I'm sure European players (even the ones not in the NBA) wouldnt mind if Montreal were a destination for them.
In this economy Sac and Memphis aren't doing too hot. I'm not sure the league wants to expand right now, maybe move some franchises eventually.
The fourth city--Edmonton isn't a great choice, it is a bit isolated. Calgary would probably be better. Good sports town, young population, high incomes, lots of money being thrown around.
I'm more for moving franchises around than actually expanding. I think 30 teams is just perfect. And lol, I was just throwing out a random big city in Canada with Edmonton, but yu get my point.
It probably would flop in Montreal like the Expos quickly did. Montreal is a hockey first, hockey second, third, fourth.. tenth city. The CFL survives not thrives there as well and they've been a top 2 team in the east for the majority of the decade. I think an NBA team in Montreal would fizzle out in 4-6 yrs unfortunately. The taxes would discourage players from wanting to play there too. Quebec is more of a socialist province than any other part of Canada and they offer more government programs ($7 a day daycare anyone?) and thus have higher personal income tax.
10,000 seats == failed franchise. In order to be a viable NBA city you need an owner with incredibly deep pockets AND 15,000 butts in the seats every game AND enough large corporate sponsors to buy ads and luxury boxes. You can get by with a little less - a less wealthy owner and 20,000 fans a night, or one of the richest people in the world and 10,000 people a night for a couple years, but to be viable long term you need more. A few years ago, the Blazers attendance was down to 15,000 a game (officially - actual butts in seats was far less) and the team was hemorrhaging money. Thankfully, they had Paul Allen, one of the richest men in the world, as the owner. Even then, he was considering selling the team. So, unless Monteal can find an owner as rich as Allen, or at least Mark Cuban, they will need 20,000 fans a night packing their arena and generous corporate sponsors picking up the slack. I don't think the Clippers will be moving any time soon. They actually make money in most years. Teams likely to move would be New Orleans, Sacramento, Memphis and Charlotte. The Hornets owner almost broke his stadium lease two years ago - the year they won 58 games, which would have allowed him to move the team (or sell it to someone else to relocate to a more viable market). There was a provision in the lease that they needed to average 14,430 fans per home game from December 1 through the end of the season, or he could break the lease. In spite of having an exciting young team that would win 58 games they barely made it. Now they are losing and attendance is plummeting. George Shinn already moved the team once for financial reasons (from Charlotte to New Orleans). Don't be surprised to see him do it again. Ditto for Memphis. The moved from Vancouver to Memphis for financial reasons. Like George Shinn, their owner Michael Heisley is a notorious tightwad who is always looking for a better deal (grass is always greener owner). He'd move the team in a heartbeat if a better situation were available. Sacramento has probably THE worst arena situation in the league. Arco Arena (or whatever it's called these days) is an outdated piece of crap and it's located out in the middle of nowhere. Other than a Kings game, there is NO other reason for the good people of Sacramento go go anywhere near that dump. And when the Kings are one of the worst teams in the league, there isn't even that reason. The NBA failed in Charlotte once and history may very well repeat itself. The same situation that happened with the Hornets (cash strapped ownership, poor attendance looks to be happening again with the Bobcats. Oh, and the Nets are another candidate to move, but if they do it will be to Brooklyn, not Montreal. BNM
There really isn't anything that bad about Arco Arena. The Kings are Sacramento's last major sports team now that Monarchs are gone, so there is still plenty of support out there for the Kings, just they aren't very good right now. I don't care where you go, attendance will be down when you are horrible. The arena is also at a main intersection for the highways where numerous highways meet, which makes it easily found. Northern California isn't a metropolitan place where you are going to find big cities, but there are still diehard sports fans here that live in the small towns for 100's of miles around, mostly north. As much as I hate them, you have to appreciate what the Maloofs have done for this area through the years by bringing them to Sacramento. It truly would be a sad day if, or when, the Kings leave because then a team that retired #6 for the fans would be giving up on them.
absolutely not. the only other city who might be able to support a nba franchise is vancouver. ppl need to remember that when the grizzlies were in canada- there wasnt dollar parity like canadian franchises enjoy now, in fact, it was something like 60 cents on the dollar, so that franchise was almost doomed from the start but they still managed to do alright. as for montreal- the city is too small to support another pro franchise and outside of montreal its backward as hell. i once visited hull, quebec when i was a kid and ive had nightmares ever since about that experience. ive heard they have a thriving basketball community but again its way too small to support a nba franchise on its own. and realistically- why would the nba even consider expansion in this economic enviornment?
Yep, it sucks that Vancouver lost the Grizzlies. Vancouver is a great city, and they definitely supported the team. Despite the fact that they never won more than 23 games while in Vancouver, the Grizz averaged almost 17,000 fans per game over their last four seasons in Vancouver. In fact during those four seasons, the team flat out sucked (8-42, 19-63, 14-68, 15-67) - yet they continued to draw almost 17,000 fans a night. Now THAT'S supporting your team. By comparison, their average home attendance dropped to less than 15,000 their first two years in Memphis and has been less than 13,000 the last two seasons. As a Blazer fan, I think it sucks that both Vancouver and Seattle lost their NBA franchises - in both cases after being bought by out of town owners who lied and promised to do everything possible to keep the teams where they were. I miss the rivalry with the Sonics and it sucks that the Blazer have to travel 1500 miles for games against two of the four other teams in their own division. Only in the NBA are Minneapolis and Oklahoma City consider part of the Northwest. BNM
This thread needs to be bumped. In fact, bring in Vancouver to this discussion (not that it hasn't already). Just stumbled on an old article but fuck it pisses me off. Link A big reason why I hate Stern.
I really don't understand how a market as large as Vancouver isn't being exploited (should help that the Winter Olympics were just held there), while a city like Memphis, LA (Clippers) and Sacramento have teams. And don't get me started on OKC and Seattle.
Stern also goes on to say in that article that he wouldn't consider going back to Vancouver, I wonder what his reason for that is? too embarrassed?
My guess would be that HE doesn't make as much money if a franchise were to relocate to Vancouver, not necessarily the NBA. and haha @ being too embarrassed. I would be too if I just realized I made a mistake as big as that one.
