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.

McKenzie on Expansion: Vegas and possibly beyond 32?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-30-2013, 11:49 AM
  #476
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,247
vCash: 500
If I remember correctly, MLB has been rumored to be interested in San Antonio for a long time. NFL on and off too.

Tawnos is online now  
Old
12-30-2013, 12:30 PM
  #477
lvwranglersfan
Registered User
 
lvwranglersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 65
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchemist42 View Post
Not if locals avoid The Strip as much as I've heard they do.
Most of us do. I have been to the strip twice in the last couple years, once when family came to town, and the other to see Frozen Fury (Kings vs. Avs) at the MGM. But the proposed arena is slightly off strip, so that wouldn't be so bad, especially if they make it so you don't have to walk through a casino to get there like our ECHL team does. But there is no way locals will go to a lot of games because the prices will be way too high for what most people make in this city.

lvwranglersfan is offline  
Old
12-30-2013, 12:50 PM
  #478
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: 24,579
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
If I remember correctly, MLB has been rumored to be interested in San Antonio for a long time. NFL on and off too.
MLB's an odd animal, as it'll probably come down to whoever is the first market to start building an MLB-caliber stadium will become the favorite for a relocation team by a country mile. Whether that'll be San Antonio or Vegas or Portland or Charlotte or Sacramento or Nashville or Montreal or Vancouver or someone else is anybody's guess at this point. It's very tough to take that initial step though, given the limited alternative events that can be held there compared to an NHL/NBA arena. Much higher chance of being a white elephant, as at least an arena can still be profitable without an anchor team, as is apparently the case for the Sprint Center in Kansas City.

__________________

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 offline  
Old
12-30-2013, 01:15 PM
  #479
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotchex View Post
Austin projected population growth means pro sports will be there. Especially as Austin and San Antonio increasingly grow and merge into one giant market.

The Miami metro (CSA) is longer than a combined Austin-San Antonio metro would be.

The Greater Austin-San Antonio Corridor Council is already pushing this idea http://www.thecorridor.org/.

Austin already has 1.8M and San Antonio 2.2M, so 4M combined. By 2040 that's projected to be about 3.5M each, or 7M total.

There's no way professional sports are gonna leave 7M people to just the Spurs and UT teams.
There's a similarity between Austin/San Antonio and Orlando/Tampa in terms of distance and other factors... probably even market size. So I'm not totally dismissing the possibility, but I'm also thinking in terms of Orlando (NBA) / Tampa (NHL) as not being an accident.

Where I think UT matters is (1) a stranglehold on the community, leading to (2) just try and get public funding for an arena.

I think San Antonio would be a viable baseball market... but there's a reason the Alamodome exists in the alignment in which it's built. This city is waiting for an NFL branch to shake loose more than anything, never mind the Dome doesn't have the suites for it.

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
12-30-2013, 01:29 PM
  #480
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
MLB's an odd animal, as it'll probably come down to whoever is the first market to start building an MLB-caliber stadium will become the favorite for a relocation team by a country mile. Whether that'll be San Antonio or Vegas or Portland or Charlotte or Sacramento or Nashville or Montreal or Vancouver or someone else is anybody's guess at this point. It's very tough to take that initial step though, given the limited alternative events that can be held there compared to an NHL/NBA arena. Much higher chance of being a white elephant, as at least an arena can still be profitable without an anchor team, as is apparently the case for the Sprint Center in Kansas City.
Remember the contraction stunt?

MLB has managed a couple new buildings since then in current markets, but that required pulling teeth and fingernails and maybe eyeballs to get that done. After the initial frenzy of the Expos relocation sweepstakes, MLB basically gave up on shopping the Marlins to other markets. If MLB were to announce an expansion right now, they might draw initial interest from markets, but who's going to build the billion dollar ballpark they really want- the one that siphons away ALL the entertainment dollars in the smaller cities who would bid? Why should such a city build anything when you don't know what harebrained scheme MLB will next allow to see the light of day? MLB knows such an announcement (for the foreseeable future) would be embarrassing to the league. That's why Lew Wolff has to talk about undersized ballparks paid with private money when it comes to San Jose or Oakland... he (and MLB) have no leverage.

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
12-30-2013, 03:32 PM
  #481
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,220
vCash: 500
Vegas just doesn't seem to pass the smell test.

Consider that the prevalent business model in the US seems to be getting a municipality to put public funds into an arena that the team owner can control. Hope to break even on the NHL team, but turn a profit from the revenue earned on non-hockey events.

The Florida Panthers are the poster child for this - they don't even pretend to care about making the hockey team a profitable venture, but the hockey team was necessary to get the rights to the arena, which is a cash cow.

If an arena gets built in Vegas without a hockey team, who in their right mind is going to pay $300 million for a team and then sign up for an annual (mostly) fixed cost of $90 million of running a hockey team in the hopes that they can pull in more than $90 million a year in revenue to make the whole thing worthwhile?

There are far cheaper options for events in Vegas. You don't need to pay a team full of hockey players $70 million a year to host 41 events at MGM arena. If the NHL team isn't required to build the arena, then there won't be an NHL team there. It's that simple.

The Atlanta Thrashers pretty much proved that an arena in an iffy hockey market is better off and far more profitable without an NHL team, opening up a bunch of other dates for non-hockey events that people in the area might want to watch, and not burdening the whole operation with the massive expense of a hockey team.

CGG is offline  
Old
12-31-2013, 01:42 AM
  #482
ucanthanzalthetruth
Kiddin' Around
 
ucanthanzalthetruth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,697
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
MLB's an odd animal, as it'll probably come down to whoever is the first market to start building an MLB-caliber stadium will become the favorite for a relocation team by a country mile. Whether that'll be San Antonio or Vegas or Portland or Charlotte or Sacramento or Nashville or Montreal or Vancouver or someone else is anybody's guess at this point. It's very tough to take that initial step though, given the limited alternative events that can be held there compared to an NHL/NBA arena. Much higher chance of being a white elephant, as at least an arena can still be profitable without an anchor team, as is apparently the case for the Sprint Center in Kansas City.
Montreal isn't getting another shot at MLB for the forseeable future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCSPounder View Post
Remember the contraction stunt?

MLB has managed a couple new buildings since then in current markets, but that required pulling teeth and fingernails and maybe eyeballs to get that done. After the initial frenzy of the Expos relocation sweepstakes, MLB basically gave up on shopping the Marlins to other markets.
The other franchise being shopped/scheduled for contraction was the Twins, and the only reason MLB gave up shopping them was because (IIRC) an injuction was filed against MLB by local government forcing MLB to honour the Twins lease in the Metrodome.

ucanthanzalthetruth is offline  
Old
12-31-2013, 03:28 AM
  #483
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchemist42 View Post
I'm just saying, I can't picture 18,000 tourists taking time out of their Vegas holiday to do this. I mean, NHL games are great fun, but its nothing compared to what else goes on at night in Vegas. I just can't see many taking advantage of bought tickets by the casinos for these games. I think the NBA works, but not the NHL.
You don't need 18,000 tourists.

An NHL team in a place like Vegas are going to have a local fan base similar to a pre-Moyes Phoenix or Florida Panthers attendance numbers. THEN add 1 to 3 thousand or so tourists a night on top of that, and you've got decent attendance.

Everyone likes to make massive generalizations about markets like Vegas -- locals can't/won't go to the strip, locals work every night in the casinos, tourists would rather go to a Vegas show than an NHL game, etc -- but there's one REALLY REALLY BIG generalization people aren't mentioning:

Dudes like sports more than they like Cirque du Soleil or Celine Dion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Sacramento would be a much better market.
Living in their TV market, I don't think so. Their fans support the Kings, but their corporate situation isn't good. Hockey is an after-thought here, even with the Sharks already in the TV market. There should not be a fourth California team & a second northern California team before they add another team in Texas. A Sacramento-San Jose rivalry would be no where near as helpful to the NHL as a Dallas-Houston rivalry.

Not that Houston is an available option, I have serious doubts on Austin (having lived there before, too). San Antonio/Sacramento having BOTH NHL/NBA is not a great idea.

Someone like Vegas with the "only game in town" angle is much better, IMO. Much like Oklahoma City and the NBA, or San Jose in the NHL.


Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
MLB's an odd animal, as it'll probably come down to whoever is the first market to start building an MLB-caliber stadium will become the favorite for a relocation team by a country mile. Whether that'll be San Antonio or Vegas or Portland or Charlotte or Sacramento or Nashville or Montreal or Vancouver or someone else is anybody's guess at this point. It's very tough to take that initial step though, given the limited alternative events that can be held there compared to an NHL/NBA arena. Much higher chance of being a white elephant, as at least an arena can still be profitable without an anchor team, as is apparently the case for the Sprint Center in Kansas City.
MLB is probably tapped out in terms of viable markets in the US, because of all the reasons you just said: the length of the season, expense of stadiums, limited use of stadiums.

I firmly believe Montreal is a viable MLB city.
I think San Antonio would be as well, but it would take a $700 million commitment to a stadium like Miami's or Houston's due to the heat & humidity of Texas.

But MLB isn't in any place where they could expand, even though it would solve a lot of logistical problems for them.


I still think the NHL should try to be more like MLB. In baseball, the 6x5 with year-round interleague took 15 years to adopt because they had to wade in gently. The NHL doesn't have that problem.

But baseball's schedule is designed to maximize attendance. BOS-TB is a highly important game in MLB. It wasn't in the NHL until this season. NYR-NYI is going to be a sellout whether it's a division game or not.

KevFu is offline  
Old
12-31-2013, 06:57 AM
  #484
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
You don't need 18,000 tourists.

An NHL team in a place like Vegas are going to have a local fan base similar to a pre-Moyes Phoenix or Florida Panthers attendance numbers. THEN add 1 to 3 thousand or so tourists a night on top of that, and you've got decent attendance.

Everyone likes to make massive generalizations about markets like Vegas -- locals can't/won't go to the strip, locals work every night in the casinos, tourists would rather go to a Vegas show than an NHL game, etc -- but there's one REALLY REALLY BIG generalization people aren't mentioning:

Dudes like sports more than they like Cirque du Soleil or Celine Dion.
This is a bit of a stretch. No matter what measure you want to use, Las Vegas is small by NHL standards. Phoenix has 2X the population. Miami has almost 3X the population. So I think it's crazy to assume Vegas would have a local attendance base on par with Phoenix or Florida, which are by the way the two worst markets for attendance in the league.

The other factors are prevalent in Las Vegas - a much higher percentage of the population works at night when the games would be on, the strip is not an ideal location for locals, and there is a disgustingly high level of competition for the entertainment dollar. You can argue the extent that each of these factors would have on attendance, but those are all things that places like Miami and Phoenix don't have to deal with, or at least not to the same extent as Vegas.

Vegas is also much less rich (for the average person) than most NHL places. They have a lower median income than most. Tampa and Miami are actually lower, likely driven down by the large number of retirees living there on small incomes. Buffalo and Pittsburgh are the only other markets lower than Vegas. Pittsburgh almost died twice, rescued only by generational talent. Buffalo has a gigantic population to draw from in Ontario and other municipalities in upstate New York, while Vegas has literally nothing around it for 100 miles in any direction.

I get that dudes like hockey more than Celine, but the average trip to Vegas is about 3 nights, and it would be difficult for the average person to swing a trip to Vegas on a night when they could see their favorite team playing the local Vegas team. I like hockey as much as the next person, but unless Vegas is playing the Habs, I have absolutely no interest in going to see a hockey game in Vegas, and chances are I'm busy on whatever night the schedule maker would have the Habs playing in Vegas.

Being dependent on tourists to survive is an absolutely dreadful idea for an NHL team.

CGG is offline  
Old
12-31-2013, 08:45 AM
  #485
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,535
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Sacramento would be a much better market.
I'd say it's a toss-up. Vegas would have a single team in the market and be the first major league franchise in the market. I sincerely doubt the locals and the suits wouldn't put everything into making it work. It would be a once in a lifetime opportunity. Sacramento probably wouldn't have as much work to do for fan support because it's already exposed to hockey and it's not nearly the afterthought that some people suggest it is. The corporate side of things favors Vegas heavily compared to Sacramento.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchemist42 View Post
Not if locals avoid The Strip as much as I've heard they do.
People really need to put this in perspective. This isn't Atlanta with many different options for major league sports. This is Vegas going for its first team ever. If they have to go to the strip for it, they will likely go to the strip for it. If the NHL is the first team that pops in, they will want it to succeed otherwise nobody else even thinks about giving them a shot.

Pinkfloyd is online now  
Old
12-31-2013, 02:58 PM
  #486
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Dudes like sports more than they like Cirque du Soleil or Celine Dion.
Dudes would generally also choose getting laid over hockey season tickets, if the choice comes down to that. That's why Cirque du Soleil gets some business.

(It was funnier than "real dudes in Vegas probably end up with too much gambling debt to lay down for season tickets," but it's also the effect of being either married or otherwise attached and trying to ensure both adults are happy with the arrangement.)

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
12-31-2013, 03:07 PM
  #487
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ucanthanzalthetruth View Post
The other franchise being shopped/scheduled for contraction was the Twins, and the only reason MLB gave up shopping them was because (IIRC) an injuction was filed against MLB by local government forcing MLB to honour the Twins lease in the Metrodome.
Minnesota was the other side of the contraction stunt, but then they went back and tried to get a ballpark a few times in town, eventually getting one. The Florida Marlins happened to be next in line- after the Expos went to Washington- to get shopped around for a little while, and the mayor of Portland at the time eventually told MLB to stick it. MLB came back and tried to act like "oh, we think it's probably more responsible to work with Miami" after that, but the rebuff hurt.

Consider how paralyzed MLB has been with Oakland and San Jose after that, or how Atlanta (which SHOULD be the counterargument to my argument) snuck by with the suburban move despite the near-mantra of MLB with stadia in city cores.

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
12-31-2013, 03:49 PM
  #488
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
You don't need 18,000 tourists.
...
[MOD]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
I'd say it's a toss-up. Vegas would have a single team in the market and be the first major league franchise in the market. I sincerely doubt the locals and the suits wouldn't put everything into making it work. It would be a once in a lifetime opportunity. Sacramento probably wouldn't have as much work to do for fan support because it's already exposed to hockey and it's not nearly the afterthought that some people suggest it is. The corporate side of things favors Vegas heavily compared to Sacramento.



People really need to put this in perspective. This isn't Atlanta with many different options for major league sports. This is Vegas going for its first team ever. If they have to go to the strip for it, they will likely go to the strip for it. If the NHL is the first team that pops in, they will want it to succeed otherwise nobody else even thinks about giving them a shot.
I like Sacramento more because it is much less transient and having two major league teams would look good for California's Capital. Vegas does have more corporate support. I actually don't want Vegas to end up like a bootleg version of the Blackhawks or Leafs were all the casinos buy the tickets and people can't get any.


Last edited by No Fun Shogun: 12-31-2013 at 06:51 PM. Reason: Cutting down large quote to make it easier to read
Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
12-31-2013, 04:59 PM
  #489
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
This is a bit of a stretch. No matter what measure you want to use, Las Vegas is small by NHL standards. Phoenix has 2X the population. Miami has almost 3X the population. So I think it's crazy to assume Vegas would have a local attendance base on par with Phoenix or Florida, which are by the way the two worst markets for attendance in the league.

The other factors are prevalent in Las Vegas - a much higher percentage of the population works at night when the games would be on, the strip is not an ideal location for locals, and there is a disgustingly high level of competition for the entertainment dollar. You can argue the extent that each of these factors would have on attendance, but those are all things that places like Miami and Phoenix don't have to deal with, or at least not to the same extent as Vegas.

Vegas is also much less rich (for the average person) than most NHL places. They have a lower median income than most. Tampa and Miami are actually lower, likely driven down by the large number of retirees living there on small incomes. Buffalo and Pittsburgh are the only other markets lower than Vegas. Pittsburgh almost died twice, rescued only by generational talent. Buffalo has a gigantic population to draw from in Ontario and other municipalities in upstate New York, while Vegas has literally nothing around it for 100 miles in any direction.

I get that dudes like hockey more than Celine, but the average trip to Vegas is about 3 nights, and it would be difficult for the average person to swing a trip to Vegas on a night when they could see their favorite team playing the local Vegas team. I like hockey as much as the next person, but unless Vegas is playing the Habs, I have absolutely no interest in going to see a hockey game in Vegas, and chances are I'm busy on whatever night the schedule maker would have the Habs playing in Vegas.

Being dependent on tourists to survive is an absolutely dreadful idea for an NHL team.
Everything you mentioned is a bit of a stretch as well. We're trying to make educated guesses without hard data.

The idea that everyone who lives in Vegas is a blackjack dealer or cocktail waitress is a broad generalization.
The idea that all the fans in Vegas would be tourists in town is a broad generalization
The idea that Vegas is a bad market because of a low per capita income (one that's about the same as LOS ANGELES, FYI) is a broad generalization.
The idea that Vegas shows and professional sports vie for the SAME entertainment dollars (The NY Rangers and Broadway both do very well) is a broad generalization.


As usual, I find myself arguing for something I really don't believe in all that much, just because I find the rationale used to back up my own belief significantly flawed.

The best argument against Vegas: It's TOO experimental for a two-team expansion.

KevFu is offline  
Old
12-31-2013, 06:10 PM
  #490
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
I like Sacramento more because it is much less transient and having two major league teams would look good for California's Capital. Vegas does have more corporate support. I actually don't want Vegas to end up like a bootleg version of the Blackhawks or Leafs were all the casinos buy the tickets and people can't get any.
I just don't see it. I'm in the Sharks & Sacramento Kings media market now. The Joe Six-Pack fans of the Kings are awesome. They show up and they're loud. (Ditto Golden State).

The corporate dollars in Sacramento is significantly lacking.

Plus, while not specifically stated, the new Sacramento downtown arena is not going to be built do also do hockey. I can't find a single mention of hockey in any of the arena talks or discussion in all the stories.

They've already shrunk the size of the arena -- much like Brooklyn. And the only rendering of the inside of the arena shows concrete poured to the edge of the court:
http://sinbapointforward.files.wordp...pg?w=600&h=414

KevFu is offline  
Old
12-31-2013, 06:30 PM
  #491
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
to answer several issues about potential markets:

Omaha bombed, just as the Scouts did to KC back in the 70s, remember the Ak-Sar-Ben tribe that backed Calgary's top affiliate for 2 years, they were relocated twice, and it just took QC awhile to restart the Mallards franchise that's in the CHL;

Austin's a non-starter, because that's essentially Stars territory, since DAL's top affiliate plays in Cedar Park (Texas Stars)....

Indianapolis is getting an ECHL Team this fall (Fuel).

Tulsa has its CHL Team.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
12-31-2013, 07:17 PM
  #492
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
Austin's a non-starter, because that's essentially Stars territory, since DAL's top affiliate plays in Cedar Park (Texas Stars)....
Sigh. Austin (200 miles away) is in no size, shape, or form Stars territory.

The presence of an AHL team would have zero impact on an expansion/relocation - other than one potential vote against (although the Stars would likely welcome one).

kdb209 is offline  
Old
12-31-2013, 08:06 PM
  #493
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,736
vCash: 500
I dislike the notion that simply being the 1 team in a state equals the whole state being that team's market. I think its reasonable to see Austin as separate from Dallas.

The NHL wanted to be the first in Columbus once the growth patterns were realized, Austin could be the same. Considering what Austin will likely be in 10 years, pro talk will start to happen. Like Columbus, Austin might become too big for one university team to claim.

cutchemist42 is online now  
Old
12-31-2013, 08:26 PM
  #494
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,853
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 kdb209 View Post
Sigh. Austin (200 miles away) is in no size, shape, or form Stars territory.

The presence of an AHL team would have zero impact on an expansion/relocation - other than one potential vote against (although the Stars would likely welcome one).
DISAGREE, KDB, you of all ppl should know that another league cannot enter another league's territory, and the Stars basically control Austin, which crosses that area off the list of expansion/relocation.

same premise about Portland, OR, and Houston applies to Austin bc there's no arena to play in, that's why lower leagues like the CHL left Austin, and San Antonio when a higher league has said opportunity, that's why OKC is also in the AHL BECAUSE Edmonton had a franchise available, when the A was stuck on 29 and finally eliminated the rule on split affiliations to avoid stupidity like the Oilers ran into in the Leafs backyard when the Ricoh Coliseum lease was cancelled on the Road Runners back in 2003, then the abrupt relo for the 1st lockout to Edmonton for '04/'05 and then the eventual promotion of OKC replacing the successful CHL Blazers.

That's also why many posters here oppose Hartford from receiving a 2nd chance despite threads to the contrary.

if Baltimore is too close to Washington, Austin's too close to Dallas. In other words don't kill the established franchise... it's why some franchises have gone away in other leagues, that were mainstays, if not successful, why dilute it further, Texas hockey since the arrival of the Stars has done what to those feeding off it, there used to be many Texas cities that had Central Hockey League teams, now they've either collapsed, suspended operations (Fort Worth) OR have gone junior routes, to survive, and Allen is the only other franchise in a lower league remaining other than the AHL, and Houston lost theirs after surviving two league collapses before the deal to go to Iowa.


Last edited by CHRDANHUTCH: 12-31-2013 at 08:38 PM.
CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
12-31-2013, 08:51 PM
  #495
HugoSimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
This is a bit of a stretch. No matter what measure you want to use, Las Vegas is small by NHL standards. Phoenix has 2X the population. Miami has almost 3X the population. So I think it's crazy to assume Vegas would have a local attendance base on par with Phoenix or Florida, which are by the way the two worst markets for attendance in the league.
This bas been mentioned about 100 separate times in this thread and it makes absolutely no flipping sense.

Make no mistakes the only reason vegas is mentioned and why it seems quite viable is that is there is no competition from the big 3. This is a huge factor, because not only are you splitting your ticket sales across multiple sports, which in the ideal situation would be fine if your getting a fair share of the audience, however your also splitting the attention of your audience. In almost every market in the US Hockey ranks dead last when faced with competition.

This is why hockeys biggest per capita success's tend to be in supposedly northern places(buffalo, winnipeg, etc)

The fact is if your only pro sport is hockey, odds are it becomes the water cooler, bandwagon sports, if not its mostly the hardcore fans that keep it going.


Last edited by HugoSimon: 12-31-2013 at 09:52 PM.
HugoSimon is offline  
Old
12-31-2013, 09:38 PM
  #496
Shawa666
Registered User
 
Shawa666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Québec, Qc, Ca
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,298
vCash: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
DISAGREE, KDB, you of all ppl should know that another league cannot enter another league's territory, and the Stars basically control Austin, which crosses that area off the list of expansion/relocation.

same premise about Portland, OR, and Houston applies to Austin bc there's no arena to play in, that's why lower leagues like the CHL left Austin, and San Antonio when a higher league has said opportunity, that's why OKC is also in the AHL BECAUSE Edmonton had a franchise available, when the A was stuck on 29 and finally eliminated the rule on split affiliations to avoid stupidity like the Oilers ran into in the Leafs backyard when the Ricoh Coliseum lease was cancelled on the Road Runners back in 2003, then the abrupt relo for the 1st lockout to Edmonton for '04/'05 and then the eventual promotion of OKC replacing the successful CHL Blazers.

That's also why many posters here oppose Hartford from receiving a 2nd chance despite threads to the contrary.

if Baltimore is too close to Washington, Austin's too close to Dallas. In other words don't kill the established franchise... it's why some franchises have gone away in other leagues, that were mainstays, if not successful, why dilute it further, Texas hockey since the arrival of the Stars has done what to those feeding off it, there used to be many Texas cities that had Central Hockey League teams, now they've either collapsed, suspended operations (Fort Worth) OR have gone junior routes, to survive, and Allen is the only other franchise in a lower league remaining other than the AHL, and Houston lost theirs after surviving two league collapses before the deal to go to Iowa.
You do realize that if the NHL says something happens, then the AHL, which is mostly made up by teams owned by their parent club, will do as the NHL wishes, right?

There is no formal territorial protection between leagues in hockey like it exists in baseball.

Shawa666 is offline  
Old
12-31-2013, 10:13 PM
  #497
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,853
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 Shawa666 View Post
You do realize that if the NHL says something happens, then the AHL, which is mostly made up by teams owned by their parent club, will do as the NHL wishes, right?

There is no formal territorial protection between leagues in hockey like it exists in baseball.
that post violates the NHL Constitution, Shawa, all leagues have those protections, that's why Hartford keeps getting rejected.

another example is Cincinnati, how many times have the Cyclones suspended operations for various reasons, 4, and even split that fanbase to the point where it was questionable if that market would've supported hockey, once the Anaheim experiment tanked there just as it had been ignored the 2 years playing in Washington's backyard, which is why Baltimore is long gone after 3 tenures as a hockey market, even if the Capitals wanted to reestablish a franchise there in a lower league.

reports are now surfacing of a 6500 seat arena for Montgomery County, Texas, with eyes on an ECHL/CHL Franchise, possibly the return of the Texas Brahmas, this arena is just north of Houston (Harris County) that'll be completed by October 2015.


Breaking news for those fans who disdain the possible choice of Vegas as an expansion site as McKenzie reported, there is now reports saying the ECHL Franchise (the LV Wranglers) will not be retained as a tenant for Orleans Arena.


Last edited by CHRDANHUTCH: 12-31-2013 at 10:21 PM.
CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
12-31-2013, 10:41 PM
  #498
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
that post violates the NHL Constitution, Shawa, all leagues have those protections, that's why Hartford keeps getting rejected.
There is absolutely nothing in the NHL Constitution that recognizes territorial rights of teams in other leagues.

The only territorial rights are those of NHL Member Clubs - 50 miles from the corporate limits of their home city. That's it.

Repeating your claims over and over again - and never backing them up when challenged - does not make them true.

kdb209 is offline  
Old
12-31-2013, 11:03 PM
  #499
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,853
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 kdb209 View Post
There is absolutely nothing in the NHL Constitution that recognizes territorial rights of teams in other leagues.

The only territorial rights are those of NHL Member Clubs - 50 miles from the corporate limits of their home city. That's it.

Repeating your claims over and over again - and never backing them up when challenged - does not make them true.
again, I disagree, you keep arguing for the same markets over and over again, and seem to believe that Houston should get a team, Tulsa should get a team, what I am saying is those markets that have franchises already shouldn't be an option to move up just because it's an option, explain how Tulsa, Houston, Austin, etc. would succeed, and what happens if those franchises struggle or have to be taken over by the league, as Pittsburgh was twice, Buffalo and Glendale.

Each league, including the NHL, HAS Gentlemen's agreements to not enter another league's territory, unless a deal is struck as was the case in 2001 when the AHL expanded from 21 to 27.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
12-31-2013, 11:19 PM
  #500
The Zetterberg Era
Nyquist Explosion!
 
The Zetterberg Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ft. Myers, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 17,350
vCash: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
again, I disagree, you keep arguing for the same markets over and over again, and seem to believe that Houston should get a team, Tulsa should get a team, what I am saying is those markets that have franchises already shouldn't be an option to move up just because it's an option, explain how Tulsa, Houston, Austin, etc. would succeed, and what happens if those franchises struggle or have to be taken over by the league, as Pittsburgh was twice, Buffalo and Glendale.

Each league, including the NHL, HAS Gentlemen's agreements to not enter another league's territory, unless a deal is struck as was the case in 2001 when the AHL expanded from 21 to 27.
So explain Winnipeg?

The league doesn't care about that, it is not a rule. They can avoid it but as Austin bloats towards 2 million over the next 30 years if the NHL decides they want the market, well the biggest and baddest gets what it wants.

Also your theory on why Houston left isn't entirely accurate, the Stars didn't kill them Alexander raised the rent to astronomical rates because he was more interested in one tenant and a ton of concerts.

Houston and Portland are very much available if the owners of their dual purpose facilities are interested.

By the way Quebec failed in the AHL does this disqualify them? Not following here, sure a NHL team will try to kill another organization that moves into their area the Wings were extremely hard on the IHL Detroit Vipers. However the NHL doesn't have to walk on egg shells at all.

Also I think the AHL as we know it is heading for a change. I don't know how quickly it will happen, but I expect to see westward movement in the AHL at some point. They can shuffle the deck at that level as well.

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 06:11 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.