HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Metro Seattle: NHL, NBA and Arena - Part V

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-25-2012, 06:51 PM
  #376
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Because its a Canadian sport. You're saying this while the Isles have had bad attendance for some time. Granted, I do not care where teams are, but Edmonton has sold out despite being just as bad. They want more teams from a sport they invented. I don't know why (really last time we had 8 teams it was for 4 years and it didn't work). How would you feel if Toronto had an NFL team that was a poor draw? Same thing.
Islanders fans are in hiding. For a long time, most the money didn't even go to the team if we spent it. We're on year 18 of "the Islanders can't compete without a new arena!" so forgive us if we'd rather watch at home and have the ability to flip the channel if we're getting boat-raced 6-0.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Why does hockey have this idea that it needs to be restricted? I, personally, want to have to sport as wide spread as possible, to get as many people hooked as possible, since it is a great game that everybody should be able to enjoy.

I don't feel personally assaulted since some teams in the States are not drawing great right now. How quickly people forget that just a decade ago Canada was coming off losing two teams, with 2 more on life support. Every team goes through highs and lows.

I just don't get this Canada versus US thing at all.
That's how I feel. I don't think hockey's "Failed" in any market ever. Hockey's too freaking awesome to "fail." There's economic circumstances in a variety of markets. Some can be fixed, some weren't fixed or allowed to be fixed. I don't see a difference between someone like Pocklington who almost let the Oilers be bought by Alexander and moved to Houston, and Atlanta Spirit Group who didn't care to retain the Thrashers and basically evicted them. Quebec needed a new arena. If Wang wants out and no one in the NY area wants to buy them and operate them in NVMC or Barclays, they could be in the same boat. Neither market's a failure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post
Out of 30 teams in MLB, the Blue Jays are ranked 20th in attendance. I couldn't care less. Out of 30 teams in the NBA, the Raptors are ranked 17th in attendance. Again, I couldn't care less. If there was an NFL team in the Toronto area and if drew poorly, I would not care. I'm not saying Edmonton will or should lose their team. I'm saying I will lol at the hypocrates in the Canadian media, who've practically prayed for US teams to fold and be relocated to Canada, who are now outraged by Katz's implied threat.
I agree. It didn't bother me that the Expos drew 4,000. And not because I know Loria ran the team into the ground and it wasn't Montreal's fault.

Baseball's America's pastime. But there's no outrage over the fact that it's more popular in Asia than the US, and the Latin-American countries are BETTER AT IT THAN "WE" ARE.

In trying to see both sides, I suppose the key difference is what's THREATENING. If Major League Baseball had 40 teams, 30 in the US, 5 in Japan and 5 in Latin America, and then teams like Oakland, Pittsburgh, KC, Minnesota, Baltimore, etc starting moving to Guadalajara and Zihuatanejo; I might feel differently. Especially if the CEO of Sony was MLB's commish.

At the same time, though, I think it's important to realize that the failures of the NHL to keep teams put has been "fixed" given the timeline as Bettman realized the power of his office:

MIN, QUE, WIN, HART all moved and were rubber stamped in Bettman's first three years in office.
In the years since, EDM, OTT, PIT, NASH and PHX all had potential moves on the table. All squashed by finding ownership that would stay put (in EDM's case, looking the other way on a consortium), seven-year no relocation clauses, league operating the team for a time, legal battles in PHX, etc.
There was no choice for ATL, who was evicted, and the NHL will have no choice but to approve an Islanders move if they don't have a new home on the horizon once the NVMC runs out.

Because of the intended locations of NASH/PHX, I can understand the perception of anti-Canadian bias. However, given that US teams MIN and HART moved; EDM (Houston) and OTT (Four potential cities*) did not move; PIT to KC was fought just like NASH/PHX to Hamilton; and the continued stance of relocation only as last resort; I don't see a US vs Canada agenda.

I am all for a return to Quebec, a second team in Toronto, Hamilton having their dreams fulfilled. But first I'm in favor of a CBA that works for all of our current teams and creating more new fans of the game.

The NHL would be stupid to not have a blueprint(s) on 32 and 36 teams as part of a 20-year projection, including a variety of potential destinations: QUE, SEA, GTA2, HAM, HOU, MIL, KC, San Antonio, Salt Lake, etc.

* - Las Vegas newspaper: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/...ckval=GooglePM )

KevFu is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 07:06 PM
  #377
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,842
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
How can a country own a freaking sport? That doesn't make any sense. We may play it more than other countries, but that does not automatically mean Canada "owns" hockey.....Why does hockey have this idea that it needs to be restricted?
.... sports are supposed to be inclusive as opposed to being exclusive, transcending race, gender, location, provided of course economic & climactic conditions are conducive to participation & or provides the foundations for a successful professional franchise. Hockey is simply an exportable commodity with its primary roots in Canada, whereby we at one time provided close to 100% of all the "product", namely the players, Coaches, GM's & Scouts to the predominantly US based leagues and teams. We no more "own" the sport than does the US "own" football, yet they supply the vast majority of pro's in the NFL & CFL. I think people on either side of the divide simply like to wave the flag a bit, claiming proprietary rights & pride in "their players, their game". I dont have a problem with that. Unfortunately, vocal minorities on both sides do from time-time take it a lot farther than they should. I chalk a lot of it up to just too much testosterone & beer.

Killion is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 07:22 PM
  #378
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
How can a country own a freaking sport? That doesn't make any sense. We may play it more than other countries, but that does not automatically mean Canada "owns" hockey.

Why does hockey have this idea that it needs to be restricted? I, personally, want to have to sport as wide spread as possible, to get as many people hooked as possible, since it is a great game that everybody should be able to enjoy.

I don't feel personally assaulted since some teams in the States are not drawing great right now. How quickly people forget that just a decade ago Canada was coming off losing two teams, with 2 more on life support. Every team goes through highs and lows.

I just don't get this Canada versus US thing at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post
Out of 30 teams in MLB, the Blue Jays are ranked 20th in attendance. I couldn't care less. Out of 30 teams in the NBA, the Raptors are ranked 17th in attendance. Again, I couldn't care less.

If there was an NFL team in the Toronto area and if drew poorly, I would not care.

I'm not saying Edmonton will or should lose their team. I'm saying I will lol at the hypocrites in the Canadian media, who've practically prayed for US teams to fold and be relocated to Canada, who are now outraged by Katz's implied threat.
Two words. Inferiority Complex

I've said this before and I'll say it against. So much of Canadian Culture is already dominated by the US. Some Canadians feel more US hockey teams is another loss for Canada greater then sport. The country already loses its best actors, athletes to the US, so now we lose the national sport? This is what I see as an observer. This is not my opinion at all. This is from years of talking to people.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 07:23 PM
  #379
JawandaPuck
Moderator
Lost Art of Dynasty
 
JawandaPuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...erzonexml.html

Hansen acquires more land will be used for parking if more parking is necessary. Purely for addressing EIS/SEPA
That property is kitty corner to the proposed arena site. Hansen already owns parcels directly opposite the arena site.

A couple more blocks in that same direction, and Hansen will be bumping up against, Starbucks World HQ (whose chairman, ironically, was the one to sell the Sonics to the OKC group).

__________________
Follow JawandaPuck on Twitter and Blogspot - all revenue from Google Ads is donated to the Canucks for Kids Fund (CFKF) in support of the Canucks Autism Network (CAN).
JawandaPuck is online now  
Old
09-25-2012, 07:43 PM
  #380
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
No offense guys, but if Seattle lands the Oilers then they've completely lost any and all rights to complain about the way they lost the SuperSonics. This is pretty much Sonics on ice right now if it goes through....

Hope Seattle gets a team sooner rather than later, but if at all possible I would prefer it be through expansion than relocation, and definitely wouldn't want to see a team with an actual, legitimate fanbase with a storied history lose their team over arena grumbling, and this is coming from a guy that loves tearing into the Oilers as much as the next guy.
I completely agree with this sentiment, but at the same time I can understand why taxpayers are tired of funding revenue generating buildings for professional sports teams.

If it is such a great investment it should be easy for the Oilers' owners to get the investors and capital to fund the building of a new arena. The truth is taxpayers almost never get a return on investment from publicly financed sports arenas.

I really don't know what kind of financing the new arena in Seattle is going to use for its construction, but I hope the taxpayers aren't footing the bill.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 07:54 PM
  #381
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
I completely agree with this sentiment, but at the same time I can understand why taxpayers are tired of funding revenue generating buildings for professional sports teams.

If it is such a great investment it should be easy for the Oilers' owners to get the investors and capital to fund the building of a new arena. The truth is taxpayers almost never get a return on investment from publicly financed sports arenas.

I really don't know what kind of financing the new arena in Seattle is going to use for its construction, but I hope the taxpayers aren't footing the bill.
Well people because people have this idea that the city is nothing without sports. You never hear anyone from NY or Chicago say this. LA has done fine without the NFL. But for smaller places, it is the difference between being nationally relevant and not on the map per se.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 07:59 PM
  #382
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
I completely agree with this sentiment, but at the same time I can understand why taxpayers are tired of funding revenue generating buildings for professional sports teams.

If it is such a great investment it should be easy for the Oilers' owners to get the investors and capital to fund the building of a new arena. The truth is taxpayers almost never get a return on investment from publicly financed sports arenas.

I really don't know what kind of financing the new arena in Seattle is going to use for its construction, but I hope the taxpayers aren't footing the bill.

247m in public bonds will be used 200m for the arena 40m for transportation fund 7m for Seattle center. It will be paid back by revenue generated by the arena. Rent, ticket tax, food/drink tax merchandise tax etc Only those that purchase a ticket to the events will pay for it. Any revenue short fall will be covered by Hansen, all cost over run will be covered by Hansen.

120m city 80m country. I can't recall how the transportation fund is being split off hand. 200m max in bonds if NBA and NHL 120 max 115 city 5m county if NBA only.

If no NHL Hansen is on the took for that 80m difference.


It was specifically clear by King county and Seattle that the general fund is off limits and no new taxes.

Due to I-91 the arena proposal has to show a return and this revised agreement meets I-91. City/county would own a 500m arena for only a cost of 200m. + the 47m for transportation and Seattle center. And when the arena is paid off after the 30 years the city has the option of having Hansen buy the land and the arena back for 200m.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 08:01 PM
  #383
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Well people because people have this idea that the city is nothing without sports. You never hear anyone from NY or Chicago say this. LA has done fine without the NFL. But for smaller places, it is the difference between being nationally relevant and not on the map per se.
Every time the NFL has "asked" the taxpayers in and around LA to build a stadium they have been told to pound sand. The NFL wants LA more than LA wants the NFL.

I can see your point about other cities doing it to be relevant. I don't think the citizens of Phoenix and the surrounding area have ever met a stadium/arena that they didn't like (fund).

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 08:03 PM
  #384
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
247m in public bonds will be used 200m for the arena 40m for transportation fund 7m for Seattle center. It will be paid back by revenue generated by the arena. Rent, ticket tax, food/drink tax merchandise tax etc Only those that purchase a ticket to the events will pay for it. Any revenue short fall will be covered by Hansen, all cost over run will be covered by Hansen.

120m city 80m country. I can't recall how the transportation fund is being split off hand. 200m max in bonds if NBA and NHL 120 max 115 city 5m county if NBA only.

If no NHL Hansen is on the took for that 80m difference.


It was specifically clear by King county and Seattle that the general fund is off limits and no new taxes.
Sounds better than the deal a lot of taxpayers in other cities received. I hope the money that Hansen is supposed to provide if there is a revenue shortfall is in some type of escrow account.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 08:05 PM
  #385
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Sounds better than the deal a lot of taxpayers in other cities received. I hope the money that Hansen is supposed to provide if there is a revenue shortfall is in some type of escrow account.
This deal is the best that anyone seen and is unheard off in my opinion.

Like i added to my previous post the city will get a return. I-91 requires the proposal to give a return or no public funds is allowed.

Yes there is an escrow account.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 08:06 PM
  #386
Toomuts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 85
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WinterEmpire View Post
Huh Vancouver has the third most expensive average ticket price behind Montreal and Toronto. Katz can probably make more money in Seattle because

1. More seats
2. Big American Market(sponsorships, TV etc)
3. Higher food and drink costs

Average ticket prices may be lower in Seattle when compared to Edmonton when all is said and done but that all makes up for it.
Incorrect...

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/stars...-ticket-in-nhl

Toomuts is online now  
Old
09-25-2012, 08:07 PM
  #387
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,241
vCash: 500
For those that haven't seen the revised agreement yet.

http://seattle.gov/council/attachmen...0120924mou.pdf

In other news Hansen was able to come to agreement for 30 years of labor peace with several labor unions last Friday. The last page of the MOU talks about the labor peace agreement.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 08:15 PM
  #388
blueandgoldguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greg's River Heights
Posts: 1,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toomuts View Post
Cue kdb with the TMR alert.

blueandgoldguy is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 09:04 PM
  #389
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,364
vCash: 500
Just to show how awesome Chris is. He was at a local dive bar drinking beer after beating the packers last night

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 09:17 PM
  #390
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Every time the NFL has "asked" the taxpayers in and around LA to build a stadium they have been told to pound sand. The NFL wants LA more than LA wants the NFL.

I can see your point about other cities doing it to be relevant. I don't think the citizens of Phoenix and the surrounding area have ever met a stadium/arena that they didn't like (fund).
That is so true, because it is always on NFL BOG that mentions LA. Hopefully the AEG thing happens. And while the those cities do that it does not make a difference like you said. Taxpayers lose on these deals too often. No one talks about Memphis still.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 09:22 PM
  #391
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,241
vCash: 500
There will always be folks against public financing no matter how great the arena deals are. You have no idea how many times i tried to education folks regarding ours that if you don't want to pay for it then don't go to the events and they still insist they are being forced to pay for it.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 09:49 PM
  #392
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
Private Equity
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 1,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
There will always be folks against public financing no matter how great the arena deals are.
Yep... and Neil deMause (Field of Schemes) is the biggest one that I know of.

Quote:
Most important, the council effectively gave up on getting assurances that the new arena wonít hurt the future of the existing KeyArena, likely because everyone now admits thereís no way that Key can survive with a newer competitor across town. (The council did agree to spend $7 million to study the future of Key; they could have saved $7 million by shaking their heads sadly and muttering, ďItíll have to go.Ē) And the guarantees of Hansenís financial viability pretty much come down to an independent accountant looking at his books and confirming that heís not cooking them.
Yet...

Quote:
Assuming the council votes for this as expected tonight (they already voted unanimously in a committee vote last week to advance it to the full council) and the county council follows suit, Iíll be rooting for Hansen to succeed, since itíd be nice to have a second successful mostly privately built sports facility to point to in addition to the San Francisco GiantsĎ AT&T Park. But Iíd still love to be a fly on the wall of Hansenís bookkeeper.
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2012/0...ing-questions/

Major4Boarding is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 09:49 PM
  #393
beenhereandthere
Registered User
 
beenhereandthere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Evergray State
Posts: 637
vCash: 500
This is great news about the Arena being approved, but, I think Key West, would have 1 inch of snow or more, before the Oilers would move anywhere, much less Seattle.
More likely happening, is thanks, to the lockout, that gives enough of a delay, for the Coyotes to move to Seattle (which the league from what I'm feeling would much rather have than QC), in 2013, even if Jamison, winds up moving them there.

beenhereandthere is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 09:56 PM
  #394
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: Fiji
Posts: 25,078
vCash: 869
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
Lol what kind of logic is this? Katz moving the team here or selling the team to a owner that would move them here doesn't change the fact with what happened with the sonics at all. Watch sonics gate and learn the facts

I don't begrudge the fans of okc, they didn't steal the sonics.
I have seen SonicsGate, actually. And I do think it's a valid comparison, because....

Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
You would have a point if Hansen or someone else from the team bought the Oilers first, looked everyone in the eye and said their intention was to keep them in Edmonton, then did everything they could to harpoon support, propose a ridiculous arena deal they know will never get any sort of support, then get out of town at the first possible second they could.

The difference is whoever deals with Hansen or NHL owner for Seattle team will know up front that their desire is to move the team to Seattle, not pretend like they want to keep it in the market they bought it from.

Having said all that, the Oilers belong in Edmonton, period.
.... while Bennett certainly acted in a more underhanded fashion in his dealings with Seattle, the fact remains is that he took the team's long-standing fanbase for granted and tossed it all away just because it was more opportune for them. And if Katz does the same thing, then he's in the exact same boat, even if he waited a few more years than Bennett to do such a thing. It's the same reason why I always laugh whenever I hear Baltimore fans still complaining about Indianapolis.

But, it's still a moot point, as for the life of me I just don't see the Oilers leaving Edmonton. It's just a pathetic attempt to make it seem like a relocation is possible to get a few nickles and dimes out of the city. And that, as far as I'm concerned, is almost as bad, as it shows a lack of civic respect for one's home.

No Fun Shogun is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 10:02 PM
  #395
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenhereandthere View Post
This is great news about the Arena being approved, but, I think Key West, would have 1 inch of snow or more, before the Oilers would move anywhere, much less Seattle.
More likely happening, is thanks, to the lockout, that gives enough of a delay, for the Coyotes to move to Seattle (which the league from what I'm feeling would much rather have than QC), in 2013, even if Jamison, winds up moving them there.
Well from what i heard Seattle is top of the relocation list unless there are delays in getting that arena construct started or ends up not being built at all. KC still has to vote then there is the EIS/sepa and that could take 10-14 months and who knows how that'll end up. Then of course delay via opponents suing to have the deal tossed.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 10:12 PM
  #396
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenhereandthere View Post
This is great news about the Arena being approved, but, I think Key West, would have 1 inch of snow or more, before the Oilers would move anywhere, much less Seattle.
More likely happening, is thanks, to the lockout, that gives enough of a delay, for the Coyotes to move to Seattle (which the league from what I'm feeling would much rather have than QC), in 2013, even if Jamison, winds up moving them there.
I disagree. I think that one thing Quebec had over SEA for the NHL was the greenlit rink...that advantage has disappeared. Especially with the lockout potentially buying more time (Colisee is much better suited than Key for short term), Seattle has vaulted into the lead. If the NHL can beat the NBA back (potentially tying up some of the small cross base between the two) they will look to Seattle first, IMO. Much much bigger TV area, much much much bigger corporate base, more safety in numbers.

Quebec is always going to be there. I think the NHL will realize that right now is the perfect time to jump on the Seattle bandwagon. This is not a shot at Quebec. They will be a great market once back. But I think Seattle is more appealing right now.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit that if the NHL can get the Yotes settled quickly to stay in PHO we could be looking at expansion to SEA and QUE by 15 or 16. If Jamison falls through, it's probably the last nail in the coffin of PHO and we will see NHL in SEA before that. QUE will get their team, I have no doubt, but right now I truly believe that SEA is first priority.

Like I said before though (as much as it sucks for ATL fans, I do feel for them), I am just glad that WPG had their stuff in order and ready to go in 2011, else they would be #3 on the priority list, IMO. (assuming ATL had never moved)

__________________


Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
09-25-2012, 10:26 PM
  #397
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
I disagree. I think that one thing Quebec had over SEA for the NHL was the greenlit rink...that advantage has disappeared. Especially with the lockout potentially buying more time (Colisee is much better suited than Key for short term), Seattle has vaulted into the lead. If the NHL can beat the NBA back (potentially tying up some of the small cross base between the two) they will look to Seattle first, IMO. Much much bigger TV area, much much much bigger corporate base, more safety in numbers.

Quebec is always going to be there. I think the NHL will realize that right now is the perfect time to jump on the Seattle bandwagon. This is not a shot at Quebec. They will be a great market once back. But I think Seattle is more appealing right now.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit that if the NHL can get the Yotes settled quickly to stay in PHO we could be looking at expansion to SEA and QUE by 15 or 16. If Jamison falls through, it's probably the last nail in the coffin of PHO and we will see NHL in SEA before that. QUE will get their team, I have no doubt, but right now I truly believe that SEA is first priority.

Like I said before though (as much as it sucks for ATL fans, I do feel for them), I am just glad that WPG had their stuff in order and ready to go in 2011, else they would be #3 on the priority list, IMO. (assuming ATL had never moved)
The arena deal says NBA is required before the arena is built. If the NHL arrives before NBA then the city has to approve it. Remember as i posted the proposal still needs to be re-approved by KCC and HAS to pass EIS/SEPA (environmental review).

Essentially Seattle is plan A Quebec city is back up.

Both NBA and NHL wants guarantees that the arena will be built. Right now we are one step closer to that guarantee.


Last edited by gstommylee: 09-25-2012 at 10:32 PM.
gstommylee is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 10:34 PM
  #398
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
The arena deal says NBA is required before the arena is built. If the NHL arrives before NBA then the city has to approve it. Remember as i posted the proposal still needs to be re-approved by KCC and HAS to pass EIS/SEPA (environmental review).

Essentially Seattle is plan A Quebec city is back up
I agree.

Ok, so the deal is dependant on getting either an NBA or NHL team? Means no shovels until one (or both) is acquired yes? I read there that they anticipate an NBA team first, but if the NHL comes first, they could potentially just shift that right?

An environment review would mostly be a rubberstamp right? As for KCC, I know little of that, sounded like to me most of the major leg work was done.

Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
09-25-2012, 10:38 PM
  #399
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
I agree.

Ok, so the deal is dependant on getting either an NBA or NHL team? Means no shovels until one (or both) is acquired yes? I read there that they anticipate an NBA team first, but if the NHL comes first, they could potentially just shift that right?

An environment review would mostly be a rubberstamp right? As for KCC, I know little of that, sounded like to me most of the major leg work was done.
The original plan back when it was announced was to get both before shovel meets ground. That was unlikely so it was modified to where we get the NBA before shovel meets ground and public financing was modified accordingly. If we get NHL prior to the transfer date the 80m from the county kicks in.

King county council approved the original MOU. Seattle modified it so King county has to re-approve it.

Yes the city could approve to allow the funds to be provided if NHL arrives first. The city and county still have to approve the term sheet and that vote won't take place until after the environmental review/SEPA is done. And depending on how that review goes, it will decide if they give the final approval or not. The initial approval starts the process and allows Hansen to shop for teams.

City/county starts the EIS/SEPA and Hansen starts knocking on the NBA and his partner (TBD) knocking on the NHL door. This buy Seattle a year in shopping for teams while EIS/SEPA is underway. Typically the EIS/SEPA is done first before the proposal is approved thus the 2nd vote. In theory we could already have a NBA team by the time the city/county gives the final approval bar any major setbacks.


Last edited by gstommylee: 09-25-2012 at 10:46 PM.
gstommylee is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 10:44 PM
  #400
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
I agree.

Ok, so the deal is dependant on getting either an NBA or NHL team? Means no shovels until one (or both) is acquired yes? I read there that they anticipate an NBA team first, but if the NHL comes first, they could potentially just shift that right?

An environment review would mostly be a rubberstamp right? As for KCC, I know little of that, sounded like to me most of the major leg work was done.


Most opponents feel it will be a rubber stamp and honestly so do I.
And Hansen said it would be highly unlikely that a NHL team would be first, but he didn't rule it out. And yes no shovel in ground until a team is secured

superdeluxe is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.