Now that i am thinking more about it. Staggering the expansion and have Seattle start in 2018 might not be such a bad idea especially if team is awarded to coleman. The extra year would allow a buffer to deal with any potential lawsuits against the sodo arena and yes they are going to happen. Vegas and Quebec are lucky they didn't have to deal with a ridiculous union that thinks a 18k arena will cause massive and massive job loss and economic harm.
Heeeeere comes expansion! - Part II
- Thread starter canuckster19
- Start date
- Status
Now that i am thinking more about it. Staggering the expansion and have Seattle start in 2018 might not be such a bad idea especially if team is awarded to coleman. The extra year would allow a buffer to deal with any potential lawsuits against the sodo arena and yes they are going to happen. Vegas and Quebec are lucky they didn't have to deal with a ridiculous union that thinks a 18k arena will cause massive and massive job loss and economic harm.
Jeffrey93
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2007
- 4,335
- 46
I'm sure they have some sway.
And if the league is already voting against what they want by putting a team in their area...if the choice presents itself I'm sure the league would favour them and select the option that is farther away and doesn't create a new competing venue right on their doorstep.
Sure they can't 'veto' it. But they can say "Fine guys...put a team in our territory, but could you at least put it in Hamilton and not two GO Train stops away? Thanks."
I'd think if MLSE lobbied hard enough the NHL would even push the suggestion onto potential Owners. "You seem to want Vaughan or Mississauga....will you do Hamilton? If not, we have others that will. Your call."
Just a theory....appeases the most involved and makes business sense.
tsanuri
Registered User
Staggering it would allow players that maybe were exempt from the first draft to have to be protected. They could at most lose 3 players and 10 would only lose 2 if each team could take 20 players and they did 4 teams.
I think the existing teams would prefer one where the expansion teams would prefer more than one. Since in every case you must leave some players that have specific number of games played in each draft in the past.
Jeffrey93
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2007
- 4,335
- 46
Why is the onus on the league to get things done so people can own a franchise in Seattle?
Get 'their arena act together' as Bettman said....or don't. The league will do just fine without Seattle.
I don't understand, in a lot of your posts...there is this underlying suggestion that the league needs to mold the process to suit Seattle's needs. Why?
Why do you put the onus on the league to assist Seattle in getting an arena built? Like I've said to you a pile of times....if an arena financing deal depends on debt repayment that then depends on an anchor tenant....make all the agreements conditional on the anchor tenant being awarded. If it isn't....everyone walks away or goes back to the table. If it is awarded...start digging.
All of this can be solved by the local government and potential Owners. The league doesn't need to be involved or start offering 'conditional franchises'.
I'm really not sure where this idea came from that the NHL is hell bent on putting a team in Seattle.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,217
Well, the earliest Arizona could be moved would be for 2016; Florida likely 2017. If they do have to move, thats two Expansion markets gone.... if the figure of $500M is true and... that only through Expansion would it arrive unencumbered to all 30 teams... two Relo sales like that would put a rather serious dent in all that free money. A considerable number of clubs will not be happy let alone impressed. They dont have much choice in the matter, but its "stuff" like that that could well cost Bettman & Daly their jobs. Those are massive hits to be taking. Over a half a billion dollars easily gone poof.
Jeffrey93
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2007
- 4,335
- 46
Where do you relocate to if you have to then? If you continue to save Hamilton/Toronto for expansion.....where do you put the Panthers if they decide they're getting out of Sunrise?
K,
If IA throws in the towel, and Bettman calls Quebec, are you telling me they won't take the Coyote for 2015?
If he calls Foley, don't you think Foley have up and calls whatever arena he has in mind for a one year temp situation?
I think July and August are going to be full of news.
If those two relocations happen at those dates couldn't NHL still get their billion in expansion fees and still get those 2 teams relocated. It would just be a matter of where would those 2 teams be relocated to. There are a number a ways to take care of both issues but its matter of what would NHL do which also take care of Seattle market arena issue (guaranteed of a team).
BattleBorn
50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
Two relocations and two expansions net the teams the same amount of money as two expansions. Heck, even a little more.
Plus, there's two less pieces of pie to split on contracts, and two (hopefully) more solid teams that the current status quo in the league, plus two expansions.
Still splitting a billion in expansion and maybe 400mm in relocations. Seems like a deal to me. I've always said that as long as there's more than two expansions candidates, a relocation or two is a net plus to the league's members.
Or coyotes end up in seattle leaving both quebec and Vegas as expansion then portland gets panthers.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,217
Thats a little more complicated because Vinnie Viola down there is a lot like Peter Karmano's. He might very well move the team himself rather than sell. Vinnies a Brooklyn boy, New Yorker through & through. Sounds crazy I know, but a guy like that, big ego etc, I could easily see him moving the Panthers
to...................................................................................... Hartford.
The question is who gets expansion and who gets relocation and on top of that take care of Seattle market's team first then arena issue
In theory if everything happens around the same time it shouldn't be a problem that Seattle gets expansion and quebec or Vegas gets expansion while other gets relocation. With that in mind 3 new cities could begin playing in 2017 2 expansion 1 relocation.
BattleBorn
50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
I'm not talking about Seattle anymore. I think they get a team, I just hope the people wanting to bring it there are as determined and relentless as you.
Seattle is the place that really looks like it's running out of time for a move this summer. At least in my eyes.
Quebec has the Remparts structure to help them. Plus, Quebecers won't care of the first month is a matter of working bugs out.
Foley is likely quietly working on a group of people for his staffing.
But Seattle is still working and focusing on the arena situation. I know Bartozek claimed he was going to pull this off two years ago, but I am not sure SCC lets him play 2 years in Key while he builds in Tukwila. And Hansen/Coleman are still fighting the NHL first thing with the MOU.
SCC is getting $$$ in rent for a team playing in Key arena for a couple years. Why do they care if the team plays another arena in another city long term. They aren't paying for an arena in Tukwila. It only matters if Ray B gets the coyotes and NHL insists on Sodo arena not Tukwila.
that's a conspiracy theory lol
team in TO.. leafs against
team in hamilton.. leafs and sabres against
do you really think the owners would protect MLSE over Buffalo ?
c'mon the leafs make obscene profits... the 2 biggest vulture owners would love for the Leafs to be knocked around a bit. Not that the Leafs are at risk of losing a dime anyways...
Now you want Bartoszek to rent, too? Crazy Tommy. Literally a billion invested, and now you want him to pay rent, get nothing back except his ticket sales, in an arena that by your own admission is not good for hockey, losing another 50M+.
Not worth it to me...
He would have if he gotten the coyotes 2 years ago. At this point it all depends on what the NHL wants. Sodo arena or Tukwila arena. That's why its very interesting that there are multiple expansion bids from our market. It brings the question of what will the league do.
Jeffrey93
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2007
- 4,335
- 46
I'd think more work would need to be done to Key Arena to quickly house a team than Vegas.
Assuming Thomas & Mack can still serve as an ice hockey venue. FirstOntario Centre is similar in design to this place....with FOC having a larger footprint. So unless they scrapped their ice-making ability....it would be much more suitable than Key Arena.
If it is just for a year....which I'm not sure how that can be the case as Seattle's new rink would need to be a year into construction by now....but if the league allowed for 2 years temporary location Seattle could be considered.
So...Vegas could use Thomas & Mack Center for a year...then use new nearly completed NHL arena. Seattle could use Key Arena (not as suitable as Thomas & Mack) for two years and hopefully have a new arena ready by then....or not have any arena construction going on at all.
If the Coyotes are forced into a sudden move....Seattle, in my mind, is out. Temporary arena isn't a hockey venue (but then again...neither is Barclays) and there is no commitment yet to build a new rink. Vegas on the other hand....has a hockey rink in Thomas & Mack and has a new arena under construction.
Heck...if the Coyotes had to move promptly...like tomorrow, if I were the NHL I'd be pursuing at least a half-dozen other markets before Seattle.
Actually, Jeffrey, if they asked me what to do in that situation, I would make ONE call. I guarantee you I wouldn't have to make another.
It is literally to me a no brainer.
There would been upgrades to key arena to get it to at least beable to host NHL matches on the temporary basis. The fact that the ice rink is off center is exactly why can't host NHL team long term.
Islander is playing at barclays arena from what images i seen off that arena in hockey configuration that has to be in my opinion worse than Key arena. Half a dozen markets? The only other market i could think of is Portland. Vegas and Quebec would be getting expansions and would Paul Allen & NHL group pay more for the team than a seattle group?
Jeffrey93
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2007
- 4,335
- 46
Team in TO - Leafs against
Team in Hamilton - Leafs far less against, Sabres mildly annoyed
Buffalo will be fine. They sold 13,000 tickets to a scrimmage....I can't imagine many Canadians attended that. Probably some, but not many.
It would be similar to talk of a second Chicago team...but then there is interest in Milwaukee. The Hawks, I'd assume, would choose Milwaukee if it was going to be one or the other. And the rest of the league would respect that.
IF another team is going into the GTHA....the NHL has voted and decided that. Leafs would prefer it be in Hamilton, I am sure of it, so there isn't much doubt in my mind the bulk of the league would take the position that you're already putting a team where MLSE doesn't want one (if it has an impact on them or not) so if it's Mississauga or Hamilton the NHL doesn't really care, they get the same benefit out of either. When MLSE lobbies for Hamilton instead of Missy....what point is there for the 29 other teams to not agree?
All things being equal.....if the league wanted a second team in Chicago or a team in Milwaukee...you think the 29 other owners would force it to be in Chicago instead of Milwaukee?
Anaheim is to LA
Milwaukee is to Chicago
Hamilton is to Toronto
New Jersey is to New York
When is the last time a league put a team right in the same city as an existing franchise? They've put them close....but not in the same city.
Hamilton is all the same benefits as Toronto 2, but less of a problem (arena-wise...which is the BIG issue) to MLSE. All the same benefits...less issues for MLSE. Why shove a Missy/Vaughan team down their throats?
And....the Sabres are fine. Very few people....VERY FEW...that live in Canada and have Sabres season tickets are going to swap allegiances. Buffalo is likely closer to them....they've grown up going to Sabres games...they are Sabres fans. There would be the rivalry bonus to both clubs.
There is not enough extra benefit (if any) to a team right on MLSE's front porch compared to down the road in Hamilton. So I don't see why the majority (or 2/3rds) of the league would force a team onto MLSE's front porch.
500m is irrelevant. Does NHL want downtown proper (seattle) or be in the suburbs? That's the question.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,217
Goodness no, Im not telling you that. Anythings possible MNN. That situation in Arizona could indeed go absolutely Nuclear within.... yep, 2 weeks. The NHL has been noticeably quiet to date on this file but for sure their sending down the Big Guns. Id say the odds are remote that at this late date they'd pull the pin, my guess being they just play it out through the courts over the next 12 months then amscray to QC..... as yes, I think Quebec was a backup in 2013 & that they have been promised a team. This whole Expansion process PKP is engaged in merely window dressing. QC has the inside lane, already lapped everybody else on the track about 3X's only no one knows about it.
How do you figure that?
4 X 500,000 = 2 Billion
2 X 500,000 = 1 Billion
Assume the Coyotes sell for $300M, the league slapping on a $200M Relo Fee "just because". How does that work? Not 3 years ago the Thrashers sold for $110M with a $60M Relo Fee. Winnipeg supposedly worth $170M. A city about the same size as Quebec. But ok, lets play.... assume Viola does sell. He's gunna want $500M. ALL $500M. Whats the league going to do about that? Franchises are worth $500M apparently, so why should he take a $200M haircut?.. but even if he did, and lets say sold to Houston for $300M, and the owners down there agreed to pay a $200M Relo Fee, $300M the NHL will never see that they couldve gotten in a one time Expansion Fee. If they ding Quebec for $200M on top of the $300M they'll need to get for the Coyotes, and that $300M all gone to creditors btw, then all they see is $200M split between 29 teams rather than the full unencumbered $500M Expansion Fee they claim their asking for in the here & now. A figure I think is grossly inflated & over priced but thats another issue again.
- Status
