Kansas City still looking for team?

[AdmiralsFan24]

Oklahoma City would be competing with the Thunder. I don't see how that's better than Kansas City who has no winter sports other than the Chiefs (who despite what you think have a great fanbase that is loud and passionate).

As far as the Royals, would you support them? Yeah, they had 2003 where they still finished 7 games out and 3rd in the division but other than that they've been total crap for 15 years.

Speaking of 2003, the Royals attendance wasn't even that bad compared to the rest of MLB. Only one team (Boston) sold out all their games, San Francisco and the Cubs were the only teams along with Boston to have over 90% capacity. Only 9 teams had over 70% capacity. When all was said and done that year Kansas City had better capacity than Texas (Dallas), New York Mets, Minnesota (the team that actually won the division), Philadelphia and Toronto among several others.

 

[knorthern knight]

The answer to the thread title is a big fat "NO". Kansas City is not looking for an NHL team.

Even without an NBA or NHL team in town, the city’s share of Sprint Center revenues last year was $1.8 million, thanks largely to a seemingly endless string of major entertainment events. Meanwhile, the most recent Forbes valuations showed that 33 of 60 NHL and NBA teams had negative operating profits.

And completion of the arena was a key component in keeping the Big 12 basketball tournament in town, not to mention attracting potential future NCAA events.

All things considered, Kansas City mayor Sly James is fine without an NBA or NHL team at the Sprint Center. At a recent luncheon at the Kansas City Club, he said that if a mediocre basketball or hockey team became an anchor tenant there, the city would suffer.

“The trade-off is that teams won’t come to an arena and pay millions,†James said. “They want a sweetheart deal on their lease and locked-up dates.â€

This looks likes Atlanta II... NHL franchise? We don't need no steenkin NHL franchise. And unlike Atlanta, they don't even want the NBA. About the only way I see an NHL, or NBA for that matter, team in the area is if a small Glendale-sized suburb just outside KC puts up its own arena, and decides they need to fill 45 or 90 winter dates

 

[Melrose Munch]

Oklahoma City would be competing with the Thunder. I don't see how that's better than Kansas City who has no winter sports other than the Chiefs (who despite what you think have a great fanbase that is loud and passionate).

As far as the Royals, would you support them? Yeah, they had 2003 where they still finished 7 games out and 3rd in the division but other than that they've been total crap for 15 years.

Speaking of 2003, the Royals attendance wasn't even that bad compared to the rest of MLB. Only one team (Boston) sold out all their games, San Francisco and the Cubs were the only teams along with Boston to have over 90% capacity. Only 9 teams had over 70% capacity. When all was said and done that year Kansas City had better capacity than Texas (Dallas), New York Mets, Minnesota (the team that actually won the division), Philadelphia and Toronto among several others.

Ok but Ok City has only that. team. Not like Cleveland or what not.

 

[CBJ goalie]

Bump.

KC sells out pre-season game - could this ignite any talks for KC to getting an NHL team?

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/26/3168643/sprint-center-sells-out-nhl-exhibition.html

Good timing to sell out, with the whole Coyotes saga in the background.

Edit: here's another video, asking the same question as the OP:
http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-is-kansas-city-ready-for-a-prohockey-team-20110927,0,2229360.story

 

[MoreOrr]

Bump.

KC sells out pre-season game - could this ignite any talks for KC to getting an NHL team?

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/26/3168643/sprint-center-sells-out-nhl-exhibition.html

Good timing to sell out, with the whole Coyotes saga in the background.

Edit: here's another video, asking the same question as the OP:
http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-is-kansas-city-ready-for-a-prohockey-team-20110927,0,2229360.story

Just another tidbit that some where, some way, the League will find a relocation destination (if needed) that isn't Quebec City.

 

[CBJ goalie]

Honest question: do you really think the NHL is so against putting a team back in Quebec?
Some would say there's a handshake/wink-wink agreement in place, hence committing $400M to build an arena.
Although you could make that argument for KC also (ie promise to AEG)

 

[Melrose Munch]

Honest question: do you really think the NHL is so against putting a team back in Quebec?
Some would say there's a handshake/wink-wink agreement in place, hence committing $400M to build an arena.
Although you could make that argument for KC also (ie promise to AEG)

They will take a hit in the US media. Bettman is a bit wary of bad press right now.

 

[Grudy0]

I think if push comes to shove, there could be some kind of handshake agreement...

However, let's timeline something:

NHL
1967 expands by six teams
1970 expands by two teams (because of some miscalculations three years earlier)
1972 expands by two teams (to keep the WHA out of those arenas)
1974 expands by two teams (to attempt to knock out the WHA)
1976 grants an expansion by another two teams, but Denver received the Scouts and Seattle didn't have the funding
1978 loses a team
1979 expands by absorbing four WHA teams, treated like an expansion
1991 expands by one team
1992 expands by two teams
1994 expands by two teams
1998 expands by four teams over a three-year period

It's been 13 years. It could be time to move forward with another expansion. Especially if expansion fees will fill some of the coffers, specifically for some of these new owners.

 

[MoreOrr]

Honest question: do you really think the NHL is so against putting a team back in Quebec?
Some would say there's a handshake/wink-wink agreement in place, hence committing $400M to build an arena.
Although you could make that argument for KC also (ie promise to AEG)

No, not at all!!

I just think that the League isn't at all keen on relocating 2 US-based franchises in a row to Canadian cities. Simple as that. It would give a very poor impression of hockey in the US.

IF Quebec City doesn't get a relocated team, and that is an "if" because it could happen, then quite probably they will get an Expansion team, whenever that happens. Of course, if there are multiple more relocations, then that's another scenario. I just don't think Quebec will get the "next" relocation, if there is one anytime in the next year or two or three.

 

[CBJ goalie]

I agree, 2 teams in a row being relocated to Canada might look bad - hence, Quebec getting one a little further down the line.

That being said, is KC a desired location? If they had an owner willing and ready to go, I think they'd be at the top of the list - no owner really hurts their chances.

 

[MoreOrr]

I agree, 2 teams in a row being relocated to Canada might look bad - hence, Quebec getting one a little further down the line.

That being said, is KC a desired location? If they had an owner willing and ready to go, I think they'd be at the top of the list - no owner really hurts their chances.

Seattle is the desired location!

 

[Confucius]

Seattle is the desired location!

If it must be in the U S, then yes Seattle is the place. Let us not forget KC only wants a good team. So when the team is bad........lookout.

 

[LadyStanley]

NHL
1967 expands by six teams
1970 expands by two teams (because of some miscalculations three years earlier)
1972 expands by two teams (to keep the WHA out of those arenas)
1974 expands by two teams (to attempt to knock out the WHA)
1976 grants an expansion by another two teams, but Denver received the Scouts and Seattle didn't have the funding
1978 loses a team
1979 expands by absorbing four WHA teams, treated like an expansion
1991 expands by one team
1992 expands by two teams
1994 expands by two teams
1998 expands by four teams over a three-year period

Just to clarify.. the Sharks franchise date is May 18, 1990. But they started play in 1991-92.

 

[Puckschmuck*]

I agree, 2 teams in a row being relocated to Canada might look bad

It only looks bad to those who are so pro-American expansion and against any re-instatement of Canadian franchises. After all, how many people considered it a "travesty" when two Canadians where relocated down south two years in a row?

 

[cbcwpg]

Bump.

KC sells out pre-season game - could this ignite any talks for KC to getting an NHL team?

Maybe this could be why there are no talks about KC getting a team.

Quotes from Tim Leiweke.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/32338775

"Kansas City," he told the Kansas City Star, "can take its time."

“Right now there is not an urgency [to get an anchor tenant],†Leiweke told the Star. “This building is doing phenomenal."

"We're fine without one [anchor tenant]," Leiweke repeated, "and we probably make more money without one."

 

[Melrose Munch]

It only looks bad to those who are so pro-American expansion and against any re-instatement of Canadian franchises. After all, how many people considered it a "travesty" when two Canadians where relocated down south two years in a row?

Business is business and if you don't know that by now I don't know what to tell you.

 

[dronald]

I agree, 2 teams in a row being relocated to Canada might look bad - hence, Quebec getting one a little further down the line.

That being said, is KC a desired location? If they had an owner willing and ready to go, I think they'd be at the top of the list - no owner really hurts their chances.

Only a small amount of people would notice or care if two teams went to Canada.

Who is going to speak out against Canada getting a second team? Phoenix might, but most residents there wouldn't even notice. Detroit won't care, NY won't care... Who's going to care?

 

[Guy Legend]

Seattle is the desired location!

A desired location without an arena. Not viable unless that is remedied. Otherwise, would be a great destination IMO.

As for other American cities, don't discount Houston. NHL ready arena plus a large metro area and according to some data - underutilized in available sports dollar.

 

[um]

Seattle is the desired location!

what potential owners are in seattle

 

[mucker*]

I see little reason why KC would be a good choice.
Even if KC can support a team, where is the growth?

KC is a very small, stagnant market. If the NHL is relocating, they would be wise to go regions where they currently are not at (US Pacific Northwest) or big markets that would be less of a risk and have more of a corporate base for support (Houston) which could spread the game better than that of another small market.

The US is growing disproportionately in two directions:
South and West.

Go there.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Only a small amount of people would notice or care if two teams went to Canada.

Who is going to speak out against Canada getting a second team? Phoenix might, but most residents there wouldn't even notice. Detroit won't care, NY won't care... Who's going to care?

How about it being and espn, espn.com nbc sports being mad. Oh and all the internet comments.

 

[dronald]

How about it being and espn, espn.com nbc sports being mad. Oh and all the internet comments.

We're talking about Phoenix though, a team that nobody cares to watch or talk about. Why would that be a big deal at all? No Canadian or American would care less.

 

[Melrose Munch]

We're talking about Phoenix though, a team that nobody cares to watch or talk about. Why would that be a big deal at all? No Canadian or American would care less.

There are people who obviously care otherwise their season finale would have been empty. Come On. Phoenix might not have the best attendance but they have fans.

 

[htpwn]

How about it being and espn, espn.com nbc sports being mad. Oh and all the internet comments.

When the Coyotes went bankrupt, I seem to recall a poll on ESPN.com where the majority of those voting, in the majority of US states, wanted the team to move to Hamilton. I had a screenshot on my desktop IIRC, but unfortunately it quite literally managed to burn itself out last week (I'm not kidding, smoke was coming out of the computer).

I've said this before, but once again, I do not think many people will care if certain teams are relocated. Aside from the fans of the team, who else would? The US media doesn't pay any attention to hockey anyways, NBC has no use for any team outside of the northeast, and ESPN? This is a network who knows more about LeBron James' big toe then it does about the NHL.

When the Thrashers were relocated, very few articles popped up about how the NHL was taking a step back. Many that did pop up were either buried deep in the local sports section, were by Canadian writers who clearly held a minority opinion, or were from the Atlanta market itself. The negative press went away within weeks, if not days, after the announcement. I doubt anything different would happen if a second sunbelt team moved north. The Islanders on the other hand (being in New York and all, plus having many Stanley Cups under their belt), might be a very different story.

 

[DetRedWings109*]

Does KC even have a willing owner though? Without one how are they gonna get a team?