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.

Seattle IV: The Money Will Roll Right In

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-29-2013, 04:25 PM
  #301
Undertakerqc
Registered User
 
Undertakerqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...2575--nhl.html

Comments from Leafs CEO Leiweke,

He thinks its Seattle and quebec city then Vegas and KC. But i disagree on KC. No government support no ownership.

Although it makes me wonder who he expect to be forced to move over to the Western conference. Quebec doesn't make sense playing in the central division
Nice to hear from the Leafs CEO. Makes a lot of sense. Quebec has paid his dues. The new arena will soon be completed.

Undertakerqc is offline  
Old
10-29-2013, 04:27 PM
  #302
Undertakerqc
Registered User
 
Undertakerqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watch for the Yeti View Post
With the 16 team Eastern Conference, I assume any expansion would have to include 2 western conference teams (Seattle, Las Vegas, KC, Portland, Houston)
Not if you plan to go to 34 teams soon.

Undertakerqc is offline  
Old
10-29-2013, 04:27 PM
  #303
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawa666 View Post
Just like Winnipeg supposedlly didn't work.
Umm Winnipeg built the arena and waited a very very long time.

Seattle will not built the arena for it to be empty cause the public funds is getting paid back by revenue generated by the arena. It won't get paid back unless there a team playing in that arena.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
10-29-2013, 04:28 PM
  #304
Mightygoose
Registered User
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,267
vCash: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Seat...229753221.html

Seattle's DPD is taking their sweet time for the final EIS which is a good thing. Better the final EIS the better it is against those that will file lawsuit against it.

Final EIS spring 2014 with possible councils vote some time in the summer
Sounds promising indeed. Though I wonder with the delay in the EIS, does that mean expansion for 2014/15 season rumored over the summer will not be happening.

Not like it matters in the long run though there's still 4 years left on the MOU (to my understanding) so plenty of time to get it done.

Mightygoose is offline  
Old
10-29-2013, 04:29 PM
  #305
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patofqc View Post
Nice to hear from the Leafs CEO. Makes a lot of sense. Quebec has paid his dues. The new arena will soon be completed.
This has no grantees that the super majority of the OWNERS agree with Leafs CEO. Remember that is his opinion. Leafs actually owner may disagree with him on quebec

gstommylee is offline  
Old
10-29-2013, 05:48 PM
  #306
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patofqc View Post
Not if you plan to go to 34 teams soon.
34 teams makes zero sense its either 32 or 36.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
10-29-2013, 06:38 PM
  #307
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,848
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR89 View Post
This has probably been covered already, but why can't they just knock down Key and put the arena there? It would be a decent spot for it. I still don't think right next to Safeco/Clink is a good idea. This place will turn into a nightmare.
Simplistic answer is absolutely no way Key Arena @ Seattle Center, NYR89, is to be imploded or demolished or even renovated it takes a year +, THAT'S WHY the Sonics were forced to go to Tacoma in 1978-79, while Key was renovated, I also believe that Key has a historic site designation.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
10-29-2013, 06:42 PM
  #308
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,848
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
http://blogs.sacbee.com/sports/kings...#mi_rss=Sports

Shaq joins NBA Sacramento Kings ownership group.



(I don't remember if I posted the link or not, but Jay-Z is divesting his ownership in the NBA Brooklyn team.)
Jay-Z Has to, LS, because he formed an agency to represent players, you cannot do both

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
10-29-2013, 06:54 PM
  #309
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
Simplistic answer is absolutely no way Key Arena @ Seattle Center, NYR89, is to be imploded or demolished or even renovated it takes a year +, THAT'S WHY the Sonics were forced to go to Tacoma in 1978-79, while Key was renovated, I also believe that Key has a historic site designation.
Nevermind it is needed to host the teams while the new one is being built.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
10-29-2013, 07:18 PM
  #310
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 24,446
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
34 teams makes zero sense its either 32 or 36.
My gut agrees with this assessment.

__________________

Nerd, don't estimate all humanity by the limitations of your own capability. - Steve Smith, Professor of History, University of China, IL
No Fun Shogun is online now  
Old
10-30-2013, 03:39 PM
  #311
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 802
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
My gut agrees with this assessment.
If I were commish, I'd act on that assessment.

However, you're wrong to think the NHL wouldn't at least use small square pegs to fit into larger round holes and think they've accomplished something. Know what I mean?

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
10-30-2013, 05:24 PM
  #312
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,848
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Nevermind it is needed to host the teams while the new one is being built.
tommy:

when Sacramento was being targeted to resume the Thunder's rights to leave the Sonics brand behind as part of Bennett's exit to OKC, when researching to respond in that thread, it is clear, and makes sense that even renovating KASC, even temporarily, while SODO is being built by Hansen, as stated here, that is economically infeasible nor likely that KA is a good hockey facility.

the point is that I'm making is, it took a year before Seattle Center Coliseum, as KASC was then known as was even available to host the Sonics, hence the temp move to Tacoma Dome, if this facility is still on the Historic National Register of sites, the same issues that prompted the initial renovation back in 1978-79, likely have to be followed again, if necessary, limiting the arena's capability to even be a temporary solution providing SODO is approved and begins construction.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
10-30-2013, 06:12 PM
  #313
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
tommy:

when Sacramento was being targeted to resume the Thunder's rights to leave the Sonics brand behind as part of Bennett's exit to OKC, when researching to respond in that thread, it is clear, and makes sense that even renovating KASC, even temporarily, while SODO is being built by Hansen, as stated here, that is economically infeasible nor likely that KA is a good hockey facility.

the point is that I'm making is, it took a year before Seattle Center Coliseum, as KASC was then known as was even available to host the Sonics, hence the temp move to Tacoma Dome, if this facility is still on the Historic National Register of sites, the same issues that prompted the initial renovation back in 1978-79, likely have to be followed again, if necessary, limiting the arena's capability to even be a temporary solution providing SODO is approved and begins construction.
Key Arena is fine as a temporary arena. NHL said that themselves. Any renovations for Key arena will be done INSIDE to get it ready to host NHL games

There will be time between when NHL announces expansion for seattle and when the team begins playing in Seattle.

Key arena is a non issue its rather or not the new arena will be built with an NHL first option is the problem.

Heck while we were trying to get the coyotes there were talks of a key arena hockey configuration going around where it could hold maybe 13000 for hockey. Can't recall how many obstructive seats there will be.

Again non issue.

By the time the team even begins playing we could be a year or so into construction of the arena heck could even be done with the arena itself by the time the team arrives.


Last edited by gstommylee: 10-30-2013 at 06:19 PM.
gstommylee is offline  
Old
10-31-2013, 08:18 AM
  #314
LouisOlivier
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ville de Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 224
vCash: 500
If NHL annonce that there'll be a NHL team in Seattle IF only it's 100% sure that an arena will be build... do you think that Seattle will say ok?

LouisOlivier is offline  
Old
10-31-2013, 10:07 AM
  #315
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Key Arena is fine as a temporary arena. NHL said that themselves. Any renovations for Key arena will be done INSIDE to get it ready to host NHL games

There will be time between when NHL announces expansion for seattle and when the team begins playing in Seattle.

Key arena is a non issue its rather or not the new arena will be built with an NHL first option is the problem.

Heck while we were trying to get the coyotes there were talks of a key arena hockey configuration going around where it could hold maybe 13000 for hockey. Can't recall how many obstructive seats there will be.

Again non issue.

By the time the team even begins playing we could be a year or so into construction of the arena heck could even be done with the arena itself by the time the team arrives.
the bottom line is money. you seem to ignore that a lot of the time, tommy. what you keep calling non-issues are indeed very relevant issues. there is a cost to everything, including the inevitable losses from playing in such a small and old arena, over however long a period it would take for the new arena to actually be built. dont think the nhl is going to announce expansion into seattle and they give you three years to build the arena. one year notice at best, and then you would minimally need to play at key for one year? two years? you yourself have also indicated that you think seattle fans would likely not pay above the league average for tickets (especially in the old arena and maybe even in the new arena?). that would necessarily translate into tens of millions of dollars in initial operating losses, over and above whatever startup costs would be associated with obtaining the actual franchise. should the brand new seattle owner then be guaranteed revenue sharing payments like phoenix? would that even make sense, let alone be supported by the other teams? moreover, you keep claiming the only major impediment in public money going into the new arena is a simple technical change in the mou to allow for hockey first? i suggest there would be a lot more concern than just that, like the actual chances of an NBA team arriving (and how/who would guarantee that? or would a hockey-only arena fly?), as well as how much the potential new NHL owners are willing to, or even be capable of, privately coughing up for new arena construction. your new arena is hardly the slam dunk you seem to be suggesting and your dismissal of these very real financial issues is problematic.

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
10-31-2013, 11:36 AM
  #316
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
the bottom line is money. you seem to ignore that a lot of the time, tommy. what you keep calling non-issues are indeed very relevant issues. there is a cost to everything, including the inevitable losses from playing in such a small and old arena, over however long a period it would take for the new arena to actually be built. dont think the nhl is going to announce expansion into seattle and they give you three years to build the arena. one year notice at best, and then you would minimally need to play at key for one year? two years? you yourself have also indicated that you think seattle fans would likely not pay above the league average for tickets (especially in the old arena and maybe even in the new arena?). that would necessarily translate into tens of millions of dollars in initial operating losses, over and above whatever startup costs would be associated with obtaining the actual franchise. should the brand new seattle owner then be guaranteed revenue sharing payments like phoenix? would that even make sense, let alone be supported by the other teams? moreover, you keep claiming the only major impediment in public money going into the new arena is a simple technical change in the mou to allow for hockey first? i suggest there would be a lot more concern than just that, like the actual chances of an NBA team arriving (and how/who would guarantee that? or would a hockey-only arena fly?), as well as how much the potential new NHL owners are willing to, or even be capable of, privately coughing up for new arena construction. your new arena is hardly the slam dunk you seem to be suggesting and your dismissal of these very real financial issues is problematic.
Again the NHL has no worries about the the team using key arena as a temporary facility. So can we move on from that issue.
Like i said the issue remains will the arena be built with just a NHL team. I never said it was a guaratee that it will happen.

And why are you implying that the NHL team will charge NHL prices for a franchise in a very very very new market? That's how you exactly KILL a fan base by over charging on what the market can support. Seattle never had a NHL team before so you can't assume they'll exactly pay right off the bat NHL prices.

Since we are talking expansion not relocation the NHL can have expansion team begin playing right as the new arena is done if they are so darn worried about playing in the Key. Oh and remember NHL played in far worse arenas as temp facilities.

The issue always has been and always will be will a new arena be built for NHL first. Never where is the team gonna play while the new one is built.

Our potential ownership group that attempted to get the coyotes is perfectly fine with Key Arena as temporary facility since they had a lease agreement in principal


Last edited by gstommylee: 10-31-2013 at 11:49 AM.
gstommylee is offline  
Old
10-31-2013, 11:39 AM
  #317
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisOlivier View Post
If NHL annonce that there'll be a NHL team in Seattle IF only it's 100% sure that an arena will be build... do you think that Seattle will say ok?
Relocation is one thing expansion is another. Expansion NHL will want it guaranteed that the new arena will happen for a NHL team.

Right now we are still under the EIS process after that we'll see when it comes to the NHL first option.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
10-31-2013, 11:48 AM
  #318
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Now regarding the MOU in what needs to be done to make where a NHL team can built the arena.

1) NHL group has to agree to everything Hansen has agreed to
2) Funding will need to be reworked for a NHL team only possible both publicly and privately

We won't know in regards to changing the MOU until after the arena completes the EIS process.

NHL is aware of what's going on with the status of the arena and it could (as far as we know) very be that the change of MOU has already been agreed and everyone is waiting for the final approval post EIS.

Regarding Key arena, We do not know how long it'll be needed until we know when the expansion team assuming it happens will begin playing that's also taken under assumptions that aren't any delays in construction of the new arena. The earliest would be at least 2016/2017ish when the new arena will be done.

Seattle and Hansen are taken their sweet time with the EIS cause we have anti arena environmental lawyer that is gonna sue again after the EIS is complete calling it illegal and making the SEPA process a sham.


Last edited by gstommylee: 10-31-2013 at 12:02 PM.
gstommylee is offline  
Old
10-31-2013, 12:12 PM
  #319
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,524
vCash: 500
As has been said many times before regarding Key Arena, part of the MOU Hansen agrees to renovate/upgrade the Key for temporary use for NBA/NHL to the extent needed for short term. As I understand the hockey configuration it would be similar to what Barclays will be for the Islanders. The NHL seems OK with that.

Not sure why this keeps coming up. The real issues are getting the envioronmental review completed, getting a team and if the first team is NHL than getting the MOU modified for that contingency. That is how I read it anyway.

nwpensfan is offline  
Old
10-31-2013, 12:24 PM
  #320
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,524
vCash: 500
Additionally with Hansen the driving force for the new arena, I believe it is safe to assume that if the NHL comes first and he agrees, that he will have assurances/confidence that the NBA will follow.

He has stated to have an interest in a minor stake in the NHL while being majority in the NBA.

nwpensfan is offline  
Old
10-31-2013, 12:26 PM
  #321
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
Additionally with Hansen the driving force for the new arena, I believe it is safe to assume that if the NHL comes first and he agrees, that he will have assurances/confidence that the NBA will follow.
Hansen has mention that he is open for a NHL first option as long as the NHL group picks up some amount of the risk.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
10-31-2013, 12:29 PM
  #322
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Hansen has mention that he is open for a NHL first option as long as the NHL group picks up some amount of the risk.
Exactly. I still strongly believe that eventually there will be both an NHL and NBA team here mainly with Hansen the driving force.

nwpensfan is offline  
Old
10-31-2013, 12:34 PM
  #323
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
Exactly. I still strongly believe that eventually there will be both an NHL and NBA team here mainly with Hansen the driving force.
The question remains how long will it be till we get a NBA team back.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
10-31-2013, 12:39 PM
  #324
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
The question remains how long will it be till we get a NBA team back.
I agree and think the NHL first option works in Hansen's favor providing he gets the agreements he needs from City and potential NHL majority ownership. Than he will most assuredly get an NBA team with a building guaranteed.

nwpensfan is offline  
Old
10-31-2013, 12:41 PM
  #325
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Again the NHL has no worries about the the team using key arena as a temporary facility. So can we move on from that issue.
Like i said the issue remains will the arena be built with just a NHL team. I never said it was a guaratee that it will happen.

And why are you implying that the NHL team will charge NHL prices for a franchise in a very very very new market? That's how you exactly KILL a fan base by over charging on what the market can support. Seattle never had a NHL team before so you can't assume they'll exactly pay right off the bat NHL prices.

Since we are talking expansion not relocation the NHL can have expansion team begin playing right as the new arena is done if they are so darn worried about playing in the Key. Oh and remember NHL played in far worse arenas as temp facilities.

The issue always has been and always will be will a new arena be built for NHL first. Never where is the team gonna play while the new one is built.

Our potential ownership group that attempted to get the coyotes is perfectly fine with Key Arena as temporary facility since they had a lease agreement in principal
tommy, please read my post again. you have completely missed the point.

Im not concerned about whether the league is OK or not with Key. (and fwiw, I believe the general sentiment at the time was that Key would be suitable were it absolutely necessary to relocate the Coyotes on such short notice this past summer, not whether anyone felt Key was or was not a good option overall ...)

My point is that if the team does play in Key for one, two or even three years, gate revenues WILL BE MUCH LOWER than were it to play in a new arena simply because there are so many fewer seats. And because revenues would be considerably lower in that old building, someone is going to have to deal with that ... ie., the new owners. And as long as a team plays in the old arena, the owners will go further into debt. That is a cost.

You seem to completely ignore these sorts of fiscal issues ... and now you indicate that in such a fragile market, even charging average league prices would be too much ... well tommy, that underscores my point even more. To put a team in seattle before your new arena is ready would cost an owner a great deal of money over and above all other costs associated with a timely expansion into an existing new arena (ie., like what we will almost assuredly see in QC.) Perhaps that is why potential owners would prefer not to play in Key. They would lose a tremendous amount of money doing so. Perhaps potential owners are holding out for the new arena because that would make so much more sense for them.

GuelphStormer 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 11:27 PM.

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.