News   Dec 23, 2025
Happy Holidays From the UrbanToronto Team!
 848     3 
News   Dec 23, 2025
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2025, presented by Diverso Energy
 2.2K     1 
News   Dec 23, 2025
City Council December, 2025 Zoning Settlements: Large-Scale Housing, City-Wide Policy
 3K     1 

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

alklay said:
A second NHL or NFL franchise is always just a few years away and "inevitable". Don't hold your breath for either.
Click to expand...

I think that is what you meant...but I agree. The NFL has been "inevitable" here as long as I can remember (at least back to the late 70's) and a second NHL team "has just made so much sense" since around the NY/NJ area got its 3rd team.....but they never happen.

I happen to think that the NFL will come here before the NHL comes again (IYKWIM)....but I would not put a timeline on it and I would not put any money on it.
 
you need to go well beyond "why not"

Explain to me (legitimately, with good reasons) how the dominoes play out that allow an NFL lockout to result in the establishment of a team in Toronto.
 
theterribleone said:
Easier to move? The lockout gives the chance to move a team with much less pressure I would assume.
Click to expand...

I would disagree....a lockout does not make it harder but I don't think it makes it easier. If a team's lease is up its up whether the teams are playing or not.

Thinking back on previous lockouts/strikes (without doing any research just memory bank stuff) I can't think of a correlation between labour disputes and franchise movement.

It might, come to think of it, make it more difficult because a team in a league without a collective bargaining agreement can't possibly know what their cost structure is and it might make lease negotiations and incentive to move negotiations tougher. Like I said "might"....really don't think there is a connection.
 
theterribleone: Not really. If anything, lockouts are a time of uncertainty. Why would you move a team without being certain what the economic climate of the league will be post-lockout? If you want an example, look at the NHL pre and post lockout. Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa and Buffalo all struggled pre-lockout. In hindsight, would it have made sense for any of those owners to move the teams during the lockout? Considering they're all making money thanks to the salary cap, nope.
 
jn_12 said:
theterribleone: Not really. If anything, lockouts are a time of uncertainty. Why would you move a team without being certain what the economic climate of the league will be post-lockout? If you want an example, look at the NHL pre and post lockout. Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa and Buffalo all struggled pre-lockout. In hindsight, would it have made sense for any of those owners to move the teams during the lockout? Considering they're all making money thanks to the salary cap, nope.
Click to expand...
Agree that moving during a lockout is highly unlikely, but the main reason Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa are now making money is the rise of the Canadian dollar, not the salary cap. Buffalo's problems had more to do with the crooks who previously owned the team.

Even with specific ownership and/or arena issues, there weren't supposed to be medium-to-raging fires in Phoenix, Nashville, Florida, Atlanta, the Islanders and who knows where else if the cap worked as the NHL promised.
 
GenerationW said:
Agree that moving during a lockout is highly unlikely, but the main reason Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa are now making money is the rise of the Canadian dollar, not the salary cap. Buffalo's problems had more to do with the crooks who previously owned the team.

Even with specific ownership and/or arena issues, there weren't supposed to be medium-to-raging fires in Phoenix, Nashville, Florida, Atlanta, the Islanders and who knows where else if the cap worked as the NHL promised.
Click to expand...

I look at it differently....the Canadian teams had expense issues more than revenue issues.....their expenses were US$ and their revenue was in CDN$ (mostly) so no matter how many tickets they sold at the time (and they sold a lot) they could not keep up with the expenses....they were helped, obviously, by the reduction in those US$ expenses (the cap) and got a big bonus that the C$ recovered also.

Those US teams you list have, simply stated, revenue problems of various sources.....some are low ticket sales and some are low corporate income through antiquated arenas and some (most) are both.......given the level of losses that they are reporting (which are obviously questionable but they are all we "know") it is not hard to figure out that those teams would be bleeding no matter how low the cap was.....they cannot be saved by expense reductions....only by revenue increases...and who knows how they get that.
 
Remembering that 04-05 was the lockout year.....

Ottawa payroll 03-04, 05-06, 06-07 and 07-08 (in millions of dollars): 39.6, 36.9, 43.6, 50.0
Edmonton: 33.4, 38.5, 42.3, 46.9
Calgary: 36.4, 36.6, 45.8, 50.9

Except for Ottawa in 05-06, payroll was increased every year, and none of them came close to the salary floor (which went from $21.5M in 05-06 to $34.1M in 07-08).

With the possible exception of a new rink for the Islanders, there are no large revenue increases on the horizon for those U.S. teams. What they need are expense reductions (i.e. not having to meet the current $41M salary floor), which might still hurt those teams, but will allow them to come off life support. How do you think baseball teams like the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Kansas City Royals survive year after year? While it's true they get more from general league revenues than NHL teams do, they remain viable primarily by keeping their payrolls down. If the Jays didn't have delusions of grandeur that it was still 1992, they could (and would) do the same. Instead their massive losses are covered by the largesse of Rogers.

But would the NHL actually attempt another lockout to get this paradise deal? Would they screw it up even if they "won" again?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top