If Toronto was to get a second NHL team.....

[alklay]

No one in Toronto would consider a Hamilton hockey team a Toronto hockey team because no one considers Hamilton to be a part of the city (the Ticats are not a Toronto football team).

 

[Second_in_pie]

It may not be a "Toronto hockey team," but you have to look at the broader area that you can market things to. I can guarantee almost 100% that if you stuck even an alright NHL team in Hamilton, seats would be packed because it's in the dense GGH region. I think there'd even be a market for a team in Hamilton, the Leafs, and a team in Mississauga. There's plenty of more places in Canada that could use hockey teams too. But since that's probably not as likely to happen, it may be wise to pump more money and hype into smaller leagues like the OHL.

 

[junctionist]

No one in Toronto would consider a Hamilton hockey team a Toronto hockey team because no one considers Hamilton to be a part of the city (the Ticats are not a Toronto football team).

Exactly. I'm not going to plan to meet someone in Toronto's west end at Gore Park . I might go to see Hamilton play Ovechkin or Crosby's team though.

 

[Dan416]

I definitely think Hamilton is more viable from an NHL perspective than another team in Toronto (including Toronto proper, or Mississauga or Vaughan). There's a lot of people in the west end who would travel to Hamilton for a game I'm sure. Hamilton's like what, 40 minutes from Mississauga? 30 from Oakville? It's very close.

 

[TOareaFan]

That's not in Toronto. This is about Toronto getting a second team, not the GTA or Golden Horseshoe.

I really did not consider that I needed to put an emoticon to indicate that I was kidding about Wonderland.

 

[TOareaFan]

When people talk about a second team in Toronto, they talk about it in a regional context. Whether it's in Markham or Hamilton or whatever, no one cares about artificial boundaries within this discussion.


Also, the reason why the Globe gave us a market viability of D- is because of the initial start up cost. Unless they play in Copps there's a need for a new arena and expansion fees. You're looking at $1billion up front easily. If someone is willing to put up that money then the market is clearly capable of supporting another team based on the 800,000 people who have said they have a very strong interest in NHL hockey but currently cannot afford to go to a game.

Having a team that has to recoup a billion dollar start up cost while spending a competitve amount of salary dollars is hardly the recipe for a team that would be affordable to those people to see.

 

[jn_12]

Well, you're assuming that the team would expect to recoup the costs instantly. I'm sure anyone making the initial investment would understand that it could take time to make the money back at the gate (they might never make the money back. The value of the franchise when it's up for sale makes it worth it though). Any new owner would look at what MLSE has done with the price gouging and would probably counter that with a more affordable product, particularly at the start to a degree that would depend on the team (is it an expansion or relocation?). Let's face it, any owner that can afford $1 billion up front, won't be concerned about salaries and making maximum profits on day one. Sure, one day the price of a ticket could rival the leafs, but to start off that way would be maybe as dumb as the Rogers-Bills debacle, only i this case there'd be more at stake.

 

[TOareaFan]

Well, you're assuming that the team would expect to recoup the costs instantly. I'm sure anyone making the initial investment would understand that it could take time to make the money back at the gate (they might never make the money back. The value of the franchise when it's up for sale makes it worth it though). Any new owner would look at what MLSE has done with the price gouging and would probably counter that with a more affordable product, particularly at the start to a degree that would depend on the team (is it an expansion or relocation?). Let's face it, any owner that can afford $1 billion up front, won't be concerned about salaries and making maximum profits on day one. Sure, one day the price of a ticket could rival the leafs, but to start off that way would be maybe as dumb as the Rogers-Bills debacle, only i this case there'd be more at stake.

No where did I say that they would want/need to recoup it "instantly" but lets say they amortize their original cost over 20 years....that means they would have an "expense" (repaying themselves) of $50 million a year that other teams don't necessarily have. So, in addition to covering their normal hockey team operating expenses they would have $50 million to cover and that number goes up if they borrow any of that upfront money.

Not saying this makes the team a "loser" off the ice I just don't think (as I was pointing out in my first post on the subject) that it adds up to a team that is substantially more affordable than the current NHL team we have.