With several of the NHL’s Sun Belt teams currently struggling financially there's a growing perception the best solution would be for the league to relocate those clubs to Canada, where supposedly those teams would become huge money-earners in markets where hockey is king.

The latest comes from Tom Mayenknecht, writing for the Vancouver Sun, citing a study released by the Sun and TheSportMarket.biz:

If the National Hockey League relocated three of its weakest Southern U.S. franchises to Canada, their individual franchise values would increase by more than 50 per cent and the league's average team valuation would jump by $11 million US.

The combined revenues of the three relocated franchises would rise by $100 million per year, jacked up largely by average attendance of 6,000 more fans per game -or a total of 738,000 more per season -and regional television audiences at least 20 times larger than what they are now in the U.S. Sun Belt.

The study focused mainly on the Phoenix Coyotes, Atlanta Thrashers and Florida Panthers, considered by many to be the poster children for all that ails the league’s Sun Belt franchises.

Mayenknecht believes this study clearly shows it would be more beneficial for the league to move those trouble franchises to Canada.

Since the lockout, all six Canadian franchises have become stronger; at least off the ice in areas such as attendance, box office revenues, sponsorships, merchandising and television audiences. At the other extreme, teams such as Phoenix, Atlanta, Florida, Nashville, Tampa Bay and Carolina have incurred significant losses over the past five years; despite the new salary cap and Stanley Cup victories by the Lightning in 2004 and the Hurricanes in 2006.

No question the six Canadian franchises have become financially stronger, but the basis for that is the improved value of the Canadian dollar compared to the US dollar over the past seven years.

In the first three years of the last decade the Canadian dollar was worth below .70 cents US, including a lengthy period where it was worth .62 cents US. During that period four of the six Canadian franchises needed a revenue sharing scheme by the league to stay afloat.

It wasn’t that those teams weren’t doing well at the gate, it was simply a problem of earning revenue in Canadian dollars but forced to pay salaries in American dollars, which made it almost impossible for every team not from Toronto to retain their best players or bid competitively for the top free agent talent.

It’s also true those aforementioned American clubs cited by Mayenknecht have struggled, although it might not be fair to blame the market in most of those cases.

Atlanta actually did well at the gate early in their tenure. The Panthers did well in their early seasons, including their march to the 1996 Stanley Cup. Tampa Bay for three seasons following their 2004 championship season ranked amongst the top ten in paid attendance. Carolina also saw improvement at the gate the season following their 2006 championship. Phoenix in their early seasons did okay playing in an inadequate arena.

Too often it’s suggested Atlanta, Florida, Tampa Bay, Carolina and Phoenix are “bad hockey markets”, yet it’s apparent many losing seasons compounded by mismanagement is why those teams wound up in their current plight.

The only market which could considered a questionable one is Nashville, which since 2004 has consistently iced a competitive franchise yet have struggled to bolster their fan base.

If those other franchises had, like the Predators, iced more competitive rosters over the same period yet still struggled at the gate there would be no doubt those cities were bad hockey markets, yet their attendance statistics during the years when those franchises were competitive appear to suggest otherwise.

Mayenknecht imagines it would better for the league if the Coyotes, Thrashers and Panthers played in "packed houses in southern Ontario, Quebec City (if and when a new arena is built) and Winnipeg (where the MTS Centre could be renovated and even slightly expanded to better serve NHL fans).

"With the average Canadian franchise valued at $268.5 million US (according to valuation lists compiled by Forbes Magazine), now is the time to strengthen the NHL and its brand footprint. The average Canadian team is valued $45.92 million US more than the NHL average, $57.4 million more than the average U.S. club and -- here's the kicker -- at least $100 million more than the soap operas in the Sun Belt.

The time for relocation is ripe when it would almost certainly mean more clubs driving over $100 million in annual revenues (the Canadian average is $112.5 million US, $18.6 million more than the NHL average and $23.2 million more than the typical U.S. franchise). It would mean Canadian attendance that is close to 3,000 fans per game more than the average U.S.-based clubs and 6,000 more than the league's southern members.

Relocating the three weakest links to Canada could deliver an aggregate of up to 1 million more viewers per game than the average number of 57,900 viewers who watch the Coyotes, Panthers and Thrashers combined. It would increase the size of the average NHL regional telecast by about 40,000 viewers (from a current average of 140,741 to a projected 177,127 per NHL club), something the league could leverage into a stronger and wider national television platform.

Yes, it would certainly make a lot more sense to move those franchises to Toronto, Quebec City and Winnipeg, but in this sunny prediction Mayenknecht neglects to point out several potential problems moving teams to those cities.

First, Toronto, home to the Maple Leafs, the richest franchise in the NHL, whose ownership - Maple Leafs Sports & Entertainment (MLSE) - jealously guards what it considered its territorial rights, that being all of Southern Ontario as well as the GTA, which is why the city of Hamilton continues to be shut out of the NHL market.

MLSE aren’t keen to share their market with a rival and will undoubtedly fight such a move tooth and nail. There’s also the cost of building another venue for such a team, since MLSE won’t share the Air Canada Centre. Considering the going rate for state-of-the-art arenas is now in the range of $400-$500 million it’s going to take someone with deep pockets willing to front most of the construction cost.

One snide assumption why the Leafs don’t want another team in Toronto is that if it did better than the Leafs it would draw away fans. Possible, but considering the deeply entrenched love for the Leafs, unlikely. Just because Toronto is large enough for two NHL franchise doesn’t automatically equate to full houses for a new Toronto-based franchise.

Winnipeg and Quebec City used to have NHL franchises but those were sold and moved  in the mid-1990s when the respective cities and provinces refused to construct new arenas.

It’s expected a new arena will be constructed soon in Quebec City to help bring back another NHL franchise, while of course Winnipeg has the 15,050-seat MTS Centre, which according to True North chairman Mark Chipman isn't an expandable venue, meaning they’ll have to charge more at the gate if they’re to make money.

Mayenknecht suggests those markets will consistently fill these new arenas if they regain NHL franchises, but one shouldn’t be so quick to make that assumption. In their respective final seasons the Jets never sold out the 15,500 seat Winnipeg Arena nor the Nordiques the 15, 750 seat Colisee.

That was back in the day when the cost of attending NHL games was considerably cheaper than it is today. In 2009-10 the fan cost index for attending an NHL game for a family of four was $300.54 US. The Ottawa Senators had the lowest FCI this season of the Canadian teams, at $297.38.

Forget about a franchise in Quebec City and Winnipeg charging a cheaper rate. If they’re going to make money they have to go with the flow and keep their rates as close to the average FCI as possible, and that might not go down well over the long term with the fan base in those regions, which are amongst the highest taxed in the country.

It also shouldn’t be automatically assumed teams in those markets can count on consistent support even if they ice a lousy product for several seasons. Only two teams, the Toronto Maple Leafs and Montreal Canadiens, can count on that thanks to their long history. Over the past twenty years the Edmonton Oilers, Calgary Flames, Vancouver Canucks and Ottawa Senators have at times seen declines in attendance during the years they were struggling on the ice.

Something else Mayenknecht fails to mention is Winnipeg and Quebec City would automatically become the two smallest markets in the league, which was a problem during their last go-around with NHL franchises and would again be an issue if those teams have a lengthy period where they struggle to ice a competitive product.

Market size would also become a serious factor if the Canadian dollar should plunge again to the depths seen ten years ago. Don’t think it couldn’t happen again? During May 2010 the “loonie” dropped from almost par with the American dollar at just over .98 cents to a low of .93 cents on May 20^th due to the economic uncertainty arising from the EU bailout of Greece’s economy.

Advocates of moving teams to Winnipeg and Quebec City always cite the stronger Canadian dollar but should the "loonie" decline again for any prolonged period those franchises would be in serious trouble.

The truth of the matter is that, as enticing as it sounds to move franchises to Toronto, Quebec City and Winnipeg, it’s not a guarantee those franchises would be successful, especially those in the latter two markets.

One simply cannot make the assumption that, because they’re Canadian-based, they’ll become automatic money-makers. If that were the case the Jets and Nordiques never would’ve left in the 1990s.

Too many factors – a weak Canadian dollar, a high fan cost index, icing an inferior product, and in the case of Winnipeg and Quebec City, market size  – can conspire to put those teams into serious jeopardy.

The NHL might indeed be forced in the near future to consider moving one, two or three struggling Sun Belt franchises to Canada, but it would be an option of last resort, where the league brain trust crosses their collective fingers and hope they aren’t revisiting franchise relocation again down the road.