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.

McKenzie on Expansion: Vegas and possibly beyond 32?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-17-2014, 12:45 AM
  #701
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Thank You. I can't decide sometimes, but I think 40 teams would bring a bigger TV contract and more scoring. They should make the puck bigger.
With land mines in the ice. Yeah, the violence in the sport suffers from lack of diversity.

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
02-17-2014, 01:02 AM
  #702
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 21,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Thank You. I can't decide sometimes, but I think 40 teams would bring a bigger TV contract and more scoring. They should make the puck bigger.
.... say what now? Why, so it would be easier to follow? And 40 teams? Maybe in 30yrs I could see it but only if the US & Russia some how accelerate their development programs and even then, were probably looking at 40 or 50yrs. Sure, I guess they could expand to 40 by lets say 2030, but Man, your looking at a dip in overall quality of play of no small magnitude. Maybe with a 60 rather than 82 game schedule, more time spent on Coaching & practice then ok, but I dont see that happening anytime soon. Not unless NBC comes in with NFL like money for the NHL & they can chop the Regular Season down to a better sized one and their not so completely reliant on gate receipts, concessions & parking etc.

Killion is offline  
Old
02-18-2014, 03:45 AM
  #703
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,770
vCash: 500
I think 36 with QUE, SEA, PORT, HOU, MARK, and Vegas is close to "perfect."

I'm not a huge fan of Vegas, but there's not a better, intapped MTZ/CTZ market. If Phoenix moves, Oklahoma City makes the best alignment (Unless the Bucks leave and then Milwaukee would be ideal).

Play 4 vs your conference, 1 vs the other conference, 86 games. Total balanced schedule with conference playoffs.

Or 6 vs your division, 2 vs your conference, 1 vs other conference, 84 games, divisional playoffs.

KevFu is online now  
Old
02-18-2014, 08:08 AM
  #704
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darlotto99 View Post
Seattle and Portland get teams first by expansion or relocation then Quebec and Vegas are next
Portland? lol I have a hunch Québec will have a team first.

Kimota is offline  
Old
02-18-2014, 08:24 AM
  #705
saskganesh
Registered User
 
saskganesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the Annex
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
They should make the puck bigger.
Well, there's always ringette for those people. I'm sure there's a game on TV somewhere.

As it relates to media fees, I believe the NHL will only get increased viewership organically, incrementally, team by team, market by market. No gimmick will take this league to NFL money-honey neverland. Promotions like the Stadium Series help, but magic bullet solutions do not exist.

Hockey will never be as popular as some wish it to be and that's OK. The league is still economically viable.

saskganesh is offline  
Old
02-18-2014, 08:39 AM
  #706
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saskganesh View Post
Well, there's always ringette for those people. I'm sure there's a game on TV somewhere.

As it relates to media fees, I believe the NHL will only get increased viewership organically, incrementally, team by team, market by market. No gimmick will take this league to NFL money-honey neverland. Promotions like the Stadium Series help, but magic bullet solutions do not exist.

Hockey will never be as popular as some wish it to be and that's OK. The league is still economically viable.
I don't know....the NFL became peopular because of the MLB lockout, that was a "magic bullet" was it not? The NHL can reach NFL, this league was more popular before 2004, it can be again.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
02-18-2014, 08:40 AM
  #707
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCSPounder View Post
With land mines in the ice. Yeah, the violence in the sport suffers from lack of diversity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
.... say what now? Why, so it would be easier to follow? And 40 teams? Maybe in 30yrs I could see it but only if the US & Russia some how accelerate their development programs and even then, were probably looking at 40 or 50yrs. Sure, I guess they could expand to 40 by lets say 2030, but Man, your looking at a dip in overall quality of play of no small magnitude. Maybe with a 60 rather than 82 game schedule, more time spent on Coaching & practice then ok, but I dont see that happening anytime soon. Not unless NBC comes in with NFL like money for the NHL & they can chop the Regular Season down to a better sized one and their not so completely reliant on gate receipts, concessions & parking etc.
You guys are right. But 40 teams = more scoring = more viewership = more money.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
02-18-2014, 11:22 AM
  #708
Mightygoose
Registered User
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,284
vCash: 514
I know this was mentioned in the Quebec thread. Daly gives some comments on potentail expansion. More specifically mentioning Seatttle (Pac NW) and Quebec City.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/...7177--nhl.html

Quote:
“The Pacific Northwest, we think, is a good hockey area. I think the Vancouver Canucks have done extraordinarily well in developing that area as a good hockey market. Doesn’t mean we’re going to expand there, doesn’t mean we’ve made any decisions in that regard,” he said.
Quote:
“By the way, I said the same thing about Quebec City. I also believe it’s a very good hockey market with a very strong and passionate fan base,” he said.
I'm curious to know if there is a greater context not mentioned and if Daly mentions any other cities. Just questions on other regions of the world.

Quote:
As for European expansion, Daly said it doesn’t necessarily tie into the League’s decision on Olympic participation. South Korea, for example, isn’t likely to be an NHL market in the foreseeable feature. But Daly said that wouldn’t prevent the League from signing up for another Olympic tournament.

“I don’t think the fact that the games are in South Korea is necessarily a negative because we don’t want to expand to South Korea.”
Not creating any fasle expectations on that front at all


Last edited by Mightygoose: 02-18-2014 at 11:32 AM.
Mightygoose is offline  
Old
02-18-2014, 11:39 AM
  #709
Acesolid
The Illusive Bettman
 
Acesolid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,761
vCash: 500
I dont get how anyone can think expansion isn't comming to Québec and Seattle after hearing this. If they dont want to create false hope, why are they always mentioning Québec and Seattle DIRECTLY in recent interviews?

A year ago, it was ''we're not thinking about expansion'', and ''we're not thinking of specific markets, and we're not expanding or relocating any time soon''.

Now they are constantly speaking of Québec and Seattle directly when they are asked. And speaking of the fact that they are considering expansion.

I believe the question is now ''when'', not ''if'', when speaking of expansion.

And however how many speculators speak of Portland, Toronto 2 and Las Vegas (LOL!), I dont see them being ready for an expansion in the near future. The Leafs are blocking Toronto 2, Las Vegas..... is not a hockey market, and Portland has no owner ready to pay a crapload of cash.

So there's no way we're not moving toward a Québec and Seattle expansion.

Like I said, the question is ''when?''. After the Olympics? This summer? In a year? Two?

We'll see... But I'd say it's sooner then later, otherwise the NHL wouldn't be so open about it.

Acesolid is offline  
Old
02-18-2014, 11:49 AM
  #710
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesolid View Post
I dont get how anyone can think expansion isn't comming to Québec and Seattle after hearing this. If they dont want to create false hope, why are they always mentioning Québec and Seattle DIRECTLY in recent interviews?

A year ago, it was ''we're not thinking about expansion'', and ''we're not thinking of specific markets, and we're not expanding or relocating any time soon''.

Now they are constantly speaking of Québec and Seattle directly when they are asked. And speaking of the fact that they are considering expansion.

I believe the question is now ''when'', not ''if'', when speaking of expansion.

And however how many speculators speak of Portland, Toronto 2 and Las Vegas (LOL!), I dont see them being ready for an expansion in the near future. The Leafs are blocking Toronto 2, Las Vegas..... is not a hockey market, and Portland has no owner ready to pay a crapload of cash.

So there's no way we're not moving toward a Québec and Seattle expansion.

Like I said, the question is ''when?''. After the Olympics? This summer? In a year? Two?

We'll see... But I'd say it's sooner then later, otherwise the NHL wouldn't be so open about it.
Well it won't be after the Olympics if what i read on Chris Daniel's twitter they aren't close to a deal that makes post Olympics being out.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-18-2014, 09:06 PM
  #711
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesolid View Post
I dont get how anyone can think expansion isn't comming to Québec and Seattle after hearing this. If they dont want to create false hope, why are they always mentioning Québec and Seattle DIRECTLY in recent interviews?

A year ago, it was ''we're not thinking about expansion'', and ''we're not thinking of specific markets, and we're not expanding or relocating any time soon''.

Now they are constantly speaking of Québec and Seattle directly when they are asked. And speaking of the fact that they are considering expansion.

I believe the question is now ''when'', not ''if'', when speaking of expansion.

And however how many speculators speak of Portland, Toronto 2 and Las Vegas (LOL!), I dont see them being ready for an expansion in the near future. The Leafs are blocking Toronto 2, Las Vegas..... is not a hockey market, and Portland has no owner ready to pay a crapload of cash.

So there's no way we're not moving toward a Québec and Seattle expansion.

Like I said, the question is ''when?''. After the Olympics? This summer? In a year? Two?

We'll see... But I'd say it's sooner then later, otherwise the NHL wouldn't be so open about it.
I think in general, because of the fact this is a board focused on the business of hockey, we're all die hards, and most of us yearn for teams like PHX to move to places like QUE, we tend to go overboard in attributing meaning. We can't help ourselves.

That being said, you don't have to be a "conspiracy theorist" to believe that while rumors fly around all over the place about Seattle, Portland, Quebec, Markham, Las Vegas, the NHL publically says "we're not looking at expansion" only because they can't admit they really are looking at expansion.

Having people talking about how the the NHL wants to expand, but there aren't owners and markets beating down the door is bad PR.

You look like clowns when you have 30 teams and WANT to expand when you don't have markets lined up. There'd be "More Bettman Expansion for Expansion Sake" stories up in the north.

In the 90s, the NHL had far fewer teams than other leagues, and they knew cities would line up and did. Now, it's a little more tricky with arena situations.

You give your "well, we're not looking at expansion, but if two billionaires from underserved markets with NHL suitable arenas wanted to talk, we'd listen" political answer, and LEAK RUMORS about Vegas, Seattle and Markham and see whom (Paul Allen, Les Alexander) says "hey, I'd be interested." And then you can pull the trigger when you have teams lined up.

KevFu is online now  
Old
02-19-2014, 10:10 AM
  #712
NickWIHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Port Washington, WI
Country: United States
Posts: 112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
I don't understand why 36 teams is "too many."

MLB & NBA have 30-32 teams, and one each in Canada. The NHL has an "extra team" in NYC, and SIX extra teams in Canada.

There's clearly enough markets to support 36 teams.

Just about no one would say Quebec, Markham or Hamilton couldn't support an NHL team.
We're reasonably confident in Seattle (supports the MLS team to insane amounts), Houston (based on Dallas' success) and Portland could support teams.
Not to mention cities that wouldn't be slam-dunk successes, but can support a franchise that will turn a profit when winning, lose a lil bit when sucking and be sold at a higher value than the purchase price (Vegas, Milwaukee, Salt Lake City, Kansas City, Oklahoma City).

The other "argument" besides lack of markets is "expansion waters down talent" which is a load of crap, because the salary cap is what waters down talent, as teams have no money left for anyone but cheap, inexperienced prospects as the bottom half of their roster because the top half earns 85% of the budget.

There's tons of capable players who couldn't find NHL jobs because they were role-playing veterans. When no one else could fit 'em on the roster, the Islanders scooped up 10 and made the playoffs.




I'd agree… if the Bucks left town first. As a four-sport city, Milwaukee is probably too small (and yeah, I'm counting the Packers)
Well everything is pointing to them leaving, absent a huge turnaround where they get a Kareem-like player at the 1 pick and they go from 15 wins this season to 55 next year. i'm not counting on that either.

NickWIHockey is offline  
Old
02-19-2014, 12:37 PM
  #713
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickWIHockey View Post
Well everything is pointing to them leaving, absent a huge turnaround where they get a Kareem-like player at the 1 pick and they go from 15 wins this season to 55 next year. i'm not counting on that either.
So I have a question or several... partly because if I hear the NBA brass say (check that; it could be any league) that the sun is rising, I immediately get out the flashlight. I hear them say Bradley Center is outmoded, but I want proof.

Are the Bradley Center concourses a bit cramped?

How many suites does it have?

Anyone have an estimate on the concessions measure "points of sale?" In other words, if the place is full, are lines too long?

Would a 6'4" guy lose his knees sitting in any given section? (Is the seating cramped?)

I already know the place was built with hockey as a consideration; it's not like a half-dozen NBA buildings where it either won't fit or won't fit well. I want proof of "outmoded."

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
02-19-2014, 01:29 PM
  #714
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickWIHockey View Post
Well everything is pointing to them leaving, absent a huge turnaround where they get a Kareem-like player at the 1 pick and they go from 15 wins this season to 55 next year. i'm not counting on that either.
If the Bucks left town, Milwaukee should then be a prime candidate for the NHL, assuming the Blackhawks wouldn't try to stop it.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-19-2014, 01:47 PM
  #715
NickWIHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Port Washington, WI
Country: United States
Posts: 112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
If the Bucks left town, Milwaukee should then be a prime candidate for the NHL, assuming the Blackhawks wouldn't try to stop it.
Milwaukee lies outside the 50 miles radius of Chicago, its 90 miles away. The wild are shown around here, so if anything a Milwaukee team would have pay the Wild for loss of broadcasting territory, not Chicago.

NickWIHockey is offline  
Old
02-19-2014, 01:49 PM
  #716
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 4,891
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCSPounder View Post
Are the Bradley Center concourses a bit cramped?
I would say yes. I rarely go there when it's full but based on the number of people for events I do attend I can see it being cramped when full.

Quote:
How many suites does it have?
I think like 42 or 44. It had 68 but the Bucks couldn't sell them so they tore them out to create club seating areas (the only area in the building with club seating)

Quote:
Anyone have an estimate on the concessions measure "points of sale?" In other words, if the place is full, are lines too long?
Can't answer this. I don't pay for the overpriced stuff at games.

Quote:
Would a 6'4" guy lose his knees sitting in any given section? (Is the seating cramped?)
I'm 5'10 and I'm uncomfortable sitting there.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline  
Old
02-19-2014, 01:51 PM
  #717
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
If the Bucks left town, Milwaukee should then be a prime candidate for the NHL, assuming the Blackhawks wouldn't try to stop it.
So what's the arena solution for a NHL team if the bucks leave?

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-19-2014, 01:59 PM
  #718
NickWIHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Port Washington, WI
Country: United States
Posts: 112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCSPounder View Post
So I have a question or several... partly because if I hear the NBA brass say (check that; it could be any league) that the sun is rising, I immediately get out the flashlight. I hear them say Bradley Center is outmoded, but I want proof.

Are the Bradley Center concourses a bit cramped?

How many suites does it have?

Anyone have an estimate on the concessions measure "points of sale?" In other words, if the place is full, are lines too long?

Would a 6'4" guy lose his knees sitting in any given section? (Is the seating cramped?)

I already know the place was built with hockey as a consideration; it's not like a half-dozen NBA buildings where it either won't fit or won't fit well. I want proof of "outmoded."
the Bradley center has a hockey capacity of just under 18000, For Basketball a little over 18700. The problem with the BC is that it was a gift from the Pettit family, but they did not make any provisions for modernizing the building, ie long term investment. Given its location, and the buildings around it - its across from the Arena, where the Wave play, and lies near restaurants like major Goolsbys- expansion or redevelopment isn't really a possibility The Bucks get a certain cut of concessions, but I don't know exactly how much they get from that. The place has 4 levels -100, 200, 300 and 400- 400s are the nosebleeds, although they have concessions on each level. Food lines can be pretty long when the Golden Eagles or bucks are playing, but the Bucks have been so bad this year , they haven't come close to selling out. As For the seats, they are pretty tightly packed in, theres not much room to stretch your feet.

NickWIHockey is offline  
Old
02-19-2014, 02:08 PM
  #719
NickWIHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Port Washington, WI
Country: United States
Posts: 112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
So what's the arena solution for a NHL team if the bucks leave?
The Bradley Center could be a temporary home while a new arena is built, like the Colisee in Montreal. It wouldn't be optimal, but its better than nothing.

NickWIHockey is offline  
Old
02-19-2014, 02:13 PM
  #720
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickWIHockey View Post
The Bradley Center could be a temporary home while a new arena is built, like the Colisee in Montreal. It wouldn't be optimal, but its better than nothing.
I doubt there any one interest in bringing a NHL team to Milwaukee due to a lack of a new arena. If the bucks can't get a new arena built then how would it be any different with the NHL?

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-19-2014, 02:16 PM
  #721
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 4,891
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickWIHockey View Post
expansion or redevelopment isn't really a possibility
Sure it is. The Bradley Center owns the all the land north of the building after buying the parking lot/MSOE building back in June and just beyond that is a ton of space owned by the city that they could buy. Tons of room for expansion.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline  
Old
02-19-2014, 03:03 PM
  #722
Tackla
Registered User
 
Tackla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 244
vCash: 500
I find it crazy people here consider Houston and Las Vegas as actual candidates for NHL teams. We want Phoenix and Florida Part III and Part IV?

Tackla is offline  
Old
02-19-2014, 03:04 PM
  #723
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 4,891
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tackla View Post
I find it crazy people here consider Houston and Las Vegas as actual candidates for NHL teams. We want Phoenix and Florida Part III and Part IV?
Assuming Les Alexander okays it, I think Houston would be a successful market.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline  
Old
02-19-2014, 05:00 PM
  #724
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickWIHockey View Post
Milwaukee lies outside the 50 miles radius of Chicago, its 90 miles away. The wild are shown around here, so if anything a Milwaukee team would have pay the Wild for loss of broadcasting territory, not Chicago.
Ahhh, no! The 50 miles radii are not to overlap.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-19-2014, 05:02 PM
  #725
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralsFan24 View Post
Assuming Les Alexander okays it, I think Houston would be a successful market.
Alexander apparently hasn't shown any interest at all in recent years.

MoreOrr 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 01:08 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.