View Single Post
10-19-2012, 03:41 AM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,932
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by JMROWE View Post
I doubt it because any future owner of the coyotes will be bleeding money right out of the gate & you combine that with a 250 million dollar territory fee to MLSE. I doubt you will find anyone dumb enough to pay it after going through hell in Phoenix . When they can move the coyotes to Hamilton for far less money & lot less resistance from MLSE. .
The interesting thing will be if the 3000 fans that abandoned the Coyotes when the bankruptcy hit come back when they have an owner.

I still the think the smart money bet is: Rogers/Bell traded Hamilton as part of their territory for the NHL's approval of the sale and third-tier media rights) and when the two companies can't co-exist owning the Leafs, that's when we get GTA2.

Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
I'm not saying that Ontario wouldn't be good for another team its just its just putting other markets a side just cause they can provide a larger fee.

if both PHX stays and islanders remain in their region, relocation may not be a option unless there are other teams that become available. There is no chance Seattle gets a team via expansion as long as there are multiple cities wanting a team that can give a large expansion fee than Now you understand why i mean by ignoring Seattle.

Any shot seattle has at getting a team in the near future (2-3 years at least) phx deal has to fall apart.
Keep in mind the Seattle Arena is a "Done Deal" only in this framework: An owner has an agreement to bring an NBA team to Seattle.
Shovels don't go in the ground until the NBA team is acquired.

Originally Posted by Fenway View Post
Let's get something straight right now. The new Leafs owners will happily allow a second team in TO and might allow them to play at ACC under favorable conditions. Bell/Rogers will get the TV rights and would perhaps offer ACC as a home rink on the cheap. Bell/Rogers don't want to see another arena built to compete with non-hockey events.

In any event a second team in TO does not hurt Buffalo.

In the US the prime market is Seattle ( if the new arena is a done deal )
Kansas City has a wonderful arena but for whatever reason both the NHL and NBA do not want to go back there.

Portland, Oregon will get sniffed at as well.

Strangely enough San Francisco could be in the mix with the new Warriors arena being built under the Bay Bridge.

Quebec will have a team when the new arena opens. Everything else is in play.
The reason for KC is because STL is #26 in revenues, and KC is smaller than STL and doesn't have 45 years of brand tradition like STL.

I don't think SF would be a good idea.
After living in California, I'm not impressed with the fan base out here for non-football (with the exception of LA Dodger and SJ Sharks fans). The Giants are winning, but the bandwagon isn't full because they're winning. It's full because it's TRENDY AND COOL to like the Giants. Like Angels fans, they don't cheer on their own and will do whatever the scoreboad says. The Giants fans hate the Dodgers because they WERE TOLD they hate the Dodgers. They actually haven't but a few pennant races, but when the teams showed up in 1958, the PLAYERS hated each other. They don't even realize that without the Dodgers, they don't have a team.

(And people out here will root for both the A's and Giants. You can't do that. That's what girls do. If you love one, you hate the other.

Houston (aside from the Les Alexander issues) would be a MUCH better option for the NHL. Whether or not it's a hockey town isn't the point. The point is that Texas is full of Texas Pride, Houston pride, and they'll go see anything if they're playing Dallas. It would draw lines across the state: Austin is Dallas' affiliate and Houston could nab San Antonio as its' affiliate. The fans in Austin/SA would root for their guys against each other and then the players would go to the NHL.

KevFu is offline