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.

Seattle IV: The Money Will Roll Right In

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-28-2013, 04:33 PM
  #526
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
PCSPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
At the moment, Hansen and Seattle are working to get the arena through the environmental review process then after that there will be discussions about a NHL first plan.
Murray is keep the current director of Seattle's department of planning and developing in place thus a good thing for us.

It doesn't matter if the arena gets built with NBA first or NHL first if it doesn't survive the SEPA process with Seattle decide to not give final approval.
There's absolutely no reason to wait out the EIS before changing the MOU.

{Mod}

In the other times I've seen a potential owner work with a city, unless there's a truly material disagreement, the city pretty much creates an agreement to the potential owner's liking. I'm quite convinced the MOU reflects that. I'm not sure the NHL wants Seattle so much that they'd play second fiddle in another building.

Now, whether the rumor of Portland being more in play than Seattle for the Coyotes was true or not, I can't be sure, I don't trust Paul Allen's holding company enough to totally believe that rumor. But that's the thing: there's value to claiming the possibility of NHL coming to a building without really wanting to do the things to make it happen. With Vulcan, those reasons are murkier but guessable right now. In Seattle, everything first leads to the goal of building the thing, THEN the details get sorted out.


Last edited by Killion: 11-28-2013 at 10:47 PM. Reason: ... not helpful to civil discourse & unwarranted.
PCSPounder is online now  
Old
11-28-2013, 04:47 PM
  #527
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCSPounder View Post
There's absolutely no reason to wait out the EIS before changing the MOU.

In the other times I've seen a potential owner work with a city, unless there's a truly material disagreement, the city pretty much creates an agreement to the potential owner's liking. I'm quite convinced the MOU reflects that. I'm not sure the NHL wants Seattle so much that they'd play second fiddle in another building.

Now, whether the rumor of Portland being more in play than Seattle for the Coyotes was true or not, I can't be sure, I don't trust Paul Allen's holding company enough to totally believe that rumor. But that's the thing: there's value to claiming the possibility of NHL coming to a building without really wanting to do the things to make it happen. With Vulcan, those reasons are murkier but guessable right now. In Seattle, everything first leads to the goal of building the thing, THEN the details get sorted out.
It doesn't matter if the MOU is changed or not if it doesn't survive the EIS process then there won't be a new arena at all.

You have to let the EIS process happen then there will be talks about change it for NHL which will happen if the opportunity were to arises.

The NHL will not play like a second fiddle in the building. NHL is just as important to Seattle than it is NBA especially making the arena be a financial success.

NBA had their shot at getting here first under current agreement that said no and rather have a badly poor financially run team stay put with an arena made out of playing cards.

NHL is well aware of what's going on with our arena plan. It is much easier to make a few funding changes once the arena gets the EIS approval. I don't think they want to open up to debate again while still going through EIS process.

There are people still trying to prevent the arena from happening and if that means they mislead the public to stop the arena from happening then that's what it'll take.

As Bob McKenzie puts it that things will happen 10 months from and that puts exactly when the final approval will likely occur. Everything is current happening behind close doors as long as the NHL knows the MOU changes will happen and they will grant us a team.

Seattle can have an agreement in principal then put a vote to it after NHL grants Seattle expansion. They won't put it to a vote and approve it only to have the NHL decide to give portland and quebec city expansion. The MOU changes will not happen unless the NHL has guaranteed us a team in writing.


Last edited by Killion: 11-28-2013 at 10:48 PM.
gstommylee is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 08:54 AM
  #528
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCSPounder View Post
There's absolutely no reason to wait out the EIS before changing the MOU.

{Mod}

In the other times I've seen a potential owner work with a city, unless there's a truly material disagreement, the city pretty much creates an agreement to the potential owner's liking. I'm quite convinced the MOU reflects that. I'm not sure the NHL wants Seattle so much that they'd play second fiddle in another building.

Now, whether the rumor of Portland being more in play than Seattle for the Coyotes was true or not, I can't be sure, I don't trust Paul Allen's holding company enough to totally believe that rumor. But that's the thing: there's value to claiming the possibility of NHL coming to a building without really wanting to do the things to make it happen. With Vulcan, those reasons are murkier but guessable right now. In Seattle, everything first leads to the goal of building the thing, THEN the details get sorted out.
Just as there Is no reason not to change MOU now there is also no reason to change it either. Probably a stronger reason to leave as it is until environmental review is done. Any discussions that possibly could be going on in private with potential owners and NHL would necessarily be affected (not so private anymore) if public change was done to MOU. People would be alerted that something was up. Not what NHL would want at this point.

Anything anybody says on this thread is pure speculation or better yet total guesswork until the NHL (Bettman) changes his tune. Speculation regarding TOR2 v. Seattle is silly at this point.

Your points about Portland are good ones and I certainly don't see Allen paying a lot for an expansion. I think he would prefer to go relocation route but just my opinion.

nwpensfan is online now  
Old
11-29-2013, 09:40 AM
  #529
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tackla View Post
I think the NHL TV deal in Canada is bad news for Seattle. With TV the ultimate revenue source, a team in Seattle just takes away eyeballs from the Vancouver Canucks. .
What are you talking about?

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 10:59 AM
  #530
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
People just love to attack Seattle as a potential landing spot for NHL expansion, especially some from other cities hoping for the same thing for their city. I don't see many people from this thread going to other cities threads to attack them (but I very rarely visit them and I have not posted in them since probably the Coyotes fiasco) but i could be wrong. Somehow those people must view Seattle as a threat to their hopes of landing an expansion team or otherwise they would just ignore the 'unreal possibility' that the NHL may be interested in Seattle and we have someone working with the city to get a building done (once at least a tenant is secured).

I hope that the other cities gets teams and I have stated such many times before. I also believe many of us here in the PNW feel the same way.

I don't think this new TV deal in Canada changes anything as far as Seattle goes because they do have a TV deal here in the US as well and Seattle could benefit that deal just as much as Toronto 2 would the Canadian deal. And we know how badly the NHL wants the league to grow in the US (just look at Phoenix) so Seattle is a natural landing spot. The rivalry would be great with Vancouver (and Portland) with the proximity to Canada.

Just my two cents!!
I apologize if my posts seem like I am “attacking” Seattle as a landing spot for NHL expansion. Quite the contrary actually, I think Seattle would make a great location for a team. My concern is more that the arguments made here so far are relatively weak. That's not to say that the city isn't a viable option or that the NHL is not indeed considering it, just that the supporting arguments here are lacking.

1) (Re)alignment is a complete red herring, yet so many here hang on to it as gospel. It is silly to suggest that the league is more concerned with where a team is placed relative to imaginary lines on a map than it is concerned with where it will actually succeed. The league has survived very well for decades with various incarnations of “unbalanced” divisions and conferences, and it will easily continue to be able to do so if need be.

2) The “we won’t build the arena until we get a guarantee from Bettman” is unrealistic and naïve. That’s not how this game works, and deep down, I think everyone understands that. I do not think the league would consider any city, except in extreme circumstances (of which these are not), without there either already being an arena or one fully in progress. It would simple be too risky for the league to blink first … and why should it? If you want the team, you will have to make the first move and actually begin building the arena. Perhaps nothing would ever come to light but the league will only allow a team if there is assurance of an arena first. Local politicians may not wish to make that known, and it is quite possible that the arena and the team announcements would be made simultaneously, but is wrong to assume that the league will say, “hey, yeah, we’ll give you a team and wherever you decide to build an arena is fine with us.”

3) Comparisons with other potential cities: again, unrealistic, especially now with the new mega-contract with Rogers. Seattle has very little comparative advantage over any other city:

a) Rivalries: while Seattle would immediately become a top rival with Vancouver and probably the California teams, so too would any of the other cities being discussed – QC with Montreal, the NYC area teams, even Boston; Hamilton with Buffalo, Toronto; GTA2 with Toronto, Ottawa, even Montreal.
b) TV viewership: while Seattle has much greater potential to attract new viewers (because that is so low now) compared to other cities where high proportions of folks already watch the games, this erroneously attributes greater value to a new viewer over an existing viewer. Ford and Nike don’t care if you are watching hockey for the first time, they care if you are watching hockey, this game, now. Viewership in absolute numbers will increase much more in these other cities than in Seattle, and Ford is likely more eager to buy time on the second game broadcast in GTA2 than the only game broadcast in Seattle, because there will be many more people watching that game in GTA2.
c) Ticket prices: acknowledging that it will take some time to establish the ticket-buying market in Seattle compared to the other cities, it is still guaranteed that prices, and therefore revenues, will be much higher elsewhere. Some here have even asserted that Seattle would not even reach average league prices: if that’s true, that’s very bad. The sub-argument that it would be bad to have high prices and thus high revenues and thus higher HRR content and thus higher salary costs (the argument against Hamilton, because it would earn too much money) was de facto blown right out of the water with this mega-contract with Rogers. Clearly the league is not worried about making too much money.
d) The national TV contracts: nowhere has it ever been stated by anyone with any familiarity with the NBC contract that it was to include PNW content. That’s an assumption folks are making. Would NBC like to have Seattle games? Yes, most likely. Would the league be willing to risk putting a team there just for that? No, not likely. Moreover, the mega-contract with Rogers dwarfs the NBC contract, especially when considering it the basic of # teams involved. $5B for content from 7 teams, or $2B for content from 23 teams. Clearly, the revenue ratio is much higher north of the border, and if the argument that money talks holds water, money will talk more north of the border. Pressure will be on having more product for the more valuable Rogers contract than for the less valuable NBC contract.
e) Grow the game: this has always been a difficult concept to operationalize. Yes, of course, where interest is currently lower, the potential to increase that interest is greater than in an area where interest is already high. But so what? There was also tremendous potential to grow the game in Phoenix and that meant nothing. Besides, unless that new found growth in interest directly translates it either a) television viewership and b) ticket sales, it means nothing.
f) Plan B: one can interpret Bettmanspeak in many different ways. One could think that Seattle was indeed Plan B for the Coyotes and that it wasn’t simply another leverage ploy by the league to force Glendale to cough up more bailout money. Or, one could more cynically view it all in light of how the league has been less than up-front and honest in many different dealings with cities, owners and fans. Is the Plan B glass half full or half empty? Entirely up to people to decide on their own, and we will never know.

4) The buyers: now admittedly, I do not live in Seattle and I do not see all of the reports and information y’all see about who is buying and paying for what. But it would seem less than a sure thing to me that the folks purportedly wanting to invest in an NHL team in Seattle are actually capable and interested in spending as much money as would be required. Bartoszek and Lanza are relative unknowns and late-comers. Other than their attempt to buy the NY Mets and their affluent careers, we really know little about them. How many white-knight suitors took a turn in the revolving door in Phoenix? … and some even with the money to actually buy that team. Noone knows what the cost would be to cover their part of the arena, their expansion fee and necessary operating capital to begin running the team. Probably something in excess of $400M. And for what? For an unknown product in a new market? With little to no return on their investment in the arena (how much would Hansen be willing to cut them in for)? Of course, hubris is the great balance sheet equalizer and most owners aren’t in it for the money. But I do not think that many folks here are being all that realistic about these costs by shrugging them off as “not an issue”.

So, there ya have it. If this is Seattle bashing, then I guess that’s what it is. Sorry. I like to think of it more as part of an objective discussion about the business merits of an NHL team in Seattle. No doubt, this will elicit a few “you don’t know what you are talking about” or “it will get done” sorts of replies. And that’s fine. If folks want to ignore the challenges, I cannot do anything about that. But maybe it will also help focus the arguments being made. Again, I think Seattle would make a great location for an NHL team, but frankly, you haven’t made that case sufficiently.

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 11:24 AM
  #531
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
I apologize if my posts seem like I am “attacking” Seattle as a landing spot for NHL expansion. Quite the contrary actually, I think Seattle would make a great location for a team. My concern is more that the arguments made here so far are relatively weak. That's not to say that the city isn't a viable option or that the NHL is not indeed considering it, just that the supporting arguments here are lacking.

1) (Re)alignment is a complete red herring, yet so many here hang on to it as gospel. It is silly to suggest that the league is more concerned with where a team is placed relative to imaginary lines on a map than it is concerned with where it will actually succeed. The league has survived very well for decades with various incarnations of “unbalanced” divisions and conferences, and it will easily continue to be able to do so if need be.

2) The “we won’t build the arena until we get a guarantee from Bettman” is unrealistic and naïve. That’s not how this game works, and deep down, I think everyone understands that. I do not think the league would consider any city, except in extreme circumstances (of which these are not), without there either already being an arena or one fully in progress. It would simple be too risky for the league to blink first … and why should it? If you want the team, you will have to make the first move and actually begin building the arena. Perhaps nothing would ever come to light but the league will only allow a team if there is assurance of an arena first. Local politicians may not wish to make that known, and it is quite possible that the arena and the team announcements would be made simultaneously, but is wrong to assume that the league will say, “hey, yeah, we’ll give you a team and wherever you decide to build an arena is fine with us.”

3) Comparisons with other potential cities: again, unrealistic, especially now with the new mega-contract with Rogers. Seattle has very little comparative advantage over any other city:

a) Rivalries: while Seattle would immediately become a top rival with Vancouver and probably the California teams, so too would any of the other cities being discussed – QC with Montreal, the NYC area teams, even Boston; Hamilton with Buffalo, Toronto; GTA2 with Toronto, Ottawa, even Montreal.
b) TV viewership: while Seattle has much greater potential to attract new viewers (because that is so low now) compared to other cities where high proportions of folks already watch the games, this erroneously attributes greater value to a new viewer over an existing viewer. Ford and Nike don’t care if you are watching hockey for the first time, they care if you are watching hockey, this game, now. Viewership in absolute numbers will increase much more in these other cities than in Seattle, and Ford is likely more eager to buy time on the second game broadcast in GTA2 than the only game broadcast in Seattle, because there will be many more people watching that game in GTA2.
c) Ticket prices: acknowledging that it will take some time to establish the ticket-buying market in Seattle compared to the other cities, it is still guaranteed that prices, and therefore revenues, will be much higher elsewhere. Some here have even asserted that Seattle would not even reach average league prices: if that’s true, that’s very bad. The sub-argument that it would be bad to have high prices and thus high revenues and thus higher HRR content and thus higher salary costs (the argument against Hamilton, because it would earn too much money) was de facto blown right out of the water with this mega-contract with Rogers. Clearly the league is not worried about making too much money.
d) The national TV contracts: nowhere has it ever been stated by anyone with any familiarity with the NBC contract that it was to include PNW content. That’s an assumption folks are making. Would NBC like to have Seattle games? Yes, most likely. Would the league be willing to risk putting a team there just for that? No, not likely. Moreover, the mega-contract with Rogers dwarfs the NBC contract, especially when considering it the basic of # teams involved. $5B for content from 7 teams, or $2B for content from 23 teams. Clearly, the revenue ratio is much higher north of the border, and if the argument that money talks holds water, money will talk more north of the border. Pressure will be on having more product for the more valuable Rogers contract than for the less valuable NBC contract.
e) Grow the game: this has always been a difficult concept to operationalize. Yes, of course, where interest is currently lower, the potential to increase that interest is greater than in an area where interest is already high. But so what? There was also tremendous potential to grow the game in Phoenix and that meant nothing. Besides, unless that new found growth in interest directly translates it either a) television viewership and b) ticket sales, it means nothing.
f) Plan B: one can interpret Bettmanspeak in many different ways. One could think that Seattle was indeed Plan B for the Coyotes and that it wasn’t simply another leverage ploy by the league to force Glendale to cough up more bailout money. Or, one could more cynically view it all in light of how the league has been less than up-front and honest in many different dealings with cities, owners and fans. Is the Plan B glass half full or half empty? Entirely up to people to decide on their own, and we will never know.

4) The buyers: now admittedly, I do not live in Seattle and I do not see all of the reports and information y’all see about who is buying and paying for what. But it would seem less than a sure thing to me that the folks purportedly wanting to invest in an NHL team in Seattle are actually capable and interested in spending as much money as would be required. Bartoszek and Lanza are relative unknowns and late-comers. Other than their attempt to buy the NY Mets and their affluent careers, we really know little about them. How many white-knight suitors took a turn in the revolving door in Phoenix? … and some even with the money to actually buy that team. Noone knows what the cost would be to cover their part of the arena, their expansion fee and necessary operating capital to begin running the team. Probably something in excess of $400M. And for what? For an unknown product in a new market? With little to no return on their investment in the arena (how much would Hansen be willing to cut them in for)? Of course, hubris is the great balance sheet equalizer and most owners aren’t in it for the money. But I do not think that many folks here are being all that realistic about these costs by shrugging them off as “not an issue”.

So, there ya have it. If this is Seattle bashing, then I guess that’s what it is. Sorry. I like to think of it more as part of an objective discussion about the business merits of an NHL team in Seattle. No doubt, this will elicit a few “you don’t know what you are talking about” or “it will get done” sorts of replies. And that’s fine. If folks want to ignore the challenges, I cannot do anything about that. But maybe it will also help focus the arguments being made. Again, I think Seattle would make a great location for an NHL team, but frankly, you haven’t made that case sufficiently.
GuelphStormer -

First - full disclosure. I live in Minnesota. My locale already has a team. I have no skin in this game.

Now, I would like to say that I agree with all the points you make.

AND, I agree that this is not meant to say "Seattle is not getting a team." Not at all. It's merely to say that "Seattle is no slam dunk." Now, if I read right, some from Seattle may feel that this spring, when the EIS is complete, then Seattle is a slam dunk. I don't think so.

I merely think there is lots and lots of work here first before Seattle (or any city, for that matter) can feel secure that a team is coming.

And, it should also be said to be careful what you wish for.

Here is the reason - PHX for example. There are many big fans in PHX. But Glendale has put down lots of cash to keep that team there. So, if a team comes, don't be surprised if the owners' demands of the area are greater 10 years after the granting of the franchise than they were at the start.

Pro sports is a big-money operation and the owners are not in it to lose money. Someone pays......

Anyway, just a few of my thoughts.

Good luck Seattle fans. I say the same to Markham, to Hamilton, to Quebec.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 12:21 PM
  #532
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
GuelphStormer -

First - full disclosure. I live in Minnesota. My locale already has a team. I have no skin in this game.

Now, I would like to say that I agree with all the points you make.

AND, I agree that this is not meant to say "Seattle is not getting a team." Not at all. It's merely to say that "Seattle is no slam dunk." Now, if I read right, some from Seattle may feel that this spring, when the EIS is complete, then Seattle is a slam dunk. I don't think so.

I merely think there is lots and lots of work here first before Seattle (or any city, for that matter) can feel secure that a team is coming.

And, it should also be said to be careful what you wish for.

Here is the reason - PHX for example. There are many big fans in PHX. But Glendale has put down lots of cash to keep that team there. So, if a team comes, don't be surprised if the owners' demands of the area are greater 10 years after the granting of the franchise than they were at the start.

Pro sports is a big-money operation and the owners are not in it to lose money. Someone pays......

Anyway, just a few of my thoughts.

Good luck Seattle fans. I say the same to Markham, to Hamilton, to Quebec.
The problem with seattle is we have to get a team for the new arena to get built though.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 12:33 PM
  #533
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
I apologize if my posts seem like I am “attacking” Seattle as a landing spot for NHL expansion. Quite the contrary actually, I think Seattle would make a great location for a team. My concern is more that the arguments made here so far are relatively weak. That's not to say that the city isn't a viable option or that the NHL is not indeed considering it, just that the supporting arguments here are lacking.



2) The “we won’t build the arena until we get a guarantee from Bettman” is unrealistic and naïve. That’s not how this game works, and deep down, I think everyone understands that. I do not think the league would consider any city, except in extreme circumstances (of which these are not), without there either already being an arena or one fully in progress. It would simple be too risky for the league to blink first … and why should it? If you want the team, you will have to make the first move and actually begin building the arena. Perhaps nothing would ever come to light but the league will only allow a team if there is assurance of an arena first. Local politicians may not wish to make that known, and it is quite possible that the arena and the team announcements would be made simultaneously, but is wrong to assume that the league will say, “hey, yeah, we’ll give you a team and wherever you decide to build an arena is fine with us.”


So, there ya have it. If this is Seattle bashing, then I guess that’s what it is. Sorry. I like to think of it more as part of an objective discussion about the business merits of an NHL team in Seattle. No doubt, this will elicit a few “you don’t know what you are talking about” or “it will get done” sorts of replies. And that’s fine. If folks want to ignore the challenges, I cannot do anything about that. But maybe it will also help focus the arguments being made. Again, I think Seattle would make a great location for an NHL team, but frankly, you haven’t made that case sufficiently.
I find it interesting that you say "Seattle would make a great location for a team" than proceed to contradict yourself with all your opinions as to why it would not. Your arguments/opinions are really not about Seattle at all but just a comparison to what your interests/biases are (just my opinion) as it pertains to Seattle. Totally understandable but in reality does not mean much to those of us who visit this thread on a regular basis for updates etc. Your opinions would matter more if we regularly visited your thread to post our opinion as to how we think 'build it first and you have to come' as it pertains to the NHL is even more naive than the approach of Hansen and our government officials.

The facts we are dealing with are that Hansen has an agreement (MOU) with our government officials to build an arena based on a confirmed NBA team as a tenant. They have all since publicly stated that an NHL first option is a possibility. An environmental review is scheduled to be completed early 2014. Potential ownership group was identified during the Coyote fiasco along with reported interest by NHL (not really confirmed but rumored). Our opinion is that Seattle would be a great place for an NHL team and there is good reason to think that.

I am an old school NHL fan from way back (became a fan as a kid when Penguins joined the league back in '67) and strongly support the Nordiques being back in the league. Quebec belongs in the league and I look forward to the day they are and I would not be that upset if they got a team before Seattle (or even instead of). My friends on here probably will not agree with that but that is just my history.

It just seems to me the regular visits we get from people like you, with other hopes as far as expansion/relocation, to "bash" Seattle as I may have stated, is more that the possibility of the NHL coming here is a threat to your aspirations for a team. Just my opinion.


Last edited by nwpensfan: 11-29-2013 at 01:47 PM. Reason: Spelling
nwpensfan is online now  
Old
11-29-2013, 12:56 PM
  #534
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
GuelphStormer -

First - full disclosure. I live in Minnesota. My locale already has a team. I have no skin in this game.

Now, I would like to say that I agree with all the points you make.

AND, I agree that this is not meant to say "Seattle is not getting a team." Not at all. It's merely to say that "Seattle is no slam dunk." Now, if I read right, some from Seattle may feel that this spring, when the EIS is complete, then Seattle is a slam dunk. I don't think so.

I merely think there is lots and lots of work here first before Seattle (or any city, for that matter) can feel secure that a team is coming.

And, it should also be said to be careful what you wish for.

Here is the reason - PHX for example. There are many big fans in PHX. But Glendale has put down lots of cash to keep that team there. So, if a team comes, don't be surprised if the owners' demands of the area are greater 10 years after the granting of the franchise than they were at the start.

Pro sports is a big-money operation and the owners are not in it to lose money. Someone pays......

Anyway, just a few of my thoughts.

Good luck Seattle fans. I say the same to Markham, to Hamilton, to Quebec.
I don't know anyone who visits this tread from Seattle that thinks its a slam dunk we get a team let alone states it on here once EIS is complete. At best we are hopefully optimistic that a team will end up here at all. We would all be just as happy if an NBA team came first so the building would than be built improving our chances to almost certainty. But the NHL first option has been thrown out there by the politicians and Hansen so we also view that as a possibility.

Comparing Seattle to Phoenix is like comparing apples to oranges IMO. I lived in Phoenix for a year and the location of that arena is the main reason that is a failure. The proposed Sodo arena in Seattle could not be more centrally located. Not to mention Seattle is 3 hours from Canada by car while Phoenix is in the middle of the desert in the SW. I still think Phoenix would succeed if the arena was better located.

nwpensfan is online now  
Old
11-29-2013, 01:18 PM
  #535
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
Glendale was a non-starter from the very start, and everyone knew that honestly. The only reason the yotes moved to Glendale was all the public dollars the city was going to give the team. The fact is, and still true to this day that Scottsdale was the much better location.

Also I don;t think anyone of the 'regulars' in here think it is a slam dunk.

We definitely have our walls up a little bit. The amount of times we had to justify why there were not potential owners linked in public to a NHL team in Seattle, and people who were quebec supporters using that as a reason why Seattle didn't have a shot, it got old after awhile.

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 01:43 PM
  #536
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
Glendale was a non-starter from the very start, and everyone knew that honestly. The only reason the yotes moved to Glendale was all the public dollars the city was going to give the team. The fact is, and still true to this day that Scottsdale was the much better location.

Also I don;t think anyone of the 'regulars' in here think it is a slam dunk.

We definitely have our walls up a little bit. The amount of times we had to justify why there were not potential owners linked in public to a NHL team in Seattle, and people who were quebec supporters using that as a reason why Seattle didn't have a shot, it got old after awhile.
Yes, I definitely got my walls up a bit (obviously) to the point that I have been staying away until I know something has been reported locally. I really don't understand this concept that it has to built before even being considered but than I guess that is just me. Cities are going to have to be much smarter, at least in the US, when it comes to dealing with professional sports teams. Seattle and Hansen are doing it exactly the right way IMO.

nwpensfan is online now  
Old
11-29-2013, 03:23 PM
  #537
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
Yes, I definitely got my walls up a bit (obviously) to the point that I have been staying away until I know something has been reported locally.
You guys are all to be complimented actually on your reserve, for taking the time, being patient with posters who visited (and or continue to from time-time) with the refrain that so & so was a better market, "us first" attitude. Seattle would be absolutely a winner of a location for the NHL & a site theyve long had their eyes on. Conditionally awarded a franchise in 74. I believe its coming, not "if" but "when"? 2015/16 or 2016/17 and Im confident that Quebec as well re-enters at the same time. 32 team league.

Not a case of one over the other. Both equal, same time frame, possibly staggered by a year but I doubt it. Whats not clear is the situation in Phoenix 4 years hence. If they do decide theyve got leave, and I hope they dont but if they do, possible Portland or even Milwaukee might wind up with them with the Bucks moving to Seattle in 2017. Meanwhile, I do indeed hope Hansen is able to renegotiate the MOU with NHL first but bolstered with the very strong possibility of course that the NBA is still being courted, a team sought & secured.

... and 67/68 Pens' huh? Remember them well as I had a supply of Les Binkley Sher-Wood's that my team had secured from someplace that I used for a couple of seasons. Yep, Andy Bathgate, Val Fonteyne, Ken Schinkel, Earl Ingarfield... bunch of really interesting players but like all of the 67/68 Expansion Franchises seriously handicapped by the 06'rs. Certainly be very interesting to see how the NHL handles the inbound franchises in Seattle & Quebec, Expansion Draft, how many players the existing teams are allowed to protect & so on.

Killion is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 03:27 PM
  #538
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
You guys are all to be complimented actually on your reserve, for taking the time, being patient with posters who visited (and or continue to from time-time) with the refrain that so & so was a better market, "us first" attitude. Seattle would be absolutely a winner of a location for the NHL & a site theyve long had their eyes on. Conditionally awarded a franchise in 74. I believe its coming, not "if" but "when"? 2015/16 or 2016/17 and Im confident that Quebec as well re-enters at the same time. 32 team league.

Not a case of one over the other. Both equal, same time frame, possibly staggered by a year but I doubt it. Whats not clear is the situation in Phoenix 4 years hence. If they do decide theyve got leave, and I hope they dont but if they do, possible Portland or even Milwaukee might wind up with them with the Bucks moving to Seattle in 2017. Meanwhile, I do indeed hope Hansen is able to renegotiate the MOU with NHL first but bolstered with the very strong possibility of course that the NBA is still being courted, a team sought & secured.

... and 67/68 Pens' huh? Remember them well as I had a supply of Les Binkley Sher-Wood's that my team had secured from someplace that I used for a couple of seasons. Yep, Andy Bathgate, Val Fonteyne, Ken Schinkel, Earl Ingarfield... bunch of really interesting players but like all of the 67/68 Expansion Franchises seriously handicapped by the 06'rs. Certainly be very interesting to see how the NHL handles the inbound franchises in Seattle & Quebec, Expansion Draft, how many players the existing teams are allowed to protect & so on.
Regarding Milwaukee , if the bucks leave it'll be due to lack of an new arena and i am not sure the NHL will want to use the same arena the bucks are in now or they would want a new arena as well.

If NHL wants a new arena there, and the bucks leave i doubt the NHL will be heading to Milwaukee.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 03:43 PM
  #539
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Another thought regarding the MOU there is a possibility that nothing needs to be changed and the NBA and NHL announce expansion to Seattle at the same time right as the MOU gets final approval

gstommylee is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 03:47 PM
  #540
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Regarding Milwaukee , if the bucks leave it'll be due to lack of an new arena and i am not sure the NHL will want to use the same arena the bucks are in now or they would want a new arena as well.

If NHL wants a new arena there, and the bucks leave i doubt the NHL will be heading to Milwaukee.
... ya. A new building in Milwaukee a requirement and so the argument would be if not for the Bucks then why for an NHL franchise when the NBA's long established & so on. Well, stranger things have happened, though Id certainly put their odds at landing an NHL team through relo as being somewhat lower than a few other possible destinations.

Killion is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 04:21 PM
  #541
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
You guys are all to be complimented actually on your reserve, for taking the time, being patient with posters who visited (and or continue to from time-time) with the refrain that so & so was a better market, "us first" attitude. Seattle would be absolutely a winner of a location for the NHL & a site theyve long had their eyes on. Conditionally awarded a franchise in 74. I believe its coming, not "if" but "when"? 2015/16 or 2016/17 and Im confident that Quebec as well re-enters at the same time. 32 team league.

Not a case of one over the other. Both equal, same time frame, possibly staggered by a year but I doubt it. Whats not clear is the situation in Phoenix 4 years hence. If they do decide theyve got leave, and I hope they dont but if they do, possible Portland or even Milwaukee might wind up with them with the Bucks moving to Seattle in 2017. Meanwhile, I do indeed hope Hansen is able to renegotiate the MOU with NHL first but bolstered with the very strong possibility of course that the NBA is still being courted, a team sought & secured.

... and 67/68 Pens' huh? Remember them well as I had a supply of Les Binkley Sher-Wood's that my team had secured from someplace that I used for a couple of seasons. Yep, Andy Bathgate, Val Fonteyne, Ken Schinkel, Earl Ingarfield... bunch of really interesting players but like all of the 67/68 Expansion Franchises seriously handicapped by the 06'rs. Certainly be very interesting to see how the NHL handles the inbound franchises in Seattle & Quebec, Expansion Draft, how many players the existing teams are allowed to protect & so on.
Funny thing is, it's not really the Quebec backers. In recent weeks it's been the ones who want another team in GTA (or anywhere but the US) that have been making most of the noise.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 04:43 PM
  #542
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Funny thing is, it's not really the Quebec backers. In recent weeks it's been the ones who want another team in GTA (or anywhere but the US) that have been making most of the noise.
In here?

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 04:46 PM
  #543
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
In here?
Recently yeah. Six months ago I think there were more Quebec backers but lately it's seeming to be more naysayers from other parts of Canada.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 04:53 PM
  #544
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post

... and 67/68 Pens' huh? Remember them well as I had a supply of Les Binkley Sher-Wood's that my team had secured from someplace that I used for a couple of seasons. Yep, Andy Bathgate, Val Fonteyne, Ken Schinkel, Earl Ingarfield... bunch of really interesting players but like all of the 67/68 Expansion Franchises seriously handicapped by the 06'rs. Certainly be very interesting to see how the NHL handles the inbound franchises in Seattle & Quebec, Expansion Draft, how many players the existing teams are allowed to protect & so on.
Binkley is who I most remember that first year him being the goalie. Being new to the game and being young I was amazed someone would want to do that!! I remember Briere and that tragic story. His number is retired along with Lemieux as only Pens to have that honor. Rick Kehoe became a favorite of mine along with Pierre Larouche as well as Ron Stackhouse (loved his name as a d man).

nwpensfan is online now  
Old
11-29-2013, 04:56 PM
  #545
BigZ65
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... ya. A new building in Milwaukee a requirement and so the argument would be if not for the Bucks then why for an NHL franchise when the NBA's long established & so on. Well, stranger things have happened, though Id certainly put their odds at landing an NHL team through relo as being somewhat lower than a few other possible destinations.
Who would own a team in Milwaukee, regardless of the arena issue? I can't recall any serious rumblings on the NHL there since the early 90's expansion.

BigZ65 is offline  
Old
12-02-2013, 07:21 AM
  #546
snovalleyhockeyfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Bend, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 513
vCash: 500
OT:

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Hans...234028591.html

Among the reasons there hasn't been a lot of news on the arena front lately? Hansen and friends went and climbed Mount Everest. And took the Seahawks 12th Man flag with them.

I guess in a way, Seattle getting the NBA back and bringing the NHL in will be like hitting the top of the world, don't you think?

snovalleyhockeyfan is offline  
Old
12-02-2013, 11:11 AM
  #547
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/ma...r-an-nhl-team/
Quote:
And from there, you can watch the dominos fall. There are already whispers that the league would like to expand to 32 teams. There is also speculation that an announcement on that front could be made after this season, with two more teams being put in place to begin play in 2017, which would coincide with the 100th anniversary of the league.

Seattle is a lock, which leaves either suburban Toronto or Quebec City. And the betting is if the league adds two teams, one of the concessions made by whichever eastern team gets in the league is that it will have to play out of the Western Conference in order to balance both conferences at 16 teams each. That would also coincidentally give Rogers more Canadian teams playing in western time zones, which is something it reportedly wants. Imagine how much Rogers would like it if it could air one Toronto team playing in the eastern time zone, then another immediately after with the other Toronto team playing on the west coast.
Love the positive rumblings.

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
12-02-2013, 12:35 PM
  #548
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
Binkley is who I most remember that first year him being the goalie. Being new to the game and being young I was amazed someone would want to do that!! I remember Briere and that tragic story. His number is retired along with Lemieux as only Pens to have that honor. Rick Kehoe became a favorite of mine along with Pierre Larouche as well as Ron Stackhouse (loved his name as a d man).
Ya. And another Ronnie, the inimitable Ron Schock. Uh oh. Better stay away from that guy.... Binkley of course had been a pretty big star in Cleveland for many years, like many though unable to break into the NHL what with so few jobs (6 in total) available in the crease. Joe Daly, Marvelous Marv Edwards, yep, all kinds colorful players on the Penguins during their early years. Red Kelly behind the bench. In certain respects more fun to watch than the cross state rival Flyers who enjoyed success early, punching their way to the top of the heap, and another good example that though decried as "watering down the league", with so much talent available today as compared to then any degradation of play totally negligible in adding two more clubs. Success in fact, like the Flyers, Buffalo, any number of Expansion team examples could come early. 5-7-10yrs. Depends on Ownership, Management, Scouting & Coaching, some luck & good to go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigZ65 View Post
Who would own a team in Milwaukee, regardless of the arena issue? I can't recall any serious rumblings on the NHL there since the early 90's expansion.
No idea. Just throwing it out there. Ive always thought it would be a natural, great market for hockey however I dont think its capable of supporting both an NBA & NHL franchise. One or the other. And with the Bucks looking like they could be moving on.....

Killion is offline  
Old
12-02-2013, 12:59 PM
  #549
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Would be nice if the writer stated that was his opinion/conclusion or if his sources passed that confirmation on.... I've heard rumblings that an announcement about expansion could come after the Olympics or the season end.
Ya, Ive read same, snippets here & there. Pure speculation however.... I could see the NHL announcing Expansion to Quebec & Seattle post Olympics' quite easily for the 2015/16 season. Merely awaiting the finalization of the Environmental Assessment & Review in Seattle, details on a re-worked MOU between Hansen & the City/County, the structure of ownership & terms well down the road to being concluded & all completely off-radar. Quebec we know all about, this latest major outlay of $1.5B by TVA is to me yet another piece of the puzzle dropping into place.

Killion is offline  
Old
12-02-2013, 05:25 PM
  #550
The Zetterberg Era
Moderator
Nyquist Explosion!
 
The Zetterberg Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ft. Myers, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 19,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
No idea. Just throwing it out there. Ive always thought it would be a natural, great market for hockey however I dont think its capable of supporting both an NBA & NHL franchise. One or the other. And with the Bucks looking like they could be moving on.....
Problem is you need the Bucks to get the arena, because if they cannot do it, well it is going to be really hard to accomplish. The Bucks are having issues and they have maybe the most powerful politician in the state as their owner. They did studies on this market in the early 90's and it always fell short of what they considered being a viable market. The Brewers owner Mark Attanasio while primarily a California resident, is invested in the city with various causes even owning a chunk of the AHL team. I would think the obvious target would be Don Levin. Which would be interesting since he is the owner of the most hated rival Milwaukee has had for several years in the AHL. But he has made no secret of his desire to own an NHL franchise, if you could unite Attanasio with Levin you would have a lot of financial muscle.

I still question whether or not the Milwaukee area would be a great choice. Much of the hockey played in this state is played basically everywhere except the Milwaukee area. The entertainment dollars would also be an interesting issue, although Milwaukee has a lot of Mid-west transplants that have certainly grown up hockey fans, it has tons of Wild, Wings and Blackhawks fans.

I would love to see a team here, for obvious selfish reasons. But assuming Toronto 2 is a Western Conference placement, something I have long maintained they would be and indications are starting to point in that direction, Milwaukee is in trouble.

Seattle
Toronto 2
Portland
Houston
Omaha
Las Vegas

even
Salt Lake City
Kansas City

They all present options in terms of Western conference expansion. Many of them more attractive than Milwaukee. Also much like some of the argument with Quebec, currently the State of Wisconsin gets a lot of Wild games when not conflicting with the Bucks or Brewers. They have a decent fan-base in terms of Blackhawks and Wings transplants and bandwagon fans. They also do a fairly good job of following the beloved Badgers that move onto the NHL ranks. I am not sure a franchise is needed and most like you are of the opinion the Bucks would have to leave. I just don't see it in the cards unless they get an adamant potential owner.

Also there two most marketable companies in terms of potential partnerships in Miller (now a part of the Miller Molson Coors conglomerate) and Harley might not bring enough to the table. Miller/Molson/Coors already has invested a lot in the NHL, do they need to bare the burden as the major sponsor in Milwaukee? Johnson Controls is the largest company in the state but isn't an advertising kind of company a massive company that is basically an auto supplier to the big three in Detroit, that doesn't need to invest in things like this. Would Kohl's step up to the plate, I don't know they don't do a whole lot with the other sports franchises. So that is interesting too, do the corporate partners in the Wisconsin area bring the kind of attractive sponsorship the NHL wants?

The Zetterberg Era 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 01:34 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.