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.

NHL to Expand 2 teams in Canada - THN

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-20-2012, 09:38 PM
  #626
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
Cuban wouldn't be allowed to use AAC.... EVEN though his Mavericks are a co-tenant there...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawa666 View Post
He's delusional about his beloved Aeros.
... oh. is that right HUTCH, you a big Aeros fan? WHA or AHL or both? Two time Avco Cup Winners. Ernie Wakely. Always liked that guy. Paired up with Les Binkley in the NHL eventually. Played out of the old Sam Houston Coliseum then "The Summit". Know what The Summit is now? Mega Church. Added 5 stories, signed a 30yr lease with the city. But as for the current incarnation of the Aero's blocking an NHL entry? Simply not on. The AHL would acquiesce graciously and simply move on.

Killion is online now  
Old
10-20-2012, 11:40 PM
  #627
DJ Omnimaga
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Québec City area
Posts: 206
vCash: 500
I am not a fan of an expansion and dilluting the talent, especially not before the Phoenix and Islanders situation is solved.

However, an expansion to 32 team with slightly dilluted talent is better than a NHL with no Quebec City team.

DJ Omnimaga is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 12:09 AM
  #628
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conflicted Habs fan View Post
Relocate:

Coyotes to Quebec city,
Blue Jackets to Hamilton.

Expansion:
Markham
Seattle
Quebec City is getting a NEW franchise in 2015. Markham would happen between 2016-2018. Brand new teams - 32 team league.

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 12:14 AM
  #629
Bosswally
Registered User
 
Bosswally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Johnson City, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 393
vCash: 500
the more I think about it the more I'm warming up to the idea of a Hamilton team(even though I don't think it will happen) especially if Toronto, Buffalo, and Hamilton are all in the same division imagine the rivalry with those 3 teams with dedicated fan bases, we would have to come up with a name for it, maybe something to do with the QEW,




also what's with this nonsense about the viability of Buffalo as a hockey market, you talking about the team a 3000 person long waiting list for season tickets with 99% renewal rate, or one of the top US national tv draws (Buffalo gets more national games than Chicago does) or the fact its one of the few US markets that actually watches hockey when its team isn't playing, also with one of the richest owners in the NHL Buffalo is doing just fine as a NHL market

Bosswally is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 12:24 AM
  #630
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,417
vCash: 500
It would be great to see Quebec with their team back although i'm not so fond of Ontario getting a 2nd team. No offense to the market.

Would be better if NHL waits until Seattle gets their new arena construction going unless they insist in expanding within the next few years and don't want to wait till Seattle has their arena done.

If only Seattle wasn't run by idiots that insisting of not having an empty arena.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 12:32 AM
  #631
Inkling
Proud to be a Mammal
 
Inkling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
It would be great to see Quebec with their team back although i'm not so fond of Ontario getting a 2nd team. No offense to the market.
3rd team.

No offence taken.

Inkling is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 12:39 AM
  #632
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post
3rd team.

No offence taken.
Sorry forgot about Ottawa. But i would rather see NHL wait than to give Ontario another team.

I know Seattle still has a ways to go before we see the arena built. Given we at at least a year away just on environmental review along and i hope Hansen finds a team in the meantime. What i truly hoping that we have the team secured just as the city gave its approval on the transaction document (2nd vote).

It probably be another year after that to see sonics 2.0 but at least a team would be secured to where we'll see shove meet ground.

I can't assume that there will be a current team available for sale/relocation by the time shovel meets ground.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 12:52 AM
  #633
hotpaws
Registered User
 
hotpaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,116
vCash: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Sorry forgot about Ottawa. But i would rather see NHL wait than to give Ontario another team.

I know Seattle still has a ways to go before we see the arena built. Given we at at least a year away just on environmental review along and i hope Hansen finds a team in the meantime. What i truly hoping that we have the team secured just as the city gave its approval on the transaction document (2nd vote).

It probably be another year after that to see sonics 2.0 but at least a team would be secured to where we'll see shove meet ground.

I can't assume that there will be a current team available for sale/relocation by the time shovel meets ground.
The NHL could probably charge more for the 2 new teams in Can and simply relocate a team to Seattle . There's a number of struggling teams and while i'm no fan of a city losing there franchise i do believe it would make more sense to relocate a team than watch it continually struggle to atract fans .

hotpaws is online now  
Old
10-21-2012, 12:59 AM
  #634
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotpaws View Post
The NHL could probably charge more for the 2 new teams in Can and simply relocate a team to Seattle . There's a number of struggling teams and while i'm no fan of a city losing there franchise i do believe it would make more sense to relocate a team than watch it continually struggle to atract fans .
I perfectly understand why saving expansion for the new Canadians teams. But its just a matter our owner to be finding the right one that doesn't have a significant lease that is willing to sell. ideally it could be phx if that deal falls apart then islander if they don't stay in the region after those two who knows. Perhaps quebec city acquires a team via relocation you just never know what is going to happen.

With the NBA, there is no competition against Seattle for a team.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 01:24 AM
  #635
madhi19
Registered User
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
I perfectly understand why saving expansion for the new Canadians teams. But its just a matter our owner to be finding the right one that doesn't have a significant lease that is willing to sell. ideally it could be phx if that deal falls apart then islander if they don't stay in the region after those two who knows. Perhaps quebec city acquires a team via relocation you just never know what is going to happen.

With the NBA, there is no competition against Seattle for a team.
The Islander are not going anywhere outside of the New York area for three reason.
1)The NHL won't let them for ego reason since their headquarters is in New York. Also if Wang can get his house in order the Islander could go from a money losing situation to revenue sharing generator in just a few years. And if he can't the NHL will find somebody else who will!
2)Wang would be a fool to lose that huge cable deal. To put it simply if he sell inside NY it worth more than sell for relocation outside.
*3)Wang will kick, scream and moan a for while more but ultimately I believe he will build his own arena. If he can get a city dumb enough to pick up that tab in the New York area so much the better but if he can't that not the end of the world.

*By the way that point also apply to Katz in Edmonton.

madhi19 is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 01:31 AM
  #636
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhi19 View Post
The Islander are not going anywhere outside of the New York area for three reason.
1)The NHL won't let them for ego reason since their headquarters is in New York. Also if Wang can get his house in order the Islander could go from a money losing situation to revenue sharing generator in just a few years. And if he can't the NHL will find somebody else who will!
2)Wang would be a fool to lose that huge cable deal. To put it simply if he sell inside NY it worth more than sell for relocation outside.
*3)Wang will kick, scream and moan a for while more but ultimately I believe he will build his own arena. If he can get a city dumb enough to pick up that tab in the New York area so much the better but if he can't that not the end of the world.

*By the way that point also apply to Katz in Edmonton.
Yea i can understand that they would rather stay in that region. With phx possibly staying and islanders staying, that leaves a huge ??? on who via relocation ends up coming to Seattle.

Of course the oilers aren't going anywhere and i'm actually against such an idea of the oilers leaving Edmonton.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 02:49 AM
  #637
knorthern knight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,008
vCash: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhi19 View Post
2)Wang would be a fool to lose that huge cable deal. To put it simply if he sell inside NY it worth more than sell for relocation outside.
The Islanders die-hards sound just like Fehr... always glossing over the difference between gross revenue and net revenue. The Islanders are losing money, overall. Yeah, Wang gets a honking big cable deal, but gets hammered by low gate. Islanders are 2nd-last in NHL attendance, in an ancient facility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by madhi19 View Post
*3)Wang will kick, scream and moan a for while more but ultimately I believe he will build his own arena.
He already tried, with his "Lighthouse Project", but was stopped by Town of Hempstead.

The only arena in site is Barclay's. To be viable the Islanders would have to...
  • be sold to the owner of Barclay's
  • charge Winnipeg-Jets-like ticket prices for the 2nd-fiddle NHL franchise in the area

knorthern knight is online now  
Old
10-21-2012, 03:08 AM
  #638
madhi19
Registered User
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by knorthern knight View Post
The Islanders die-hards sound just like Fehr... always glossing over the difference between gross revenue and net revenue. The Islanders are losing money, overall. Yeah, Wang gets a honking big cable deal, but gets hammered by low gate. Islanders are 2nd-last in NHL attendance, in an ancient facility.

He already tried, with his "Lighthouse Project", but was stopped by Town of Hempstead.

The only arena in site is Barclay's. To be viable the Islanders would have to...
  • be sold to the owner of Barclay's
  • charge Winnipeg-Jets-like ticket prices for the 2nd-fiddle NHL franchise in the area
Like I said it New York if Wang can't get it working the NHL will force a local sale to somebody who will.

madhi19 is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 05:01 AM
  #639
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
The Minnesota Wild have absolutely no claim, zero proprietary rights over Houston. They have an AHL franchise parked there and they'll either stay put or more likely relocate (Austins nice )
There's an AHL team in Austin (Cedar Park) already.

Putting an NHL team in Houston is a no brainer. DAL-HOU as an NHL rivalry, and once the PDL expires, Houston signs on with San Antonio for an AHL affiliation for a Stars-Rampage AHL rivalry. Battle lines drawn across the state. Great for hockey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Why would the existence of the Aeros (a tenant in the Toyota center) be somehow an insurmountable obstacle to an NHL team moving/expanding to Houston - assuming a satisfactory ownership/lease agreement were struck with Les Alexander?
I've never fully grasped Alexander's position. He's tried three times to get an NHL team; essentially has exclusive rights to an NHL team in Houston. Now that his financial situation is not as good as before, shouldn't he be MORE open to someone operating an NHL team in his arena? He should seek minority ownership in a Houston NHL franchise, solely because the Toyota Center will get more Arena Revenue from NHL hockey than AHL hockey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by knorthern knight View Post
-- The Islanders die-hards
-- The Islanders are losing money, overall.
-- Yeah, Wang gets a honking big cable deal
-- but gets hammered by low gate.
-- There's no Islanders fans who aren't die hards. 20 years of sucking will do that.
-- Yep, cause we need a new arena.
-- Yeah, which offsets some of the loss of modern arena revenue.
--Don't forget the fewest suites in the league by HALF of what 29th place has!

Quote:
Originally Posted by knorthern knight View Post
The only arena in site is Barclay's. To be viable the Islanders would have to...
  • be sold to the owner of Barclay's
  • charge Winnipeg-Jets-like ticket prices for the 2nd-fiddle NHL franchise in the area
Not really. While I am nervous about Barclays (I don't see it as a long term viable option and am worried we'd just be trading SMG for Ratner), Barclays craps on NVMC in modern amenities that bring in revenues.

With a new arena at the NVMC site that was built by the taxpayers or Wang, and the Islanders got all the revenues, the team would be a top 10 revenue team.

In Barclay's, with a decent lease, the Islanders wouldn't be a Top 10 revenue team, but we could be middle of the pack, or at worst, the "last of the middle class."

KevFu is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 05:47 AM
  #640
voyageur
Registered lunatic
 
voyageur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: negotiable
Country: Canada
Posts: 565
vCash: 500
Adding two teams to Canada makes sense economically. With Rogers/Bell as owners and not just partners, I think it is in their interest to expand their horizons, and when the next Canadian broadcast deal is concluded I expect them to be the drivers of league growth. That's why a second Toronto franchise is such a slam dunk. The Leafs are a cash cow, but they only cover a portion of the schedule. Imagine the revenue you can earn as a broadcaster having a Toronto team playing six nights a week instead of 3. Put them in a division with Detroit, Chicago (original 6 and Norris nostalgia) and Winnipeg and you have indirect competition with the Leafs brand, while offering greater exposure for the Toronto sports fan. Detroit-Toronto on Hockey Night in Canada, which will conceivably be sold to Bell in the next negotiations, probably garners a bigger TV audience than any Canadian rivalry save the Habs-Leafs...This is good economics for the game, more sensible than 3 teams in New York, or 2 in L..A.

Québec is a different animal. Quebecor is a rival of Bell and Rogers. Pelardeau got his foundation (Vidéotron) through Québec protectionism. But a team in Québec is a must. With a new arena, there is no question of sustainability. The passion of the fans is evident, no other potential franchise has made more noise in their desire to be a part of the NHL. Any hockey nostalgist can attest to the quality of the Montréal-Québec rivalry, it really splits Québec among its nationalist francophone and federalist bilingual split, and a franchise in la vielle capitale instantly becomes Québec's team, as symbolized by the jersey. The other important aspect of having a francophone franchise, with broadcasting rights is the exposure the NHL gets across the pond, helping to grow its brand in France and Switzerland (maybe with some preseason campaigning too?). God knows if the NHL is going to expand, it has to garner interest on a fan level, and a talent base. I don't think expansion into the southern U.S. had been tangible on either front, personally. Thankfully Europe is embracing the sport and increasing our talent pool.

Seattle is a no brainer. However I think Jamison is the perfect guy to transition the team out of Phoenix and into Seattle. Buy the franchise with an out clause, so that Glendale gets some short-term revenue. The losses incurred in owning the mirage in the Desert can be recouped in a couple/few years in the sale of the team, in which Jamison could take the minority stake in a solid investment. Glendale gets paid, and maybe gets the farm team as a concession, ensuring a semi-profitable and manageable enterprise for the city, and an olive branch to the true hockey fans of Phoenix.

Houston? Big city, some foundation. Texans might enjoy hockey, but they love baseball, and they live football. Carving out that niche is possible, but the current Dallas slide has to be monitored as a litmus before embracing another Texas market. If Nashville ever gave up on hockey, I think Houston would be a sensible destination for relocation, but frankly I prefer the novelty of the Preds to the potential of Houston.

Milwaukee? Would be a great market, another suitable city for relocation.

Portland? No guarantees on the market. No owner.

Kansas City. No thank you.

I think the financial woes of Anaheim, Dallas, Nashville, Florida, Columbus and the Isles need to be addressed seriously before the NHL could look any further.

I have some apprehension about diluting the game, as last year's playoffs in which several unskilled NHLers earned their keep by injuring prominent ones magnified an ugly trend growing in the game...Is Brandon Prust a $3 million per year player in a 32 team league? Are there going to be more players like Neil, Carcillo, Torres, Cooke, on 3rd lines, and less Burmistrovs, Raymonds, Gerbes and Steens? The short European season and tax free KHL are legitimate contenders for a lot of the talent, especially veterans and tweeners. No other pro sports league faces this competition, and it does seem odd and somewhat unhealthy to me to have as many franchises as the extremely successful NFL, and more than the NBA or MLB.

That said I like the conference setup. It's good for fans, great for TV, especially, offering a more rivalry based playoff format. It's good for the players and owners too, limiting travel and expenses more equitably. So I am a proponent of 32, especially with 9 Canadian franchises in the landscape.

voyageur is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 06:32 AM
  #641
knorthern knight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,008
vCash: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
I've never fully grasped Alexander's position. He's tried three times to get an NHL team; essentially has exclusive rights to an NHL team in Houston. Now that his financial situation is not as good as before, shouldn't he be MORE open to someone operating an NHL team in his arena? He should seek minority ownership in a Houston NHL franchise, solely because the Toyota Center will get more Arena Revenue from NHL hockey than AHL hockey.
Les Alexander is totally out of the picture as far as being an owner. I don't know if you're aware of the magnitude of the collapse of his net worth. Hulsizer can come up with more cash, fercryinoutloud . September 21, 2006, Forbes had Alexander pegged at $1.2 billion. Just over 5 years later, October 22, 2011, Les Alexander was worth $80 million, a drop of over 90%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Not really. While I am nervous about Barclays (I don't see it as a long term viable option and am worried we'd just be trading SMG for Ratner), Barclays craps on NVMC in modern amenities that bring in revenues.

With a new arena at the NVMC site that was built by the taxpayers or Wang, and the Islanders got all the revenues, the team would be a top 10 revenue team.

In Barclay's, with a decent lease, the Islanders wouldn't be a Top 10 revenue team, but we could be middle of the pack, or at worst, the "last of the middle class."
If Ratner buys the Islanders, they're viable at Barclays. Forget a new arena at the NVMC site. Hempstead, NY seems to be a bizarro anti-Glendale, totally obstructionist and unhelpful.

knorthern knight is online now  
Old
10-21-2012, 08:00 AM
  #642
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 29,176
vCash: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
I perfectly understand why saving expansion for the new Canadians teams. But its just a matter our owner to be finding the right one that doesn't have a significant lease that is willing to sell. ideally it could be phx if that deal falls apart then islander if they don't stay in the region after those two who knows. Perhaps quebec city acquires a team via relocation you just never know what is going to happen.

With the NBA, there is no competition against Seattle for a team.
So long as the isles have would be local buyers (Peltz or Lafontaine group) and a new local arena( Barclay's), then I would expect Bettman to fight as hard against NYI out of state relocation, as he has for the Coyotes.

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 08:09 AM
  #643
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 29,176
vCash: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by knorthern knight View Post
The Islanders die-hards sound just like Fehr... always glossing over the difference between gross revenue and net revenue. The Islanders are losing money, overall. Yeah, Wang gets a honking big cable deal, but gets hammered by low gate. Islanders are 2nd-last in NHL attendance, in an ancient facility.

He already tried, with his "Lighthouse Project", but was stopped by Town of Hempstead.

The only arena in site is Barclay's. To be viable the Islanders would have to...
  • be sold to the owner of Barclay's
  • charge Winnipeg-Jets-like ticket prices for the 2nd-fiddle NHL franchise in the area
Gotta love how opposing teams fans, gloss over the 2009 sub-lease changes. Wang's losses are down to $4m-$8m per season, in the last 3 seasons.

1.The owners cba proposal, has the isles qualifying for revenue sharing for the first time. An additional $10m-$15m per season would see Wang finally record a profit.

2.The isles attendance would improve with a competitive on ice product.

3.The isles revenue would increase with playoff appearances.

Peltz tried buying the NYI about 18-24 months ago, when Barclay's execs were saying, they would not have an nhl team in their arena. Peltz was not looking at the situation as Barclay's or nothing.

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 11:34 AM
  #644
Faidh ar Rud Eigin
Modhnóirí Claonta
 
Faidh ar Rud Eigin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Transcendent
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 16,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by voyageur View Post
I think the financial woes of Anaheim, Dallas, Nashville, Florida, Columbus and the Isles need to be addressed seriously before the NHL could look any further.
Go read the thread on the financials for teams between the two lockouts. Dallas does not have financial woes, and it appears they made money last season.

Faidh ar Rud Eigin is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 01:18 PM
  #645
Shawa666
Registered User
 
Shawa666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Québec, Qc, Ca
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faidh ar Rud Eigin View Post
Go read the thread on the financials for teams between the two lockouts. Dallas does not have financial woes, and it appears they made money last season.
Then why did have the leage need to pay for the Stars' bills last season?

Shawa666 is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 04:30 PM
  #646
DelpoRafaKilla
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 55
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawa666 View Post
Then why did have the leage need to pay for the Stars' bills last season?
Because Hicks ran the team into the ground and we didn't have N owner until after the season was underway. The Stars will be fine.

DelpoRafaKilla is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 06:04 PM
  #647
Conflicted Habs fan
Registered User
 
Conflicted Habs fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 562
vCash: 196
200 MM to imediately relocate the Coyotes to Quebec, 400 MM to expand into Markam, 400 MM to expand into Hamilton: total: 1B.
I have spoken

Conflicted Habs fan is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 06:15 PM
  #648
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conflicted Habs fan View Post
200 MM to imediately relocate the Coyotes to Quebec, 400 MM to expand into Markam, 400 MM to expand into Hamilton: total: 1B.
I have spoken
Both hamilton and markam will seriously hurt the maple leafs. I doubt both are gonna happen. Nothing worse than over crowding a market.

It would be better for NHL if its Seattle via relocation or expansion, Quebec relocation or expansion and One of Hamilton and Markam expansion.

The relocation or expansion depends on who gets coyotes.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 06:23 PM
  #649
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Both hamilton and markam will seriously hurt the maple leafs. I doubt both are gonna happen. Nothing worse than over crowding a market.

It would be better for NHL if its Seattle via relocation or expansion, Quebec relocation or expansion and One of Hamilton and Markam expansion.

The relocation or expansion depends on who gets coyotes.
Not going to happen the Leaf faithful will never leave, the anti Leaf people will have a field day though.

Confucius is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 06:24 PM
  #650
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by voyageur View Post
Houston? Big city, some foundation. Texans might enjoy hockey, but they love baseball, and they live football. Carving out that niche is possible, but the current Dallas slide has to be monitored as a litmus before embracing another Texas market. If Nashville ever gave up on hockey, I think Houston would be a sensible destination for relocation, but frankly I prefer the novelty of the Preds to the potential of Houston.

I think the financial woes of Anaheim, Dallas, Nashville, Florida, Columbus and the Isles need to be addressed seriously before the NHL could look any further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawa666 View Post
Then why did have the leage need to pay for the Stars' bills last season?
Dallas as a litmus test:
Turned a profit every single season until Hicks bought Liverpool.
Sold 98% of their tickets in their new arena until Hicks bought Liverpool.
Highly profitable until Hicks bought Liverpool.
Top 16 in revenue every single year until Hicks bought Liverpool.

Everything about Dallas was fine. Until Hicks bought Liverpool. Then the Stars and the Texas Rangers were financially crap. Both teams entered bankruptcy. The common thread was: Hicks bought Liverpool. He spread himself too thin and ran all three franchises on a shoestring, syphoning off dollars to pay his new soccer debt. He choose to lose the Rangers/Stars to keep Liverpool.

Also, Nashville, Columbus, and the Islanders all renegotiated their leases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by knorthern knight View Post
Les Alexander is totally out of the picture as far as being an owner. I don't know if you're aware of the magnitude of the collapse of his net worth. Hulsizer can come up with more cash, fercryinoutloud . September 21, 2006, Forbes had Alexander pegged at $1.2 billion. Just over 5 years later, October 22, 2011, Les Alexander was worth $80 million, a drop of over 90%.

If Ratner buys the Islanders, they're viable at Barclays. Forget a new arena at the NVMC site. Hempstead, NY seems to be a bizarro anti-Glendale, totally obstructionist and unhelpful.
Alexander's lack of financial worth seems to me to be MORE of a reason for him to want an NHL team playing in his arena rather than an AHL team. With the same lease as the Aeros, there'd be twice the people in the building, giving him more arena-related revenue for 41 days than the AHL crowds of 7000 provide.

KevFu 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 05:57 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.