Talk:Potential National Hockey League expansion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ice Hockey (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Canada / Ontario / Quebec / Manitoba / Toronto / Sport (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Manitoba.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.


There must be mention here of the idea of a second Toronto-based team which is gaining support. Jmj713 (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Added some quick info, needs fleshing out, obviously. Jmj713 (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Expand the expansion?[edit]

Maybe it would be best to rename this article to simply Potential National Hockey League expansion, and include any possible expansion that has been mentioned, such as Las Vegas, Kansas City, and other places, including Europe? Jmj713 (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That is perhaps an idea, though it would render most of the background section irrelevant, as I had originally intended it to focus on the long, long standing issues surrounding expansion back into Canada, which is a topic unto itself. That said, no reason to be married to one concept if there is support for another. Resolute 20:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not really necessary to change much if anything of the Canada-related portion. Just have separate sections for Canada, USA, and Europe (since there has been (very general) talk of European expansion). It would just be nice to have all expansion be contained within one article. Jmj713 (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
True. Because of this article, I've taken the relevant info from the KHL page and made a separate expansion page just like this one.--Lvivske (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and restructured the article a bit to make it into a general expansion article. I would like to find some news items from 1996-97, to see exactly which cities were considered, because I remember there was a long list from which four cities were ultimately selected. Google News turns up articles from that time but none for free. I can see mentions of as much as 11 cities submitting bids, but no details. Jmj713 (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I like how this now includes other places that have been talked about in expansion discussions. Good decision to expand it. This article lists the six of eleven that made that cut, but doesn't list the eliminated ones. And it's funny how things have changed since then regarding those cities. Especially Bennett who bought an NBA team for OKC instead. And this article does list the other applicants. 11 groups applied from 8 cities. --Mtjaws (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton history[edit]

There's quite a bit of history of Hamilton trying to get back into the NHL. Lots of info here: Should this data be incorporated into the Hamilton section somehow? Jmj713 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Winnipeg Ownership[edit]

There is indeed an ownership in Winnipeg, Mark Chipman has said on occasion that there is indeed a group of owners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rddflag (talkcontribs) 19:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As always, however, there are no names attached. Resolute 21:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well now there is, a Toronto based group has taken steps to buy the atlanta thrashers, i'll get the source and include it in the article. --Daniel (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Al Strachan claims that there is a group interested. Frankly, I don't take his claims to be worth the paper they are printed on. Resolute 15:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Toronto Area[edit]

There should be mention of previous times when two NHL teams have been in the same Canadian metropolitan area as one another, and current NHL teams that are in the same media market. (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC) just off the top of my head I can think of Montreal, Quebec, and the New York/New Jersey area (3 teams). (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternate bid for Phoenix franchise[edit]

There is a bid where the bidders have said that a few games would be played in Canadian cities. However, as the club would still be a Phoenix franchise, I don't believe it falls within the scope of this article; it's just another example of neutral-site games, which have been played in the past. I propose removing the text related to this topic from the article. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is no additional discussion, I will remove the mention of this bid (which incidentally has been withdrawn). Isaac Lin (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


On the radio today (Fan 590 in Toronto) they were talking to (i forget his name...ill edit this when i remember) who worked close with Phoenix. He said that had Gretzky not come aboard in 2001 then the wheels were in motion to move to Portland the following year. Any other leads on this city?--Львівське (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the incoherent ramblings of a former Calgary Herald sportswriter who hated the Flames and tried several times a year to move the team to Portland, Houston or Oklahoma City in his articles, nope. But yes, the Coyotes to Portland story did exist at the time. As of right now though, the common perception is that there is little to no chance of Portland getting a team, mainly due to Paul Allen's lack of desire to open the Rose Garden up to one. Resolute 15:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A second Quebec Nordiques franchise[edit]

In future, we'll have to mention that the Colorado Avalanche own the rights to the name 'Quebec Nordiques'. Re-location or expansion into Quebec City, doesn't automatically mean the name Nordiques can be used. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the NHL owns all of the trademarks. The only exception is the Hartford Whalers, as the city of Hartford was given ownership of the name, colours and logos as part of the deal to let the team move. That is why you won't see any Whalers jerseys in the NHL vintage line. Even so, calling them "the second Nordiques" is silly. We ascribe the past team name to the proposed out of convenience, not fact. Resolute 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Certainly, we won't be 'merging' it with the Quebec Nordiques, though. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
If there's a second Quebec Nordiques franchise, then of course we'd have 2 articles called 'Quebec Nordiques (1972-95)' & 'Quebec Nordiques (year- present)'; PS: I know I'm looking too far ahead. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

bill daly now confirming nhl interest in south ontario[edit]

Article status[edit]

I don't want to be confrontational, but I fail to see how this article is encyclopedic. It seems to me to run afoul of the principles that Wikipedia is not a rumor mill and not a crystal ball. Same for the matching KHL article. I think this may need to go for an AfD. oknazevad (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It provides a plethora of official statements & sources and was decided upon by the wikiproject (consensus?). How you could suggest this is AfD material is just...I dunno..--Львівське (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Though good portions of the article contain genuine initiatives, there is a difficulty in trying to separate real plans from purely speculative ones. The problem is that any group can put together some possible backers, hold a press conference, and get media coverage, and yet in reality just be a paper tiger. Some of the cited statements in the article are just expressing intent without any real plans, like the ones in the section on Quebec City. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Just because something gets mentioned in a newspaper doesn't make it particularly notable, nor legitimate. And a collection of paraphrases of news articles is not really encyclopedia material. It's all just too speculative, right down to the "potential" in the title.oknazevad (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


lets not forget the NHL almost expanded here, see Hampton Roads Rhinos-- (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  • A group put in a bid, yes. The bid was rejected, as were bids from a number of other cities in the 1990s. I'd say the only city that gets to put an "almost" tag up is Seattle, which actually did win a conditional franchise at one point.  Ravenswing  19:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

NHL in Europe - are you mad?[edit]

The NHL will never expand into Europe; the high fuel prices would prevent that from happening. You're more likely to see NASCAR Sprint Cup Series drivers race in Monaco or Hockenheim Ring than you are to see the Toronto Maple Leafs move to Manchester, England or the Montreal Canadiens move to Paris, France and become the Paris Napoleons. GVnayR (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  • The point is not whether NHL expansion into Europe is feasible; this is not a general hockey discussion forum, and arguing the merits has no place here. The point is whether it's been discussed and is verifiable to reliable sources, which it has been for decades now.  Ravenswing  19:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Let me put this in a better way: Having the NHL expand into Europe would be like Major League Soccer expanding into England or the NFL expanding into Central/South America. Who would want to watch a soccer match between Toronto FC and Manchester United or an American football match between the Dallas Cowboys and the Rio de Janeiro Jugadores? GVnayR (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The NHL is very popular in Europe. Jmj713 (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The NHL hasn't been sending teams over to Europe each September/October, because of boredom. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Err ... and this is still not a hockey discussion forum. If you'd like to discuss how crazy you believe the notion to be, you'd be better off taking it to one. Beyond that, stop editorializing in the article. Your personal speculation as to how the NHL would have to realign to admit European teams or how that would affect existing franchises is just that: your personal speculation. Personal, unsourced speculation has no place in this article or any other, and I'm astonished that this would need to be explained to someone active on Wikipedia for six years and with nearly 50,000 edits.  Ravenswing  03:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
If I may just for a moment... If the NHL were to expand into Europe, I'm sure it would be a separate European conference that would not play the North American teams very much if at all during the season. Jmj713 (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I have always figured it would be like Major League Baseball (prior to interconference play). And that the only time to two sides met would be in the Stanley Cup finals. -DJSasso (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Winnipeg info redundant[edit]

With a franchise relocating to Winnipeg, the article's section on expansion to Winnipeg is moot. I propose removing it. isaacl (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

While the move is most likely imminent, it HAS NOT HAPPENED YET. The NHL Board of Governors still have to approve the sale and relocation. Until then, the Atlanta Thrashers still exist, and this article needs to continue to reflect that until the move has been made official. --David7581 (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  • The section on "expansion" to Winnipeg was in fact overwhelmingly made up of plans to relocate a team to Winnipeg, between the various efforts to return the Coyotes, True North's 2009 attempt to buy the Thrashers, and so on. As such, it did not belong in this article, and I removed it yesterday.  Ravenswing  05:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Should this article discuss the potential realignment of the NHL that's being talked about right now? Or is this subject for a separate article? Perhaps one that would cover historical realignments and other restructuring of teams? Jmj713 (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  • We're not really a gossip column here. Of course sportswriters and bloggers are talking about it, and when and if there's actually anything definite to report, it can go in the pertinent articles.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  15:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, it looks like it's league officials, including the commissioner, that are talking about this, not just the media. That's why I brought this up. I wouldn't have, if it was just some no-name bloggers. Jmj713 (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it here. Maybe the current NHL season article. At any rate, there is not a proposal, only some minimal details out there about 4 divisions, two with 8 teams and two with 7 teams. Another possibility: Maybe it's time for a 'National Hockey League divisions' article. I know there are articles for each division, but maybe there could be an article to introduce all of them, and how the divisions have changed over time and include a realignment section there. That could be a good article, if there isn't one already. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec)I wouldn't think we would talk about it. Once it actually happens it would probably be talked about in the affected division and conference articles. Not sure I would make a separate article, although I could see the use in having one that covered every realignment. However, even in that case most of the past ones are covered in other articles such as the 1967 expansion article and what not. So I suppose not against its own article, but it definitely doesn't belong in this article. -DJSasso (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking too, a historical overview of all NHL realignments. Should be educational. Jmj713 (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a 1967 expansion article and this one. Maybe a 'National Hockey League expansions and realignments' to cover everything that's all over the place in one article? (I am -not- stuck on the title - it could include contractions) The division changes get mentioned in the List of NHL seasons article, but only mentioned, not covered. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Found the pertinent article: History of organizational changes in the NHL. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah we definitely need a nice and tidy article that would chart the evolution of the layout of the NHL. Right now, like you said, there's only a single article on the 1967 expansion. Seems like a vast area of NHL's history is glossed over. Jmj713 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree not required in this article; if more formal statements are made by the NHL, perhaps in the NHL article and the latest History of the NHL article. isaacl (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
That will go there, undoubtedly, but I'm talking a more in-depth article. Jmj713 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I think a more in-depth discussion makes most sense when placed into context with the rest of NHL history. If you tried to flesh it all out into one article, you'd end up duplicating a lot of historical information, and likely have to split out the article into multiple ones, anyway, to make it more manageable. Personally, I believe History of organizational changes in the NHL (thanks Alaney2k!) is more useful in its current form as an overview article, with links to the appropriate sections in NHL history. isaacl (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand it may be too much for one article, but on the other hand, too much is better than none. If done concisely, we should be able to talk about all the restructurings of the NHL within a single article. As far as the "organizational changes" article, I was the one that actually started that, and my idea was not realignment, but expansion and contraction of teams throughout league history. So it's somewhat of a different topic, though it could be combined, perhaps. Jmj713 (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

San Francisco[edit]

These edits added some description of San Francisco as a potential expansion city candidate, with a citation to a personal columnist's opinion. Without any actual proposals in recent history, does this purely speculative discussion warrant inclusion in this article? isaacl (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Certainly not, but then again, I dislike this entire article; it's a heap of speculation and OR, and has been a magnet for wishful thinking tidbits from everyone on the outside looking in, complete with continual addition of every rumor any bored sportswriter tosses out. Ravenswing 05:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The San Jose Sharks play in that market. Although the Sharks are very popular I highly doubt there is interest in bringing another team to the area.Secondcube (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


There are numerous grammatical issues with this section, but before going to clean it up, I would like to establish a consensus: is this information sufficiently notable for this article? Based on the citations, other than the fact that the NHL has met with the group, and told it to assume for purposes of building an arena that the rink will never be home to an NHL team, I'm not sure if there's enough there for this to be considered a notable attempt to expand the NHL to Markham. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed it before coming here and did a small cleanup. I'd say leave it in. I think it is more a possible relocation destination than expansion destination, though. Maybe merge it with Toronto, and call it "Toronto area", as the team would not be called Markham XXX anyway. TSN recently had a panel and considered the Toronto area the second-most likely expansion destination after Quebec City. Toronto area is big enough to support two teams, and is supposedly preferable because it's outside the Buffalo 'territory'. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


Although Halifax is a theoretical possibility for expansion (if unlikely), I don't believe the newly-added section makes an adequate case for this. A poll of Canadians isn't a reliable source for evaluating the potential for a new NHL expansion franchise. Would someone like to take a stab at finding some reliable, non-promotional, independent citations from notable sources regarding the possibility of having an NHL team based in Halifax, before I suggest deleting this section (with no prejudice against recreating it once appropriate sources have been found)? isaacl (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It was talked about extensively in the Phoenix Coyotes saga. The Ice Edge group was going to split games here. The NHL has been talked about going to Halifax quite a bit in the past. I will have to go find some sources but it has definitely been talked about before. Just a couple quickies from the first couple pages of a search [1], [2], [3], [4]. I could probably find more of better quality if I tried. Remember this page is just about cities that have been talked about for expansion. Not cities that are necessarily likely to get them. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Many cities have had associated idle chatter; personally, I believe this article should be kept to specific, credible, notable proposals. isaacl (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Well technically the Ice Edge was an official proposal made to the NHL. It wasn't merely idle chatter amongst sports writers. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I was in the middle of expanding my remarks... A proposal to host a few games is significantly different than hosting a franchise, and so doesn't serve as evidence of a clear plan for being home to a team. (On a side note, a number of times you've re-reverted changes citing Wikipedia's Bold, Revert, Discuss guideline; it may have been prudent to avoid re-introducing this info.) isaacl (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Well once a discussion has started it should remain at the state it was when the discussion was started. So I reverted to the state that the discussion was started on (ie had you been the one to revert and start the discussion it would have been left. Once you posted your discussion no one should be changing that section in any direction until consensus is reached). That being said, hosting games is significant in that if a city can host multiple games in a season that they have the potential to host as a home city. The population of Halifax and surrounding area for example isn't much different than Winnipeg. While I agree it isn't likely to happen in Halifax. It isn't completely out of the picture and it did receive significant coverage. The purpose of the page was to cover cities that got significant news coverage towards expansion. Saskatoon for example would receive a franchise a loooong time after Halifax would since it is much smaller than Halifax (less than half the size). -DJSasso (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
There's a big difference between hosting a few games, which can be promoted as special events, and hosting a full season, with the associated season ticket sales required by the franchise. isaacl (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't disagree, but that doesn't make it any less potential. This page isn't "Future National Hockey League expansion" or "Shoe-in National Hockey League expansion". Its just "Potential National Hockey League expansion". I think any credibly sourced cities that have legitimately been talked about should belong on this page. This isn't the first time Halifax had been talked about for expansion. It was just the most recent and quickest to source. I should note that it should have a significant rewrite if it stays. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
"What about Halifax?" does not create that potentiality, I think. Personally, I think we're better off focusing on sites that have been named as having legitimate chances, not every city where someone pimped their home town. Resolute 20:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Unless the proposed rewrite occurs and citations are given for significant, notable, credible proposals to host a team in Halifax permanently, I suggest deleting the section on Halifax for now, without prejudice against recreation. isaacl (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed; there's just not enough there that constitutes a credible proposal for this section to stay. (Procedurally, it shouldn't have been re-added once removed anyway. It's "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, re-add, discuss". The change should not stick unless consensus forms for it; until that time the prior version should stay.) oknazevad (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with what is there being removed as long as a decent section can be added in the future should someone do a rewrite. But in response to Oknazevad you are right, it is "bold, revert, discuss" its not "bold, discuss, revert before discussion is done" which is what you had done. Once a discussion is started its well accepted that the disputed section isn't touched by anyone in either direction of a discussion and that any such changes should be reverted until the discussion is completed and there is consensus for it to be changed one way or the other. But as many others have said, this page in general is problematic in a number of ways. Now if it was changed to be a page such as "Proposed NHL expansion" of "Failed NHL expansion" instead of Potential it would probably be better off. -DJSasso (talk)
I have removed the section in question for now. isaacl (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Info to add[edit]

News broke today about a possible 2017 deal involving Vegas, Seattle, Toronto, and Quebec City. - SweetNightmares 14:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

[5] the league has denied it though, for whatever that is worth.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


The adverbs indicated in added italics belowjst repeat information already provided by the verb tenses. they can be dleted without changing the meaning of the sentences in any way.

  1. "The five largest metropolitan regions without NHL franchises are (in descending order of population) Houston, Atlanta, Seattle-Tacoma, San Diego, and Baltimore. Cleveland, Houston and Atlanta have previously hosted major professional hockey teams. During the 1970s, Cleveland was home...."
  2. "The largest arena currently in use in the Seattle area, KeyArena, is considered ...."
  3. "The ECHL's Missouri Mavericks currently play at the suburban Independence Events Center."

I removed these redundant adverbs, but my edits were reverted with the explanation unclear "No they're not. Especially the first one. "Have hosted" is a conditional tense, and could be followed by a "since" clause. "Previously" clarifie"

  1. "Have hosted" is not the conditional tense. It is the Present Perfect, which is a form of the verb that shows the action was complete before the present. This works perfectly well in the present case. There is no lack of clarity, and no need for redundancy.
  2. "in use" with "is considered" tells us that we are talking about the current condition, not a past or future condition. No need to hammer this home even further. Our readers understand basic verb tenses, like the simple present tense used here.
  3. Does anyone disagree that the "Mavericks play at the Indepenedence Events Center"? Could this mean anything other than the current condition? How does it change by adding "currently"? It doesn't. "Currently" is just redundant.

Ground Zero | t 13:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I heartily disagree with you on the first one. "Have hosted" does not automatically indicate a completed action at all. Take the sentence "New York and Philadelphia have hosted NHL teams since 1926 and 1967, respectively." The use of "have hosted" does not in any way show that the Rangers and Flyers have folded, indeed the sentence explicitly declares the hosting as an ongoing concern through the use of a time-relative clause.. The sentence in question is in need of some time reference. It could say "have hosted in the past", but a single adverb is simply more succinct.
The other two sentences I don't particularly care one way or the other, but this is hardly the first time I've seen removal of adverbs specifically intended to establish a contrast with past situations, which is not inherently redundant but good writing. oknazevad (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
"Previously" serves to end the duration in time to which the sentence is referring, to indicate that it does not continue up to the present, and the hosting has terminated. For simplicity, the sentence can be written solely in the past tense, as the period of time is earlier than the current frame of context: Cleveland, Houston, and Atlanta previously hosted major professional hockey teams. isaacl (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
That works for me. oknazevad (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Seattle background[edit]

Interesting article. By the way, since the current expansion "process" is gaining more and more coverage, should it be split off from this article once it's not so potential anymore (announcement should be in September, if I'm not mistaken)? Jmj713 (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Unless it actually gets a team it should remain on this page. This page was created specifically for situations like this where places are discussed, but haven't actually happened yet. -DJSasso (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Update on NHL expansion application process[edit] - Official expansion applications received from Las Vegas and Quebec - not sure if or how it should be added to the article? (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably as a statement in each city's section, using your link as a source. Something like "Quebecor filed an application for a team when the NHL announced a formal expansion process in 2015." Resolute 16:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Have added, correctly I hope. (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks good Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Potential National Hockey League expansion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Potential National Hockey League expansion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


The article covers a long list of potential expansion sites in the USA, and one of the explanations given to explain the failure to expand to just about each and every location is its proximity to one or more existing NHL franchises. It is true that the one market which did just get a new team was Las Vegas, which is pretty far from anywhere. But even Las Vegas is relatively close (4-5 hours' drive time) to Phoenix and Los Angeles. The NHL has not been shy in the past about placing new teams close to existing teams. In 1980, the Atlanta Flames moved to Calgary, Alberta, the year after cross-province rivals Edmonton Oilers joined the league. In 1982, the New Jersey Devils moved into a market which already had two teams (The New York Rangers and New York Islanders) in a location also not too far from the Philadelphia Rangers and Hartford Whalers. In 1993, the Anaheim Ducks entered as an expansion team into the Los Angeles market, which already had a team, and which was also a warm-weather location. Also in the 1990s, the league placed not one but two expansion teams in Florida, and additionally placed the Ottawa Senators in a city about two hours from Montreal. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If I remember correctly the distance quoted is usually 200KM apart is what saves you from having to pay off other teams. In most of the cases above they meet that distance. In the case of the Ducks, they paid a very large fee to the Kings to be able to have a team in that location. I am guessing in the case of the Florida teams they probably made it known to the new teams they were intending to have multiple teams in the state and that was just part of getting a new team, but they are 4 hours apart so not really close. The Flames were moved specifically to be rivals to Edmonton so they could have more of a western Canadian presence. The New York teams however are going back quite a ways in time when things were very much looser and it didn't cost as much to run teams so they probably were not as concerned with diluting the fan bases in that area. The thing with the Senators (and the Flames for that matter) is that the percentage of hockey going fans in a given area is much higher in Canada than in most of the States. So 2 hours difference in southern Ontario is actually the equivalent of a fairly lengthy difference in the States. -DJSasso (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I wouldn't call the Florida teams proximate by any means. That both markets also have NFL and MLB teams tells me that no one considered them the same market when placing teams either. The Alberta teams are also a 3 hour drive apart, not proximate. Ottawa? Sure it's closer to Montreal and Toronto than that, but still not as close a drive as New York and Philly. Or Philly and Washington. Denser population corridors mean sense placement of teams, and the Windsor–Quebec Corridor is pretty dense. Plus it's hockey in Canada. They could likely support another team or three. The only proposal that seems a direct crosstown example is the proposal for a second Toronto area team. So I don't know if the examples here are good examples to support the point, which is that the claims of proximity being a factor are unsupported and unsupportable (except for the GTA). That is a point I can agree with. oknazevad (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC) PS, I think that is just one more example of how this article combines flimsy sources of non-nitable events and unsourced analysis to present an essay with a coherency that doesn't exist in real life. oknazevad (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)