Kansas City still looking for team?
- Thread starter Melrose Munch
- Start date
Enough fans who will actually want to pay money to watch the games.
That arena management company that apparently knows what they are doing still has an arena without a major tenant after 4 years. They know what they're doing, yet they hired Boots Del Biaggio to get them an NHL team. How's that working out for them?
All the speculation on Kansas City is completely pointless unless and until they can identify someone willing to actually purchase a team and own them in Kansas City. And guys named Boots who don't have any of their own money don't count.
Yup.
I am not sure why folks maintain the somewhat outdated notion that a nice arena in a "major league city" equates with success in the NHL. So far, the success rate is rather mediocre. I would offer Phoenix, Atlanta and Miami as the prime examples for now.
At this point, outside of the really major and established markets, success is based on a good and committed ownership group, and a business model that maximizes revenues from arena and ancillary sources. So, if KC could find a great owner that was able to commit to hang in there and develop the market (along with substantial losses) over a decade or more, and was given substantial control over arena revenues, then it might work.
But for folks to suggest that there is anywhere near as much money ready for investment in an NHL franchise by citizens and the business community in KC as there would be in Winnipeg and QC seems a bit ludicrous to me. Moreover, is it even reasonable to suggest that there is likely to be as strong, committed and professional an ownership group as TNSE, who have developed a rather prodigious set of business opportunities around an NHL franchise to buffer any vicissitudes in hockey-related revenue.
Sorry to say it, since it will sound like I'm an unreconstructed "homer", but the suggestion that the NHL will be better off in KC than it would be in Winnipeg or QC just isn't paying attention to what makes a franchise successful, or has ulterior motives.
Both would care to some degree, but neither should have much say about it. Hampton Roads is sufficient distance from both to not have significant negative effect.
Since when was there an issue regarding Milwaukee? Perhaps there was something I've never heard about, or is it just your personal speculation?
Not all cases are like the MLSE and Hamilton. Some cities don't fight tooth and nail to keep other franchises away. And Washington couldn't really control whether a team went in Norfolk, even if they wanted to.
Last edited:
I wouldn't say that Ontario is an appropriate example. Ontario could handle 3 teams probably better than Missouri could handle 2. But saying that Missouri could handle 2, in comparison to Alberta with 2, that might be fair in that Missouri has 1.6 times the population, and whereas St. Louis and Kansas City are about twice the size or more than Calgary and Edmonton respectively.
But again, the problem with KC is that are already 2 major league franchises, can it support another?
And where would you put a 3rd team in Alberta?
Last edited:
What are you going to do for a conspiracy theory when sometime between now and a month from now the NHL relocates to Winnipeg?
For clarification of what transpired, what was the criteria that Wirtz was able to use in order to block Milwaukee? The 50mi/80km territorial exclusion rule doesn't apply.
You know, that may well have been the case in the past, when the Canadian dollar was low, but I'm not sure we can make that declaration now. The problems are these (if there are problems at all), IMO, 1) that the League still sees Winnipeg and Quebec City as fairly small markets, 2) that who knows how long the Canadian dollar will keep its strength in relation to the US $, and 3) there still are markets in the US which the League is likely keen to enter if the opportunity presents itself. And in addition to that, probably the best market option in Canada, the southern Ontario/Hamilton area, is being blocked by MLSE.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
Chicago, Cleveland & Las Vegas are the top 3 for crime stats. Detroit doesnt even make it into the top 25 anymore thank God....
cbcwpg
Registered User
An how many potential owners?
Glendale has lots of supporters too for keeping the hockey team, just no buyers.
edog37
Registered User
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
Wirtz did not block Milwaukee from getting a team. Pettit had no problem with Wirtz. The problem was the expansion draft which would've given them a bunch of 4th liners and backup goalies to put out as a product for the first few years. They didn't want to do that to the fans.
edog37
Registered User
actually Pittsburgh is a good hockey market since history of the game here extends back into the 1800s. Having stars at the NHL helps, but the sport has usually done well here for over 100 years. KC can't make the same claim....
Cleveland is a weird city. I remember looking at the $40k "character" houses and lease rates for commerical space and thinking...this should be startup heaven...there's so little downside to taking huge business risks. But (by and large) locals don't seem to think along those lines.
Have to say, for anyone liking acreage and etc, Ohio has some lovely places.
edog37
Registered User
who's going to own it? We can talk Sprint Center all day long, but until an ownership group emerges, then there really is nothing to discuss regarding KC's ability to get a team....
edog37
Registered User
Haha... I think you missed his sarcasm... He's pointing to the "800" as being almost nothing. (At least that's my interpretation.)
I think better examples, in addition to St. Louis, and other than Chicago, would be Minnesota and Dallas, and perhaps even Denver. And how is St. Louis not a valid example... The fact that the Blues have existed for 40 years (without winning a Cup) is evidence that an NHL franchise can take firm hold in the "mid-west".
To be a little fair, Del Biaggio pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. Not only that, but when was the last NHL franchise relocated?
The NBA has had a completely different issue. It appears over the past decade they are going with the "we're going where we are wanted" theory, and then it turns out that many of the newly-relocated franchises may not be as viable as thought.
Vancouver Grizzlies to Memphis. Not great by any stretch of the imagination.
Charlotte Hornets to New Orleans Hornets to Oklahoma City for a couple of years to back in New Orleans owned by the Association. A Coyotes-like failure.
Seattle SuperSonics to Oklahoma City Thunder. And to think that OKC actually applied for an NHL team just over ten years ago. And now this is OKC's second team because the first one was only temporary because of Hurricane Katrina. The NBA in OKC has been a great success. Too bad the NHL wasn't there, first.
Within the big list of TV markets, Kansas City does qualify as the largest market with a rather new arena but without an NHL or NBA team. And since relocations appear to be out of the question for now because Winnipeg is most likely first in line...
Very true. But KC has to be the number one NHL destination in the States because if AEG would be willing to let a KC team control the arena, it simply makes sense. However, with the current state, I'd also have to think that both Winnipeg and Quebec (if they've started building a new arena) are the true numbers one and two.
Last edited:
LOL, I just take that from other Canadians.
I think so. Milwaukee was an hour from Downtown Chicago.
So let me hypothesize... Are you suggesting then that if the 'same' effort to bring a team to Milwaukee were made today, a potential Milwaukee owner would be more so looking for a relocated team than an expansion one? Right?
That's interesting. Though again, just like KC, I'm not so sure that Milwaukee can support another major league franchise. There may be more appetite for hockey there, but Milwaukee is even smaller than KC.
Ad
Latest posts
-
When was the last time you cried because of a playoff loss?- Latest: TruePowerSlave
-
-
