How much will the expansion fee for the 33rd team be?

[StreetHawk]

I shudder to think of what a post-Covid economy can shell out for NHL expansion fees.

I'm joking, but if I were Seattle, I'd at least send Gary an email about what a Kraken restocking fee might look like.

Have to be in it for the long game. Seattle is rumoured to be an expansion city for the nba. Price tag is $2 billion.

 

[Nordskull]

You can forget about Quebec city, that thing is a dead duck. More then 400M canadians, they just cant afford it. It would be a financial disaster.

Keep going with Houston etc, but forget about Quebec.

BTW, I personnally believe there's just not enough talented players to go 34 teams. Watch a Ottawa game and tell me its exciting..

 

[mouser]

You can forget about Quebec city, that thing is a dead duck. More then 400M canadians, they just cant afford it. It would be a financial disaster.

Keep going with Houston etc, but forget about Quebec.

BTW, I personnally believe there's just not enough talented players to go 34 teams. Watch a Ottawa game and tell me its exciting..

Talent is a relative thing, Today’s players on average are more skilled then at any time in hockey history. Most especially the guys rounding out the 3rd/4th lines and 2nd/3rd D pairings.

Ottawa has a lot of very young, very talented players. I imagine there are some teams that wouldn’t mind swapping their current rosters and future picks with Ottawa.

 

[Stephen]

You can forget about Quebec city, that thing is a dead duck. More then 400M canadians, they just cant afford it. It would be a financial disaster.

Keep going with Houston etc, but forget about Quebec.

BTW, I personnally believe there's just not enough talented players to go 34 teams. Watch a Ottawa game and tell me its exciting..

Ottawa (and Detroit) are not indicative of a lack of talent to support a 32nd or 33rd NHL team, they just chose to strip it down.

 

[TheLegend]

Anything is possible. I just look at what is realistic.

Some still think Seattle is unrealistic.

I’m only curious how low it’s going to take them to pay it all off.

 

[Picklepete]

After Seattle the league should NOT expand anymore. 32 teams is plenty.

 

[MNNumbers]

Some still think Seattle is unrealistic.

I’m only curious how low it’s going to take them to pay it all off.

That's my thought, too. Especially in a post-COVID world. Nearly 1B for the arena. 650M for the team. The team, obviously, is an asset, and the investment doesn't need to pay itself off. But the arena is only on a 30-year lease from the city. So, 33M/yr in profit is necessary to make that up. Wow..

 

[StreetHawk]

That's my thought, too. Especially in a post-COVID world. Nearly 1B for the arena. 650M for the team. The team, obviously, is an asset, and the investment doesn't need to pay itself off. But the arena is only on a 30-year lease from the city. So, 33M/yr in profit is necessary to make that up. Wow..

Much of the value of any arena is in the land value. See Rogers arena in Vancouver. Land alone should be over $300 million Canadian.

plus there is ongoing maintenance of the arena as well.

name rights helps. They secured naming rights from Alaska airlines for the atrium for example. Expect a tone of corporate sponsorships. Insane how they ended up $200 million over their original budget. Always said it was cheaper to knock it down but that roof was declared historic.

only so many markets left that would be over the half way mark in terms of market size of the nhl. That’s Houston, Atlanta and another team in the greater Toronto area.

Portland , Milwaukee, etc would be in the later half of the league.

 

[Digital Kid]

I still believe the only way we get more teams is by having 4 on 4 play instead of 5 on 5. I brought this up a year or two ago and most people didn't like the idea (hockey used to be 6 on 6 a long time ago). I still think it's the way to open things up (thereby eliminating the need to go to Olympic-sized ice) and you can tell the NHLPA there will be no job losses because the four to five players each team no longer needs go to the expansion teams.

 

[MNNumbers]

Much of the value of any arena is in the land value. See Rogers arena in Vancouver. Land alone should be over $300 million Canadian.

plus there is ongoing maintenance of the arena as well.

name rights helps. They secured naming rights from Alaska airlines for the atrium for example. Expect a tone of corporate sponsorships. Insane how they ended up $200 million over their original budget. Always said it was cheaper to knock it down but that roof was declared historic.

only so many markets left that would be over the half way mark in terms of market size of the nhl. That’s Houston, Atlanta and another team in the greater Toronto area.

Portland , Milwaukee, etc would be in the later half of the league.

Very true, but OVG has no land value. The city has land rights. All they have is a lease on the place for 30 years.

 

[StreetHawk]

Very true, but OVG has no land value. The city has land rights. All they have is a lease on the place for 30 years.

I know. Crazy that OVG is spending $900 million on something that they don’t own the land on. I believe Rogers centre in Toronto where the blue Jays is similar setup but the leases is for several decades where Rogers can use the land.

I would have requested to purchase the land if I was OVG with the condition that I reno the arena. But that’s their business. Their numbers say it works.

 

[gstommylee]

I know. Crazy that OVG is spending $900 million on something that they don’t own the land on. I believe Rogers centre in Toronto where the blue Jays is similar setup but the leases is for several decades where Rogers can use the land.

I would have requested to purchase the land if I was OVG with the condition that I reno the arena. But that’s their business. Their numbers say it works.

Not all arenas are on private lands and are privately old. It was always going to be very expensive to make the Seattle Center arena site work given its untouchable roof.

 

[gstommylee]

I still believe the only way we get more teams is by having 4 on 4 play instead of 5 on 5. I brought this up a year or two ago and most people didn't like the idea (hockey used to be 6 on 6 a long time ago). I still think it's the way to open things up (thereby eliminating the need to go to Olympic-sized ice) and you can tell the NHLPA there will be no job losses because the four to five players each team no longer needs go to the expansion teams.

No way the NHL would ever have a pernament 4 on 4.

 

[sh724]

Only the Free Masons know

We do? First i am hearing of it, but i will ask at tonight's meeting

 

[sh724]

Ottawa (and Detroit) are not indicative of a lack of talent to support a 32nd or 33rd NHL team, they just chose to strip it down.

You have to put things in perspective, yes teams like Ottawa and Detroit are low on talent compared to today' NHL teams. But an average NHL player today is significantly more talented than an average player 20 years ago.

There will always be bad teams regardless of how many teams are in the league. Not every team has the goal of winning the cup or even making the POs. Detroit and Ottawa could have went out and tried to sign top end UFAs but they chose not to as its not in their best long term interest.

 

[canuckster19]

Talent is a relative thing, Today’s players on average are more skilled then at any time in hockey history. Most especially the guys rounding out the 3rd/4th lines and 2nd/3rd D pairings.

Ottawa has a lot of very young, very talented players. I imagine there are some teams that wouldn’t mind swapping their current rosters and future picks with Ottawa.

The problem is you can't have more than 32 teams and expect a 16 team playoff to be sufficient in keeping all 32 teams sustainable. If the league was purely based on luck, it would be 50/50 that at least one team misses the playoffs 5 years in a row, and a further 3 % chance they miss 10 seasons in a row.

Of course with poor management on top of the basic odds you get teams like the Coyotes who never even come close to sniffing a championship.

A league that has a completely separate season like the NHL does with the playoffs would need to expand and it seems like there is a complete unwillingness to do so amongst many fans.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Of course with poor management on top of the basic odds you get teams like the Coyotes who never even come close to sniffing a championship.
.

Well, except for 2012, when they came closer than half the league has since, including most Canada-based teams... But I'm sure you've conveniently forgotten that. Just like most forget how bad and poorly supported Chicago and Pittsburgh were in the 2000s.

 

[canuckster19]

Well, except for 2012, when they came closer than half the league has since, including most Canada-based teams... But I'm sure you've conveniently forgotten that. Just like most forget how bad and poorly supported Chicago and Pittsburgh were in the 2000s.

What does any of what you said have to do with my point? If the league expands to 40 teams for example and keeps the playoffs at 16 teams, do you think that is good or bad for the league? Yes when a team like the Jets/Coyotes have gone their entire history without making the finals.

Chicago would still be poorly supported I imagine if Bill Wirtz was still alive and they didn't make a dynasty, in fact, you saying that kind of proves my point, for a team to have any kind of sustainability they have to have long term playoff success, something teams like the Coyotes, Islanders, Panthers haven't had in a long time or have never had.

So now that you maybe understand my point, do you think if the league expanded to 40 teams that they could get away with still having only a 16 team playoff? And not whatever mess you were trying to make of what I was trying to say.

 

[Channelcat]

Today? That number would be way down.

 

[WeaponOfChoice]

Well, except for 2012, when they came closer than half the league has since, including most Canada-based teams... But I'm sure you've conveniently forgotten that. Just like most forget how bad and poorly supported Chicago and Pittsburgh were in the 2000s.

Why is this viewed as a positive now? I thought the Coyotrs have never had success. That's why Phoenix hasn't supported them.

 

[Ernie]

That's my thought, too. Especially in a post-COVID world. Nearly 1B for the arena. 650M for the team. The team, obviously, is an asset, and the investment doesn't need to pay itself off. But the arena is only on a 30-year lease from the city. So, 33M/yr in profit is necessary to make that up. Wow..

The team itself doesn't need to generate $33m per year. Naming rights alone will provide $300m to $400m. Then theres the considerable concert revenue. I'd bet the NBA finds a way to get a team there sooner or later as well.

 

[SUX2BU]

None

32 teams will be the max

 

[TheLegend]

What does any of what you said have to do with my point? If the league expands to 40 teams for example and keeps the playoffs at 16 teams, do you think that is good or bad for the league? Yes when a team like the Jets/Coyotes have gone their entire history without making the finals.

Chicago would still be poorly supported I imagine if Bill Wirtz was still alive and they didn't make a dynasty, in fact, you saying that kind of proves my point, for a team to have any kind of sustainability they have to have long term playoff success, something teams like the Coyotes, Islanders, Panthers haven't had in a long time or have never had.

So now that you maybe understand my point, do you think if the league expanded to 40 teams that they could get away with still having only a 16 team playoff? And not whatever mess you were trying to make of what I was trying to say.

If I had to guess why DOM responded to you as he did it’s because for some reason you tried injecting the Coyotes into the equation which in itself is pointless in regards to the question asked by the OP.

Bottom line is the league will command whatever expansion fee it feels is warranted. IF... they decide they want to expand.

They certainly aren’t going to lower it from the $650 million the last group paid. Because that would ignite a firestorm among the 32 owners (ie: they aren’t about to devalue themselves).

 

[aqib]

None

32 teams will be the max

If they have 2-4 markets willing to pay $600-650 million each I have a hard time beleiving that they will walk away from that with the losses they took this year.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

If they have 2-4 markets willing to pay $600-650 million each I have a hard time beleiving that they will walk away from that with the losses they took this year.

care to find 8 more markets, then, aqib, that has to fill the requirements of more franchises..... just like Vegas did with Henderson and Seattle trying to set their prospect development organization, so there's that