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.

Metro Seattle: NHL, NBA and Arena - Part III (post #217 - arena announcement 2/16)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-16-2012, 11:36 AM
  #351
beenhereandthere
Registered User
 
beenhereandthere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Evergray State
Posts: 637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northender View Post
Key statement: "This isn't about Chris Hansen," he said. "This is about an NBA team and a new arena."
Some people on here are trying to make way too much of that. If there is a new arena in a market with many corporations and a market that would almost be (if you think about it) a 2nd NHL option for fans in Greater Vancouver, you can be rest assured the NHL will take the 1st step, if they have to, to come to the Seattle area (even though Don Levin has expressed at least lukewarm interest to owning a team and is probably just waiting for the deal to be official before he goes all in). Putting aside the QC market, even if the passion there may be better, the NHL will take a 4 million people American market with hockey dating back to 1916 (this isn't Atlanta or Phoenix pre NHL people), over a small Canadian one, especially two years in a row.

beenhereandthere is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 11:36 AM
  #352
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northender View Post
Not to mention, Quebec has an NHL ready temporary rink ready for Sept.
I don't think the NHL will make a decision on where to relocate the franchise based on the temporary arena. If that is a consideration it will be way down the list after the primary building, markets size, corp support, ownership, etc.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 11:39 AM
  #353
Rocko604
Registered User
 
Rocko604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
You assume it would remain city owned ... if it was to be NBA only, the discussion would be around Key Arena and it's renovation, just like it was in 2008 when Balmer was willing to put up $150MM of his own money to renovate that "city owned" building. No one knows what the ownership model of the building or how revenues would have been divided up if that deal had gone forward.

Either way - the larger point is there hasn't been one report out there that says this proposed arena in SODO would be NBA only. Every report has talked about it being built for the NBA and NHL.
Indeed I am. However Ballmer said last year he'd have no desire to own an NBA team out of Key Arena. Of course I'm assuming that's if the city still owned the building. I have no clue how much the city would want for it.

Rocko604 is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 11:40 AM
  #354
snovalleyhockeyfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Bend, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 497
vCash: 500
Brock and Salk on 710 ESPN talking about arena now, www.mynorthwest.com.

They are scheduled to interview the Seattle Times reporter who interviewed Hansen last night shortly.

snovalleyhockeyfan is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 11:42 AM
  #355
JordanStaal#1Fan
Registered User
 
JordanStaal#1Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Asbestos, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,754
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenhereandthere View Post
Some people on here are trying to make way too much of that. If there is a new arena in a market with many corporations and a market that would almost be (if you think about it) a 2nd NHL option for fans in Greater Vancouver, you can be rest assured the NHL will take the 1st step, if they have to, to come to the Seattle area (even though Don Levin has expressed at least lukewarm interest to owning a team and is probably just waiting for the deal to be official before he goes all in). Putting aside the QC market, even if the passion there may be better, the NHL will take a 4 million people American market with hockey dating back to 1916 (this isn't Atlanta or Phoenix pre NHL people), over a small Canadian one, especially two years in a row.
This is exactly why I'm getting more and more pessimistic about QC. It makes just too much sense to go to Seattle


Last edited by JordanStaal#1Fan: 02-16-2012 at 12:22 PM.
JordanStaal#1Fan is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 11:42 AM
  #356
Rocko604
Registered User
 
Rocko604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northender View Post
Not to mention, Quebec has an NHL ready temporary rink ready for Sept.
Tacoma Dome.

Rocko604 is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 11:46 AM
  #357
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanStaal#1Fan View Post
This is exactly way I'm getting more and more pessimistic about QC. It makes just too much sense to go to Seattle
Hopefully it's not an either or - and both cities have teams by 2015.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 11:46 AM
  #358
Northender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 230
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetsIce View Post
Seattle should have been in the NHL long time ago. Seattle should have been a market for the NHL that could resemble Minneapolis or Detroit. Huge populated area that loves hockey.

No doubt Seattle Metropolitans could get 18,000 plus every single night and have a huge impact to the entire Washington area.
Should have? Why? Nostalgia? Logic? Rival to the Canucks? Maybe. But in the 40+ years of expansion since 67, there has never been an owner willing to step forward and put a couple hundred million of his own money on the line. Even when Seattle boasted more multi-millionaires and billionaires than any other US city, no one was interested. There must have been a few tire kickers over the years, but the evidence would suggest someone did the math, and the NHL as it has been run (particulaly by Bettmann) would not fly in Seattle.

Northender is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 11:49 AM
  #359
beenhereandthere
Registered User
 
beenhereandthere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Evergray State
Posts: 637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northender View Post
Should have? Why? Nostalgia? Logic? Rival to the Canucks? Maybe. But in the 40+ years of expansion since 67, there has never been an owner willing to step forward and put a couple hundred million of his own money on the line. Even when Seattle boasted more multi-millionaires and billionaires than any other US city, no one was interested. There must have been a few tire kickers over the years, but the evidence would suggest someone did the math, and the NHL as it has been run (particulaly by Bettmann) would not fly in Seattle.
Really, go back to the start of this thread and hopefully repost.
If it wasn't for Barry Ackerely, there would have been an NHL team here in the last round of expansion.

beenhereandthere is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 11:52 AM
  #360
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northender View Post
Should have? Why? Nostalgia? Logic? Rival to the Canucks? Maybe. But in the 40+ years of expansion since 67, there has never been an owner willing to step forward and put a couple hundred million of his own money on the line. Even when Seattle boasted more multi-millionaires and billionaires than any other US city, no one was interested. There must have been a few tire kickers over the years, but the evidence would suggest someone did the math, and the NHL as it has been run (particulaly by Bettmann) would not fly in Seattle.
That is completely not true - Seattle would have been a major favorite in the last round of expansion in 92-93 if Barry Ackerley hadn't harpooned the process.

http://www.seattlehockey.net/Seattle...d_the_NHL.html

While the $50 million expansion fee was much steeper than faced by Abbey 15 years earlier, the group had the money as well as additional funds to cover the necessary operating expenses for the first five seasons.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 11:53 AM
  #361
WJG
Running and Rioting
 
WJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: Ireland
Posts: 12,743
vCash: 500
While I'm happy for Seattle and hope they get an NHL team in the near future (Vancouver vs. Seattle would be awesome), I just don't see them getting a team this year, especially since they're up against Quebec City.

WJG is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 11:54 AM
  #362
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenhereandthere View Post
Really, go back to the start of this thread and hopefully repost.
If it wasn't for Barry Ackerely, there would have been an NHL team here in the last round of expansion.
Opinions are great aren't they? At least be somewhat informed if you are going to throw stuff out there. Pretty easy in this day and age to do a little research.

You are completely right (and I linked it) - Ackerley stepped in and killed the early 90's bid that stood an extremely good chance of happening.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 12:00 PM
  #363
JetsIce*
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 69
vCash: 500
Seattle NHL will be bigger than the Mariners.

Seahawks are a seasonal team. Football isn't biggest sport in the northwest but the Seahawks are one of the most popular and important franchises in the northwest.

Baseball, soccer, outdoor sports are huge in that area.

The NHL franchise will be just as big as the Seahawks were before the Hawks got up in the ranks due to new stadium. Now i'm not saying the hawks weren't popular they were very popular and extremely important to the city of seattle and very much loved but rememmber the value of sports teams back in the '70's, '80s, and '90s. Much different now.
Pro sports franchises are like college teams now with fan interest, passion,etc.

The NFL will always big big. Mariners,etc.

But the NBA and NHL in Seattle will just be as big.

Guarenteed

JetsIce* is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 12:04 PM
  #364
Northender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 230
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
Opinions are great aren't they? At least be somewhat informed if you are going to throw stuff out there. Pretty easy in this day and age to do a little research.

You are completely right (and I linked it) - Ackerley stepped in and killed the early 90's bid that stood an extremely good chance of happening.
Sorry guys...I had actually edited my post but somehow it didn't get on the board. After I wrote since '67...I realized I had a brain fart...but the point is still valid. In the last 20 years, through the heart of the tech bubble, no potential owner from Seattle has shown any interest in the NHL.

Northender is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 12:06 PM
  #365
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northender View Post
Sorry guys...I had actually edited my post but somehow it didn't get on the board. After I wrote since '67...I realized I had a brain fart...but the point is still valid. In the last 20 years, through the heart of the tech bubble, no potential owner from Seattle has shown any interest in the NHL.
There also was no NHL-ready arena.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 12:07 PM
  #366
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northender View Post
Sorry guys...I had actually edited my post but somehow it didn't get on the board. After I wrote since '67...I realized I had a brain fart...but the point is still valid. In the last 20 years, through the heart of the tech bubble, no potential owner from Seattle has shown any interest in the NHL.
The issue has been an arena - that appears to be almost solved.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 12:19 PM
  #367
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
Quebec City is in a much better position for hosting a team tomorrow with Le Colisee + an ownership group ready to go today. So expect the Coyotes to move to Quebec City.

However, I expect the NHL to embark on expansion after the new CBA is finalized. The NHL tipped their hand with a realignment proposal ideally suited for a 32 team league, and they have one market (2nd team in Toronto) that they want to have full control over placing so that they get the most possible money for it. So for this to succeed, they require a 3rd market, which is Seattle. So to me, the NHL will be coming to Seattle, but just give it 3 years.

Egil is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 12:28 PM
  #368
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil View Post
Quebec City is in a much better position for hosting a team tomorrow with Le Colisee + an ownership group ready to go today. So expect the Coyotes to move to Quebec City.

However, I expect the NHL to embark on expansion after the new CBA is finalized. The NHL tipped their hand with a realignment proposal ideally suited for a 32 team league, and they have one market (2nd team in Toronto) that they want to have full control over placing so that they get the most possible money for it. So for this to succeed, they require a 3rd market, which is Seattle. So to me, the NHL will be coming to Seattle, but just give it 3 years.
With do of all respect to QC, wouldn't it be better for the league to relocate coyotes to Seattle then give QC and 2nd Toronto expansion teams given that the league wouldn't get as much of a expansion fee as they would with QC or 2nd Toronto team would?

I'm not sure the 2nd Toronto team would actually happen especially with Maple leafs and sabres and anyone else objecting to it and who knows how ugly that battle will be.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 12:31 PM
  #369
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil View Post
Quebec City is in a much better position for hosting a team tomorrow with Le Colisee + an ownership group ready to go today. So expect the Coyotes to move to Quebec City.

However, I expect the NHL to embark on expansion after the new CBA is finalized. The NHL tipped their hand with a realignment proposal ideally suited for a 32 team league, and they have one market (2nd team in Toronto) that they want to have full control over placing so that they get the most possible money for it. So for this to succeed, they require a 3rd market, which is Seattle. So to me, the NHL will be coming to Seattle, but just give it 3 years.
This is entirely plausible but like I posted earlier, the temp arena is way down the list of reasons why an NHL would relocate to either Seattle or QC.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 12:34 PM
  #370
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
With do of all respect to QC, wouldn't it be better for the league to relocate coyotes to Seattle then give QC and 2nd Toronto expansion teams given that the league wouldn't get as much of a expansion fee as they would with QC or 2nd Toronto team would?
#1 Key Arena is terrible for NHL hockey. 9000 unobstructed seats + basically no lower bowl seats in one end is a disaster. Le Colisee seats 15k without these problems.

#2 Ownership. QC has an ownership group ready to write a cheque today, Seattle does not. Even if Seattle got an owner ready to go, they will need to negotiate the lease arrangement for the arena, which is critically important to the success of the franchise and not a trivial matter.

#3 I think that QC and Seattle would get essentially the same expansion fee (similar to what Winnipeg paid), and since Phoenix is owned by the NHL already, it is essentially an expansion team anyways.

Egil is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 12:35 PM
  #371
Hamilton Tigers
Registered User
 
Hamilton Tigers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
Hopefully it's not an either or - and both cities have teams by 2015.
That's my thinking too.

The expansion route to Seattle makes more sense, so as to avoid losses in an inapprpropriate temporary arena.

But, that's just my Hamilton bias hoping that expansion would include a second team, Hamilton/Toronto2, making the NHL a blanaced 32 team league.


Last edited by Hamilton Tigers: 02-16-2012 at 12:46 PM.
Hamilton Tigers is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 12:37 PM
  #372
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WJG View Post
While I certainly feel that Seattle is an NHL market, I don't know if they can be both an NBA and NHL market (along with NFL and MLB).
Hockey is played in winter. As many of you know, Seattle has splendid, sunny weather all winter long! People try to be outside as much as humanly possible from Oct.-Apr. in Seattle.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but two winter sports would be a slam dunk success in Seattle. The winters here are awful and people are indoors most of the time. It is the summer sports that are more risky up here.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 12:38 PM
  #373
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil View Post
#1 Key Arena is terrible for NHL hockey. 9000 unobstructed seats + basically no lower bowl seats in one end is a disaster. Le Colisee seats 15k without these problems.

#2 Ownership. QC has an ownership group ready to write a cheque today, Seattle does not. Even if Seattle got an owner ready to go, they will need to negotiate the lease arrangement for the arena, which is critically important to the success of the franchise and not a trivial matter.

#3 I think that QC and Seattle would get essentially the same expansion fee (similar to what Winnipeg paid), and since Phoenix is owned by the NHL already, it is essentially an expansion team anyways.
Don Levin (owner of the AHL Wolves) has publicly expressed interest in owning a team in Seattle. The NHL has also mentioned they have been approached by a Seattle group. Could be Levin or someone else. As is mostly the case, what does on behind the scenes is more than what is known in the press.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 12:38 PM
  #374
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
This is entirely plausible but like I posted earlier, the temp arena is way down the list of reasons why an NHL would relocate to either Seattle or QC.
I think you are correct in stating that the NHL doesn't care that much about the temp arena, but the owner of the team certainly will. I believe that QC would at least break even in Le Colisee, but a Seatle owner would lose money (and quite a bit, like $20+ mil a year) before moving to the new rink. Those losses would come almost directly out of the NHL's pocket when selling the Coyotes, and since you can basically promise them an expansion team in a year anyways, without such losses (and hence, at full price for the NHL), the path is clear.

Egil is offline  
Old
02-16-2012, 12:41 PM
  #375
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil View Post
I think you are correct in stating that the NHL doesn't care that much about the temp arena, but the owner of the team certainly will. I believe that QC would at least break even in Le Colisee, but a Seatle owner would lose money (and quite a bit, like $20+ mil a year) before moving to the new rink. Those losses would come almost directly out of the NHL's pocket when selling the Coyotes, and since you can basically promise them an expansion team in a year anyways, without such losses (and hence, at full price for the NHL), the path is clear.
That is a lot of assumptions based on no information.

maruk14 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 12:24 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.