The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
While I beleive Seattle could support a team, I am not sold that they can support 4 major league franchises (well 5 if you count the Sounders) - I am counting NBA because I feel the NBA will be back there sooner rather than later, unless they are dumber than I think.
While there are quite a few corporate dollars around, and the fan base there is passionate, I am not quite sold that there is enough money to go around. I live in Vancouver and would love to have the rivalry, and be able to go down for games (road trip!), if they can get the money together, and show they have enough corporate support to last long term, I don't see why they shouldn't get a team, but I would have to be convinced the support is there first.
While I beleive Seattle could support a team, I am not sold that they can support 4 major league franchises (well 5 if you count the Sounders) - I am counting NBA because I feel the NBA will be back there sooner rather than later, unless they are dumber than I think.
While there are quite a few corporate dollars around, and the fan base there is passionate, I am not quite sold that there is enough money to go around.
There is plenty of people and money to support all of the sports franchises. There is over 10,000,000 people between Salem and Squamish. The Seahawks, Huskies, and to a lesser extent the Mariners are regional teams drawing a significant share of fans from outside of the core metro area. The Pacific Northwest is one of the most under-served sports regions around.
While I beleive Seattle could support a team, I am not sold that they can support 4 major league franchises (well 5 if you count the Sounders) - I am counting NBA because I feel the NBA will be back there sooner rather than later, unless they are dumber than I think.
While there are quite a few corporate dollars around, and the fan base there is passionate, I am not quite sold that there is enough money to go around. I live in Vancouver and would love to have the rivalry, and be able to go down for games (road trip!), if they can get the money together, and show they have enough corporate support to last long term, I don't see why they shouldn't get a team, but I would have to be convinced the support is there first.
That is a very valid question. Of the 11 markets that currently have all 4 major sports teams, Seattle has more fortune 500 companies than 2 of them (Denver and Miami). So while they would be near the bottom of that list they would not be at the bottom. In terms of raw numbers there is enough Corp support here to support all 4.
You can't compare Seattle with Phoenix, especially when it comes to sports.
What I wrote:
Quote:
If we're going to bringing up the Canadian dollar theoretically dropping over 40 cents against the American one in the next 10 years, then we might as well discuss how Seattle is the next Phoenix. Basketball-first town, little recent pro hockey history, big losses would be required in an ill-suited venue, etc.
Its a good thing for both the league and residents of both cities that neither scenario is looking particularly likely.
Note the bold text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14
The Leafs ( and to a lesser extent the Sabres) are a major reason why there isn't a Southern Ontario team and those objections will always exist.
Like it or not, Seattle gets an arena suitable for the NHL and it is very likely a team ends up here. The league has had its eyes on this market for a very long time. It can be argued a team in QC or a team in Southern Ont. would be dividing up revenues that for the most part already exist.
The difference between Seattle and a lot of other non-NHL US markets is there is already a built in hockey culture here, whether our Canadian friends want to believe that or not, and it can easily be argued the pie would grow here instead of just shifting dollars around.
What you wrote:
Quote:
The NHL obviously feels otherwise or they would have placed a team in Southern Ontario when Ballsile was trying to get a team (based on what has happened since, good thing he didn't). They also wouldn't be expressing interest in Seattle if that was "logic".
I pointed out your misunderstanding of the situation:
Quote:
The NHL hated Balsillie. Actually, hated may be an understatement.
The majority of NHL analysts, posters here, and evidently, the NHL itself, appear to support the notion that Southern Ontario is the best market available for an NHL franchise. Basillie didn't get the team not because the league wasn't high on the market, but because it was Jim Balsillie who was trying to do it.
If you want to debate the merits of Seattle vs. Southern Ontario further, you are welcome to PM me, or alternatively read up on the numerous threads discussing the topic. As you stated before, this thread is hardly the place.
NFL (Seahawks) - sellouts
NBA (Trail Blazers) - #2 in attendance
NHL (Canucks) - sellouts
MLS (Sounders, Whitecaps, Timbers) - sellouts & #1 in attendance, #3 in attendance, and sellouts
MLB (Mariners) - the only blemish, but the Mariners were leading MLB in attendance the last time they were competitive
NFL (Seahawks) - sellouts
NBA (Trail Blazers) - #2 in attendance
NHL (Canucks) - sellouts
MLS (Sounders, Whitecaps, Timbers) - sellouts & #1 in attendance, #3 in attendance, and sellouts
MLB (Mariners) - the only blemish, but the Mariners were leading MLB in attendance the last time they were competitive
23rd in football attendance in 2010 (66,264), can't find 2011 rankings for some reason. That was a 7-6 team (6-6 with their bowl game) and they were awful the previous several years (5-7, 0-12, 4-9, 5-7, 2-9, 1-10, 6-6, 7-6).
They were 51st in basketball attendance in 2010 (9,383) but the arena only seats 10,000 so 94% capacity is pretty good.
Except it doesn't. Washington is one of the best supported colleges in the west, despite the fact that the football program has been circling the drain for the past decade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAROONSRoad
Read the post I was responding to. You don't think that the number of hockey rinks in a location is indicative of the "hockey culture" that exists there? I do.
The post you responded to simply said that Seattle had a hockey culture, not the best. Obviously Washington isn't going to have nearly as many rinks as Quebec does. A place can have a hockey culture without having a rink on the corner of every block.
__________________
“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
This might not be the thread to ask (goes on the QC board instead), but with the NHLPA being more involved in the business process (see realignment), how would the PA feel about moving a team to QC where potentially <10% speak English? This would be a non-issue for francophone players, but for anglophones and European players would it be an issue, enough that the league may want to keep other options open? Would that political issue be sensitive that the NHL would choose Seattle over Quebec City?
I'm trying to ask this question as respectfully as possible and not troll.
That is a very valid question. Of the 11 markets that currently have all 4 major sports teams, Seattle has more fortune 500 companies than 2 of them (Denver and Miami). So while they would be near the bottom of that list they would not be at the bottom. In terms of raw numbers there is enough Corp support here to support all 4.
Yeah I wasn't sure, but thanks for the info, can always use more
Its much easier to get a NBA team first then get NHL team second given at there are more choices with the NBA rather than the NHL.
Sure, in the sense that there are really only two choices right now in the NBA (Hornets and Grizzlies) versus one in the NHL (Coyotes), but it's still a long shot either way, actually.
Sure, in the sense that there are really only two choices right now in the NBA (Hornets and Grizzlies) versus one in the NHL (Coyotes), but it's still a long shot either way, actually.
Its much easier to get a NBA team first then get NHL team second given at there are more choices with the NBA rather than the NHL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun
Sure, in the sense that there are really only two choices right now in the NBA (Hornets and Grizzlies) versus one in the NHL (Coyotes), but it's still a long shot either way, actually.
Actually...
The only truly portable franchise in the NBA or NHL is the Phoenix Coyotes, who play on a year-to-year lease in the Jobing.com Arena. The NBA's Hornets passed their attendance point last year, which kicked in their lock on the lease for the next few years, and the Grizzlies would be on the hook due to a near-ironclad lease for large payments for the next few years if they moved out of Fedex Forum.
