Toronto expansion team?

mattbond wrote:I completely agree that what the league needs is relocation back to Canada.

While I don't fully understand the business aspects of why QC and Winnipeg failed the first time around, I'd be ecstatic to have them there or anywhere else above the border.

I think that Quebec city lost its team because the owner (Marcel Aubut) was over-the-top greedy.

TheAvatar wrote:

mattbond wrote:I completely agree that what the league needs is relocation back to Canada.

While I don't fully understand the business aspects of why QC and Winnipeg failed the first time around, I'd be ecstatic to have them there or anywhere else above the border.

I think that Quebec city lost its team because the owner (Marcel Aubut) was over-the-top greedy.

yet the leafs are still there :D

Toronto could easily afford a second team. It would be great for the league to boost revenues in a declining market (either expansion or moving Florida or some other low-attendance team). However the Leafs will veto any such move because they've got a league-issued permit to print money with exclusive franchise rights in Southern Ontario.

Of course it would only take Ballsillie and a bunch of lawyers to petition that this NHL ruling is unconstitutional or some-such. There's been precedent set already in other sports, although MLSE won't go down easily.

But until that rule is struck down don't expect this second Toronto team rumour to go anywhere further.

This. Will. Never. Happen.

Word is the Leafs have no problem whatsoever with another team coming in. In fact, they'd likely rent the facility (ACC) to the new team to generate even more revenue.

DashRiprock wrote:Word is the Leafs have no problem whatsoever with another team coming in. In fact, they'd likely rent the facility (ACC) to the new team to generate even more revenue.

Why would MLSE have no problem with a team coming in and taking revenue from their precious brand? It makes no sense. MLSE will fight this tooth and nail. The only way this happens is via the courts to allow another team to come in and setup shop.

The Leaf brand is so well established and has loyal fan base despite effort from management, a competitor won't change that.

I haven't seen anything to suggest the Leafs/MLSE are "fine" with this. Are there any articles?

I only heard through watching TSN about the renting facility part. I will keep my eyes and ears open.

DashRiprock wrote:The Leaf brand is so well established and has loyal fan base despite effort from management, a competitor won't change that.

You're talking logic and reason, here, but this is the MLSE we're talking about. The same ones who extended JFJ. Twice, I think. Who hired Fletch away from the nursing home he was settling in, then let him stay on until the shoo-in for the Mike Dickbury Award (Worst. GM. Ever!) is finally available.

shabbs wrote:Why would MLSE have no problem with a team coming in and taking revenue from their precious brand? It makes no sense. MLSE will fight this tooth and nail. The only way this happens is via the courts to allow another team to come in and setup shop.

Well, they did let the Marlies play there a few times last year. Even let them wear some extra jerseys they had lying around.

wprager wrote:

shabbs wrote:Why would MLSE have no problem with a team coming in and taking revenue from their precious brand? It makes no sense. MLSE will fight this tooth and nail. The only way this happens is via the courts to allow another team to come in and setup shop.

Well, they did let the Marlies play there a few times last year. Even let them wear some extra jerseys they had lying around.

Yes, but they control the Marlies.

The only MSLE repsponse I've seen is:

Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment President Richard Peddie said his
organization would listen to any expansion suggestions and downplayed
any negative effect it could have on the Maple Leafs. "Any talk about
expansion or relocation of another NHL team to southern Ontario is
purely speculative," he told TSN. "If or when the National Hockey
League comes to the Board of Governors with a recommendation on
relocation or expansion of an NHL franchise, Maple Leaf Sports and
Entertainment will analyze the recommendation and provide its input at
that time."

Sounds pretty canned and generic.

I wonder...is MLSE legally able to purchase another professional hockey team under the same ownership?

wprager wrote:Toronto could easily afford a second team. It would be great for the league to boost revenues in a declining market (either expansion or moving Florida or some other low-attendance team). However the Leafs will veto any such move because they've got a league-issued permit to print money with exclusive franchise rights in Southern Ontario.

Of course it would only take Ballsillie and a bunch of lawyers to petition that this NHL ruling is unconstitutional or some-such. There's been precedent set already in other sports, although MLSE won't go down easily.

But until that rule is struck down don't expect this second Toronto team rumour to go anywhere further.

Wasn't there some sort of constitutional challenge to another of the NHL bylaws a few years ago?
I'd suspect that this one wouldn't stand up to the challenge if Balsillie really wanted to push it, but he'd have to have a team in hand, ready to move into Toronto's territory first, because he'd piss of a ton of people (on the other hand, I'm sure he'd have a sell-out every night, so he may not care...)

PKC wrote:I wonder...is MLSE legally able to purchase another professional hockey team under the same ownership?

nope

Did Balsillie just loan or give money to Nashville, or did he buy a stake in their shares? Cause if he is part owner, then by that theory he couldn't own another team, at least not before selling his shares in Nashville... but who is to say that once he sells the shares Bettman lets him back in?