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.

Hamilton III: There's A New Sheriff In Town

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-31-2013, 01:53 PM
  #1
Evil Doctor
89 years later...
 
Evil Doctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cambridge, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,179
vCash: 500
Hamilton III: There's A New Sheriff In Town

Continued from here...http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...916243&page=41

I was expecting to make this so soon. I figured it wouldn't be until March when Global Spectrum takes over Copps that a new thread would be created. I guess with Markham in the news and the rampant speculation that is going with it, it is inevitable that people are curious on how this affects Hamilton. So have at it...

BTW HamiltonTigers, if can repost the Spec Scott Radley article here, it would be appreciated...

Evil Doctor is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 02:09 PM
  #2
JMROWE
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hamilton Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 921
vCash: 500
The thing is that if Markham dose build this arena it will be & uphill battle to get an NHL. team with MLSE. most likely to say no unless you pay a huge money to let them in & I do mean huge money & in the the end with out the cost of the arena youare looking at 600 million dollar price tag & good luck trying to find someone who will pay that much for a hockey team .

JMROWE is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 02:15 PM
  #3
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMROWE View Post
The thing is that if Markham dose build this arena it will be & uphill battle to get an NHL. team with MLSE. most likely to say no unless you pay a huge money to let them in & I do mean huge money & in the the end with out the cost of the arena youare looking at 600 million dollar price tag & good luck trying to find someone who will pay that much for a hockey team .
They're one vote out of 30.

Buck Aki Berg is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 02:17 PM
  #4
Hamilton Tigers
Registered User
 
Hamilton Tigers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun
Probably not, especially with Quebec City and Seattle gaining steam and standing as the obvious frontrunners, one way or the other.
I could be wrong, but I just don't see Seattle commanding as high an expansion fee as would Hamilton/Markham.

I see Seattle as more of a relocation market.

Hamilton Tigers is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 02:19 PM
  #5
Hamilton Tigers
Registered User
 
Hamilton Tigers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,294
vCash: 500
Markham arena puts Hamiltonís NHL hopes on ice

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Doctor View Post
BTW HamiltonTigers, if can repost the Spec Scott Radley article here, it would be appreciated...


Quote:
Whether itís a better gamble in 2013 than it was in 1985, or an insane move to go all in while holding a pair of twos is a debate thatís already raging. Either way, if an arena does go up in Markham, many would say Hamiltonís long-awaited NHL shot ought to be given last rites, once and for all.
http://www.thespec.com/sports/articl...l-hopes-on-ice

Hamilton Tigers is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 02:21 PM
  #6
azaloum90
Registered User
 
azaloum90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The coop!
Posts: 2,921
vCash: 500
Key arena seems much more viable than Copps

azaloum90 is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 02:22 PM
  #7
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 398
vCash: 500
So you think MLSE will take less and share the territory fee with Buffalo together a team in Hamilton? LOL. First off, Hamilton would be a tough sell to US teams, half of Americans don't even know where Columbus and Raleigh are, nevermind Hamilton. Selling tickets to a "Toronto" game would easier to market. Plus new MLSE ownership is sports content hungry, another team in Toronto will bring them big bucks.. so add it up... territroy fee, broaadcasting and they can pay down their cost of purchasing MLSE rather handsomely. and wwho knows, maybe they will rent the ACC to the new team for$$$ until the new arena is ready.... This ain`t your dad`s MLSE...

MarkhamNHL is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 02:37 PM
  #8
Hamilton Tigers
Registered User
 
Hamilton Tigers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkhamNHL View Post
So you think MLSE will take less and share the territory fee with Buffalo together a team in Hamilton?
The league deteremines indemnification, not individual franchises


Quote:
First off, Hamilton would be a tough sell to US teams, half of Americans don't even know where Columbus and Raleigh are, nevermind Hamilton. Selling tickets to a "Toronto" game would easier to market. Plus new MLSE ownership is sports content hungry, another team in Toronto will bring them big bucks.. so add it up... territroy fee, broaadcasting and they can pay down their cost of purchasing MLSE rather handsomely. and wwho knows, maybe they will rent the ACC to the new team for$$$ until the new arena is ready.... This ain`t your dad`s MLSE...
All valid points, for sure. Like I said, I can only hope MLSE would not want another arena to compete with.

And again, this is all based on the assumption that a Markham arena will be built.

Hamilton Tigers is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 02:45 PM
  #9
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkhamNHL View Post
First off, Hamilton would be a tough sell to US teams, half of Americans don't even know where Columbus and Raleigh are, nevermind Hamilton.
Call me naive, but are there really prospective ticket buyers out there saying to themselves "I'd rather wait for New York/Los Angeles to come to town than see Columbus/Raleigh, because I don't know where those cities are"? I know I'm simplifying the notion, but that just seems incredibly silly.

Also, with 25 of 30 teams running at 95% capacity or better (and 20 of those teams at 100% or better), the idea of I-don't-know-where-that-city-is is a non-factor, since limited supply might force you to get tickets for a team you don't want to see if you want to see a game at all.

Buck Aki Berg is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 02:48 PM
  #10
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
Call me naive, but are there really prospective ticket buyers out there saying to themselves "I'd rather wait for New York/Los Angeles to come to town than see Columbus/Raleigh, because I don't know where those cities are"? I know I'm simplifying the notion, but that just seems incredibly silly.

Also, with 25 of 30 teams running at 95% capacity or better (and 20 of those teams at 100% or better), the idea of I-don't-know-where-that-city-is is a non-factor, since limited supply might force you to get tickets for a team you don't want to see if you want to see a game at all.
It's not just tickets, but viewership, merchandising etc..

MarkhamNHL is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 02:49 PM
  #11
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: Fiji
Posts: 26,607
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
They're one vote out of 30.
Buffalo makes it two.

Plus, it's not just their votes, but their influence. You'd better believe that they'd politick their butts off in the BoG to rally votes against Hamilton as an expansion candidate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton Tigers View Post
I could be wrong, but I just don't see Seattle commanding as high an expansion fee as would Hamilton/Markham.

I see Seattle as more of a relocation market.
Problem is that there's really only one relocation candidate open, the Yotes, and likely two markets interested, Seattle and Quebec City. I have a hard time imagining that Seattle would offer a higher bid than the QC for a team this offseason, so I think Seattle will have to wait if push comes to shove.

Once that's done, when expansion is considered, you are right that Hamilton or Markham would probably be willing to offer more, but they're not going to expand by two in Canada and any expansion fee they ask for will almost assuredly have to be equal both sides of the border. Unless they got around that by putting down an exorbitant territorial indemnity for a Hamilton-based franchise setting up shop, I think they're more inclined to just ignore Hamilton and expand by two American teams that pay equally instead.

Plus, there's the aforementioned opposition from the Leafs and Sabres and the fact that everything that the NHL has shown over the past decade that they have no interest in Copps as a permanent NHL home.

No Fun Shogun is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 02:50 PM
  #12
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,973
vCash: 500
I can't believe the public is picking up half the tab on this.. what a waste of 150 million dollars.

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 02:57 PM
  #13
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
I can't believe the public is picking up half the tab on this.. what a waste of 150 million dollars.
Because the Markham people haven't been promised a team; there's no guarantee that they'll rake in big time if they don't get a team. The public is also going out on a limb, hoping that if they build it, the NHL will come.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 02:58 PM
  #14
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Because the Markham people haven't been promised a team; there's no guarantee that they'll rate in big time if they don't get a team. The public is also going out on a limb, hoping that if they build it, the NHL will come.
In which case they'd be out 300 million because the city is taking out the loan to build the thing and apparently the private interests will pay back half over time.

Good luck Markham. I'll believe it when I see it.

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 03:04 PM
  #15
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
Call me naive, but are there really prospective ticket buyers out there saying to themselves "I'd rather wait for New York/Los Angeles to come to town than see Columbus/Raleigh, because I don't know where those cities are"? I know I'm simplifying the notion, but that just seems incredibly silly.

Also, with 25 of 30 teams running at 95% capacity or better (and 20 of those teams at 100% or better), the idea of I-don't-know-where-that-city-is is a non-factor, since limited supply might force you to get tickets for a team you don't want to see if you want to see a game at all.
I agree, if America can turn teams like Boise St and Green Bay into national sport interests, the same can be said about other small cities. If your going to accept Winnipeg, why draw the line at Hamilton? Your only watching the NHL to see the best players right?

I can't think of anyone I know who thinks like this.

cutchemist42 is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 04:24 PM
  #16
JMROWE
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hamilton Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by azaloum90 View Post
Key arena seems much more viable than Copps
Key Arena is 51 years old (1962) I doubt its more viable than Copps Coliseum because is only 27 years & can be renovated up to NHL. standerd & last another 40 years but they need to do it soon because in my opinion Copps Coliseum needs to be renovated in the next 5-10 years after that the arena would be to far gone to renovate .

JMROWE is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 04:31 PM
  #17
JMROWE
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hamilton Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 921
vCash: 500
Another thing how much you want to bet that if Markham can't get the cash to bulid that arena they will be looking at getting provincial tax dollars to fund this so called arena if that happens there will be a huge backlash from the rest of the province because nobody wants in Ontario wants to fund another pet project for the GTA. .

JMROWE is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 04:55 PM
  #18
Gnashville
Never trade Weber
 
Gnashville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 4,685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
They're one vote out of 30.
With a ton of influence, they supported the lockout and revenue sharing. No one is going to cross their wishes.

Gnashville is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 05:08 PM
  #19
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
Call me naive, but are there really prospective ticket buyers out there saying to themselves "I'd rather wait for New York/Los Angeles to come to town than see Columbus/Raleigh, because I don't know where those cities are"? I know I'm simplifying the notion, but that just seems incredibly silly.

Also, with 25 of 30 teams running at 95% capacity or better (and 20 of those teams at 100% or better), the idea of I-don't-know-where-that-city-is is a non-factor, since limited supply might force you to get tickets for a team you don't want to see if you want to see a game at all.
That happens in the NFL let alone hockey. At any given time there is at most 10 marketable teams loss or not.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 11:45 PM
  #20
Big McLargehuge
Global Moderator
Buff Drinklots
 
Big McLargehuge's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Germany
Posts: 54,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
They're one vote out of 30.
You don't think they hold any power over the other teams?

Buffalo also votes no - and Buffalo's no vote would right there likely bring along the two Pennsylvania teams and probably the two New York teams (which would likely bring along the Devils as well). We're up to seven no votes right there without exploring the strings that Toronto could pull.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMROWE View Post
Key Arena is 51 years old (1962) I doubt its more viable than Copps Coliseum because is only 27 years & can be renovated up to NHL. standerd & last another 40 years but they need to do it soon because in my opinion Copps Coliseum needs to be renovated in the next 5-10 years after that the arena would be to far gone to renovate .
KeyArena is also only on the table as a temporary venue before moving into a brand spanking new first class arena. Whatever Seattle is going to build is going to be a far nicer arena than a renovated Copps Coliseum could ever hope to be. Seattle isn't on the table without a new arena and Copps is significantly below par for an NHL arena. It would have worked when it was built, but it was already rendered outdated by the end of the 90s. Hell, there are NFL teams with stadiums built in the early 90s that are threatening to move because of their stadiums being lapped a million times over by stadiums built just a couple years later. Copps would enter the NHL as the 5th oldest building in the league...Madison Square Garden isn't recognizable from what it was when it opened, Edmonton is getting a new arena, Detroit will get a new arena, and Calgary will eventually get a new arena...then there's a huge gap between Copps and Anaheim's Honda Center.

It still blows my mind that the Honda Center is likely to be the 2nd oldest building in the NHL in 5 years.

__________________
ďThe 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.Ē - Stanley Kubrick
http://sprites.pokecheck.org/i/054.gif

Last edited by Big McLargehuge: 01-31-2013 at 11:53 PM.
Big McLargehuge is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 12:07 AM
  #21
Finnish your Czech
Jermain Defriend
 
Finnish your Czech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Finland
Posts: 44,521
vCash: 50
Hamilton vs Markham all comes down to how badly MLSE wants to be a monopoly over having extra TV content with a new franchise, and a higher territorial fee.

Finnish your Czech is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 02:09 AM
  #22
Hamilton Tigers
Registered User
 
Hamilton Tigers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by azaloum90 View Post
Key arena seems much more viable than Copps


Quote:
Developer Chris Hansen spoke in front of Seattle City Council Wednesday morning and stated,”Renovating Key Arena again is not an option, as the venue is not big enough for NHL hockey games.”
http://sciencewitness.com/news/687.html

Hamilton Tigers is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 02:35 AM
  #23
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 7,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMROWE View Post
Key Arena is 51 years old (1962) I doubt its more viable than Copps Coliseum because is only 27 years & can be renovated up to NHL. standerd & last another 40 years but they need to do it soon because in my opinion Copps Coliseum needs to be renovated in the next 5-10 years after that the arena would be to far gone to renovate .
If there's anything Crisler Arena in Ann Arbor has taught me, it's that Arenas can never get too old to renovate if the fundamental structure can last 40 more years.

Concordski is online now  
Old
02-01-2013, 07:30 AM
  #24
Evil Doctor
89 years later...
 
Evil Doctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cambridge, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,179
vCash: 500
A few minor HECFI bits of news, none really hockey related...

Uncertainty nearing an end for HECFI employees

Quote:
HECFI CEO John Hertel says they've set February.19th as the date on which staffers will find out if they are receiving job offers from the new private operator or merely severance payments.

Hertel says that they will be "reveiwing with all team members", with Global Spectrum on site and with support from the city's human resources department.
I believe that puts it approximately 6 weeks prior to the takeover.

HECFIís new operators can recoup 2013 losses from city

Quote:
ē Allow the Carmenís Group to apply for up to $450,546 and Global Spectrum to apply for up to $110,000 in additional fees for any losses they incur in the transitional year.
One should always under promise and over deliver...

Evil Doctor is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 07:33 AM
  #25
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big McLargehuge View Post
You don't think they hold any power over the other teams?

Buffalo also votes no - and Buffalo's no vote would right there likely bring along the two Pennsylvania teams and probably the two New York teams (which would likely bring along the Devils as well). We're up to seven no votes right there without exploring the strings that Toronto could pull.
Care to humour me and explain to my why Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, the Islanders, Rangers, and Devils would just automatically vote no, simply because Buffalo voted no as well? You're gonna have to show your work on this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnashville View Post
With a ton of influence, they supported the lockout and revenue sharing. No one is going to cross their wishes.
All thirty teams supported the lockout. And considering revenue sharing was a keystone of the lockout, I presume all thirty teams supported that too. What's your point?

Buck Aki Berg 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 02:57 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.