The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
From what I have read, Saskatchewan has roughly the same population as Manitoba, just not as centralized. Even Mark Chipman has quietly praised the idea..
Keep in the mind the two major population centres, Saskatoon & Regina, are just over 200,000 each (Saskatoon metro is about 230K), with no significant population between the two cities (no towns over 5,000). As previously mentioned, Manitoba's population is largely concentrated around Winnipeg while Saskatchewan's population is very spread out. The City of Glendale is slightly larger than Saskatoon and at least it is part of the Phoenix metro area; not the sole, principle city of the metro area. Mark Chipman is wise to quietly praise the idea, at the very least he does not want to alienate Saskatchewan from the Winnipeg Jets brand (merchandise sales, occasional ticket sales, etc.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun
eh, agree to disagree. Mentioning Saskatoon in the same breath as Vegas and Hartford and the Hampton Roads as a locality likely to present an expansion bid to the NHL in a few years seems reasonable, as they're all talked about markets that have voiced their interest in the past (with Saskatoon especially getting some media coverage in the past year about wanting a team, albeit fraught with strong hints of incredulity at the mere possibility), but don't seem at all likely to actually be awarded a franchise. I was just pointing out that probably a decent number of cities would have potential ownership groups express at least a formal interest in having a team in their market, Saskatoon being one of them.
The fact that it's been so long since the last expansion cements the likelihood of that happening. Wouldn't be surprised if every city I mentioned above present expansion bids and several other ones not even considered also step forward with offers, too.
Maybe, but some seem more plausible than others. At varying degrees and in no particular order - Seattle, Quebec City, Houston, Kansas City, southern Ontario (including Hamilton or Toronto II), Portland, etc. pose at being realistic candidates for and NHL franchise. One can debate the likelihood it coming into fruition but we can all agree that those markets are conceivable.
Saskatoon can send all the proposals it wants from the NHL, but like Duluth MN, Sioux Falls SD, Spokane WA, or Boise ID (Spokane & Boise are both twice the size of Saskatoon) it's not actually going to be legitimate option for NHL relocation/expansion. Saskatoon would likely even be considered a small AHL market - though it would be a more realistic option. Unless Saskatoon experiences a very high level of sustained growth within the next 20-30 years, that isn’t going to change.
And you and I are in agreement there. I just think that they will submit a bid the next time relocation comes up, that's it. They'll get shot down by the NHL when it comes for them to determine finalist cities to consider.
As I said before, Quebec City, Seattle, and Houston is my hunch, and in that order, for the pecking order of getting a team through expansion (with QC being the only ready right now for a relocation). There are plenty of other variables, like if KC got an ownership group together or MLSE suddenly dropped their opposition to another team in Southern Ontario or if Allen decided that he wants the NHL in Portland, but I'd say that those are stretches at this point in time and therefore would rank those markets as second tier in terms of likelihood in getting a team.
Inncodently, Spokane and Boise are of similar size to Calgary, Edmonton, and Winnipeg when they got their NHL teams (Winnipeg, the first time). Maybe some day there will be a Seattle-Spokane rivalry
According from what i read from today's city council meeting regarding I-91 there was no direct channel to Finance Department’s declaration that the proposal meets I-91.
The Port has voted to delay its approval of a "rails-to-trails" conversion of a rail line in Bellevue over the arena issue in Seattle. Delaying approval of an unrelated project because you're unhappy about the arena issue. Good grief. I'd almost want to give the Port commissioners Schrammies this week, just like he did Conlin last week.
The Port has voted to delay its approval of a "rails-to-trails" conversion of a rail line in Bellevue over the arena issue in Seattle. Delaying approval of an unrelated project because you're unhappy about the arena issue. Good grief. I'd almost want to give the Port commissioners Schrammies this week, just like he did Conlin last week.
This delay on the "rails to trails" is typical in this area. Get so tired of decision makers!! On a similar note, there was a report on KOMO4 news today that stated a former city councilman (Steinbrook) who came out against the new arena is getting paid as a consultant to the Port!
Boy, that Ben Noble guy sounds almost qualified to work in Glendale city gov't.
It appears that Seattle has hired the anti-Hocking.
Here BTW is Daniels' full story - if you go now to KING5.com and click on the live video feed, he is supposed to be on in a few minutes with this at 6:30.
This delay on the "rails to trails" is typical in this area. Get so tired of decision makers!! On a similar note, there was a report on KOMO4 news today that stated a former city councilman (Steinbrook) who came out against the new arena is getting paid as a consultant to the Port!
No - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...it08arena.html
(I'm sorry to all the Seattle posters I have to post this absolutely inane garbage on here, BTW. This editorial is so full of it, it's crazy. I think this is the biggest proof yet of who the Times is tagging along with, and there's a nice acronym for it: PoS.)
There's also a couple new items on KING's Arena news page - and this BTW for our out of town readers should be a bookmarked page for all of you, since this provides a one-stop source for the latest arena news, much of which is reported by Chris Daniels:
All of this typical red tape that involves just about anything that deals with the City of Seattle itself, had me wanting for the Bellevue project to take full steam instead.
All of this typical red tape that involves just about anything that deals with the City of Seattle itself, had me wanting for the Bellevue project to take full steam instead.
Agreed. I myself would have liked the Bellevue option, but this is what's out there, so this is what needs to be supported. As it is, it's looking like the Bellevue site is going to be developed as a mixed-use deal anyway, so that land is off the table.
BTW, any of you listen to Brock and Salk either of the last two days or read their show blog? Salk has from the looks and sounds of it declared war on the Times, and he ain't pulling any punches either. It's all worth a read or listen, just go to www.mynorthwest.com and look for Brock and Salk's show page in the 710 ESPN Seattle part of the website. The podcasts you want to listen to on there are Hour 1 from yesterday (7-9) and Hour 2 from today (7-10).
The gang at KJR 950 also seem a bit Po'd at the Times editorializing. May try to find a link and add it later on. They are rather meh on hockey, but KJR carried the Sonics back in the day, and mainly want the arena to bring the NBA back to town.
The gang at KJR 950 also seem a bit Po'd at the Times editorializing. May try to find a link and add it later on. They are rather meh on hockey, but KJR carried the Sonics back in the day, and mainly want the arena to bring the NBA back to town.
I think most everyone who is pro-arena is p'd to no end about especially that editorial they ran on Sunday officially opposing the thing. The Times I think is taking their position for three reasons:
1-That it's in SODO as opposed to, let's say, Bellevue (My guess is is if Hansen wanted to do this in the suburbs or at Key Arena, their reaction would be this: ).
2-That it's an all-or-nothing deal down there because Hansen has bought all the land already (perhaps in their eyes, they could have wielded some influence on the process otherwise).
3-That there was a lot of work on this done behind the scenes - read, no transparency. (See #2).
The Times ed board has this belief that they wield some influence over regional policy and government, and it's been this way for years, and that they couldn't do that in this case, on behalf of the PoS, is probably what's p'd them off the most about all this.
If you heard Brock Huard yesterday during Brock and Salk, he brought up a real good point about why he thinks the Port is opposed (those of you who are interested and didn't listen yesterday, it's Hour 1 podcast from yesterday at Brock and Salk's page on www.mynorthwest.com). Has to do with the surrounding development that a new arena could spawn, the hotels, condos, restaurants, etc. Hour 2 from yesterday also includes an interview with Bob Ferguson from the County Council, who co-hosted that public forum earlier this week with the guy from the Seattle council.
And BTW, even though the hosts there may be "meh" on hockey, aside from Furness, KJR has over the past two or three years aired select Vancouver Canuck games, I would say perhaps 6-8 regular season contests per year and all the playoffs. Since they have a bit of an association with CSNNW, that might have something to do with that, I don't know.
Good grief. I'd almost want to give the Port commissioners Schrammies this week, just like he did Conlin last week.
It's all worth a read or listen, just go to 
).
