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
02-09-2012, 01:20 PM
  #951
beenhereandthere
Registered User
 
beenhereandthere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Evergray State
Posts: 644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
No, I'm saying that I'm not confident that there are potential owners who are keen to bring a relocated Coyotes team to Seattle for next Season and would have to live with using the Tacoma Dome or The Key starting out that early. So I'm not second guessing the desire to bring the NHL there, but to do it and have the team playing there 7 months from now.

As for wanting both major league tenants, I would assume that relates to a new arena, not at all to having both the NBA and NHL playing there in 2012-13 in an old arena.
While the league already has a potential buyer in QC, well, the Nationals moved to DC for their first year still under control of MLB, so while it would be ideal to have an owner, like McCaw, before the move, I don't think the league would make that a must do, before the move, if there are serious discussions. The finalization of a permanent arena can come 1st, then the ownership question can come later.

beenhereandthere is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 01:20 PM
  #952
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
No, I'm saying that I'm not confident that there are potential owners who are keen to bring a relocated Coyotes team to Seattle for next Season and would have to live with using the Tacoma Dome or The Key starting out that early. So I'm not second guessing the desire to bring the NHL there, but to do it and have the team playing there 7 months from now.

As for wanting both major league tenants, I would assume that relates to a new arena, not at all to having both the NBA and NHL playing there in 2012-13 in an old arena.
I think as long as the league is okay with it i see no issue with them playing in an old arena. Would the owner still lose money if they stayed in phx for 2 years than to play in an old arena for 2 years?

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 01:26 PM
  #953
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Which, in your opinion, would require the Coyotes staying another year (or more?) in Phoenix? And, that, to you, would be why the NHL would love it (???) if Glendale offered another $25M?
Again no, not necessarily. But that was my question. If these potential owners aren't keen on immediately taking the Coyotes and playing immediately out of one of those old arenas, but tell the League that for 2013-14 they'll be ready, Will the League wait?

That's an extremely speculative question though. I'd imagine that if those potential owners truly want a relocated Coyotes franchise, and they're willing to play out of the Tacoma Dome or The Key for a period of time, and if they believe that a new arena will get built within a reasonable timespan, that they won't be dillying around with the League about whether they take the Coyotes for next Season or the following. They'll just say, we'll take them now.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 01:33 PM
  #954
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
I think as long as the league is okay with it i see no issue with them playing in an old arena. Would the owner still lose money if they stayed in phx for 2 years than to play in an old arena for 2 years?
Not sure I'm interpreting you correctly, but yes, that's another possibility... New owners who want the team in Seattle but play for a Season more at least in Phoenix/Glendale. However, that would truly be the ***** for Coyotes fans. It's bad enough for them knowing that any day they could hear that their team is going to be relocated, but to have that relocation notice but the new owner decides to use their city for one more Season... ... It would for sure be a disaster and the owner would likely be better off just playing in one of the old Seattle area arenas.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 01:42 PM
  #955
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Not sure I'm interpreting you correctly, but yes, that's another possibility... New owners who want the team in Seattle but play for a Season more at least in Phoenix/Glendale. However, that would truly be the ***** for Coyotes fans. It's bad enough for them knowing that any day they could hear that their team is going to be relocated, but to have that relocation notice but the new owner decides to use their city for one more Season... ... It would for sure be a disaster and the owner would likely be better off just playing in one of the old Seattle area arenas.
Yes they would in that case be better off play in an old seattle arena. But if NHL doesn't accept the Key or Tacoma Dome, would the league still sell the team to them?

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 01:50 PM
  #956
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Yes they would in that case be better off play in an old seattle arena. But if NHL doesn't accept the Key or Tacoma Dome, would the league still sell the team to them?
That's the question we're all waiting here to know the answer to!

That, and my question, I think, about whether these potential owners also want a team if they don't have a promise of a new arena already in hand.

I think the League will let a team play out of one of those old arenas, if the owners want to do that. The more important issue is, will the League want that promise of a new arena coming before it agrees for those owners to have the team?

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 01:53 PM
  #957
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
That's the question we're all waiting here to know the answer to!

That and my question, I think, about whether these potential owners also want a team if they don't have a promise of a new arena already in hand.

I think the League will let a team play out of one of those old arenas, if the owners want to do that. The more important issue is, will the League want that promise of a new arena coming before it agrees for those owners to have the team?
Well here's a question is getting the arena plan done and finalized with funded secured depend on them securing a NBA or NHL team or is it that they won't put shovel to ground until the teams are secured? In another way to put it will the arena plan and funding still be there regardless if they are able to secure a team or not?

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 02:02 PM
  #958
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Well here's a question is getting the arena plan done and finalized with funded secured depend on them securing a NBA or NHL team or is it that they won't put shovel to ground until the teams are secured? In another way to put it will the arena plan and funding still be there regardless if they are able to secure a team or not?
So, you see it as the chicken or the egg situation. Hell, I don't live in Seattle and I don't know what would be the specific reasoning behind whatever decisions will be made... But I would think that the city would see the benefit in having the new arena regardless, and second, that it would seem a virtually sure thing that if the arena is built that major league franchises will come.

Now, if you're talking an arena that's hugely privately financed, then yes... probably those financing such an arena will want guarantees of major league franchises before they put shovels to ground. But then again, there is evidence elsewhere that profits can be made even without having a major league sports tenant. And those private investors could also believe that surely if they build it, the teams will come.

Add in: Let me step back a bit on that last point above... Kansas City could be an example of both things... Profits that can be made even without a major league sports tenant, but also that building it doesn't necessarily translate it into the major leagues coming there. But Seattle and Kansas City are very different places, and the big problem with KC is that there's no potential owner. In Seattle there are potential owners.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 02-09-2012 at 02:08 PM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 02:07 PM
  #959
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
So, you see it as the chicken or the egg situation. Hell, I don't live in Seattle and I don't know what would be the specific reasoning behind whatever decisions will be made... But I would think that the city would see the benefit in having the new arena regardless, and second, that it would seem a virtually sure thing that if the arena is built that major league franchises will come.

Now, if you're talking an arena that's hugely privately financed, then yes... probably those financing such an arena will want guarantees of major league franchises before they put shovels to ground. But then again, there is evidence elsewhere that profits can be made even without having a major league sports tenant. And those private investors could also believe that surely if they build it, the teams will come.

Add in: Let me step back a bit on that last point above... Kansas City could be an example of both things... Profits that can be made even without a major league sports tenant, but also that building it doesn't necessarily translate it into the major leagues coming there. But Seattle and Kansas City are very different places, and the problem with KC is that there's potential owner. In Seattle there are potential owners.
With no idea whats going on regarding the arena plan its so hard to know what they are thinking regarding getting the arena plan finalized with funding secured and securing the teams.

Perhaps it'll be a non binding contract and will become a binding contract once a team is secured.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 02:11 PM
  #960
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
Bruce Harrell Seattle City Councilman is on KJR on right now on the Softy Show talking about the arena. The host usually puts up interviews for podcasts. 950 Sports Radio KJR

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 02:20 PM
  #961
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
City Councilman:

No Public Money for Arena (Infrastructure etc city would be on the hook for)

Would be surprised/disappointed if arena did not get done.

Chris hansen smart man, would not build arena only to have it vacant for 5 years. (alluding to having agreement for teams before building built)

'Toe is in the Water, almost in'

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 02:28 PM
  #962
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
City Councilman:

No Public Money for Arena (Infrastructure etc city would be on the hook for)

Would be surprised/disappointed if arena did not get done.

Chris hansen smart man, would not build arena only to have it vacant for 5 years. (alluding to having agreement for teams before building built)

'Toe is in the Water, almost in'
I'm pleased to hear another city guy come on the record and talk about it instead of it being Mcginn. Bruce wouldn't be saying he would be surprised/disappointed if arena did not get done if there was a slim chance of it getting done. Yea infrastructure wise yea there will be public money used.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 02:39 PM
  #963
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
The questions I have here, MNNumbers, are: Are there truly potential owners who would really want to bring a relocated Coyotes to Seattle for the 2012-13 Season, assuming they could come up with a means to have the team play out of one of those arenas (The Key or the Tacoma Dome)? And if those potential owners aren't really ready to make that move for 2012-13 but tell the League that for 2013-14 it's a definite go... Will the League be willing to wait until then?
An off the wall thought that came to me in the XLIII thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Seeing Greg Jamison's name again pinged something in my memory - given Chris Hansen/Seattle's current arena plans but not necessarily an owner and the assumption that Jamison's investment group was not Phx locals.

http://sharks.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=46543

Quote:
A native of the Pacific Northwest, Jamison earned a bachelor’s degree in education from Northwest Nazarene (Idaho) College and a master’s degree in administration from Colorado State University.

kdb209 is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 02:47 PM
  #964
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
City Councilman:

No Public Money for Arena (Infrastructure etc city would be on the hook for)

Would be surprised/disappointed if arena did not get done.

Chris hansen smart man, would not build arena only to have it vacant for 5 years. (alluding to having agreement for teams before building built)

'Toe is in the Water, almost in'
Ok, I might as well come off sounding stupid... Let me ask for clarification here.

So, the city won't put public funding into a new arena, but it will give the go ahead for a new arena to be built, and it is believed that it will be done but with private financing. Am I anywhere near to understanding this correctly?

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 02:51 PM
  #965
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Ok, I might as well come of sounding stupid... Let me ask for clarification here.

So, the city won't put public funding into a new arena, but it will give the go ahead for a new arena to be built, and it is believed that it will be done but with private financing. Am I anywhere near to understanding this correctly?
Yes that's correct. No public money directly involved with the arena with the exception of infrastructure. The City is on the hook for that. Yes it'll be built with private money. They wouldn't be this far in talks if if its so uncertain that private money will be involved. It would be stupid for the city and it'll make them look bad if they said no for something that would be funded privately.

To add: The fact is someone else from city of seattle not named mcginn would come on record and talk about the arena and say would be surprised and disappointed if this doesn't get done is huge.


Last edited by gstommylee: 02-09-2012 at 02:56 PM.
gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 02:54 PM
  #966
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
It would be stupid for the city and it'll make them look bad if they said no for something that would be funded privately.
Unless you're the Town of Hempstead.

kdb209 is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 02:56 PM
  #967
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Yes that's correct. No public money directly involved with the arena with the exception of infrastructure. The City is on the hook for that. Yes it'll be built with private money. They wouldn't be this far in talks if if its so uncertain that private money will be involved. It would be stupid for the city and it'll make them look bad if they said no for something that would be funded privately.
That's good, but one last question. So there are in fact private investors who want to build this arena even without city funding (with the exception of infrastructure)?

If that's a Yes, then I'm not seeing a problem here!

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 03:04 PM
  #968
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
That's good, but one last question. So there are in fact private investors who want to build this arena even without city funding (with the exception of infrastructure)?

If that's a Yes, then I'm not seeing a problem here!
Yes. There are other possibilities that the city could do to help with funding but it won't be coming from any general city funds or through new taxes. Example admissions tax on the tickets.

But until we hear 5 Yes from City council there is still possibilities of it not happening.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 05:47 PM
  #969
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Another Seattle councilmember Nick Licata was just on KJR but didn't get much on his opinion if this is going to happen or not. Not a good interview. Licata did say there are concern with a few other council members regarding this the new arena in seattle. We just don't know where the whole 9 member council will be on the new arena until the arena and funding proposal is shown to City Council.

Too bad i was hoping to here what Licata thought.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 05:48 PM
  #970
knorthern knight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,178
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Well here's a question is getting the arena plan done and finalized with funded secured depend on them securing a NBA or NHL team or is it that they won't put shovel to ground until the teams are secured? In another way to put it will the arena plan and funding still be there regardless if they are able to secure a team or not?
For the umpteenth time ... the NHL should award a Seattle franchise conditional on a new arena being at least committed+funded. That gives Hansen etal a tenent when the building opens, and protects the NHL against another fiasco if the arena falls through. It also gives the NHL flexibility...
  • even after the Coyotes, at least one of Columbus/NewJersey/Islanders will probably move by the 2015-2016 season, and Seattle would get it
  • if, by some unbelievable fortune, all 30 teams are healthy, then the NHL could award an expansion franchise

knorthern knight is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 05:56 PM
  #971
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
Podcast of City Councilman Bruce Harrell interview is up:

http://www.sportsradiokjr.com/pages/softy_page.html

It is listed under Super Duper Thursday, links to the interviews and Bruce Harrell

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 05:59 PM
  #972
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
Yes. There are other possibilities that the city could do to help with funding but it won't be coming from any general city funds or through new taxes. Example admissions tax on the tickets.

But until we hear 5 Yes from City council there is still possibilities of it not happening.

Yup, I've heard about a tax on the athletes as well? Other cities apparently do this. I could even see use taxes as well (Like you mention, tax on seats), or things like buying special lottery tickets with proceeds going to the arena fund things like that.

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 06:01 PM
  #973
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
Interesting, the current host is going to have a 'get to know' the Phoenix Coyotes segment tomorrow. Not really much to talk about in regards to sports now that football is over.

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 06:02 PM
  #974
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
Yup, I've heard about a tax on the athletes as well? Other cities apparently do this. I could even see use taxes as well (Like you mention, tax on seats), or things like buying special lottery tickets with proceeds going to the arena fund things like that.
Yea the athletes tax is being dealt with at the state level. But nothing more has been said regarding that yet.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-09-2012, 09:40 PM
  #975
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post

Now, if you're talking an arena that's hugely privately financed, then yes... probably those financing such an arena will want guarantees of major league franchises before they put shovels to ground.
According to some Seattle city council members, this is indeed the case.

Nuclear SUV 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 08:33 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.