Heeeeere comes expansion! - Part II

[brewski420]

Ok, I'll bite. What exactly is the purpose of this banter then?

I am still waiting to hear the advice you would give to those actuality submitting applications how multipurpose facilities and sports franchises work? It seems like you have a real handle on it.

 

[Jeffrey93]

I'm not explaining anything to potential bidders. I'm explaining things in a hypothetical situation and seeing how I believe they will play out.

 

[tank44]

Im always amazed at the apparent Seattle hate sometimes out here. And then on the other side is Tommy and his rose colored glasses.

In the 90s-00s expansions, I believe there were cases where the arena was not guaranteed until the expansion team was awarded. This would be similar to the Seattle case. Yes QV & LV have arenas being built and as result I agree that these and most other cities are a better option than Seattle for relocation. However for expansion, it is all fair game.

As for SoDo arena, I believe the MOU at present expires in 2017. I take that to mean that agreements must be confirmed by that time and construction to start here too - Not meaning that it must be built by 2017. The EIS appears to be good and done. Seattle Mayor is pushing to get this arena done too. This will be the #1 choice and option if it can get done by any means. Tukwila option will be the backup plan and is essentially in the same boat as neither will be built for the sake of being built. Both cases need a team to get built. I know Ottawa, Tampa, Florida & San Jose were for sure in this scenario and I think that there were others since such as Columbus and Minnesota hence why they staggered admittance in the 98-00 wave.

In the end by 2018, I believe Seattle, Las Vegas, Quebec City will all have NHL teams by some account. I also believe there will be 1-2 wildcards in the mix. Seattle is one of the larger, stronger & growing markets in the US and in an untapped NHL area. It would be stupid for the NHL to ignore this but agree on most accounts that whomever is submitting applications for expansion to have all arena and funding issues worked out. This next month will be the key to get this worked out. It doesn't matter that it is not announced publicly how this will all work out. Business happens behind closed doors and things can get done or fail without reasons becoming known to the public.

 

[Jeffrey93]

I am still waiting to hear the advice you would give to those actuality submitting applications how multipurpose facilities and sports franchises work? It seems like you have a real handle on it.

To respond to you and Tommy Lee there....


Can you guys not grasp that a new multi-purpose venue within 20 minutes of the Air Canada Centre would cause MLSE a TAD bit more financial issues than competing with an existing venue that is about an hour away?

New venue next door....versus...EXISTING venue way down the road.

Then when they decide to replace that venue.....it is FOC destroyed and new venue created. MLSE sees no additional competition.

Or....ACC exists....FOC exists....and new Vaughan venue exists. I kinda think this option would hurt MLSE more.

 

[JMROWE]

you keep forgetting on purpose that the leafs have no say, they have 1 vote.. and that's a FACT, not an opinion

That might be true if the Leafs (MLSE.) where not the league's most valuable franchise but the Leafs are the NHL's most valuable franchise so they do have a lot more pull in the NHL. than the rest of league's teams so they do have some form of veto power .

 

[Fugu]

I always go back to my original point in this whole thing from months ago. It's not like there's a 10 year old arena in Seattle that is refusing to let a team play there and a competing arena needs to be built for a team. Seattle needs an arena regardless of what happens.

The fact that there's nobody willing to build it without a guarantee, whether that be the City of Seattle or the arena investors themselves, is not anyone's issue but theirs.

There is a chance to build the premier indoor facility in the Puget Sound Region and everyone is so busy setting up hurdles to do it that they're going to wind up missing their chance to make it make sense. The NBA and NHL can live and have lived without Seattle for some time now. It's not like they're doing these leagues a favor letting them play in the region.

Arenas are speculative, real estate is speculative, sports teams are speculative. The fact that all these people are wanting their money guaranteed is giving me a sour taste in my mouth, and I say that as someone who would be one of the biggest Seattle proponents in the world if Vegas wasn't in the picture. Hell, when people were telling me I was crazy for wanting a team here I was advocating for Seattle since Vegas was a crazy dream. I love Seattle, I want Seattle to have a team, but every single issue Seattle has right now, if any issues actually exist (which isn't a guarantee) is completely self inflicted and will leave me with very little sympathy in the off chance Seattle is left in the cold on this one.

Once again, gstommy does not speak for the Seattle investors. Try to separate his opinions on what is/is not going on there from what may actually be happening.

We can surmise that yes, the arena investors have thought about how they'll make money, but what's rather telling to me is that we have multiple groups -- not just one as we do in the other cities -- considering arena projects, and only ONE of these would rely on public/govt involvement.

There is a ton of money in Seattle, as you know. I think there's far too much interest and too many people considering it right now for it to not happen.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Once again, gstommy does not speak for the Seattle investors. Try to separate his opinions on what is/is not going on there from what may actually be happening.

We can surmise that yes, the arena investors have thought about how they'll make money, but what's rather telling to me is that we have multiple groups -- not just one as we do in the other cities -- considering arena projects, and only ONE of these would rely on public/govt involvement.

There is a ton of money in Seattle, as you know. I think there's far too much interest and too many people considering it right now for it to not happen.

{Mod} Ray B could have started this last year, after the coyotes deal fell apart. He's now basically rushing to meet the deadline, and Coleman stomped his feet a bit and now will bid. Coleman needs to put more jack in. Ray B should also have made himself available to the NBA because Silver is looking for an excuse to get a team back without Chris Hansen, they would prefer downtown but's that's Hansen's site.

 

[Fugu]

<snipped out the snarkiness>

You want to get an expansion team? You don't need to build a rink like Quebec City and Las Vegas did....you just need to have all the paperwork signed that you will IF a team is awarded.

This shouldn't be a big deal.....if the local government is concerned that the debt repayment is expected to come from the major tenant....but the deal is conditional on a major tenant....ummmm...is there a problem?

Look...you seem pretty pro-Seattle. I like that. And I hope you continue to be supportive of them for an NHL team.

At the same time.....if you want to PM me the digits of some of these doods that are opting for arena deals in Seattle....I'll be happy to explain to them how professional sports and multipurpose entertainment facilities work.

I might be quite beneficial to them.

What exactly do you know about the people looking at arenas in Seattle? Do you even know all their names, cause that would be a nice bit of information to have.

What I know is that there are 2 confirmed bid packets out, and possibly 2 more that will get requested.

Seattle will happen at some point. The real question is not "if" but "when."

oh so thru HRR
i see
uhm.. you probably don't realize this
but HRR is shared with the players
expansion fees aren't

That's not how HRR works in the context you're presenting. Team owners will account for their money in different ways based on their own business and portfolio needs. HRR is a paper process that tells everyone what must be counted as hockey revenue for purposes of setting the cap range. Teams can only spend to the cap as far as player salaries, and the players collectively will get no more/less than 50% of that amount.

When someone suggests that any particular team gets less revenue sharing (or more), that doesn't get counted in the HRR process above. That's done as a separate allocation based on some other metrics. Furthermore, there's a policy about teams that change owners or get moved in their first two years and revenue sharing, but I have to find the exacting verbiage and context.

 

[Fugu]

That might be true if the Leafs (MLSE.) where not the league's most valuable franchise but the Leafs are the NHL's most valuable franchise so they do have a lot more pull in the NHL. than the rest of league's teams so they do have some form of veto power .

They don't have a veto. No team does. As for influence with the other members of the BOG? It's like me trying to tell people that Detroit doesn't just get punted around like a red-headed stepchild so a tiny ville - comparatively speaking - can get a team.

The NHL is a boy's club. A very old boy's club.

Edit: Or Killion may be right, per below. They're the new kids on the block, and JJ is the block bully.

 

[Fugu]

{Mod} Ray B could have started this last year, after the coyotes deal fell apart. He's now basically rushing to meet the deadline, and Coleman stomped his feet a bit and now will bid. Coleman needs to put more jack in. Ray B should also have made himself available to the NBA because Silver is looking for an excuse to get a team back without Chris Hansen, they would prefer downtown but's that's Hansen's site.

RayB knows about the NBA issue, but just like Hansen doesn't want to own an NHL team, RayB doesn't want to own an NBA team. He does have people with him who are interested in an NBA team. Their longer term thought process on the arena is that it could house an NBA team when one becomes available. This is also why he's in Tukwila and not Bellevue. With only an NHL tenant initially, they feel they needed a larger development to justify the overall cost, so they're creating other revenue streams. Tukwila site is much larger. The Bellevue site didn't give them room for the other development options.

 

[Killion]

That might be true if the Leafs (MLSE.) where not the league's most valuable franchise but the Leafs are the NHL's most valuable franchise so they do have a lot more pull in the NHL. than the rest of league's teams so they do have some form of veto power .

You'd "think" they hold a lot of sway & influence at the highest levels of the NHL JM however, you'd be mistaken about that. What influence they once did have was like 55+ years ago when Conn Smythe still cut a wide swath, yet even then the league was controlled by the Norris & Wirtz families. Through the Dark Ages under Ballard pretty much from about 1971 to the early 90's minimal to zero influence; through the 90's & 2000's what with the constant infighting over ownership, from Stavro's to the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund, they were far too busy building the ACC, dealing with the City & the Ricoh Arena, the Raptors, TFC, BMO Field etc, broadcast & real estate interests & so on to be paying much mind to what the NHL itself was doing. They had no representation on the all powerful 10 Member NHL BOG Executive Committee, no in-put on Expansion & Relocation Committee's etc.

It wasnt until just recently that minority MLSE owner Larry Tanenbaum was appointed to the Executive Committee and that more ceremonial than anything else. Its reported that Bell & Rogers relationship thus far has been fractious, frought with boardroom battles, the dysfunction just never ending. Firing of Brian Burke, Tim Leiweke in & out, anemic on the ice, just on & on. Successful financially despite themselves, the Leaf brand impervious to market vagaries. But they are outliers, on the peripheral, their opinions while Im sure listened to by the NHL not ones that would set policy in some dictatorial fashion. The NY Rangers, another financial powerhouse, they have rather strained relationship with the league. Lawsuit vs NHL included over website control & content a few years ago amongst other issues.

So while one might think they'd wield a big stick, not so much. The real power rests with Jeremy Jacobs of Boston who as we know also looks out for Buffalo's interests, which is his hometown. He's donated tens of millions to various charities in Western New York & Buffalo over the years, his company Delaware North based there if Im not mistaken.... Rather a formidable foe for Hamilton seeing as how Jacobs actually seems to believe that a team in your city would actually harm the Sabres. Absolute nonsense that it would, and in fact do quite the opposite in turning over a lot more money with a closer rival like that just as Hamilton franchise would do the same for the Leafs, as if they needed any more $$$ huh? So theres the problem right there; Jeremy Jacobs playing Uncle Protector to Buffalo; MLSE under the OTPF wanting to protect their rice bowl with what is Im absolutely certain an illegal position that flys in the face of free trade & anti-trust issues, Jacobs essentially pulling the same stunt from across the border.

Its really too bad Balsillie didnt go after the league & MLSE & expose them for what they are. Monopolists. Illegal cartel of sorts. He wasnt going to get a team anyway but just as a matter of principal wouldve been a grand punch to the gut of a league that operates above the law in this regard & have gotten away with it for years & years & years. As it is, I fear the ground in Hamilton has been poisoned by Balsillies actions, the league not wanting to re-open that Pandoras' Box anytime soon, managing & controlling Hamilton, keeping a lid on it with Global Spectrum in there managing FOC (formerly Copps). Ive seen you post that you think Global Spectrum could help secure an NHL franchise yes? Thats possible, could also be just as possible that they prevent one from ever arriving. The ultimate Fox in the Henhouse.... Regardless, the NHL & MLSE if pushed could not withstand a full investigation into why Hamilton was denied a franchise & thats heavy duty. You get the Canadian Competition Bureau & the Dept's of Commers & Justice in the US looking into that, all Hell could've broken loose, will break loose if another Cowboy like Balsillie appears on the scene with schemes of a hostile relocation.

Only way this happens in the Hammer is with a solid ownership group & plans for a new building willing to play the NHL's game. Thus far, no ones shown up, at least not publicly. When & if they do, we can discuss Hamilton. For now, not on the track, not in the race.

 

[Killion]

They don't have a veto. No team does.

According to that letter from MLSE to the NHL uncovered by Balsillie's Legal Beagles from the mid 2000's they believe or did at least then believed so. That the Constitution trumped the By-Law. That they werent present at that BOG's Meeting when the By-Law was tabled & approved. No representation, no vote, never wouldve agreed to it, didnt & dont agree to abide by it. The only reason that By-Law was created was to deflect any investigation of league policy regarding territorial rights however, they never changed the language in the NHL Constitution whereby a 100% Super Majority is required, the franchise ('s) affected having veto power. MLSE's position that a By-Law (which in this case only requires a 2/3rds Majority to infringe on a teams territory) does not supercede Constitutional Rights however if within the framework of said Constitution such a veto is illegal then thats for the DOJ, the CCB & the courts to decide. Lawyers lawyers everywhere. Make for high theater thats for sure. While Bettman & Daly have always been strident, haughty, arrogant & adamant that no team has a veto, and why would they admit it as they know its illegal, the last thing in the world they'd need is for MLSE to go nuclear on them so, behind closed doors...... forget about a Toronto2 or Hamilton (which is getting it from both sides, Jacobs out of Buffalo).

 

[Fugu]

According to that letter from MLSE to the NHL uncovered by Balsillie's Legal Beagles from the mid 2000's they believe or did at least then believed so. That the Constitution trumped the By-Law. That they werent present at that BOG's Meeting when the By-Law was tabled & approved. No representation, no vote, never wouldve agreed to it, didnt & dont agree to abide by it. The only reason that By-Law was created was to deflect any investigation of league policy regarding territorial rights however, they never changed the language in the NHL Constitution whereby a 100% Super Majority is required, the franchise ('s) affected having veto power. MLSE's position that a By-Law (which in this case only requires a 2/3rds Majority to infringe on a teams territory) does not supercede Constitutional Rights however if within the framework of said Constitution such a veto is illegal then thats for the DOJ, the CCB & the courts to decide. Lawyers lawyers everywhere. Make for high theater thats for sure. While Bettman & Daly have always been strident, haughty, arrogant & adamant that no team has a veto, and why would they admit it as they know its illegal, the last thing in the world they'd need is for MLSE to go nuclear on them so, behind closed doors...... forget about a Toronto2 or Hamilton (which is getting it from both sides, Jacobs out of Buffalo).

The NHL is probably on solid footing given that the By-law was added after the Al Davis suits, and seeing the NFL take it on the nose with regards to anti-trust for a statement that was basically identical to the NHL's wording. What's really missing is a legal challenge, so the league can simply ignore it as fighting to change the constitution isn't worth their time if they don't plan on testing the matter. Legally speaking, they know the league is protected by the By-law as far as anti-trust matters, which is all that Bettman really cares about at this stage.

As you noted, MLSE ownership has changed, so their opinion may be different. I think it's possible that a company that pursued ownership in order to gain and control broadcast content might have a slightly different perspective on "competition" and its appeal in the greater Toronto market.

 

[Killion]

As you noted, MLSE ownership has changed, so their opinion may be different. I think it's possible that a company that pursued ownership in order to gain and control broadcast content might have a slightly different perspective on "competition" and its appeal in the greater Toronto market.

Yes. Beyond the purchase price of MLSE, Rogers dropping what they did on Broadcast Rights (and that not exactly coming along as planned) expansion funds, indemnification fee's & additional content would be most welcome you'd think. Speculating, but it strikes me GB wouldve at minimum asked Rogers & Bell how they felt about another team in the region, telling them in no uncertain terms that they must adhere to the By-Law and that should the league decide to expand or relo into S.O. dont be putting up any resistance or fuss about it. That they'll be looked after & dealt with respectfully, properly.

 

[gstommylee]

RayB knows about the NBA issue, but just like Hansen doesn't want to own an NHL team, RayB doesn't want to own an NBA team. He does have people with him who are interested in an NBA team. Their longer term thought process on the arena is that it could house an NBA team when one becomes available. This is also why he's in Tukwila and not Bellevue. With only an NHL tenant initially, they feel they needed a larger development to justify the overall cost, so they're creating other revenue streams. Tukwila site is much larger. The Bellevue site didn't give them room for the other development options.

One of the land options that Ray B has is the hotel north of the arena. Now more possibilities could happen if union pacific agrees to relocate part of that rail line. From the document drop info, its in the works but its taking longer and Ray B had to change a few things and switched the parking garage and the arena.

There is potential of redevelopment east of that location in City of Renton limits, if Boeing were to at some point sell that site.

 

[Melrose Munch]

RayB knows about the NBA issue, but just like Hansen doesn't want to own an NHL team, RayB doesn't want to own an NBA team. He does have people with him who are interested in an NBA team. Their longer term thought process on the arena is that it could house an NBA team when one becomes available. This is also why he's in Tukwila and not Bellevue. With only an NHL tenant initially, they feel they needed a larger development to justify the overall cost, so they're creating other revenue streams. Tukwila site is much larger. The Bellevue site didn't give them room for the other development options.

I don't know, I think he would if the opportunity was there, but the NBA has said no expansion. Let's remember if Hansen had not broken the rules Sodo would be up and running right now. I hope RayB has NBA people because seattle should not miss out on being a 4-sport city because some people can't follow the rules. Either that or Coleman needs to put more money up here. A lot more.

 

[GordonGraham]

I'm a bit confused about the significance of the july 20th date, is that when we will know the complete list of bidders or will it be on August 10?

Or will the league keep it secret

 

[GuelphStormer]

Im always amazed at the apparent Seattle hate sometimes out here. And then on the other side is Tommy and his rose colored glasses.

In the 90s-00s expansions, I believe there were cases where the arena was not guaranteed until the expansion team was awarded. This would be similar to the Seattle case. Yes QV & LV have arenas being built and as result I agree that these and most other cities are a better option than Seattle for relocation. However for expansion, it is all fair game.

As for SoDo arena, I believe the MOU at present expires in 2017. I take that to mean that agreements must be confirmed by that time and construction to start here too - Not meaning that it must be built by 2017. The EIS appears to be good and done. Seattle Mayor is pushing to get this arena done too. This will be the #1 choice and option if it can get done by any means. Tukwila option will be the backup plan and is essentially in the same boat as neither will be built for the sake of being built. Both cases need a team to get built. I know Ottawa, Tampa, Florida & San Jose were for sure in this scenario and I think that there were others since such as Columbus and Minnesota hence why they staggered admittance in the 98-00 wave.

In the end by 2018, I believe Seattle, Las Vegas, Quebec City will all have NHL teams by some account. I also believe there will be 1-2 wildcards in the mix. Seattle is one of the larger, stronger & growing markets in the US and in an untapped NHL area. It would be stupid for the NHL to ignore this but agree on most accounts that whomever is submitting applications for expansion to have all arena and funding issues worked out. This next month will be the key to get this worked out. It doesn't matter that it is not announced publicly how this will all work out. Business happens behind closed doors and things can get done or fail without reasons becoming known to the public.

great post. can i ask, are most folks in seattle following this? is the nhl a close or distant second choice as far as most people in town would like to see? would an nhl (first) team increase the chances of an nba team following? in other words, how much does the nba desire factor in to this bid process, from the owner/bidder or even the city's perspective, or would they all be ignoring that altogether?

i would imagine bidders will have letters of support from their mayors/cities as part of their bids. due diligence by the city could get interesting there.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Got a pretty good handle on why Seattle is not ready don't you. OK.

Yeah, they don't have an arena. Sort of need one of those things to play hockey.

You build a venue...then you have people perform inside of it. People pay to watch this happen.

Sometimes taxpayer money is used to help fund these fancy buildings...occasionally you have to offer the people spending the taxpayer money some sort of guarantee that you'll have people actually playing in the shiny new building. That's when you put a condition on that taxpayer money and show them that there is no risk to them if the team doesn't show up

Nobody is going to build the venue for them, nobody is going to offer them a conditional team to help them build it...they've been built all over the place, without this happening.

 

[Jeffrey93]

What exactly do you know about the people looking at arenas in Seattle? Do you even know all their names, cause that would be a nice bit of information to have.

What I know is that there are 2 confirmed bid packets out, and possibly 2 more that will get requested.

Seattle will happen at some point. The real question is not "if" but "when".

I've heard that before.

Somebody up there needs to realize what needs to be done to meet the requirement for an arena. If a deal is hinging on a major tenant...than put that in the deal, the deal is no good without a major tenant. Boom, done. All criteria met and moving up on the list of bids.

People think that Roustan is nuts for both trying to bid for a second Toronto team....and doing it without an arena or deal to build one. Yet there are a few people in Seattle that are trying to do this. Even though, as other posters have said, they are oh so close to finalizing a deal. Tack an incredibly easily worded condition onto it and you're set.

 

[Fugu]

I've heard that before.

Somebody up there needs to realize what needs to be done to meet the requirement for an arena. If a deal is hinging on a major tenant...than put that in the deal, the deal is no good without a major tenant. Boom, done. All criteria met and moving up on the list of bids.

People think that Roustan is nuts for both trying to bid for a second Toronto team....and doing it without an arena or deal to build one. Yet there are a few people in Seattle that are trying to do this. Even though, as other posters have said, they are oh so close to finalizing a deal. Tack an incredibly easily worded condition onto it and you're set.

You know what I think? I think the NHL is nuts for making it a money grab. What they should be doing is controlling where they want and need to be, what makes sense, be it the holy footprint or growing the game.

You could excuse the NHL of the 1980s and the bozos that were running the league back then. The current guys, especially Bettman, should know better.

 

[Acesolid]

You know what I think? I think the NHL is nuts for making it a money grab. What they should be doing is controlling where they want and need to be, what makes sense, be it the holy footprint or growing the game.

You could excuse the NHL of the 1980s and the bozos that were running the league back then. The current guys, especially Bettman, should know better.

If some groups are willing to pay the 500 million and have an Arena. And another (Seattle) isn't willing to pay and/or cant get an arena deal together. Why say no to those who worked hard?

Those not willing to fulfill all NHL demands can wait for a bargain relocated team on the cheap.

You know, when the Vegas buzz started almost a year ago; I didn't understand why! Now I know! Vegas fulfills the NHL's 3 demands that needs to be met for expansion (like Bettman said MANY TIMES in the last few years):

- They have a SUPER RICH ownership group willing to pay 500 millions.

- They have an arena up to NHL standards opening soon.

- And the NHL was unsure about part 3 (the fanbase), and so the NHL tested Vegas, and they did the job (if slowly). And very impressively created a seemingly genuine Hockey buzz in Vegas!

 

[brewski420]

Im always amazed at the apparent Seattle hate sometimes out here. And then on the other side is Tommy and his rose colored glasses.

In the 90s-00s expansions, I believe there were cases where the arena was not guaranteed until the expansion team was awarded. This would be similar to the Seattle case. Yes QV & LV have arenas being built and as result I agree that these and most other cities are a better option than Seattle for relocation. However for expansion, it is all fair game.

As for SoDo arena, I believe the MOU at present expires in 2017. I take that to mean that agreements must be confirmed by that time and construction to start here too - Not meaning that it must be built by 2017. The EIS appears to be good and done. Seattle Mayor is pushing to get this arena done too. This will be the #1 choice and option if it can get done by any means. Tukwila option will be the backup plan and is essentially in the same boat as neither will be built for the sake of being built. Both cases need a team to get built. I know Ottawa, Tampa, Florida & San Jose were for sure in this scenario and I think that there were others since such as Columbus and Minnesota hence why they staggered admittance in the 98-00 wave.

In the end by 2018, I believe Seattle, Las Vegas, Quebec City will all have NHL teams by some account. I also believe there will be 1-2 wildcards in the mix. Seattle is one of the larger, stronger & growing markets in the US and in an untapped NHL area. It would be stupid for the NHL to ignore this but agree on most accounts that whomever is submitting applications for expansion to have all arena and funding issues worked out. This next month will be the key to get this worked out. It doesn't matter that it is not announced publicly how this will all work out. Business happens behind closed doors and things can get done or fail without reasons becoming known to the public.

Agree with all of this. Business is done behind closed doors, at least the important business. I think that what comes out of this process will surprise some, anger some and make others happy. I have no predictions but IMO a conditional franchise is a very real possibility for Seattle (the only possibility really).

 

[Fugu]

If some groups are willing to pay the 500 million and have an Arena. And another (Seattle) isn't willing to pay and/or cant get an arena deal together. Why say no to those who worked hard?

Because it may not be a good idea to put an NHL expansion team there?

Those not willing to fulfill all NHL demands can wait for a bargain relocated team on the cheap.

NHL demands can be unreasonable, and basically a money grab. They wash their hands clean of any responsibility to ensure viability. In fact, it took the NHLPA's push to increase revenue sharing.

You know, when the Vegas buzz started almost a year ago; I didn't understand why! Now I know! Vegas fulfills the NHL's 3 demands that needs to be met for expansion (like Bettman said MANY TIMES in the last few years):

- They have a SUPER RICH ownership group willing to pay 500 millions.

One super rich owner who is 71 years old. What if there isn't another one who believes in the NHL in Vegas after Foley dies?

- They have an arena up to NHL standards opening soon.

Several cities do.

- And the NHL was unsure about part 3 (the fanbase), and so the NHL tested Vegas, and they did the job (if slowly). And very impressively created a seemingly genuine Hockey buzz in Vegas!

It may be possible. I don't know. I have some concerns, but Battle Born and others have presented a good case. In considering all these things, one would have ranked cities like Atlanta and Phoenix ahead of Vegas, so we can see how screwing up the ownership side, or even arena location can have deleterious effects.

 

[tank44]

great post. can i ask, are most folks in seattle following this? is the nhl a close or distant second choice as far as most people in town would like to see? would an nhl (first) team increase the chances of an nba team following? in other words, how much does the nba desire factor in to this bid process, from the owner/bidder or even the city's perspective, or would they all be ignoring that altogether?

The general public has a greater general affiliation with the NBA than NHL since the NBA was the only game in Seattle for a long time and existed for over 40 years. Quebec Nordiques only existed for 23 years and you see the following they have here. The situation would have been similar to if the Flyers or Kings moved in 2008 (same start year as Sonics). There is a lot of public NBA resentment and a lot of lost love and hope to get a team back.

However the Seattle hockey population is not small and very supportive. All are transplants since there isn't a local-NHL team (Canucks are generally the #1 supported team but not too overwhelming). There are 2 WHL teams in the metro area that are well supported. Seattle area has one of the larger adult rec-hockey leagues in the entire US with over 100 teams. There is local support and demand for it. The demographics of wealthy and youngish (similar to MLS) are very favorable.

How do they stitch together? Well most people assume that both will come and it makes sense for any single arena to be built to accommodate both. However if only one comes then that would be fine as well and be the only major professional winter sport in town. The media is fickle as the only newspaper is anti-SoDo arena since its in cahoots with the port which opposes the extra traffic in the area. Chris Daniels on the local NBC affiliate and on twitter is one of the more vocal figures to the information. most other media appears to be pro-NHL and pro-NBA.


Also, a few posts back someone mentions how the NHL was crazy in the 80s... You know that the 80s is the only recent/modern decade the NHL has not expanded since the WHA merger was in 79 and Sharks arrived in 91. Now hockey in the 70s was crazy with the 2 leagues and both fighting for markets and arenas.