Go Faulk Yourself Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Why do people think the NHL should expand to 32 teams? The NHL can barely remain stable on 30 teams right now as half of the markets are in less than average shape and at least 5 teams are in terrible shape. If anything the NHL should remove a number of teams in the league that are faltering, it's ridiculous people think the league should expand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Let me think back to the lockout thread..... There was great debate amongst us that part of the larger issue was the lack of tying relocation and expansion money to revenue. It was made separated meaning the NHLPA gets nothing on this money and it will be split amongst the teams. $275 mil x 2 = $550 mil / 30 teams = $18.333 mil each up and above the decreased cap, not including any relocation fees. Yeah, that's what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Let me think back to the lockout thread..... There was great debate amongst us that part of the larger issue was the lack of tying relocation and expansion money to revenue. It was made separated meaning the NHLPA gets nothing on this money and it will be split amongst the teams. $275 mil x 2 = $550 mil / 30 teams = $18.333 mil each up and above the decreased cap, not including any relocation fees. Yeah, that's what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danthecanucksfan Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 I dont see how we are going to expand to only one team. All previous expansion classes have had at least 2 teams if I recall correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Which is why owners want it to happen. It also could help out tv deals, and general excitement about the league vs the nba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Also... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 there was an article in the oregonian (local paper) about that. Seems Paul Allen is getting pressured by Merritt Paulson and the Timbers and wants to bring in more dates to the Rose Garden. http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/index.ssf/2013/07/blazers_were_ready_to_buy_nhls_phoenix_coyotes_mov.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Expansion to Saskatoon would be laughable. The population base is far too small to be even considered. They have less than half the population of Winnipeg, there are not very many large corporate sponsorship there. Saskatoon's top two employers are the local government and the University. Not going to happen and it will never be even discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logic Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 That's an interesting post and suggestion. I had never thought of a Las Vegas team, but that would work. It's a pretty big city. But I still don't think Seattle is a big enough city to hold an NHL team, not to mention the city has a horrible record for keeping or properly getting professional sports teams. I'd be happy with Las Vegas and Houston, or perhaps Kansas City or San Antonio. All good options when you think about. Especially because a few posters have mentioned the necessity of having two western expansion teams so that detroyt can stay in the east. my two cents... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 But I still don't think Seattle is a big enough city to hold an NHL team, not to mention the city has a horrible record for keeping or properly getting professional sports teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 That's an incredibly ignorant statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Gord Miller of TSN is reporting that Paul Allen of the Portland Jail Blazers, is interested in an NHL franchise for the Rose City. Hmmmmm, things are looking good for the Pacific Northwest. About bloody time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In the Slot Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Aren't they building another arena in the north of Toronto? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Hmmm maybe Kelly is correct, neither city should have a team. I guess I did not properly research the size of Las Vegas to see that it, like Seattle, would be inadequate for holding an NHL team. Looks like the original suggestions of Houston and Atlanta are still the two best ideas. I admit my error, and apologize... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Houston could make some sense as they have a decent population but there are major economic issues in the region. If the NHL is committed to TX, as they seem to be, there would be a great national rivalry there. KC has a long history with hockey but there would be a major stumbling block over the arena. If it did happen the St Louis, Nashville, KC triangle would be good for the region. Unfortunately, KC has had a hard time keeping hockey teams. The West outside of Seattle and Portland seems like a dry well. Would Salt Lake City be a possibility despite its size? San Antonio has a good population but it would have Phoenix-like problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Houston could make some sense as they have a decent population but there are major economic issues in the region. If the NHL is committed to TX, as they seem to be, there would be a great national rivalry there. KC has a long history with hockey but there would be a major stumbling block over the arena. If it did happen the St Louis, Nashville, KC triangle would be good for the region. Unfortunately, KC has had a hard time keeping hockey teams. The West outside of Seattle and Portland seems like a dry well. Would Salt Lake City be a possibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Paul Allen is in the mix for Portland, according to Gord Miller of TSN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 So, if Seattle AND Portland were to get teams, I guess that Phoenix would move to the Central? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks#01fan Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Ya our div would be Van,cal,edm,sea,por,ana,sj,la Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Houston could make some sense as they have a decent population but there are major economic issues in the region. If the NHL is committed to TX, as they seem to be, there would be a great national rivalry there. KC has a long history with hockey but there would be a major stumbling block over the arena. If it did happen the St Louis, Nashville, KC triangle would be good for the region. Unfortunately, KC has had a hard time keeping hockey teams. The West outside of Seattle and Portland seems like a dry well. Would Salt Lake City be a possibility despite its size? San Antonio has a good population but it would have Phoenix-like problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.