That shouldn’t be surprising, given that over thirty percent of the league’s talent is European and the sport’s popularity in those aforementioned countries, along with Russia, Finland, Slovakia and Switzerland, especially for the NHL’s product.

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman recently suggested that the league will continue to expand its presence in Europe, although he didn’t go so far to say that the club will put franchises there in the near future.  

Ottawa Senators owner Eugene Melnyk certainly foresees the day when there are NHL franchises in Europe, believing it a question of time and scheduling; an opinion shared by NHLPA Executive Director Paul Kelly.

Europe is certainly a market worth exploring for the NHL, but it could take longer than expected for NHL teams to make their homes in European cities.

Most European cities lack NHL-size venues, which right off the bat puts them at a disadvantage. In a gate-driven league like the NHL you need at least a 16,500 seat arena, with luxury suites, to at least make a go of it.

Of course those venues could be constructed over time, but that raises the next problem: ticket prices.

The average ticket price to attend an NHL game last season was $48.72 US, according to the website Team Marketing Report. The average price for a premium ticket was $112.10. The average cost with concessions factored in for a family of four was $282.95.

Don’t expect too many European hockey fans to pony up that kind of cash when it’s costing them considerably less to enjoy quality hockey in long established European leagues.

Geographical logistics also have to be a factor. It would take teams in the Eastern Conference between four-five hours to fly across the Atlantic to play in Europe, even longer for Western Conference clubs, especially those on the West Coast. The European NHL based teams would also have to face those daunting road trips.

Finding potential owners in European cities willing to pay hefty expansion fees (perhaps as much as $150 million per team) would also prove a difficult challenge. Those teams would also find themselves competing for fans attentions with long established European leagues and Russia’s new oil barons-funded KHL.

Too many expensive factors currently work against the feasibility of NHL franchises in Europe, and it could be years, perhaps decades, before they could be overcome.

It’s quite likely we’ll see more NHL regular games being played in Europe in the coming years, and not just early season match-ups, as those games played last weekend certainly proved lucrative, and the NHL is always on the lookout to tap new revenue streams.

It would cost far less and earn the NHL far more to stage regular season games between barnstorming NHL teams than to try to put actual NHL franchises in Europe. 

The recent news of the NHL's Nashville Predators being sold to Canadian billionaire Jim Balsillie and possibly relocating to Southern Ontario has generated considerable news of late on the possibility of the NHL moving to new markets.

The talk, however, isn't about relocating franchises, but rather expanding the current number of NHL teams from 30 to 32.

The talk centers around three locations: Kansas City, Las Vegas, and Winnipeg.

Kansas City is the obvious choice, given that city has a shiny new arena but no NHL or NBA franchise to put into it. Winnipeg, a former NHL town, has itself a new venue suitable for a franchise.

Las Vegas lacks an arena but also lacks a big league franchise of any kind, and in a city that fancies itself as one giant adult amusement park would undoubtedly love to have one, even an NHL franchise. It also has mega-rich blockbuster film producer Jerry Bruckheimer - a big hockey fan - interested in helping to bring the NHL to Sin City.

I can understand the desire to tap into those markets. It remains to be seen what kind of hockey town Kansas City might become but those who built that arena are obviously willing to find out.

And who'll operate the building? The Anschutz Entertainment Group, who invested in the arena's construction. And their significance? They also own the Los Angeles Kings, and can obviously influence the league's decision to put a franchise in KC.

Apparently there's no conflict of interest involved in this, although for the life of me I can't understand how the owner of one team would be allowed to have any stake in a rival club. Perhaps one of you readers out there can enlighten me because I've yet to find anything on the internet regarding this.

Winnipeg, according to NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, is an "intriguing idea", and to most hockey fans, makes the most sense. It's got an NHL-capacity arena and before the Jets became the Phoenix Coyotes had one of the most devoted fanbases in the league, one that'll likely roar back to life if the Jets were resurrected.

Unfortunately, there's no owner(s) of yet willing to step up to spend the big bucks to bring back the Jets. And no, the city and the province won't do it. It has to be private ownership. There's been some suggestion of Balsillie moving the Predators there, but Balsillie's interest lies in Southern Ontario, not in Manitoba.

As for Vegas, yes I know, another Sun Belt franchise that won't have a chance, right? Not so fast. Las Vegas is all about entertainment, and while the NBA and NFL are the big attention getters the NHL would probably be a good sell there, particularly to visiting Canadian tourists or expats. Folks laughed when Bugsy Siegel dreamed of turning a dusty Nevada town into a gambling mecca, and as Vegas loves to tout, dreams can come true there.

So yes, I get the idea why those three cities would be of interest to the NHL.

But not through expansion.

Relocation makes far more sense. There are franchises that are struggling to make a go of it in this league. The Panthers claimed they were doing just fine before Leipold announced his intention to sell, citing among other things a lack of corporate sponsership and the inability of the Preds to reach 14,000 in season ticket sales.

The Preds averaged 89.2 percent attendance capacity this season, yet they're likely on the move in the next couple of years.

That doesn't bode well for teams like the Phoenix Coyotes (85.6) or Atlanta Thrashers (87.5). The former is a franchise in disarray on the ice and in the front office, whilst the moves made at this year's trade deadline by the latter had more than a whiff of desperation about them, such was their urgency to make the playoffs.

Ah, it's so easy to pick on the new kids on the block, the younger franchises, but what about supposedly more established ones like the Islanders, Capitals and Blues, all of which had attendance averages well below the league norm.

What about the Bruins and Blackhawks, two original six franchises that have been run into the ground by their respective owners to the point where they barely register in the minds of Boston and Chicago sports fans.

 Both clubs have faced declining attendance for years, so don't give me the argument about riots in those two cities if those teams moved. The protests would be feeble at best.

The league has enough potential relocation candidates to choose from, so why bloat the league further and spread the talent pool even thinner by adding two more teams?

Expansion fees.

It was the prime incentive behind the seemingly mindless expansion of the 1990s, where cities with people willing to pay the big bucks could step right up and buy themselves an NHL franchise, even in what is called "non-traditional hockey markets".

Ten years ago, the going rate for an NHL franchise was $80 million. Today, it's estimated at $150 million.

Those monies are spread amongst the existing franchises, and since they don't count as revenue, go directly into the pockets of the owners.

In other words, it has nothing to do with "growing the NHL product", with improving the NHL.

It's a cash grab, plain and simple. Good ol' fashioned greed.

And if those franchise can actually work out in their new cities, great. If not, well, they'll just cross that bridge when they come to it. Always put off until tomorrow the disaster you could've prevented today. That's the NHL's motto.

And yes, I'm against expansion even if it meant a franchise in Winnipeg, or Quebec City, or Saskatoon, or Halifax. I don't want to see the already watered-down NHL becoming even more diluted.

Earlier this year I wrote a blog posted entitled, "Just Say NO to Expansion", where I laid out my hopes that the NHL would avoid this ruinous, embarrassing path. I'll finish this article with the words I used to finish that one:

"The NHL doesn't need any more teams. What it needs to do is nurture those clubs that are struggling to establish themselves in the current non-traditional hockey markets, or failing that, relocate them to markets that will."

Blogger Tom Benjamin has a post up with a collection of links to articles on the possibility that the National Hockey League might consider expanding from its present 30 teams to 32.

As Tom notes, this probably won’t be a “front-burner” issue until the Pittsburgh situation has been sorted out. It’ll only become a “front-burner” if the league can find two potential owners willing to pony up the estimated $300 million in combined expansion fees for the two teams.

The NHL, if we are to believe NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, had no plans for expansion coming out of the lockout. But with Canadian billionaire Jim Balsillie willing to buy the Pens at $175 million, and with an ownership group based in LA seeking an NHL franchise for a shiny new arena in K.C., that has at least given rise to speculation that the league may rethink expansion.

If it does, then it’s based solely on a short-term cash grab for the 30 owners, rather than on doing what’s best for the league.

That’s what fuelled the expansionist policy in the 1990s. It was done more based on who had the money to pay for a franchise, rather than placing one in a market that would sustain it and thus grow the game’s excitement.

Folks, the NHL is big enough as it is. In fact, I believe (and I know I’m not the only one who thinks this way) that the NHL is about six teams too big.

The league won’t ever consider contraction, or at least it won’t as long as Bettman is NHL Commissioner, so we have to consider that relocation, rather than expansion, is a better option.

Now I don’t want to see the Pittsburgh Penguins moved, but if that’s what must come to pass, then so be it, but I want them moved to a market that’ll appreciate them.  I don’t want them moved to a market where they’ll be treated as a curiosity. I don't want them moved to a non-hockey market merely because somebody was willing to pay the freight.

The Nashville Predators, one of the best teams in the NHL, continually faces declining attendance, and ithis season fell short of its season-ticket goals. There’s already talk afoot that they, rather than the Penguins, could end up in Kansas City.

I don’t want the Preds going to K.C. only because somebody has a shiny new arena they want to put a sports team into, without any consideration as to whether or not it's a viable hockey market.

As much as I’d love to see NHL hockey return to Winnipeg or Quebec City, or into a new market like Hamilton or Kitchener-Waterloo, I don’t want to see this occur via expansion.

Put a current team like the Pens or Preds into one of those cities, because those teams will be loved by passionate hockey fans who’ll follow them no matter what. 

The NHL doesn't need any more teams. What it needs to do is nurture those clubs that are struggling to establish themselves in the current non-traditional hockey markets, or failing that, relocate them to markets that will.