FireCaptain 563 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) According to ousted NHLPA boss, Paul Kelly, the NHL spoke with him about adding 2 more teams. (when this allegedly happened is not clear) For anyone who thinks that the NHL can't handle another round of expansion, former NHLPA director Paul Kelly has got some news for you. Kelly, at a city council meeting in Markham, Ontario, over the Toronto-area city's arena proposal, said the league discussed expanding from 30 to 32 teams with him, and that he believes Quebec City and Southern Ontario will have franchises in the next two to three years. The NHL, throughout the lockout, said that expansion wasn't on the table. The case actually isn't all that tough to make. A 32-team league would reap the benefits of expansion fees, balanced conferences and, certainly in the case of Quebec City and Ontario, two more packed arenas. WTF?? http://aol.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2013-01-29/nhl-expansion-paul-kelly-markham-arena-quebec-city-seattle-hockey-coyotes-sale Edited January 30, 2013 by FireCaptain Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Greek 323 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 I like how he says that it's only logical because by doing so the league will reap the benefits of two more packed arenas. They could achieve the same thing by moving the panthers and the coyotes to the two locations mentioned in the excerpt. I don't see the need for other teams. I wouldn't even be opposed to dropping two teams. Either way, I think a few teams need to move at the very least. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Euro_Twins 4,475 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 I wouldn't mind 2 extra teams (or two less) if they wanted to do that re-alignment Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salviaman 104 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 Southern Ontario eh? Windsor or Hamilton? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Axe Report post Posted January 30, 2013 Portland Ice Pirates Seattle Blades Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Euro_Twins 4,475 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 Windsor We don't have nearly close enough a population for a nhl team to survive, it would probably do as bad as Phoenix Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil Lesh 93 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 I would think the league would want to worry about relocating a couple franchises before it moved on to expansion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vangvace 12 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 I would think the league would want to worry about relocating a couple franchises before it moved on to expansion. Both is the key! Nomadic teams to keep the league fresh I say. 1 FireCaptain reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeftWinger 4,953 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 Whatever gets Detroit in the East is fine with me... 2 Rick D and Wingsfan72 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeftWinger 4,953 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 basically if Seattle gets one and another Western/Mid Canada team, then Detroit/Columbus and Nashville can go East....If just Seattle and then Quebec, still Detroit and Columbus can go East so I am all for it... Just hope that they don't put two new teams East.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cusimano_brothers 1,655 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 From Toronto Star: ... But Marilyn Ginsburg, who represents the Grandview Area Residents Association, countered that argument by quoting industry studies, including one that concluded: “If you build it, they might not come.” NHL commissioner Gary Bettman has also stressed that an arena won’t guarantee a franchise. Ginsburg added the city has not addressed other risks for taxpayers and pointed to the experience of Glendale, Ariz., where residents are paying millions of dollars annually for their arena, the home of the financially struggling Phoenix Coyotes. ... At least one "bag-o-money" has been sniffing around; from Toronto Star: George Gillett, a U.S.-based multimillionaire, revealed in an interview Sunday that if Markham council stepped back and took a broader approach to integrating the downtown with a major arena and the city wanted his participation, he would “certainly” return later. “At a later date as time goes by and they decide to approach it a different way or a broader-based way, and they wanted me to come back, I would certainly come back,” he told the Star after a two-hour meeting with councillors. “Right now, I’m not here under any circumstances,” Gillett said. “I’m not here on an agenda.” ... Expansion is not a good idea. Moving teams to markets with a better chance of making money is a much better idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Z Winged Dangler 2,082 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 I like how he says that it's only logical because by doing so the league will reap the benefits of two more packed arenas. They could achieve the same thing by moving the panthers and the coyotes to the two locations mentioned in the excerpt. I don't see the need for other teams. I wouldn't even be opposed to dropping two teams. Either way, I think a few teams need to move at the very least. Funny thing too is all the usual talks last year of "record revenue"... Ultimately, having teams in Quebec and Markham with packed buildings, all that does is make the cap rise due to sell out crowds and makes it harder for teams like Phoenix and Florida among others to keep up. So yeah, I agree with you that before expansion that some of the teams need to make a move. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pskov Wings Fan 71 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 basically if Seattle gets one and another Western/Mid Canada team, then Detroit/Columbus and Nashville can go East....If just Seattle and then Quebec, still Detroit and Columbus can go East so I am all for it... Just hope that they don't put two new teams East.... Both Canadian location mentioned are to the east of Detroit. I do not see any cities left in Western/Mid Canada where an NHL team can be placed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Osgood4President 8 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 This may be slightly off-topic, but with all the talk about putting teams west of us so we are in the east for realignment, it may be relevant. I wouldn't mind, if 2 new teams were added, a system like the NFL or MLB, with conferences that aren't geographically split. I think we would be at an advantage in that system, along with the other central division teams, since our travel situation would probably improve and most other teams would have to travel substantially more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
St. Michael (the Red Wing) 422 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 I wouldn't mind 2 extra teams (or two less) if they wanted to do that re-alignment Me either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Euro_Twins 4,475 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 This may be slightly off-topic, but with all the talk about putting teams west of us so we are in the east for realignment, it may be relevant. I wouldn't mind, if 2 new teams were added, a system like the NFL or MLB, with conferences that aren't geographically split. I think we would be at an advantage in that system, along with the other central division teams, since our travel situation would probably improve and most other teams would have to travel substantially more. They would adapt to it. I think you would see us play with more of an edge if we didn't have to travel so much Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ogreslayer 1,069 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 This smacks of "As owners we're OK with the money we lost in the lockout, because we'll just turn around & create two new teams and rake in that expansion fee money to make up for it". Certainly doesn't look like it's for the overall health of the league to me, just the owners' wallets. 2 BigWillieStyle and FireCaptain reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pskov Wings Fan 71 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 This smacks of "As owners we're OK with the money we lost in the lockout, because we'll just turn around & create two new teams and rake in that expansion fee money to make up for it". Certainly doesn't look like it's for the overall health of the league to me, just the owners' wallets. I think that (some) owners equate state of their own wallets with the health of the league. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrimsonFlame 424 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) If the NHL did expand to 32 teams then I think it would have to adopt the 8 divisions of 4 approach like the NFL. Assuming Hamilton and Quebec city are going to be the new franchies, here's how I would align them according to Geography Eastern Conference Northeast Quebec City Montreal Ottawa Toronto Atlantic Boston Rangers Islanders New Jersey Placeholder Name Buffalo Pittsburgh Philadelphia Washington Southeast Carolina Nashville Florida Tampa Bay Western Conference Great Lakes Detroit Hamilton Chicago Columbus Central St. Louis Minnesota Colorado Dallas Northwest Calgary Edmonton Vancouver Winnipeg Pacific San Jose Los Angeles Annehiem Phoenix Unfortunately that means we will still be stuck in the west and still have to travel a lot. But our divsion gets noticably easier with losing Nashville and St. Louis for a new expanshion franchise. And we still get to beat up on the Blue Jackets. Edited January 30, 2013 by CrimsonFlame 2 evilmrt and Wingsfan72 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,794 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 Why not move the Panthers and Coyotes? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ogreslayer 1,069 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 Why not move the Panthers and Coyotes? Because that would make Bettman look like an idiot for expanding to those markets in the first place? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Axe Report post Posted January 30, 2013 If the NHL did expand to 32 teams then I think it would have to adopt the 8 divisions of 4 approach like the NFL. Assuming Hamilton and Quebec city are going to be the new franchies, here's how I would align them according to Geography Eastern Conference Northeast Quebec City Montreal Ottawa Toronto Atlantic Boston Rangers Islanders New Jersey Placeholder Name Buffalo Pittsburgh Philadelphia Washington Southeast Carolina Nashville Florida Tampa Bay Western Conference Great Lakes Detroit Hamilton Chicago Columbus Central St. Louis Minnesota Colorado Dallas Northwest Calgary Edmonton Vancouver Winnipeg Pacific San Jose Los Angeles Annehiem Phoenix Unfortunately that means we will still be stuck in the west and still have to travel a lot. But our divsion gets noticably easier with losing Nashville and St. Louis for a new expanshion franchise. And we still get to beat up on the Blue Jackets. Bravo. Well done. Now you just need to figure out traveling. I think they should just play their 2 away games against non division conference teams in a row. For example: at Phoenix on Sat and Sun, at Los Angeles on Tues, at Anaheim on Thurs, at Los Angeles on Sat, at Anaheim on Monday, at San Jose on Wed and Thurs, then back home. All 8 games done. For non conference games, do like the NFL does and make a home/away series with 2 divisions per year. So Detroit would have 5 total away trips. 8 games each trip for the 3 divisions in their conference. 4 games each for the 2 non conference divisions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
evilmrt 636 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 Southern Ontario eh? Windsor or Hamilton? Windsor We don't have nearly close enough a population for a nhl team to survive, it would probably do as bad as Phoenix Ok, I hope you guys were joking about Windsor lol. The GTA can handle two teams easily, but Detroit Metro cannot. From Toronto Star: At least one "bag-o-money" has been sniffing around; from Toronto Star: Expansion is not a good idea. Moving teams to markets with a better chance of making money is a much better idea. Agreed, but expansion gives you an immediate bag-o-money, not long-term stable revenue, which Bettman seems to care nothing about If the NHL did expand to 32 teams then I think it would have to adopt the 8 divisions of 4 approach like the NFL. Assuming Hamilton and Quebec city are going to be the new franchies, here's how I would align them according to Geography Eastern Conference Northeast Quebec City Montreal Ottawa Toronto Atlantic Boston Rangers Islanders New Jersey Placeholder Name Buffalo Pittsburgh Philadelphia Washington Southeast Carolina Nashville Florida Tampa Bay Western Conference Great Lakes Detroit Hamilton Chicago Columbus Central St. Louis Minnesota Colorado Dallas Northwest Calgary Edmonton Vancouver Winnipeg Pacific San Jose Los Angeles Annehiem Phoenix Unfortunately that means we will still be stuck in the west and still have to travel a lot. But our divsion gets noticably easier with losing Nashville and St. Louis for a new expanshion franchise. And we still get to beat up on the Blue Jackets. Wow, look at that Great Lakes division. Perfect! I think that you're overlooking one thing though...the elimination of East/West. You'd have to develop another system so that Toronto 2 could play the Leafs enough to form a rivalry. They wouldn't go for this 1 game a year crap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chrisdetroit 189 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 This may be slightly off-topic, but with all the talk about putting teams west of us so we are in the east for realignment, it may be relevant. I wouldn't mind, if 2 new teams were added, a system like the NFL or MLB, with conferences that aren't geographically split. I think we would be at an advantage in that system, along with the other central division teams, since our travel situation would probably improve and most other teams would have to travel substantially more. That doesn't really work with hockey. In the NFL the teams only play once a week so travel is irrelevant. MLB is just the opposite. They can play 6 or 7 days a week so when the teams have to travel a long distance, they stay for 3 or 4 days at a time and play games each day. In hockey, they really can't play more than 2 days in a row and they can't take 6 days off between games so long distance travel is a big issue. That is why the conferences in hockey as well as the divisions are split geographically. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Euro_Twins 4,475 Report post Posted January 30, 2013 Ok, I hope you guys were joking about Windsor lol. The GTA can handle two teams easily, but Detroit Metro cannot. Agreed, but expansion gives you an immediate bag-o-money, not long-term stable revenue, which Bettman seems to care nothing about Wow, look at that Great Lakes division. Perfect! I think that you're overlooking one thing though...the elimination of East/West. You'd have to develop another system so that Toronto 2 could play the Leafs enough to form a rivalry. They wouldn't go for this 1 game a year crap. I was laughing at someone else mentioning windsor... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
