What is the big deal about wanting hockey out of certain US cities that don't support it and...?

Question

...moving those teams to Canadian cities that do want hockey?


I always get hostile reactions from this section when I express this opinion.

...and that includes rude folks that I have already blocked, yet they still answer my questions.

I have never said that no US city supports hockey. I know that in Colorado, Minnesota, and the Great Lakes/New England states, hockey support is strong. Certain cities in the US that have mostly-empty NHL arenas should not have NHL teams.

The US economy is not 24 times larger than Canada's. It's closer to 12 times larger, which is comparable given the populations. And that isn't even factoring in the now much-stronger Canadian dollar than when those figures came out.

Haley D: no slack for you. Canadian NBA and MLB teams that don't get support move south to US cities that want them as they should.

Answer 1

Bill W. I think any sports team that is not
supported by the community that surounds it
should move to a city where it is appreciated
and supported. I remember when the NY Mets
first started playing they lost so many games
the people would ask "how many runs did the
Mets get beat by last nite". But yet the fans
supported that team greatly. Some cities
support a winner only.

Answer 2

Nothing is wrong with what you are saying if it was totally true. Yes, Canadians love hockey but many Canadian markets can not support a national market... there is a reason why Canadian teams fled over the border. They had fans but they didn't have the revenue to keep supporting those teams in a competitive market.

Look at Ottawa a few years ago. They were near bankruptcy and actually was close to not being able to pay for their payroll... Ottawa is a big and major market in Canada with hard core Canadian fans. Thank god it stayed there but you have to understand why Canadian teams go to America to rebuild. The American dollar (this might change given what is happening to the American dollar) attracts a lot of star players. A new home usually means a new stadium that can be built with luxury boxes and city councils that have a business mentality to things like this. The bottom line is that more money can be made in America... it might change someday but that is how it is today.

Answer 3

This is a great topic regardless of how long it has been debated. Economics are the huge driving factor for the flight of teams from canada, but I mean do we really need 2 teams in florida(nothing against either) then 1 in Georgia. An absolutley abysmal franchise in Columbus would get much better attendence in say Winnipeg. Speaking of Winnipeg the Coyotes are doing oh so much better in Phoenix then they were? I work for an insurance company and speak with people in Canada all the time. The Jets used to sell out everynight untill they moved, even when they sucked. Can the same be said about the desert or the florida swamp, no. Canadian fans love hockey and are more faithful supporters of there teams. What it came down to in Winnipeg was the owner didnt want to spend the $ to build a stadium up there and Phoenix was wllling to foot part of the bill. It came down to the economics for the owner.
It is a d@mn shame to see the teams leave that country.

Answer 4

All the big Canadian cities have teams already. Whats the chance that the smaller ones would really do a better job than some of the poorly supported US teams? We know Winnipeg and Quebec City loved hockey and the people supported the teams but they still were not profitable.

Just eliminate the poorly supported teams. There aren't enough good players to go around anyways. Cutting back to 24 teams would do wonders for the league. Teams would have 2 or 3 good lines instead of 1 or 2. With less teams you could have a better chance of playing every team in the league every year. How great would that be?

Answer 5

It's a simple question of economics. Canadian taxes are much higher, therefore canadian teams are much more expensive to operate even before you take into account what you are paying everyone to either play on the team or support the team. It's a misnomer to say that American cities don't support their hockey teams. Each team has a core fan base that'll go to games wether or not the team is doing any good. The problem comes in when the media, especially in southern US cities have people writing articles in newspapers or covering games on TV that have no clue on the intricacies of the game. most of these people just talk about the fights as if that;s the only thing hockey is about. Even though Canadian teams have more rabid fans and a more knowlegdable media, they are still hamstrung financially by all the federal and provincial taxes up there.

Answer 6

Go ahead and express your opinion about it. I hear that the NHL executive board comes onto Yahoo! Answers all the time for ideas on how to improve the league.

I see people on here all the time that think moving teams back to to Canada/contracting the league would be super-terrific yet it will never happen.

Point is, if it's making money for the owners, it stays. I believe LITY had a very good explanation for why hockey wasn't as profitable in WInnipeg as it is in Phoenix.

Answer 7

What do you mean? I'm all for moving teams that aren't being supported. I'm all for moving it from MOST Southern teams, and can even understand a few Northern cities. I mean come on the Rangers, Islanders, Sabres, and Devils are rather close. If the Islanders or Rangers were moved I could understand the logic. Although it would more be the Islanders. I can see their fans getting defensive about the idea though. That is what it always seems to be though. Once a team is threatened with moving fans magically show up for about a year if that. Then as long as they aren't moving the fans go away. I am all for moving the Predators. When you are competing like they were and can't get the support what makes you think you are ever going to get it.

Answer 8

Bill
The problem is that a lot of people think that by filling the stands....voila....your hockey team will be successful.

Sadly, that isn't the case. If it was, Quebec City and Winnipeg would still have teams as both teams were constantly in the top half in attendance, but still losing lots of money.

An example of this right now is Calgary. Calgary has sold out the saddledome for years...yet 3x in the last 4 years, the team has lost money (based on the NHL's independent auditor as agreed to in the CBA and not Forbes wild *** suggestions).

Supporting a team locally means television revenue, selling corporate sponsorship to plaster all over the ice and boards, among other things (Merchandise revenue is shared equally between the NHLPA and the NHL and has no effect on a team's viability anymore).

Corporate sponsorship and television money are harder to come by in Canada than they are in America. This was Winnipeg's downfall. Teams like Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton rank 27th, 29th, and 30th in Corporate Sponsorship. Columbus has more corporate sponsorship than those three teams combined.

People, especially hockey proud Canadians, don't understand the huge differences between the American Economy and the Canadian Economy. America is 9x larger than Canada, but their Economy is almost 24x larger. Canada has 30% of it's population on Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver..............America doesn't have a population that highly concentrated.

Yes, on average, Canadian fans will support hockey better than American fans. But Canadian corporations and their lower profit margins will not. Canadian television outlets won't.

Hamilton is more likely to sell out their arena than Nashville. But Hamilton's economy is not as strong as Nashville's, nor is it as strong as Ottawa, Calgary, or Edmonton's so corporate sponsorship DOES become an issue.
Also, Hamilton is not as big as those 4 cities either, which affects potential revenue sources going forward.

Don't get me wrong, I would love for Hamilton to get a team, I hate paying scalpers prices to see Leaf games. But there is just so much more to having a team survive than selling 17,000 seats. If that's all it took....Winnipeg, Quebec City, Regina, Saskatoon, London, Kitchener-Waterloo, and Halifax would all have teams!

Answer 9

I can understand certain area's that have teams where face it hockey is something you can hardly see fit in, even though it does. Places like Texas, Florida, California come to mind, but its also odd about even teams in places like the Northeast and Midwest and Canada itself. I pay attention to the AHL, hell I love the now Worcester Sharks and thanks to San Jose for letting this city have them. but the previous team we had(the Worcester Ice Cats) owned by the St.Louis Blues, said that the city I live in being the 2nd largest city in New england is not a hockey city was insulting. I mean when an owner does that whether it be AHL or NHL you have to wonder who the hell is owning these teams for them to say such stuff about places where the fan base for a sport is large yet the owners think its now.

Answer 10

I don't understand it anymore than the idea of putting NFL games overseas. The U.S. And Canada are the ONLY places where hockey(and football) remotely matter. I say if the fans in a city want a hockey team there, then give the people what they want.