NHL in Seattle?

[MoreOrr]

I think the point here is that there's enough logic in the Seattle argument and enough logic in the QC argument to say "we have no ****ing clue what's actually going to happen."

No, we have "some clues", but no definite clue. But yes, that's about it.

 

[Tawnos]

Interesting! Hadn't known that the NHL was seriously considering Expansion at that time. Though I don't see the relevance to now, other than Quebec City is on the list now rather than Houston.

I don't think the NHL was considering expansion then. The feeling I get is that the NHL has continual meetings on prospective new locations, whether there's a team in trouble, expansion is on the table, or none of those are true.

 

[MoreOrr]

I don't think the NHL was considering expansion then. The feeling I get is that the NHL has continual meetings on prospective new locations, whether there's a team in trouble, expansion is on the table, or none of those are true.

Good point, but that again only means that the League is continual testing the waters to see what options exist.

Winnipeg didn't get the Thrashers until 2011, a lot changes in 4 years.

 

[Tawnos]

Good point, but that again only means that the League is continual testing the waters to see what options exist.

Winnipeg didn't get the Thrashers until 2011, a lot changes in 4 years.

No doubt. Although one of the things that TNSE seemed to have going for it was the relative lack of change (read: stability) that they showed during that time.

 

[MoreOrr]

No doubt. Although one of the things that TNSE seemed to have going for it was the relative lack of change (read: stability) that they showed during that time.

Yes, "stability" is an important thing. But I was referring to 5 cities showing interest in 2007, whereas I don't recall 5 cities showing interest in the Coyotes or Thrashers in 2010-11.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Not sure what was being reported in Winnipeg, but I don't recall there being a lot of cities being mentioned around here as showing interest in either the Thrashers or Coyotes last year. Sure, there's always been talk of KC having an arena, but really no one stepping up and saying they were hoping to bring the Coyotes or Thrashers there. Talk of Bruckheimer wanting to have an NHL team in Vegas, but again, nothing really mentioned about relocating the Coyotes or Thrashers there. And there was Ballsillie, we all know about his attempts, but that wasn't anything the League was promoting as an option.

And secondly, even if there were certain relocation destinations lightly mentioned, I certain don't recall anyone saying that Winnipeg wasn't the frontrunner... At least nothing other than conspiracy minded Canadians who believed that Bettman would never let it happen.

Portland. Allen was called. He said no.

 

[beenhereandthere]

8 Canadian teams = oversized CFL.

That's why I hope the Coyotes would move to Seattle (I'm very biased towards that, but I digress) before moving to Quebec City. Or any other major US market before Quebec. If Bettman chose Quebec 1st, just to recoup losses from Phoenix, as opposed to growing the game in the US, that would drive me bonkers. I actually love Quebec as a town and thought they should have got the Thrashers before Winnipeg did....but why not give them an expansion franchise, instead of a relocated one? I think they would be WAY more willing to put up with a 1974-75 Washington Capitals like team, than just about any US market would. Also, like many others have said, Bettman hopefully is smart enough to know that the NHL will have a lot better chance, in Seattle/Tacoma if they are the only winter sport while the bitterness from the NBA is still around. The Tacoma Dome could work for maybe 3 to 5 years and I don't think it's horrible for the NHL to move the Yotes to Seattle/Tacoma and give them a few years to come up with a permanment arena. MLB basically did that when they moved the Expos to Washington DC (granted DC came up with a stadium approval in just over 1 year after than move was announced). I'm sure the NHL would do very well in the Puget Sound area. There are 9 rinks within 1 hour of downtown Seattle and the city that got the highest ratings for the Cup Finals last year outside of New England? Seattle.
If Phoenix moved to Quebec City, that would just give the American haters one more reason to disrespect the sport and say that it's a "failure" in the US (even though 1 US market shouldn't speak for the whole country).

 

[dronald]

That's why I hope the Coyotes would move to Seattle (I'm very biased towards that, but I digress) before moving to Quebec City. Or any other major US market before Quebec. If Bettman chose Quebec 1st, just to recoup losses from Phoenix, as opposed to growing the game in the US, that would drive me bonkers. I actually love Quebec as a town and thought they should have got the Thrashers before Winnipeg did....but why not give them an expansion franchise, instead of a relocated one? I think they would be WAY more willing to put up with a 1974-75 Washington Capitals like team, than just about any US market would. Also, like many others have said, Bettman hopefully is smart enough to know that the NHL will have a lot better chance, in Seattle/Tacoma if they are the only winter sport while the bitterness from the NBA is still around. The Tacoma Dome could work for maybe 3 to 5 years and I don't think it's horrible for the NHL to move the Yotes to Seattle/Tacoma and give them a few years to come up with a permanment arena. MLB basically did that when they moved the Expos to Washington DC (granted DC came up with a stadium approval in just over 1 year after than move was announced). I'm sure the NHL would do very well in the Puget Sound area. There are 9 rinks within 1 hour of downtown Seattle and the city that got the highest ratings for the Cup Finals last year outside of New England? Seattle.
If Phoenix moved to Quebec City, that would just give the American haters one more reason to disrespect the sport and say that it's a "failure" in the US (even though 1 US market shouldn't speak for the whole country).

Welcome to HF.

It doesn't matter what people say, as long as in the end they're making more money. QC = More money than Seattle.

 

[matCH penalty]

but why not give them an expansion franchise, instead of a relocated one? I think they would be WAY more willing to put up with a 1974-75 Washington Capitals like team, than just about any US market would.

This sentiment continues to be ********. Quebec deserves a winning team just as much as a poor little American market with a few million in its media market. If Seattle's such a slam dunk, they can put up with an expansion team like a whole lot of other cities in the US did. Also, this league is such a financial mess that expansion should be far from anyone's mind.

 

[beenhereandthere]

Welcome to HF.

It doesn't matter what people say, as long as in the end they're making more money. QC = More money than Seattle.

I can even admit that, but look at it long term....
Free agents, save a few with ties to Quebec province, are going to want to play there....the Canadiens are even having a hard time getting free agents to play for them and there's of course a lot more English and lot more to do in Montreal.
WA has no state income tax....where a player playing in Quebec City would probably have 1/2 of his income taken out in taxes (at least).
I'm sure NHLers, particulary from Western Canada, would be very open to signing with a Seattle area team.
Even though more money could be made in Quebec City.....it's not to say that money would not be made in Seattle (at least once an arena is built). Even if they play in Tacoma temporarily, they most likely wouldn't lose as much $ as they would in Glendale.
Most of all, I know how smug Canadians get about this, but if you really want to be taken seriously was a major North American league, you need to grow the game in the US. Moving it to a small Canadian town? It seems different this year, in the US, losing even just 1 major city....2 in the span of 2 years....step backwards. Maybe forward for Canada, but there are more hockey fans in all of America (even if it's only 10-20% of the population) then there are in the whole country of Canada.
I'm sure NBC will throw a big time hissy fit, as well they should if the NHL moves Phoenix to Quebec without exploring ALL options in America (there are other towns, in addition to Seattle/Tacoma like Salt Lake City) first.

 

[beenhereandthere]

This sentiment continues to be ********. Quebec deserves a winning team just as much as a poor little American market with a few million in its media market. If Seattle's such a slam dunk, they can put up with an expansion team like a whole lot of other cities in the US did. Also, this league is such a financial mess that expansion should be far from anyone's mind.

I don't think so....I mean, do you think Atlanta would have moved (or Columbus looking like they very well could)...if they were in Quebec City? If they where in Quebec, even with their records, they probably would still have sellouts every night.
If Atlanta had a Stanley Cup win or a team like the Red Wings or Sharks, I'm sure they will still be there....
again, it's all about growing the game in the States, there's a better chance for survival in a US market with an established team.
I mean, do you think hockey would still be in Denver if they had a 74-75 Captials team at the start?

 

[MNNumbers]

That's why I hope the Coyotes would move to Seattle (I'm very biased towards that, but I digress) before moving to Quebec City. Or any other major US market before Quebec. If Bettman chose Quebec 1st, just to recoup losses from Phoenix, as opposed to growing the game in the US, that would drive me bonkers. I actually love Quebec as a town and thought they should have got the Thrashers before Winnipeg did....but why not give them an expansion franchise, instead of a relocated one? I think they would be WAY more willing to put up with a 1974-75 Washington Capitals like team, than just about any US market would. Also, like many others have said, Bettman hopefully is smart enough to know that the NHL will have a lot better chance, in Seattle/Tacoma if they are the only winter sport while the bitterness from the NBA is still around. The Tacoma Dome could work for maybe 3 to 5 years and I don't think it's horrible for the NHL to move the Yotes to Seattle/Tacoma and give them a few years to come up with a permanment arena. MLB basically did that when they moved the Expos to Washington DC (granted DC came up with a stadium approval in just over 1 year after than move was announced). I'm sure the NHL would do very well in the Puget Sound area. There are 9 rinks within 1 hour of downtown Seattle and the city that got the highest ratings for the Cup Finals last year outside of New England? Seattle.
If Phoenix moved to Quebec City, that would just give the American haters one more reason to disrespect the sport and say that it's a "failure" in the US (even though 1 US market shouldn't speak for the whole country).

Interesting post. Mostly because of the idea of the NHL arriving before the NBA. I was under the impression that any new arena idea that has actually been floated was for a dual purpose situation. If that happens, it doesn't seem to matter to me that NHL got there first, they will still be competing for attention, and perhaps on the losing end.

Am I wrong? Is there the possibility of an NHL first arena there?

 

[MNNumbers]

I don't think so....I mean, do you think Atlanta would have moved (or Columbus looking like they very well could)...if they were in Quebec City? If they where in Quebec, even with their records, they probably would still have sellouts every night.
If Atlanta had a Stanley Cup win or a team like the Red Wings or Sharks, I'm sure they will still be there....
again, it's all about growing the game in the States, there's a better chance for survival in a US market with an established team.
I mean, do you think hockey would still be in Denver if they had a 74-75 Captials team at the start?

And, another interesting post to me, for questions raised.
The main question: How do you 'grow the game?' It sounds like your answer here would go something like this: Put a team in a marginal market, but make it a good team. if the team has a nice playoff run, people will come to the games, and be hooked.

Now, I am no psychologist. However, this sounds like telling a kid, "Try some peas. You might like them." I am not sure it works. But, I could be wrong.

Does someone have a way of explaining what they think has been 'growth in the game' in another area, and how it happened?

I ask because I am obviously from Minnesota, and there is no need for such here. We had the Broten boys in Roseau walking through 18 inches of snow when they were 5 to get to an outdoor rink to play.

All for now.

 

[beenhereandthere]

Interesting post. Mostly because of the idea of the NHL arriving before the NBA. I was under the impression that any new arena idea that has actually been floated was for a dual purpose situation. If that happens, it doesn't seem to matter to me that NHL got there first, they will still be competing for attention, and perhaps on the losing end.

Am I wrong? Is there the possibility of an NHL first arena there?

Would probably go hand in hand, especially if the Hornets are still owned by the NBA. Whatever Seattle arena is built will have enough seats for both, I think that was a serious mistake with Key Arena and I don't see how the city let the Akerley's (former owners of the Sonics) get away with that.
There's still a lot of bitterness over the NBA around here and that's why Bettman better wake up, play at least 1 season here before the NBA gets back in town (even if it's in Tacoma) and move Phoenix here.
Even though if push comes to shove and there is both here, I'm sure the NHL would still do well (even though not as well), since, you'd have a good number of Canadians coming for games, since tickets would be (assumingly) easier to get and cheaper than Canucks tickets.

 

[dronald]

I can even admit that, but look at it long term....
Free agents, save a few with ties to Quebec province, are going to want to play there....the Canadiens are even having a hard time getting free agents to play for them and there's of course a lot more English and lot more to do in Montreal.

The, "Players don't want to play here" debate was put to rest after Winnipeg got a team. Trust me, it was a constant arguement against Winnipeg and because of the massive fan reception no one seems to mind playing in a winter wonderland. The same will go for players in a French speaking city, if they are treated like gods they'll be fine with it.

I'm sure NHLers, particulary from Western Canada, would be very open to signing with a Seattle area team.

I wouldn't doubt it, but this is irrelevant.

Even though more money could be made in Quebec City.....it's not to say that money would not be made in Seattle (at least once an arena is built). Even if they play in Tacoma temporarily, they most likely wouldn't lose as much $ as they would in Glendale.

Your arguement ends at the first sentence; the NHL is going to go where the most money is.

Most of all, I know how smug Canadians get about this, but if you really want to be taken seriously was a major North American league, you need to grow the game in the US.

We care less about this then how little people in Manchester care what people in the States think about Soccer.

Moving it to a small Canadian town? It seems different this year, in the US, losing even just 1 major city....2 in the span of 2 years....step backwards. Maybe forward for Canada, but there are more hockey fans in all of America (even if it's only 10-20% of the population) then there are in the whole country of Canada.

Nope.

 

[beenhereandthere]

And, another interesting post to me, for questions raised.
The main question: How do you 'grow the game?' It sounds like your answer here would go something like this: Put a team in a marginal market, but make it a good team. if the team has a nice playoff run, people will come to the games, and be hooked.

Now, I am no psychologist. However, this sounds like telling a kid, "Try some peas. You might like them." I am not sure it works. But, I could be wrong.

Does someone have a way of explaining what they think has been 'growth in the game' in another area, and how it happened?

I ask because I am obviously from Minnesota, and there is no need for such here. We had the Broten boys in Roseau walking through 18 inches of snow when they were 5 to get to an outdoor rink to play.

All for now.

Just do some research and your question can easily be answered. The Dallas Metroplex (even though that was an owners choice and not they weren't owned by the league) is the best example of your "try some peas" point.

 

[beenhereandthere]

Moving it to a small Canadian town? It seems different this year, in the US, losing even just 1 major city....2 in the span of 2 years....step backwards. Maybe forward for Canada, but there are more hockey fans in all of America (even if it's only 10-20% of the population) then there are in the whole country of Canada.

Nope.



Trust me, again, even if it's only 10% to 15% of the population and I'm counting casual fans.....for sure there are more hockey fans in the USA then there are in all of Canada (a nation that has less people than 1 state in the USA).
Now if you're talking live and die hockey fans.....you could be right about Canada having more rabid hockey fans.....but don't assume that everyone in Canada loves hockey either......hard to believe, but true...lol.
And just for another lol.....the Soul of Canada is hockey of course...but the official National Game is .....Lacrosse.
also the sport played by more Canadians than any other (talking both men/women) is soccer, not hockey.

 

[Confucius]

We care less about this then how little people in Manchester care what people in the States think about Soccer.

This! I don't give a crap about growing the game, until the game is as available to me as say the people in St. Louis, New Jersey, Florida, Columbus etc..

 

[matCH penalty]

You're sending two messages here, and making a gigantic assumption that is not universal. First, the assumption:

again, it's all about growing the game in the States,

No, it isn't. It's about running a business that makes money. If the collective owners that make decisions for the league cared so much about "growing the game", they'd have no problem continuing to throw money into the never-ending incinerator that is Glendale, Arizona, and Seattle wouldn't even be thinking about getting that franchise. If Seattle gets the Coyotes it will be because someone with a very large bank account was willing to be charged hundreds of millions of dollars for the privilege of enduring potentially decades of losses trying make it work, not because of a nebulous quasi-philanthropic platitude.

Next, the mixed messages.

but there are more hockey fans in all of America (even if it's only 10-20% of the population) then there are in the whole country of Canada.

and

I think they would be WAY more willing to put up with a 1974-75 Washington Capitals like team, than just about any US market would.

Either the US hockey consumer base is so massive and dedicated that it deserves a team just as much as guaranteed successes like Quebec City and Winnipeg and thus won't have any problem making a textbook feel-good story out of any team they get, or they're fickle and in need of coddling to spend money on it. You can't have it both ways.

do you think Atlanta would have moved (or Columbus looking like they very well could)

if they were in Quebec City? If they where in Quebec, even with their records, they probably would still have sellouts every night.

If Atlanta had a Stanley Cup win or a team like the Red Wings or Sharks, I'm sure they will still be there

There's a better chance for survival in a US market with an established team.

Do you think hockey would still be in Denver if they had a 74-75 Captials team at the start?

And? If you're trying to argue that American markets should get stronger teams because the markets can't tolerate building a winner, you're already condemning them as weak and hazardous. You're also implying that Canadians are sheep ripe for the fleecing, silly dupes who'll happily pay the league's highest ticket prices to watch garbage hockey and fund teams in the States that can't afford to operate on their own merit. And you call us smug?

 

[Shawa666]

Moving it to a small Canadian town? It seems different this year, in the US, losing even just 1 major city....2 in the span of 2 years....step backwards. Maybe forward for Canada, but there are more hockey fans in all of America (even if it's only 10-20% of the population) then there are in the whole country of Canada.

Nope.



Trust me, again, even if it's only 10% to 15% of the population and I'm counting casual fans.....for sure there are more hockey fans in the USA then there are in all of Canada (a nation that has less people than 1 state in the USA).
Now if you're talking live and die hockey fans.....you could be right about Canada having more rabid hockey fans.....but don't assume that everyone in Canada loves hockey either......hard to believe, but true...lol.

That's not what the TV ratings are saying.

 

[beenhereandthere]

The, "Players don't want to play here" debate was put to rest after Winnipeg got a team. Trust me, it was a constant arguement against Winnipeg and because of the massive fan reception no one seems to mind playing in a winter wonderland. The same will go for players in a French speaking city, if they are treated like gods they'll be fine with it.


I wouldn't doubt it, but this is irrelevant.

Your arguement ends at the first sentence; the NHL is going to go where the most money is.

We care less about this then how little people in Manchester care what people in the States think about Soccer.


The UK or any of it's leagues there, isn't dependent on the US for soccer related revenue.
The NHL is vry dependent on the US for at least 1/2 if it's revenue.
So Canada better care.
I'm sure players do care about how their sport is preceived in the US too.....
how do you think the league was able to pull off the NBC contract which means.....
more $ that go towards players salaries

 

[Confucius]

And? If you're trying to argue that American markets should get stronger teams because the markets can't tolerate building a winner, you're already condemning them as weak and hazardous. You're also implying that Canadians are sheep ripe for the fleecing, silly dupes who'll happily pay the league's highest ticket prices to watch garbage hockey and fund teams in the States that can't afford to operate on their own merit. And you call us smug?

We're on a roll, finally alot of truth being aired.!

 

[saskriders]

The, "Players don't want to play here" debate was put to rest after Winnipeg got a team. Trust me, it was a constant arguement against Winnipeg and because of the massive fan reception no one seems to mind playing in a winter wonderland. The same will go for players in a French speaking city, if they are treated like gods they'll be fine with it.


I wouldn't doubt it, but this is irrelevant.

Your arguement ends at the first sentence; the NHL is going to go where the most money is.

We care less about this then how little people in Manchester care what people in the States think about Soccer.


The UK or any of it's leagues there, isn't dependent on the US for soccer related revenue.
The NHL is vry dependent on the US for at least 1/2 if it's revenue.
So Canada better care.
I'm sure players do care about how their sport is preceived in the US too.....
how do you think the league was able to pull off the NBC contract which means.....
more $ that go towards players salaries

I'm sure most Canadians do care about US teams, and most would support a Seattle team (although they would want a QC team first), but they care about New York, Philadelphia, Minnesota, and Washington. Not Phoenix, Florida, and Dallas. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if there was more Hartford support then Phoenix support in Canada. Yeah, the US does half the revenue, but they have more then three times the teams. How much potential revenue is lost by the teams south of St. Louis

 

[beenhereandthere]

That's not what the VT ratings are saying.

TV ratings....are irrevelant, at least with the point you're trying to make.
TV ratings in the US, in the Northern Tier, while not as good as HNIC or whatever, are still ok...what drags the ratings down are the Southern markets....so lets just say that you count the Midwest and the Northeast only and 1/3rd of those are casual fans....that's still what.....about 120 million people.....1/3 of that is 40 million....Canada doesn't have 40 million people...
not to derail the thread...but while I acknowledge that there may be more die hard hockey fans in Canada, again may be and 80-90% of the people are hockey fans, vs. 10%-15%, that's not accurate to say that there are more at least casual and above hockey fans in Canada then there are in the US.

 

[dronald]

The UK or any of it's leagues there, isn't dependent on the US for soccer related revenue.

Wasn't my point, I'm just saying us Canadian fans don't give a ****

The NHL is vry dependent on the US for at least 1/2 if it's revenue.
So Canada better care.

No one is argueing that the Rangers, Flyers, Bruins, etc, should move. You're ignoring the fact that they can keep franchises that are doing well, and add franchises to cities that will also do well.

I'm sure players do care about how their sport is preceived in the US too.....
how do you think the league was able to pull off the NBC contract which means.....
more $ that go towards players salaries

The players will make more money if the owners make more money, we're discussing a team moving to either Seattle or QC. When you compare the two, now that the NHL has a nice new TV deal they can move to QC and everything would be cool. (No one watches in Phoenix, and not as many would watch in Seattle than QC.) Again, your arguement is beat by pure money.

More people watch Hockey in Canada, and more people sign up for Hockey in Canada.