NHL in Seattle?

[saskriders]

I want Seattle to get a team, but I just don't see it happening until they have an arena coming

 

[MoreOrr]

If the team doesn't have a place to play long-term, then the market is likely off the table, no matter how attractive the market is.

If it's such a 'no go' idea as you make it out to be, then why is Seattle even being mentioned?

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Here's the link: http://watch.tsn.ca/featured/clip608663#clip608663

LeBrun says that they have 3 potential local owners for the Coyotes, but if they can't find a way to keep the team where it is, they will look to relocation. They are going to start that process in the next month and start looking at possible cities for relocation. Mentions Quebec City, Las Vegas, Kansas City, and Seattle. "I got to tell you, a lot of people think Quebec City, I think Seattle has the best shot of the 4."

Once again, it seems like a reporter speculating rather than basing it off any kind of inside information.

Then he's nuts, plain and simple. Seattle doesn't even have a new arena on the horizon and their current facilities would be very substandard for the NHL. The only thing they have going for them, aside from the market, is that they have a willing ownership seemingly in place with the Chicago Wolves guys.

And Las Vegas is just a pipe dream. Hurting market from the recent recession + no applicable arena in place or new arena on the horizon + huge number of non-sports distractions and high night working population limiting potential number of people attending games + obvious league unease with legal sports gambling + only rumored ownership potential with Bruckheimer = not getting a team any time soon.

KC would be great for an NHL team..... but they don't have an interested ownership group.

Quebec City, on the other hand, has everything you could want. An interested population, a good enough temporary arena, a new arena on the horizon, and a good potential ownership group.

In no way is Seattle (or any other market) anywhere near QC's level right now.

Five years from now? Maybe Seattle or KC or Houston or even Vegas might be up to snuff and comparable with Quebec City, but that won't matter as it's really an issue for the Yotes only and only for this year. The American markets I mentioned will be competing for either a different relocation team or a new round of expansion at some point in the future, while QC is the only real practical landing spot for the Yotes right now, much like how Winnipeg was really the only practical home for the Thrashers once it became obvious that ASG couldn't find a local group willing to pay enough for their liking.

And that's not even figuring the simple thought that you've got to imagine that the Quebecor guys would be in a better position to pay more money for the Yotes then the Seattle group would be able to.

 

[htpwn]

If it's such a 'no go' idea as you make it out to be, then why is Seattle even being mentioned?

Your kidding me, right? Ask Pierre LeBrun, he's the one who said it.

Seattle-backers, show us doubters the arena. Where's the $400 million of funding coming from? Where is it going to be located? When is it going to open?

Unless Levin can answer these questions, there will be no NHL team in Seattle anytime soon.

 

[MoreOrr]

Your kidding me, right? Ask Pierre LeBrun, he's the one who said it.

Seattle-backers, show us the arena. Where's the $400 million of funding coming from? Where is it going to be located? When is it going to open?

Not that he's the first person that's been floating Seattle around as a possible NHL site.

 

[htpwn]

Not that he's the first person that's been floating Seattle around as a possible NHL site.

Your point? It is a large, northern American city. Of course, there will be some speculation! That doesn't mean it is justified.

Again, unless the arena situation can be rectified (and within the next 3 months), then Seattle is not a serious candidate to get the Coyotes.

EDIT: I should clarify, there are some other possibilities. In the highly unlikely event that a city like Quebec City gets crossed off the list (say Peladeau decides he no longer wants to own a franchise or the arena funding falls through), then the NHL might be put into the uncomfortable situation of moving the team into a city without a viable venue on the horizon. Even then, one could argue that Kansas City might get a shot before Seattle if that were the case.

 

[cutchemist42]

So while a lot of times, I dislike Lawless who is the Jets writer for the Winnipeg Free Press. He said during the Saturday broadcast of Illegal Curve, a Winnipeg hockey radio show, that he is hearing talks that Seattle is a frontrunner before Quebec. He said the NHL and NBA are working together to help build 1 arena for both sports in Seattle.

Kinda makes sense since Phoenix is owned by the NHL and the Hornets are owned by the NBA which is working out badly for both leagues. Anyone else buy this?

 

[Melrose Munch]

Your point? It is a large, northern American city. Of course, there will be some speculation! That doesn't mean it is justified.

Again, unless the arena situation can be rectified (and within the next 3 months), then Seattle is not a serious candidate to get the Coyotes.

EDIT: I should clarify, there are some other possibilities. In the highly unlikely event that a city like Quebec City gets crossed off the list (say Peladeau decides he no longer wants to own a franchise or the arena funding falls through), then the NHL might be put into the uncomfortable situation of moving the team into a city without a viable venue on the horizon. Even then, one could argue that Kansas City might get a shot before Seattle if that were the case.

They have the private equity guy from SF. The league will get bad pr from from 2 teams in Canada. That is not up for debate.

Having said that QC will get a team. You're fear of seattle is based on nothing because as of right now the Yotes are in Phoenix for another year.

 

[dronald]

They have the private equity guy from SF. The league will get bad pr from from 2 teams in Canada. That is not up for debate.

Bad PR from who? Lol.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Bad PR from who? Lol.

American outlets, ESPN, Majornewspaper.

I read the comments from the espn boards. They wern't nice at all.

 

[dronald]

American outlets, ESPN, Majornewspaper.

I read the comments from the espn boards. They wern't nice at all.

I don't get your point, who cares?

 

[Tawnos]

I don't get your point, who cares?

Sponsors.

 

[dronald]

Sponsors.

Random posters and ESPN are our worries because of sponsors?

 

[Tawnos]

Random posters and ESPN are our worries because of sponsors?

"American outlets, ESPN, Newspapers".. yeah, sponsors listen to what their customers are paying attention to.

And despite the fact that the general feeling of the hockey community towards ESPN, they still wield an awful lot of influence in the sports world.

I'm not going to overblow the effect of PHX moving to QC, because it's not a HUUUUUUGE deal in this sense, but it's not like there's going to be GOOD press in the US if that happens. There's an argument to be made there.

 

[crobro]

Then he's nuts, plain and simple. Seattle doesn't even have a new arena on the horizon and their current facilities would be very substandard for the NHL. The only thing they have going for them, aside from the market, is that they have a willing ownership seemingly in place with the Chicago Wolves guys.

And Las Vegas is just a pipe dream. Hurting market from the recent recession + no applicable arena in place or new arena on the horizon + huge number of non-sports distractions and high night working population limiting potential number of people attending games + obvious league unease with legal sports gambling + only rumored ownership potential with Bruckheimer = not getting a team any time soon.

KC would be great for an NHL team..... but they don't have an interested ownership group.

Quebec City, on the other hand, has everything you could want. An interested population, a good enough temporary arena, a new arena on the horizon, and a good potential ownership group.

In no way is Seattle (or any other market) anywhere near QC's level right now.

Five years from now? Maybe Seattle or KC or Houston or even Vegas might be up to snuff and comparable with Quebec City, but that won't matter as it's really an issue for the Yotes only and only for this year. The American markets I mentioned will be competing for either a different relocation team or a new round of expansion at some point in the future, while QC is the only real practical landing spot for the Yotes right now, much like how Winnipeg was really the only practical home for the Thrashers once it became obvious that ASG couldn't find a local group willing to pay enough for their liking.

And that's not even figuring the simple thought that you've got to imagine that the Quebecor guys would be in a better position to pay more money for the Yotes then the Seattle group would be able to.

isnt there a multi million dollar refurbishment of the tacome dome going on as we speak.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

isnt there a multi million dollar refurbishment of the tacome dome going on as we speak.

No clue. A quick check of their website indicates that they're still holding events, though.

 

[JawandaPuck]

So while a lot of times, I dislike Lawless who is the Jets writer for the Winnipeg Free Press. He said during the Saturday broadcast of Illegal Curve, a Winnipeg hockey radio show, that he is hearing talks that Seattle is a frontrunner before Quebec. He said the NHL and NBA are working together to help build 1 arena for both sports in Seattle.

Kinda makes sense since Phoenix is owned by the NHL and the Hornets are owned by the NBA which is working out badly for both leagues. Anyone else buy this?

Yeah, I buy it. I've been writing about such a scenario in this very thread. The better question is, who doesn't buy it? Show of hands? Shogun?

 

[knorthern knight]

So while a lot of times, I dislike Lawless who is the Jets writer for the Winnipeg Free Press. He said during the Saturday broadcast of Illegal Curve, a Winnipeg hockey radio show, that he is hearing talks that Seattle is a frontrunner before Quebec. He said the NHL and NBA are working together to help build 1 arena for both sports in Seattle.

Kinda makes sense since Phoenix is owned by the NHL and the Hornets are owned by the NBA which is working out badly for both leagues. Anyone else buy this?

Yeah, I buy it. I've been writing about such a scenario in this very thread. The better question is, who doesn't buy it? Show of hands? Shogun?

Many Winnipegers' opinion of Lawless' intellect is such that I can't repeat it without breaking forum-decorum. There are a couple of factors to consider.

1. The NHL needs a place for the Coyotes NOW (i.e. pre-season games in September). QC has a 15,176 seat interim arena (larger than Winnipeg's arena ) and funds commited for a modern new arena. Seattle's Key Arena is a joke, and Tacoma Dome is also bad. Plus there is only vague talk of a new arena.
2. Phoenix will not be the last team relocating in the next few years. There are reports of another 6 teams (besides NJ) having received cash advances in the past 3 seasons. Let's assume that 3 of them were Dallas and St Louis and Phoenix. Dallas sold, St Louis being sold, and Coyotes to QC. That still leaves 4 candidates for Seattle. I fully expect at least one more relocation, in addition to the Coyotes, by the 2015-2016 season. NJ is set to lose $20 million this year, and the Islanders don't want to play in NVMC, with no new arena in site. And Columbus is shakey. Who am I missing?

Don't worry, there'll be plenty of choices left for Seattle, even if the Coyotes move to QC.

 

[htpwn]

So while a lot of times, I dislike Lawless who is the Jets writer for the Winnipeg Free Press. He said during the Saturday broadcast of Illegal Curve, a Winnipeg hockey radio show, that he is hearing talks that Seattle is a frontrunner before Quebec. He said the NHL and NBA are working together to help build 1 arena for both sports in Seattle.

Kinda makes sense since Phoenix is owned by the NHL and the Hornets are owned by the NBA which is working out badly for both leagues. Anyone else buy this?

I'm not sure what you (Lawless?) are trying to imply here? That the league will contribute funds to the building of a Seattle arena? Because I'm sure Edmonton, Calgary, Long Island, Hartford, Hamilton, Markham, Quebec City, and Detroit would all love similar contributions.

I can buy that they might be lobbying state and city politicians, but at the end of the day, a bill would need to be proposed (and passed) very soon to accommodate the Coyotes (It is unlikely that the NHL would relocate a team to an area without a guarantee of an arena).

They have the private equity guy from SF. The league will get bad pr from from 2 teams in Canada. That is not up for debate.

Having said that QC will get a team. You're fear of seattle is based on nothing because as of right now the Yotes are in Phoenix for another year.

Yes, a private equity guy who's net worth is unknown that both needs funds to build an arena and spend hundreds of millions on acquiring anchor tenants. Sounds promising.

You are misinterpreting my position. I am not, and have never been, against a team in a Seattle. If they find a way to fully fund a viable long-term for an NHL club within the next 3 months, then I'll adjust my position accordingly. I'd rather be wrong based on what we know, rather than on relying on passing speculation.

The 'negative press' argument is and has always been overblown. The American media, for the most part, pay only a passing interest in the sport. The Atlanta-to-Winnipeg relocation was more of a footnote than story in most American markets.

 

[JawandaPuck]

Executive Vice President of the NHL, Bill Daly said today (translated):

"Yes we can. Yes you can write that the Coyotes could move to Quebec City next year. But you must also add that other cities, as well as Quebec, could inherit the Coyotes...Seattle, like Quebec, amphitheatres (yet) to be built. Existing infrastructure - the Colosseum and the Key Arena, which served as home to the SuperSonics basketball club before being relocated to Oklahoma City - could serve as a temporary solution.

Our relationship with the people of Quebec are still very good and their application is not worse than it was. But I think the passion with which you follow the case and the interest for the return of the League in Quebec gave the impression that things were more advanced than they actually are."​

 

[not a trapdoor]

Who am I missing?

Possibly the Thrashers? They were certainly losing money over the previous two seasons.

 

[Ernie]

Lebrun isn't just any reporter. He's one of the best, if not the best in the business, and has an extensive NHL rolodex. He has some info from somebody in the know.

That being said, I just don't see the logistics in place. How is a Seattle team going to sell seasons tickets without a decent place for them to play?

 

[not a trapdoor]

Lebrun isn't just any reporter. He's one of the best, if not the best in the business, and has an extensive NHL rolodex. He has some info from somebody in the know.

That being said, I just don't see the logistics in place. How is a Seattle team going to sell seasons tickets without a decent place for them to play?

Perhaps someone "in the know" has mislead him, to get some misdirection out there that'll be from a "connected" reporter? It's not so much about Seattle possibly being ready as it's about extending the hope in Phoenix to ensure the Coyotes aren't playing to an empty barn - even if the reality is that Québec has been informed they need to be ready.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Executive Vice President of the NHL, Bill Daly said today (translated):

"Yes we can. Yes you can write that the Coyotes could move to Quebec City next year. But you must also add that other cities, as well as Quebec, could inherit the Coyotes...Seattle, like Quebec, amphitheatres (yet) to be built. Existing infrastructure - the Colosseum and the Key Arena, which served as home to the SuperSonics basketball club before being relocated to Oklahoma City - could serve as a temporary solution.

Our relationship with the people of Quebec are still very good and their application is not worse than it was. But I think the passion with which you follow the case and the interest for the return of the League in Quebec gave the impression that things were more advanced than they actually are."​

Something about all this still doesn't smell right to me. If they're talking about Key Arena, they're talking about a facility that can only hold something like 11,000 for hockey. On top of that, I'm just not seeing Bettman being alright with allowing a team to move in and play in an arena that the NBA specifically abandoned for not being up to snuff. Not to mention everything I and others have brought up on this board about how much further along the development process for a new arena that QC is over Seattle. Heck, even if Seattle got the Yotes, that's not to say that it'd be a guarantee of state and local fiscal support for a new arena.

There certainly seems to be some smoke coming out of Seattle as of late, but whether that's a sign of an actual fire or just a smoke screen, we'll have to wait and see. More leaning towards an easy way to ensure a higher purchase price for the Yotes from Quebecor and testing the waters in Seattle to see how the public would react to the potential of getting a team to better gauge their candidacy as a relocation or expansion target a few years down the line.

I will legitimately be stunned if QC doesn't have a team next season, but I will be even more shocked if the Yotes move anywhere else, tbqh.

 

[MoreOrr]

Something about all this still doesn't smell right to me. If they're talking about Key Arena, they're talking about a facility that can only hold something like 11,000 for hockey. On top of that, I'm just not seeing Bettman being alright with allowing a team to move in and play in an arena that the NBA specifically abandoned for not being up to snuff. Not to mention everything I and others have brought up on this board about how much further along the development process for a new arena that QC is over Seattle. Heck, even if Seattle got the Yotes, that's not to say that it'd be a guarantee of state and local fiscal support for a new arena.

There certainly seems to be some smoke coming out of Seattle as of late, but whether that's a sign of an actual fire or just a smoke screen, we'll have to wait and see. More leaning towards an easy way to ensure a higher purchase price for the Yotes from Quebecor and testing the waters in Seattle to see how the public would react to the potential of getting a team to better gauge their candidacy as a relocation or expansion target a few years down the line.

I believe that the NHL will see Seattle as worth the risk, whether it's a temporary home at the Key or the Tacoma Dome, with several people stepping up as potential owners, and at least the hope of a new arena within a few years. Take that risk and get an NHL team there before the NBA returns. If the League is thinking long-term rather than short-term, and sees the benefit of putting an established team in Seattle, competitive immediately, then that could establish a good advantage over the NBA. Whereas a team in Quebec City will flourish easily starting from Expansion scratch.

It's still 3 years away before the new Quebec City arena is planned to be finished. There is money in Seattle, and with the decision made (if it can be obtained), Seattle could also easily have a new arena as soon as 2016 (I believe it's possible.) There is tremendous upside here for the League, with the worst case scenario that a new arena doesn't ever get built in Seattle and the League needs to eventually move the team again. But to say that a new arena will never be built is just as unlikely... of course it will, the question is when and whether NHL owners in Seattle could make do until then.