NHL in Seattle?

[Rocko604]

Vancouver people go to Seahawks games?
Really?
A sizeable amount?

A huge amount of people from BC go down to watch the Seahawks and Mariners. A few are season ticket holders, many others make it a weekend trip every year. I believe at least one of those teams has a Canadian fan appreciation day. I have no idea what the numbers are, but it's enough for the team to notice.

Seahawks. They usually have a "Canada Day" near the end of the season, with the Mounties doing the colour guard, as well as playing the Canadian anthem.

The Mariners also have a sizable amount come down for big games vs the Red Sox, Yankees, and if it's on a weekend, the Blue Jays. I remember back in 08 the Blue Jays were in Seattle a couple nights before the Roughriders opened the season in BC. LOTS of Prarie license plates, plus a few Roughrider jerseys, in Seattle that night.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Why hasn't the NHL tried a team in Seattle? It's larger than other cities currently supporting NHL teams (DC, Nashville, Long Island, etc), has a stadium (wherever the SuperSonics used to play) and would only need to compete with the Seahawks (first half of the season) and the WHL teams in the area.
There are junior teams in Washington state doing well so it wouldn't be unrealistic to expect a team in Seattle to do fairly well (at least compared to other teams failing to draw crowds currently in the NHL)


MOD: Also, Dolemite's earlier historical thread: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=810679

quite simply:

an owner;

a suitable arena: KEY a) isn't designed for it and b) Seattle Coliseum is a historic site

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

That's true. If the AHL does continue to expand westward, at some point an East - West divisional alignment would make sense.

if the NHL isn't expanding, LeftCoast, definitely you will not see the AHL Expanding past the current # of franchises, and where do you think an expansion club is coming from if the AHL already has essentially ended Expansion applications.... Doesn't the NHL have to be a part of the plan....

OKC is partly owned and operated by Prodigal Hockey, who ran the Barons as the Blazers in the Central Hockey League, JUST AS San Antonio and Austin were replaced by the Rampage and Texas Stars.......

 

[ShyCheetah]

Vancouver people go to Seahawks games?
Really?
A sizeable amount?

My brothers best friend and his cousin both own season tickets. Apparently they bus down so I'd imagine a lot of fans fill the buses. When I was in HS our team would bus down for Husky games 'cause our coach used to coach there and we watched for free. Right on field level in the end zone right in front of the cheerleaders.

Shy

 

[embee]

Really?
You think people will drive 2+ hours on weeknights to see hockey in Seattle?

If that is the case, I would think Vancouver would be concerned about Seattle taking fans.

I feel Seattle is big enough to support a team by itself.

Im not talking about people from Vancouver driving to see a game in Seattle. As a Victorian, it is alot easier and possibly cheaper to go see a hockey game in Seattle than it is Vancouver.

Of course Seattle is big enough to support a team by itself, the crossover fans from Canada that would go see game there just because they can would make it even more successful, thats the point I was trying to make.

 

[RTN]

I think Americans sometimes forget how much bigger provinces are compared to states. The distance to travel from Vancouver/Victoria to Seattle is much shorter than traveling to other cities within BC (Kelowna, Prince George, Cranbrook, etc). For example, it takes over 45 minutes for me to drive from my hometown to the nearest neighbouring city. When I played hockey we would have to take a 4 hour trip (one-way) by bus to play Victoria teams every other weekend or so. A two hour drive from Vancouver/Victoria is almost nothing.

 

[Slapshot85]

I think Americans sometimes forget how much bigger provinces are compared to states. The distance to travel from Vancouver/Victoria to Seattle is much shorter than traveling to other cities within BC (Kelowna, Prince George, Cranbrook, etc). For example, it takes over 45 minutes for me to drive from my hometown to the nearest neighbouring city. When I played hockey we would have to take a 4 hour trip (one-way) by bus to play Victoria teams every other weekend or so. A two hour drive from Vancouver/Victoria is almost nothing.

I live on the WNY-Ontario border, so I don't know about the BC-Seattle/Washington border. Is it relatively quick to cross the borders?

 

[RTN]

I live on the WNY-Ontario border, so I don't know about the BC-Seattle/Washington border. Is it relatively quick to cross the borders?

I think it really depends on what day your going and at what crossing. Long weekends are terrible, but I've often crossed the boarder with no wait. Someone else can probably chime in on wait times during weekdays compared to weekends.

As for the Victoria-Seattle ferry, I've never actually taken it. For the Nanaimo-Vancouver ferry, I usually aim to get there 45 min early. I doubt the wait for Seattle is longer.

EDIT: The Victoria-Seattle ferry actually seems pretty expensive. Single passenger price (no car) is more expensive than passenger + car on the Nanaimo-Vancouver route.

 

[embee]

Yes, unless its a long weekend (American or Canadian) the border crossing is pretty reasonable. Last time I went through it in March, the wait time was about 15 minutes on a Saturday afternoon.

The ferry to downtown Seattle doesn't take cars, that doesn't matter though because it drops you off next to Pike Place Market, it also lets you drink. Anywhere they build an arena would no doubt be easy to get to from Pike Place.

 

[Awesome Sauce]

There are four major border crossings from the Vancouver metro area to Washington state, and there is pretty much always a wait. Can be as low as a 5-10 minute wait in slow periods, but waits can go longer than 2-3 hours on weekends, especially holiday weekends. If there were a hypothetical Seattle vs Vancouver NHL game in Seattle taking place in the evening, Vancouverites could get to Seattle in about 2.5-3 hours, since border waits are generally not too bad going southbound in the afternoon/evenings unless its a holiday or long weekend.

The market for Canucks tickets is so crazy up here, I would predict a lot of people from the area would be willing to make that drive to see a game.

 

[crobro]

there would be at least 3-4000 thousand fans from the vancouver metro area who would by season tix for an nhl team in seattle

having said that.

part of the canucks pitch to the nba and stern about getting another nba team in vancouver is that there would be a hardcore base of 4-5000 fans from the seattle area who would buy season tickets for a nba team in vancouver.

win win for both cities

 

[Hugh Mann*]

I would rather not have a team anywhere within a thousand miles than have hundreds of millions looted from the public coffers to go to building a playground for the rich and famous. What is this, Oligarchic Russia?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I would rather not have a team anywhere within a thousand miles than have hundreds of millions looted from the public coffers to go to building a playground for the rich and famous. What is this, Oligarchic Russia?

That is a very short-sighted view of things. All these deals with arena buildings all come down to the agreement reached. If the city pays for it, maintains ownership, and runs it to a profit, why the hell wouldn't you vote for it? That's just plain silly to not invest in a moneymaker like arenas have the potential to be.

 

[Kagee*]

quite simply:

an owner;

a suitable arena: KEY a) isn't designed for it and b) Seattle Coliseum is a historic site

That's about it right there, get one of your Billionaires in Seattle to become a owner, build a new stadium, and Seattle is in NHL business.

Especially with the NBA out of there, there's space for a successful NHL franchise to thrive in the 206.

First things first get a owner!

 

[kdb209]

That is a very short-sighted view of things. All these deals with arena buildings all come down to the agreement reached. If the city pays for it, maintains ownership, and runs it to a profit, why the hell wouldn't you vote for it? That's just plain silly to not invest in a moneymaker like arenas have the potential to be.

Except, in most cases that money goes to the billionaire owners, not to the city.

If they're lucky, arena revenues may cover the construction debt - but in many cases either by design (funding with specific taxes) or circumstance (Glendale) the city pays out millions of dollars and only receives indirect benefits back.

And virtually every study of the net economic benefit of stadiums and arenas show they do not generate add'l economic activity or taxes to justify the public investment - they merely displace other economic activity in the area.

 

[Hugh Mann*]

That is a very short-sighted view of things. All these deals with arena buildings all come down to the agreement reached. If the city pays for it, maintains ownership, and runs it to a profit, why the hell wouldn't you vote for it? That's just plain silly to not invest in a moneymaker like arenas have the potential to be.

Because the state does not (or should not, I should say) exist to subsidize the economic activities of the rich and famous. If they want to build some $500 million state-of-the-art arena, let them use their own money to do just that, while public funds are used for important public things, like hospitals, schools, roads, etc.

Not to mention that it never actually works out. Every time a team wants a new arena, we often hear them whining about the vitality of subsidizing such a critical economic engine, which is all nonsense. If huge several-hundred-million dollar arenas actually generated a net profit for the public coffers for which they were looted in order to fund the whole venture, I might be willing to listen to the arguments. They'd still be stupid, and things like roads and hospitals would be far better money spent. But every time we always see the public body either struggling to make back its share (the majority of it) or hemmorraging money. There are few exceptions where the state can turn a profit, but even then the difficulty of the whole affair means it would have been simpler to just dump the money straight into a school or something in the first place.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Except, in most cases that money goes to the billionaire owners, not to the city.

If they're lucky, arena revenues may cover the construction debt - but in many cases either by design (funding with specific taxes) or circumstance (Glendale) the city pays out millions of dollars and only receives indirect benefits back.

And virtually every study of the net economic benefit of stadiums and arenas show they do not generate add'l economic activity or taxes to justify the public investment - they merely displace other economic activity in the area.

It does mostly do that but that's because the city generally gives up on maintaining ownership and properly running it. If they don't readily give up the ownership of it, they certainly pass off the running of the building onto the ownership group.

If the cities stop shelling out money w/o covering their bases which includes management fees, they can profit from building and running the building.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Because the state does not (or should not, I should say) exist to subsidize the economic activities of the rich and famous. If they want to build some $500 million state-of-the-art arena, let them use their own money to do just that, while public funds are used for important public things, like hospitals, schools, roads, etc.

Not to mention that it never actually works out. Every time a team wants a new arena, we often hear them whining about the vitality of subsidizing such a critical economic engine, which is all nonsense. If huge several-hundred-million dollar arenas actually generated a net profit for the public coffers for which they were looted in order to fund the whole venture, I might be willing to listen to the arguments. They'd still be stupid, and things like roads and hospitals would be far better money spent. But every time we always see the public body either struggling to make back its share (the majority of it) or hemmorraging money. There are few exceptions where the state can turn a profit, but even then the difficulty of the whole affair means it would have been simpler to just dump the money straight into a school or something in the first place.

Yet, if they can actually negotiate themselves to a point where they build it and they operate it, they can profit from it. There are plenty of privately funded stadiums and arenas around that do that. The only difference is that political leaders get so caught up in the politics of the matter, if they ever get around to negotiating a deal, they don't think about the matters that would make it so that the city profits from it. It ends up being a subsidy because the politicians give it to them through negotiations.

 

[Melrose Munch]

It does mostly do that but that's because the city generally gives up on maintaining ownership and properly running it. If they don't readily give up the ownership of it, they certainly pass off the running of the building onto the ownership group.

If the cities stop shelling out money w/o covering their bases which includes management fees, they can profit from building and running the building.

Yet, if they can actually negotiate themselves to a point where they build it and they operate it, they can profit from it. There are plenty of privately funded stadiums and arenas around that do that. The only difference is that political leaders get so caught up in the politics of the matter, if they ever get around to negotiating a deal, they don't think about the matters that would make it so that the city profits from it. It ends up being a subsidy because the politicians give it to them through negotiations.

It still does not matter. I am not going to city hall to ask for money for my pool, which my friends use. I pay for that myself.

Columbus built their own stadium .

 

[Dowisetrepla]

Here's a column in the Seattle Times re the idea of an arena for the Eastside...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/stevekelley/2015517582_kelley06.html

 

[MoreOrr]

Here's a column in the Seattle Times re the idea of an arena for the Eastside...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/stevekelley/2015517582_kelley06.html

Man it sounds good. I'm almost salivating at the idea of the NHL getting in Seattle. I'd even be tempted to think that if Seattle gets a team that just perhaps then Paul Allen might say, 'well hell, with Seattle having a team, so should Portland to start a rivalry with them.' Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver in the same Division... things to dream of for the NHL.

 

[RTN]

Well a few things.

1) Buffalo gets a lot of help from Southern Ontario, but it borders SO Ontario, and is in the eastern part of North America with a lot cities within 8 hours.

Seattle is not on the border, which would in my view make Vancouver overflow a weekend thing, not an every game weekday thing.

I mean do you really think people will do a 3 HR drive 40+ times?

2) IF Seattle were to get Canadian support, would it be sustainable? Nucks tickets are hard now, but what about in less hot times?

3) Overall, I think Seattle is the best new market, because the NHL has no footprint in the US Northwest, and if wants to be nationally followed in the US, it needs to be there; plus there is some NHL history in the area from 90 years ago, it has money, and climate wise it can fit.

Most Canucks fans don't go to 40+ Canucks games. Most of the season ticket holders I know only go to about 15-20 games and sell the rest or give them to friends. If a Seattle team got fans from BC going down for 3-10 games, I think that will be significant. I agree with your points though.

 

[Kagee*]

Here's a column in the Seattle Times re the idea of an arena for the Eastside...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/stevekelley/2015517582_kelley06.html

What a exciting article! got me pumped up for hope something will happen in Seattle soon.

Well a few things.

1) Buffalo gets a lot of help from Southern Ontario, but it borders SO Ontario, and is in the eastern part of North America with a lot cities within 8 hours.

Seattle is not on the border, which would in my view make Vancouver overflow a weekend thing, not an every game weekday thing.

I mean do you really think people will do a 3 HR drive 40+ times?

2) IF Seattle were to get Canadian support, would it be sustainable? Nucks tickets are hard now, but what about in less hot times?

3) Overall, I think Seattle is the best new market, because the NHL has no footprint in the US Northwest, and if wants to be nationally followed in the US, it needs to be there; plus there is some NHL history in the area from 90 years ago, it has money, and climate wise it can fit.

This thread needs a little more 'if you build it, they will come' quotes!

The time is ripe, millions upon millions of dollars of revenue made by Vancouver a smaller city than Seattle, from the winter Olympics/NHL playoffs.

I know a lot of people from Vancouver, who moved to Seattle area to work and live, and are already NHL hockey fans, making hockey fan babies eventually, and they could be the new die hard Seattle NHL hockey fans of tomorrow.

The Seattle Coyotes just makes too much sense, thousands of coyotes up here in the Pacific Northwest, from the states all the way up northern British Columbia.

More than a few billionaires in Seatown, and from out of town, who see a prime opportunity just waiting to happen to develop in the Seattle area.

A new arena is much needed for pro sports and concerts etc. Lots of developmental opportunities could/should happen as well surrounding the new arena, its whoever has the brains/know how/dream mind like, a Steve Jobs mind combined with a pro CEO to make it happen.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

What a exciting article! got me pumped up for hope something will happen in Seattle soon.





This thread needs a little more 'if you build it, they will come' quotes!

The time is ripe, millions upon millions of dollars of revenue made by Vancouver a smaller city than Seattle, from the winter Olympics/NHL playoffs.

I know a lot of people from Vancouver, who moved to Seattle area to work and live, and are already NHL hockey fans, making hockey fan babies eventually, and they could be the new die hard Seattle NHL hockey fans of tomorrow.

The Seattle Coyotes just makes too much sense, thousands of coyotes up here in the Pacific Northwest, from the states all the way up northern British Columbia.

More than a few billionaires in Seatown, and from out of town, who see a prime opportunity just waiting to happen to develop in the Seattle area.

A new arena is much needed for pro sports and concerts etc. Lots of developmental opportunities could/should happen as well surrounding the new arena, its whoever has the brains/know how/dream mind like, a Steve Jobs mind combined with a pro CEO to make it happen.

the only problem with the last statement is this: a)who pays for it and b) convincing Washington State Government to reverse its decision after building QWEST(soon to be CenturyLink) Field/SAFECO after the the Sonics departure (you cannot do much w/ the current arena without historians sticking their noses into that

 

[uhlaw97]

The Seattle Coyotes just makes too much sense, thousands of coyotes up here in the Pacific Northwest, from the states all the way up northern British Columbia.
QUOTE]

There are plenty of coyotes down here in TX (including the Greater Houston area) as well!



Sorry, couldn't resist!

I'm just really hopeful that Houston will get itself an NHL franchise.