Do you ever - like the Barenaked Ladies - wish you had a million dollars?
If I did, I would start looking for available property in the area where Highways 401 and 403 come together. Then - when I had the necessary property - I would try really hard to convince people* that an NHL team playing out of an arena on my property would be wildly successful. More than 2,000,000 people - many of them hockey fans - live well within an hour's drive of that location.
An NHL team - in that part of Ontario - would be far enough away from Toronto, and Buffalo's fans in the Niagara Peninsula, that little harm would be done to either franchise. Also - because of the distance from Toronto and Buffalo - there would be no obligation to pay compensation to either franchise.
The $200-250,000,000 that was supposed to go towards upgrading Copps Coliseum and compensating the Leafs and Sabres could make a good start on a brand new arena.
New Title
The original title of this thread - with the moderator's assistance - was Canada's Seventh NHL Team (Mod: 401/403 Intersect). Some of the posts below suggest that that title did not sufficiently indicate the area intended.
*Would-be business partners and Dalton McGuinty - who was willing to contribute public dollars towards an NHL team in Hamilton.
MOD NOTE: As long as people focus on the viability, or even likelihood, of the NHL accepting this location, the thread can stay open.
Let's not get into the "deserves a team" arguments; or random bashing of current market located elsewhere.
*******
My two cents on the thread topic. Detroit markets itself as far east as London. I think your suggested new location would be a concern to them-- perhaps.
MOD NOTE: As long as people focus on the viability, or even likelihood, of the NHL accepting this location, the thread can stay open.
Let's not get into the "deserves a team" arguments; or random bashing of current market located elsewhere.
*******
My two cents on the thread topic. Detroit markets itself as far east as London. I think your suggested new location would be a concern to them-- perhaps.
Fugu, if the Red Wings were promised that - with the arrival of this new team in Western Ontario - there would be a re-jigging of the divisions and/or schedule enabling them to host this new team, Buffalo and Toronto (and maybe Montreal) two or three times a season, I think they'd be onside with my idea.
To clarify yet again, under the NHL Constitution the indemnification obligation kicks in not at 50 miles, but in fact at 100 miles.
I am not sure what gegraphic point you are talking about (the 401 and 403 effectively connect in Mississauga right beside the Airport as well), but you need to take that 100 mile factor into effect before you can declare that no indemnification would be paid or payable.
To clarify yet again, under the NHL Constitution the indemnification obligation kicks in not at 50 miles, but in fact at 100 miles.
I am not sure what gegraphic point you are talking about (the 401 and 403 effectively connect in Mississauga right beside the Airport as well), but you need to take that 100 mile factor into effect before you can declare that no indemnification would be paid or payable.
As you may have assumed, I did not have the Mississauga area in mind. I'm referring to the Woodstock area - or at least the area just to the east of Woodstock.
According to Mapquest, the area I have in mind is well beyond the 100-mile mark - vis-a-vis Buffalo and Detroit. Toronto is 88.30 miles away. An arena 12 miles farther west would be safely outside the Leafs' indemnification area, and would still be well beyond Detroit's area.
As you may have assumed, I did not have the Mississauga area in mind. I'm referring to the Woodstock area - or at least the area just to the east of Woodstock.
According to Mapquest, the area I have in mind is well beyond the 100-mile mark - vis-a-vis Buffalo and Detroit. Toronto is 88.30 miles away. An arena 12 miles farther west would be safely outside the Leafs' indemnification area, and would still be well beyond Detroit's area.
I thought you meant Mississauga where the Hersey Centre is.
As you may have assumed, I did not have the Mississauga area in mind. I'm referring to the Woodstock area - or at least the area just to the east of Woodstock.
According to Mapquest, the area I have in mind is well beyond the 100-mile mark - vis-a-vis Buffalo and Detroit. Toronto is 88.30 miles away. An arena 12 miles farther west would be safely outside the Leafs' indemnification area, and would still be well beyond Detroit's area.
A few things, the 100 miles is not from the arena, but rather from City limit to City limit. You may need to rethink your location much further west. Then on the subject of these rivalries to buy support, I assume you intend that this team, Toronto, and Buffalo would be in the same division. If so, that could create an issue. Detroit and Columbus are supposed to have a promise to be moved to the Eastern Conference before any other teams are placed there. What 3 eastern teams move west to accomodate this? The only other option is to move Buffalo, Toronto and this team to the West. Do you think the Sabres and MLSE would approve anything putting them in the west? Because of this problem, I think the NHL will put at least 3 or 4 new locations in the west before even considering anything eastern. This team would need to get in line behind three of: Winnipeg, KC, Houston, Portland, Vegas and Seattle, unless they want to drop the Leafs, Buffalo and Detroit rivalry, go into the Western Conference while the league's choice of Detroit or Columbus goes into the east.
Where is this 100 mile figure coming from? Was this something revealed in the Coyotes proceedings? I always remember hearing 80 kilometres, then it came out during the hearings that that was not the case at all. Just curious, as I didn't really follow the case.
Last edited by Billy Batts: 10-31-2009 at 08:04 AM.
As you may have assumed, I did not have the Mississauga area in mind. I'm referring to the Woodstock area - or at least the area just to the east of Woodstock.
According to Mapquest, the area I have in mind is well beyond the 100-mile mark - vis-a-vis Buffalo and Detroit. Toronto is 88.30 miles away. An arena 12 miles farther west would be safely outside the Leafs' indemnification area, and would still be well beyond Detroit's area.
Sticking a team in/around Woodstock would be the same as sticking a team in Glendale and calling it Phoenix. I live in this area, and there's no way you'd get people wanting to drive in from Toronto, Windsor, London or Hamilton/Niagara to come for a game. Oxford County is the armpit of SW Ontario.
My thoughts have always been that sticking it somewhere around the Franklin Road area of the 401 and Cambridge would be the best - you put it on the Toronto side of the KW area, but have access to Hamilton/Niagara through the 6 and 24 - both highways which are overdue for upgrades (meaning you can get some municipal support).
While Kitchener wants to long term upgrade the Aud, there's no plans to do so - but building a fresh arena in Cambridge would work as it provides the same functionality (concert venue) - as well I believe Cambridge is the strongest financially of the municipalities in the tri-city region. It also falls outside whatever numbers have been tossed out in the past of territorial rights.
Sticking a team in/around Woodstock would be the same as sticking a team in Glendale and calling it Phoenix. I live in this area, and there's no way you'd get people wanting to drive in from Toronto, Windsor, London or Hamilton/Niagara to come for a game. Oxford County is the armpit of SW Ontario.
My thoughts have always been that sticking it somewhere around the Franklin Road area of the 401 and Cambridge would be the best - you put it on the Toronto side of the KW area, but have access to Hamilton/Niagara through the 6 and 24 - both highways which are overdue for upgrades (meaning you can get some municipal support).
While Kitchener wants to long term upgrade the Aud, there's no plans to do so - but building a fresh arena in Cambridge would work as it provides the same functionality (concert venue) - as well I believe Cambridge is the strongest financially of the municipalities in the tri-city region. It also falls outside whatever numbers have been tossed out in the past of territorial rights.
Caeldon, I love the way people in Ontario embrace their particular part of the province. When I was living in the Windsor area - 25 years ago - folks there insisted that Windsor was the armpit of the province.
When I was living in the Niagara area - and attending a lot of NHL games in Buffalo - I often heard others from that area say that the worst part about going to Buffalo Sabres games was going to Buffalo. Still, thousands did go.
I am not - as the expression goes - "married" to the idea of having an NHL team placed in an arena in the Woodstock area. My idea - here and elsewhere - is simply to get people like yourself to think seriously about where (in South West Ontario) an NHL team might be placed. If we are to have another NHL team in Ontario, we must realize that it will have to be somewhere in South West Ontario where it will do minimum harm to Toronto, Buffalo and Detroit.
A few things, the 100 miles is not from the arena, but rather from City limit to City limit. You may need to rethink your location much further west. Then on the subject of these rivalries to buy support, I assume you intend that this team, Toronto, and Buffalo would be in the same division. If so, that could create an issue. Detroit and Columbus are supposed to have a promise to be moved to the Eastern Conference before any other teams are placed there. What 3 eastern teams move west to accomodate this? The only other option is to move Buffalo, Toronto and this team to the West. Do you think the Sabres and MLSE would approve anything putting them in the west? Because of this problem, I think the NHL will put at least 3 or 4 new locations in the west before even considering anything eastern. This team would need to get in line behind three of: Winnipeg, KC, Houston, Portland, Vegas and Seattle, unless they want to drop the Leafs, Buffalo and Detroit rivalry, go into the Western Conference while the league's choice of Detroit or Columbus goes into the east.
Leek, the 88.30 miles refers to the distance from Toronto to Woodstock - city to city - not from the Air Canada Centre to my prospective arena in the Woodstock area. At the moment, that arena of mine is on wheels in case it is necessary to move it elsewhere in South West Ontario.
Leek, the 88.30 miles refers to the distance from Toronto to Woodstock - city to city - not from the Air Canada Centre to my prospective arena in the Woodstock area. At the moment, that arena of mine is on wheels in case it is necessary to move it elsewhere in South West Ontario.
OK, how do you sell it to the Leafs, Sabres, Red Wings and Blue Jackets? Red Wings and Blue Jackets fight tooth and nail if any team joins the Eastern Conference before them. I have to believe Sabres and Leafs fight anything that puts them in the Western Conference. I doubt any prospective owner can get approved unless all of those teams are supportive. No one in the Eastern Time Zone wants to be stuck in the west. The costs are huge, and it's way beyond travel. Eastern teams have the cache' and Detroit and Columbus lose millions in revenue in the West vs. being in the East. I also think Eastern Conference teams would fight anything that took Buffalo and Toronto out of the East because they are a huge road draw.
This team may have to solve all of those problems to have a chance at approval.
Where is this 100 mile figure coming from? Was this something revealed in the Coyotes proceedings? I always remember hearing 80 kilometres, then it came out during the hearings that that was not the case at all. Just curious, as I didn't really follow the case.
It comes from some persons' interpretation of 2 terms in Article 4 of the NHL Constitution:
- No team can play a game within the "home territory" of another (defined as a 50 mi radius of that cities' corporate limits) without that teams written permission.
- No team may be granted a home territory within the home territory of another without that teams permission.
Some people have interpreted the non-overlapping home territory term as a defacto 100 mi radius requirement. Others interpret it to not affect the 50 mi radius, but just to limit the home territory granted to a second team.
I've seen no official interpretation from the league or anything released during the Coyotes' court filings that resolve the issue (personally I subscribe to the 50 mi interpretation), but it's really a moot point - it is the leagues stated position that By-Law 36 supercedes those restrictions and any relocation may be done subject only to a majority vote (ie no veto exists), although the league does contend that the restrictions & veto still exist w.r.t. expansion (we just don't know the leagues' or the Leafs' interpretation of the home territory terms).
Where is this 100 mile figure coming from? Was this something revealed in the Coyotes proceedings? I always remember hearing 80 kilometres, then it came out during the hearings that that was not the case at all. Just curious, as I didn't really follow the case.
It's nothing new. Teams are granted a 50m radius circle of home territory. The thing to understand is if two teams are each granted a 50m circle those teams have to be at least 100 miles apart or the circles will overlap to some degree.
It comes from some persons' interpretation of 2 terms in Article 4 of the NHL Constitution:
- No team can play a game within the "home territory" of another (defined as a 50 mi radius of that cities' corporate limits) without that teams written permission.
- No team may be granted a home territory within the home territory of another without that teams permission.
Some people have interpreted the non-overlapping home territory term as a defacto 100 mi radius requirement. Others interpret it to not affect the 50 mi radius, but just to limit the home territory granted to a second team.
I've seen no official interpretation from the league or anything released during the Coyotes' court filings that resolve the issue (personally I subscribe to the 50 mi interpretation), but it's really a moot point - it is the leagues stated position that By-Law 36 supercedes those restrictions and any relocation may be done subject only to a majority vote (ie no veto exists), although the league does contend that the restrictions & veto still exist w.r.t. expansion (we just don't know the leagues' or the Leafs' interpretation of the home territory terms).
You hold that view? I have never seen you express it. In any event, that interpretation is unsupportable, based on a legal interpretation of the provisions in question.
I don't think it is anywhere near moot. IIRC, it triggers the eligibility requirement for an indemnity.
You hold that view? I have never seen you express it. In any event, that interpretation is unsupportable, based on a legal interpretation of the provisions in question.
I don't think it is anywhere near moot. IIRC, it triggers the eligibility requirement for an indemnity.
Both Hartford and Philadelphia were granted franchises with <100 mi from corporate limits to New York corporate limits. Have you seen any indication that the Rangers received any indemnification from either? It is <70 mi as the crow flies from NE Philly to Staten Island.
Interesting idea, from a highway standpoint. But there's limited VIA Rail service, it's a good hour and a half from downtown Toronto, a good 45 minute drive from downtown London. It is about 25 minutes from the outskirts of Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge.
I don't see that area being feasible. Too far away from anyone.
Downtown Ottawa to Scotiabank Place is approx 30 km. Fans complain of that being too far away from Ottawa.
This would be the site of the new arena. zoom out to see the 401, 403.
Basically it would be at Highway #2 and Highway #53 (County Road #55 and County Road #2 to be more correct) They formerly are provincial highways, simply downloaded to the municipalities, meaning their names have changed, but in general local speech, the roads are still called "highways"
Anyways, from that site in driving directions we have:
London (downtown) - 60 km / 45 minutes driving
Kitchener (downtown) 52 km / 38 minutes driving
Brantford (downtown) 38 km / 28 minutes driving
Hamilton (downtown) 71 km / 47 minutes driving.
While this location would work for a reduced schedule team. To envision the fact that corporatations in Kitchener, Hamilton, & London would want to purchase tickets to an NHL team that far away, the simple commute to the game might be somewhat off-setting and a deterrence to purchasing season tickets.
I don't see Woodstock being a good idea in location. Somewhere in an urban centre is far better. I think Hamilton would be the best place right now, but Kitchener (downtown) would also be more feasible.
Look at how unappealing the Meadowlands are to sports fans now. parking lots in the middle of a swamp. Essentially here, the same thing would happen...parking lots in the middle of corn fields in Oxford County.
PS. Chatham-Kent is the armpit of Ontario.
PPS. Look at Southwestern Ontario with the west pointed up? (from Toronto west to Windsor) See the elephant? Now...who would want to live in Owen Sound now? haha http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/200...ario-elephant/ (Hamilton gets recognition for being the armpit of Ontario here) haha
There's an NHL map of the Coyotes home territory in one of the filings. I don't recall which one--it was one of the early filings. I have a copy printed out here and it's intriguing.
It shows a 50m radius circle centered on Phoenix, then every county which falls partially within that circle is marked as part of the team's "50-Mile Home Territory". Since Arizona has a small number of very large counties, this home territory is comprised of only four counties [Yavapai, Maricopa, Gila and Pinal]. Parts of Yavapai marked as Home Territory are over 125 miles away from the center of the circle.
This map has me suspicious that the NHL may be employing a definition of Home Territory that varies from the Constitution wording that says 50 miles from city corporate limits.
You hold that view? I have never seen you express it. In any event, that interpretation is unsupportable, based on a legal interpretation of the provisions in question.
I don't think it is anywhere near moot. IIRC, it triggers the eligibility requirement for an indemnity.
It comes from some persons' interpretation of 2 terms in Article 4 of the NHL Constitution:
- No team can play a game within the "home territory" of another (defined as a 50 mi radius of that cities' corporate limits) without that teams written permission.
- No team may be granted a home territory within the home territory of another without that teams permission.
Some people have interpreted the non-overlapping home territory term as a defacto 100 mi radius requirement. Others interpret it to not affect the 50 mi radius, but just to limit the home territory granted to a second team.
I've seen no official interpretation from the league or anything released during the Coyotes' court filings that resolve the issue (personally I subscribe to the 50 mi interpretation), but it's really a moot point - it is the leagues stated position that By-Law 36 supercedes those restrictions and any relocation may be done subject only to a majority vote (ie no veto exists), although the league does contend that the restrictions & veto still exist w.r.t. expansion (we just don't know the leagues' or the Leafs' interpretation of the home territory terms).
There's an NHL map of the Coyotes home territory in one of the filings. I don't recall which one--it was one of the early filings. I have a copy printed out here and it's intriguing.
It shows a 50m radius circle centered on Phoenix, then every county which falls partially within that circle is marked as part of the team's "50-Mile Home Territory". Since Arizona has a small number of very large counties, this home territory is comprised of only four counties [Yavapai, Maricopa, Gila and Pinal]. Parts of Yavapai marked as Home Territory are over 125 miles away from the center of the circle.
This map has me suspicious that the NHL may be employing a definition of Home Territory that varies from the Constitution wording that says 50 miles from city corporate limits.
That may be related to what is considered a teams home market for broadcast rights - for blackouts, "out-of-market" games for Center Ice, etc - which I believe is county based.
Both Hartford and Philadelphia were granted franchises with <100 mi from corporate limits to New York corporate limits. Have you seen any indication that the Rangers received any indemnification from either? It is <70 mi as the crow flies from NE Philly to Staten Island.
The book Full Spectrum about the history of the Flyers franchise mentioned the 1967 expansion teams made out their checks to the existing franchises but the Flyers made theirs out to the Maple Leafs. I don't know if territorial rights were an issue in '67.
Basically it would be at Highway #2 and Highway #53 (County Road #55 and County Road #2 to be more correct) They formerly are provincial highways, simply downloaded to the municipalities, meaning their names have changed, but in general local speech, the roads are still called "highways"
[snip]
Essentially here, the same thing would happen...parking lots in the middle of corn fields in Oxford County.
PS. Chatham-Kent is the armpit of Ontario.
PPS. Look at Southwestern Ontario with the west pointed up? (from Toronto west to Windsor) See the elephant? Now...who would want to live in Owen Sound now? haha http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/200...ario-elephant/ (Hamilton gets recognition for being the armpit of Ontario here) haha
I'll amend my claim for Oxford County to being the ear wax of SW Ontario
But there'd be one benefit(?) for the players putting an arena there... they'd only be 5 minutes from Nikki's
Both Hartford and Philadelphia were granted franchises with <100 mi from corporate limits to New York corporate limits. Have you seen any indication that the Rangers received any indemnification from either? It is <70 mi as the crow flies from NE Philly to Staten Island.
I have seen nothing either way. I have not seen anything either way indicating whether the value in those particular circumstances was assessed at zero. I have also not seen anything indicating either way whether that particular provision of the constitution was in effect 30 and 42 years ago (as an aside, I find it interesting that people continue to not realize that events like those happened generations ago at this point).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proboscis
Based on your legal nterpretation.
Based on my professional opinion. I do this for a living. Take that for whatever you wish. I have neither seen nor heard any other counsel with a differing opinion. This is a rather easy one, to be frank. It does not take 20 years of legal practice to interpret the relevant portions of the constitution.
