The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Don Levin owns the Chicago Wolves and they aren't going anywhere. If he buys the Coyotes the Canucks would gladly swap affiliates with Portland. Portland isn't going anywhere either.
not exactly, silvercanuck, it depends on what each team's PDC states in case of leaving early, when Florida announced they were ending their stay in Rochester by Thanksgiving of 2009, after Buffalo and Rochester split after 29 years 3 years hence, under Golisano, and then Terry Pegula, who inherited that PDC, TO GET back to Rochester, which the Sabres ended up buying, btw, cost Pegula 650K, to buy out the 2 years which Phoenix, as Buffalo, and Washington and Anaheim before them are required to find the next team before signing w/ someone else.
Phoenix elected to not renew its deal in SA, SO no matter if the Coyotes remain in AZ or are in SEA, THAT AFFILIATION remains, independent of the issues btwn VAN and CHI, keep in mind, each relocation is different, so if Levin does buy the Coyotes, there's some chance the Wolves might be sold to someone else, similar to what TNSE had w/ Manitoba, there might be a caveat, that any conflict of interest, or a rule wshere you cannot own 2 teams in two leagues even though they're affiliated, that's why you saw the original agreement w/ Danny Williams being part of the TNSE transfer to St. John's.
not exactly, silvercanuck, it depends on what each team's PDC states in case of leaving early, when Florida announced they were ending their stay in Rochester by Thanksgiving of 2009, after Buffalo and Rochester split after 29 years 3 years hence, under Golisano, and then Terry Pegula, who inherited that PDC, TO GET back to Rochester, which the Sabres ended up buying, btw, cost Pegula 650K, to buy out the 2 years which Phoenix, as Buffalo, and Washington and Anaheim before them are required to find the next team before signing w/ someone else.
Phoenix elected to not renew its deal in SA, SO no matter if the Coyotes remain in AZ or are in SEA, THAT AFFILIATION remains, independent of the issues btwn VAN and CHI, keep in mind, each relocation is different, so if Levin does buy the Coyotes, there's some chance the Wolves might be sold to someone else, similar to what TNSE had w/ Manitoba, there might be a caveat, that any conflict of interest, or a rule wshere you cannot own 2 teams in two leagues even though they're affiliated, that's why you saw the original agreement w/ Danny Williams being part of the TNSE transfer to St. John's.
Uh.... first of all, comparing the Wolves with the Moose doesn't make sense, as TNSE had to move the team as they wanted to bring an NHL team into their market and they didn't think Winnipeg was large enough to support both teams. Not the case for a group wanting to bring an NHL team in Seattle and keep an AHL team in Chicago.
Second, there are no rules against owning multiple teams in different leagues. Don't know how many teams have it that way, but right off the top of my head I can tell you that the same person owns both the St. Louis Blues and the Peoria Rivermen. And there's another very relevant example of a NHL team also owning their affiliate, which leads to....
Third, TNSE still owns the IceCaps. They're just leasing the team to the Newfoundland group.
And fourth, and most important, it's a moot point entirely, as the Wolves are one of the biggest draws and most profitable teams in the AHL. There's zero point to sell a team like the Wolves unless you're just no longer interested in owning an AHL team. If they do, then they could easily gain affiliation with the Wolves, and the profits from that would likely more than make up for whatever momentary (and relatively minimal) economic hit the new ownership would take by changing affiliation early.
Assuming that they move this offseason to Seattle, that is. All just an exercise in futility if they move anywhere else or stand put.
Uh.... first of all, comparing the Wolves with the Moose doesn't make sense, as TNSE had to move the team as they wanted to bring an NHL team into their market and they didn't think Winnipeg was large enough to support both teams. Not the case for a group wanting to bring an NHL team in Seattle and keep an AHL team in Chicago.
Second, there are no rules against owning multiple teams in different leagues. Don't know how many teams have it that way, but right off the top of my head I can tell you that the same person owns both the St. Louis Blues and the Peoria Rivermen. And there's another very relevant example of a NHL team also owning their affiliate, which leads to....
Third, TNSE still owns the IceCaps. They're just leasing the team to the Newfoundland group.
And fourth, and most important, it's a moot point entirely, as the Wolves are one of the biggest draws and most profitable teams in the AHL. There's zero point to sell a team like the Wolves unless you're just no longer interested in owning an AHL team. If they do, then they could easily gain affiliation with the Wolves, and the profits from that would likely more than make up for whatever momentary (and relatively minimal) economic hit the new ownership would take by changing affiliation early.
Assuming that they move this offseason to Seattle, that is. All just an exercise in futility if they move anywhere else or stand put.
yeah, there are rules against multiple team ownership, NFS, SEE the expansion to 27 in 2001, the Devos and Van Andel ownership (which is where the GR arena name comes from), owned 3 teams in the IHL, (KC, Orlando, and GR), but according to AHL bylaws, you can only own/operate 1 franchise.... which is why Grand Rapids was accepted and the other 2, were not. Orlando, then was merged w/ Chicago after the 2 played in the final Turner Cup, as part of another bylaw, that all AHL franchises also had to have NHL Affiliations, of which Orlando had Atlanta (now WPG). THE Franchise known as the Solar Bears that is in the ECHL is not owned by the same group who owned the original franchise, although they do play in Devos' AMWAY Center in Orlando....
as for TNSE, there were questions before Williams got involved to bring them to St. John's, but that's why that option should TNSE elect to, they could've sold it outright within 3 years, not because the Jets v2, BECAME the primary tenant @ MTSC.
as for your Worcester example, the AHL HAS that same bylaw if an owner is approached by another group in the same league, as Roy Boe was in Bridgeport, he was forced to sell the Ice Cats outright to the Blues well before the Peoria option even happened and the current Blues owner didn't buy both until the owner who enticed the Blues to relocate the Ice Cats sold his stake in the Rivermen (Bruce Saurs).
The point is, if Levin moves up, he's already bought out the other owners when he bought into the Wolves, that's why you're hearing that option regardless of whether the Wolves are successful, because similar to Chipman, you're going to need someone to operate the Wolves in Rosemont, if Levin becomes a member of the NHL, whether or not he gets the Coyotes, and aligns them w/ Hansen in Seattle.
Oh gotcha, thought you were saying that someone couldn't own teams across multiple leagues, not multiple teams in the same league.
But it's still irrelevant. Why sell a team that's making you money just because you (could be) buying another team in a higher league? Especially considering the deep relationship he has with the other owners of the Wolves and the obvious continuity of operations that would exist in owning the major league and minor league clubs.
As for hearing it brought up.... uh, what? You mean here? If he wants out, he wants out, but there aren't really inklings about it, nor is it like it's necessary for someone to live in the same market of a team he owns in this day and age. If anything, his co-owners might just try to buy him out completely, but even that's not a sure thing. Wolves are staying in Chicago and, should he get a Seattle-based NHL team, he'll probably stay on as owner to some degree.
Conspiracy theory here, just meant for some thought, but Burkle seems to be a well-respected owner amongst the BOG and by Gary Bettman, at least as indicated by his participation in CBA negotiations. Could his involvement in keeping the Kings in Sacramento be any indication of the NHL's (or BOG's) confidence or lack there of in the Seattle market? It seems that if Bettman wanted a team in Seattle, he might try to convince Burkle to stay out of it so that the Kings move, the arena is built, so on and so forth.
Conspiracy theory here, just meant for some thought, but Burkle seems to be a well-respected owner amongst the BOG and by Gary Bettman, at least as indicated by his participation in CBA negotiations. Could his involvement in keeping the Kings in Sacramento be any indication of the NHL's (or BOG's) confidence or lack there of in the Seattle market? It seems that if Bettman wanted a team in Seattle, he might try to convince Burkle to stay out of it so that the Kings move, the arena is built, so on and so forth.
as has already been indicated, all Burkle is charged with is replacing Sleep Train Arena w/ a downtown arena, much like Hansen did w/ SODO, Icedog, that PSA that Hansen has w/ the Kings has no bearing on a hockey franchise in Seattle because as Hansen has already stated he's not the hockey owner, just the next owner of the new Sonics (Kings), it's Mastrov who's submitted the competing bid in Sacramento.
Chris Daniels @ChrisDaniels5
Chris Hansen’s #SeattleArena design passed by review panel tonight, enabling his architects to now seek Master Use Permit.
Process on the arena design now Hansen can get the permits.
As I may be moving to Vancouver Island, I am now really hoping for Seattle to get the Yotes, as it would give me a chance to go to a couple of games a year. Sorry QC, but here is hoping to Seattle's chances!
Longshoremen filed an appeal of the decision by the King County court judge to dismiss their lawsuit against the arena.
Have the Longshoreman ever come out and said what exactly they want to occupy this area? I understand they do not want their business affected but what businesses will not have some affect on them? Is it just traffic concerns? If so that is weak IMHO.
Sports Radio in Seattle talking about how Mastrov's offer is going to be substantially lower than Hansen's bid.
Well, you cant beat that crazy 500+ millions Seattle offer.
However, to prevent a relocation, it ought to be enough.
BUT, since the NBA seems determined to get a team to Seattle and dont care about Saramento at all (like the NHL and Northern markets in the 90's), they may not give a hoot about it and relocate anyway without looking at it.
Well, you cant beat that crazy 500+ millions Seattle offer.
However, to prevent a relocation, it ought to be enough.
BUT, since the NBA seems determined to get a team to Seattle and dont care about Saramento at all (like the NHL and Northern markets in the 90's), they may not give a hoot about it and relocate anyway without looking at it.
IF NBA will approves sale NBA won't vote no on relocation.
The Seattle Downtown Design Review Board gave its preliminary approval to Hansen’s architectural plans Monday night. The arena project now moves to the permitting stage, with at least one more public meeting on the design planned for late spring or early summer.
Talks pretty openly about making the Key ready to host NHL games.
"The first or base-case scenario describes what we propose to do to make the arena viable for two years of
NBA and NHL play."
- Reconfiguration of event level space to create NHL and NBA team suites,
with modern amenities and infrastructure.
- Refinish a portion of lower bowl seats.
- Reconfigure sports lighting to NHL standards
- Create NHL replay review room
- Refurbish ice making equipment.
- Refurbish retractable seating sections.
But for the Sacramento proposal to be so lacking that Stern said the offer is “not comparable“*to the one from Seattle is very interesting insight. Either the league is not holding Sacramento’s hand to the point of telling Johnson specifically what the bid needs to look like, as it once seemed, or Mayor KJ, Mark Mastrov and Ron Burkle as lead private investors didn’t listen. Either way, Stern has drawn a line between encouraging the Sacramento efforts and privately leading them.
