NHL in Seattle?

Status
Not open for further replies.

dronald

Registered User
Mar 4, 2011
1,171
0
Hamilton, ON
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

Yeah, I agree. I just assumed it was implied in my previous posts.

When I'm speaking of America and how they don't deserve some teams, I'm obviously only talking about the strugling franchises and they should move to Canadian cities first.
 

beenhereandthere

Registered User
Jan 30, 2012
728
13
Evergray State
From Match:

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



My reply....isn't that what you're doing in Edmonton already and almost doing in Winnipeg and Calgary?
 

dronald

Registered User
Mar 4, 2011
1,171
0
Hamilton, ON
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....

With arguements like this, who needs counter arguements?
 

matCH penalty

Registered User
May 25, 2011
1,077
0
My reply....isn't that what you're doing in Edmonton already and almost doing in Winnipeg and Calgary?

This is coming close to intentionally misinterpreting my words. In case it's accidental, I'll clarify: I was very clearly talking about the five to ten year struggles that come with a recently expanded franchise, not bad luck or mismanagement. Calgary, Edmonton, and Winnipeg are not recently expanded franchises.

This'll be my last response, as I have no desire to junk up the Seattle thread with a bunch of walls of text.
 

Shawa666

Registered User
May 25, 2010
1,602
3
Québec, Qc, Ca
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.

TV ratings are extremely relevant, they give us a reliable measure of whare and how many people interested in the sport there is.

IT's also how broadcasters evaluate how to pay the league for the rights. Did you know that the annual canadian National tv contracts net the league around 150-190M$ depending on the estimates? So if we go by the logic that fandom is directly proportional to total population, The United states contract should be between 1.3G$ to 1.7G$

That's right Canadian broadcasters pay between 4.18$ to 5.46$ for every canadian citizen (not viewer, citizen).

OTOH, NBC pays 0.63$ per US Citizen.

Checkmate.
 

Kitsune

Registered User
Feb 20, 2003
742
3
Toronto ON CA
www.glidingeagle.com
TV ratings are extremely relevant, they give us a reliable measure of whare and how many people interested in the sport there is.

IT's also how broadcasters evaluate how to pay the league for the rights. Did you know that the annual canadian National tv contracts net the league around 150-190M$ depending on the estimates? So if we go by the logic that fandom is directly proportional to total population, The United states contract should be between 1.3G$ to 1.7G$

That's right Canadian broadcasters pay between 4.18$ to 5.46$ for every canadian citizen (not viewer, citizen).

OTOH, NBC pays 0.63$ per US Citizen.

Checkmate.

Really? Huh ... the NFL in the states makes 3.58 per citizen at most in there new contract... so the NHL is worth more in Canada then it is in the States... interesting.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Really? Huh ... the NFL in the states makes 3.58 per citizen at most in there new contract... so the NHL is worth more in Canada then it is in the States... interesting.

Uhh no. The current NFL national deals with Fox/NBC/ESPN/CBS/DirecTV(Sunday Ticket) are ~$4B/year - $12.82 per person - and that number is going up with the NBC/CBS/FOX extensions that start next season (I haven't seen any solid numbers, only that they are an increase over the current deals and increase at 6-7% per year) and the ESPN extension which kicks in in 2013 ($1.1B/yr -> $1.9B/yr).
 

beenhereandthere

Registered User
Jan 30, 2012
728
13
Evergray State
TV ratings are extremely relevant, they give us a reliable measure of whare and how many people interested in the sport there is.

IT's also how broadcasters evaluate how to pay the league for the rights. Did you know that the annual canadian National tv contracts net the league around 150-190M$ depending on the estimates? So if we go by the logic that fandom is directly proportional to total population, The United states contract should be between 1.3G$ to 1.7G$

That's right Canadian broadcasters pay between 4.18$ to 5.46$ for every canadian citizen (not viewer, citizen).

OTOH, NBC pays 0.63$ per US Citizen.

Checkmate.


NBC's number would be about the same per citizen, if America had only 36 million citizens as well...:shakehead
 

JawandaPuck

Lost Art of Dynasty
Apr 10, 2007
4,541
24
Vancouver BC
jawandapuck.blogspot.com
We have a motivated Seattle Mayor and a motivated Arena Developer...

The Seattle Times, January 13, 2012:

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn signed a $19,500-per-month contract in July with sports-facilities consultant Carl Hirsh to advise the city on the development of a new sports facility that could draw an NBA team back to town.

Hirsh said many pieces remain to be put together to make a new arena work in Seattle. And he reiterated what the mayor and council members have said, that there is no firm proposal. But he said the developer is very motivated (Chris Hansen).

"Do I think it will be easy? No. Do I think we can put together a deal? Yes."

A deal also might help resurrect the political fortunes of McGinn, who in August lost the fight over the waterfront tunnel, which he stridently opposed, and suffered defeat of a proposed $60 vehicle-license fee, which he favored.

Christian Sinderman, a political consultant, said that while the number of people who want professional basketball returned to Seattle is high, the number who think it's essential is low.

Building a new arena and bringing a team back "is not a political game-changer," Sinderman said.

But he did acknowledge that if an arena got built under terms favorable to the city, "It could show that this mayor is capable of cutting a deal and delivering."
 

CBCnutcase

Registered User
Sep 11, 2007
1,849
1
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.
Hopefully, Portland is in the possibilities list 5 years from now.
 

CBCnutcase

Registered User
Sep 11, 2007
1,849
1
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.
You're right the Key Arena is too small and outdated. That is why Portland has to be mentioned again. I know Paul Allen is not interested in owning the team but the Rose Garden is ready to go.
 

Kimota

ROY DU NORD!!!
Nov 4, 2005
39,195
14,070
Les Plaines D'Abraham
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).

The growing the game thing by going to non-hockey markets have proved to be a myth. Why do this and break your face in 5 years instead of going to a place where you will actually make money? With an owner in Quebecor that will use a new hockey team to grow its media empire and use the money to generate of profits for the NHL? The NHL have a goldmine waiting with Quebecor, they shouldn't be jerking Quebecor around because if this would happens and Quebecor leaves the table, then Bettman would be out of a job.
 

JawandaPuck

Lost Art of Dynasty
Apr 10, 2007
4,541
24
Vancouver BC
jawandapuck.blogspot.com
To make the arena profitable, it will require both the NBA and the NHL...

Le Soliel, January 30, 2012:

"Our efforts are serious. There are several private groups are competing to build an arena, and what motivates them at the base is an NHL franchise," said an influential person working with the group to give Seattle franchises for both the NBA and the NHL. In order not to undermine the efforts of investors, this insider of the Seattle sports scene prefers to remain anonymous.

But on the West Coast, the NHL is not a consolation prize for the NBA. "This is a very attractive market, there is a beautiful story of hockey here. We have many links to and rivalry with Vancouver. And we have an incredible number of billionaires in the region who are willing to support professional teams," says the businessman, who now devotes much of his energy to drive this. "The desire of the business community is to have two sports: basketball and hockey. The two go together."

"I am aware of the involvement of several investors. This is very serious," says Craig Kinzer, a well known property developer in the region and former president of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce. "For our investors, it is natural to aim for the NBA and the NHL... To be profitable here, it takes all three (NBA, NHL and arena)." Investors feel in recent months that all of these conditions could be met shortly, the businessman concludes.
 

knorthern knight

Registered User
Mar 18, 2011
4,120
0
GTA
But on the West Coast, the NHL is not a consolation prize for the NBA. "This is a very attractive market, there is a beautiful story of hockey here. We have many links to and rivalry with Vancouver. And we have an incredible number of billionaires in the region who are willing to support professional teams," says the businessman, who now devotes much of his energy to drive this. "The desire of the business community is to have two sports: basketball and hockey. The two go together."

"I am aware of the involvement of several investors. This is very serious," says Craig Kinzer, a well known property developer in the region and former president of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce. "For our investors, it is natural to aim for the NBA and the NHL... To be profitable here, it takes all three (NBA, NHL and arena)." Investors feel in recent months that all of these conditions could be met shortly, the businessman concludes.[/I][/INDENT]
One thing about billionaires... they are the cheapest ***s on the planet. They could easily afford to build an NHL+NBA arena out of their own pockets, but they'll go begging cap in hand to the city/county/state.

I still think the best strategy is a dual-pronged approach
  1. Give Quebec the Coyotes NOW, i.e. the 2012-2013 season
  2. Promise Seattle a team for the 2015-2016 season... PROVIDING THEY HAVE A NEW ARENA
The Islanders are in trouble re no place to play. How is the city's purchase coming along of the arena the Blue Jackets are playing in? New Jersey has some problems. Assumimg that all 3 teams have solved their problems, and nothing new shows up out of nowhere like Atlanta, then the NHL can award an expansion team. Otherwise, the NHL has a crash-pad for one franchise in trouble. This will provide just as much incentive for governments to put up an arena as a team this October.
 

htpwn

Registered User
Nov 4, 2009
20,530
2,607
Toronto
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.

This "growing the game" argument is getting old and really, the only people who come off smug are the ones who use it. All it is saying is "We are more important than you, because we have a larger population."

Let's presume three new NHL teams (two expansion teams and a relocated Phoenix), one each to Quebec City, Seattle, and Southern Ontario (Markham/Hamilton/Mississauga/North York). That would equal 9 teams in Canada, but a whopping 23 in the United States. I repeat, 23 teams. Lots of room to grow the game and have 9 NHL clubs in Canada.

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.

The National game of Canada is both hockey and lacrosse. Are you really going to try to argue hockey's following in Canada?

We have a motivated Seattle Mayor and a motivated Arena Developer...

The Seattle Times, January 13, 2012:

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn signed a $19,500-per-month contract in July with sports-facilities consultant Carl Hirsh to advise the city on the development of a new sports facility that could draw an NBA team back to town.

Hirsh said many pieces remain to be put together to make a new arena work in Seattle. And he reiterated what the mayor and council members have said, that there is no firm proposal. But he said the developer is very motivated (Chris Hansen).

"Do I think it will be easy? No. Do I think we can put together a deal? Yes."

A deal also might help resurrect the political fortunes of McGinn, who in August lost the fight over the waterfront tunnel, which he stridently opposed, and suffered defeat of a proposed $60 vehicle-license fee, which he favored.

Christian Sinderman, a political consultant, said that while the number of people who want professional basketball returned to Seattle is high, the number who think it's essential is low.

Building a new arena and bringing a team back "is not a political game-changer," Sinderman said.

But he did acknowledge that if an arena got built under terms favorable to the city, "It could show that this mayor is capable of cutting a deal and delivering."

You miss these points?

"It would have been nice to know about it sooner, even though I understand they don't have a firm proposal," said Councilmember Sally Clark.

McGinn reiterated that the city has not received a concrete proposal. If it does, he said, "consulting with the City Council will be my first step in moving forward."

"We know that the Sonics left an empty arena. How do you convince the city to support a new arena given what they know about taxpayers being left holding the mortgage?" Clark asked.

Hirsh estimated it would cost $400 million to build a new arena, although the NBA's New Jersey Nets will spend $800 million on one in Brooklyn. A large portion of that was the cost of land, Hirsh said.
 

No Fun Shogun

34-38-61-10-13-15
May 1, 2011
56,097
12,757
Illinois
Hopefully, Portland is in the possibilities list 5 years from now.

Perhaps, though if memory serves the owner of the Trail Blazers has more or less said that he's not interested as of late.

And, truth be told, not sure if Portland's large enough for an NHL team and an NBA team right now. There's only so much recreation money that can be split in a market, and supporting two teams that operate simultaneously with near complete overlap in season and postseason structure is actually a big task. They would be, by far, the smallest market with both an NBA and an NHL team, after all (next smallest would be Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul, whose metro areas have almost 800K and 1.4 million more people respectively than Portland's).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_and_Canadian_cities_by_number_of_major_professional_sports_franchises

Prior to the Beavers being kicked out of town, was making the argument that Portland would probably be better served as trying to land an MLB team instead, even though they cost more to operate and support, just because the overlap between the MLB and NBA seasons are much smaller.
 

castle

Registered User
Dec 2, 2011
2,253
881
Australia
I have trouble buying the $400 million cost. The $800 just seems silly, although I guess land might be worth a small fortune. The total cost of the MTS Centre in Winnipeg was only 133.5. Add in the NHL required renos and maybe you've hit 150. With a generous inflation factor call it 175.

I know it's smallish at 15k seating, but even adding 3-5 thousand more at the top of the arena, the $400 always being tossed out there seems like just going for style points. not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Could it be that when the arena is built with almost all private money (like MTS centre) there's a little more attention paid to revenue generators versus frivolous expense?
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
This "growing the game" argument is getting old and really, the only people who come off smug are the ones who use it. All it is saying is "We are more important than you, because we have a larger population."

Let's presume three new NHL teams (two expansion teams and a relocated Phoenix), one each to Quebec City, Seattle, and Southern Ontario (Markham/Hamilton/Mississauga/North York). That would equal 9 teams in Canada, but a whopping 23 in the United States. I repeat, 23 teams. Lots of room to grow the game and have 9 NHL clubs in Canada.



The National game of Canada is both hockey and lacrosse. Are you really going to try to argue hockey's following in Canada?



You miss these points?
Or how about this arguement. How does it benefit you and Dronald personally to have more teams in Canada. What do the Leafs or Habs gain from dividing up their markets? Probably nothing. ROC does not like Toronto at all. They won't hate the Leafs less.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
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.
And when was the last time a big Canadian team got a major free agent. I posted an article here about this last year. The only free agent attractions have been Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Mike Nylander didn't even want to play in Edmonton, and tabellini's state of the oilers 2010 addressed this very issue.
 

matCH penalty

Registered User
May 25, 2011
1,077
0
Or how about this arguement. How does it benefit you and Dronald personally to have more teams in Canada. What do the Leafs or Habs gain from dividing up their markets? Probably nothing.

If it means subtracting a huge money pit like Phoenix and replacing it with a solid Winnipeg-style market, it might mean higher average revenues and maybe a higher cap.

And of course a higher cap might mean more space to sign useless washed up veterans and defencemen with broken joints, and/or offer sheeting Stamkos. :sarcasm:
 

dronald

Registered User
Mar 4, 2011
1,171
0
Hamilton, ON
Or how about this arguement. How does it benefit you and Dronald personally to have more teams in Canada. What do the Leafs or Habs gain from dividing up their markets? Probably nothing. ROC does not like Toronto at all. They won't hate the Leafs less.

Your first point: I would be able to buy season tickets and make every game. Hockey would officially be affordable to watch live for me and others in the surrounding gta.

As for your second point, individually the Leafs gain nothing. They would lose a few fans but not enough to damage them. This is irrelevant however because the 29 other owners would make money off a new team in Hamilton. The Leafs would make some bucks too.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
If it means subtracting a huge money pit like Phoenix and replacing it with a solid Winnipeg-style market, it might mean higher average revenues and maybe a higher cap.

And of course a higher cap might mean more space to sign useless washed up veterans and defencemen with broken joints, and/or offer sheeting Stamkos. :sarcasm:
In the current system that is a bad thing. They wider the floor and limit are on the cap, the more teams in trouble.

Your first point: I would be able to buy season tickets and make every game. Hockey would officially be affordable to watch live for me and others in the surrounding gta.

As for your second point, individually the Leafs gain nothing. They would lose a few fans but not enough to damage them. This is irrelevant however because the 29 other owners would make money off a new team in Hamilton. The Leafs would make some bucks too.
You can go to Leafs games now. 40 dollars to be up there. In you think tickets will be cheaper here in town or North York or Markham you will be in for a rude awakening if the Leafs ever do let go of Hamilton.
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
Another possibly important point in the Seattle vs Quebec City might be... Will League think it 'needs' an immediate money-maker, or will it think that it simply needs to bail itself out of the bad situation in Phoenix?

And would Seattle be losing money if it has to do with an sub-par arena for a period of time? Or could it at least break even under such a scenario until a new facility would be up and ready?
 

beenhereandthere

Registered User
Jan 30, 2012
728
13
Evergray State
One thing about billionaires... they are the cheapest ***s on the planet. They could easily afford to build an NHL+NBA arena out of their own pockets, but they'll go begging cap in hand to the city/county/state.

I still think the best strategy is a dual-pronged approach
  1. Give Quebec the Coyotes NOW, i.e. the 2012-2013 season
  2. Promise Seattle a team for the 2015-2016 season... PROVIDING THEY HAVE A NEW ARENA
The Islanders are in trouble re no place to play. How is the city's purchase coming along of the arena the Blue Jackets are playing in? New Jersey has some problems. Assumimg that all 3 teams have solved their problems, and nothing new shows up out of nowhere like Atlanta, then the NHL can award an expansion team. Otherwise, the NHL has a crash-pad for one franchise in trouble. This will provide just as much incentive for governments to put up an arena as a team this October.


I'm not against, flip flopping this....
Give Seattle the Yotes for next year (playing in Tacoma temporarily) and then give Quebec a new team in 2015, or the Seattle franchise in 2015, if there's no arena plan by the end of 2014 there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->