing then? They want teams before they'll build an arena, but the leagues want an arena before they'll grant teams?

The biggest problem as I understand it, is that everyone wants an arena built, the NBA back and an NHL franchise. The money is there, city support, both fans and council, is there, both leagues are interested...but no one wants to make the first move. The city doesn't want to break ground until two tenants are secured. Neither league will do more than window shop until an arena is built. Meanwhile there are millionaire/billionaires just itching to get the NBA back into Seattle and also want the NHL because, let's face it, Seattle is as much a hockey town as just about any other in the US.

In my mind expanding to Seattle or Portland (who has also expressed passing interest in the NHL) is interchangeable.