I'm pretty sure there are. Resale probably has different rules as that's a major (only) advantage of owning a team.
Homer said
Sep 9, 2014
"but it ignores the fact that the NHL deals with franchise rules and they can't increase one expansion fee over another location"
Are there clearly defined iron clad rules regarding expansion? A current owner can see his team, pending NHL approval, to the highest bidder. The NHL has also ready owned a team before in Phoenix. What if they award themselves a franchise then turn around and sell it to the highest bidder splitting the profits with all the owners. Who in the NHL would object to that. It's not like the NHL has never interpreted rules in different ways to suit the current needs/situation.
Pan said
Sep 8, 2014
In regards to the business valuation, whatever. Yes, a Toronto franchise would be very profitable, but it ignores the fact that the NHL deals with franchise rules and they can't increase one expansion fee over another location. To choose an owner, they'd probably pick the most solvent one to ensure stability and strength in ownership. I have a feeling that Bruce Power could be interested as they're also diversifying into conservative politics and is a way to gain support. They're a big sponsor of the Leafs right now.
As for fans in Toronto 2, in a massive city like Toronto, I'd assume that they can get a fan base. Plus, after a decade of suckage and over 45 years without a championship, some may be interested in seeing something new. Also, I'm sure lots of people out there hate the Leafs Anyways ;)
Kardinal said
Sep 8, 2014
I believe you are correct Homer.
I'm wondering where a potential owner/ownership group would get that kind of money? After they pay the expansion fee, they then have to look at things like a building to play in (and if there is infrastructure needed for it, like the highway interchange the Senators had to pay for).
Would blue team fans switch allegiance? NYC fans are very clearly divided between NYR/NYI/NJD, so I can't see people supporting both teams. It would be interesting to watch to see if the the fans of a new Toronto-area team were converts from blue-and-white, from other teams (ie/ Leafs haters) or new fans of hockey.
Season ticket sales would be another source of interest for me.
Homer said
Sep 8, 2014
I don't remember where I saw it, I but I thought I read somewhere that NHL expansion is not part of Hockey Related Revenues, so there would be no split with between the owners and players. So $1.2B / 30 teams is $40M per team.
If the NHL could find someone willing to pay that much for a team, of course the NHL/owners would take it.
Kardinal said
Sep 8, 2014
Another day, another article on possible expansion of the NHL. In this article, several investment bankers are disagreeing on what the possible expansion fee might be for a second team in Toronto, but seem to agree it could well be north of $800M and three think it could be as high as $1.2B (for reference: Columbus and Minnesota paid $80M in 2000).
Sure, the Leafs make a lot of money, but what kind of business case would show an $800M expansion fee making sense and plausible? And that's just the expansion fee; it doesn't include building construction, team costs, yearly salaries, etc.
tjlincoln said
Sep 4, 2014
Homer wrote:
From an article on TSN
On Wednesday, Bettman called the report a "complete fabrication," and took issue with the franchise fees cited in the story -- US$1.4 billion, or $350 million per team.
"The part of the story that I found particularly difficult is: suggesting that we would sell four franchises for $1.4 billion is way too low," Bettman said. "It undervalues our franchises."
$350M per team is not too low, but WAY too low. not sure what say anymore....
The Clipper sale changed everything for North American sports franchises---2 Billion for a franchise that isn't even the main tenant in it's building
-- Edited by tjlincoln on Thursday 4th of September 2014 07:04:45 PM
Homer said
Sep 4, 2014
From an article on TSN
On Wednesday, Bettman called the report a "complete fabrication," and took issue with the franchise fees cited in the story -- US$1.4 billion, or $350 million per team.
"The part of the story that I found particularly difficult is: suggesting that we would sell four franchises for $1.4 billion is way too low," Bettman said. "It undervalues our franchises."
$350M per team is not too low, but WAY too low. not sure what say anymore....
labru said
Sep 2, 2014
Pan wrote:
My question to this is how does Yost get all these statistics? And his theories always seem to work out...
If you read his pieces, he always states his sources for the statistics. Mostly behindthenet if I remember correctly. All publicly available.
About his theories... Well don't we all have those? And you won't get everyone to agree but if you think it through a bit, it will mostly make a lot of sense.
labru said
Sep 2, 2014
Russell wrote:
Condra may be effective at d play, but is he entertaining to watch. As fans, that's what we should care about, unless you want to cheer for New Jersey.
Condra's defensive play may not be entertaining to watch, but I know what's even less entertaining to watch: goals and scoring chances against.
I'm not pleading for a team full of Condras. I'm just saying that any team could use one or two players that aren't flashy but very useful (in a restricted role) nonetheless. You won't win any cups with a team full of Ovechkins too.
I'm thinking when people compare AHL-players or fringe NHL'ers (the people viewed to fill out the expansion team rosters) to Condra , they're doing so on offensive output. Or maybe perceived talent level. But IMO the defensive prowess of Condra is a special talent that a lot of NHL'ers lack. Which makes his specific skill set harder to replace than say Neil's, Greening's or others'.
Am I saying that I can't see a way to replace him? No, not at all, if not by one player then a whole line could compensate. But I do think we'll only know what we'd miss once he's gone. Along the lines of a Gonchar or maybe even a Kuba at that moment (with all his failings). Replaceable, yes. But the absence will be noticeable.
Pan said
Sep 1, 2014
My question to this is how does Yost get all these statistics? And his theories always seem to work out...
Russell said
Sep 1, 2014
Condra may be effective at d play, but is he entertaining to watch. As fans, that's what we should care about, unless you want to cheer for New Jersey.
labru said
Sep 1, 2014
SensKat wrote:
You know what I would find much funnier than the current expansion draft rules? Let each team protect X number of players... for arguments sake right now, let's say 3, one F, one D, and one G. The, you take the names of all other players under active NHL contract, and do random drawings for ALL of the teams.
Massive game of shuffle. Then you give a short span of time where teams can freely trade players around as needed to deal with cap/budget issues. And voila... instead of just the expansion teams being stuck with questionable rosters for the first while, everyone is in the same boat.
This idea would be one of the potential story lines that would massively stir the pot and would make me absolutely love an expansion. Although it could mean us losing a Turris, it could also mean gaining another valuable player. High drama guaranteed! Make a TV series out of it. Mjum!
labru said
Sep 1, 2014
I don't think Florida is the one to be moved because of the new ownership and the other activities in the building that can (and will) finance the franchise. As far as I know the NYI & NJD are in way worse shape financially.
Personally I'm more for an expansion to 32 teams with a nicely balanced 2x16 conferences and 4x8 divisions. Then let's try to make it work geographically with a relocation or two. I think eventually there'll be enough talent to fill out these two extra rosters. Some people are complaining about more Condra's but as stonehanded as he is, he's very effective:
Yost's experiment on shot rate and location with and without Condra. I think every team needs a few of these players, so there's room for say 4-6 extra Condra's in the league. Then there's the players who don't get to play because of lack of room. If I were to start a franchise, I wouldn't mind having a Pageau on my team (I doubt he'll see much NHL-action with Ottawa this year, barring injury). And there's others too. There's a deep draft coming up... I don't see too much problems with an expansion, but I doubt 4 teams is the way to go. I doubt Mr. Melnyk would mind either as there are quite the financial benefits to be reaped for the collective owners, which should be good for us (as long as there was some kind of certainty that money would somehow flow back into the franchise (which I highly doubt)).
I'm still trying to figure out if I wouldn't mind an expansion because it would objectively benefit the league or the game on the one hand or if I'm just attracted to the stirring of the pot (with all connected story lines) it'll bring on the other hand. I think it's the latter for now, but as long as I don't see hard evidence of an expansion actually hurting the league or game I don't see too much being wrong with that.
SensKat said
Aug 31, 2014
You know what I would find much funnier than the current expansion draft rules? Let each team protect X number of players... for arguments sake right now, let's say 3, one F, one D, and one G. The, you take the names of all other players under active NHL contract, and do random drawings for ALL of the teams.
Massive game of shuffle. Then you give a short span of time where teams can freely trade players around as needed to deal with cap/budget issues. And voila... instead of just the expansion teams being stuck with questionable rosters for the first while, everyone is in the same boat.
Pan said
Aug 31, 2014
I REALLY want a team in Vegas. That gives me an excuse to go back!
Losing a goalie would be most likely, and yeah it would probably be Andeson as they're a couple years away from doing this. It's also the only good reason to hold on to the 8 Defencemen that we have.
Agent Orange said
Aug 28, 2014
I can't see four expansion franchises with two existing franchises that will need to be moved within 5 years: Arizona and Florida.
More than likely it will be expansion to: Quebec City / Toronto 2
Relocation: Florida to Vegas and Arizona to Seattle
Tampa moves to Metro. Pacific adds Seattle (Vegas remains).
East: Metro - 9 teams; Atlantic - 8 teams
West: Central - 7 teams; Pacific - 8 teams
Leaves KC as a potential relocation site in the Central if something goes horribly wrong with ownership in New Jersey or Carolina.
stephen_g said
Aug 28, 2014
Kardinal wrote:
34 teams would be a schedule like:
2 x other conference teams = 2 x 17 = 34
3 x own conference teams = 3 x 16 = 48
48 + 34 = 82 games
Yup, I don't think they will play more than 82. I wonder if they would even consider playing fewer games outside of the conference (doubtful re: $$$).
Kardinal said
Aug 28, 2014
34 teams would be a schedule like:
2 x other conference teams = 2 x 17 = 34
3 x own conference teams = 3 x 16 = 48
48 + 34 = 82 games
tjlincoln said
Aug 27, 2014
I always say if a team gets up here to Seattle I'm all for it They do need to even out the West and East conferences and what's wrong with a 17-17 split they can just play inter league games every nite. but what to do with the DH?
"but it ignores the fact that the NHL deals with franchise rules and they can't increase one expansion fee over another location"
Are there clearly defined iron clad rules regarding expansion? A current owner can see his team, pending NHL approval, to the highest bidder. The NHL has also ready owned a team before in Phoenix. What if they award themselves a franchise then turn around and sell it to the highest bidder splitting the profits with all the owners. Who in the NHL would object to that. It's not like the NHL has never interpreted rules in different ways to suit the current needs/situation.
In regards to the business valuation, whatever. Yes, a Toronto franchise would be very profitable, but it ignores the fact that the NHL deals with franchise rules and they can't increase one expansion fee over another location. To choose an owner, they'd probably pick the most solvent one to ensure stability and strength in ownership. I have a feeling that Bruce Power could be interested as they're also diversifying into conservative politics and is a way to gain support. They're a big sponsor of the Leafs right now.
As for fans in Toronto 2, in a massive city like Toronto, I'd assume that they can get a fan base. Plus, after a decade of suckage and over 45 years without a championship, some may be interested in seeing something new. Also, I'm sure lots of people out there hate the Leafs Anyways ;)
I believe you are correct Homer.
I'm wondering where a potential owner/ownership group would get that kind of money? After they pay the expansion fee, they then have to look at things like a building to play in (and if there is infrastructure needed for it, like the highway interchange the Senators had to pay for).
Would blue team fans switch allegiance? NYC fans are very clearly divided between NYR/NYI/NJD, so I can't see people supporting both teams. It would be interesting to watch to see if the the fans of a new Toronto-area team were converts from blue-and-white, from other teams (ie/ Leafs haters) or new fans of hockey.
Season ticket sales would be another source of interest for me.
I don't remember where I saw it, I but I thought I read somewhere that NHL expansion is not part of Hockey Related Revenues, so there would be no split with between the owners and players. So $1.2B / 30 teams is $40M per team.
If the NHL could find someone willing to pay that much for a team, of course the NHL/owners would take it.
Another day, another article on possible expansion of the NHL. In this article, several investment bankers are disagreeing on what the possible expansion fee might be for a second team in Toronto, but seem to agree it could well be north of $800M and three think it could be as high as $1.2B (for reference: Columbus and Minnesota paid $80M in 2000).
Sure, the Leafs make a lot of money, but what kind of business case would show an $800M expansion fee making sense and plausible? And that's just the expansion fee; it doesn't include building construction, team costs, yearly salaries, etc.
The Clipper sale changed everything for North American sports franchises---2 Billion for a franchise that isn't even the main tenant in it's building
-- Edited by tjlincoln on Thursday 4th of September 2014 07:04:45 PM
From an article on TSN
On Wednesday, Bettman called the report a "complete fabrication," and took issue with the franchise fees cited in the story -- US$1.4 billion, or $350 million per team.
"The part of the story that I found particularly difficult is: suggesting that we would sell four franchises for $1.4 billion is way too low," Bettman said. "It undervalues our franchises."
$350M per team is not too low, but WAY too low. not sure what say anymore....
If you read his pieces, he always states his sources for the statistics. Mostly behindthenet if I remember correctly. All publicly available.
About his theories... Well don't we all have those? And you won't get everyone to agree but if you think it through a bit, it will mostly make a lot of sense.
Condra's defensive play may not be entertaining to watch, but I know what's even less entertaining to watch: goals and scoring chances against.
I'm not pleading for a team full of Condras. I'm just saying that any team could use one or two players that aren't flashy but very useful (in a restricted role) nonetheless. You won't win any cups with a team full of Ovechkins too.
I'm thinking when people compare AHL-players or fringe NHL'ers (the people viewed to fill out the expansion team rosters) to Condra , they're doing so on offensive output. Or maybe perceived talent level. But IMO the defensive prowess of Condra is a special talent that a lot of NHL'ers lack. Which makes his specific skill set harder to replace than say Neil's, Greening's or others'.
Am I saying that I can't see a way to replace him? No, not at all, if not by one player then a whole line could compensate. But I do think we'll only know what we'd miss once he's gone. Along the lines of a Gonchar or maybe even a Kuba at that moment (with all his failings). Replaceable, yes. But the absence will be noticeable.
My question to this is how does Yost get all these statistics? And his theories always seem to work out...
Condra may be effective at d play, but is he entertaining to watch. As fans, that's what we should care about, unless you want to cheer for New Jersey.
This idea would be one of the potential story lines that would massively stir the pot and would make me absolutely love an expansion. Although it could mean us losing a Turris, it could also mean gaining another valuable player. High drama guaranteed! Make a TV series out of it. Mjum!
I don't think Florida is the one to be moved because of the new ownership and the other activities in the building that can (and will) finance the franchise. As far as I know the NYI & NJD are in way worse shape financially.
Personally I'm more for an expansion to 32 teams with a nicely balanced 2x16 conferences and 4x8 divisions. Then let's try to make it work geographically with a relocation or two. I think eventually there'll be enough talent to fill out these two extra rosters. Some people are complaining about more Condra's but as stonehanded as he is, he's very effective:
Yost's experiment on shot rate and location with and without Condra. I think every team needs a few of these players, so there's room for say 4-6 extra Condra's in the league. Then there's the players who don't get to play because of lack of room. If I were to start a franchise, I wouldn't mind having a Pageau on my team (I doubt he'll see much NHL-action with Ottawa this year, barring injury). And there's others too. There's a deep draft coming up... I don't see too much problems with an expansion, but I doubt 4 teams is the way to go. I doubt Mr. Melnyk would mind either as there are quite the financial benefits to be reaped for the collective owners, which should be good for us (as long as there was some kind of certainty that money would somehow flow back into the franchise (which I highly doubt)).
I'm still trying to figure out if I wouldn't mind an expansion because it would objectively benefit the league or the game on the one hand or if I'm just attracted to the stirring of the pot (with all connected story lines) it'll bring on the other hand. I think it's the latter for now, but as long as I don't see hard evidence of an expansion actually hurting the league or game I don't see too much being wrong with that.
Massive game of shuffle. Then you give a short span of time where teams can freely trade players around as needed to deal with cap/budget issues. And voila... instead of just the expansion teams being stuck with questionable rosters for the first while, everyone is in the same boat.
Losing a goalie would be most likely, and yeah it would probably be Andeson as they're a couple years away from doing this. It's also the only good reason to hold on to the 8 Defencemen that we have.
More than likely it will be expansion to: Quebec City / Toronto 2
Relocation: Florida to Vegas and Arizona to Seattle
Tampa moves to Metro. Pacific adds Seattle (Vegas remains).
East: Metro - 9 teams; Atlantic - 8 teams
West: Central - 7 teams; Pacific - 8 teams
Leaves KC as a potential relocation site in the Central if something goes horribly wrong with ownership in New Jersey or Carolina.
Yup, I don't think they will play more than 82. I wonder if they would even consider playing fewer games outside of the conference (doubtful re: $$$).
34 teams would be a schedule like:
2 x other conference teams = 2 x 17 = 34
3 x own conference teams = 3 x 16 = 48
48 + 34 = 82 games