Unless it's a Canadian team, of course. Some leases have out clauses, some do not. But any lease with an out clause is going to have a financial penalty for breaking the lease, especially these written more recently. Breaking a lease with nearly 3 decades left on it is going to be cost prohibitive. Any team with a new building is unlikely to move because most of those new buildings give the owners a financial windfall far beyond what the NHL team brings in. And since many of the teams that seem to have trouble filling seats or is in a location that makes little sense also have owners who control the arena with long-term master leases, it doesn't make any financial sense for those teams to move regardless of whether their teams are anywhere close to selling out or not. Fact is, teams like the Panthers, Predators, Lightning, Ducks, etc. are in no danger of going bankrupt. And even if they were, there's no evidence to support the notion that the League would consider that reason to allow the team to move (the Pens went bankrupt, but they continue to play in Pittsburgh). It's very likely that there just aren't any teams that are going to be available to move, especially if all the Canadian teams are off the table. Look at the League: Canadian Teams: Montreal - Not a chance of moving Toronto - Not a chance of moving Ottawa - Off the table, apparently Calgary - Same (though it should be on the table) Edmonton - Same as Calgary Vancouver - Not a chance, really American Teams: Dallas - Not a chance San Jose - Not at all likely. Strong fanbase, solid arena Los Angeles - Not a chance Anaheim - Should consider move, but won't be sold to someone who want to move the team, according to Disney. Another situation where the master lease is held by NHL team. Makes financial sense to keep them there even if they don't draw well Detroit - Not a chance Chicago - Not a chance Boston - Not a chance St. Louis - Not a chance (new building, billionaire Wal-Mart ownership) Denver - Not a chance (new building, billionaire Wal-Mart ownership, plus nonrelocate with city) Minnesota - Not a chance. New building, great hockey market Nashville - Not a chance (new building, long-term lease. Team holds master lease) Columbus - Not a chance (new building, team holds master lease) Tampa Bay - Not at all likely (new building. Team owns master lease) Miami - Not at all likely (new building. Team owns master lease) Carolina - Not likely (new building. Team tied to long-term lease with nonrelocate, as I understand it.) Atlanta - Not a chance (new building. World's largest media company as owners of team and master lease) Philadelphia - Not a chance (new building, ownership of master lease) New York Rangers - Not a chance (they're New York) New Jersey - Not a chance (owned by YankeeNets. New arena coming somehow) Pittsburgh - A chance, though not while Mario owns the team. And he won't sell to someone who will move the team if he can help it. Washington - Not a chance (new building, ownership of master lease) Buffalo - Probably should move., Whiny Buffalo people don't deserve the team. As I understand it, the lease is pretty solid and runs until 2026. New York Islanders - Possible, though the current owners seem committed to building a new arena on Long Island. Certainly not anywhere near a near-term possibility. Phoenix - Not a chance (new arena under construction with master lease going to team as well as surrounding development rights) And I believe that's all of them. In reality, there's only maybe two American teams that have an outside shot at relocating anytime soon (Pittsburgh and the Isles) and neither is very likely at present. The best chance for the NHL in Houston was a few years ago when the expansion teams were being doled out. Chances are, it's too late now. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. And on the other point: Columbus is the largest CITY in Ohio, but that really doesn't mean much. San Antonio is the second largest CITY in Texas and the Ninth largest city in the United States. That doesn't make it a very large market, though. The Columbus metropolitan area is around 1.4 million people, which is relatively small for pro sports.... but bigger than Nashville by nearly 300,000 people.
Not to sound arrogant, but I think the nhl needs Houston more than Houston needs the nhl. Personally, they blew it when they placed those franchises in Columbus and Nashville, two markets that when combined, are still smaller than Houston. I know the nhl was the hot ticket then, but I think Bettman hedged his bets a bit. He missed out on a top 12 market, one that would look real attractive when negotiating a new tv contract. I know Houston had arena problems then, but I knew we would work it out. Houston is a major league city, with or without the nhl. Broadcasters always refer to the "4 major sports;" imo, there are only 3 major sports. When Jacksonville got their nfl franchise, their mayor said this: "Houston will be Houston with or without the nfl. LA will be LA with or without the nfl. But, a city like ours (jacksonville), a pro franchise puts us on the map." I couldn't agree more. That being said, I am a hockey fan and would love to see a franchise in Houston, preferably a non relocated one. But, I don't want to even think about this city groveling (again) for the nhl. We don't need it as much as it needs us. In the meantime, I'm content to root for the Stars.
I think the NHL in Houston will attract new fans. For example, I currently don't watch hockey, but if Houston were to get an NHL team I would watch. The Aeros don't count cause they're minor league. There are tons of sports fans in this city that would be willing to give the NHL a shot just because its hockey at the highest level.
mrpaige: That's a pretty good summary. The Canadian situation, IMO, is this. Quebec and Winnipeg are cities of about 500,000. We can all agree, albeit sadly, that this is just too small to be able to sustain a NHL team. Calgary and Edmonton are close to a million each, are very wealthy cities. Vancouver and Montreal aren't that much bigger, and are not as wealthy. Vancouver has its ups and downs, and when it's up it's as wealthy as we are, but Montreal has been depressed for a while. If Edmonton or Calgary go, any Canadian team except Toronto could go. Obviously, we have a very long and very strong hockey tradition up here. Dozen's and dozen's of NHL players come from Alberta. Dallas, for example, surprisingly has only has two players who were born in Alberta, Matvichuck and Sydor, but if you include places within a day's drive of Edmonton or Calgary, that don't have another closer Canadian team you add 4, maybe 5 more. Gilchrist, Morrow, Manson, Lukowich and maybe Balfour although that would be a long day's drive. How many players on the team come from Texas? 0 Calgary, as another example, has 10 players that were born within a day's drive of Calgary, and most of these would be less than a half day's drive. Edmonton has 7 that were born within a day's drive fo Edmonton. I'll speak from the heart now. It's still our game, and we're happy to share it will you, but if you try to shut us out we'll be pissed, big time. Some people have already started to call for a Canadian league, separate from the NHL. It wouldn't be able to attract the very top players of the NHL style game, but it would function as a real league, where every team has a chance. The NHL is in danger of becoming the farce that MLB now is, where an owner can buy a championship team one year, then sell off his team and be a cellar dweller again the next year. That's not sport as far as I'm concerned. I used to follow baseball as a kid. I even followed the Astros. Terry Puhl came from my home province, a couple of hours from my home town. MLB bores me stiff now. I haven't seen any more than a few innings of any game since the strike season, which is what, close to 10 years ago? The Expos draw 5,000 to a game and are about to be contracted. The Blue Jays are losing money hand over fist and even Torontonians don't care about them anymore. That's what unrestricted free agency does to a league, and the NHL better get its house in order or it'll find itself in the same situation. This is one of the major reasons I've been following the NBA for the last few years. By and large, this is a league that acts like a real sports league. Losers have a real chance of getting out of the basement if they manage their organisation right. Players can stay with their teams, and not leave to the highest bidder. Back to hockey, the list of players Calgary has lost simply because we couldn't pay them top dollar is incredible: McInnis, Sutor, Nieuwendyk, Flury, Vernon, Roberts, and soon Iginla. If all these players were still here, we'd be a championship team again. Under the present system, we'll never have a chance. As for which teams might move to Houston, I guess we'll see in couple of years what the situation is. There are several that don't make sense, so I expect something will come up. Houston would be a good place for a team, IMO.
But you're looking at it as a fan (a Canadian fan at that) instead of from a business point of view. A team in Tampa Bay may not make sense to you or me, but even with their attendance levels, that teams makes financial sense there. And it's cost prohibitive to move it (assuming the lease could be broken, which is not a given. Cities have fought for far stronger leases in recent years.) And for these team owners who are also arena owners (for all intents and purposes), having the team as a draw to fill dates is enough even if that draw isn't itself very large. Having a mediocre team with mediocre attendance is still better than owning the building and not having the team. And Les Alexander isn't going to buy a team and an arena someplace else and then move the team to Houston. It just doesn't make financial sense. The standard for any league is not the fans, sad to say. It's the money. We can talk about the history or whose game it is or where the players come from, but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. THe NHL will make decisions that are in the best interest of the NHL in a financial sense (and given the way sports leagues tend to work, those decisions will probably be shortsighted). And it may well be that teams in Tampa Bay, Nashville, Colulmbus, Miami, Carolina, etc. don't make financial sense anymore and will eventually move. But that is far more likely to be a possibility two decades from now, not within the next five years. Personally, I don't think Les should go after an NHL team. He doesn't need the team to be financially successful. If anything, spending the money to purchase an existing team and move it is a large burden that Les may or may not even be able to afford on his own. He's effectively killed any competing person being able to bring a team to town. He can afford to work it on his own terms. When we're talking NHL for Houston, we're likely to still be talking about it ten years from now, especially if the League is going to protect the Canadian teams and not allow them to move. Whether it makes sense for a team to be where it is or not, you have to take into account the fiscal realities of moving said team. Buying about nearly 30 years of a lease is just not financially possible even if the owners did want to sell. In the states, a new building ties a team to it. It's extremely difficult to break a team out of it, especially with this latest round of stadium building.
And your point is? I would argue that I'm not. The fans are an important part of the equation and ignoring that fact is unwise from a business standpoint. I agree that moving a team out a new building is a difficult prospect, but there are several struggling teams that don't fall into this category. I did a quick search on the Islanders and came up with these interesting links. http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam020306/nhl_nyi1-cp.html http://www.sfo.com/~csuppes/NHL/misc/index.htm?../NewYorkIslanders/newindex.htm http://www.sfo.com/~csuppes/NHL/misc/index.htm?../NewYorkIslanders/index.htm How much longer are the owners going to take big losses for the sake of Long Island? That just isn't business reality. What is too often overlooked is that the number of fans and the degree to which they are enamoured with the league has a significant effect on revenue. Who'd a' thunk it, eh? And history and tradition have a lot to do with how the fans feel about a league. If Jim Pattison bought the Rockets and wanted to move them to Vancouver and rename them the Mounties, how would that affect NBA fans in Houston? Not positively I think, and such a move wouldn't be good for the league in the big picture, I would argue. Or what if someone wanted to move the Green Bay Packers? I wonder how many millions of fans MLB has lost in Canada alone because of the way they have allowed their league to be governed by short-term financial considerations. The long term losses, not only in ticket sales but in merchandise, television revenues, etc. must be staggering. The Islanders and Pittsburgh would be the two that would be most likely in the short term. Mario's pockets aren't that deep. I think the league would be protecting itself by maintaining stability and protecting small market teams with solid fan bases. The NBA lived by this philosophy for many years and was the model league during this time. That's just good business, smart business. There are a few NHL teams that may well be long term problems, and I wouldn't be opposed to moving one of those to a stable situation in Houston. The Islanders have had trouble for a while, but Carolina is one that boggles my mind. Long term lease or not, I can understand how a team could survive there for long, unless Bill Gates owned it.
According to the Pens, they made a profit last year (thanks to their playoff revenue). But Pittsburgh is a decent-sized market with a history of good hockey support. Why should the NHL be less willing to protect them vs. Edmonton or Calgary? That's where my Canadian comment comes in. You seem willing to sacrifice a Pittsburgh but claim that any Canadian team is off-limits regardless of their financial situation. If the Flames are off-limits, the Pens should be, too. And the argument that alienating fans is a bad idea is very true, but it's often not the way that the NHL does business. And it may not be a bad idea. Alienating the fans of a city of 800,000 while gaining fans in a city of 4.5 million may be worth the trade-off. I just have a problem with this claim that Carolina should be sacrificed and the Canadian teams should be saved no matter what. What is it that makes Carolina such a disaster while a team like Edmonton is so high on the hog. Is it the extra 1,400 fans per game average this year (while keeping in mind that Edmonton collects their ticket money in Canadian dollars which are still less valuable than the American dollars that the Hurricanes fans use)? Is it the fact that they lost $100,000 less than the Hurricanes for the 99-00 season (the most recent I could find at Forbes. And that was an expense-side issue. The Hurricanes brought in more revenue than the Flames.... and that was with significantly lower attendance than the Flames). Teams like the Panthers and Pens made money. And now that the Hurricanes are in their new arena, they make money, too. They don't need a very large draw to be profitable and they're exceeding that draw by far. Should the League have let a team move to Carolina in the first place? Maybe, maybe not. But the team is there. They're profitable, and they're tied to a strong (and favorable) lease for a long time. It's time to give up ragging on Carolina. One thing to consider about the Islanders is their cable TV deal. They make singificant money off that (over $10 million per year). Get them a decent arena lease and they're sitting pretty. One of the links you posted showed the problem (their horrid lease that runs through 2015 that they also cannot get out of. If they were able to get out of it, they can solve their problems and stay on Long Island). In the end, all I'm saying is that if we include the Penguins on the list of endagered franchises, we should also include the Flames. Just because they are in Canada doesn't mean they will be (or should be) protected. One of the things that will probably weigh heavily in whether Houston gets a franchise or not is the upcoming labor deal. If the deal manages to slow salary growth and perhaps share revenue more equally, then it may well keep any team currently teetering on the brink of moving in place. If the deal is more of the same, some franchises that have been holding on may well give up the ship and agree to sell out and possibly move. So it may well be 2004 before we have an accurate picture of the state of the NHL in regard to potential movement. But based on the way things are right now, it isn't at all likely that there are any franchises that are really in danger of moving. And I would argue that the Isles are a candidate given their lease (which has been upheld in court, so it's as solid as a lease gets) and given that if that lease were gone, the team could easily solidify itself on the Island.
According to the Pens, they made a profit last year (thanks to their playoff revenue). But Pittsburgh is a decent-sized market with a history of good hockey support. Why should the NHL be less willing to protect them vs. Edmonton or Calgary? That's where my Canadian comment comes in. You seem willing to sacrifice a Pittsburgh but claim that any Canadian team is off-limits regardless of their financial situation. If the Flames are off-limits, the Pens should be, too. I'm not saying that the NHL shouldn't look to protect small market American teams that have strong fan support, and Pittsburgh has a long history and has had some success, but their history hasn't always been good, as you pointed out. They've gone bankrupt before. I think the NHL should look to protect Pittsburgh, but I can envision a scenario where it might make sense for them to move. They have had poor attendance in the past, to the point of going bankrupt. They also have a building that was built in 1961. IIRC, they were having attendance problems before Mario came back last year. If he is unable to come back next year and attendance drops again, it may be difficult to find money for a new rink. In that event, it might make sense to sell and move the team. And the argument that alienating fans is a bad idea is very true, but it's often not the way that the NHL does business. And it may not be a bad idea. Alienating the fans of a city of 800,000 while gaining fans in a city of 4.5 million may be worth the trade-off. I wonder how many more hockey fans there are in Houston than there are in Calgary. There are probably a lot fewer die-hard fans, but there maybe more if you include the people who will flip on the television to watch the fights. [/end cynicism] My point wasn't just about the million or so people who live within the immediate Calgary Flames drawing area, though. It was about the 30 million people who are concerned about the future of NHL hockey in Canada. If Calgary were to go, any other team except Toronto could go, and I think that's the point when a lot of Canadians would start to say, "forget the NHL, let's do our own thing and start a Canadian league." There are a few people saying this already. I just have a problem with this claim that Carolina should be sacrificed and the Canadian teams should be saved no matter what. What is it that makes Carolina such a disaster while a team like Edmonton is so high on the hog. Is it the extra 1,400 fans per game average this year (while keeping in mind that Edmonton collects their ticket money in Canadian dollars which are still less valuable than the American dollars that the Hurricanes fans use)? I'm not suggesting that Carolina should be "sacrificed." I'm saying that I have trouble understanding how a team could develop a strong fan base there. I wonder how many of their fans have ever played hockey? I wonder how many can even skate? Pardon my cynicism, but in that relatively small market, with little hockey history or knowledge, I don't see how they are going to build a strong stable fan base. I'll believe it when I see it. And ticket prices aren't that much different after the exchange rate has been factored in. Is it the fact that they lost $100,000 less than the Hurricanes for the 99-00 season (the most recent I could find at Forbes. And that was an expense-side issue. The Hurricanes brought in more revenue than the Flames.... and that was with significantly lower attendance than the Flames). Teams like the Panthers and Pens made money. And now that the Hurricanes are in their new arena, they make money, too. They don't need a very large draw to be profitable and they're exceeding that draw by far. Should the League have let a team move to Carolina in the first place? Maybe, maybe not. But the team is there. They're profitable, and they're tied to a strong (and favorable) lease for a long time. It's time to give up ragging on Carolina. We'll see. If Carolina is still drawing well and breaking even in a few years then they deserve to stay. As I say, I'll believe that when I see it. One thing to consider about the Islanders is their cable TV deal. They make singificant money off that (over $10 million per year). Get them a decent arena lease and they're sitting pretty. One of the links you posted showed the problem (their horrid lease that runs through 2015 that they also cannot get out of. If they were able to get out of it, they can solve their problems and stay on Long Island). Well, for all that bright future, they've changed hands 3 times in the last 5 years and are talking about losing lots of money this year. $20 million was one number I heard. The link you're talking about also mentioned that the Islanders had offered 7 million to buy out the lease, and the lessor countered with an offer of 15 million. And the article was written two years ago. This is not huge money compared to the scope of the project they are talking about, and the potential increased revenue over the remaining period of the lease, so I have to think there is something else going on. One of the things that will probably weigh heavily in whether Houston gets a franchise or not is the upcoming labor deal. If the deal manages to slow salary growth and perhaps share revenue more equally, then it may well keep any team currently teetering on the brink of moving in place. If the deal is more of the same, some franchises that have been holding on may well give up the ship and agree to sell out and possibly move. So it may well be 2004 before we have an accurate picture of the state of the NHL in regard to potential movement. Agreed. If the next agreement is more of the same, there will be a lot of teams on the market, and we can start talking contraction. If a NBA style agreement can be worked out, most of the teams will stabilise, and only the few in unusual circumstances would be candidates to move, but I would bet that there will still be one or two of these.
Didn't Bob McNair (Texans Owner) originally try to put together a bid for a Houston NHL before he brought a NFL team here? http://www.sfo.com/~csuppes/NHL/misc/index.htm?../EdmontonOilers/Articles/062897-3.htm http://www.texnews.com/texsports97/nhl061397.html
