Blaine asked in SportsHockey · 8 years ago

What do you think these NHL cities?

I think the NHL is going over a major realignment in the next decade and I think these cities will get franchises







I think that in the next 10 years Canada will be able to support 12 teams





Kansas City

9 Answers

  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Most answerers didn't understand your question.

    I believe that these are all expansion (or transplanted franchises).

    Let's look at all nine suggestions.

    In my order of rejection with reasons.

    Kansas City > Failed once before this is basketball country Metro population of 2 million is not large enough. to support an NHL franchise.

    Seattle/Portland > only one can exist (see Florida for comparison)

    Milwaukee > Too close to Chicago Wirtz would never allow it.

    Vancouver > not large enough for two franchises. Yes it is three times as large as QC or Winnipeg but they don't have to share corporate revenue with another team.

    Hamilton > The opposition to a team in Hamilton won't come from Toronto but from Buffalo. Over 50% of the Buffalo STH live in the Hamilton urban area.

    Montreal > Might support a second team sort of like the old Canadiens > Maroons days. But a deep review of corporate support would be required.

    Quebec City > a no brainer. Fans yes, an arena coming soon, corporate support probably.

    Toronto (second team) > definitely yes. Fans unquestioningly, Arena promised, corporate support loads of it.

    So when the dust settles there will be a team in Seattle, Quebec City and Toronto. The Toronto team will be an expansion with big bucks to the owners, the QC team will be a franchise shift (Phoenix). Now here is the problem. Finding an owner for Seattle who will come up with an expansion fee. Because the new Toronto team will not be a franchise shift. Why give $150MM to a bankrupt owner when the other 30 owners can split $1Billion expansion fee to a new Toronto team?

    As we learned this past half year this isn't about the game but about the business.

  • 8 years ago

    The Copps Coliseum is no longer a major league facility. There would be a better chance that Kitchener would put up a new building and get an NHL team than Hamilton

    Toronto should be able to support a 2nd NHL club. After all, the NYC area supports three, and the LA area two.

    Quebec should get a team, but I doubt Montreal and Vancouver would take on 2nd franchises.

    In the U.S., I think Hartford, Houston and Oklahoma City have a better chance than Milwaukee. Seattle and Portland would be nice.

  • 8 years ago

    Well Toronto want to have another team but I do not see that happening, teams in major cities in Canada will stay as if they will move Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton though there was talks of Edmonton moving but if the happened the city would be in an up roar.

    Kansas city would be like Phoenix or Columbus no money there, Seattle is a possibility along with Quebec City both have arenas and keep in mind Quebec City is currently constructing a new arena.

    Lets face it Phoenix and Columbus will have to move due to the market just like Atlanta had to do but I think Seattle and Quebec City would draw in fans along with money which the NHL is after.

    Source(s): Keeping up with NHL news.
  • 8 years ago

    Quebec, Seattle, and Kansas City are all good options with either arenas in place already or being built. Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal all have teams. Hamilton is a bad idea, they invade on 2 markets in Buffalo and Toronto, they don't need a team. Milwaukee is always a city I say is overlooked as a potential spot, they seem like a city that would really enjoy hockey. If your already putting one Seattle, Portland might not be such a good idea, but it is an idea.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    Canada should get one more team in Quebec, then that's it. Moving teams there will lose huge dollars because the Canadian economy is hot and the American market is low. Once the economies begin to settle back to normal, those teams would have zero equity and would go bankrupt immediately and then they'll have to brought back over the border, which will lose tons of money yet again.

    It's like buying a stock while it's high and selling while it's low. Downright stupid investment strategy, and unless the investor has deep pockets and is willing to pay out the wazoo for whatever losses will inevitably occur, it won't happen.

    It's the smarter and more likely move the NHL reduces by two teams and most teams stay where they are. Spending lots of money shuffling teams every decade is a very poor business model, and I wouldn't expect Bettman to be that dumb (much as people hate him for being hockey illiterate, a bad businessman he is not)

  • 8 years ago

    American cities look good. Those are probably the top 4. I think Seattle or KC is probably first. Milwaukee and Portland would be great choices also but they both have NBA teams and are both smaller markets (1.5-2 million in each metro area).

  • 8 years ago

    Seattle, Milkwaukee and Portland I can see, but not Kansas. Kansas is all basketball/football.

  • 8 years ago

    Don't forget about Calgary

  • 8 years ago

    this makes no sense

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.