**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice:** Jokes, puns, memes, and off-topic comments are not permitted in any comment, parent or child.
Please **report comment infractions** so the mods can clean up the thread and keep it on track. Also, downovote any comments breaking the [Serious] tag rules. Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*(Users with multiple infractions will be banned for not taking this thread seriously)*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/hockey) if you have any questions or concerns.*
absolutely it could but i think a better market would be toronto. A lot of maple leafs fans are incredibly self-loathing and would take on the 2nd team as a means of feeling better about Toronto sports.
The toronto 2 team could also sell tickets for cheaper than the maple leafs and still be incredibly profitable.
There is also just a way larger population close to Toronto that it could work. Hamilton/Burlington/Oakville hockey fans would probably have an easier time supporting a new Toronto-based team
If Balsillie could shut his mouth he could have had it done
But his dumbass was talking relocation and looking at stadiums in Hamilton before the deal was done with Nashville and basically blacklist himself
True North (Winnipeg ownership) was offered the Predators by the NHL. I have my doubts that Jim Balsillie was ever getting approved for ownership.
https://nationalpost.com/sports/nhl/true-north-also-had-talks-about-buying-predators-coyotes
Like I said before, all he had to do was shut his mouth and let the deal finish, but he couldn't
>Balsillie, the co-CEO of BlackBerry-maker Research In Motion, agreed to buy the team from Leipold for $220 million US on May 24 in a transfer of ownership, but the term sheet was non-binding. The holdup for the deal prevented the NHL's 30 teams from voting on the sale.
>Balsillie had already started a process to move the Predators to Hamilton if the franchise was able to opt out of the lease in Nashville after the sale.
>A week after the announced sale, Balsillie reactivated a deal that gave him exclusive rights to negotiate a lease option for housing an NHL team at Hamilton's Copps Coliseum, news that caught Leipold by surprise.
>However, at the board of governors meeting in New York this week, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said talks of Nashville relocating to Hamilton were "premature."
>"It isn't in any shape or form close to being ready for consideration as it relates to approval of an ownership change. I'm not exactly sure why people are focused on the Nashville Predators being anywhere other than in Nashville at this particular point in time."
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/balsillie-s-bid-to-buy-predators-hits-snag-1.631409
I don't disagree with your take, I just think that if the league was prepared to give up on Nashville, it wouldn't have got to him. He tried to force ownership twice, and when the league had to move on Atlanta he wasn't there. It was only 2 years after he tried to relocate the Coyotes and BlackBerry was still a thing.
10 or so years ago when the Blackhawks were at the peak of their powers they were also super popular in the area too
Edit: Oilers have always been popular here too, but especially now
in what reality do you live in that a 2nd Toronto team would charge less money?
They would charge the same money because people would go to see hockey. The Demand would just create the market instantly and prices would probably be only 5-10% delta off of leaf tix.
I think the point was they *could* charge less money (undercutting the Maple Leafs) and still be profitable. Which is likely true. But you're correct that they would not be very likely to do that.
That’s usually how a second team in one metro area works. One charges premium prices the other is cheap to try and grow the fanbase. Clippers, White Sox, Mets, Nets, Angels, etc.
It would follow demand. I imagine, naturally, top banks and brands would prioritize the leafs for their season tickets and boxes so the 2nd team would come in 2nd place.
There isn’t really an outcome where team #2 charges more than maple leafs but there’s definitely an outcome where they charge less, especially in the first few years
Not at this point, leafs would likely veto it or the fees it would cost in compensating Toronto for potential revenue lost would cost more then the expansion cost
If it ever happened it would be either bell or Rogers walking away from MLSE in exchange for the other allowing a second team. Then they would just make sure their prices are the same and not undercut one another
No. NHL clubs have the right to veto the creation of any new NHL team within 50 miles of their arena. The city might support it in theory, but the Canadiens would never give the okay.
edit: Maybe it's not as clear-cut as it seems. The Leafs [have a letter entered into court records](https://x.com/russboychuk/status/1658952627818835968) stating that they believe this is true (requiring a unanimous BoG vote would give them veto power), but then you also have [Bill Daly saying that it's a three-quarters majority, not unanimous](https://thehockeynews.com/news/campbells-cuts-daly-says-leafs-have-no-veto-over-second-southern-ontario-team).
It would be a 50 mile radius, 100 mile diameter. "As the crow flies" just means an uninterrupted straight line, so a 50 mile radius as the crow flies from an arena would just be 50 miles straight out in any direction, ignoring anything like curves or turns around things like buildings to get to a point
> It would be a 50 mile radius, 100 mile diameter
It's larger than that. Section 4.1(c) of the league's Constitution states that :
>"Home territory", with respect to any member, means: Each Member Club shall have exclusive territorial rights in the city in which it is located and within fifty miles of that city's corporate limits
Now, this does raise the question of whether "the city in which it is located" refers to the arena location, or to the team's headquarters/office, or what.
It would be whatever's listed under the constitution and the team's charter. For example, as of the version of the constitution provided in court records, Florida was listed as Broward County instead of Sunrise or another specific city, the Coyotes were still listed as Phoenix even though they had been in Glendale for 5 or 6 years at that point, the Hurricanes were listed as Raleigh-Durham when those are separate cities, and the Islanders were listed as the entirety of Long Island which hilariously would give them and not the Bruins territorial rights over Hartford.
I'd be curious to see if there's a point where any of this gets challenged over what would seem like hair-splitting (like if Hamilton would be stepping in Buffalo's territory as well as Toronto).
The only one I can remember in my lifetime was Anaheim's expansion, for which the indemnification was half of the expansion fee going to Los Angeles instead of the NHL.
When Balsille was doing his thing, there was talk that Buffalo would get a relocation fee in addition to Hamilton, yes. It's just the league doing business. They obviously can't stop other leagues from operating teams in those areas, but since every NHL team is legally a franchise of the NHL as a whole, it's simply ensuring that each franchise has its own territory to do business in. Not uncommon in franchise business model operations, otherwise you end up with franchise owners competing with each other financially instead of enriching the company, in this case the league, as a whole.
Sure, there's nothing wrong with having home territory or having a territorial indemnification fee be paid.
I'm just thinking...to use a weird example, [Columbus has enormous corporate limits](https://opendata.columbus.gov/datasets/corporate-boundary/explore?location=40.050977%2C-82.853973%2C11.00) (as a result of city annexation policy) which stretch into two additional counties and hit the border of three more.
But in the case that you mentioned of the Islanders claiming the entirety of Long Island, I wonder if there would be a point (if Hartford were to be assessed for expansion down the road) where the league would step in and tell them that claiming Hartford is within their territory to be not in the spirit of what a home territory is actually supposed to be. Or if the city of Buffalo were to annex an area to expand their corporate limits just a bit further to put Hamilton decisively within that 50-mile limit.
Why contemplate another Montreal team when Quebec City is right there with a new arena and has previously had a team.
Not sure what kind of response you were thinking you'd get OP.
No, not Toronto. This comes up every now and again when people float the idea of a Hamilton team. The Leafs have *all* of southern Ontario down the QEW.
If it's not the Great Depression, yes.
Maybe not anymore, though. The ship on the Maroons may have sailed.
Very few people (if anyone) remember the Maroons and leaning into that Franco/Anglo rivlary probably wouldn't go so well today, and people would probably prefer the Habs.
There was probably an opportunity in the 60s to bring them back and it could have stuck, but the Nordiques are probably more logical to bring back now. They don't have a team, the team identity is less rooted in language identity than the Maroons are (although Quebec City is pretty staunchly francophone and political about it but that's another conversation), and it would probably go over better.
I’ll say this as someone living in a city that has two of most sports… it really sucks having more than one. You look at places like Boston and Philly and there is such a great sports culture. Even non-fans will support the teams because they represent the city. It’s really special.
Can confirm, I wish more cities stuck to one color theme too. It’s crazy to me that Pittsburgh is the only city that all major sports wear the same colors.
It’s not a dumb comment, he just worded it weird. I took it as Montreal is the Canadiens. A habs fan is never switching allegiances to an expansion team. So Montreal as a whole would have a really hard time welcoming them.
I get what they're saying. For example, during the 2015 and 2017 World Juniors the attendance in Montreal was very poor unless Canada was playing but Toronto was pretty much full even if it wasn't a Canada game. Same thing in 2012, Calgary and Edmonton were at or near capacity crowds for every game.
I think there's a perception that while the Canadiens have fantastic fans, they're not necessarily huge supporters of hockey if it doesn't involve the Habs.
But that would also apply to Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, and Toronto, who all had much better attendance for games not involving Canada than Montreal did.
Also, if they were all like the 2012 tournament, tickets were all sold in packs as opposed to individual games. The 4-game pack I got in 2012 included 2 Canada games and 2 non-Canada games, which would imply that in Montreal fans had tickets for the non-Canada games but just chose not to go.
Currently only two NHL markets have more than one team: New York and Los Angeles
And it’s gonna be that way for a long time
Montreal only has 4.2 million people, roughly about the same market size as the San Francisco Bay Area
Toronto would be ideal for a second team but the Leafs wouldn’t allow it…they already have the Sens and Sabres as direct competitors
It could work, especially if they were backed by ownership like Vegas or Seattle who are willing to spend, but the Canadiens would squash any prospective team from infringing on their turf before the thought could even enter a prospective team's minds.
Habs wouldn't allow another team to cannibalize their fanbase, and Quebec City and/or a second team in the GTA make more sense as far as another Canadian team is concerned.
I think the issue with two teams in the same city is that divisions and conferences are entirely geographically based where as in the NFL and MLB they aren’t based entirely on geographic location. Two Montreal teams would work better in a system where they are in different conferences and you can root for both of them because they aren’t inherently rivals, whereas right now they’d be immediate rivals and one would have a significant fan base and the other would not exactly have that popularity being the new team on the block.
You want teams to succeed, yes? Despite all of the Devils' success over their time here in NJ, they are the youngest and likely considered, what, the 5th team in the area after both the (successful) NY teams, the Flyers, and maybe even Buffalo? Despite our team's value being in the top percentage now, that is still hotly contested. Every. Fucking. Day. They would always be considered second fiddle (lesser) to both original teams, even if they should break Canada's cup drought.
The challenge that Montreal and Toronto have for a second team is that both cities have large devoted fan bases to their existing teams. A new team would struggle to get an initial fan base, especially as they will immediately become a rival team to the Habs and Leafs.
In order to be successful, a new team in either city would need to:
1. Provide seats at a significantly lower price to get fans in. However, this could damage their ability to function long term.
2. Focus on younger fans who have not yet built a fan loyalty. This will take decades to pay off though.
3. Be immediately successful, especially if the Habs or Leafs are in a rebuild.
4. Focus on a specific part of town/suburb and advertise like crazy that your team represents their region.
No because we're ingrained with the Habs at birth. If Quebec city were to have a cool but that's not happening. Toronto has the potential but why would they agree to a team so close to them?
If Manchester can have two extremely successful Football clubs, with less than half the population of Montreal, I don’t see why ice hockey can’t have more than one team in a city like Montreal.
**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice:** Jokes, puns, memes, and off-topic comments are not permitted in any comment, parent or child. Please **report comment infractions** so the mods can clean up the thread and keep it on track. Also, downovote any comments breaking the [Serious] tag rules. Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *(Users with multiple infractions will be banned for not taking this thread seriously)* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/hockey) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, I think it wouldn't.
\end thread
absolutely it could but i think a better market would be toronto. A lot of maple leafs fans are incredibly self-loathing and would take on the 2nd team as a means of feeling better about Toronto sports. The toronto 2 team could also sell tickets for cheaper than the maple leafs and still be incredibly profitable.
There is also just a way larger population close to Toronto that it could work. Hamilton/Burlington/Oakville hockey fans would probably have an easier time supporting a new Toronto-based team
If Jim Balsillie couldn't do it I doubt Hamilton will ever happen. Biggest obstacle is Buffalo. They consider Hamilton their market.
If Balsillie could shut his mouth he could have had it done But his dumbass was talking relocation and looking at stadiums in Hamilton before the deal was done with Nashville and basically blacklist himself
True North (Winnipeg ownership) was offered the Predators by the NHL. I have my doubts that Jim Balsillie was ever getting approved for ownership. https://nationalpost.com/sports/nhl/true-north-also-had-talks-about-buying-predators-coyotes
Like I said before, all he had to do was shut his mouth and let the deal finish, but he couldn't >Balsillie, the co-CEO of BlackBerry-maker Research In Motion, agreed to buy the team from Leipold for $220 million US on May 24 in a transfer of ownership, but the term sheet was non-binding. The holdup for the deal prevented the NHL's 30 teams from voting on the sale. >Balsillie had already started a process to move the Predators to Hamilton if the franchise was able to opt out of the lease in Nashville after the sale. >A week after the announced sale, Balsillie reactivated a deal that gave him exclusive rights to negotiate a lease option for housing an NHL team at Hamilton's Copps Coliseum, news that caught Leipold by surprise. >However, at the board of governors meeting in New York this week, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said talks of Nashville relocating to Hamilton were "premature." >"It isn't in any shape or form close to being ready for consideration as it relates to approval of an ownership change. I'm not exactly sure why people are focused on the Nashville Predators being anywhere other than in Nashville at this particular point in time." https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/balsillie-s-bid-to-buy-predators-hits-snag-1.631409
I don't disagree with your take, I just think that if the league was prepared to give up on Nashville, it wouldn't have got to him. He tried to force ownership twice, and when the league had to move on Atlanta he wasn't there. It was only 2 years after he tried to relocate the Coyotes and BlackBerry was still a thing.
Which is interesting because the Sabres are barely the third most popular team in Hamilton lol
They're probably like 6th at best. It's probably Leafs, (galactic void sized gap), Habs, Bruins, Red Wings, Penguins, and then maybe Buffalo.
10 or so years ago when the Blackhawks were at the peak of their powers they were also super popular in the area too Edit: Oilers have always been popular here too, but especially now
Toronto really should have a second team.
in what reality do you live in that a 2nd Toronto team would charge less money? They would charge the same money because people would go to see hockey. The Demand would just create the market instantly and prices would probably be only 5-10% delta off of leaf tix.
I think the point was they *could* charge less money (undercutting the Maple Leafs) and still be profitable. Which is likely true. But you're correct that they would not be very likely to do that.
That’s usually how a second team in one metro area works. One charges premium prices the other is cheap to try and grow the fanbase. Clippers, White Sox, Mets, Nets, Angels, etc.
Unless it’s football then you both suck
This idea always comes up that a second Toronto team will just altruistically charge less for tickets and it's always hilarious.
It would follow demand. I imagine, naturally, top banks and brands would prioritize the leafs for their season tickets and boxes so the 2nd team would come in 2nd place. There isn’t really an outcome where team #2 charges more than maple leafs but there’s definitely an outcome where they charge less, especially in the first few years
They’d be marooned instantly…
They could always wander off.
That’s back to back to back stanley cup champion Pat Marooned instantly to you, bud
No but there is another french speaking city where it could work
Rimouski?
Trois-Rivières, obviously.
I believe they are actually talking about Saguenay
Nice
Nice? A bit far no?
Let's start with St. Pierre and Miquelon first
Brest
I don’t think New Orleans has the population for a team tbh.
Based solely on a city of Montreal size? yes. in Montreal? no. the Habs are a part of that cities DNA
>cities Why
No. If there's another team in Quebec, it will be the Nordiques. Toronto might have a 2nd team though.
Not at this point, leafs would likely veto it or the fees it would cost in compensating Toronto for potential revenue lost would cost more then the expansion cost
If it ever happened it would be either bell or Rogers walking away from MLSE in exchange for the other allowing a second team. Then they would just make sure their prices are the same and not undercut one another
Price collusion between Bell and Rogers? *I couldn’t imagine them ever doing that*
No. NHL clubs have the right to veto the creation of any new NHL team within 50 miles of their arena. The city might support it in theory, but the Canadiens would never give the okay. edit: Maybe it's not as clear-cut as it seems. The Leafs [have a letter entered into court records](https://x.com/russboychuk/status/1658952627818835968) stating that they believe this is true (requiring a unanimous BoG vote would give them veto power), but then you also have [Bill Daly saying that it's a three-quarters majority, not unanimous](https://thehockeynews.com/news/campbells-cuts-daly-says-leafs-have-no-veto-over-second-southern-ontario-team).
I don't think you know what a radius is
Yes, I realized that upon reading my comment back again while adding some links.
It would be a 50 mile radius, 100 mile diameter. "As the crow flies" just means an uninterrupted straight line, so a 50 mile radius as the crow flies from an arena would just be 50 miles straight out in any direction, ignoring anything like curves or turns around things like buildings to get to a point
> It would be a 50 mile radius, 100 mile diameter It's larger than that. Section 4.1(c) of the league's Constitution states that : >"Home territory", with respect to any member, means: Each Member Club shall have exclusive territorial rights in the city in which it is located and within fifty miles of that city's corporate limits Now, this does raise the question of whether "the city in which it is located" refers to the arena location, or to the team's headquarters/office, or what.
It would be whatever's listed under the constitution and the team's charter. For example, as of the version of the constitution provided in court records, Florida was listed as Broward County instead of Sunrise or another specific city, the Coyotes were still listed as Phoenix even though they had been in Glendale for 5 or 6 years at that point, the Hurricanes were listed as Raleigh-Durham when those are separate cities, and the Islanders were listed as the entirety of Long Island which hilariously would give them and not the Bruins territorial rights over Hartford.
I'd be curious to see if there's a point where any of this gets challenged over what would seem like hair-splitting (like if Hamilton would be stepping in Buffalo's territory as well as Toronto). The only one I can remember in my lifetime was Anaheim's expansion, for which the indemnification was half of the expansion fee going to Los Angeles instead of the NHL.
When Balsille was doing his thing, there was talk that Buffalo would get a relocation fee in addition to Hamilton, yes. It's just the league doing business. They obviously can't stop other leagues from operating teams in those areas, but since every NHL team is legally a franchise of the NHL as a whole, it's simply ensuring that each franchise has its own territory to do business in. Not uncommon in franchise business model operations, otherwise you end up with franchise owners competing with each other financially instead of enriching the company, in this case the league, as a whole.
Sure, there's nothing wrong with having home territory or having a territorial indemnification fee be paid. I'm just thinking...to use a weird example, [Columbus has enormous corporate limits](https://opendata.columbus.gov/datasets/corporate-boundary/explore?location=40.050977%2C-82.853973%2C11.00) (as a result of city annexation policy) which stretch into two additional counties and hit the border of three more. But in the case that you mentioned of the Islanders claiming the entirety of Long Island, I wonder if there would be a point (if Hartford were to be assessed for expansion down the road) where the league would step in and tell them that claiming Hartford is within their territory to be not in the spirit of what a home territory is actually supposed to be. Or if the city of Buffalo were to annex an area to expand their corporate limits just a bit further to put Hamilton decisively within that 50-mile limit.
No thanks. I'd rather see QC get one.
Quebec City would riot
I dont think so. The Habs are too ingrained in the culture of the city. You wouldnt have people jumping ship to them.
Blasphème
Why put a 2nd team.in MTL when QC has its arena ready
Why contemplate another Montreal team when Quebec City is right there with a new arena and has previously had a team. Not sure what kind of response you were thinking you'd get OP.
There's no ownership group that would do it. Toronto on the other hand....
No, not Toronto. This comes up every now and again when people float the idea of a Hamilton team. The Leafs have *all* of southern Ontario down the QEW.
There's a reason the Bulldogs left Hamilton... [because FirstOntario is getting rennovated](https://www.oakviewgroup.com/canada/hamiltonarena/)
What if they had a second team in Montreal that they moved to QC?
Offseason came quick
How high are you?
Hi how are you
If it's not the Great Depression, yes. Maybe not anymore, though. The ship on the Maroons may have sailed. Very few people (if anyone) remember the Maroons and leaning into that Franco/Anglo rivlary probably wouldn't go so well today, and people would probably prefer the Habs. There was probably an opportunity in the 60s to bring them back and it could have stuck, but the Nordiques are probably more logical to bring back now. They don't have a team, the team identity is less rooted in language identity than the Maroons are (although Quebec City is pretty staunchly francophone and political about it but that's another conversation), and it would probably go over better.
I’ll say this as someone living in a city that has two of most sports… it really sucks having more than one. You look at places like Boston and Philly and there is such a great sports culture. Even non-fans will support the teams because they represent the city. It’s really special.
Can confirm, I wish more cities stuck to one color theme too. It’s crazy to me that Pittsburgh is the only city that all major sports wear the same colors.
even though there are different colors for each team, Seattle teams all have a particular vibe to their colors with the blues, greens, and teals.
Yeah I think that’s cool for PIT
I mean it'll never happen.. but no probably not. Montreal fans aren't hockey fans. They are Montreal fans.
What a dumb comment, Montreal fans aren’t hockey fans? Lmfao
It’s not a dumb comment, he just worded it weird. I took it as Montreal is the Canadiens. A habs fan is never switching allegiances to an expansion team. So Montreal as a whole would have a really hard time welcoming them.
I get what they're saying. For example, during the 2015 and 2017 World Juniors the attendance in Montreal was very poor unless Canada was playing but Toronto was pretty much full even if it wasn't a Canada game. Same thing in 2012, Calgary and Edmonton were at or near capacity crowds for every game. I think there's a perception that while the Canadiens have fantastic fans, they're not necessarily huge supporters of hockey if it doesn't involve the Habs.
Prices were crazy, especially to watch unpaid players. The Laval Rocket games are bumpin because of how affordable they are
But that would also apply to Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, and Toronto, who all had much better attendance for games not involving Canada than Montreal did. Also, if they were all like the 2012 tournament, tickets were all sold in packs as opposed to individual games. The 4-game pack I got in 2012 included 2 Canada games and 2 non-Canada games, which would imply that in Montreal fans had tickets for the non-Canada games but just chose not to go.
No they’re baseball fans duhh
He’s not wrong
My apologies, my answer was quite rude, I don’t agree with your comment but I shouldn’t have called it dumb.
Only until their arena burned down mid season again.
Currently only two NHL markets have more than one team: New York and Los Angeles And it’s gonna be that way for a long time Montreal only has 4.2 million people, roughly about the same market size as the San Francisco Bay Area Toronto would be ideal for a second team but the Leafs wouldn’t allow it…they already have the Sens and Sabres as direct competitors
The Devils are about as close to the Rangers as the Islanders
It could work, especially if they were backed by ownership like Vegas or Seattle who are willing to spend, but the Canadiens would squash any prospective team from infringing on their turf before the thought could even enter a prospective team's minds.
Habs wouldn't allow another team to cannibalize their fanbase, and Quebec City and/or a second team in the GTA make more sense as far as another Canadian team is concerned.
I think the issue with two teams in the same city is that divisions and conferences are entirely geographically based where as in the NFL and MLB they aren’t based entirely on geographic location. Two Montreal teams would work better in a system where they are in different conferences and you can root for both of them because they aren’t inherently rivals, whereas right now they’d be immediate rivals and one would have a significant fan base and the other would not exactly have that popularity being the new team on the block.
I think Toronto and Montreal could both support two teams easily.
It would be about how much New York cares about the Brooklyn Nets
You want teams to succeed, yes? Despite all of the Devils' success over their time here in NJ, they are the youngest and likely considered, what, the 5th team in the area after both the (successful) NY teams, the Flyers, and maybe even Buffalo? Despite our team's value being in the top percentage now, that is still hotly contested. Every. Fucking. Day. They would always be considered second fiddle (lesser) to both original teams, even if they should break Canada's cup drought.
I don't. How does a club with its rich 115-year history concede territorial rights and revenue to some second banana willy-nilly?
The challenge that Montreal and Toronto have for a second team is that both cities have large devoted fan bases to their existing teams. A new team would struggle to get an initial fan base, especially as they will immediately become a rival team to the Habs and Leafs. In order to be successful, a new team in either city would need to: 1. Provide seats at a significantly lower price to get fans in. However, this could damage their ability to function long term. 2. Focus on younger fans who have not yet built a fan loyalty. This will take decades to pay off though. 3. Be immediately successful, especially if the Habs or Leafs are in a rebuild. 4. Focus on a specific part of town/suburb and advertise like crazy that your team represents their region.
No.
No because we're ingrained with the Habs at birth. If Quebec city were to have a cool but that's not happening. Toronto has the potential but why would they agree to a team so close to them?
Two teams in LA, three in NY, one in Toronto is criminal.
Mtl isn’t big enough to have a second team. If the mtl region was as populated as Toronto maybe but it isn’t so no.
If Manchester can have two extremely successful Football clubs, with less than half the population of Montreal, I don’t see why ice hockey can’t have more than one team in a city like Montreal.
No.
No. Might as well just go to Quebec City at that point.
In Mtl? Maybe but not the same level of attendance. It would be like the Sens. QC makes way more sense.
A second GTA team. Hamilton/Mississauga
If there can be three NHL teams in the New York City metro area then there’s no reason there can’t be two in Montreal
Only good reason for that would be so Montreal could miss out on the playoffs twice each year in stead of just once.
Actually hilarious to see this tagged [Serious]
No. Give Quebec a team. Great fishin’ in Kwee-bec.
I think Wood Buffalo would need to happen first.