Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by esquire

Why not San Diego? It's much bigger than those three, there's no NBA competition, and it legitimately needs a new arena, the existing one won't work as it's very old and small. So I'm sure the local authorities would play ball on getting a new one built.

The problem with San Diego is that it'll be the 4th team within a 450 mile range in non-traditional hockey markets. There may be too much cannibalization of fanbases and it doesn't really expand the NHLs geographical footprint much in the US.

[Hackslack]

I have a hard time understanding why Hamilton cannot be allowed a franchise. I get that it is considered to be with TO and Buffalo territory, but I have a hard time believing it would hit TO or Buffalo’s bottom line. I’d expect it would actually increase profits due to rivalry. Basically a new franchise propping up the others. Plus Hamilton is overhauling their stadium, surely up to NHL standards. It doesn’t make sense for Ontario to only have 2 teams.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

I have a hard time understanding why Hamilton cannot be allowed a franchise. I get that it is considered to be with TO and Buffalo territory, but I have a hard time believing it would hit TO or Buffalo’s bottom line. I’d expect it would actually increase profits due to rivalry. Basically a new franchise propping up the others. Plus Hamilton is overhauling their stadium, surely up to NHL standards. It doesn’t make sense for Ontario to only have 2 teams.

It'll be nicer, but definitely not NHL standard.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

I have a hard time understanding why Hamilton cannot be allowed a franchise. I get that it is considered to be with TO and Buffalo territory, but I have a hard time believing it would hit TO or Buffalo’s bottom line. I’d expect it would actually increase profits due to rivalry. Basically a new franchise propping up the others. Plus Hamilton is overhauling their stadium, surely up to NHL standards. It doesn’t make sense for Ontario to only have 2 teams.

Agreed and if Toronto/Buffalo have territory rights, then have the team just outside that area. Southern Ontario can easily support 2 NHL teams.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Berklon

The problem with San Diego is that it'll be the 4th team within a 450 mile range in non-traditional hockey markets. There may be too much cannibalization of fanbases and it doesn't really expand the NHLs geographical footprint much in the US.

MLB doesn't seem to have an issue with it. It also worked for many years for the NFL until the Chargers came north to fill the LA vacuum and probably dramatically increase the value of the franchise as a result.

It's weird to me that you have this standalone metro of 3.3 million - which supports its AHL team well and which is without NBA competition - that never seems to come up in NHL conversations. How on earth is Salt Lake City, a city half the size that already has a NBA team, a better option? It makes no sense.

[thurmas]

I don't like the san Diego idea they have no arena and their support for teams in the past has been so so and its tons of market overlap with the ducks and kings

[esquire]

Originally Posted by thurmas

I don't like the san Diego idea they have no arena and their support for teams in the past has been so so and its tons of market overlap with the ducks and kings

The Padres seem pretty well supported to me, they're 5th in attendance. No one doubts their ability to support a MLB team.

They do need an arena but they're probably going to be building one sometime soon anyway. They probably just need a team to light the fuse.

Proximity to LA can't be much of an issue. It's over two hours from Crypto.com to San Diego. It's over an hour and a half from Honda Center to San Diego. By this logic the New Jersey Devils and Philadelphia Flyers couldn't hope to exist due to proximity to NYC. Or the Ottawa Senators due to proximity to Montreal. Let's not forget that San Diego is a full on standalone metro, it's not a LA suburb.

[thurmas]

I am surprised Milwaukee isn't in the running as it has the brand new Fiserv arena for the Bucks and is an instant rival with Chicago and hockey in Wisconsin is very popular.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by craner

Houston makes the most sense to move the Yotes - especially if Dallas gets to the Cup.
One could argue Houston has a better hockey tradition than Dallas.

But now where will the Flames threaten to move to if we don't give in to their every demand?

[thurmas]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

But now where will the Flames threaten to move to if we don't give in to their every demand?

Lloydminster

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by thurmas

Lloydminster

I was thinking Regina or Maple Creek, but that's even better! Or maybe just Okotoks.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by esquire

MLB doesn't seem to have an issue with it. It also worked for many years for the NFL until the Chargers came north to fill the LA vacuum and probably dramatically increase the value of the franchise as a result.

That's why I stated "non-traditional hockey markets".

Hockey is a very regional sport in the US, and having 4 teams within a relatively small area of a non-traditional hockey market will barely move the needle for the growth of hockey - and may even hurt one or two of the teams.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

I have a hard time understanding why Hamilton cannot be allowed a franchise. I get that it is considered to be with TO and Buffalo territory, but I have a hard time believing it would hit TO or Buffalo’s bottom line. I’d expect it would actually increase profits due to rivalry. Basically a new franchise propping up the others. Plus Hamilton is overhauling their stadium, surely up to NHL standards. It doesn’t make sense for Ontario to only have 2 teams.

Hamilton's out of the equation. They're not even a top 10 choice at this point - even if Toronto/Buffalo have no objections.

We Hamiltonians have moved on. We basically don't care anymore. In fact, I don't even want a team here. I'd rather spend our resources on our continued efforts to build up the city. That will be MUCH more beneficial to the city than what any sports team can do.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by Berklon

Hamilton's out of the equation. They're not even a top 10 choice at this point - even if Toronto/Buffalo have no objections.

We Hamiltonians have moved on. We basically don't care anymore. In fact, I don't even want a team here. I'd rather spend our resources on our continued efforts to build up the city. That will be MUCH more beneficial to the city than what any sports team can do.

Well the arena exists and it is going to be refurbished and managed by Tim Leiweke and OVG Group. If you take Toronto out of the picture and just look at the market size of Hamilton, Burlington, Niagara Region, K/W, London and Brantford, you have a significant population base in a region that is one of the top markets in the world for hockey. Yes it is a long shot in today's NHL but it shouldn't be. NYC region has 3 NHL franchises along with all the other major sports teams. I think Southern Ontario could easily support another team.

[thurmas]

I remember in the 2005 lockout there were rumors of a WHA 2.0 being formed was going to have teams in Winnipeg, Quebec, Hartford and a few other cities. I am not sure if it would work in todays era with so many NHL teams not many viable markets left.

[SacTownAndy]

Originally Posted by esquire

Salt Lake City, Sacramento and Oklahoma City seem like odd choices considering that they're smaller markets that already have NBA teams in direct competition. I mean, SLC is smaller than Calgary... would anyone realistically suggest putting a NBA team in Calgary too?

Why not San Diego? It's much bigger than those three, there's no NBA competition, and it legitimately needs a new arena, the existing one won't work as it's very old and small. So I'm sure the local authorities would play ball on getting a new one built.

Sacramento has a significantly larger media market than San Diego. After the whole Chargers debacle, I think it'll be tough to get any public funds approved in SD for a new arena.

[kev_427]

-Milwaukee, Houston, and Portland are the safest options, they have the largest potential fan bases, adequate arenas, and rivalry opportunities

-Kansas City and Oklahoma City have adequate arenas but the population is smaller, although that doesn't always indicate smaller fanbase (i.e. Raleigh and Nashville)

-Quebec City has a good fan base and adequate arena, but is a less safe option because of reasons.

-Atlanta might be getting a new arena but I'm not sure why they want to try for a third time.

-Charlotte, Indianapolis, San Antonio, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, and Memphis could work but they would need to build new arenas or renovate their basketball specific arenas. Charlotte and Sacramento also might be too close to other teams.

-Orlando or Cleveland could be an option, they have decent arenas, but might be too close to other teams.

-San Diego, Austin, Cincinnati, and Norfolk are possibilities, but would need arenas.

-Hartford maybe? Arena is kind of old.

-Hamilton and Toronto 2 are apparently not optional.

-Not even going to touch random Canadian cities like Saskatoon or Halifax or Sudbury.

[Coldrsx]

Nothing about a Kelowna team; telling.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Nothing about a Kelowna team; telling.

Surely you jest

[Djeffery]

I'm not sure Milwaukee would be a great option. Not saying it isn't either, but whenever I see such a discrepancy in seating capacity between hockey and basketball layouts, it tells me the arena isn't great for hockey. We've seen this before, most recently at Barclays, but also in Phoenix originally, and those situations didn't work well. Maybe if the Bucks ownership was the interested party in bringing the NHL there, since they operate the arena, they could make it work. I doubt an outside owner could make a go of it there as a tenant in a substandard NHL arena. Thee Jets work at that capacity because they own the place.