Just curious, but how well would Portland or any other future or even existing NHL markets do if a PSL were required to buy a season ticket? That literally doubles the price of a season ticket the first year and if you skip a year on the tickets you lose the PSL and have to pay for one all over again to repurchase season tix. In Columbus PSL's are required and I believe they are the only NHL market, with the exception of Toronto, that does.
Is the NHL in Portland a real possibility?
- Thread starter RangerBoy
- Start date
- Status
Onion Boy
Registered User
The Messenger said:
I'm sorry, but that has to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. Columbus draws poorly on the road because they are a bad team and don't have any marquee players aside from Nash who still doesn't carry nearly the same recognition as the elite players. There's a reason teams like Detroit and Colorado draw well on the road and it has nothing to do with transplanted fans.
Furthermore, the fact that the Bluejackets are a bad team shows just how successfully they have drawn a significant fanbase. Just wait until the team starts winning.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
BlackRedGold said:You must be from Winnipeg.
From what I've heard, Key Arena is like America West Arena. Great for basketball but a disaster for hockey.
Not from Winnepeg, LOL. But I think that requiring 20,000 capacity arenas for a niche sport is ridiculous.
As for the Key Arena, I could see how it would be bad for hockey:
http://www.ticketmaster.com/seatingchart/122918
The lower bowl is tiny on one end. It would definitely serve as a temporary arena, but a team relocating there would probably need to guarantee a new arena.
The Rose Garden holds around 19,000 for hockey games. And the arena looks well suited from the floor plan: http://www.ticketmaster.com/seatingchart/123078/2165
According to the 2003 census, Portland has 526,609 people. In Danbury, CT they'll sellout a UHL Trashers game on a Friday night. The arena holds 3,000 people. The city of Danbury contains 75,000 people. That means 4% of a city like Danbury will support a hockey team. 19,000 people in the city of Portland is 3.6% of the total population. Believe me, Portland can support NHL hockey.
To make this arguement stronger, including Multnomah county, where Portland is, and the adjacent counties, the total population of the Portland area is 2,066,780. Yeah... the area definitely is too small to support an NHL team.
Last edited:
Unholy Diver
Registered User
Columbus is the 16th largest city in the US, just because they dont have 4 teams dosent mean its a little townThe Messenger said:
the population of Franklin County is larger than any canadian city other than Toronto, maybe give the city a few years before taking the team away
FlyersFan10 said:
he's amazing but i wouldnt put him above the leagues reigning goal scorer just yet buddy
Hasbro said:OH! That is SOOO UNTRUE!
We've done way more than 64.
but hey, who's keeping count? right?
codswallop
yes, i am an alcoholic
PredsFan77 said:
On the positive side, this is the first one I've seen in the last week or two. That has to be some kind of record around here
Personally, I don't give a damn what fans think about Atlanta whenever they're brought up in one of these threads. They don't live here, they don't know what this city and its people are like. I'm not saying that I do completely, that would just be impossible. But when you live somewhere for 25 years, you tend to get a good feel for these types of things.
That's why I give little or no regard to such comments. I may respond, but I certainly won't take it personally. Heck, a good many of them can't even get basic, easy-to-find facts about the city correct. I kind of doubt they are then going to have any (even decently relevant) insight about this town.
Let 'em squak.
Everytime I read one of these threads where they start bashing teams based on fan support and surrounding population I just laugh. People should already know that the NHL doesn't care about fan support or surrounding population as much as they care about corporate dollars. If the market has significant opportunities for large corporations to buy suites and pay for ads, then the market can be successful. Fan support/population in an area is just a secondary factor. This is the reason why teams like Atlanta, Florida, and Carolina are in the NHL.
Portland would probably have plenty of corporate dollars to throw around (particularly if Paul Allen were involved in any way) and would make sense for the NHL to relocate there if a team so desired or was purchased.
Portland would probably have plenty of corporate dollars to throw around (particularly if Paul Allen were involved in any way) and would make sense for the NHL to relocate there if a team so desired or was purchased.
TruGr1t
Proper Villain
- Jun 26, 2003
- 23,071
- 6,689
Coolburn said:
This mentality is why there are so many troubled franchises in the NHL at this very moment. This is how Bettman looks at expansion, where are the most corporate dollars he can vampire into the League, forget the fanbase, cause hey who needs fans to support a major league sports team...oh wait. Even if you have the two richest guys in the world pumping money into a franchise with a bad hockey demographic you are still going to loose money. They should start looking at the nature of hockey markets more, in my opinion, then the almighty dollar, then maybe we wouldn't have three or four franchises on life support and a few others always rumoured to be moving to Winnipeg (which isn't going to happen). And no, a 14-15,000 capacity arena does not meet the criteria and there is a reason for that.
I don't disagree with you one bit. I'm just pointing out the way the NHL approaches it since people seem to disregard it in favor of looking at fan support/population distribution. Just another reason why Bettman has put us in the mess we're in and why he shouldn't be running the NHL.westcoast said:
Bettman can't force franchises on certain cities, he needs to have someone or a group to invest millions of dollars, gain corporate and civic support for the proposal, and buy a franchise for that area.westcoast said:
I know that there are a lot of people in here who drive trucks or sell software and without knowing the whole situation say that a team shouldn't be in this or that city but do you think that banks are going to loan millions of dollars without seeing a reasonable business plan?
I haven't heard of any franchises on life support. Which ones are?
I've said it before during expansion and looking at relocation, the NHL might look at places they can be a big fish in a small pond, instead of just looking for the biggest tv market.Coolburn said:
They really should have gone after places they know hockey works like Portland, Milwaukee, Oklahoma, ect...
Hasbro said:
You had me 'til Oklahoma... Never knew there was a huge hockey base there..
But seriously, i both agree and disagree with you. On the one hand, the NHL should be going out of it's way to make sure it has a franchise in every hockey city in North America. Yes that even means eventually going back to a place like Winnipeg. You *need* grass roots support to maintain a healthy league. With the right conditions, nothing is stopping Winnipeg from being the NHL's Green Bay. A healthy league can provide that.
OTOH, ofcourse the NHL MUST develop new markets, and drive into cities where hockey is a new thing. The problem imo is that the NHL has such a scatter shot approach to things. In the early 90's with Gretzky making his impact in LA, the NHL wanted to penetrate into the sun belt... so what do they do? They slammed 4... FOUR new teams into California and Florida, just like that, and then spend the next 10 years wondering why one team or another is always struggling. Heck even the Kings stumble once the main attraction moves off to St-Louis and then New York.
The NHL damages itself and it's image every time a franchise struggles. It's bad enough when a long time team like Pittsburgh or Buffalo falters, but when most of your expansion teams run into trouble within there first 5 years, it makes you league look bush league and unstable. And that is exactly what the NHL is. Should the NHL have tested the waters in Florida? Sure. But repeatedly, and largely unsuccessfully plugging franchise after franchise like some Kamikaze general into markets that were scarcely aware of hockey before hand? It just makes the NHL look more bush league than it already is.
Right now the NHL has 30 franchises, many of whom are hardly secure, so before dropping more hockey teams on unsuspecting populaces, I'd like to see if the NHL will stick in the cities they've already taken chances on, and *if* teams do need to be moved, that atleast they can be moved into cities that actually give a damn about the game in the first place.
They are insane about the CHL. Tulsa and OKC are amoung the leaders of minor league attendance year-in and year-out. They came real close in the last expansion bid.dolfanar said:
I've always said the NHL needs some sunbelt out posts, but 1/3 of the league is pushing it.
Probably better, OKC is drawing 8,200 for a league below the AHL and ECHL quality wise. They're already drawing more than any ECHL team and are hich up incomparison the AHL teams.dolfanar said:
http://146.145.120.3/default.asp?c=hockeynews&page=mlh/stat/CHL-attendance.htm
According to Teaxas Tornado they're talking about a college hockey team in the near future.
Mess
Global Moderator
mooseOAK said:
Several clubs on verge of penury
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050310.wnhl-finances10/BNStory/Sports/
I really wish that you would stop using opinion columns as your source of facts, like the Tim Panaccio column you keep using as your source of the "group of eight" or whatever it is.The Messenger said:
Mess
Global Moderator
Why are opinions other then my own, supported by professionals hurting your case that you prefer that I not provide them ..mooseOAK said:
You would just rather keep pretending everything is fine and rosy and all these team losses and financial issues would just magically go away ..
Why are the owners fighting for a Hard Cap and cost certainty and closing their doors if there is no problem then ??
The Messenger said:
I never quote a columnist to support my position without qualifying it as such. Especially these days with hockey writers desperate to fill space on their papers they can't afford to wait for facts to report, they must speculate in order to have something to write.
Because without a Hard Cap and cost certainty most teams are in bad financial positions and not just a select 4 or 5.
With those things everyone can survive.
You still have yet to back up your accusations regarding Columbus. I'm anxious to hear a rebuttle, being a fan myself.The Messenger said:
He can't.futurcorerock said:
When called out on his ignorance of Columbus' success at the ticket window, he reverted to the argument about Columbus hurting oher team's numbers by being a bad draw on the road.
Which fails to address the fact that Columbus is a four year-old franchise, with no history and little in the way of rivalries, and no on-ice success (to date). As with any expansion franchise, these things take more than 4 seasons played to develop.
Pulling the plug (or suggesting that they never should have been admitted in the first place) on a team that draws well at home, simply because they're too new to have built a winning franchise, is moronic.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Pinguins Bremerhaven @ Eisbaren Berlin - Pinguins Bremerhaven leads series 1-0Wagers: 1Staked: $135.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Chicago Bulls @ Miami HeatWagers: 1Staked: $10.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
