View Single Post
Old
10-02-2012, 02:39 PM
  #556
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Sorry about that.

So, SEATTLE!

Apparently, there's no "NHL-Only" provision in the arena deal:

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2...only-scenario/

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/...hl-and-oilers/
This has never made sense to me. Why do they need the assurance of a franchise moving there to get this arena built? This arena would probably survive in Seattle without an anchor tenant regardless. It would make a lot more sense to have an arena in place before you bring a team there. With an arena in place you can move any struggling team to Seattle. Without an arena you're looking at expansion or moving a team to a temporary Key arena site which means financial losses and a negative experience for the fans.

The political issue with the Key Arena seems to be another obstacle holding this back that makes absolutely no sense. Why do they need to save such an outdated building and have written guarantees that a new arena can not compete with the Key? It's ridiculous. The Key does not attract enough big events and it generates an insignificant profit. They should let the Key die or re-purpose it.

silvercanuck is offline