HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Quebec City Part VII: Si J'avais les ailes d'un ange

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-27-2013, 03:28 PM
  #526
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patofqc View Post
Seattle is not ready, it has a terrible losing money pit in Key arena has a temporary arena. No clear owner for the hockey club, and PKP has been lobying with the NHL for more then 3 years, and decided to invest a ton of his own money on the arena. He and mayor Labeaume have been extremely quites since last summer. Its pretty blatant to me that he has been told he is getting the next team available. The NHL has told many people they would never play a game at Key Arena. To me ,its clear that Seattle and Markham are expansion bound.
NHL played in worse arenas than Key while new arenas were being built. Why should Key Arena be any different? I don't think its that great of an idea (just in my opinion) to have back to back relocations of US teams to canada. Markham isn't an option for the time being. I doubt the NHL will get a higher expansion fee out of seattle than they would with Quebec city.

Plus its been said before it would be better to grow Seattle's fanbase with an existing team than to go through growing pains of a new franchise with several losing seasons before getting the right roster buildup.

How is the seattle NHL owner to be suppose to talk to the league and tell them their interested for a team with no new arena? I think things will pick up as soon as the sodo arena construction begins.


Last edited by gstommylee: 01-27-2013 at 03:33 PM.
gstommylee is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 03:48 PM
  #527
Patofqc
Registered User
 
Patofqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
NHL played in worse arenas than Key while new arenas were being built. Why should Key Arena be any different? I don't think its that great of an idea (just in my opinion) to have back to back relocations of US teams to canada. Markham isn't an option for the time being. I doubt the NHL will get a higher expansion fee out of seattle than they would with Quebec city.

Plus its been said before it would be better to grow Seattle's fanbase with an existing team than to go through growing pains of a new franchise with several losing seasons before getting the right roster buildup.

How is the seattle NHL owner to be suppose to talk to the league and tell them their interested for a team with no new arena? I think things will pick up as soon as the sodo arena construction begins.
Frankly this Seattle thing reminds me of when Atlanta had to move. Quebec City that year announce it was getting an arena. We tought well since Quebec City was getting a bigger arena then Winnipeg and Quebec City was a bigger market considering there are 3 times more people then Winnipeg within a couple hour drive that we were getting the team for sure. Winnipeg had been lobying Bettman for years and the NHL had a nice relationship with the Winnipeg group. I am pretty sure that Quebec is now Winnipeg in the Phoenix situation.

Leaving a couple more year for Seattle will just give them time to get a new arena. The league wont have to play at Key arena which they told people connected they would never play a game there. The new ownership group there wont have to compete right away with the NBA team, which would overshadow the new NHL team.

Seattle is getting a team, i am pretty sure. Its just not ready now to get the next one. When the new arena will be ready, then it might be a diffferent matter. Bettman told the NHL press recently that Seattle team was not on his radar. Especially since Levin the guy the NHL front office were pulling for is pretty much out of it.

Whomever the new Seattle potential owner will be, they will need to lobby for a few years before they even get a shot at a new team.


Last edited by Patofqc: 01-27-2013 at 04:10 PM.
Patofqc is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 03:52 PM
  #528
Patofqc
Registered User
 
Patofqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
How is the seattle NHL owner to be suppose to talk to the league and tell them their interested for a team with no new arena? I think things will pick up as soon as the sodo arena construction begins.
Exactly my point. There a little late for a possible transfert of the Coyotes. Peladeau has been working with the NHL for 3+ years and had multiple meeting with the NHL.

Patofqc is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 03:53 PM
  #529
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patofqc View Post
Frankly this Seattle thing reminds me of when Atlanta had to move. Quebec City that year announce it was getting an arena. We tought well since Quebec City was getting a bigger arena then Winnipeg and Quebec City was a bigger market considering there are 3 times more people then Winnipeg within a couple hour drive that we were getting the team for sure. Winnipeg had been lobying Bettman for years and the NHL had a nice relationship with the Winnipeg group. I am pretty sure that Quebec is now Winnipeg in the Phoenix situation.

Leaving a couple more year for Seattle will just give them time to get a new arena. The league wont have to play at Key arena which they told people connected they would never play a game there. The new ownership group there wont have to compete right away with the NBA team, which would overshadow the new NHL team.

Seattle is getting a team, i am pretty sure. Its just not ready now to get the next one. When the new arena will be ready, then it might be a diffferent matter. Bettman told the NHL press recently that Seattle team was not on his radar. Especially since Levin the guy the NHL front office were pulling for is pretty much out of it.

Whomever the new Seattle potential owner will be, they will need to lobby for e few years before they even get a shot at a new team.
Levin wanted an arena in Bellevue Washington but we knew that wasn't going to happen and he pulled out when he knew that wasn't gonna happen. Like i said things will pick up once our arena gets going.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 03:58 PM
  #530
Patofqc
Registered User
 
Patofqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Levin wanted an arena in Bellevue Washington but we knew that wasn't going to happen and he pulled out when he knew that wasn't gonna happen. Like i said things will pick up once our arena gets going.
I dont doubt that. I am sure tehy will be getting a team after (Coyotes relocate), or maybe at the same time has Québec (Coyotes stay).


Last edited by Patofqc: 01-27-2013 at 04:10 PM.
Patofqc is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 04:29 PM
  #531
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patofqc View Post
I dont doubt that. I am sure tehy will be getting a team after (Coyotes relocate), or maybe at the same time has Québec (Coyotes stay).
Like i said is it really in the best interest of the NHL to do another relocation of a US team into canada? If expansion is the only option for Seattle, we could be waiting quite some time possible long enough till tv contract with NBC is up for renewal. Two less US teams two more canadain teams (winnipeg is included) doesn't look good during those talks.

Getting Seattle into the game asap would be better for Seattle especially for the next tv contract.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 04:34 PM
  #532
Patofqc
Registered User
 
Patofqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Like i said is it really in the best interest of the NHL to do another relocation of a US team into canada? If expansion is the only option for Seattle, we could be waiting quite some time possible long enough till tv contract with NBC is up for renewal. Two less US teams two more canadain teams (winnipeg is included) doesn't look good during those talks.

Getting Seattle into the game asap would be better for Seattle especially for the next tv contract.
Yes it is the best interest. More revenues to the league. US tv contract is not decided with unproven (Seattle) or terrible hockey market (Phoenix, Atlanta). BTW they just signed a year ago a 10 year contract. Seattle will have a team by then.

Patofqc is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 04:41 PM
  #533
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patofqc View Post
Yes it is the best interest. More revenues to the league. US tv contract is not decided with unproven (Seattle) or terrible hockey market (Phoenix, Atlanta). BTW they just signed a year ago a 10 year contract. Seattle will have a team by then.
So how does an "unproven market" suppose to bring in the $$$ for an expansion fee. NHL won't get as much expansion fee for the Seattle market than Quebec city would. Plus five states view Seattle for most sports as their pro team. Seattle has an unique tv market. We don't know when NHL will expand or when the next team will be available for relocation.

Look i'm not saying Quebec city doesn't deserve a team but its essentially whats going on with the NBA two cities battling over 1 team.

The problem is with an "unproven market" having an expansion team may not be good given i'm talking about the Seattle sports fan base. A proven play-off team will be better in getting that market going. Look at Seattle baseball we had one of the best attendance in baseball after 10 or so losing seasons they would be lucky to get 15k a game.


Last edited by gstommylee: 01-27-2013 at 04:47 PM.
gstommylee is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:02 PM
  #534
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to SaintPatrick33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patofqc View Post
Yes it is the best interest. More revenues to the league. US tv contract is not decided with unproven (Seattle) or terrible hockey market (Phoenix, Atlanta). BTW they just signed a year ago a 10 year contract. Seattle will have a team by then.
An expansion team in Quebec will bring in just as much revenue as a relocation would. On the other hand, a relocation will bring in more revenue in Seattle than an expansion would. This isn't rocket science. A Quebec team will sell out and make maximum revenue regardless of what kind of team they get. That isn't the case with Seattle. People need to cut it with the emotionalism about which fan-base deserves or doesn't deserve what: This is a business issue and knee-jerk emotionalism doesn't play a role the process.

SaintPatrick33 is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:05 PM
  #535
Patofqc
Registered User
 
Patofqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
So how does an "unproven market" suppose to bring in the $$$ for an expansion fee. NHL won't get as much expansion fee for the Seattle market than Quebec city would. Plus five states view Seattle for most sports as their pro team. Seattle has an unique tv market. We don't know when NHL will expand or when the next team will be available for relocation.

Look i'm not saying Quebec city doesn't deserve a team but its essentially whats going on with the NBA two cities battling over 1 team.

The problem is with an "unproven market" having an expansion team may not be good given i'm talking about the Seattle sports fan base. A proven play-off team will be better in getting that market going. Look at Seattle baseball we had one of the best attendance in baseball after 10 or so losing seasons they would be lucky to get 15k a game.
Well if Seattle cant handle an expansion team, it does not bold well for the future of NHL there. Cause you wont always have a winning team. Get in line Seattle, PKP was there first and he has a strong relashionship with the NHL by now.

Patofqc is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:09 PM
  #536
Patofqc
Registered User
 
Patofqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
An expansion team in Quebec will bring in just as much revenue as a relocation would. On the other hand, a relocation will bring in more revenue in Seattle than an expansion would. This isn't rocket science. A Quebec team will sell out and make maximum revenue regardless of what kind of team they get. That isn't the case with Seattle. People need to cut it with the emotionalism about which fan-base deserves or doesn't deserve what: This is a business issue and knee-jerk emotionalism doesn't play a role the process.
BTW the Coyotes arent exactly an emerging team with a lot of stand out young players. They might just be beginning a reconstruction phase real soon has most of their best players are 30 and over.

Patofqc is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:10 PM
  #537
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to SaintPatrick33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patofqc View Post
BTW the Coyotes arent exactly an emerging team with a lot of stand out young players. They might just be beginning a reconstruction phase real soon has most of their best players are 30 and over.
And this is relevant how exactly? Since it's still more far competitive than a team of everyone else's castoffs.

SaintPatrick33 is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:17 PM
  #538
Eisen
Registered User
 
Eisen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by calmdown View Post
I remember about a year ago... Visiting my daughter in Porters Lake in NS I brought a Nordiques jersey for my grand-son. He was happy but when we had to go to the Mic Mac Mall, his sister (5 YO) absolutly want to wear it to go shopping... Comments from other customers... " Look, she's cute and she's a Nordique " So even in a not that big mall 1,000 km away ordinary people know what that logo mean.
I wore the Foppa Nordiques jersey in Stockholm and people were knowing it (and randomly cheering for me in the streets)

Eisen is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:18 PM
  #539
Revo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
An expansion team in Quebec will bring in just as much revenue as a relocation would. On the other hand, a relocation will bring in more revenue in Seattle than an expansion would. This isn't rocket science. A Quebec team will sell out and make maximum revenue regardless of what kind of team they get. That isn't the case with Seattle. People need to cut it with the emotionalism about which fan-base deserves or doesn't deserve what: This is a business issue and knee-jerk emotionalism doesn't play a role the process.
By following that logic until its conclusion, the league as a whole is best served by having hockey hungry markets be home of the terrible teams of the league.

A league isn't the sum of its indivual components... it's dynamic relations all around. If you expect your actions to only have the effects it should have if everything else was kept the same, you're going to wake up with problems one day.

Revo is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:19 PM
  #540
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,134
vCash: 500
And you Americans still get upset when we say that Bettman hates the Canadians and that the NHL uses it's milking cow as much as they can as a leverage point for their business expansions south of the border.

I'm sorry I don't wanna start a war. But the truth is here, Seattle will get the next relocation team because financially speaking the NHL will get the same amount of cash be it from Seattle, Quebec or Uzbekistan. It's the sale price + relocation fee.

Seattle will get the next team simply because expanding in the USA guarantees the following : 1st two seasons of profits (if hockey friendly market) and then potential losses unless the team gets a 3-4 seasons of good lenthy playoff runs and maybe a win.

Seattle will get the next team simply because if you were to gather 4th liners from AHL, and form an NHL team with them, put them in Quebec city and have them play there for 20 years without a single playoff run the team would still make profits. Gary Bettman knows this, my grandmother knows this and all of you here on HF knows this. Now try and prove me that Gary does not likes canadian profits but LOVES canadian based teams/markets.

powerstuck is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:29 PM
  #541
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to SaintPatrick33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revo View Post
By following that logic until its conclusion, the league as a whole is best served by having hockey hungry markets be home of the terrible teams of the league.

A league isn't the sum of its indivual components... it's dynamic relations all around. If you expect your actions to only have the effects it should have if everything else was kept the same, you're going to wake up with problems one day.
Just take a look at the Toronto: They've been feeding their fans a crap sammich for 47 years and they still roll in dough. Hello?

SaintPatrick33 is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:31 PM
  #542
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to SaintPatrick33
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
And you Americans still get upset when we say that Bettman hates the Canadians and that the NHL uses it's milking cow as much as they can as a leverage point for their business expansions south of the border.

I'm sorry I don't wanna start a war. But the truth is here, Seattle will get the next relocation team because financially speaking the NHL will get the same amount of cash be it from Seattle, Quebec or Uzbekistan. It's the sale price + relocation fee.

Seattle will get the next team simply because expanding in the USA guarantees the following : 1st two seasons of profits (if hockey friendly market) and then potential losses unless the team gets a 3-4 seasons of good lenthy playoff runs and maybe a win.

Seattle will get the next team simply because if you were to gather 4th liners from AHL, and form an NHL team with them, put them in Quebec city and have them play there for 20 years without a single playoff run the team would still make profits. Gary Bettman knows this, my grandmother knows this and all of you here on HF knows this. Now try and prove me that Gary does not likes canadian profits but LOVES canadian based teams/markets.
As I was saying: Knee-jerk emotionalism has no place in the process. It's business ffs.

SaintPatrick33 is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:40 PM
  #543
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
As I was saying: Knee-jerk emotionalism has no place in the process. It's business ffs.
I understand it's business. But sometimes when you **** up for way to long with your business partners you end up losing them. And in NHL case, their #1 business partners are WE, the fans.

From a personal standpoint, if Quebec is to wait another 10 years for an expansion team or another relocation saga to end, I would be happier to see businessman from Quebec say to NHL : You know what, our arena is filled everynight with either a great concert or spectacle or pro-hockey, so guess what we don't want your crappy league here anymore.

I think personally, that would be the most joyful day of my life. I don't know why, but I sense that PKP does have the cohones big enough to say to Gary, hey remember 2012 and the Coyotes that got sold for $170M. I have check here for that exact amount, you either cash it and give me a team or you go screw someone else.

I doubt the NHL is on a prosperity climb. I would rather think the league is on a downhill spiral, and it's soon to start spinning reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallly fast. Don't mind that their revenues have been growing up, just wait for ticket prices increases next season that are gonna be 10%+ in 80% of markets.

powerstuck is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:49 PM
  #544
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to SaintPatrick33
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
I understand it's business. But sometimes when you **** up for way to long with your business partners you end up losing them. And in NHL case, their #1 business partners are WE, the fans.

From a personal standpoint, if Quebec is to wait another 10 years for an expansion team or another relocation saga to end, I would be happier to see businessman from Quebec say to NHL : You know what, our arena is filled everynight with either a great concert or spectacle or pro-hockey, so guess what we don't want your crappy league here anymore.

I think personally, that would be the most joyful day of my life. I don't know why, but I sense that PKP does have the cohones big enough to say to Gary, hey remember 2012 and the Coyotes that got sold for $170M. I have check here for that exact amount, you either cash it and give me a team or you go screw someone else.

I doubt the NHL is on a prosperity climb. I would rather think the league is on a downhill spiral, and it's soon to start spinning reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallly fast. Don't mind that their revenues have been growing up, just wait for ticket prices increases next season that are gonna be 10%+ in 80% of markets.
Again, that's a knee-jerk emotional response. That's not how the NHL or ANY business makes it's decisions.

Quebec lost the original Nordiques because the Canadian dollar went into the crapper and made it impossible for a team to stay profitable in a city as small as Quebec. Do I like it? No. But it isn't a matter of whether I like it or not. It's reality and I understand that. I don't have to like it. Now that the Canadian dollar has stabilized at a reasonable level it's possible for a team to exist in Quebec again. That decision and in what form that team comes in is NOT going to be decided by sentimental or emotional considerations: It's going to be decided by a rational decision based on maximizing profits.

SaintPatrick33 is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:59 PM
  #545
Patofqc
Registered User
 
Patofqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
Saying Seattle would not support an expansion team is a kneejerk emotional reaction. Maybe they would, since it is such a great hockey market. And the Coyotes are a collection of rejects form other teams except for 2 or 3 good player. Your arguments are not making sense, the NHL is a business, it will go first where they can have the best partner economicly and that will be a good partner in the old boys club. PKP has been lobbying with some NHL owners and Bettman for more then 3 years.

I would bet a lot that they he will get the next team. the NHL will be able to milk a lot from expansion from Seattle, cause i am sure he thinks, has i do that its a good hockey market that cab survive a few bad years.

Patofqc is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 06:00 PM
  #546
Patofqc
Registered User
 
Patofqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Again, that's a knee-jerk emotional response. That's not how the NHL or ANY business makes it's decisions.

Quebec lost the original Nordiques because the Canadian dollar went into the crapper and made it impossible for a team to stay profitable in a city as small as Quebec. Do I like it? No. But it isn't a matter of whether I like it or not. It's reality and I understand that. I don't have to like it. Now that the Canadian dollar has stabilized at a reasonable level it's possible for a team to exist in Quebec again. That decision and in what form that team comes in is NOT going to be decided by sentimental or emotional considerations: It's going to be decided by a rational decision based on maximizing profits.
Agreed and Québec will me maximizing profits more then Seattle. Québec will bring more revenues to the league that will bring more cash that can be shared with weaker teams.


Last edited by Patofqc: 01-27-2013 at 06:08 PM.
Patofqc is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 06:13 PM
  #547
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to SaintPatrick33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patofqc View Post
Saying Seattle would not support an expansion team is a kneejerk emotional reaction. Maybe they would, since it is such a great hockey market. And the Coyotes are a collection of rejects form other teams except for 2 or 3 good player. Your arguments are not making sense, the NHL is a business, it will go first where they can have the best partner economicly and that will be a good partner in the old boys club. PKP has been lobbying with some NHL owners and Bettman for more then 3 years.

I would bet a lot that they he will get the next team. the NHL will be able to milk a lot from expansion from Seattle, cause i am sure he thinks, has i do that its a good hockey market that cab survive a few bad years.
My position is coldly rational: A competitive team will do better than a loser in a fresh market. In a market like Quebec you could have the worst team in the history of the universe and it will still sell out. That's the cold hard facts.

Here's a little dose of reality:

A. There will NOT be a mass exodus of teams from the US to Canada. No matter how much certain Canadian fans carp for it.

B. There isn't going to be contraction of US markets. Forget it folks: That's bush league.

C. In all likelihood the league will expand by two teams.

D. Right now there is only ONE US franchise that is likely to relocate: Phoenix.

E. Given the above, that means there are three cities that will be needed to host those teams.

F. No more than two of those three venues and in all likelihood only ONE of those venues will be north of the 49th parallel.

G. That means a MINIMUM of ONE of those venues is going to be a US city. Whether you guys like it or not there will be NO net-loss of US cities in the NHL. Get used to it guys: You aren't going to get an all-Canada hockey league or even a league where a bare majority of teams are Canadian. You can get all emotional about it until you're blue in face but those are the cold hard facts that you're going to have to live with.

SaintPatrick33 is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 06:15 PM
  #548
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to SaintPatrick33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patofqc View Post
Agreed and Québec will me maximizing profits more then Seattle. Québec will bring more revenues to the league that will bring more cash that can be shared with weaker teams.
This isn't an either or situation: Both cities are going to wind up with teams. The only question is who's getting the expansion team and who's getting the Coyotes. Quebec maximizes profits with either. Seattle maximized profits with the Coyotes. Simple as.

SaintPatrick33 is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 06:38 PM
  #549
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 21,728
vCash: 1
I can't really find fault with the logic in the past two posts by SaintPatrick, though I would still say that there is likely going to be at least some hesitation from the NHL at the prospect of entering Seattle at the exact same time as the return of the SuperSonics.

Additionally, while you're also right that Quebec is much, much more likely to support continuously a losing product like an expansion team, put competing bids from Seattle and Quebec City up against each other for the Yotes, and I have a hard time imagining Seattle matching PKP/Quebecor in terms of gross amount of money they're willing to dole out.

Also, if anything, having expansion in a few years that add teams in Houston and Seattle would be maximizing the initial financial windfalls from relocation/expansion. Quebec City would almost assuredly outbid Seattle for a team this summer and I really, really doubt that if the NHL expanded to QC and Houston that they could get away with charging more for QC than Houston at the same time, especially as, again, Quebecor would almost assuredly be willing to put down more dough right off the bat than American markets.

So, to me, this makes the most sense if the Yotes deal falls through....

Quebec gets the Yotes through relocation, having paid far more than initially expected due to a competing bid from Seattle.

Seattle and Houston get expansion teams in a few years, beating out a number of other Canadian and American markets, and get charged the same amount as each other.

No Fun Shogun is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 06:48 PM
  #550
Patofqc
Registered User
 
Patofqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
I can't really find fault with the logic in the past two posts by SaintPatrick, though I would still say that there is likely going to be at least some hesitation from the NHL at the prospect of entering Seattle at the exact same time as the return of the SuperSonics.

Additionally, while you're also right that Quebec is much, much more likely to support continuously a losing product like an expansion team, put competing bids from Seattle and Quebec City up against each other for the Yotes, and I have a hard time imagining Seattle matching PKP/Quebecor in terms of gross amount of money they're willing to dole out.

Also, if anything, having expansion in a few years that add teams in Houston and Seattle would be maximizing the initial financial windfalls from relocation/expansion. Quebec City would almost assuredly outbid Seattle for a team this summer and I really, really doubt that if the NHL expanded to QC and Houston that they could get away with charging more for QC than Houston at the same time, especially as, again, Quebecor would almost assuredly be willing to put down more dough right off the bat than American markets.

So, to me, this makes the most sense if the Yotes deal falls through....

Quebec gets the Yotes through relocation, having paid far more than initially expected due to a competing bid from Seattle.

Seattle and Houston get expansion teams in a few years, beating out a number of other Canadian and American markets, and get charged the same amount as each other.
Thats how i see it as well. PKP will just pay more, and has been lobbying the league longer, convincing other teams owner. Seattle will get an expansion team.

Patofqc 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 03:56 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.