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.

Metro Seattle: NHL, NBA and Arena - Part II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-08-2012, 05:04 PM
  #901
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Not sure if it go QC is being used to Seattle gets an arena. Remember NHL may not want the team to be playing in the Key or the Tacoma Dome.
A thought yesterday by the overnight Fox Sports Host, who was on KJR yesterday afternoon. His thought would be to make the schedule work so that for a season, the team could play its home games in Vancouver.

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
02-08-2012, 05:10 PM
  #902
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
A thought yesterday by the overnight Fox Sports Host, who was on KJR yesterday afternoon. His thought would be to make the schedule work so that for a season, the team could play its home games in Vancouver.
That could be an issue within itself. Since it requires a passport to enter canada and not all the fans here have one myself included would beable to go. Not only that its a 2 hours drive to get to Vancouver and 2 hours to get back.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-08-2012, 05:32 PM
  #903
beenhereandthere
Registered User
 
beenhereandthere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Evergray State
Posts: 644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
A thought yesterday by the overnight Fox Sports Host, who was on KJR yesterday afternoon. His thought would be to make the schedule work so that for a season, the team could play its home games in Vancouver.
If they're going to do something that far fetched, for a temp place, Portland would be a better bet.
What's do wrong with Tacoma for 2 years?
Carolina played 2 in Greensboro and they made it.

beenhereandthere is offline  
Old
02-08-2012, 05:46 PM
  #904
Big McLargehuge
Global Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Big McLargehuge's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Iceland
Posts: 55,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
A thought yesterday by the overnight Fox Sports Host, who was on KJR yesterday afternoon. His thought would be to make the schedule work so that for a season, the team could play its home games in Vancouver.
...yeah, I think it's safe to say Seattle won't be playing their home games 3 hours away in a different country.

__________________
“The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile, but that it is indifferent. If we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death, our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.” - Stanley Kubrick
http://sprites.pokecheck.org/i/054.gif
Big McLargehuge is online now  
Old
02-08-2012, 05:50 PM
  #905
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenhereandthere View Post
If they're going to do something that far fetched, for a temp place, Portland would be a better bet.
What's do wrong with Tacoma for 2 years?
Carolina played 2 in Greensboro and they made it.
Can they get the Tacoma Dome ready to host a NHL game in time for the 2012-13 season if we were to be given a team.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-08-2012, 05:53 PM
  #906
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenhereandthere View Post
If they're going to do something that far fetched, for a temp place, Portland would be a better bet.
What's do wrong with Tacoma for 2 years?
Carolina played 2 in Greensboro and they made it.
I would actually prefer Tacoma, as its down the street from me. I thought most had issues with Tacoma because it is not a NHL ready facility.

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
02-08-2012, 06:31 PM
  #907
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
I would actually prefer Tacoma, as its down the street from me. I thought most had issues with Tacoma because it is not a NHL ready facility.
I dont. Locations not as good as Key but the facilities better in terms of staging hockey.
Far from ideal, but a damn site better than the aforementioned. In fact, forget the new
building in Bellevue or wherever, gut the Dome & bring it up to NHL standards. Gotta
Love Buckminster Fuller. Classic!...

Killion is online now  
Old
02-08-2012, 06:43 PM
  #908
berklon
Registered User
 
berklon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big McLargehuge View Post
...yeah, I think it's safe to say Seattle won't be playing their home games 3 hours away in a different country.
Why? The Leafs do it 2 hours away when they play in Buffalo.

berklon is offline  
Old
02-08-2012, 07:13 PM
  #909
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 15,452
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by JawandaPuck View Post
The Maloofs (Sacremento Kings owners) using Seattle as the 'relocation' card in their bid for a new arena in Sacremento makes complete sense. Last year they did the same thing with Anaheim and the Ducks owner Henry Samueli. I'm sure Samueli is now in once-bitten-twice-shy mode. He made a great offer to the Maloofs, provided financing for their relocation fee and arena improvements through a Anaheim muni bond offering backed by his Anaheim Arena Mgmt company.

It didn't work though. The Maloofs pulled the plug on Anaheim at the last moment. What scared the Maloofs off? The public facing statement was that they wanted to give Sacremento Mayor Kevin Johnson another shot at getting the financing in order for a new Sac Arena. Could it be though that Chris Hansen stepped in at the last moment last May to make the Maloofs a better offer?

Seattle Mayor McGinn stated that its probable that Hansen already has some sort of "pathway" with an NBA team. The hot rumor is that its the Sac Kings. That points to the Maloofs and Hansen perhaps having reached advanced talks by this point. The conversations would likely had to have started last season. NBA commissioner David Stern did admit yesterday that he did indeed take a meeting with Hansen last year.

The Maloofs though are on record as saying that they will not sell the Kings. If they need to relocate, they want to remain the owners. Its quite possible, Hansen offer provides for some sort of ownership position. However, complete ownership by the Maloofs is unlikely as they don't seem to have the longterm financial wherewithal according a SacBee columnist.

Apparently, even after selling their Palms Casino property in Vegas recently, the Maloofs still owe the city of Sacramento ~$70 million and the NBA another ~$100 million. Those parties will want their money back from them at some point. Perhaps Chris Hansen is their new Mr Money Bags.

We'll find out soon enough. The NBA has imposed a deadline of March 1 for the City of Sacremento to provide a framework for financing a new arena. Sacramento says it can probably raise about half of the $387M required. It's plan is to sell its city parking business (worth $9M/year in annual revenues) to a private company to run. It's received some a couple non-binding bids from parking management companies that look like could be worth about $185M. The City Council is supposed to meet Feb 17 to review. It will have a couple weeks afterwards to decide what its going to do.

If Chicago is any indication, this could be a bad move both financially and from a PR standpoint. The City of Chicago sold their parking business apparently for half of what it was worth, yet the private parking company raised meter rates immediately. The citizens of Chicago very quite unhappy with the whole deal.

Back to Sacremento -- because the the city budget can't really afford to be without those $9M in annual parking revenues, the City has to find way to replace that revenue stream. An option under consideration is a new tax. Arena event goers will likely be paying a surcharge on their tickets to future Kings games if everything goes through.

Maybe the City should also look at taxing visiting teams and players as well -- something that the City of Seattle will likely pass soon in order to pump about $70M into Hansen developing the new arena.
Don't Forget about the bankrupt and owner-less New Orleans Hornets, JawandaPuck, after the botched CP3 trade to LA, they are also in that mix in Seattle, so that Stern doesn't do the same thing that Bettman is allegedly doing w/ Glendale

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
02-08-2012, 07:21 PM
  #910
bruceman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2
vCash: 500
I think the NHL in Seattle is long overdue,they should have had a team long ago,but better late than never.As for temp arenas go,I think using the Key or the Tacoma Dome would be OK in the short term,as others have stated teams like Calgary,Ottawa,San Jose,Carolina,Tampa Bay have all used smaller arenas or other cities as temp arenas,as long as concrete proof of a new arena is coming,I think Seattle will embrace hockey in a heartbeat,not to mention making money on merchandising of jerseys and so on.I for one hope this happens sooner than later.

bruceman is offline  
Old
02-08-2012, 07:27 PM
  #911
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JawandaPuck View Post
The Maloofs (Sacremento Kings owners) using Seattle as the 'relocation' card in their bid for a new arena in Sacremento makes complete sense. Last year they did the same thing with Anaheim and the Ducks owner Henry Samueli. I'm sure Samueli is now in once-bitten-twice-shy mode. He made a great offer to the Maloofs, provided financing for their relocation fee and arena improvements through a Anaheim muni bond offering backed by his Anaheim Arena Mgmt company.

It didn't work though. The Maloofs pulled the plug on Anaheim at the last moment. What scared the Maloofs off? The public facing statement was that they wanted to give Sacremento Mayor Kevin Johnson another shot at getting the financing in order for a new Sac Arena. Could it be though that Chris Hansen stepped in at the last moment last May to make the Maloofs a better offer?

Seattle Mayor McGinn stated that its probable that Hansen already has some sort of "pathway" with an NBA team. The hot rumor is that its the Sac Kings. That points to the Maloofs and Hansen perhaps having reached advanced talks by this point. The conversations would likely had to have started last season. NBA commissioner David Stern did admit yesterday that he did indeed take a meeting with Hansen last year.

The Maloofs though are on record as saying that they will not sell the Kings. If they need to relocate, they want to remain the owners. Its quite possible, Hansen offer provides for some sort of ownership position. However, complete ownership by the Maloofs is unlikely as they don't seem to have the longterm financial wherewithal according a SacBee columnist.

Apparently, even after selling their Palms Casino property in Vegas recently, the Maloofs still owe the city of Sacramento ~$70 million and the NBA another ~$100 million. Those parties will want their money back from them at some point. Perhaps Chris Hansen is their new Mr Money Bags.

We'll find out soon enough. The NBA has imposed a deadline of March 1 for the City of Sacremento to provide a framework for financing a new arena. Sacramento says it can probably raise about half of the $387M required. It's plan is to sell its city parking business (worth $9M/year in annual revenues) to a private company to run. It's received some a couple non-binding bids from parking management companies that look like could be worth about $185M. The City Council is supposed to meet Feb 17 to review. It will have a couple weeks afterwards to decide what its going to do.

If Chicago is any indication, this could be a bad move both financially and from a PR standpoint. The City of Chicago sold their parking business apparently for half of what it was worth, yet the private parking company raised meter rates immediately. The citizens of Chicago very quite unhappy with the whole deal.

Back to Sacremento -- because the the city budget can't really afford to be without those $9M in annual parking revenues, the City has to find way to replace that revenue stream. An option under consideration is a new tax. Arena event goers will likely be paying a surcharge on their tickets to future Kings games if everything goes through.

Maybe the City should also look at taxing visiting teams and players as well -- something that the City of Seattle will likely pass soon in order to pump about ~$60M into Hansen developing the new arena.
Actually there was/is suppose to be a bill introduced soon in the state that would do such a thing. I think i read it suppose to provide ~62m in bonds to help pay for the new arena.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-08-2012, 08:16 PM
  #912
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Actually there was/is suppose to be a bill introduced soon in the state that would do such a thing. I think i read it suppose to provide ~62m in bonds to help pay for the new arena.
I don't know how far it's progressed - but here's a story from last May. WA State was looking at a Jock Tax (ie income tax on visiting athletes):

State representatives want to form task force to bring NBA back to Seattle

kdb209 is online now  
Old
02-08-2012, 08:37 PM
  #913
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
I don't know how far it's progressed - but here's a story from last May. WA State was looking at a Jock Tax (ie income tax on visiting athletes):

State representatives want to form task force to bring NBA back to Seattle

Last i heard it was suppose to be introduced in the next couple of weeks and that was back on jan 6.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-08-2012, 10:08 PM
  #914
JawandaPuck
Moderator
Lost Art of Dynasty
 
JawandaPuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
Don't Forget about the bankrupt and owner-less New Orleans Hornets, JawandaPuck, after the botched CP3 trade to LA, they are also in that mix in Seattle, so that Stern doesn't do the same thing that Bettman is allegedly doing w/ Glendale
I mentioned New Orleans Hornets in the previous Seattle thread. But these Sacremento Kings may be lower hanging fruit for Hansen. The Hornets are locked into a lease that expires 2014. Now that doesn't mean they can't be moved by a new owner if they also get the NBA relocation committee's blessing.

It will though cost the new owner more to do so since the City of New Orleans will then undoubtedly seek damages for the team breaking the lease (just like Seattle successfully negotiated damages, when Clay Bennett broke the his Key Arena lease in order to move the Sonics to OKC).

In that same article about the CP3 trade back in Dec, Stern says, "Our sole focus was and will remain, until we sell this team, hopefully which will be in first half of 2012, how best to maintain the Hornets, make them as attractive and a competitive as we can and ensure we have a buyer who can keep them in New Orleans." So it shouldn't be to much longer until we find out what happens with them too.

__________________
Follow JawandaPuck on Twitter and Blogspot - all revenue from Google Ads is donated to the Canucks for Kids Fund (CFKF) in support of the Canucks Autism Network (CAN).
JawandaPuck is offline  
Old
02-08-2012, 10:12 PM
  #915
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JawandaPuck View Post
I mentioned New Orleans Hornets in the previous Seattle thread. But these Sacremento Kings may be lower hanging fruit for Hansen. The Hornets are locked into a lease that expires 2014. Now that doesn't mean they can't be moved by a new owner if they also get the NBA relocation committee's blessing.

It will though cost the new owner more to do so since the City of New Orleans will then undoubtedly seek damages for the team breaking the lease (just like Seattle successfully negotiated damages, when Clay Bennett broke the his Key Arena lease in order to move the Sonics to OKC).

In that same article about the CP3 trade back in Dec, Stern says, "Our sole focus was and will remain, until we sell this team, hopefully which will be in first half of 2012, how best to maintain the Hornets, make them as attractive and a competitive as we can and ensure we have a buyer who can keep them in New Orleans." So it shouldn't be to much longer until we find out what happens with them too.
I'm kinda guessing if its not the kings it'll be Hornets that end up in seattle.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-08-2012, 10:18 PM
  #916
Dowisetrepla
Registered User
 
Dowisetrepla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Washington State
Country: United States
Posts: 409
vCash: 500
They had an interview with a reporter from Sacramento yesterday, Ryan Lillis:

http://www.sportsradiokjr.com/cc-com...8767_25812.mp3

He seemed to think it was about a 90% chance the Kings would stay in Sacramento. Interestingly, all the Seattle sports talkers seem to think its at least 70% chance the Kings will come to Seattle. Someone is clearly wrong here.

Add: And here's the link to their interview today with the Mayor:

http://www.sportsradiokjr.com/cc-com...3324_10616.mp3


Last edited by Dowisetrepla: 02-08-2012 at 10:35 PM. Reason: add link to mayor's interview
Dowisetrepla is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 04:27 AM
  #917
JawandaPuck
Moderator
Lost Art of Dynasty
 
JawandaPuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dowisetrepla View Post
They had an interview with a reporter from Sacramento yesterday, Ryan Lillis:

http://www.sportsradiokjr.com/cc-com...8767_25812.mp3

He seemed to think it was about a 90% chance the Kings would stay in Sacramento. Interestingly, all the Seattle sports talkers seem to think its at least 70% chance the Kings will come to Seattle. Someone is clearly wrong here.

Add: And here's the link to their interview today with the Mayor:

http://www.sportsradiokjr.com/cc-com...3324_10616.mp3
Some excellent questions from Ian Furness for Mayor McGinn in that interview, resulting in some insightful answers including these:
Host: Are we closer today than we were 3 months ago, 6 months ago, or a year ago, not to seeing an NBA or an NHL team here, but are we closer today to seeing an arena built within the Seattle city limits?

McGinn: I think we have to say we are much closer today (to building an arena within the Seattle city limits) than we were 3 months ago, 6 months ago, or a year ago. And I say that because Chris Hansen is a serious committed investor who appears to have the financial wherewithal and the business knowledge to move forward.

Host: Do you need both the NBA & NHL to be here for that arena to work?

McGinn: That's what I've been informed from their side. That's what they are hoping to do. So I presume that's important to them.

Host: So, you are not going to do an arena if you are just going to have an NBA team here or if you're just going to have an NHL team here?

McGinn: My understanding is that they're interested in both and that's an important consideration to them.

Host: Public money -- could there ever be public money spent?

McGinn: Our view is, we have to make sure, whatever the structure of the deal is, means that we are not dipping into other accounts to pay for this; we are coming up with some new tax source to go to the public for. So we have to work to figure out how to work within those constraints.


Last edited by JawandaPuck: 02-09-2012 at 01:28 PM.
JawandaPuck is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 09:05 AM
  #918
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
Good recap, he also mentioned possible reworking of I-91

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 09:51 AM
  #919
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
Good recap, he also mentioned possible reworking of I-91
Its possible but i find it unlikely that Seattle would rework I-91. There would be a political backlash if Seattle reworked it or got rid of it in terms of votes when they are up for re-election.


Last edited by gstommylee: 02-09-2012 at 11:32 AM.
gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 10:54 AM
  #920
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,452
vCash: 500
Regardless of the the Yotes, we now know that Seattle is next inline unless Toronto gets ready. You guys did well here. No shame in losing the Yotes. The islanders will be availiable soon,

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 11:02 AM
  #921
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Regardless of the the Yotes, we now know that Seattle is next inline unless Toronto gets ready. You guys did well here. No shame in losing the Yotes. The islanders will be availiable soon,
MM,

Not sure what you are meaning here. Do you mean that Seattle is ahead of QC for the Yotes, or behind, but they have the inside track for the next one after Seattle?

To clarify again, which do you mean?
1)Yotes go to QC, Seattle is next.
2)Seattle is first choice for Yotes.
or,
3)Not sure which way Yotes fall, but even if they go to QC, Seattle likely gets the next relocation.

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
02-09-2012, 11:26 AM
  #922
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
MM,

Not sure what you are meaning here. Do you mean that Seattle is ahead of QC for the Yotes, or behind, but they have the inside track for the next one after Seattle?

To clarify again, which do you mean?
1)Yotes go to QC, Seattle is next.
2)Seattle is first choice for Yotes.
or,
3)Not sure which way Yotes fall, but even if they go to QC, Seattle likely gets the next relocation.
Number 1 MNNumbers. I just think at this point QC is too far ahead.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 11:34 AM
  #923
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Regardless of the the Yotes, we now know that Seattle is next inline unless Toronto gets ready. You guys did well here. No shame in losing the Yotes. The islanders will be availiable soon,
The BOG would most likely vote yes for Seattle than Yes for Toronto.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 11:35 AM
  #924
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Number 1 MNNumbers. I just think at this point QC is too far ahead.
I'd change that up a bit and say that Seattle might be seen as too far behind.

But I jumped on this Seattle bandwagon, that Seattle would get a relocated Coyotes, with no consideration that a plan would be in place, as early as this year, to build a new arena.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 11:42 AM
  #925
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I'd change that up a bit and say that Seattle might be seen as too far behind.

But I jumped on this Seattle bandwagon, that Seattle would get a relocated Coyotes, with no consideration that a plan would be in place, as early as this year, to build a new arena.
But the trouble with that is seattle arena plan may not happen. NHL is watching whats going on in that front but they won't give a team unless there is a plan finalized and funding secured. So its possible that they could announce seattle gets the team right when it gets finalized and announced.

gstommylee 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 10:56 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.