Those were his reasons for moving the team there in the first place, but there's now demonstrable proof that it's not working. Just because a city has a large population and potentially-adequate corporate support, doesn't mean that it's a viable market for everything that looks its way. Madrid is a big city, but I don't think they'd be a particularly good NHL market.
- tryan83

This is true, but the notion that the best solution is to relocate teams to other demonstrably inadequate locations seems to be very popular. I'm making a contraction-versus-relocation suggestion.

Investors/Ownership groups care about tangible things, like potential of a market. Phoenix/Scottsdale has the sixth biggest population in the United States. It is also HQ of five fortune 100 companies, and probably fifty others with major operations which employ more people than live in, say, Saskatoon. I'm using them as an example since it seems popular to suggest NHL teams just move to Canada, where the fans are.

Saskatoon has one major publicly traded company, which is a uranium cg, whom employs less than 700 people. There are realistically no major financial or manufacturing firms. The second and third biggest employers are schools. What I am basically saying is that Scottsdale would be a more attractive market for a NHL owner if Phoenix was 400 miles away.

Quebec City, another popular "automatically can support a team" destination, has no business presence beyond a hospital network and a paper mill. Cominar is there, a largely anonymous real estate firm. Meanwhile there are 800k people in Columbus, OH (which has a very strong, diverse economy which I can argue is in the "emerging" category) with absolutely noting to do on a Thursday night, and NHL investors know it.

What the NHL needs more than additional teams in markets which have very visible limitations is fewer teams, deeper talent pools, more robust community development, and the continuation of ROI. As much as people seem to think that Gary Bettman is personally manipulating the situation in Phoenix to avoid looking like an ass, or to avoid scorn from Winnipeg for moving their team to the desert only to see it fail is folly. Right, dinner time. Discuss.
- Gian_Carlo

Not sure QC city runs on a paper mill and a hospital network, its more of a goverment clerk type of town......

Investors/Ownership groups care about tangible things, like potential of a market. Phoenix/Scottsdale has the sixth biggest population in the United States. It is also HQ of five fortune 100 companies, and probably fifty others with major operations which employ more people than live in, say, Saskatoon. I'm using them as an example since it seems popular to suggest NHL teams just move to Canada, where the fans are.

Saskatoon has one major publicly traded company, which is a uranium cg, whom employs less than 700 people. There are realistically no major financial or manufacturing firms. The second and third biggest employers are schools. What I am basically saying is that Scottsdale would be a more attractive market for a NHL owner if Phoenix was 400 miles away.

Quebec City, another popular "automatically can support a team" destination, has no business presence beyond a hospital network and a paper mill. Cominar is there, a largely anonymous real estate firm. Meanwhile there are 800k people in Columbus, OH (which has a very strong, diverse economy which I can argue is in the "emerging" category) with absolutely noting to do on a Thursday night, and NHL investors know it.

What the NHL needs more than additional teams in markets which have very visible limitations is fewer teams, deeper talent pools, more robust community development, and the continuation of ROI. As much as people seem to think that Gary Bettman is personally manipulating the situation in Phoenix to avoid looking like an ass, or to avoid scorn from Winnipeg for moving their team to the desert only to see it fail is folly. Right, dinner time. Discuss.
- Gian_Carlo

The problem with Phoenix is that hockey is a niche sport there. Ahead of hockey in popularity is NFL; NCAA football; the NBA; Baseball; golf; NASCAR ( I recall they have a race there); NCAA basketball.

Hockey gets lost in the shuffle unless they have a strong team, like this year's playoff run. And while there are some Canadians down there, there is a very large Mexican population, and hockey is not a big thing in Mexico.

It's the same issue in Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, and Tampa Bay. When Dallas was good, they sold out. When they are mediocre (not even bad), their attendance is poor.

- KABLOOEY

Thi ostril?

This is true, but the notion that the best solution is to relocate teams to other demonstrably inadequate locations seems to be very popular. I'm making a contraction-versus-relocation suggestion.
- Gian_Carlo

I agree that contraction is a good idea, but I don't think there's any way Bettman will let it happen.

Quebec City is much better-equipped to handle an NHL franchise than it was 15 years ago, though the real gold mine would probably be a spot in southern Ontario. Hard to argue that the franchise - and the entire league, actually - would be better off with that option. I threw in Saskatoon for hyperbole's sake, and I thought it'd be fairly obvious that no one considers it a viable NHL market.

Not sure QC city runs on a paper mill and a hospital network, its more of a goverment clerk type of town......
- Alexzanki

QC is, yes. Provincial seat, &c. That's not nearly enough to begin putting a plan together for an ownership group. That's where I was going with that.

This is true, but the notion that the best solution is to relocate teams to other demonstrably inadequate locations seems to be very popular. I'm making a contraction-versus-relocation suggestion.
- Gian_Carlo

The thing with contraction is this: who will pay for it? You can't just contract a team against its will; the NHL (i.e. the reamining owners) needs to purchase the franchises first. An owner will demand at least $160 mil, so 4 franchises will cost $640 mil. Divided by 26 owners, this means a cash call of about $25 mil per owner in order to contract 4 teams.

I agree that contraction is a good idea, but I don't think there's any way Bettman will let it happen.

Quebec City is much better-equipped to handle an NHL franchise than it was 15 years ago, though the real gold mine would probably be a spot in southern Ontario. Hard to argue that the franchise - and the entire league, actually - would be better off with that option. I threw in Saskatoon for hyperbole's sake, and I thought it'd be fairly obvious that no one considers it a viable NHL market.
- tryan83

I think based on economic support and the fact that SO basically already supports the Sabres, two more NHL teams could exist there and nobody would have any major funding or attendance issues in the next 20 years.

The issue with that kind of a plan though is that you would have <65% of league teams in the Eastern time zone. I don't know how much that matters to players, since if they're in the West they have much more ground to cover anyway as it stands, but start times emerge to become a major advantage with routines, &c. Detroit in the EST complains all the time that they have very odd start times playing in the West. I don't know, I'll see if I can come up with a 28-team alignment format.

The thing with contraction is this: who will pay for it? You can't just contract a team against its will; the NHL (i.e. the reamining owners) needs to purchase the franchises first. An owner will demand at least $160 mil, so 4 franchises will cost $640 mil. Divided by 26 owners, this means a cash call of about $25 mil per owner in order to contract 4 teams.
- Go Canucks

Let's take up a collection to get the Coyotes contracted so we never have to hear about them again! I pledge 37 cents.

Alternatively, if the Coyotes take my empties back to the beer store, they can keep the cash.

The thing with contraction is this: who will pay for it? You can't just contract a team against its will; the NHL (i.e. the reamining owners) needs to purchase the franchises first. An owner will demand at least $160 mil, so 4 franchises will cost $640 mil. Divided by 26 owners, this means a cash call of about $25 mil per owner in order to contract 4 teams.
- Go Canucks

The NHL is, economically speaking, expanding at an average rate of 15.3%. If there were contraction fees, most NHL front offices would go right back to discussions regarding placement and up-charge % of concession stands.

I think based on economic support and the fact that SO basically already supports the Sabres, two more NHL teams could exist there and nobody would have any major funding or attendance issues in the next 20 years.

The issue with that kind of a plan though is that you would have <65% of league teams in the Eastern time zone. I don't know how much that matters to players, since if they're in the West they have much more ground to cover anyway as it stands, but start times emerge to become a major advantage with routines, &c. Detroit in the EST complains all the time that they have very odd start times playing in the West. I don't know, I'll see if I can come up with a 28-team alignment format.
- Gian_Carlo

"Mr. Bettman, which would you rather have: another team in the Eastern time zone, which might lead to Detroit and Columbus complaining (which they do already); or a team that's hemmorhaging millions of dollars yearly with no end in sight?"

Not sure he'd need long to think on that one.

Moving Winnipeg to the Western Conference where they belong would be the beginning of any solution to a timing issue; otherwise, they'll just need to be more creative with how the league is aligned.

If you are gonna call it nonesense at least back it up fool. I have my sources. Where are yours to back up your claim?

People these days...
- TheDeez

You must be using Eks sources to think that Phoenix could become a "hotbed for hockey"

who the frank cares about the team being in pheonix. all 700 coyotes fans in pheonix? I'd rather move the team to a city which cares. If the fans really liked the team they would still follow after.