Melrose Munch
Registered User
- Mar 18, 2007
- 23,688
- 2,131
Enough fans who will actually want to pay money to watch the games.Kansas City has an NFL team and a MLB team. Pretty sure those are the 2 biggest leagues on this continent. Also, they have an NHL ready stadium. What's Winnipeg or QC got for me??
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?Kansas City Kansas & Kansas City Missouri has a population of 2.5+M, a largish & impressive array of corporate head and sattelite offices; a now 4 year old stunningly beautiful state of the art arena in its downtown core and arena managers who know what their doing.
KC would be as marginal a third-tier market as whatever city it would be stealing a franchise from.
And there's nothing inherently bad about that, in and of itself - most cities with "major league" teams are second/third tier cities.
Carolina couldn't care less if the NHL put a team in Norfolk.
Washington, however, would.
EDIT: I presume this because Washington's games are broadcast there. Carolina is broadcast in North and South Carolina (the scant hockey fans in SC are split between the Hurricanes and Thrashers).
DC has control. I see. SO it would basically Milwaukee and Chicago all over again.
Aberta has two and its half the size of MO. How is that logical? That's right, it isn't.
Thank you. Your example nicely illustrates even further the absurdity of putting another team in Missouri before both Ontario AND Alberta get additional teams.
Wirtz blocked Milwaukee from getting a team in 1991.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.
Which is that the NHL does not want to go back to Canada.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I am not sure why folks maintain the somewhat outdated notion that a nice arena in a "major league city" equates with success in the NHL.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.
The guy in the OP has 800 supporters/businesses lined up.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.
Which is that the NHL does not want to go back to Canada.
Wirtz blocked Milwaukee from getting a team in 1991.
Which is that the NHL does not want to go back to Canada.
Detroit?
The guy in the OP has 800 supporters/businesses lined up.
KC is in the Midwest. St louis, and Chicago did fine.
Wirtz blocked Milwaukee from getting a team in 1991.
So I guess Pittsburgh is not a good market then. Because when they had no talent the market did not draw at all.
Chicago, Cleveland & Las Vegas are the top 3 for crime stats.
There is also no team in that region. You get Omaha and Much of Kansas.
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/04/15/2803601/sports-commission-forges-on-while.html
More stuff
An how many potential owners?
Glendale has lots of supporters too for keeping the hockey team, just no buyers.
St Louis has been there for over 40 years & Chicago is an Original 6 team.
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?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?
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.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.
LOL, I just take that from other Canadians.What are you going to do for a conspiracy theory when sometime between now and a month from now the NHL relocates to Winnipeg?
I think so. Milwaukee was an hour from Downtown Chicago.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.
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.