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.

Shoalts on Expansion: At least 3 years away; Imbalance favors Seattle, Vegas

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-23-2014, 02:07 PM
  #126
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 15,454
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 ScottyBowman View Post
Amen. Basically have a team with a tiny fan base and they will probably fill the arena with tourists that the casinos gave tickets away for free. Would rather see a team in Seattle or Portland.
again, the issue w/ both SEA and POR is whom do you take, POR, OR has everything to do w/ Vulcan, which has equal interest in both WA and OR (Seahawks/Sounders/Blazers), and I don't see Vulcan interested in adding another tenant to MODA Center in Portland, that's why Vegas is the front runner as a compromise.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
03-23-2014, 02:43 PM
  #127
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
PCSPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
again, the issue w/ both SEA and POR is whom do you take, POR, OR has everything to do w/ Vulcan, which has equal interest in both WA and OR (Seahawks/Sounders/Blazers), and I don't see Vulcan interested in adding another tenant to MODA Center in Portland, that's why Vegas is the front runner as a compromise.
I didn't see it happening until Vulcan leaked that they were in the Coyotes mixer.

I'm still not sure it'll happen, and a question might be begged about why nothing happened here when the Thrashers were cut loose. Actually, I may have come up with the answer regarding, several years down the line, posturing for the next arena.

I still think Vulcan is geared more for relocation, though. So I won't be holding my breath.

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
03-23-2014, 05:00 PM
  #128
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCSPounder View Post
I didn't see it happening until Vulcan leaked that they were in the Coyotes mixer.

I'm still not sure it'll happen, and a question might be begged about why nothing happened here when the Thrashers were cut loose. Actually, I may have come up with the answer regarding, several years down the line, posturing for the next arena.

I still think Vulcan is geared more for relocation, though. So I won't be holding my breath.
I think we could very well see coyotes in portland if that 5 year out clause is invoked.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-23-2014, 05:26 PM
  #129
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
I think we could very well see coyotes in portland if that 5 year out clause is invoked.
I think you could very well be right about this. It's only guessing, of course, but it seems to me that this supposed expansion that everyone is expecting may not be as clear cut and already a fait accompli as we would hope.

Seems like Quebec might need to be available for Panthers (I know it's along shot, but the first pleas for more $$ are coming from ownership there), and I am sure somewhere in the west is going to have to receive Phoenix.

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
03-23-2014, 06:13 PM
  #130
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Outside GZ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,554
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
I think you could very well be right about this. It's only guessing, of course, but it seems to me that this supposed expansion that everyone is expecting may not be as clear cut and already a fait accompli as we would hope.

Seems like Quebec might need to be available for Panthers (I know it's along shot, but the first pleas for more $$ are coming from ownership there), and I am sure somewhere in the west is going to have to receive Phoenix.
Your assessment seems reasonable...

There are many moments for ruthless action - what is often called ruthless - what may in many circumstances be only clarity, seeing clearly what there is to be done and doing it, directly, quickly, awake, looking at it.

Llama19 is offline  
Old
03-23-2014, 06:31 PM
  #131
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 15,454
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
I think we could very well see coyotes in portland if that 5 year out clause is invoked.
I don't buy that, tommy, because if that was the case, why was Seattle in the running as a Coyote option before it's now an expansion front-runner.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
03-23-2014, 06:58 PM
  #132
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
I don't buy that, tommy, because if that was the case, why was Seattle in the running as a Coyote option before it's now an expansion front-runner.
Seattle's arena agreement expires before the coyotes can invoke their out clause. We have to get a team before the end of october 2017. Of course we still have to get it modified to allow the NHL team to built it.

Unless the NBA grants us a team, seattle is a expansion or bust for NHL.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-23-2014, 09:11 PM
  #133
DirtyOldMan
Yotes still in AZ?
 
DirtyOldMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...yup, still in AZ.
Posts: 926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
I think we could very well see coyotes in portland if that 5 year out clause is invoked.
Everyone who wants to believe this, please start holding your breath..... now

DirtyOldMan is offline  
Old
03-24-2014, 11:22 AM
  #134
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,885
vCash: 500
im puzzled why so many here are still buying into the alignment myth, even after the league has come out and said it is not a factor.

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
03-24-2014, 11:42 AM
  #135
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 6,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
im puzzled why so many here are still buying into the alignment myth, even after the league has come out and said it is not a factor.
While I'm sure it won't be a factor in what cities will be allowed to apply for franchises, I can easily see it being a factor when the BoG actually votes on which cities they accept.

rojac is offline  
Old
03-24-2014, 12:26 PM
  #136
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
While I'm sure it won't be a factor in what cities will be allowed to apply for franchises, I can easily see it being a factor when the BoG actually votes on which cities they accept.
"Allowed to apply"... that in itself is a 'non-factor' because virtually anyone is "allowed to apply". The only factor that is ever truly up for debate is what applications the League decides to have the best merits; and in that regard, we can still look back at virtually all past expansions and see that the effect on NHL geography has had nothing to do with it. "Allowed to apply" is a red herring argument at best.


One thing that might be considered, IF alignment would play any at all role in this, is if there actually is an idea for more than a 2-team expansion over the next few years. The League could then possibly decide to go with 2 western sites in the first expansion round, and then a year or two later go with an eastern and western site. But that then requires 3 worthy western sites to be on the expansion menu. For instance, if the League believes that Portland will try for an expansion team if no relocation option is available,... But then, what if Portland is used for a relocation; where is there currently a 3rd western location in which a potential owner has shown interest in recent years?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
I don't buy that, tommy, because if that was the case, why was Seattle in the running as a Coyote option before it's now an expansion front-runner.
Who ever said it was "in the running as a Coyote option"? Oft-times we take speculation that was made here on HFBoards and then later talk about it as if it were official statements. No one in the NHL actually ever said that Seattle was being considered as a potential relocation site for the Coyotes. Not saying that it wasn't considered, but we have no real proof of that.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 03-24-2014 at 12:39 PM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-24-2014, 12:29 PM
  #137
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Serbia
Posts: 2,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
I don't buy that, tommy, because if that was the case, why was Seattle in the running as a Coyote option before it's now an expansion front-runner.
I would say it was/still is the case because NHL needs to have multiple options to stay in control...or show they are in control.

We will never know but something forced Gary to stay in Glendale. We all know the NHL cannot make money out of Glendale, not even with the current owner paying for all loses.

NHL needed multiple options and those were (in no particular order) Quebec, Seattle, Toronto, Markham, Saskatchewan, etc.

We can laugh all we want, but NHL will go as far as say that Saskatoon is a very good hockey location if Sunrise doesn't give more money for Panthers (given others options are unavailable).

NHL got burned with Atlanta/Winnipeg and they now play different game. When the owners of Trashers came, they said here are the keys, take the team away we don't want it anymore. And there was only a group from Winnipeg ready to take an NHL team. There was no Seattle, no Quebec, no Vegas...only one group, for a cheap expansion price.

This time, what ever happens, NHL has many potential owners and destinations (are they all legit or not will remain a secret).

I mean even if NW is the ONLY location where NHL will go they will still name both Seattle, Portland and even Vancouver #2 to drive prices up. And when it comes down to one city, they will still say they have 3-4 interested owners in that city.

powerstuck is offline  
Old
03-24-2014, 12:38 PM
  #138
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Outside GZ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,554
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
I would say it was/still is the case because NHL needs to have multiple options to stay in control...or show they are in control.

We will never know but something forced Gary to stay in Glendale. We all know the NHL cannot make money out of Glendale, not even with the current owner paying for all loses.

NHL needed multiple options and those were (in no particular order) Quebec, Seattle, Toronto, Markham, Saskatchewan, etc.

We can laugh all we want, but NHL will go as far as say that Saskatoon is a very good hockey location if Sunrise doesn't give more money for Panthers (given others options are unavailable).

NHL got burned with Atlanta/Winnipeg and they now play different game. When the owners of Trashers came, they said here are the keys, take the team away we don't want it anymore. And there was only a group from Winnipeg ready to take an NHL team. There was no Seattle, no Quebec, no Vegas...only one group, for a cheap expansion price.

This time, what ever happens, NHL has many potential owners and destinations (are they all legit or not will remain a secret).

I mean even if NW is the ONLY location where NHL will go they will still name both Seattle, Portland and even Vancouver #2 to drive prices up. And when it comes down to one city, they will still say they have 3-4 interested owners in that city.
Your summation of the NHL and Bettman is right on!

I watched a snail crawl along the edge of a straight razor. That's my dream. It's my nightmare. Crawling, slithering, along the edge of a straight razor and surviving.

Llama19 is offline  
Old
03-24-2014, 01:14 PM
  #139
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
I would say it was/still is the case because NHL needs to have multiple options to stay in control...or show they are in control.

We will never know but something forced Gary to stay in Glendale. We all know the NHL cannot make money out of Glendale, not even with the current owner paying for all loses.

NHL needed multiple options and those were (in no particular order) Quebec, Seattle, Toronto, Markham, Saskatchewan, etc.

We can laugh all we want, but NHL will go as far as say that Saskatoon is a very good hockey location if Sunrise doesn't give more money for Panthers (given others options are unavailable).

NHL got burned with Atlanta/Winnipeg and they now play different game. When the owners of Trashers came, they said here are the keys, take the team away we don't want it anymore. And there was only a group from Winnipeg ready to take an NHL team. There was no Seattle, no Quebec, no Vegas...only one group, for a cheap expansion price.

This time, what ever happens, NHL has many potential owners and destinations (are they all legit or not will remain a secret).

I mean even if NW is the ONLY location where NHL will go they will still name both Seattle, Portland and even Vancouver #2 to drive prices up. And when it comes down to one city, they will still say they have 3-4 interested owners in that city.
I still can never understand why the NHL even mentioned Saskatchewan a few years back, it was such a hollow statement to make.

I still wonder to this day, what the NHL would have done had Glendale not caved in and told the NHL "no", while Atlanta was getting rid of the team.

cutchemist42 is offline  
Old
03-24-2014, 01:37 PM
  #140
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
No one in the NHL actually ever said that Seattle was being considered as a potential relocation site for the Coyotes. Not saying that it wasn't considered, but we have no real proof of that.
Ya, very careful not to say anything of the kind in fact be it Seattle, Quebec or Portland, wherever. Post Glendales vote however, there was a report out of Portland in the immediate aftermath that Allen was supposedly close to buying the club or was "looking into it", rather vague.... then with what stunned me a report sometime thereafter making the rounds in Seattle that the NHL was supposedly "24hrs away from moving the team to Washington" had the COG voted down the IceArizona Lease Agreement. I have a really hard time believing that one, yet it was floated out there by supposedly reputable & accredited media in Seattle. Frankly it defied then as it does now common sense, that the NHL would sell the team to Seattle interests without the process of a new arena being much farther along or a promise from the ownership group that they would build an arena themselves 100% privately financed if need be & open for business within 3-5yrs. Key Arena would suffice temporarily however, youd be losing money in there hand over fist & thats no way to start up a new franchise in a new market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchemist42 View Post
I still wonder to this day, what the NHL would have done had Glendale not caved in and told the NHL "no", while Atlanta was getting rid of the team.
1) Extended the year to year AMUL & eat the losses, sell for relo comfortably within 6mnths.
2) Immediately sold for Relo to Quebec, possibly Portland.

The problem with scenario 2 there was that in each case Glendales Council in voting up or down these various proposals were always falling late spring & or early summer. No time to move the team really. Quebec as you'll recall did in fact clear the decks of all bookings at the Colisee for a 6mnth period & went to the expense of upgrading the arenas boards, glass & other infrastructure. Coincidence? I think not.

Killion is offline  
Old
03-24-2014, 01:46 PM
  #141
beenhereandthere
Registered User
 
beenhereandthere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Evergray State
Posts: 644
vCash: 500
Don't think LV would be nearly the joke that some are making it out to be.
That being said, if some ownership group has an interest in doing this: I think Salt Lake City, would make a hell of a lot more sense than Las Vegas. Winter sports culture and 10 rinks (at least) in the Wasatch Front and you have your other Western Market that satisfies the NHLPA.
If I was part of the QC group, I would try to "bribe" the Red Wings or Blue Jackets, with payments similar to what the Kings were given when the Ducks came in, to move back to the Western Conference. Meaning if PKP gave the Red Wings, 30 million dollars to do that, then he could have his team in the East.
Would that even be legal or no one knows since it would be uncharted territory?

beenhereandthere is offline  
Old
03-24-2014, 02:02 PM
  #142
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenhereandthere View Post
Meaning if PKP gave the Red Wings, 30 million dollars to do that, then he could have his team in the East.Would that even be legal or no one knows since it would be uncharted territory?
You work for the league, Wings or what? And sure, perfectly legal. Could call it a "Travel Subsidy"... not gunna happen though.... and yes, Salt Lake is an intriguing market & I concur head and shoulders over any suggestion that Vegas would actually work. Salt Lake City however is also "challenged" despite its what one might consider advantages with a winter climate within sight & existing infrastructure....

Killion is offline  
Old
03-24-2014, 02:30 PM
  #143
Mightygoose
I Am Groot
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Meaning if PKP gave the Red Wings, 30 million dollars to do that, then he could have his team in the East.
Would that even be legal or no one knows since it would be uncharted territory
Yeah, I can see the league frowning their smile on that one.

If Quebeccor wants to use their 'fiscial influence' onm the process, they can up their expansion bid by 30 million.

Otherwise if we assume 1) The sole purpose to expansion to balance out the conferences by adding 2 teams in the west and 2) expansion will be limited to 2 teams capping a 32 team league, QC can absorb their own travel subsidy and volunteer to play in the west and central dividion. Eastern conf. teams may be OK, pacific division teams will be fine. The split would be within the current central division. Winnipeg would be OK with QC in their division over Vegas, Dallas would think the opposite IMO.

Havning the Avs in the Nords 2.0 in the same division just may be too much to resist

Mightygoose is offline  
Old
03-24-2014, 02:31 PM
  #144
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
Havning the Avs in the Nords 2.0 in the same division just may be too much to resist
Now that would be an instant rivalry.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-24-2014, 02:39 PM
  #145
beenhereandthere
Registered User
 
beenhereandthere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Evergray State
Posts: 644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
Yeah, I can see the league frowning their smile on that one.

If Quebeccor wants to use their 'fiscial influence' onm the process, they can up their expansion bid by 30 million.

Otherwise if we assume 1) The sole purpose to expansion to balance out the conferences by adding 2 teams in the west and 2) expansion will be limited to 2 teams capping a 32 team league, QC can absorb their own travel subsidy and volunteer to play in the west and central dividion. Eastern conf. teams may be OK, pacific division teams will be fine. The split would be within the current central division. Winnipeg would be OK with QC in their division over Vegas, Dallas would think the opposite IMO.

Havning the Avs in the Nords 2.0 in the same division just may be too much to resist
I just don't see how the NHLPA would allow that even if PKP just absorbed his own travel subsidy. If for example, a game was postponed, with a Pacific team vs a QC team in the West and the only time to play it would be at the end of the season with a playoff berth on the line. Whoever won, could have to fly across the continent, for a 1st round match up. While that could happen already with teams, it's a lot less likely if you only meet 2 times a year as opposed to 4 or 6. That's just one example. At least Detroit or Columbus would already have precedence and both towns are at least 700 miles close to Chicago, which would be QC's closest Western Conference opponent.

beenhereandthere is offline  
Old
03-24-2014, 02:43 PM
  #146
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenhereandthere View Post
Don't think LV would be nearly the joke that some are making it out to be.
That being said, if some ownership group has an interest in doing this: I think Salt Lake City, would make a hell of a lot more sense than Las Vegas. Winter sports culture and 10 rinks (at least) in the Wasatch Front and you have your other Western Market that satisfies the NHLPA.
If I was part of the QC group, I would try to "bribe" the Red Wings or Blue Jackets, with payments similar to what the Kings were given when the Ducks came in, to move back to the Western Conference. Meaning if PKP gave the Red Wings, 30 million dollars to do that, then he could have his team in the East.
Would that even be legal or no one knows since it would be uncharted territory?

I doubt $30 million would be enough to coax the Wings back to the West. Travel costs, playoff schedules in the East, lack of same time zone exposure, and greater interest from the fanbase in the Eastern teams than the West, in general, all add up to a longterm strategy that's potentially worth a far greater return.

Fugu is online now  
Old
03-24-2014, 02:50 PM
  #147
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
I doubt $30 million would be enough to coax the Wings back to the West.
Ya. Considerably larger considerations than just travel expenditures. Its everything. Gate receipts, sponsorships, broadcasting, you name it. $30M wouldnt cut it. Short term gain sure but they'd be shooting themselves in the foot mid-to-longer term.

Killion is offline  
Old
03-24-2014, 03:20 PM
  #148
Mightygoose
I Am Groot
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenhereandthere View Post
I just don't see how the NHLPA would allow that even if PKP just absorbed his own travel subsidy. If for example, a game was postponed, with a Pacific team vs a QC team in the West and the only time to play it would be at the end of the season with a playoff berth on the line. Whoever won, could have to fly across the continent, for a 1st round match up. While that could happen already with teams, it's a lot less likely if you only meet 2 times a year as opposed to 4 or 6. That's just one example. At least Detroit or Columbus would already have precedence and both towns are at least 700 miles close to Chicago, which would be QC's closest Western Conference opponent.
Not sure if it's the PA that would give the yeah or nay in that case. But, yes agree the travel will be quite the drag if QC is a wildcard holder and San Jose for example is first in their division.

Speaking of the PA. If they go to 32 teams, 8 groups of 4. The four conference alignemt can always be brought back to the table. Being balanced, I can see the PA giving the green light this time. That way QC would not need to play pacific coast teams until round 3 at the earliest.

Better yet, if they go the 4 conference route, Columbus or Detroit can always be placed there instead as they wouldn't be in the west.....symmetry achived!

Mightygoose is offline  
Old
03-25-2014, 04:43 PM
  #149
Puck possession wins
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 168
vCash: 500
Is it me, or am I the only one who thinks westward Canadian expansion is an option? Maybe a city like Regina or Saskatoon in Saskatchewan or Burnaby or Surrey in BC? We all should know that Seattle will probably get a team, and the when either Phoenix or Florida gives up, they will go to Quebec.

Puck possession wins is offline  
Old
03-25-2014, 04:44 PM
  #150
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck possession wins View Post
Is it me, or am I the only one who thinks westward Canadian expansion is an option? Maybe a city like Regina or Saskatoon in Saskatchewan or Burnaby or Surrey in BC? We all should know that Seattle will probably get a team, and the when either Phoenix or Florida gives up, they will go to Quebec.
I see florida possible going to Quebec however, it is possible NHL would want Phoenix franchise to remain in the western conference and go somewhere like Portland for example.

gstommylee 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 12:37 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.