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 IV

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-07-2012, 12:53 PM
  #151
beenhereandthere
Registered User
 
beenhereandthere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Evergray State
Posts: 644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
So you're saying that it's not possible that an NHL franchise could go to Seattle first. It's either NBA first, or both in the same Season, but not the NHL first; that's what you believe, right?
While Hansen has said at this point, that he won't be involved in the NHL operations of a team, I'm sure he would have no qualms about an NHL franchise being secured 1st and playing 1st. That's where someone like Levin can come in.

beenhereandthere is offline  
Old
03-07-2012, 02:46 PM
  #152
Rocko604
Registered User
 
Rocko604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenhereandthere View Post
While Hansen has said at this point, that he won't be involved in the NHL operations of a team, I'm sure he would have no qualms about an NHL franchise being secured 1st and playing 1st. That's where someone like Levin can come in.
He might not have and qualms about it, but if that's the case, will the plan still be approved by the city?

Rocko604 is offline  
Old
03-07-2012, 02:53 PM
  #153
MuzikMachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 692
vCash: 500
I took a listen to interview and nothing really indicates that this is the nail in the coffin for Seattle’s NHL chances like some of the QC people would like to present. When asked about Key Arena and the NHL, Hansen gave an answer that everyone on this board knew already, Key Arena is not a good hockey arena – not a stunning revelation. The NBA is more prominent in Hansen’s mind for obvious reasons but he seems fairly open to an NHL team

There has to be a change with some of reasoning behind Seattle's "worthiness" as a hockey market. What happened in Toronto when the Air Canada Centre was built? I suspect when promoting the arena project, the Maple Leafs would be the primary focus of discussion while the Raptors would be the secondary discussion point. There’s no argument that the Leafs are more important in the hearts and minds of the Toronto fan base than the Raptors, however that does not translate into Toronto not being and NBA city. Because the Raptors getting less prominence than the Leafs, does that mean Toronto is unworthy of an NBA franchise? Does it mean that they should be relocated to a smaller market that would be more interested in the NBA (or never gotten a team in the first place in favor of a market that’s "more deserving" or "due"? Does the Raptors franchise get the "sloppy seconds"? Hypothetically, if Toronto was without the Leafs and the Raptors (due to previous relocation), would you promote the return of the NBA or NHL to get people excited about a new arena? Would Torontonians be as excited if it was only the NBA, with no chance of an NHL team?

If you are trying to promote a new arena to the masses, you promote the sport that the masses would easily get behind; in Toronto it would be the NHL while in Seattle it would be the NBA. Just because the NBA is more popular than the NHL in Seattle does not mean that there is no interest, it is unworthy of an NHL team, or that it’s a guarantee that Quebec City is getting a team first.

MuzikMachine is offline  
Old
03-07-2012, 02:56 PM
  #154
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
FWIW, Al Strachan thinks the league is waiting out Seattle to relocate the Coyotes. With the quotes from Hansen on the radio up here yesterday I think if they sell the team this year they likely go to QC but if they end up staying one more year in Phoenix Seattle becomes more likely as it gives Hansen more time to line up an NBA team for the new building.

ďI think theyíre going to move it to Seattle, the plans have been well underway long before the announcement of this building. I heard about this months ago, financiers who are trying to put together a package to move that team to Seattle, that building thatís coming around now is part of that concept. The league would be very happy to do that"

http://illegalcurve.com/2012/03/06/i...h-al-strachan/

As always - situations are fluid so if Hansen is saying now it takes an NBA team to get this up and running things may change 3 months from now when an NHL team is ready to pull the trigger on a move. I am sure they are looking at a bunch of different options. Time will tell.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
03-07-2012, 02:59 PM
  #155
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
MuzikMachine - nothing drives me crazier than to hear it said over and over that the NHL is an "afterthought". Maybe its just poor choice of words but if you listen to any sort of interview the NHL gets brought over and over again. You don't hear "well, the NHL would be ok I guess". Its always, "we need the NHL in this building to make it work".

The other one is "well, who is going to step up and own the team in Seattle", when it has been stated over and over again that Don Levin has expressed serious interest and there is also a second potential ownership group that is more behind the scenes.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
03-07-2012, 03:06 PM
  #156
beenhereandthere
Registered User
 
beenhereandthere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Evergray State
Posts: 644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuzikMachine View Post
Thereís no argument that the Leafs are more important in the hearts and minds of the Toronto fan base than the Raptors, however that does not translate into Toronto not being and NBA city. Because the Raptors getting less prominence than the Leafs, does that mean Toronto is unworthy of an NBA franchise? Does it mean that they should be relocated to a smaller market that would be more interested in the NBA (or never gotten a team in the first place in favor of a market thatís "more deserving" or "due"? Does the Raptors franchise get the "sloppy seconds"? Hypothetically, if Toronto was without the Leafs and the Raptors (due to previous relocation), would you promote the return of the NBA or NHL to get people excited about a new arena? Would Torontonians be as excited if it was only the NBA, with no chance of an NHL team?

If you are trying to promote a new arena to the masses, you promote the sport that the masses would easily get behind; in Toronto it would be the NHL while in Seattle it would be the NBA. Just because the NBA is more popular than the NHL in Seattle does not mean that there is no interest, it is unworthy of an NHL team, or that itís a guarantee that Quebec City is getting a team first.

beenhereandthere is offline  
Old
03-07-2012, 03:21 PM
  #157
Mungman
It's you not me.
 
Mungman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Outside the Asylum
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,921
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuzikMachine View Post
I took a listen to interview and nothing really indicates that this is the nail in the coffin for Seattle’s NHL chances like some of the QC people would like to present. When asked about Key Arena and the NHL, Hansen gave an answer that everyone on this board knew already, Key Arena is not a good hockey arena – not a stunning revelation. The NBA is more prominent in Hansen’s mind for obvious reasons but he seems fairly open to an NHL team

There has to be a change with some of reasoning behind Seattle's "worthiness" as a hockey market. What happened in Toronto when the Air Canada Centre was built? I suspect when promoting the arena project, the Maple Leafs would be the primary focus of discussion while the Raptors would be the secondary discussion point. There’s no argument that the Leafs are more important in the hearts and minds of the Toronto fan base than the Raptors, however that does not translate into Toronto not being and NBA city. Because the Raptors getting less prominence than the Leafs, does that mean Toronto is unworthy of an NBA franchise? Does it mean that they should be relocated to a smaller market that would be more interested in the NBA (or never gotten a team in the first place in favor of a market that’s "more deserving" or "due"? Does the Raptors franchise get the "sloppy seconds"? Hypothetically, if Toronto was without the Leafs and the Raptors (due to previous relocation), would you promote the return of the NBA or NHL to get people excited about a new arena? Would Torontonians be as excited if it was only the NBA, with no chance of an NHL team?

If you are trying to promote a new arena to the masses, you promote the sport that the masses would easily get behind; in Toronto it would be the NHL while in Seattle it would be the NBA. Just because the NBA is more popular than the NHL in Seattle does not mean that there is no interest, it is unworthy of an NHL team, or that it’s a guarantee that Quebec City is getting a team first.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Leafs the proverbial "sloppy seconds" in the ACC deal? Wasn't ACC envisioned as a B-Ball facility for the Raptors and the Leafs got involved after MLSE got their mitts on the Raptors?

So, I guess you could argue that arenas don't happen without the NBA?

EDIT: Here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Centre

Quote:
The Air Canada Centre was started by the Toronto Raptors under its initial ownership group headed by Canadian businessman John Bitove. The groundbreaking was performed in March 1997.

While construction was in progress, the Raptors and their partially completed arena were purchased by MLSE. Prior to this development, the Maple Leafs had been contemplating building their own arena to replace the aging Maple Leaf Gardens. MLSE subsequently ordered major modifications to the original design, which was basketball-specific, such that the arena become more suitable for hockey.


Last edited by Mungman: 03-07-2012 at 03:27 PM.
Mungman is offline  
Old
03-07-2012, 03:26 PM
  #158
Awesome Sauce
Registered User
 
Awesome Sauce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mungman View Post
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Leafs the proverbial "sloppy seconds" in the ACC deal? Wasn't ACC envisioned as a B-Ball facility for the Raptors and the Leafs got involved after MLSE got their mitts on the Raptors?

So, I guess you could argue that arenas don't happen without the NBA?
Yeah, that's what i have heard too

Awesome Sauce is offline  
Old
03-07-2012, 03:28 PM
  #159
MuzikMachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patofqc View Post
And add that today Bob McCown who as intimate connection with Rogers tells today that he hears that the Coyotes to Quebec City is ''very close to a done deal'' if the Coyotes move this year.
Bob McCown has been trumpetting Quebec City ever since a February 7, 2012 interview with Marcel Aubut (unfortunatly to total interview is no longer available). The asked questions about the Quebec arena process and Mr. Aubut indicated everything was good to go. The conclusion was jumped that they will get the Coyotes (considered a breaking story) and they ran with it.

I'm sorry, a partial interview is available on the Fan 590, however it's old enough that the full one is no longer available; other wise I would have posted it .

MuzikMachine is offline  
Old
03-07-2012, 04:10 PM
  #160
knorthern knight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,156
vCash: 50
Sacramento city council votes for new arena. Are there any other NBA teams available? What does this do to Hansen's plans?

knorthern knight is offline  
Old
03-07-2012, 05:50 PM
  #161
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 498
vCash: 500
The Hornets have always been the most vulnerable. Just watch one of their games on TV to see the empty seats and mythical attendance figures.

The NBA owns the Hornets, the Hornets are heavily subsidized yet are still barely treading water, and are in the NBA's smallest and poorest market. Moving the Hornets can fix three recent wrongs: moving the Hornets from Charlotte, moving the Sonics, and moving a franchise to the small/poor New Orleans market. The franchise can go to Seattle and reclaim the Sonics name and history while the Hornets name and history can be returned to Charlotte. It also makes geographic sense. OKC and SEA swap divisions putting SEA in the NW division and OKC in the SC with Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, and Memphis.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
03-07-2012, 06:55 PM
  #162
Evil Doctor
Damn you Taylor Reed
 
Evil Doctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cambridge, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,184
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mungman View Post
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Leafs the proverbial "sloppy seconds" in the ACC deal? Wasn't ACC envisioned as a B-Ball facility for the Raptors and the Leafs got involved after MLSE got their mitts on the Raptors?

So, I guess you could argue that arenas don't happen without the NBA?

EDIT: Here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Centre
Except for the fact that if there was no NBA, MLSE would still have built a new arena, possibly in a different location. The Raptors were supposed to be tenants in the proposed MLG2, but decided to go it alone, forcing MLSE to buy them to avoid the situation of competing arenas dividing the concert pie...

Evil Doctor is offline  
Old
03-07-2012, 07:54 PM
  #163
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Doctor View Post
Except for the fact that if there was no NBA, MLSE would still have built a new arena, possibly in a different location. The Raptors were supposed to be tenants in the proposed MLG2, but decided to go it alone, forcing MLSE to buy them to avoid the situation of competing dividing the concert pie...
Ya pretty much a different situation from the one developing in Seattle. Pretty much a reverse whereby the Leafs took over the building of the ACC and bought the Raptors.

Killion is offline  
Old
03-07-2012, 08:32 PM
  #164
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuzikMachine View Post
I took a listen to interview and nothing really indicates that this is the nail in the coffin for Seattleís NHL chances like some of the QC people would like to present. When asked about Key Arena and the NHL, Hansen gave an answer that everyone on this board knew already, Key Arena is not a good hockey arena Ė not a stunning revelation. The NBA is more prominent in Hansenís mind for obvious reasons but he seems fairly open to an NHL team

There has to be a change with some of reasoning behind Seattle's "worthiness" as a hockey market. What happened in Toronto when the Air Canada Centre was built? I suspect when promoting the arena project, the Maple Leafs would be the primary focus of discussion while the Raptors would be the secondary discussion point. Thereís no argument that the Leafs are more important in the hearts and minds of the Toronto fan base than the Raptors, however that does not translate into Toronto not being and NBA city. Because the Raptors getting less prominence than the Leafs, does that mean Toronto is unworthy of an NBA franchise? Does it mean that they should be relocated to a smaller market that would be more interested in the NBA (or never gotten a team in the first place in favor of a market thatís "more deserving" or "due"? Does the Raptors franchise get the "sloppy seconds"? Hypothetically, if Toronto was without the Leafs and the Raptors (due to previous relocation), would you promote the return of the NBA or NHL to get people excited about a new arena? Would Torontonians be as excited if it was only the NBA, with no chance of an NHL team?

If you are trying to promote a new arena to the masses, you promote the sport that the masses would easily get behind; in Toronto it would be the NHL while in Seattle it would be the NBA. Just because the NBA is more popular than the NHL in Seattle does not mean that there is no interest, it is unworthy of an NHL team, or that itís a guarantee that Quebec City is getting a team first.
And the NBA has a large following out here as well.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
03-07-2012, 09:11 PM
  #165
Seattle Sasquatch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 22
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocko604 View Post
He might not have and qualms about it, but if that's the case, will the plan still be approved by the city?
Most definitely. I imagine the city (especially the mayor) will do anything to bring in ~400-500 million dollars worth of private investment. What city would say no to that kind of money? Unless this also took exorbitant contributions from the city (which it doesn't) or doesn't meet I-91 requirements (we will know soon enough), there is no way Seattle turns down this arena deal.

Seattle Sasquatch is offline  
Old
03-07-2012, 09:33 PM
  #166
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 28,617
vCash: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by knorthern knight View Post
Sacramento city council votes for new arena. Are there any other NBA teams available? What does this do to Hansen's plans?
Hornets and Grizzlies are really the only options in the next five or so years, but neither of them are moving next year. Hornets have secured at least a couple more years of operating in New Orleans thanks to a successful ticket drive to start off this season and the Grizzlies current ownership seems interested in spending a few more years trying to turn things around financially in Memphis before seriously contemplating selling or relocation.

No Fun Shogun is offline  
Old
03-07-2012, 11:58 PM
  #167
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 13,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuzikMachine View Post
I took a listen to interview and nothing really indicates that this is the nail in the coffin for Seattle’s NHL chances like some of the QC people would like to present. When asked about Key Arena and the NHL, Hansen gave an answer that everyone on this board knew already, Key Arena is not a good hockey arena – not a stunning revelation. The NBA is more prominent in Hansen’s mind for obvious reasons but he seems fairly open to an NHL team

There has to be a change with some of reasoning behind Seattle's "worthiness" as a hockey market. What happened in Toronto when the Air Canada Centre was built? I suspect when promoting the arena project, the Maple Leafs would be the primary focus of discussion while the Raptors would be the secondary discussion point. There’s no argument that the Leafs are more important in the hearts and minds of the Toronto fan base than the Raptors, however that does not translate into Toronto not being and NBA city. Because the Raptors getting less prominence than the Leafs, does that mean Toronto is unworthy of an NBA franchise? Does it mean that they should be relocated to a smaller market that would be more interested in the NBA (or never gotten a team in the first place in favor of a market that’s "more deserving" or "due"? Does the Raptors franchise get the "sloppy seconds"? Hypothetically, if Toronto was without the Leafs and the Raptors (due to previous relocation), would you promote the return of the NBA or NHL to get people excited about a new arena? Would Torontonians be as excited if it was only the NBA, with no chance of an NHL team?

If you are trying to promote a new arena to the masses, you promote the sport that the masses would easily get behind; in Toronto it would be the NHL while in Seattle it would be the NBA. Just because the NBA is more popular than the NHL in Seattle does not mean that there is no interest, it is unworthy of an NHL team, or that it’s a guarantee that Quebec City is getting a team first.
As others have mentioned, the Air Canada Centre was originally designed as a basketball arena, only to be modified when the Leafs bought the Raptors.

Beyond that though, Seattle is also a much smaller market than Toronto. There is a lot more room for a market niche in a market of 6.5 million than one of 3.4 million. We've seen markets of similar size, with similar competition have their NHL teams suffer during tough years (See: Colorado Avalanche).


Last edited by htpwn: 03-08-2012 at 12:17 AM.
htpwn is offline  
Old
03-08-2012, 12:25 AM
  #168
MuzikMachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
As others have mentioned, the Air Canada Centre was originally designed as a basketball arena, only to be modified when the Leafs bought the Raptors.

Beyond that though, Seattle is also a much smaller market than Toronto. There is a lot more room for a market niche in a market of 6.5 million than one of 3.4 million. We've seen markets of similar size, with similar competition have their NHL teams suffer during tough years (See: Colorado Avalanche).
I don't want to get into a situation of comparing Seattle to Toronto, and I did not know the history of the ACC. My point was to show is that whatever the size of following of the Raptors, the Maple Leafs are still bigger but it does not disqualify Toronto as an NBA market. In a situation like Seattle, if both teams arrived at the same time the NBA would have a larger following than the NHL but it does not disqualify Seattle as a potential NHL market.

MuzikMachine is offline  
Old
03-08-2012, 01:44 AM
  #169
beenhereandthere
Registered User
 
beenhereandthere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Evergray State
Posts: 644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
As others have mentioned, the Air Canada Centre was originally designed as a basketball arena, only to be modified when the Leafs bought the Raptors.

Beyond that though, Seattle is also a much smaller market than Toronto. There is a lot more room for a market niche in a market of 6.5 million than one of 3.4 million. We've seen markets of similar size, with similar competition have their NHL teams suffer during tough years (See: Colorado Avalanche).
While smaller than Toronto, you're using the whole Golden Horseshoe to arrive at that figure.
If you want to use the same measure towards Seattle, it has a little over 4 million, not 3.4.

beenhereandthere is offline  
Old
03-08-2012, 01:49 AM
  #170
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Hornets and Grizzlies are really the only options in the next five or so years, but neither of them are moving next year.
I can see the Hornets moving after this year.

Another to keep an eye on is Milwaukee. It has a year to year lease, an older arena, and an older owner.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
03-08-2012, 01:53 AM
  #171
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post

Beyond that though, Seattle is also a much smaller market than Toronto. There is a lot more room for a market niche in a market of 6.5 million than one of 3.4 million. We've seen markets of similar size, with similar competition have their NHL teams suffer during tough years (See: Colorado Avalanche).
Seattle has 4.2 million people, and growing. It is about 1,000,000 people larger than Denver. Seattle is also within a few hours from 2 metro areas with around 2.5 million people a piece.

Since the 2010 U.S. Census, Washington has been one of the fastest growing states having added over 100,000 people.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
03-08-2012, 03:31 AM
  #172
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 28,617
vCash: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
I can see the Hornets moving after this year.

Another to keep an eye on is Milwaukee. It has a year to year lease, an older arena, and an older owner.
But that's the thing though, I'm pretty sure (as I actually learned in another topic on these boards), New Orleans' successful ticket drive this past season specifically precludes the Hornets from moving in the upcoming offseason, so they're apparently not an option for 2012.

Bucks are an odd one, too..... interest in them sure does seem to be dying, if not mostly dead, but don't think we'll see them move without much notice. Wouldn't be surprised if the Bucks are no longer in Milwaukee in 2020 or beyond, but would be quite shocked if they're out as soon as next year.

No Fun Shogun is offline  
Old
03-08-2012, 07:49 AM
  #173
Mungman
It's you not me.
 
Mungman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Outside the Asylum
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,921
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Doctor View Post
Except for the fact that if there was no NBA, MLSE would still have built a new arena, possibly in a different location. The Raptors were supposed to be tenants in the proposed MLG2, but decided to go it alone, forcing MLSE to buy them to avoid the situation of competing arenas dividing the concert pie...

Hence the smilies


Mungman is offline  
Old
03-08-2012, 09:30 AM
  #174
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,605
vCash: 500
Chris Hansen met with arena advisory panel last night and with media:

http://www.seattlepi.com/sports/arti...334.php#src=fb

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
03-08-2012, 10:58 AM
  #175
Kebekoi
Registered User
 
Kebekoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Matane, QC
Country: Martinique
Posts: 1,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
But that's the thing though, I'm pretty sure (as I actually learned in another topic on these boards), New Orleans' successful ticket drive this past season specifically precludes the Hornets from moving in the upcoming offseason, so they're apparently not an option for 2012.

Bucks are an odd one, too..... interest in them sure does seem to be dying, if not mostly dead, but don't think we'll see them move without much notice. Wouldn't be surprised if the Bucks are no longer in Milwaukee in 2020 or beyond, but would be quite shocked if they're out as soon as next year.
I wonder if Milwaukee could house a NHL team if they lose their NBA one?

Kebekoi 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 07:00 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.