NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman spoke at the Reuters Global Media Summit

So if you haven't heard by now Gary Bettman, the NHL Commissioner, is on record, “While we play to 93 to 94 percent capacity, we’d like to play to 100 percent capacity,” Bettman said. “A 15,000-16,000 seat arena might work better in some markets than a 19,000 seat arena.”. It sounds like the MTS Centre in Winnipeg just got the official stamp of approval from the Parade Grand Marshall.

See here for the complete story:
http://blogs.reuters.com/summits/2009/12/01/nhl-commish-bigger-not-always-better/

It seems that any franchise relocation or expansion would require the NHL to lessen the surprise or shock value that would create around NHL circles, media, etc.

Some may disagree with that assessment but think back to almost every recent expansion: the NHL tends to send out "trial balloons" for months if not years before the grand announcement is made. And when it is made, there is almost no surprise when it does occur.

So it seems the NHL is similarly positioning itself for Winnipeg. A quick overview of the last year plus, has the NHL intrigued with Winnipeg after years of essentially saying "no comment" or worse. Then Gary Bettman talks about righting a wrong in relation to a question about Winnipeg. The now-famous April 4th email (found on the website main page) where Bettman indicates that if the Coyotes should be moved it should first be offered to Winnipeg. And now the Commissioner says that a 15,000 or 16,000 seat rink is fine with the NHL in certain markets. Essentially, these comments will finally halt a local debate over "rink size anxiety" for many NHL fans in Manitoba.

Now if David Thomson of Thomson Reuters truly is the white knight for Winnipeg then it is easy to see why the NHL may be more than hinting at Winnipeg (and likewise Quebecor for a team in Quebec City). Money talks. Period. And it hasn't talked this loudly in both cities since the WHA signed Bobby Hull.

How many more trial balloons are sent up before finally the celebratory fireworks can be let loose?

On an additional point, most media and fans are convinced that if Winnipeg receives a team it will be via relocation not expansion. The consensus believe relocation to occur mainly because there are so many teams facing a harsh reality check in that relocation is the only practical long term solution for the NHL. And secondly, the NHL would rather keep the fanfare of expansion for its' more glamourous (read: American) locales.

Here is the other side of the puck. It does seem that the NHL expands at poor times when the seemingly only thing that really matters is a cash grab for existing owners. Not to mention the CBA running out shortly with the players already rumbling that they want a piece of any future expansion cash. Hence the NHL rushing expansion to avoid the players' cut. Now as a bandaid solution, the owners may jump at the quick and easy cash infusion rather than find a long term solution to their collective via revenue-shared woes. But at say $250 million in expansion, each existing team would get less than $8.4 million US. The troubled teams each burn through that much cash in less than a season on average. Some of them do so every 20 games! So this is a very near-sighted idea at best. But history tends to repeat itself, especially with essentially the same group of owners that made previous short term decisions.

One would be OFFside for dismissing NHL history in these larger decisions.

Knowing this, could the NHL really turn down expansion cash if two owners with mega-deep pockets, both controlling large media plays that could help the NHL in various, league-wide ways? Remember that Disney and Blockbuster were courted quickly by the NHL in the early 1990s: Anaheim and Miami arrived in the NHL circuit after a series of reports (aka. the trial balloons) linked NHL staff with Disney's Michael Eisner and Blockbuster's Wayne Huizenga. Further, can you name another time that these two Canadian cities may each offer up $200 million or more for an expansion team? And with one in the west and the other team in the east it also allows for a very easy fit into a 32 team circuit, with two 16 team conferences and four 8 team divisions. Perhaps with one entirely Canadian division joining the US North Eastern division? Or the Canadian division joining the US Pacific division? This also allows the NHL an easy excuse to consider moving either Detroit or Columbus to the east conference, which has been talked about every recent expansion. And finally, when those troubled teams have to be relocated in the southern US, the NHL will then move them from one US city to another, which will avoid the whole US media and fan backlash of taking an American team north of the border and away from the Red, White and Blue. Imagine the NHL brass trying to explain that one to the national (mainly American) sponsors who would see this as devaluing their marketing opportunity. This could lower their advertizing potential and in turn lower ad revenues for the NHL, assuming that the sponsor didn't just throw in the towel. ESPN might just balk too!

All in all, expansion to 2 Canadian cities nicely fits the NHL agenda to reach 32 teams for a completely balanced schedule, matches the NFL in franchises (more size anxiety issues for the NHL no doubt) and allows for guaranteed stabilization of 24 teams in the US (wherever they may end up moving to). Las Vegas (if they ever build that new rink) and Kansas City (if they ever find solid ownership) may well be playing in the NHL sooner than later, even if Houston, Portland and Seattle all get relocated teams. Because finding a sixth new NHL city in the US will be very tough with the very real prospect that the sixth troubled team just might not find a viable landing strip to call "home-sweet relocated-home".

Let's hope the southern experiment failure has taught the NHL governors a huge and painful lesson with relocation to Winnipeg (and Quebec City) the best thing for the long term health of the NHL and its' stakeholders. With 6 dead-on-arrival teams, expansion is the last thing the NHL needs now. Not that the talent pool couldn't handle it, but because the "market pool" can't. A cynic might say then you can expect an expansion announcement this year and two new teams hitting the ice before the current CBA expires.

Will reason will win out over the love of money? Either way this assumes Winnipeg gets a team. So really we're happy either way. However, the prospect of propping up a Six Pack of welfare clubs can't be good to the NHL nor a new Manitoban team.

If you disagree with anything here, skate down to the forum and have your say! www.mbmbforum.com

Chris
President, www.myNHLincludesWinnipeg.com
Averaging over 20,000 unique hits per month

"The Reality May Surprise You! Excite You!"