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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Connecticut making pitch for Islanders to Hartford

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-06-2017, 11:22 AM
  #101
DowntownBooster
Registered User
 
DowntownBooster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Geez, will they get anything close to that anywhere else besides seattle?
One has to wonder if a new arena will ever get built in Seattle. It's believed that it would be a good market and yet nothing seems to get done in regards to a facility that would be required in order to get a team either through relocation or expansion.

DowntownBooster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2017, 11:32 AM
  #102
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 50,193
vCash: 1020
I don't think we're quite there yet, but I could forsee a near future where a big-league team ends up folding. It's quite conceivable that, in the relatively near term, over-expansion combined with an unfavorable economy could cause the NHL to simply not have any relocation options on the table for a "homeless" franchise. In that environment, a team without an arena would have little choice but to simply dissolve its assets and cease operations.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2017, 11:50 AM
  #103
Elephant Igloo
Registered User
 
Elephant Igloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert719 View Post
Only because the NHL used some sleight of hand to hide the collapse of the Cleveland Barons in 1978. That was a team folding, they just called it a merger to save face.
No, the Barons and North Stars merged and then un-merged to form the Sharks.

Elephant Igloo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2017, 11:54 AM
  #104
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I don't think we're quite there yet, but I could forsee a near future where a big-league team ends up folding. It's quite conceivable that, in the relatively near term, over-expansion combined with an unfavorable economy could cause the NHL to simply not have any relocation options on the table for a "homeless" franchise. In that environment, a team without an arena would have little choice but to simply dissolve its assets and cease operations.
Portland, Seattle, Hamilton, 2nd Toronto team, Hartford, and possibly Cleveland are all potential homes. So you look at teams that have been mentioned on this board you've got Carolina, Islanders, Coyotes, and Panthers in a few years. So you have 4 teams that have any level of concern and 6 places they could survive. So contraction is NOT HAPPENING.

aqib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2017, 12:06 PM
  #105
dilbert719
Registered User
 
dilbert719's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Igloo View Post
No, the Barons and North Stars merged and then un-merged to form the Sharks.
Sure they did. The NHL had 18 teams. The Barons went broke (and the North Stars were about to.) They combined the ownership groups into one to stabilize one franchise, and eliminated the other. The NHL then had 17 teams. Whether they call it a merger, an amalgamation, or a fuzzy blue teddy bear, no matter what they did with the players, one team was contracted.

When the Gunds wanted to move the North Stars to California, the league told them to pound sand. Later, Howard Baldwin wanted a team in San Jose, but since the Gunds wanted to be out there, they forced Baldwin to buy the North Stars and gave the expansion franchise to the Gund family. Given that the league had an expansion draft, it was clearly an expansion franchise, again no matter what terminology the league chose to use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I don't think we're quite there yet, but I could forsee a near future where a big-league team ends up folding. It's quite conceivable that, in the relatively near term, over-expansion combined with an unfavorable economy could cause the NHL to simply not have any relocation options on the table for a "homeless" franchise. In that environment, a team without an arena would have little choice but to simply dissolve its assets and cease operations.
I just don't see it. The league has a ton of options. Not only did aqib point out 6 plausible options, leaving out the possibility of Houston coming on line once Les Alexander passes, Kansas City as a long shot, and Baltimore, the league can, in extremis, double up in a city other than Toronto. Would it be optimal to put a second team in Vancouver? No, but two teams in Vancouver for a couple years, until another potential home opens, would almost certainly appeal to the ownership more than a dispersal draft and the inherent bad publicity that comes from being unable to support the number of teams they claim to be able to. Hell, there are even a couple cities in the US that could (again, likely only as a temporary, emergency measure) host a second team. Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago all might be able to, if the arena dates can be secured.


Last edited by dilbert719: 02-06-2017 at 12:12 PM.
dilbert719 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2017, 12:14 PM
  #106
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 50,193
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
Portland, Seattle, Hamilton, 2nd Toronto team, Hartford, and possibly Cleveland are all potential homes. So you look at teams that have been mentioned on this board you've got Carolina, Islanders, Coyotes, and Panthers in a few years. So you have 4 teams that have any level of concern and 6 places they could survive. So contraction is NOT HAPPENING.
First line of that post, I said I don't think we're there. I said it's a conceivable possibility.

But Hamilton and the 2nd Toronto team are not realistic possibilities and won't be in the near future. Seattle has no arena and doesn't have a clear plan to build one. Hartford has no arena and doesn't have a clear plan to build one. Portland has an arena, with an owner who is hostile to the NHL. Putting those names on a list doesn't make them viable relocation options.

Unless something changes, the best emergency-situation options would likely be Quebec City and Kansas City. Knock out one of those with an expansion team, you have one place left. Let's say the Islanders move to that location. Now there are none left. What happens when the next team gets locked out of its arena? The only financially sustainable choices are to produce another viable relocation option out of thin air, or to dissolve the franchise.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2017, 12:17 PM
  #107
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 50,193
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert719 View Post
I just don't see it. The league has a ton of options. Not only did aqib point out 6 plausible options, leaving out the possibility of Houston coming on line once Les Alexander passes, Kansas City as a long shot, and Baltimore, the league can, in extremis, double up in a city other than Toronto. Would it be optimal to put a second team in Vancouver? No, but two teams in Vancouver for a couple years, until another potential home opens, would almost certainly appeal to the ownership more than a dispersal draft and the inherent bad publicity that comes from being unable to support the number of teams they claim to be able to. Hell, there are even a couple cities in the US that could (again, likely only as a temporary, emergency measure) host a second team. Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago all might be able to, if the arena dates can be secured.
"The league" can't just arbitrarily violate the territorial rights of the Leafs, Canucks, Flyers, Bruins, or Blackhawks. None of those ownership groups would be foolish enough to solve some vagrant franchise's problems by splitting up one of the most lucrative markets in professional hockey. They would just say "fat chance" and the conversation moves on to other options.

Of the other options you named, Kansas City is an actual plausible option and Baltimore has no arena. So it's just KC. Take KC off the table with either expansion or relocation, and what's next? Prayer?

edit: Actually there is one other option, but I don't think many people are going to like it.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2017, 12:20 PM
  #108
GarbageGoal
Clint Bobski GOAT
 
GarbageGoal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: RI
Country: United States
Posts: 17,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cacciaguida View Post
it makes me wonder how well they would be doing if they weren't morons and kept the Whale/Whaler branding.
Their attendance was already steadily dropping in year two. The first was boosted by phony numbers from a "record breaking" outdoor game that people on mailing lists were being sent handfuls of comp tickets for right up until the day of the game.

They alienated as many people who were loyal to the WolfPack brand and had been season ticket holders from the start as they did bringing new fans on board.

GarbageGoal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2017, 12:26 PM
  #109
dilbert719
Registered User
 
dilbert719's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
"The league" can't just arbitrarily violate the territorial rights of the Leafs, Canucks, Flyers, Bruins, or Blackhawks.

Of the other options you named, Kansas City is an actual plausible option and Baltimore has no arena. So it's just KC. Take KC off the table with either expansion or relocation, and what's next? Prayer?
Who said anything about arbitrarily doing anything? The value of these teams goes way down if the league's financial stability comes into question. If a team folds, that brings the league's financial stability into question.

If the Coyotes move to Quebec, the Islanders move to KC (I do think you're taking Hartford off the table too soon; they'd find the money if they were getting a team, but let's set that aside), the Hurricanes find a new owner in Raleigh, and Sunrise goes belly up, we have a team that needs a new location. Hypothetically, let's say Bettman goes to Francesco Aquilini and says "look, the Panthers can't stay in Miami. We have nowhere else for them to play. If they fold, our team valuations go in the tank. Will you work with us to put them up for a couple years, until we can help shepherd the Seattle arena situation to completion?" What are the odds he's going to say "I'd rather my investment drop in value by half than to rent out Rogers Arena on days my team isn't using it?"

Again, I don't foresee this happening, by any stretch of the imagination. The league hates moving teams, and they go to serious lengths to not have to do so. (Certainly, they've gone to those lengths this millennium; in the '90s that didn't seem to be the case.) That being said, I can't imagine a scenario where, faced with an immediate and serious threat to the value of their investment, the various ownership groups wouldn't come to the rescue of a troubled franchise, if there was no other option.

dilbert719 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2017, 12:29 PM
  #110
Tom ServoMST3K
WPG PO Wins: 0
 
Tom ServoMST3K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Just off 75
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,358
vCash: 949
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
"The league" can't just arbitrarily violate the territorial rights of the Leafs, Canucks, Flyers, Bruins, or Blackhawks. None of those ownership groups would be foolish enough to solve some vagrant franchise's problems by splitting up one of the most lucrative markets in professional hockey. They would just say "fat chance" and the conversation moves on to other options.

Of the other options you named, Kansas City is an actual plausible option and Baltimore has no arena. So it's just KC. Take KC off the table with either expansion or relocation, and what's next? Prayer?

edit: Actually there is one other option, but I don't think many people are going to like it.
Atlanta? They have a building, but need some really nice owners.

Tom ServoMST3K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2017, 01:18 PM
  #111
Bruins1233
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert719 View Post
Sure they did. The NHL had 18 teams. The Barons went broke (and the North Stars were about to.) They combined the ownership groups into one to stabilize one franchise, and eliminated the other. The NHL then had 17 teams. Whether they call it a merger, an amalgamation, or a fuzzy blue teddy bear, no matter what they did with the players, one team was contracted.

When the Gunds wanted to move the North Stars to California, the league told them to pound sand. Later, Howard Baldwin wanted a team in San Jose, but since the Gunds wanted to be out there, they forced Baldwin to buy the North Stars and gave the expansion franchise to the Gund family. Given that the league had an expansion draft, it was clearly an expansion franchise, again no matter what terminology the league chose to use.



I just don't see it. The league has a ton of options. Not only did aqib point out 6 plausible options, leaving out the possibility of Houston coming on line once Les Alexander passes, Kansas City as a long shot, and Baltimore, the league can, in extremis, double up in a city other than Toronto. Would it be optimal to put a second team in Vancouver? No, but two teams in Vancouver for a couple years, until another potential home opens, would almost certainly appeal to the ownership more than a dispersal draft and the inherent bad publicity that comes from being unable to support the number of teams they claim to be able to. Hell, there are even a couple cities in the US that could (again, likely only as a temporary, emergency measure) host a second team. Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago all might be able to, if the arena dates can be secured.
The only issue with a second team in Philly or Boston is that I think you need a geographic niche to really get a fanbase. Hence why the Lakers dominate the Clippers but the Ducks/Kings, Raiders/49ers, or Yankees/Mets are more equitable because they represent separate regions of the Metropolitan area. The team would have to be based say in Lynn or Lowell, and be a team for folks North of Boston, and the Philly team in SNJ, like the Mets are for Long Island and the Angels/Ducks are for Anaheim not LA Proper.
Providence could likely support an NHL team but it is in the same situation as Hamilton, much too close to another team for it to happen.

Bruins1233 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2017, 01:19 PM
  #112
ardsa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 22
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert719 View Post
When the Gunds wanted to move the North Stars to California, the league told them to pound sand. Later, Howard Baldwin wanted a team in San Jose, but since the Gunds wanted to be out there, they forced Baldwin to buy the North Stars and gave the expansion franchise to the Gund family. Given that the league had an expansion draft, it was clearly an expansion franchise, again no matter what terminology the league chose to use.
In what sort of expansion draft would the Sharks get to take 24 of the North Star players? The league first had a North Stars dispersal draft and then the Sharks and North Stars both participated in the expansion draft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_N...pansion_Drafts

ardsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2017, 04:41 PM
  #113
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rj View Post
A lot of franchises in trouble in the NHL. And some idiot paid $500 million for a new one to stick in Transplant Central.
This one is the kicker. Depending on how this franchise goes, the other leagues may stay away. Well, MLB and NBA anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I don't think we're quite there yet, but I could forsee a near future where a big-league team ends up folding. It's quite conceivable that, in the relatively near term, over-expansion combined with an unfavorable economy could cause the NHL to simply not have any relocation options on the table for a "homeless" franchise. In that environment, a team without an arena would have little choice but to simply dissolve its assets and cease operations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
Portland, Seattle, Hamilton, 2nd Toronto team, Hartford, and possibly Cleveland are all potential homes. So you look at teams that have been mentioned on this board you've got Carolina, Islanders, Coyotes, and Panthers in a few years. So you have 4 teams that have any level of concern and 6 places they could survive. So contraction is NOT HAPPENING.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert719 View Post
Sure they did. The NHL had 18 teams. The Barons went broke (and the North Stars were about to.) They combined the ownership groups into one to stabilize one franchise, and eliminated the other. The NHL then had 17 teams. Whether they call it a merger, an amalgamation, or a fuzzy blue teddy bear, no matter what they did with the players, one team was contracted.

When the Gunds wanted to move the North Stars to California, the league told them to pound sand. Later, Howard Baldwin wanted a team in San Jose, but since the Gunds wanted to be out there, they forced Baldwin to buy the North Stars and gave the expansion franchise to the Gund family. Given that the league had an expansion draft, it was clearly an expansion franchise, again no matter what terminology the league chose to use.



I just don't see it. The league has a ton of options. Not only did aqib point out 6 plausible options, leaving out the possibility of Houston coming on line once Les Alexander passes, Kansas City as a long shot, and Baltimore, the league can, in extremis, double up in a city other than Toronto. Would it be optimal to put a second team in Vancouver? No, but two teams in Vancouver for a couple years, until another potential home opens, would almost certainly appeal to the ownership more than a dispersal draft and the inherent bad publicity that comes from being unable to support the number of teams they claim to be able to. Hell, there are even a couple cities in the US that could (again, likely only as a temporary, emergency measure) host a second team. Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago all might be able to, if the arena dates can be secured.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
First line of that post, I said I don't think we're there. I said it's a conceivable possibility.

But Hamilton and the 2nd Toronto team are not realistic possibilities and won't be in the near future. Seattle has no arena and doesn't have a clear plan to build one. Hartford has no arena and doesn't have a clear plan to build one. Portland has an arena, with an owner who is hostile to the NHL. Putting those names on a list doesn't make them viable relocation options.

Unless something changes, the best emergency-situation options would likely be Quebec City and Kansas City. Knock out one of those with an expansion team, you have one place left. Let's say the Islanders move to that location. Now there are none left. What happens when the next team gets locked out of its arena? The only financially sustainable choices are to produce another viable relocation option out of thin air, or to dissolve the franchise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
"The league" can't just arbitrarily violate the territorial rights of the Leafs, Canucks, Flyers, Bruins, or Blackhawks. None of those ownership groups would be foolish enough to solve some vagrant franchise's problems by splitting up one of the most lucrative markets in professional hockey. They would just say "fat chance" and the conversation moves on to other options.

Of the other options you named, Kansas City is an actual plausible option and Baltimore has no arena. So it's just KC. Take KC off the table with either expansion or relocation, and what's next? Prayer?

edit: Actually there is one other option, but I don't think many people are going to like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert719 View Post
Who said anything about arbitrarily doing anything? The value of these teams goes way down if the league's financial stability comes into question. If a team folds, that brings the league's financial stability into question.

If the Coyotes move to Quebec, the Islanders move to KC (I do think you're taking Hartford off the table too soon; they'd find the money if they were getting a team, but let's set that aside), the Hurricanes find a new owner in Raleigh, and Sunrise goes belly up, we have a team that needs a new location. Hypothetically, let's say Bettman goes to Francesco Aquilini and says "look, the Panthers can't stay in Miami. We have nowhere else for them to play. If they fold, our team valuations go in the tank. Will you work with us to put them up for a couple years, until we can help shepherd the Seattle arena situation to completion?" What are the odds he's going to say "I'd rather my investment drop in value by half than to rent out Rogers Arena on days my team isn't using it?"

Again, I don't foresee this happening, by any stretch of the imagination. The league hates moving teams, and they go to serious lengths to not have to do so. (Certainly, they've gone to those lengths this millennium; in the '90s that didn't seem to be the case.) That being said, I can't imagine a scenario where, faced with an immediate and serious threat to the value of their investment, the various ownership groups wouldn't come to the rescue of a troubled franchise, if there was no other option.
I somewhat agree with tarheel here, and look at some of the market's aqib mentioned. Cleveland? where will the money come from? I don't think there is enough people. Hartford, Pac NW, Toronto, fine. We'll see but I think the NHL will be facing a reckoning in 2-3 once the season is over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DowntownBooster View Post
One has to wonder if a new arena will ever get built in Seattle. It's believed that it would be a good market and yet nothing seems to get done in regards to a facility that would be required in order to get a team either through relocation or expansion.
Seattle is getting closer to a decision. They have two options. It's just that right now it's really, really slow.

Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2017, 04:46 PM
  #114
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
Dead Dove-Do Not Eat
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,674
vCash: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
This one is the kicker. Depending on how this franchise goes, the other leagues may stay away. Well, MLB and NBA anyway.
Meh, the Seattle Pilots completely failed and they had another team in a few years. Coincidentally when they had around the same population in the metro area as Vegas has now.

The future is infinite. There could be a hockey team in Spokane if you let the future draw out long enough in your scenario.

__________________
You didn't eat that, did you?
BattleBorn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2017, 05:49 PM
  #115
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 50,193
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert719 View Post
Who said anything about arbitrarily doing anything? The value of these teams goes way down if the league's financial stability comes into question. If a team folds, that brings the league's financial stability into question.

If the Coyotes move to Quebec, the Islanders move to KC (I do think you're taking Hartford off the table too soon; they'd find the money if they were getting a team, but let's set that aside), the Hurricanes find a new owner in Raleigh, and Sunrise goes belly up, we have a team that needs a new location. Hypothetically, let's say Bettman goes to Francesco Aquilini and says "look, the Panthers can't stay in Miami. We have nowhere else for them to play. If they fold, our team valuations go in the tank. Will you work with us to put them up for a couple years, until we can help shepherd the Seattle arena situation to completion?" What are the odds he's going to say "I'd rather my investment drop in value by half than to rent out Rogers Arena on days my team isn't using it?"

Again, I don't foresee this happening, by any stretch of the imagination. The league hates moving teams, and they go to serious lengths to not have to do so. (Certainly, they've gone to those lengths this millennium; in the '90s that didn't seem to be the case.) That being said, I can't imagine a scenario where, faced with an immediate and serious threat to the value of their investment, the various ownership groups wouldn't come to the rescue of a troubled franchise, if there was no other option.
Oh, I fully agree that the league would pull out all stops before letting anything like this come to fruition. By no means do I think the BoG would accept it all with a shrug. They've gone to the mat for a whole lot less than a situation like what we're talking about here.

In the scenario above, where the Canucks rent their arena to prevent the Panthers from folding, I don't think it's as simple as Aquilini taking a rent payoff to help out the league.

Think about what he'd be doing to the Canucks STH base, by bringing in a Team B to play at the same arena. Cheap Team B tickets and merchandise are going to flood that marketplace, which would undermine Canucks ticket prices and branding. It would be a travesty as a STH to pay $50 for your nosebleed seat on Friday night, when you know you can pick up lower bowl seats for $25 on Saturday night against the same opponent. And charging $50 for Team B tickets would mean a literally empty arena the majority of the time, which is just as bad of a black eye as folding the organization. And god help the Canucks if they aren't good during that period... imagine what THAT conversation would be like from a ticket sales point of view.

So Aquilini would be inviting a serious reckoning with his own ticketholder base, in exchange for a season or two of rent. There's no way he agrees to that unless the rent is too damn high. So who covers that rent? The same owner who just got booted from his arena and is trying to meet a (future) $100M cap floor? The same owner whose revenue streams are completely non-existent? And who is presumably covering the costs to play an Eastern Conference schedule out of Vancouver? Given that the owner stands to lose hundreds of millions in this scheme, having already started from a position of financial disaster, we're probably talking about a league owned team here. So it's the owners themselves who cut the checks for all those expenses.

And there's no way they do it on a handshake that the team will have a new home soon. There would have to be an ironclad exit plan in place. If that's not the case, the whole idea is moot. Nobody's going to stick their necks out like this unless they have a clear and definite roadmap back to normalcy. Phoenix had an arena, that was their saving grace. A situation like this one would be VERY different on a fundamental level.

Yes, in theory the league could bend itself into a pretzel and make all of this work out. But I think from a fiscal standpoint, and given the economic circumstances that we assumed at the start of the hypothetical, they'd be more willing to just eat that hit to their franchise values than to cough up millions upon millions of actual cash.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom ServoMST3K View Post
Atlanta? They have a building, but need some really nice owners.
Yeah, that's why I didn't even bring them into it at first. The NHL using Atlanta for an emergency relo would be like that scene in Pee Wee's Big Adventure where the snakes are the only thing left to rescue in the burning pet shop.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2017, 07:05 PM
  #116
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleBorn View Post
Meh, the Seattle Pilots completely failed and they had another team in a few years. Coincidentally when they had around the same population in the metro area as Vegas has now.

The future is infinite. There could be a hockey team in Spokane if you let the future draw out long enough in your scenario.
Definitely not saying it will fail, just that the NHL is opening up a brand new market for all to see. Vegas isn't like the other expansion, all the big 4 will be watching to see how Vegas handles a pro sport.

Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2017, 07:07 PM
  #117
Elephant Igloo
Registered User
 
Elephant Igloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 150
vCash: 500
I felt that the NBA was the better choice for Las Vegas because it has a history of being a solid college hoops town with UNLV, but UNLV doesn't loom so large that the NBA couldn't hope to compete, as would be the case in Raleigh or Louisville. The NHL's obsession with Las Vegas just makes no sense to me.

Elephant Igloo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2017, 06:38 AM
  #118
gordie
Journeyman Despres
 
gordie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Igloo View Post
I felt that the NBA was the better choice for Las Vegas because it has a history of being a solid college hoops town with UNLV, but UNLV doesn't loom so large that the NBA couldn't hope to compete, as would be the case in Raleigh or Louisville. The NHL's obsession with Las Vegas just makes no sense to me.
Obsession with the T-Mobile arena which is considered a entertainment mecca and the NHL wants its name on that marquee.

gordie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2017, 06:51 AM
  #119
uTurris
We the True North
 
uTurris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,517
vCash: 500
It'd make more sense for the Islanders to go to Kansas City or Milwaukee than Hartford at this point. Only way Hartford gets a new team is if a state-of-the-art arena is built in Hartford. That will likely happen in 10-15 years.

uTurris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2017, 08:47 AM
  #120
wellsZe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 274
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uTurris View Post
It'd make more sense for the Islanders to go to Kansas City or Milwaukee than Hartford at this point. Only way Hartford gets a new team is if a state-of-the-art arena is built in Hartford. That will likely happen in 10-15 years.
10-15 years?

http://www.courant.com/real-estate/p...206-story.html

Malloy is proposing 50 million of it in 2018 budget and 75 million in 2019 budget and the other 1/2 over 2 more years spreading the 250 over 4 budget years.

wellsZe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2017, 09:05 AM
  #121
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wellsZe View Post
10-15 years?

http://www.courant.com/real-estate/p...206-story.html

Malloy is proposing 50 million of it in 2018 budget and 75 million in 2019 budget and the other 1/2 over 2 more years spreading the 250 over 4 budget years.
That's not a new arena. Just build one and stop with this XL renovation stuff. You need one for concerts anyway.

Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2017, 09:27 AM
  #122
wellsZe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 274
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
That's not a new arena. Just build one and stop with this XL renovation stuff. You need one for concerts anyway.
Where? Stop with West Hartford idea. It needs/has to be downtown, not in the burbs. Current XL spot is the best spot. No room anywhere else and not gonna happen. Renovation could be going on while AHL and UConn can still have a home. We can't go dark for 3-4 years. The 250 plan and the 500 million is the same except for a bigger loading area and maybe some more suite/adventure seating. It can meet NHL standards and only cost 250. Why spend 500 million where it would be deemed obsolete in 10-15 yrs anyway?

It would be state-of-the-art. have you looked at the plans?

http://crdact.net/data/Unsorted/SCIA...16-73783-1.pdf

Pages 26-34 is current XL
Pages 45-53 would be renovated arena

wellsZe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2017, 09:28 AM
  #123
Elephant Igloo
Registered User
 
Elephant Igloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 150
vCash: 500
Hartford could have built a new arena at the site of the new ballpark that's been such a boondoggle. What a shame. "Yard Goats."

Elephant Igloo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2017, 09:58 AM
  #124
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruins1233 View Post
The only issue with a second team in Philly or Boston is that I think you need a geographic niche to really get a fanbase. Hence why the Lakers dominate the Clippers but the Ducks/Kings, Raiders/49ers, or Yankees/Mets are more equitable because they represent separate regions of the Metropolitan area. The team would have to be based say in Lynn or Lowell, and be a team for folks North of Boston, and the Philly team in SNJ, like the Mets are for Long Island and the Angels/Ducks are for Anaheim not LA Proper.
Providence could likely support an NHL team but it is in the same situation as Hamilton, much too close to another team for it to happen.
I understand the jist of your post, but for clarification, the Mets and Yankees both have fans throughout the metropolitan area. There are Yankees fans in Queens, there are Mets fans in the Bronx. When the Mets were the much better team in the mid to late 80s, you saw a lot more people wearing Mets stuff than Yankees. When the Yankees were better from mid 90s til about 2 years ago, you saw a lot more people wearing Yankees stuff. Now, you see a lot of both. Both suffer from bandwagon fans. When they are good, they fill their buildings. Not sell outs every night, but they get good crowds. When they are bad, the games are ghost towns.

But as to your point, both of these teams have been around over 50 years and when the Mets first came to exist it was only 5 years after the Giants and Dodgers left, so a lot of former fans of those teams who hated and refused to root for the Yankees. But, I do agree with the scenario you pointed out. I also think it would be important to name the team appropriately. Anaheim Ducks, not the LA Ducks. A team in Atlantic City, or somewhere between AC and Philly should be the Atlantic City Whatevers or the South Jersey Whatevers.


Last edited by patnyrnyg: 02-07-2017 at 10:04 AM.
patnyrnyg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2017, 09:58 AM
  #125
gravyleaves
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 39
vCash: 500
Here's my dream, does it have a snowball's chance?

XL Center isn't "great" for hockey, so to make it profitable you need to extract more money per person.

How? Increase demand/decrease supply.

21 home games in Hartford. 10-15 in Providence. The remaining 5-10 in Concord, NH or Portland, ME.

Call 'em the New England Minutemen or something

gravyleaves is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:04 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.