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.

Daly: Pacific Northwest will get "serious consideration" for expansion/relocation

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-26-2013, 04:23 PM
  #126
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,636
vCash: 500
It'd be great to see Seattle and Portland share a franchise! (e.g., call it the Pacific Eagles or Northwest Tree Octopus) Half the home games to be held in each city (in their primarily basketball arenas).


VanIslander is offline  
Old
07-26-2013, 04:48 PM
  #127
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuzikMachine View Post
The problem is which team? The Mountain Time Zone teams are currently split up with Colorado in the Central Division and Phoenix, Edmonton & Calgary in the Pacific. Assuming both Portland and Seattle got expansion temas you'd have to move more teams from the Pacific to Central, you have a few unatractive scenarios:
  • split up Edmonotn & Calgary - no way either team would agree to that
  • move both Edmonton & Calgary - maybe, but the Oilers & Flames want to be in the same division as the Canucks so probably a no go; plus now the Central has more teams than the Pacific
  • move Phoenix to Central - how badly would they want to be near the California teams? Plus Phoenix doesn't observe Daylight Savings Time so it's effectively two time zones from the CTZ during the start of the season and the playoffs
I would assume this is not as problematic as it appears. Calgary and Edmonton have bigger rivalries with each other than with Vancouver. If Seattle and Portland come on board, Vancouver is going to have a bigger rivalry with Seattle than with anyone, so the obvious answer becomes:
Calgary and Edmonton to the Central
Colorado to the Pacific

However, I think it highly unlikely that BOTH Seattle and Portland come on line....

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
07-26-2013, 06:43 PM
  #128
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
PCSPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
It'd be great to see Seattle and Portland share a franchise! (e.g., call it the Pacific Eagles or Northwest Tree Octopus) Half the home games to be held in each city (in their primarily basketball arenas).

EWWWWWWWW!

Take that to the Bad Idea Hall Of Infamy, please. Quickly. Like, now.

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
07-26-2013, 11:03 PM
  #129
PanthersHockey1
Bond.
 
PanthersHockey1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UF & Boca Raton
Country: United States
Posts: 5,687
vCash: 500
I don't know if its already been posted but I'd be interested in attendance figures of Seattle teams. How is the attendance of the mariners and Seahawks? How was the attendance of sonics?

I was in Seattle once and it seems like a great city for pro hockey.

PanthersHockey1 is offline  
Old
07-26-2013, 11:38 PM
  #130
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 5,182
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
The Seahawks like pretty much all NFL teams sellout and also have one of the loudest crowds if not the loudest in the NFL. Didn't the Giants have like 11 false starts in one game because of crowd noise?

The Mariners have been between 21,000 and 23,000 the last few years but they've averaged 92 losses the last 5 including two 100+ loss seasons and they haven't made the playoffs since 2001. They also led the league in attendance in 2002 (after back to back ALCS appearances) with an average of 43,709 so if the Mariners ever provide a good product they'll draw and I think they're extremely close to putting a playoff quality team on the field.

The Sounders are obviously the gold standard for MLS teams.

The Sonics sold out for 4 years after the Key Arena renovation and never dropped below 88% in capacity and were usually around 95% capacity in capacity until their final lame duck year in Seattle where they dropped to 78% capacity but you can't really blame the fans for not wanting to put money in Clay Bennett's pockets.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline  
Old
07-27-2013, 01:57 AM
  #131
MuzikMachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
I would assume this is not as problematic as it appears. Calgary and Edmonton have bigger rivalries with each other than with Vancouver. If Seattle and Portland come on board, Vancouver is going to have a bigger rivalry with Seattle than with anyone, so the obvious answer becomes:
Calgary and Edmonton to the Central
Colorado to the Pacific

However, I think it highly unlikely that BOTH Seattle and Portland come on line....
I'm not sure if that would go over, I thought that there was a push from each of the respective franchises to keep Calgary-Edmonton-Vancouver together. The Edmonton-Calgary rivalry has cooled a bit since it's peak in the 1980's; the fact that they haven't played each other in the playoffs since 1991 (or that both teams have only qualified for the playoffs in the same season once since then) has resulted in Vancouver being considered a bigger rival.

Saying that, you're right in that both Seattle and Portland would not come on line at the same time. The only thing that might cause that scenario is a combination Pacific NW expansion and a relocation of another team (i.e. Coyotes).

MuzikMachine is offline  
Old
07-27-2013, 09:09 PM
  #132
Apocalyptic Mist*
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 638
vCash: 500
Portland/ Seattle for expansion and if Phx fails move them to Houston. Quebec city had 2 franchises leave their city... (1st time was a fire in the arena, other time was being cheap/broke) same failure rate as atlanta btw... Why should they get another chance? if the nhl wants to grow the sport, what better places than seattle, portland and houston? Instant rivalries will be made with vancouver, portland and seattle... same with dallas/ houston. bigger markets, more new potential fans exposed to this game and imo better for the league as a whole as it is already on a steady rise.

Apocalyptic Mist* is offline  
Old
07-27-2013, 09:13 PM
  #133
Apocalyptic Mist*
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 638
vCash: 500
*and weak canadian dollar.

Apocalyptic Mist* is offline  
Old
07-27-2013, 10:55 PM
  #134
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 5,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apocalyptic Mist View Post
Portland/ Seattle for expansion and if Phx fails move them to Houston. Quebec city had 2 franchises leave their city... (1st time was a fire in the arena, other time was being cheap/broke) same failure rate as atlanta btw... Why should they get another chance? if the nhl wants to grow the sport, what better places than seattle, portland and houston? Instant rivalries will be made with vancouver, portland and seattle... same with dallas/ houston. bigger markets, more new potential fans exposed to this game and imo better for the league as a whole as it is already on a steady rise.
Yes, because comparing the failure of team that existed nearly 100 years and in a world where their dollar was worth 65% of most of the teams they played against has some sort of correlation with Atlanta and their failure as a hockey market. They should get another chance because they are a hockey mad market that would immediately and religiously support their team, much like Winnipeg.

DyerMaker66 is offline  
Old
07-27-2013, 11:56 PM
  #135
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuzikMachine View Post
The problem is which team? The Mountain Time Zone teams are currently split up with Colorado in the Central Division and Phoenix, Edmonton & Calgary in the Pacific. Assuming both Portland and Seattle got expansion temas you'd have to move more teams from the Pacific to Central, you have a few unatractive scenarios:
  • split up Edmonotn & Calgary - no way either team would agree to that
  • move both Edmonton & Calgary - maybe, but the Oilers & Flames want to be in the same division as the Canucks so probably a no go; plus now the Central has more teams than the Pacific
  • move Phoenix to Central - how badly would they want to be near the California teams? Plus Phoenix doesn't observe Daylight Savings Time so it's effectively two time zones from the CTZ during the start of the season and the playoffs
Putting the Coyotes in the Central would make almost no difference. It would affect about 8 games in the scheduling. The Coyotes currently play 29 games against Pacific opponents and 21 games against the Central. They are only on "Pacific Time" during the season for about 30 games. In the playoffs they could meet any team in the west due to the ridiculous wild card system.

silvercanuck is offline  
Old
07-28-2013, 01:43 AM
  #136
flapanthersfan
Registered User
 
flapanthersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,988
vCash: 500
Here's what the NHL needs to do:

Expand to Quebec and Seattle/Portland

Get rid of the East/West conferences. Rename them, so they are not geographically based. (like the NFL with AFC and NFC)

Then you have 8 divisions of 4 teams - just like the NFL does (the most successful business model)

"Wales conference"

Division 1: (all new york teams)
Rangers
Islanders
Devils
Sabres


Division 2 (you could trade Boston into this division for Ottawa if you want to save the Habs/Bruins rivalry)
Maple Leafs
Canadiens
Nordiques
Senators

Division 3
Bruins
Penguins
Flyers
Blue Jackets

Division 4
Capitals
Panthers
Hurricanes
Lightning

"Campbell Conference"

Division 1:
Detroit
Chicago
Minnesota
St. Louis

Division 2:
Colorado
Dallas
Phoenix
Nashville

Division 3
Anaheim
Los Angeles
San Jose
Portland/Seattle

Division 4:
Winnipeg
Vancouver
Edmonton
Calgary.

Boom.

flapanthersfan is offline  
Old
07-28-2013, 02:29 AM
  #137
chaosrevolver
Snubbed Again
 
chaosrevolver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apocalyptic Mist View Post
Portland/ Seattle for expansion and if Phx fails move them to Houston. Quebec city had 2 franchises leave their city... (1st time was a fire in the arena, other time was being cheap/broke) same failure rate as atlanta btw... Why should they get another chance? if the nhl wants to grow the sport, what better places than seattle, portland and houston? Instant rivalries will be made with vancouver, portland and seattle... same with dallas/ houston. bigger markets, more new potential fans exposed to this game and imo better for the league as a whole as it is already on a steady rise.
Interesting perspective.

Then again...what about the instant rivalry of QC and MTL? Yeah..that trumps all.

Plus that province is hockey mad...they deserve a team just like Winnipeg did. Don't be foolish.

chaosrevolver is offline  
Old
07-28-2013, 04:00 AM
  #138
Apocalyptic Mist*
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
Yes, because comparing the failure of team that existed nearly 100 years and in a world where their dollar was worth 65% of most of the teams they played against has some sort of correlation with Atlanta and their failure as a hockey market. They should get another chance because they are a hockey mad market that would immediately and religiously support their team, much like Winnipeg.
You think Atlanta should get a 3rd chance at a franchise sometimes in the future no matter how unlikely that is? They get called a pathetic city for hockey when both their teams relocated, i dont care about the situations. Why should Quebec city get their 3rd go at an NHL franchise when there is seattle/portland/Houston who hasn't had one before, minus Seattle obviously. They have much more potential than qc idc about the hockey mad fans that are there, IMO the larger population in all those cities will easily make up for that and in the process making new fans which must have NHL executives foaming out the mouth. That's what the NHL wants I believe we should cap the amount of Canadian teams at 7 as all of the better/ bigger markets have teams and that the sport has to grow in untapped potential hockey hotbeds which clearly the NHL wants by putting franchises in Carolina and Nashville which btw are doing pretty good.

Apocalyptic Mist* is offline  
Old
07-28-2013, 04:18 AM
  #139
Apocalyptic Mist*
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaosrevolver View Post
Interesting perspective.

Then again...what about the instant rivalry of QC and MTL? Yeah..that trumps all.

Plus that province is hockey mad...they deserve a team just like Winnipeg did. Don't be foolish.
Honestly, something like the cascadia cup in the MLS could happen in the NHL... you think rivalries with Vancouver doesn't get close to the amount of attention as Montreal? I fully respect your opinion and I do believe a mtl/qc rivalry would be huge, but honest question... do you believe a mtl/qc rivalry would mean more to the NHL than new geographically based rivalries in fresh/ untapped markets with Seattle/Portland and Vancouver? In this scenario they add tons of new fans and gain interests from people who haven't been exposed to this beautiful game... that I think is whats more important to the NHL

Apocalyptic Mist* is offline  
Old
07-28-2013, 12:24 PM
  #140
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,409
vCash: 500
Seattle
Portland
Sacramento


Let's get going.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
07-28-2013, 02:18 PM
  #141
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flapanthersfan View Post
Here's what the NHL needs to do:

Expand to Quebec and Seattle/Portland

Get rid of the East/West conferences. Rename them, so they are not geographically based. (like the NFL with AFC and NFC)

Then you have 8 divisions of 4 teams - just like the NFL does (the most successful business model)

<snip>
I'm going to comment on this in the Expansion/Realignment thread:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...460543&page=15

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 10:20 AM
  #142
tony d
The Future
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,418
vCash: 500
Sacramento? San Diego? Doubt very much the NHL expands to either of those 2 cities. If you ask me the NHL will expand to 32 cities by the end of this decade. They'll expand to Seattle and Quebec City with Portland getting the Coyotes.

__________________
tony d is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 01:58 PM
  #143
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flapanthersfan View Post
Here's what the NHL needs to do:

Expand to Quebec and Seattle/Portland

Get rid of the East/West conferences. Rename them, so they are not geographically based. (like the NFL with AFC and NFC)

Then you have 8 divisions of 4 teams - just like the NFL does (the most successful business model)

Boom.
Unfortunately things are a lot more complicated than that. The NFL may be the most successful league but that does not mean their model can be used for other sports. The NHL does not play all of it's games on Sunday, hence there is a strong need for teams to play games within their local time zone. I also believe that geographical names make a lot more sense than naming divisions after an arbitrary collection of owners and players.

TV scheduling is the big thing here. The NHL should expand to Seattle/Portland and then set up a divisional playoff format in the west. I also think the Eastern teams should all play an equal number of games against their conference opponents to even out travel and ensure that no team gets left out of the rivalry factor.

silvercanuck is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 03:35 PM
  #144
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 5,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apocalyptic Mist View Post
You think Atlanta should get a 3rd chance at a franchise sometimes in the future no matter how unlikely that is? They get called a pathetic city for hockey when both their teams relocated, i dont care about the situations. Why should Quebec city get their 3rd go at an NHL franchise when there is seattle/portland/Houston who hasn't had one before, minus Seattle obviously. They have much more potential than qc idc about the hockey mad fans that are there, IMO the larger population in all those cities will easily make up for that and in the process making new fans which must have NHL executives foaming out the mouth. That's what the NHL wants I believe we should cap the amount of Canadian teams at 7 as all of the better/ bigger markets have teams and that the sport has to grow in untapped potential hockey hotbeds which clearly the NHL wants by putting franchises in Carolina and Nashville which btw are doing pretty good.
Then your opinion is flawed. As Phoenix, Atlanta, and the Islanders have shown it's not all about population. Just because there are people in an area does not mean they will pay $75 bucks to see a sport they don't care about 41 times a year.

Canadian teams print money; "growth markets" beg for it. The NHL has untapped potential in Hamilton, and Quebec City and has shown they are leaving lucrative markets on the table by not having teams there.


Last edited by DyerMaker66: 07-29-2013 at 03:46 PM.
DyerMaker66 is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 03:44 PM
  #145
IceAce
HEY BUD, LETS PARTY!
 
IceAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 3,043
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
Unfortunately things are a lot more complicated than that. The NFL may be the most successful league but that does not mean their model can be used for other sports. The NHL does not play all of it's games on Sunday, hence there is a strong need for teams to play games within their local time zone. I also believe that geographical names make a lot more sense than naming divisions after an arbitrary collection of owners and players.

TV scheduling is the big thing here. The NHL should expand to Seattle/Portland and then set up a divisional playoff format in the west. I also think the Eastern teams should all play an equal number of games against their conference opponents to even out travel and ensure that no team gets left out of the rivalry factor.

yeah bi-coastal conferences only work where you have games that are weekly (NFL) or you play a 3-4 day series in each city (MLB). You can't do that in sports like NHL/NBA where you play multiple one off games each week in different cities. The travel would be brutal.

IceAce is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 04:45 PM
  #146
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Seattle
Portland
Sacramento


Let's get going.
Sacramento? No. Just no.

aqib is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 06:33 PM
  #147
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 33,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
Then your opinion is flawed. As Phoenix, Atlanta, and the Islanders have shown it's not all about population. Just because there are people in an area does not mean they will pay $75 bucks to see a sport they don't care about 41 times a year.

Canadian teams print money; "growth markets" beg for it. The NHL has untapped potential in Hamilton, and Quebec City and has shown they are leaving lucrative markets on the table by not having teams there.
It's not that those three markets don't care about the sport. They've each shown at one point that they did. However, getting fans to invest into the team requires owners to earn their money with a quality on-ice product and being located where the fans are. Thrashers were sabotaged the moment they were sold to ASG. Until ASG is gone from Atlanta, the market doesn't stand a chance in getting a team. Phoenix sucked for a long time then moved the team further away from where their customers came from. By the time they got better on the ice, they were in bankruptcy with a foot out the door. People will not invest in a franchise in that situation. The Islanders have been God awful for a while with a very old and crappy arena. Now they're moving into the Barclays Center and I don't think that's a good move at all but I'm sure people in Brooklyn will show up now that their on-ice product is improving and they're locked in even with an arena that isn't good for the team.

Hamilton is not going to get a team because of Toronto. The NHL is not going to push MLSE just because they can get a good franchise in Hamilton. It's just not worth it to them. Quebec City may get a franchise down the line. I think it was pretty much the consensus that they're next in line at least up until realignment went through but things change quickly. However, the danger in Canada especially Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, and Quebec City is if the Canadian Dollar tanks again. We really won't know the durability of the smaller markets in Canada where the interest is no doubt vast until that tank occurs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
Sacramento? No. Just no.
Yes...oh yes. Sacramento is a legitimate market for the league to discuss for a franchise. With their new arena that will be capable of hockey and an area that has done well in Stockton for the ECHL and is pretty healthy at the rec level, it should be in the conversation. Now if the AHL decides to do their western relocation, I think Sacramento will probably get a test run in the short term. However, Sacramento shouldn't be dismissed outright. It's perfectly capable of handling a 2nd major sports franchise and capable of supporting hockey.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 08:10 PM
  #148
IceAce
HEY BUD, LETS PARTY!
 
IceAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 3,043
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
Then your opinion is flawed. As Phoenix, Atlanta, and the Islanders have shown it's not all about population. Just because there are people in an area does not mean they will pay $75 bucks to see a sport they don't care about 41 times a year.

Canadian teams print money; "growth markets" beg for it. The NHL has untapped potential in Hamilton, and Quebec City and has shown they are leaving lucrative markets on the table by not having teams there.
Saying people don't care about hockey on Long Island is a tremendous misnomer. People stopped caring about the Islanders because they were terrible for two decades in a horribly outdated stadium. NYers arent going to support a perennial loser in any sport, hence the reason the Yankees couldnt draw flies in the 80's.

This year the crowds returned once the teams play started to turn around. The islanders have been around for 40+ seasons and their downturn is similar to one the current Stanley Cup champs had to endure before their previous owner croaked. Their situation is nothing like the ones in Atlanta and Glendale.

IceAce is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 08:22 PM
  #149
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: 27,706
vCash: 2071
Sacramento's larger than most people give it credit (larger than Portland's metro area, an oft-mentioned candidate for the NHL), but I'm doubting that Sacramento is legitimately on any other league's radar at this point. Maybe Major League Baseball if they built an MLB-sized stadium, but then again the same thing could be said about a half dozen other cities, too.

No Fun Shogun is offline  
Old
07-30-2013, 04:48 AM
  #150
JuniorNelson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: E.Vancouver
Country: Australia-Aboriginal
Posts: 4,861
vCash: 500
The NHL will probably do the weird thing as well as the prudent thing. So, while prudently adding Canadian revenue, they will also try to open new markets. I think empty facilities in KC and Las Vegas are going to be tenanted because incentives will force the issue.

JuniorNelson 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 08:37 AM.

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.