NHL to Seattle Volume XIII - UPDATE 12/7 NHL will accept Seattle application - Expansion fee $650 M

[Fenway]

Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan signs MOU to renovate KeyArena

As expected, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan on Wednesday signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the city and the Los Angeles-based Oak View Group (OVG) to renovate KeyArena.

Joined by community leaders and Seattle City Council members at Seattle Center, Durkan signed the MOU along with OVG co-founder Tim Leiweke.

 

[gstommylee]

Video of the OVG arena MOU signing. There was a huge emphasis on the NBA.

 

[Mike Jones]

Which by the way is essentially how Seattle's Initiative 91 is set up. Mike, if I can ask, what exactly are the Flames demanding in terms of a public/team contribution? They looking for a full handout or are they willing to do public/private partnership?

I think the best way to describe it is "full handout". In one of their first proposals to the city the Flames offered to contribute something like 150 million or so to the roughly 550 million project. I also remember the Flames demanding almost all of the revenue from that facility and some Stampede events as well. On top of that they didn't want to pay any property taxes and were even demanding free public transit rides to and from the arena for anyone with a ticket for an event at the arena. It was pretty extreme and I'm not sure they've moderated their demands since then. I know a person who used to work for a team using the Saddledome. Prior to the Flames' purchasing this team they were demanding the independent team's revenues even before the team was purchased.

The Flames (And shills like local "writer" Eric Francis) claim they are working towards a private/public partnership but it's becoming increasingly obvious that they want everything for nothing.

Link: Calgary Flames go on a power play against city with arena proposal

Note: This is one of the links I've posted earlier but I don't think it includes the demands regarding public transit or veto powers over development around the arena. I'll post that link when I find it.

 

[snovalleyhockeyfan]

And that's too bad that that's their position. A 50/50 public-private with the public portion paid for by way of restaurant/hotel/ticket taxes would be a lot more fair than what the Flames seem to want. The transit thing, don't give Oak View here in Seattle any ideas, there, Mike.......

 

[Mike Jones]

The transit thing, don't give Oak View here in Seattle any ideas, there, Mike.......

I will try to restrain myself.

 

[gstommylee]

Tweet of the week or month er whatever it is



The new mayor threw a pair of Seattle super sonic socks during the press conference at Chris Daniels whose been reporting on the Seattle arena issue since 2007.

 

[snovalleyhockeyfan]

I will try to restrain myself.

No need to. I think we all understand where you are coming from. Look, if I was a resident of Calgary, I'd probably be feeling the same way. The kind of things they're asking for - my goodness that's a non-starter in my view. In a way, it's sort of like what we dealt with here with Bennett and Co. before they moved the Sonics back in 2008. They IIRC wanted a similar sort of "free handout" and were told hell no and walked with the team. And of course we're still waiting to get them back.

To me and I think a lot of other NHL people here in Seattle, we do not at the moment see the Flames being in a position to move because as far as at least I'm concerned they are a revenue-sharing generator that pays in because of the strong fan support and the strong TV revenue north of the border, so all this talk from the league and the ownership to me means zilch. Perhaps if there's no movement over the next several months that might change, but really in my mind it's the Flames that have to give on this. If they are willing to deal in good faith, they'll show a willingness to help foot the bill to a greater degree than they want to do now. The behavior of their ownership when it comes to controlling revenue and potential revenue smacks similarly to a certain baseball team here in Seattle that has no love lost for the opposing arena project - for this exact reason......

 

[viper0220]

Regarding Quebec, I think that the NHL will eventually return there, but the league is clearly in no rush and obviously wants to save them as a potential emergency relocation option. In the event that [insert team here] falls through on a sale or an arena deal and the owner just gives up and wants out, the NHL will need a landing spot for a team that could go from nothing to a brand new organization in the span of just a single offseason. I'm of the opinion that there are plenty of great potential markets, like Seattle, Portland, and Houston, but really you need a rabid fanbase already in place to do something that quickly, and that's only the case for an untapped Canadian market. Quebec City is the option there much like Winnipeg was for the Thrashers.

Regarding the relocation fees, no, that's all the ownership side of things as far as I'm aware. Especially if the NHL wants to add more than just one more team, that's a whole lot of dough that the players are missing out on, so I'd be shocked if they didn't attempt to get a piece of that in the next CBA. Good luck getting the owners to agree to that, though.

But it's obvious that the NHL's modus operandi is to just lockout with each new CBA negotiation, not like that'll be the specific cause of the next one (though they might claim it is).

Thanks for the reply, No Fun Shogun.

 

[beenhereandthere]

Seattle is not a relocation candidate if any team has to move. There is no temporary venue for a relocated team to play.

Maybe the Tacoma Dome could step up and be a temp for 1 year (or 2, but most likely 1, 2019 season). This would actually be smart, since, you don't think that the NBA could be a lot more serious now, about coming back to Seattle too? If the NHL doesn't get a head start before the return of the Sonics (Hypothetical), then, the NHL, while it will still do at least ok, will be clearly the 4th or 5th sport in town.

 

[j1012]

even Lieweke said expansion or an existing team. Sounds like that the NHL could be team 3 or 4 in Seattle, but will be probably the only winter sports team until the NBA expands .... in 2024. The sooner a NHL establish roots the better off they will be, and I could see Sounders fans finding hockey a nice winter sport to adopt.

I agree the Tacoma Dome could be a temporary venue for a season. The Lightning were in worse venues when they started

 

[snovalleyhockeyfan]

Maybe the Tacoma Dome could step up and be a temp for 1 year (or 2, but most likely 1, 2019 season). This would actually be smart, since, you don't think that the NBA could be a lot more serious now, about coming back to Seattle too? If the NHL doesn't get a head start before the return of the Sonics (Hypothetical), then, the NHL, while it will still do at least ok, will be clearly the 4th or 5th sport in town.

I think we've discussed this before on here, but apparently, there's no ice plant down there at the Dome anymore so that, unless the league was willing to pay for the installation of a temporary one there, and absorb any losses for a team there - which there would most likely be as the building has no luxury seats or club seating - the Dome would be likely a non-starter. There are renos going on there but I'm not sure it's to the degree that would be needed to house teams on a temporary basis. Among the renos is the installation of a different style of seating for the lower bowl - instead of portable seats, they're installing a retractable seating system similar to what you'd find in a lot of high school and college gymnasiums. The dome over in Yakima on the east side of the Cascades from Tacoma has a similar system for its seating.

You are correct, though, the NHL probably does need to get a head start on the NBA in order for its long-term success to be achieved. However, there's been some discussion this week that the NBA may not be ready to expand for at least another several years, so it may not matter a helluva lot in the end.

Quick mention for all of you, and SD will probably have more on this in the coming days, but the Sonics Rising folks did a sit-down interview with Leiweke yesterday following the signing ceremony. They'll be posting that interview on their website in a three-part thing at some point, maybe later today, if not tomorrow I would guess (SD, what's there timeline on that if you know?). Will be a must-read when it gets posted.

Also, one last thing this morning, and it's off-topic, but this piece of news for some Seattle fans dampened their festive attitude surrounding the ceremony yesterday:

Former longtime KOMO-TV sports anchor Bruce King dies

Bruce King, who was the KOMO-TV sports anchor from the late 1960's until 1999, and also did stints in San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles, passed away yesterday. I myself grew up watching his sportscasts on KOMO and he will be missed locally.

 

[j1012]

Here is Lieweke's interview prior to the signing with Chris Daniels

The Next Best Podcast by KING 5 on Apple Podcasts

 

[BKIslandersFan]

I think there is no point of speculating whether Seattle will get an expansion team or relocation team.

It will be an expansion team. Schedule doesn’t work for them to get a relocated team. Where are they going to play?

 

[MoreOrr]

I realize and understand that there has been an effort to move away from the possible alignment talk. Nevertheless, I just discovered that it had been a part of this thread, and I would really like to take the opportunity to once again post my thoughts on the matter.

First off, I imagine that the League would just rather stay with the 8-team Division setup; however, the possible addition of a team in Seattle would cause a significant problem with respect to which team would exit the Pacific Division. That said, it certainly would then seem likely that the League would consider a 4-team Division setup.

As always, how new Divisions might be formed, with respect to which teams go where, is a hugely controversial topic, both inside the League, as we know, and among fans interested in the topic. However, pretty much every time I look at this, seeing how the West could be divided up just looks so much simpler than how one might form new Divisions in the East... the East is always a headache with respect to this!

Anyway, here goes my (first) take on how it could be done, with two options for the East:

The West
Division 1: Vancouver, Seattle, San Jose, Las Vegas
Division 2: Los Angeles, Anaheim, Arizona, Colorado
Division 3: Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Minnesota
Division 4: Dallas, St Louis, Chicago, Nashville

The East (option 1)
Division 1: Boston, NY Rangers, NY Islanders, New Jersey
Division 2: Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Buffalo
Division 3: Detroit, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia
Division 4: Washington, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Florida

The East (option 2)
Division 1: Boston, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
Division 2: Buffalo, Detroit, Columbus, Carolina
Division 3: NY Rangers, NY Islanders, New Jersey, Washington
Division 4: Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Florida

Aww hell, I could post several more options for the East, and each one would have numerous detractors.

Final comment here... I agree with the people who say that the League could eventually handle 36 teams. Then go back to 6-team Divisions, please; it makes this alignment issue easier.

 

[gstommylee]

Moreoff,

What makes you think the NHL wants to split the league into 8 division. The NHL does not want to split up rivalries. And flyers and Washington are one of those rivalries. I think things are fine as they are at. Just with Seattle in pacific and Coyotes in Central.

 

[MoreOrr]

Moreoff,

What makes you think the NHL wants to split the league into 8 division. The NHL does not want to split up rivalries. And flyers and Washington are one of those rivalries. I think things are fine as they are at. Just with Seattle in pacific and Coyotes in Central.

I think the second paragraph of my previous post automatically contradicts the word I bolded in your reply. I don't think the League would "want" to do it. But I also don't think that they will want to put Arizona, a team which has part of its year in the PTZ, in the Central. If you're dead set on the idea that the League will just try to juggle the current Divisional alignment, then I think it would be more likely to put Edmonton and Calgary in the Central and Colorado in the Pacific. I mean, I suppose that's possible; rather than Winnipeg being the lone Canadian team in the Central, Vancouver would become the lone Canadian team in the Pacific, but now with Seattle in its backyard.

 

[gstommylee]

I think the second paragraph of my previous post automatically contradicts the word I bolded in your reply. I don't think the League would "want" to do it. But I also don't think that they will want to put Arizona, a team which has part of its year in the PTZ, in the Central. If you're dead set on the idea that the League will just try to juggle the current Divisional alignment, then I think it would be more likely to put Edmonton and Calgary in the Central and Colorado in the Pacific. I mean, I suppose that's possible; rather than Winnipeg being the lone Canadian team in the Central, Vancouver would become the lone Canadian team in the Pacific, but now with Seattle in its backyard.

Colorado is more central then Edmonton and Calgary and you're forcing Edmonton and Calgary to travel farther for divisional games. Ever wondered that perhaps the Alberta teams want to be in the same division as Seattle. The NHL isn't going to the league that will screw teams just cause of 1 team.

What makes anyone think Arizona will still even have a team by the time Seattle joins. We are talking about 3 maybe 4 depending on if there's a lock out or construction delays before Seattle start playing. And coyotes can't stay in Glendale forever. The league said that themselves. Something needs to be figured out either they get a new arena or they move.

 

[cptjeff]

I think there is no point of speculating whether Seattle will get an expansion team or relocation team.

It will be an expansion team. Schedule doesn’t work for them to get a relocated team. Where are they going to play?

Not to mention that with expansion, each owner gets 20 million bucks wired into their bank account. There's talk of a $600+ million expansion fee. Does anyone think there's any chance the NHL owners pass that up?

 

[MoreOrr]

What makes anyone think Arizona will still even have a team by the time Seattle joins. We are talking about 3 maybe 4 depending on if there's a lock out or construction delays before Seattle start playing. And coyotes can't stay in Glendale forever. The league said that themselves. Something needs to be figured out either they get a new arena or they move.

If that's the direction we take the discussion ("we" meaning any of us here), then the whole alignment topic may be rather mute because who knows what city might take the Coyotes, and in turn how that relocation might also effect the alignment. But it's perhaps inappropriate enough to be discussing hypothetical alignment here with the addition of a team in Seattle, without taking it even a step further and speculating about where the Coyotes might end up and how that too might effect alignment. So, just based on the current teams that exist, adding in Seattle, I can't see the logic of flipping Arizona into the Central. But whatever, we can disagree on that and leave it at that.

 

[gstommylee]

If that's the direction we take the discussion ("we" meaning any of us here), then the whole alignment topic may be rather mute because who knows what city might take the Coyotes, and in turn how that relocation might also effect the alignment. But it's perhaps inappropriate enough to be discussing hypothetical alignment here with the addition of a team in Seattle, without taking it even a step further and speculating about where the Coyotes might end up and how that too might effect alignment. So, just based on the current teams that exist, adding in Seattle, I can't see the logic of flipping Arizona into the Central. But whatever, we can disagree on that and leave it at that.

By the time Seattle joins Houston will probably already have a team via relocation and that'll settle the whole who's going over to the central conference.

 

[xkj1985x]

 

[MNNumbers]

More:

Take a look at your alignment and look at it as 4 divisions (or, as I think will happen: Conferences). What do you see?

Pacific: All PTZ teams, PLUS Colorado
Central: All CTZ teams, PLUS Calgary and Edmonton

Never mind the east for now. What you have written down is one of the common Western re-alignments for a Seattle expansion. There would really be NO need to break that further. In fact, I submit the idea that breaking it into 4x4 in the West is WORSE. It's certainly worse for Minnesota. Only American franchise in that division. I think your 4x4 in East and West is a non-starter. There has literally been NO communication from the league indicating any desire to do that. Meanwhile, there has been lots of communication from the league with the idea of 4 8-team conferences.

Assuming Arizona stays, you either get what you have posted, or you get Arizona and Colorado trading places with Calgary and Edmonton.

But, like others have said, it's 3 years out at least. Arizona might relocate. Calgary is at an impasse with their city government. Who knows what might happen? Hey, the easiest thing might happen: AX>HOU, in which case the alignment issue is trivial.

 

[gstommylee]

even Lieweke said expansion or an existing team. Sounds like that the NHL could be team 3 or 4 in Seattle, but will be probably the only winter sports team until the NBA expands .... in 2024. The sooner a NHL establish roots the better off they will be, and I could see Sounders fans finding hockey a nice winter sport to adopt.

I agree the Tacoma Dome could be a temporary venue for a season. The Lightning were in worse venues when they started

I think he was talking about Basketball not hockey in regards to relocation or expansion.

 

[j1012]

I think he was talking about Basketball not hockey in regards to relocation or expansion.

I re-listened to the podcast. I interpreted it as either or with regards to the NHL.

 

[gstommylee]

I re-listened to the podcast. I interpreted it as either or with regards to the NHL.

One problem with the NHL. We don't have a temporary arena for the team to play at while the arena is under construction. And by the time the NBA is ready to give Seattle a team again it'll be either relocation or expansion.

And the NHL would rather want the 600-700m from a Seattle franchise than to have a couple lame duck seasons then move a team to Seattle.

Leiweke isn't going to say how the team will be acquired either way.