The NHL is coming closer to Quebec City

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by esquire

For what it's worth it was well known around Winnipeg that the return of the NHL nearly occurred a year earlier than it did. The Coyotes were on the verge of getting booted out of Glendale in the spring of 2010 (sound familiar?) and TNSE had plans to buy the team and move them back to town. There was a press conference stage set up and everything, but it was cancelled at the 11th hour when the City of Glendale relented and gave the team a ton of lucrative concessions to stay there. TNSE's employees recounted the drama of that day numerous times after the fact in various TV segments and news articles.

So for all we know there could be a press conference stage being set up in the bowels of Centre Videotron right this very moment

TNSE (Winnipeg Jets ownership) actively tried to get the Predators to Winnipeg when they were struggling in Nashville in the mid 2000's.

Acquiring the Thrashers wasn't their first rodeo!

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Do we think Winnipeg will ever be capable of winning Stanley Cups if they're unable to retain talent and draw in new talent? They're generally at the top of the list for no-movement and no-trade clauses. They've done well with what they've had but they're already at the point of retaining players and coaches due to them being family members. Again, Quebec would be a similar situation but five times worse. Like, what took Winnipeg ten years to reach would take Quebec 3-5.
.

Well firstly if you’ve been paying attention to the off-season Winnipeg made significant offseason additions that have put them back as Canada’s best team and a fringe cup contender. They are most likely the 2nd or 3rd best team behind Colorado and maybe Vegas in the west.

Also, the Jets have been able to retain almost all of their players on team friendly contacts with the exception of Wheeler who went at market value. Clearly people want to stay here. Schmidt even waived his no trade clause to come here. They have made the playoffs 4 years in a row and have no indication of missing it for atleast the next 3 years.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

^ Considering there’s zero chance in hell they’re moving to Quebec, I’d say yes.

Houston will get the team if the situation can’t be resolved. Possibility to enter a brand new market with 7 million people, compared to what? 800,000 for Quebec, most of which already watches the Habs. It’s a no brainer. Plus you keep the team in the central division.

The only way Quebec is getting a team is if the Panthers or Carolina hit the emergency button, like the Trashers did in 2011. Sucks but that’s the reality.

This being said, could you imagine if Arizona really could move to Quebec. If I was Peladeau, I’d name the team “ the real Jets” for a year or two …lol, just to piss off Winnipeg. Then I’d switch to Nordiques….

I think Houston is the most likely. They're the largest TV market in North America without an NHL team (https://thinktv.ca/wp-content/upload...asics_2019.pdf page 20), and they have sufficient seating capacity of 18,300 - the same as Gila River Arena.

I would not rule out Hamilton, though Jim Balsillie would be best to stay out of this one as long as Bettman is around. There's also the issue of proximity to both Buffalo and Toronto, though exceptions have been made for proximity (see NYC and LA).

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I would not rule out Hamilton, though Jim Balsillie would be best to stay out of this one as long as Bettman is around. There's also the issue of proximity to both Buffalo and Toronto, though exceptions have been made for proximity (see NYC and LA).

I would.

The people who will be running the arena have renovations in mind, but it won't matter. They might even think they can host a team... but it won't matter. Because Bettman and league ownership.

It ain't called the Not Hamilton League 'round these parts for nothin'

[esquire]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Well firstly if you’ve been paying attention to the off-season Winnipeg made significant offseason additions that have put them back as Canada’s best team and a fringe cup contender. They are most likely the 2nd or 3rd best team behind Colorado and maybe Vegas in the west.

Also, the Jets have been able to retain almost all of their players on team friendly contacts with the exception of Wheeler who went at market value. Clearly people want to stay here. Schmidt even waived his no trade clause to come here. They have made the playoffs 4 years in a row and have no indication of missing it for atleast the next 3 years.

Well put. This narrative of "nobody wants to come in Winnipeg and the team is nothing but unwanted spare parts" clearly doesn't mesh with reality. I mean I'm sure that everyone would love to play in Tampa, pay US taxes and move about the city totally unnoticed, but it just doesn't work that way.

Quebec would be no different realistically than any other smaller market.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

TNSE (Winnipeg Jets ownership) actively tried to get the Predators to Winnipeg when they were struggling in Nashville in the mid 2000's.

Acquiring the Thrashers wasn't their first rodeo!

They were looking at what Jim Balsillie was doing and decided the best course of action was to not do what he was doing. Namely, announcing the purchase of various teams, sell season ticket deposits, put out artist renderings of arena plans, hold name the team contests (not sure if he did, but I think he did for one) and generally piss off the NHL. Winnipeg went about it quietly and behind the scenes with the league, and let the league control the story.

Hamilton would be the second best choice in North America to relocate a team too (Toronto being the #1).

[ericmacm]

I think this potential relocation situation has decent potential to net Quebec City a team - it would basically be a turnkey operation since Quebecor would almost certainly step up as an ownership group, and Centre Videotron has been sitting and waiting for this exact moment. It will be next to impossible for the Coyotes to secure a new lease in Phoenix since no other viable options exist in the area, and the ownership group has been outed as not being able to pay rent. No potential arena in the area would want to sign a lease with a tenant that isn't profitable and doesn't abide by lease terms. This, on top of the other recent article that outlined the organization's toxic work culture and financial issues, will likely mean that the team ends up being sold to repair reputation and fix the issues within. I think at this point, it would be difficult to find a buyer interested in keeping the team in Arizona as a money-losing asset.

I believe it will either be Houston or Quebec City that ends up getting the team, with Houston unfortunately being much more likely. The owner of the Rockets is interested in getting an NHL team and this is a great opportunity to pick up a cheap asset. He purchased the Rockets for $2.2B a few years ago, so it's possible that an NHL team worth a few hundred million would be attainable for him. The Stars are hugely successful in Texas so there is no reason why Houston wouldn't work either. It's a big city in a big state, so I am sure that there would be plenty of fans ready to support a team.

We can hope, though. I wouldn't count on seeing Hamilton as a competitive relocation option until the LRT is done and FirstOntario is renovated.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by ericmacm

I think this potential relocation situation has decent potential to net Quebec City a team - it would basically be a turnkey operation since Quebecor would almost certainly step up as an ownership group, and Centre Videotron has been sitting and waiting for this exact moment. It will be next to impossible for the Coyotes to secure a new lease in Phoenix since no other viable options exist in the area, and the ownership group has been outed as not being able to pay rent. No potential arena in the area would want to sign a lease with a tenant that isn't profitable and doesn't abide by lease terms. This, on top of the other recent article that outlined the organization's toxic work culture and financial issues, will likely mean that the team ends up being sold to repair reputation and fix the issues within. I think at this point, it would be difficult to find a buyer interested in keeping the team in Arizona as a money-losing asset.

I believe it will either be Houston or Quebec City that ends up getting the team, with Houston unfortunately being much more likely. The owner of the Rockets is interested in getting an NHL team and this is a great opportunity to pick up a cheap asset. He purchased the Rockets for $2.2B a few years ago, so it's possible that an NHL team worth a few hundred million would be attainable for him. The Stars are hugely successful in Texas so there is no reason why Houston wouldn't work either. It's a big city in a big state, so I am sure that there would be plenty of fans ready to support a team.

We can hope, though. I wouldn't count on seeing Hamilton as a competitive relocation option until the LRT is done and FirstOntario is renovated.

If the Tempe deal for a new arena gets approved, the NHL and Bettman will do whatever they can to keep the team playing for a couple of years until the arena is built.

https://arizonasports.com/story/2781...ed-to-succeed/

But if NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman wants the Coyotes in Arizona, and if Alex Meruelo seduces Tempe city leaders with his proposal, our hockey team will find a way. They could play at Veterans Memorial Coliseum. They could play a chunk of their home schedule at Chase Field. They could change Glendale’s mind by squaring up old debts and increasing rent payments in the short term.

If a new arena becomes a reality, the NHL will help the Coyotes do whatever it takes to forge a new beginning in Arizona. And that’s exactly what they need.

Hockey can work in a desert. Las Vegas is proof.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by esquire

Quebec would be no different realistically than any other smaller market.

It's smaller than every other market and speaks a language that a vast majority of NHL players do not. As MonctonRad rightly pointed out, it's a no-go for families with school-aged children and wives looking for work. Similar to Montreal but more so, many players wouldn't live in the city whilst playing for the team. It would perennially be the top of no-trade and no-movement lists, and have an incredibly difficult time enticing players. Unlike thirty years ago, there aren't enough NHL-calibre Quebecers these days to make up the difference.

Originally Posted by djeffrey

Hamilton would be the second best choice in North America to relocate a team too (Toronto being the #1).

Both Toronto and Buffalo say no to Hamilton, and Detroit and Columbus both say no to being moved to Central/Western divisions.

Originally Posted by ericmacm

I think at this point, it would be difficult to find a buyer interested in keeping the team in Arizona as a money-losing asset.

The team already has an owner and doesn't need a new one. As previously stated, the current owner will keep the Coyotes in Arizona to ensure he can run a sportsbook in the state.

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I think Houston is the most likely. They're the largest TV market in North America without an NHL team (https://thinktv.ca/wp-content/upload...asics_2019.pdf page 20), and they have sufficient seating capacity of 18,300 - the same as Gila River Arena.

IIRC the Rockets owner doesn't want other teams in his building. But yes, Houston is the most obvious next US market.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

They were looking at what Jim Balsillie was doing and decided the best course of action was to not do what he was doing. Namely, announcing the purchase of various teams, sell season ticket deposits, put out artist renderings of arena plans, hold name the team contests (not sure if he did, but I think he did for one) and generally piss off the NHL. Winnipeg went about it quietly and behind the scenes with the league, and let the league control the story.

Hamilton would be the second best choice in North America to relocate a team too (Toronto being the #1).

Sounds about right, have to agree a second TO team and a team in Hamilton would both be in the top half of the league as markets!

[MolsonExport]

How has Bettman's Confederate strategy brought dividends to Canadian teams, or Canadian fans of the game?


I can't think of any (aside from inflating the value of a few teams for a handful of billionaire owners). I much preferred the NHL back when Canadians had more than just a say in how things were run.

The NHL will only be a niche sport for most of the United States, but up here it is numero uno by a long shot. I hate the way Bettman and his crew take Canadian fans for granted.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Both Toronto and Buffalo say no to Hamilton, and Detroit and Columbus both say no to being moved to Central/Western divisions.

As the NHL said many times back when Balsillie was talking Hamilton (and Kitchener), the other teams don't have veto power, as is falsely stated all the time. Bruce McNall got a nice payout when the Ducks joined the league, but that was just a matter of negotiation. He wasn't stopping the team from joining. Buffalo likely wouldn't even enter the conversation about compensation, being well beyond 50km from Hamilton.

That aside, I don't think Coyotes are going anywhere. I say odds are better than 50-50 that they are still playing at GRA after next season. The city has taken a haircut on that arena since it opened and they have some leverage right now to make some back. But they aren't stupid and think that their arena is Barclay's Center, where you can kick the hockey team out and make more on other events. And if the team gets a deal done by the end of next year for their talked about new arena, then I think that gives the city even more negotiating power for a couple or 3 year extension with favourable terms. And if the team says "see ya" and goes over to the AZ fairgrounds then the city is right where they are now then. Maybe the end result is the team buys GRA and a chunk of surrounding land, but I don't know if that is something even being talked about.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I hate the way Bettman and his crew take Canadian fans for granted.

I think if that was true, Canada would have a few more teams. Let's also not forget that Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa were at various times, in severe financial trouble and in danger of moving south. If Bettman had this "Canada hate" that everyone talks about, those teams would have been gone at the first opportunity he had to move them, and Winnipeg never would have come back.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

I think if that was true, Canada would have a few more teams. Let's also not forget that Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa were at various times, in severe financial trouble and in danger of moving south. If Bettman had this "Canada hate" that everyone talks about, those teams would have been gone at the first opportunity he had to move them, and Winnipeg never would have come back.

There's no way that Bettman would have been willing to subsidize any of those teams the same way that he's subsidized the Coyotes for the last decade. Bettman's strategy has clearly favoured American teams. And yet the NHL has shrunk relative to the NBA and NFL.

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

As the NHL said many times back when Balsillie was talking Hamilton (and Kitchener), the other teams don't have veto power, as is falsely stated all the time. Bruce McNall got a nice payout when the Ducks joined the league, but that was just a matter of negotiation. He wasn't stopping the team from joining. Buffalo likely wouldn't even enter the conversation about compensation, being well beyond 50km from Hamilton.

II: THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE NHL CONSTITUTION
Rules and policies restricting franchise movement are common in professional sports leagues. In particular, preventing other teams from operating within the restricted “home territory” of another franchise(s) is a nearly universal aspect of a professional sports league constitution.
Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the NHL Constitution are the primary rules outlining the relocation and territorial rights of the league and its member
clubs. According to Section 4.1(c) "each Member Club shall have exclusive territorial rights in the city in which it is located and within fifty miles of that city's corporate limits."
This section, known as the franchise “home territory” clause, provides the
NHL’s member teams the ability to veto any relocation of existing or newly formed franchises into a 50 mile, or 80 kilometre radius that constitutes its “home territory”.
Section 4.2 of the NHL Constitution states:
The League shall have exclusive control of the playing of hockey games by Member Clubs in the home territory of each member, subject to the rights hereinafter granted to members. The members shall have the right to and agree to operate professional hockey clubs and play the League schedule in their respective cities or boroughs as indicated opposite their signatures hereto. No member shall transfer its club and franchise to a different city or borough. No additional cities or boroughs shall be added to the League
circuit without the consent of three-fourths of all the members of the League. Any admission of new members with franchises to operate in any additional cities or boroughs shall be subject to the provisions of section 4.3.

It appears section 4.2 outlines an unqualified ban over the proposed relocation of existing franchises unless they comply with the very restrictive Section 4.3. Section 4.3 states:
Each member shall have exclusive control of the playing of hockey games within its home territory including, but not being limited to, the playing in such home territory of hockey games by any teams owned or controlled by such member or by other members of the League. Subject only to the exclusive rights of other members with respect to their respective home territories as hereinabove set forth, nothing herein contained shall be
construed to limit the right of any Member Club to acquire any interest in any hockey team, whether professional or amateur in any league which recognizes and honors the territorial rights, contracts and reserve lists of the National Hockey League, except as limited by Section 8.1(a) of this Constitution. No other member of the League shall be permitted to play games (except regularly scheduled League games with the home club)
in the home territory of a member without the latter member’s consent. No franchise shall be granted for a home territory within the home territory of a member, without the written consent of such member.

Section 4.3 translates into an individual team’s right to veto the relocation of any club within their market and appears to be in contravention of the antitrust legislation in both the U.S. and Canada; however, the NHL has also enacted specific bylaws intended to cure any perceived antitrust violations.

Bylaw 36 allows any planned relocation of existing franchises to be determined by a majority vote of the Board of Governors, which is intended to over-ride individual vetoes outlined in Section 4.3 of the Constitution.
A relocation vote initiated under bylaw 36 does not render automatic approval however, as any franchise owner seeking to transfer his or her team is first required to comply with an extensive process that includes a written application to the NHL Commissioner no later than January 1 of the year prior to the proposed relocation. The application requires justification for the transfer, complete with supporting documentation, which leads to the commissioner striking a committee to review the merits of the application and reporting back to the Board of Governors. Prior to the vote, the franchise seeking relocation has the chance to present to the Board and answer questions. Upon a simple reading of bylaw 36 it appears in compliance with general antitrust legislation in form, but in substance, may provide a
veto all but in name to the NHL and the club whose territory is being invaded.

http://www.cba.org/cba/cle/PDF/COMP0...ward_paper.pdf

[Djeffery]

And as it says in that post, which is what Bill Daly said many times on the various Toronto media outlets reporting on it at the time in the 2007-2009 timeframe when Balsillie was trying to buy 3 different teams, the league has final say. If the Leafs veto, the league can vote to override if they want to. The Sabers are outside the distance (sorry, I said 50km, when it's 50 miles), and don't have a veto, but they for sure wouldn't support overriding the Leafs veto.

The only reason Hamilton doesn't have a team today isn't because the Leafs said no in the early 90's, but because Tim Hortons tried to talk the league down on the price a bit.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

And as it says in that post, which is what Bill Daly said many times on the various Toronto media outlets reporting on it at the time in the 2007-2009 timeframe when Balsillie was trying to buy 3 different teams, the league has final say. If the Leafs veto, the league can vote to override if they want to. The Sabers are outside the distance (sorry, I said 50km, when it's 50 miles), and don't have a veto, but they for sure wouldn't support overriding the Leafs veto.

The only reason Hamilton doesn't have a team today isn't because the Leafs said no in the early 90's, but because Tim Hortons tried to talk the league down on the price a bit.

The Sabres could play with arguments around the 80km radius issue (e.g., part of Hamilton is within 80km... not downtown, but the eastern portion of the city). But I believe Buffalo's perspective is that a significant portion of their fanbase comes from the Niagara Peninsula, so a Hamilton team would cut into that, and they'd deserve compensation. Not that that's an impenetrable barrier though; it's a cost of business and if the numbers show it to be worthwhile, an owner establishing a team in Hamilton wouldn't flinch.

It's true that Ron Joyce asked for some flexibility on expansion fees. I believe he wanted to pay them in two installments. That was all the excuse the NHL needed, despite a seemingly better financial proposal from Hamilton (I seem to recall that Tampa got some wiggle room after the fact, as did Ottawa).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I'm not sure, is it even possible for a players children to get educated in English in QC? Are there any anglophone public schools in the city? ..

Yes, there are anglophone public schools in Quebec City, from K-12. There is also an anglophone CEGEP (junior college).

The K-12 system is subject to Bill 101 but pro hockey players are considered temporary workers so their kids would be allowed to attend public English schools.

I do think it's worth mentioning that tons of NHLers are not anglophones and thinking back to the old days of the Nords language never really was an issue there with the Europeans (whether they spoke French before arriving or not).

It was the same with the Expos where the Latin Americans on the team never complained about language and most of them even liked that aspect of the city and loved Montreal in general.

In both cases it's really only Anglo (North) American players who'd complain about language.

[Tg11]

I could do with getting the Nordiques back into the NHL hell just move one of the American teams to Quebec via relocation...simple problem solved or you have another expansion team making it 32 teams in the NHL considering Seattle is the 31st team...you make Quebec the 32nd team

[svlt]

Seattle is team 32. NHL is full. Teams at risk from most to least are Arizona >>> Florida > Ottawa = Carolina > Buffalo/NYI? > the field. Houston may be considered for expansion or relocation; if the former QC makes sense as their partnering team for an even number. I think there's an outside shot QC has a team at least announced by the end of this decade but I wouldn't put any money on it.