14 replies to this topic

[Still MIGHTY]

Expansion on NHL's Radar

A source said that an item for discussion on the agenda for Wednesday’s meeting was “public reports of NHL expansion.” Daly would not comment on that, but in an e-mail said, “We would have provided the Board with the same report, regardless of what has or has not appeared in the press.”

LINK (Password Needed)

They were talking about this on PTI on ESPN.
If someone has a password to this site and could post this article, thatd be great

I know its been talked about (Las Vegas, Kansas City, etc.)
But whyyyyyyy???????
There is no need. It's just for money. The NHL does not need more teams.

Thoughts?

[Todrick]

If someone has a password to this site and could post this article, thatd be great

BugMeNot.com

[Still MIGHTY]

If someone has a password to this site and could post this article, thatd be great

BugMeNot.com

None of those worked. Thanks though.

[HockeyDame]

They've been talking about Vegas 10 years ago. It's not going to happen because the risk of a player getting too much into gambling and perhaps betting his own game is too high of a risk. Vegas is the most terrible place you can have a professional sport at.

[duckshockey2000]

Horrible idea! The league needs to contract before it expands.
OT: I think the Preds move to Hamilton is a great idea.

[GO DUX]

The preds should move to Winnipeg

[oatesfan]

The NHL does not need more expansion teams.. If anything, we should cut back on the teams in the league. Nothing compares to the good 'ol days of rivalries! The Big Bad Bruins and The Broad Street Bullies... There are so many teams now, that its hard to have rivalries formed now. Aside from the Bruins and Canadiens and one or two others, that is it.

Hockey in Vegas? Bad idea..... The guys would never sleep b/c the town never sleeps... Not to mention the "temptation" that Vegas has for gambling. The NHL should scratch that city off their list.

[DropThePuck]

How the NHL expanded: It was 40 years ago that the NHL doubled in size from six to 12 teams. Over the next 12 years, the NHL grew to 21 teams. It stayed that size until the 1990s when nine teams came aboard over a 10-year period. It is currently at 30 teams.
<link>

Expansion reportedly would cost prospective owners in Vegas $325 million and in Kansas City $175 million. A half-billion dollars that doesn’t have to be shared with the players would be tempting for the league’s owners.

“It’s really a mixed blessing, because it may provide existing owners a little bit of a cash bump, especially if the expansion number in Las Vegas is $325 million,” Carter said. “It’d be very difficult to turn that down.”

<link>

[BuckyHermit]

Expansion is a horrible idea at this point. There are enough teams as it is.

What they should do is de-saturate some areas of the country that are already over-saturated with little demand. Florida is probably the best example; why are there two teams in that state? Moving the Panthers elsewhere might be a better option. (I'm sure the fans over there will scream foul at me -- but two teams in Florida?)

[Still MIGHTY]

Thats like saying there is too much here in California. We have 3 and were not a "traditional" hockey market. Theres 2 teams in the LA/OC area. Would you want the Ducks taken away? And the Kings are a mainstay here for 40. The NHL wouldnt move them.

I think if they added the Vegas team, that is a lot of Hockey out here in the Southwest portion of the US. LA, Anaheim, Phoenix, and Vegas??? eh.

I think in the long run the money will be too tempting for the NHL and its owners whether we like it or not. 32 teams would be near a breaking point though. Scheduling would become a nightmare under the current system. Adding anymore teams into the NHL would cause a massive leaguewide revamping of the entire rules, CBA, and the overall agreement with teams, divisions, and conferences.

I think better bets for the NHL would be teams in places like Seattle, Salt Lake City, or Milwaukee. Places that are cold weather and places people know hockey could thrive.

A team in Vegas takes away from the fan bases of the Kings, Ducks, and Coyotes. Some of those are long drives, but people do make the trips.

I think for either of those KC is a better choice. first, it only takes away from St. Louis' fanbase and they have a brand new stadium just waiting to be taken by the NBA and NHL. I think KC has a better future outlook than Vegas. Plus could you imagine the playoffs in Vegas? not only whats happening in the city for the sports, but the heat on the ice and the arena. People were complaining about our ice, imagine the complaints about Vegas

[BuckyHermit]

Well, two in the LA/OC area can work because the area is just HUGE. The difference lies in the population; the population of Tampa and Miami can't compare to the population of the Los Angeles/Orange County/Inland Empire region.

[Marshy]

I am all for putting a team back into Winnipeg first. Screw Kansas City.

[BuckyHermit]

I am all for putting a team back into Winnipeg first. Screw Kansas City.

Hopefully that last sentence isn't an order...

Winnipeg is problematic, because the AHL Moose built a new area recently, the MTS Centre. But the problem is that the MTS isn't up to NHL standards (capacity's only about 15,000, if even that). They could build another arena, but it'd be hard considering how they just built one not even three years ago...

IMHO, they should've made the MTS Centre seat at least 17,000 people, to begin with. Don't just build it for the Moose, but for any other possible pro franchises that may blaze into town.