| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Alex |
Posted - 08/03/2008 : 05:56:47
I've been wondering: what exactly are the guidelines for NHL relocation? Exactly how much discretion can the NHL impose on a pending deal?
Let’s use a good example. Pretend tomorrow the Montreal Canadiens ownership went bankrupt and no one wanted to buy the franchise in Montreal. There was however a trillionaire from Quebec who was interested. It would mean ‘relocating’ the franchise to Quebec City.
Now, Quebec City could clearly support an NHL team (they had one for sixteen seasons.) It’s a traditional market for sure and the money is there. The Habs fans could still attend games. There is absolutely no reason to stop the deal, other than it would mean losing the oldest, most successful and most storied franchise in NHL history. Do you think the NHL would intervene or do you think the deal would stand?
Make sure to cast your votes in the PickUpHockey Hall of Fame |
| 3 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| 99pickles |
Posted - 08/05/2008 : 08:24:57
The league frowns heavily on relocations because it devalues the other franchises, and subsequently the league, for future investors and partners that wish to become involved with the NHL. Remember how they actually ran the Sabres rather than see them go, several years ago? They've done the same for other franchises too (the Seals, the NY Americans...although they were the Brooklyn Americans at the time).
And then of course you have the "NHL ready venue" or a decent temporary venue while said NHL-quality venue is being built. This is why Quebec won't be back any time soon. By the way, the Colisee is no longer fit for NHL use...although it would be an acceptable temporary facility while a modernized NHL arena was built. This is also why Seattle is never mentioned as even a consideration...Commissioner Bettman has said so himself.
Finally, you have the qualification of deep deep pockets.
Outside of those Big 3 criteria, I don't see any evidence of any other stipulations. We can say with certainty that "a proven and viable hockey market" is not a concern to the NHL when it comes to new franchises.
We can also see that if a prospective owner that satisfies all other criteria steps in to solidify an ailing franchise, the NHL will put a stop to it if it is obvious that that prospective owner intends on relocating the franchise... unless of course that relocation is to the south. Minnesota, Hartford, Winnipeg, Quebec were all northerly markets that transferred to a much more southerly locale. The last 4 transfers have seen extremely northern franchises move to extremely southerly locales.
However, the transfers previous to those went the other way: Denver to New Jersey (for the '82-'83 season), Atlanta to Calgary (for the '79-'80 season) and the whole California/Oakland Seals transfer and merge to Cleveland then Minnesota throughout the second half of the '70's.
|
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 08/04/2008 : 06:36:00
quote:
Originally posted by Alex
I've been wondering: what exactly are the guidelines for NHL relocation? Exactly how much discretion can the NHL impose on a pending deal?
Let’s use a good example. Pretend tomorrow the Montreal Canadiens ownership went bankrupt and no one wanted to buy the franchise in Montreal. There was however a trillionaire from Quebec who was interested. It would mean ‘relocating’ the franchise to Quebec City.
Now, Quebec City could clearly support an NHL team (they had one for sixteen seasons.) It’s a traditional market for sure and the money is there. The Habs fans could still attend games. There is absolutely no reason to stop the deal, other than it would mean losing the oldest, most successful and most storied franchise in NHL history. Do you think the NHL would intervene or do you think the deal would stand?
Make sure to cast your votes in the PickUpHockey Hall of Fame
When the Molson family sold the Montreal Canadians to Mr. Gillette there were clauses put in place by the NHL stating no original six team can be relocated. therefore the Leafs Canadians Blackhawks Rangers Red Wings and Bruins Can not be move to anywhere.
Pasty |
| wyntyre |
Posted - 08/03/2008 : 13:45:08
I think the executive board have to approve the re-location...Kinda like last summer with The Preds and Jim Balsillie where Gary Bettman and the the others would allow him to buy the team because he wanted to move it to Hamilton or Kingston...or wherever the talk was for that week.
I would have to believe in this case, any Montreal franchise would not move to Quebec City. The Quebec owner though would be more than welcome to keep the team in Montreal. Probably the only way that could happen (although I realize this is an extreme case and highly hypothetical) is if the Bell Center became sooo antiquated and this owner had made or at least had the go ahead to build a state of the art arena.
|
|
|
