Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Neill99, Feb 26, 2007.
Does anyone know anything?.About it.
Assuming the Pittsburgh arena deal actually gets done, not in the near-short term. I would be shocked if the league does not expand within five years. That is personal opinion though, nothing concrete.
I hope it stays empty forever. Nothing against KC, but I hate AEG.
Missouri doesn't have an NBA team. Let em have basketball...
I don't know why, but every time I see your avatar, I laugh, even now.
I hope it stays empty forever. And it is all about KC. They built an arena solely to steal a team, any team, and I have gone through hell for a year. Sue me, I am bitter no matter how this turns out.
I can understand how you're personally offended (assuming you're a Pens fan), but I'd blame AEG before the city. They're all about ripping hearts out and simply used Kansas City as the venue for their latest murder.
I would. Expansion is not the answer. The league can't sell itself with the teams it already has. Why the hell should they add more???
So what if KC has an empty arena. That is not the NHL's problem.
Kansas City Predators. Sounds good
I believe the Pittsburgh Predators will be moving into the bright shiny new rink.
That would be the Winnipeg Predators.
I totally agree, for different reasons:
1.) They were dumb enough to build an arena without having a team in place. Who is dumb enough to do that? KC!
2.) In an atrocious (but not unprecedented) move, the people of KC passed a Hotel/Rental Car tax which paid for 80% of the arena. To me, it is UTTERLY PATHETIC to have visitors pay for your arena.
They tried to say that people will be coming there for tournaments and stuff and they should help pay for the arena, but most of the time, it is the KC residents who will be attending events in the arena (games for a new team, WWE, Disney on Ice, etc). They should pay for their own godd**ned arena, not us.
KC had the Kings, but the Kings bolted due to, surprise surprise, poor support. KC doesn't deserve basketball or hockey.
They are a horrible sports town that's only claim to fame in the sports world is support of the Chiefs, but that is all about the bandwagon too.
the NHL would be wise to throw something KC's way to keep the arena sitting their prime for a team for a few years. Use is as leverage for the Islanders, Oilers, Penguins, etc (who else wants a new arena? Ducks? Flames? - noone would believe threats from Detroit or NYC). Let it be the alamadome/NFL, TB/MLB, etc ...
I'd like to see teams in Seattle or Portland, Houston, and maybe somewhere in Ontario. I'm not sure about KC. I'd really like to see a 20-24 team league so I'm torn. Not too many current markets I'd want to hand to KC. Overall I think it's an unfortunate mess. I guess expansion is inevitable? Don't want to start a new thread (being a newbie) and this isn't the right thread, but I'm starting to consider 40 teams, 2 divisions (NHL1 and NHL2) as the possible best solution? I'll wait for the right thread to come along to explore that further.
Bottomline, if I'm the NHL, I'd hold on KC for now. If a current owner wants to go there, I guess let them go.
Believe it or not, KC built that arena to keep the Big 12 basketball tournament from moving to Dallas on a permanant basis. In order to keep the arena afloat they need either an NBA or NHL team.
They built an arena just for a once-a-year college tournament? Man, that's bigtime thinking right there. The NHL should jump all over a backwards city like that.
Exspansion inst the way to go right now. The only thing KC is good for right now really is the BBQ. Really I only see it being used as a leverage chip for teams looking for a new building ie Pittsburgh. Also with how I hear Nashville stuggles to draw a crowd the could try a move to KC. Other than that though it should just remain empty. I am also agaisnt a Penguins move cause the would put them in the same division as the blues and that team is on the cusp of years of playoff contention with a good young core of players they have.
On the other hand if there desprate for a team the Blues could move there minor league team there from Peoria. Atleast you wouldn't get lost on the way back. Just ask Murray about the first time he went
It is not the NHL's problem, but it is potentially the NHL's opportunity. If the league believes KC can be a success, expect to see a team there sooner rather than later.
I have to disagree on both counts. For starters consider how many cities are talked about as a good destination if only they had a stadium or arena (depending on sport) Kansas City now has said arena.
Secondly it's a genius move on Kansas City's part. Why pay for something if you can get other people to pay for it? If you don't want to pay for it don't go to Kansas City. It's not like they are litterally forcing out of towners to pay for the arena, just those that come to Kansas City. I wish Buffalo would do something like this for our football stadium that constantly is getting upgraded.
To me the idea that the visitors pay and thus the residents don't give up anything is off. In the end it's usually all tax revenue that the local governement can use on whatever they want, stadium or something else. Maybe some state governemnts tie the hands of the local government in using the money, but usually it just seems to me a political way of funding a facility without the locals thinking they're giving anything up. But anyways I like new arenas ...
In the late 90s I was really in to following the NHL. Right now 30 teams is just too much for me (plus the expensive tickets). I'd be really interested in seeing a smaller NHL based in rabid hockey markets, something I think the US might give more of a chance for national coverage. But I just don't see a clear direction for the league? For me KC or Pittsburgh, either way I don't see what path (that interests me) that the NHL is taking?
that building will fall apart before they find a tenant
It must be nice to use a completely different time and era as a reason as to why major, professional sports won't work in KC now. By that logic, Minnesota should have never gotten another team (basketball or hockey) Houston shouldn't have gotten the Texans (NFL), New Orleans shouldn't have the Hornets (NBA) and Colorado shouldn't have the Avalanche. Times change, economical landscapes can change in towns too.
You don't live in Kansas, don't talk s**t. The local CHL team where I live (Wichita) is drawing the most fans in years, despite having a bad season.
I think hockey COULD work in KC, however, as I've told many Pens fans, I wouldn't want the Pens (not because that wouldn't be an awesome team to watch) but rather because the Penguins are PITTSBURGH's team...it wouldn't be right watching them anywhere else.
As a Kings fan, so do i.
mostly agree but maybe New Orleans should not have got the Hornets?
The NHL should be beyond picking its markets based on who has the new stadium. I'm open to the idea of KC (no pro sports Jan-March) but would like to see a better reason than Wichita drawing well. So while I agree with your reasoning here, I'd like to see an argument FOR kc?
Separate names with a comma.