Heeeeere comes expansion! - Part II

[Kimota]

No just no. Please.

FTQ is only work 10 billion because they offer a ''off the pay'' participation into retirement fund. Thing is, their interest rates are at best lame and once you get in, it takes you 50 years to be able to get out of it and more your savings elsewhere.

Sorry for going OT, but please make FTQ stay as far as they can be from a hockey in Quebec.

The FTQ helped Molson buy the Habs, buddy.

 

[Nordskull]

FTQ has been a fine minority investor for the Montreal Impact. They're not loud and they let the managers do their jobs. Discussing their fund's performance is OT at this point, but it is not nearly as bad as local journalists say. Don't let your political views towards unions influence the way you see this investment. Teachers in Toronto did great with the Leafs.

I don't see any reference to politics or whatever in his post.

That said, I don't want to see FTQ involved, thats all.

If we keep discussing FTQ here, Fugu will tell us to create another post and she'd be right. Let's simply let time going by.

 

[Stanley Cup]

I don't see any reference to politics or whatever in his post.

That said, I don't want to see FTQ involved, thats all.

If we keep discussing FTQ here, Fugu will tell us to create another post and she'd be right. Let's simply let time going by.

FTQ belongs in this thread as much as any other potential investor.

 

[Acesolid]

Meh, the "fonds FTQ" is the same as Teachers or any other similar group investing in any company/sports team.

It's banal and wont change anything. I mean, they obviously know a team in Quebec City is a goldmine. So they'd be nuts not to want to invest in it, right?

 

[KevFu]

But demand for the NHL as the number sports team isn't there in America. No way that there will never be no problems in the NHL, do you agree?

Demand for teams doesn't require an absence of financial difficulty everywhere.

The NHL is a club of guys who operate independent, yet linked, businesses.

Most of our talk about markets, and cities as it pertains to "helping the league" is terribly overblown.

The only contributions one team makes to another in terms of additional revenue is the national TV contact, and any HRR implications -- which are primarily NEGATIVE as adding good markets forces everyone to spend more, putting the poorer teams further behind the league average.

If you're a rich team, you really don't care if NHL expansion into Boise makes the Potatoes a poor franchise, because you don't foot the bill.

What do you think the purpose of expansion is? To have more teams perpetually dependent on RS?

Revenue Sharing is totally independent of this. The NHL's revenue sharing system operates the same way regardless of league membership/markets and "healthy franchises"

In fact, the only way to have "everyone be healthy" is to shrink the gap between richest and poorest, and that can't be done without contracting the uber-rich teams like TOR, MON, NYR...

... or changing the system to something that fosters healthy economics for all. (Which, by the way, would lead to more impact in of those things we say "help the league" with expansion markets and make it more likely the league forgoes Seattle, Houston or TV markets in favor of places with higher likely revenues in Quebec and Ontario).

The way some people talk about revenue sharing kills me. How shameful it is for Nashville to collect revenue sharing for only making $98 million on hockey.. don't they know Colorado makes $104 million and doesn't need our charity!

A report indicates a Houston group has already expressed interest in acquiring the Coyotes and relocating them to Houston.

Thanks to displacedpensfan for sharing the report on another thread:

http://affaires.lapresse.ca/201506/26/01-4881020-de-linteret-pour-une-equipe-de-la-lnh-a-houston.php

Houston/Alexander is going to be closer to the Paul Allen camp than the Quebec/Las Vegas camp.

Houston/outside bidder is going to be closer to the dude in Markham who has no arena, no arena plan and no support for an arena. Or they'll get screwed on the lease at the Toyota Center by Alexander.

The City of Houston/Houston Sports Authority is not building a second hockey arena. The Toyota Center agreement locks out NHL Houston unless it goes through Alexander.

 

[sandysan]

Demand for teams doesn't require an absence of financial difficulty everywhere.

The NHL is a club of guys who operate independent, yet linked, businesses.

Most of our talk about markets, and cities as it pertains to "helping the league" is terribly overblown.

The only contributions one team makes to another in terms of additional revenue is the national TV contact, and any HRR implications -- which are primarily NEGATIVE as adding good markets forces everyone to spend more, putting the poorer teams further behind the league average.

If you're a rich team, you really don't care if NHL expansion into Boise makes the Potatoes a poor franchise, because you don't foot the bill.



Revenue Sharing is totally independent of this. The NHL's revenue sharing system operates the same way regardless of league membership/markets and "healthy franchises"

In fact, the only way to have "everyone be healthy" is to shrink the gap between richest and poorest, and that can't be done without contracting the uber-rich teams like TOR, MON, NYR...

... or changing the system to something that fosters healthy economics for all. (Which, by the way, would lead to more impact in of those things we say "help the league" with expansion markets and make it more likely the league forgoes Seattle, Houston or TV markets in favor of places with higher likely revenues in Quebec and Ontario).

The way some people talk about revenue sharing kills me. How shameful it is for Nashville to collect revenue sharing for only making $98 million on hockey.. don't they know Colorado makes $104 million and doesn't need our charity!




Houston/Alexander is going to be closer to the Paul Allen camp than the Quebec/Las Vegas camp.

Houston/outside bidder is going to be closer to the dude in Markham who has no arena, no arena plan and no support for an arena. Or they'll get screwed on the lease at the Toyota Center by Alexander.

The City of Houston/Houston Sports Authority is not building a second hockey arena. The Toyota Center agreement locks out NHL Houston unless it goes through Alexander.

Your "answer" to address disparity is to contact the teams at the top?

And these non traditional markets ARE more likely to be on RS than Canadian teams. So explain to me what benefit the addition of a bottom 10 in revenues brings to the league. And do so in full knowledge that one for sure took TONS of RS and is.likely to go poof having done zippola to " increase the footprint".

How did Atlanta help "grow the footprint"? What about Florida and Carolina, huge markets of peepers with NO revenues. What's the return on all of that assistance? It's zero and you want to double down and make these.markets even less dependent on the local market conditions that they are uniquely positioned to control?

The purpose of RS, as I understand it,is to buffet teams in a bad stretch NOT to prop up teams in perpetuity who for.more than 2 decades FAILED to improve THEIR markets.

At some point, bad markets get to be appropriately described, no?

 

[BattleBorn]

Your "answer" to address disparity is to contact the teams at the top?

And these non traditional markets ARE more likely to be on RS than Canadian teams. So explain to me what benefit the addition of a bottom 10 in revenues brings to the league. And do so in full knowledge that one for sure took TONS of RS and is.likely to go poof having done zippola to " increase the footprint".

How did Atlanta help "grow the footprint"? What about Florida and Carolina, huge markets of peepers with NO revenues. What's the return on all of that assistance? It's zero and you want to double down and make these.markets even less dependent on the local market conditions that they are uniquely positioned to control?

The purpose of RS, as I understand it,is to buffet teams in a bad stretch NOT to prop up teams in perpetuity who for.more than 2 decades FAILED to improve THEIR markets.

At some point, bad markets get to be appropriately described, no?

Description is of no real value to the conversation in my opinion. Revenue Sharing is going to occur regardless of where the money is going. If there were only 8 teams, it would likely be the 3 highest teams giving to 3 lowest teams.

Eliminating "bad" markets doesn't decrease revenue sharing, just reallocates the money. A league has to have strong parts and revenue sharing helps to facilitate that. Since that's the case, it seems like it might be worth it to use the "grow the game" theory and see if additional interest in the game by attacking new markets could garner additional revenue for everyone involved through additional exposure of the game to more people.

 

[sandysan]

Description is of no real value to the conversation in my opinion. Revenue Sharing is going to occur regardless of where the money is going. If there were only 8 teams, it would likely be the 3 highest teams giving to 3 lowest teams.

Eliminating "bad" markets doesn't decrease revenue sharing, just reallocates the money. A league has to have strong parts and revenue sharing helps to facilitate that. Since that's the case, it seems like it might be worth it to use the "grow the game" theory and see if additional interest in the game by attacking new markets could garner additional revenue for everyone involved through additional exposure of the game to more people.

We tried, multiple placed to zero benefit. We list one HUGE market, are likely to lose another big one ( phoenix) and the league is BETTER OFF.

And it's not about RS, it's about adding a bottom third revenue market that projects to be in the same spot, or worse, for DECADES under the best conditions. How does this help a league? Promoting a movie that no one goes to doesn't help the bottom line.

If someone can suggest a reasonable proposal for ANY of these teams catching fire and bringing in that lucrative TV deal, I'd love to hear how.

Right now the best I have heard is," they are in an under served market so let's try it, hope for the best and see what happens in 30 or 40 years". And if they go down in a flame of failure, move them somewhere else, reset the clock and try the same approach, again"

 

[BattleBorn]

...

We tried, multiple placed to zero benefit. We list one HUGE market, are likely to lose another big one ( phoenix) and the league is BETTER OFF.

How is the league better off? There's the same number of games with the same competition as always.

And it's not about RS, it's about adding a bottom third revenue market that projects to be in the same spot, or worse, for DECADES under the best conditions. How does this help a league? Promoting a movie that no one goes to doesn't help the bottom line.

How does it hurt the league? I can see the individual franchise being hurt, but the league is essentially a pass through entity that facilitates games and pays out revenues to it's members. What is the bottom line for the league? There really isn't one, there's 30 individual bottom lines at this point and potentially 32 or 34 in the future. The only way the league can improve any of those bottom lines is to increase its exposure and maximize the little parts of the individual teams bottom lines that it can impact, mainly through broadcast rights.

If someone can suggest a reasonable proposal for ANY of these teams catching fire and bringing in that lucrative TV deal, I'd love to hear how.

Right now the best I have heard is," they are in an under served market so let's try it, hope for the best and see what happens in 30 or 40 years". And if they go down in a flame of failure, move them somewhere else, reset the clock and try the same approach, again"

If the only thing the league really controls outside of refs and the like is broadcast rights, facilitating tangible items on a small scale, and overall league marketing then the only way to ever increase those things is to increase the league's exposure to the general public. Outside of that, it's up to the individual franchises to maximize what they can do in their home markets. Having more markets allows the potential for that to happen and can possibly lead to the increased TV deals that have been chased by every league for decades.

I think we all overstate what the league's role is in all of this. The league is a cartel of individual franchises that serves to protect the franchises themselves and facilitate play.

Carolina sucking ass doesn't hurt anything outside of Carolina but the HRR/Salary Cap calculations and even then it does it in such a small way it's almost negligible. Does the league want 10 Carolinas? No, that's an issue. However, having 10% of the league not doing super hot doesn't make as huge a difference as I think many people here believe. Hell, if they're still doing RS the way they were when I started paying attention to the business end of the league, Carolina isn't even collecting revenue sharing payments anyways.

The optics of having a half empty arena on TV? I'll give you that, but even that's a tiny thing in the grand scheme of things.

 

[sandysan]

How is the league better off? There's the same number of games with the same competition as always.

How does it hurt the league? I can see the individual franchise being hurt, but the league is essentially a pass through entity that facilitates games and pays out revenues to it's members. What is the bottom line for the league? There really isn't one, there's 30 individual bottom lines at this point and potentially 32 or 34 in the future. The only way the league can improve any of those bottom lines is to increase its exposure and maximize the little parts of the individual teams bottom lines that it can impact, mainly through broadcast rights.



If the only thing the league really controls outside of refs and the like is broadcast rights, facilitating tangible items on a small scale, and overall league marketing then the only way to ever increase those things is to increase the league's exposure to the general public. Outside of that, it's up to the individual franchises to maximize what they can do in their home markets. Having more markets allows the potential for that to happen and can possibly lead to the increased TV deals that have been chased by every league for decades.

I think we all overstate what the league's role is in all of this. The league is a cartel of individual franchises that serves to protect the franchises themselves and facilitate play.

Carolina sucking ass doesn't hurt anything outside of Carolina but the HRR/Salary Cap calculations and even then it does it in such a small way it's almost negligible. Does the league want 10 Carolinas? No, that's an issue. However, having 10% of the league not doing super hot doesn't make as huge a difference as I think many people here believe. Hell, if they're still doing RS the way they were when I started paying attention to the business end of the league, Carolina isn't even collecting revenue sharing payments anyways.

The optics of having a half empty arena on TV? I'll give you that, but even that's a tiny thing in the grand scheme of things.

so the purpose of all this expansion is to increase exposure to the "casual fan" with zero concern that they ever contribute to either local, or hopefully, league revenues ? that simply having more people "aware" of hockey but not incentivised enough to follow hockey is going to drive that big TV deal ? in what world ?

the league may be a collection of teams, but its also a business. and its easy to determine if a business is growing, shrinking or remaining the same. REVENUE.
not eyballs, not pop culture mentions, not rappers wearing NHL jerseys ( although that could lead to small increases in revenue). revenue

and if the idea is that the game is so grand, so compelling that all you have to do is innoculate a local market who will then become devoted fans, then its mexico city.

and having more teams in more markets also allows for some markets who completely fail at developing their markets and the league as a whole suffers from these third rate johnny's with near empty arena's and plywood glass.

what is the point of "growing the game" if the expectation is that the new fans are exempt from contributing to league revenues ?

 

[BattleBorn]

...

what is the point of "growing the game" if the expectation is that the new fans are exempt from contributing to league revenues ?

Because the new fans will likely contribute to the new team's revenues?

Plus. while we're talking about revenues, gaining two or four more teams that sell stuff will increase revenues pretty substantially just based on the fact that there's two or four more teams selling tickets, sweaters, local rights, etc.

 

[Fugu]

Description is of no real value to the conversation in my opinion. Revenue Sharing is going to occur regardless of where the money is going. If there were only 8 teams, it would likely be the 3 highest teams giving to 3 lowest teams.

Eliminating "bad" markets doesn't decrease revenue sharing, just reallocates the money. A league has to have strong parts and revenue sharing helps to facilitate that. Since that's the case, it seems like it might be worth it to use the "grow the game" theory and see if additional interest in the game by attacking new markets could garner additional revenue for everyone involved through additional exposure of the game to more people.

I would disagree and point out that the size of the revenue gap is a factor. The bottom two-thirds are all eligible for revenue transfer, but the amount they receive depends on how much help they need to getting to the midpoint of the cap. The mechanism for funding this pool relies on some central revenues, and then "taxes" on the top ten teams (they don't give the same amount).

If the gap in revenues among teams on the receiving end would shrink (in terms of positive growth), I think you'd see less money having to be transferred, no?

 

[Killion]

... the league may be a collection of teams, but its also a business. and its easy to determine if a business is growing, shrinking or remaining the same. REVENUE.
not eyballs, not pop culture mentions, not rappers wearing NHL jerseys ( although that could lead to small increases in revenue.)

Mostly vintage jerseys sandy. Seals, KC Scouts, Whalers, Barons etc. Real popular gear, "colors" with Gangbangers holding up 7-11's & carjacking people in East LA & elsewhere. Where you been?... the NHL, Fox; for sure considered that maybe, just maybe watching hockey on the screen (despite the advent of HD) might be a bit much for the "casual fan" to stomach. Not TV friendly unless you know whats going on. That maybe, just maybe the NHL is trapped in a 20th Century precept, whereby "live" in building about the only way to survive? That they'll never achieve, never realize mega-bucks from an NBC/CBS/ABC-ESPN etc because it... just... doesnt... translate? Since 1962 this nonsense & debate has been going on.

So. You tell me.

 

[Fugu]

so the purpose of all this expansion is to increase exposure to the "casual fan" with zero concern that they ever contribute to either local, or hopefully, league revenues ? that simply having more people "aware" of hockey but not incentivised enough to follow hockey is going to drive that big TV deal ? in what world ?

the league may be a collection of teams, but its also a business. and its easy to determine if a business is growing, shrinking or remaining the same. REVENUE.
not eyballs, not pop culture mentions, not rappers wearing NHL jerseys ( although that could lead to small increases in revenue). revenue

and if the idea is that the game is so grand, so compelling that all you have to do is innoculate a local market who will then become devoted fans, then its mexico city.

and having more teams in more markets also allows for some markets who completely fail at developing their markets and the league as a whole suffers from these third rate johnny's with near empty arena's and plywood glass.

what is the point of "growing the game" if the expectation is that the new fans are exempt from contributing to league revenues ?

You've been ranting about this topic for some time now, sandy.

My question to you then is...how many teams can you realistically place in Canada? I'd say there are probably two more spots. TWO.

Then we're done. What then? Move two weak US teams, or expand, but we're done. There are no more surefire markets left at that point.

 

[BattleBorn]

I would disagree and point out that the size of the revenue gap is a factor. The bottom two-thirds are all eligible for revenue transfer, but the amount they receive depends on how much help they need to getting to the midpoint of the cap. The mechanism for funding this pool relies on some central revenues, and then "taxes" on the top ten teams (they don't give the same amount).

If the gap in revenues among teams on the receiving end would shrink (in terms of positive growth), I think you'd see less money having to be transferred, no?

It was my understanding that the revenue sharing total was figured prior to looking at the receiving team's finances in anything but a general manner.

Total HRR * 6% (I think) = Total Distribution to the bottom/receiving teams.

Then that number was used to determine how much each of the Top 10 would pay into the pot using the formula in place comparing the Top 10 teams versus the 11th team.

Then add the playoff percentage that goes to RS and that equals your total to be distributed.

I didn't think there was ever a time when the total distribution would ever change. It's just reapportioned, right? That was always my understanding.

For example, if every single team is at the midpoint (or even the ceiling) the amount distributed would still be 6% of total HRR plus the 35% of playoff ticket revenue. Right?

ETA: After looking around at some articles I could be way off base. I didn't even realize teams didn't have to hit 70% capacity to get RS funds anymore.

 

[Killion]

It was my understanding that the revenue sharing total was figured prior to looking at the receiving team's finances in anything but a general manner.

Total HRR * 6% (I think) = Total Distribution to the bottom/receiving teams.

Then that number was used to determine how much each of the Top 10 would pay into the pot using the formula in place comparing the Top 10 teams versus the 11th team.

Then add the playoff percentage that goes to RS and that equals your total to be distributed.

I didn't think there was ever a time when the total distribution would ever change. It's just reapportioned, right? That was always my understanding.

For example, if every single team is at the midpoint (or even the ceiling) the amount distributed would still be 6% of total HRR plus the 35% of playoff ticket revenue. Right?

Let me tell you something Mister Jonathan Banks... and in his voice... an actor with whom Ive worked btw... bit crippled in terms of delivery but I digress... so, tell me tough guy, why you need 30 other teams to Prop U-Up?... Huh?... "Were part of 1/30th of a whole" as George Gosbee, temporary NHL Puppet mumbled one time.... You dont think the NHL IF it awards a franchise to Vegas doesnt include a codicil that... "you are not equal"?.... No Revenue Sharing Proceeds for your 1st 7-10yrs. Stand up & Deliver Baby. Damn Straight. You want in? Gunna cost. What happens when the Honeymoons over? You think Toronto, Montreal, New York, Philly or wherever else are gunna fund the addictions of a few 1000 hardcore? Foleys what? In his 70's? What happens when he dies & that visions gone? You want problems? You got em. Maloof family. Yet here you are stridently predicting a Stanley Cup huh? Does the NHL even care? No. Your Champion is willing to pay whatever and doesnt give a **** about the collateral damage he's creating elsewhere. Id call that irresponsible. Selfish. And several other pejorative terms. But why would you care? Never mind Seattle, Portland or Quebec. I want mine.

 

[Fugu]

It was my understanding that the revenue sharing total was figured prior to looking at the receiving team's finances in anything but a general manner.

Total HRR * 6% (I think) = Total Distribution to the bottom/receiving teams.

Then that number was used to determine how much each of the Top 10 would pay into the pot using the formula in place comparing the Top 10 teams versus the 11th team.

Then add the playoff percentage that goes to RS and that equals your total to be distributed.

I didn't think there was ever a time when the total distribution would ever change. It's just reapportioned, right? That was always my understanding.

For example, if every single team is at the midpoint (or even the ceiling) the amount distributed would still be 6% of total HRR plus the 35% of playoff ticket revenue. Right?

ETA: After looking around at some articles I could be way off base. I didn't even realize teams didn't have to hit 70% capacity to get RS funds anymore.

It's a little more complicated, including that teams in DMAs of >3 m can only receive 50%, plus other reviews by a committee. Article 49 of the CBA covers this section.

Also, expansion teams and relocated teams aren't eligible for their first two years in the new location.

 

[sandysan]

You've been ranting about this topic for some time now, sandy.

My question to you then is...how many teams can you realistically place in Canada? I'd say there are probably two more spots. TWO.

Then we're done. What then? Move two weak US teams, or expand, but we're done. There are no more surefire markets left at that point.

Why does it have to be either or? I'm not saying Canada vs us, it's stable revenue generating vs not.

So if more peepers is the goal, irrespective of whether they can keep the lights on, let's expand to 40 teams and after a decade or more of say 5 phoenix's we roll the market roulette wheel and start the scam in a new cities.

If growing the game means more middling markets ( some will fail) and the benefits are no new money, no new tv deal, that's not growing the game and it's not a laudable goal.

If we toll the dice on market after market, what is the best case scenario? A nba lite TV deal that will never come?

 

[BattleBorn]

Let me tell you something Mister Jonathan Banks... and in his voice... an actor with whom Ive worked btw... bit crippled in terms of delivery but I digress... so, tell me tough guy, why you need 30 other teams to Prop U-Up?... Huh?... "Were part of 1/30th of a whole" as George Gosbee, temporary NHL Puppet mumbled one time.... You dont think the NHL IF it awards a franchise to Vegas doesnt include a codicil that... "you are not equal"?.... No Revenue Sharing Proceeds for your 1st 7-10yrs. Stand up & Deliver Baby. Damn Straight. You want in? Gunna cost. What happens when the Honeymoons over? You think Toronto, Montreal, New York, Philly or wherever else are gunna fund the addictions of a few 1000 hardcore? Foleys what? In his 70's? What happens when he dies & that visions gone? You want problems? You got em. Maloof family. Yet here you are stridently predicting a Stanley Cup huh? Does the NHL even care? No. Your Champion is willing to pay whatever and doesnt give a **** about the collateral damage he's creating elsewhere. Id call that irresponsible. Selfish. And several other pejorative terms. But why would you care? Never mind Seattle, Portland or Quebec. I want mine.

Foley dying scares the hell out of me, it's part of the reason I'd rather have Arizona if it's a real option. Let's get two more years out of this guy than we'd otherwise get. I think Toronto, Montreal, Chicago, new York, etal are going to fund whoever they hell they need to. There's a 6% tax on you guys because you're too successful.

If progressive tax works in the real world, why not hockey too?

In all seriousness, revenue sharing happens no matter what and it matters very little, at least in my opinion, to where the money is distributed. Plus, Foley or whoever else gets in has probably got $16,600,000 of goodwill coming from every other owner in the league.

 

[BattleBorn]

It's a little more complicated, including that teams in DMAs of >3 m can only receive 50%, plus other reviews by a committee. Article 49 of the CBA covers this section.

Also, expansion teams and relocated teams aren't eligible for their first two years in the new location.

Totally understood. My whole point is that the haves wind up paying the same amount regardless of who the have nots are, where they're located, or how much not they have. I'm almost positive that portion of my point is correct.

I totally defer to someone who is more well versed on the details than I am.

 

[Killion]

If progressive tax works in the real world, why not hockey too?

Because its the antithesis to the spirit of competition and thats just for starters. Its socialistic communism of the worst kind. We are not all equal.

 

[BattleBorn]

Because its the antithesis to the spirit of competition and thats just for starters. Its socialistic communism of the worst kind. We are not all equal.

Yeah, it was kind of said facetiously, Too successful too. Come on man.

Point still stands though. It's the way it's set up in the league though, so I don't see how much else changes.

 

[Fugu]

Why does it have to be either or? I'm not saying Canada vs us, it's stable revenue generating vs not.

So if more peepers is the goal, irrespective of whether they can keep the lights on, let's expand to 40 teams and after a decade or more of say 5 phoenix's we roll the market roulette wheel and start the scam in a new cities.

If growing the game means more middling markets ( some will fail) and the benefits are no new money, no new tv deal, that's not growing the game and it's not a laudable goal.

If we toll the dice on market after market, what is the best case scenario? A nba lite TV deal that will never come?

What are you advocating for though? I'm a contractionist, but I know that's not going to happen, so I'm left with concluding only two more Canadian teams can play with the other big boys, and might prefer to swap a few US markets...

Totally understood. My whole point is that the haves wind up paying the same amount regardless of who the have nots are, where they're located, or how much not they have. I'm almost positive that portion of my point is correct.

I totally defer to someone who is more well versed on the details than I am.

Well, not really. They rank all the teams from 1 to 30, and then you have the exclusions, or teams that don't qualify for their 100% share, so less money actually gets paid out then.


I've got some behind the scenes buttons to push, thanks to the rush of traffic the draft and trades are creating, but I'll expand later unless kdb or mouser beat me to it.

 

[Killion]

... so I don't see how much else changes.

Real simple. Next time I work with Jonathan I'll tell the Directors, 1st through 5th; "make him work on that eyelid drop".... ha?... yes... over & over & over & over & over & over & over again.... lost it Bud.... 57 re-takes.... you're fired.... finished... never work in this town again.... hired you specifically for that eyelid drop Johnny.

 

[voyageur]

At a $500 million asking price the NHL is making this a money grab more than a development of the game. I fathom that only Québec, Southern Ontario, and Las Vegas would be interested in a hockey franchise at that price. Unfortunately I believe that the asking price is so high because several franchises are overvalued based on their real revenue potential: Florida, Arizona, and Carolina and Dallas for example.

You eliminate any fringe market at that asking price. Realistically an NBA franchise or more college hoops events makes alot more revenue for Kansas City than the NHL. I still believe Milwaukee is a good investment in hockey even in the old Bradley, whatever happened to the days when old arenas had auras? Copps Coliseum would certainly have that with the Canada Cups.


Las Vegas has the potential for several novel forms of revenue streaming and the distinction of being a groundbreaker. Seattle will not get arena funding if they are held hostage, the best way to iniate the process is relocation. If not Seattle, then definitely Portland. The moment Arizona moves to Seatttle or Portland, with all the investment potential, the league will be healthier. I don't think geography will be the most important factor in this round, because there is the potential to work with Detroit, Columbus or Carolina for realignment.