Jeremy Jacobs sends a strong signal Houston is next but relocation is unlikely

[gstommylee]

Politics in Seattle. City council won't sign off on the final documents for the remodel if there isn't a pro sports team as the main tenant.

Btw they already approved final documents. They just haven't granted the okay to start construction yet.


With that said, that language wasn't originally there in the OVG MOU at the time NHL started the current expansion process. It was added later in the final transaction document.

Wouldn't surprise me if that clause wasn't added if this was a open bid process.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

That is a separate issue. Alexander is why NHL isn't in houston today.

JS and others are right, tommy.... The Wild aka MSE owned 80 % of the franchise and I believe they own the rights as well to the Aeros trademarks, all Alexander was was the landlord

 

[Melrose Munch]

Not an issue when they finally just balanced it with Seattle? No pro sport has ever gone beyond 32. I don't see why its necessary to expand just for the sake of expanding and leaving no possiblities to relocate a team while keeping it balanced. Sorry but i don't adding another team to the league is necessary.

Because they want a bigger TV contract and they're lacking 2 top 10 media markets.

 

[Melrose Munch]

We will see. I just can't see the NHL leaving Houston blank. It's bad business. Maybe Seattle looks at it like more money for us on the next American TV deal with Houston filled instead of this is unfair to us if they do drop the expansion price a bit. We don't even know for sure if Houston won't pay the $650M

But IF you are confident everyone is secure you have to expand for Houston if they want a team. No way can you leave a market that big open just for the sake of symmetry.

You might as well go to 36 teams and drop the expansion price and tick off Seattle in the process if they want to expand again.

If they think they are going to get 650m or higher from Houston then they are ridiculous. They got away with it from Seattle cause Seattle is an unique case.

I agree with MikeCubs. Plus Seattle is paying 650m because they delayed the process, that is the justification for Houston paying less. And they can't leave the number 6 market to the NBA and MLS.

 

[MNNumbers]

NHL owners don't care about 'the game', not do they care about anything so vague as 'the league'. They care about one thing.... Their own bottom line.

Vegas was $500M free money.
Seattle is $650M free money, and a big market.
Quebec is peanuts.
Houston would be free expansion money, but they need at least 500M to make that work.

I have two concerns in this situation...
1- How does OVG actually pencil out a 1.4B investment??? That's a lot of cash, when it's likely that, after a few years, the team may be great even. Then you have to pay off your investment through the arena only. It's very risky.
2- I am still unconvinced that adding Seattle creates a much better TV contact.

Jacobs obviously disagrees. Does his company have the rights to concessions at the New Arena at Seattle Center?

 

[Melrose Munch]

NHL others don't care about 'the game', not do they care about anything so vague as 'the league'. They care about one thing.... Their own bottom line.

Vegas was $500M free money.
Seattle is $650M free money, and a big market.
Quebec is peanuts.
Houston would be free expansion money, but they need at least 500M to make that work.

I have two concerns in this situation...
1- How does OVG actually pencil out a 1.4B investment??? That's a lot of cash, when it's likely that, after a few years, the team may be great even. Then you have to pay off your investment through the arena only. It's very risky.
2- I am still unconvinced that adding Seattle creates a much better TV contact.

Jacobs obviously disagrees. Does his company have the rights to concessions at the New Arena at Seattle Center?

1 - I wonder this too.
2- It creates new fans. Seattle provides a gateway to the northwest. I don't think any one market changes ratings though.

 

[GuelphStormer]

NHL owners don't care about 'the game', not do they care about anything so vague as 'the league'. They care about one thing.... Their own bottom line.

Vegas was $500M free money.
Seattle is $650M free money, and a big market.
Quebec is peanuts.
Houston would be free expansion money, but they need at least 500M to make that work.

huh?

 

[Mightygoose]

10 years from now, a 650 million dollar fee may be more reasonable.

Then again, if they're looking at that timeframe. Is Feritta really willing to wait that long?

Agreed, lots can change on many fronts well before then

 

[MNNumbers]

huh?

Quebec is peanuts in the sense that, even if sometime can pay 500M USD, it does nothing for US buzz, nor for a US TV contract.

And, believe me, I think that's the one place that should have a team. I'm not in favor of different fan bases, but I think a local owner would fair better in Quebec than in either Carolina or Sunrise. I just can't see a way to get there right now.

 

[KevFu]

Quebec is peanuts in the sense that, even if sometime can pay 500M USD, it does nothing for US buzz, nor for a US TV contract.

And, believe me, I think that's the one place that should have a team. I'm not in favor of different fan bases, but I think a local owner would fair better in Quebec than in either Carolina or Sunrise. I just can't see a way to get there right now.

I think there’s a “legacy shopping” aspect for Bettman. Restoring teams to Quebec, Winnipeg and Minnesota while “completing” the ‘Southern’ expansion to include nine of the top 32 markets in the US that didn’t have teams in 1988… that’s like “mission accomplished.”

Yea i doubt a owner would really go into that specific especially when they are only adding Seattle this year. If they wanted 33 they would have done both Seattle and houston. 34 if they wanted quebec as well.

I think this is part of the learning from the 1990s expansion.

From 1991-93, they added five teams in three years; From 1998-2000 they added four teams in three years.

New teams have no farm systems and have to draft and develop players to build an organization. You had SO MANY teams brand new and sucking and needing to draft high at the same time, it took a crazy long time for each to build a decent organization. On average it took those nine expansion teams TEN YEARS to have their first “back-to-back playoff seasons.”

Adding one team every three years til you hit 36 is a MUCH BETTER WAY of expanding than adding Vegas, Seattle, Houston and Quebec over a four-year span.

 

[HockeylessInHouston]

One problem with Houston is the total lack of an acceptable practice facility for an NHL team. The one the Aeros used is in disrepair and needs to be bulldozed over.

Also, the arena is downtown and the hockey fans are primarily in the affluent suburbs (unlike basketball which has a large fan base inside 610). The commute on weeknights will be horrible.

 

[varsaku]

One problem with Houston is the total lack of an acceptable practice facility for an NHL team. The one the Aeros used is in disrepair and needs to be bulldozed over.

Also, the arena is downtown and the hockey fans are primarily in the affluent suburbs (unlike basketball which has a large fan base inside 610). The commute on weeknights will be horrible.

A stadium in the suburbs would never work without public transportation, which is basically non existent in Houston. Downtown is the only viable option.

 

[KevFu]

One problem with Houston is the total lack of an acceptable practice facility for an NHL team. The one the Aeros used is in disrepair and needs to be bulldozed over.

Also, the arena is downtown and the hockey fans are primarily in the affluent suburbs (unlike basketball which has a large fan base inside 610). The commute on weeknights will be horrible.

1. They ain't starting tomorrow. A practice facility in the affluent suburbs can be built.
2. Where do most the people in the affluent suburbs work?

 

[DowntownBooster]

One problem with Houston is the total lack of an acceptable practice facility for an NHL team. The one the Aeros used is in disrepair and needs to be bulldozed over.

When the WHA Aeros and NBA Rockets both played in the Houston Summit, where did the Aeros practice at that time? Did they have a separate facility for that purpose?

Also, the arena is downtown and the hockey fans are primarily in the affluent suburbs (unlike basketball which has a large fan base inside 610). The commute on weeknights will be horrible.

Wouldn't the downtown arena be beneficial to those people who work downtown? They would be able to remain there and have dinner or go for drinks before the game and then head back to the suburbs after the game is over.

 

[HisIceness]

I mean, unless the talent pool gets a lot stronger in these next 5-10 years, pushing past 32 teams is dicey. 32 is a good number to stop at with this current crop of players.

But, if there's demand for 34 or 36 teams then yeah, Houston is a no-brainer for sure.

 

[Fenway]

I mean, unless the talent pool gets a lot stronger in these next 5-10 years, pushing past 32 teams is dicey. 32 is a good number to stop at with this current crop of players.

But, if there's demand for 34 or 36 teams then yeah, Houston is a no-brainer for sure.

If they keep adding teams, then winning a Stanley Cup becomes a once in a lifetime event for many franchises.....assuming they can even win one.

In the so-called O6 era - 1943-1967 - only 4 of the teams won the Cup and Chicago only won once. Today we see a lot of franchises that have been waiting a long time just to get to the SCF, let alone win it.

I would like to see the Wild Card scrapped in favor of the top 4 teams in each division qualify and then pure divisional playoffs.

But another problem is the number of teams - 16 - that make the playoffs. When the NHL had 21 teams it was 16 and now with 10 teams added it is still 16.

 

[KevFu]

I mean, unless the talent pool gets a lot stronger in these next 5-10 years, pushing past 32 teams is dicey. 32 is a good number to stop at with this current crop of players.

Nah. The cap is a bigger factor than lack of talent. The cap space forces teams to go with young/inexperienced aka cheap players instead of another veteran. And the teams with cap space and rebuilding, so what do they need that veteran for?

It's easy to look at those free agent veteran role guys who don't get offered contracts in free agency and just disappear as "oh, those guys suck and can't play." But you'll see situations where guys like that DO get an opportunity and suddenly become decent players.

During the Islanders' parasitic SMG lease era when they couldn't get good free agents, they grabbed a dozen guys who were released/waived. Someone like Matt Moulson, who's given the opportunity to play a top six role and suddenly is a 30-goal scorer playing with Tavares. (Then he goes to Buffalo and is exposed as "not that great without Tavares.")


If you want to think realistically about how "opportunity" plays a massive role... 54 weeks ago, the preseason predictions included things like:

A poker pro has a better chance of hitting a straight flush on the river than the Golden Knights have of making the playoffs. The club will undoubtedly struggle to find chemistry as players grow accustomed to each other as well as the inherent newness of the club's place in the league. There's also 25 years of empirical evidence -- dating back to the Ottawa Senators and Tampa Bay Lightning joining the league in 1992 -- showing that expansion teams struggle to compete in their first season.

And four months ago, that team was in the Stanley Cup Finals. We know they got better talent than most expansion teams. But everyone else had guys coming up, taking the place of those they lost. And while each team "got worse" it was a marginal amount.

It's easy to say "holy crap, imagine how good we'd be if WE still had the dude who's crushing it with Vegas right now." But it doesn't work like "we scored 250 goals, he scored 30. With him, we'd score 280." There's one puck for the team to shoot, and 60 minutes of ice time to divide up at each position.

Creating more ice time with new teams allows more players to show what they can do, and you'll find that enough players are capable of doing more than when they're buried.

 

[KevFu]

I would like to see the Wild Card scrapped in favor of the top 4 teams in each division qualify and then pure divisional playoffs.

But another problem is the number of teams - 16 - that make the playoffs. When the NHL had 21 teams it was 16 and now with 10 teams added it is still 16.

I'm totally okay with “only” 16 of 32 (or 34/36) making the playoffs.

Maybe because I was a baseball guy first, when only 4 of 26 teams made the playoffs. (12 of 32 NFL teams make the playoffs). The size of the NHL/NBA playoffs are a punchline to lots of fans.

16 is the perfect playoff number for the NHL. You don't want long byes and stuff like NFL and sort of MLB now with the wild card games (which, BTW, it scares me that the NHL could think 4 vs 5 in a one-game playoff round before the final 16 playoff teams are set). (Going to 32 teams in the playoffs can be a thing when the NHL hits 50 teams in 2125).

I'd say going 8 games in division, and everyone else once (that equals 80 games), and then divisional playoffs 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3. That's ideal to me.

 

[Fenway]

I'm totally okay with “only” 16 of 32 (or 34/36) making the playoffs.

Maybe because I was a baseball guy first, when only 4 of 26 teams made the playoffs. (12 of 32 NFL teams make the playoffs). The size of the NHL/NBA playoffs are a punchline to lots of fans.

16 is the perfect playoff number for the NHL. You don't want long byes and stuff like NFL and sort of MLB now with the wild card games (which, BTW, it scares me that the NHL could think 4 vs 5 in a one-game playoff round before the final 16 playoff teams are set). (Going to 32 teams in the playoffs can be a thing when the NHL hits 50 teams in 2125).

I'd say going 8 games in division, and everyone else once (that equals 80 games), and then divisional playoffs 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3. That's ideal to me.

I am a baseball guy as well and NOTHING will beat the drama of 1978.

@KevFu - read this

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/150013621/

Just make the NHL division playoff brackets pure with no crossover and a team that is still standing after 2 rounds has a worthy accomplishment.

 

[sexydonut]

I agree with MikeCubs. Plus Seattle is paying 650m because they delayed the process, that is the justification for Houston paying less. And they can't leave the number 6 market to the NBA and MLS.

If they were strictly talking about media markets, they'd be trying hard to re-enter Atlanta. In terms of wealth and size, it is a doppelganger for Houston/Dallas. Then we get a bunch of people who deride Atlanta for being full of transplants and being a lousy sports town that only shows up for football. How is the dismissal any different from the typical disdain for the large Texas cities? How does this explain the success of soccer in Atlanta?

The NHL and its markets are at the mercy of their individual owners. Unlucky for Atlanta, they had 2 separate carpet bagging crooks.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Atlanta is having a hard enough time maintaining pro hockey, not just the NHL, if the rumors are out there that the Gladiators are finished after the season ends without a lease.

 

[ForumNamePending]

I think the NHL would love to still be in Atlanta, they would certainly prefer it over Winnipeg. Unfortunately for the league, as we all know, there doesn't seem to be any viable way to make the NHL work in Atlanta at the moment, and the last group probably salted the earth for a generation (or two) anyway. Houston on the other hand has someone with an arena who might sorta-kinda be interested. If they could agree on a price it would probably be announced tomorrow.

The NHL really doesn't need Houston though (and I'm sure the dude in Houston doesn't need the NHL either). So if the NHL has decided expansion teams are now worth $650 million the league is probably not going to be handing out franchises for anything less than that regardless of market.

 

[Fenway]

I wonder if the NHL might wind up taking the same approach the NFL did, using relocation to put 2 teams in LA and one in Vegas.

 

[gstommylee]

I wonder if the NHL might wind up taking the same approach the NFL did, using relocation to put 2 teams in LA and one in Vegas.

In what way?

 

[sexydonut]

Atlanta is having a hard enough time maintaining pro hockey, not just the NHL, if the rumors are out there that the Gladiators are finished after the season ends without a lease.

That is a lone minor league team lost between top tier professional teams. Vancouver struggles to support its junior team.

Plus the same argument can be made for the Houston Aeros. Has little to do with the city and everything to do with owner's decisions and venue availability.