NHL to Seattle Volume XV - Moving the Expansion Needle [Upd: 9/24 Arena Reno. Unanimously Approved]

[Mayor Bee]

I'll give you Minnesota, he came out and said it was righting a wrong. Columbus though may be in the north but is not a traditional hockey market. They never saw pro hockey before and the state had seen some minor pro in Cincinnati, Toledo and the NHL Barons in Cleveland but that's it. I'm guessing you've never been to the state, it has a bigger Midwest market vibe than a northern market feel.

Are you serious? Columbus has had high-level pro hockey going back into the 1960s, and in the 1990s had an ECHL team that set every attendance and sellout record that existed. The only, and I mean only, reason that it was considered for NHL expansion is because of what that team did.

For Balsillie, he wasn't actively making bids like he had in 2006-08, but he was still in the picture. True North got the Thrashers because Atlanta couldn't find new local ownership to stop the bleeding

No, it's because ASG sabotaged their own team in order to sell for the purpose of relocation. Those clowns had to admit in court that they started actively trying to sell the Thrashers for relocation two days after acquiring them. And as the operator of Philips Arena, they simply evicted the team as soon as they could.

They never tried to make it work. They can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

 

[gstommylee]

There is no way they are going to take a lesser offer for expansion its either 650m or nothing.

 

[superdeluxe]

I didn't see this posted. Tuesday's with Tod with Tod Leiweke and Ted Ackerley.

Listen to the Softy & Dick Interviews Episode - Tuesdays with Tod Leiweke with guest Ted Ackerley on the latest on bringing the NHL to Seattle on iHeartRadio | iHeartRadio

 

[Melrose Munch]

There is no way they are going to take a lesser offer for expansion its either 650m or nothing.

Well see what the market says. The NHL is in no position to fling off cities.


~~~~~~~~~~~


The NHL needs to go to 34 teams. They need the TV coverage. Not even being in 2 of the top 10 TV markets is a problem.

 

[gstommylee]

Well see what the market says. The NHL is in no position to fling off cities.


~~~~~~~~~~~


The NHL needs to go to 34 teams. They need the TV coverage. Not even being in 2 of the top 10 TV markets is a problem.

And the NHL isn't going to expand more than 32 teams. They already have the tv coverage in canada adding quebec won't do squat for that. Houston owner already balked at 650m.

 

[Melrose Munch]

And the NHL isn't going to expand more than 32 teams. They already have the tv coverage in canada adding quebec won't do squat for that. Houston owner already balked at 650m.

You have no actual proof of that. The NHL is missing about 2 major markets even with seattle.

 

[BattleBorn]

You have no actual proof of that. The NHL is missing about 2 major markets even with seattle.

Definitely no proof. However, I agree that there's no more expansion until there's enough competition for 36. Just wondering which two you counted for conversation purposes.

Houston and Atlanta?

 

[gstommylee]

You have no actual proof of that. The NHL is missing about 2 major markets even with seattle.

And that still doesn't mean the NHL is expanding beyond 32 and gonna suddenly charge less than Seattle. Its now 650m for a team or more nothing else.

 

[gstommylee]

Monday council meeting key arena items is #1 #2 on the agenda

 

[Melrose Munch]

Definitely no proof. However, I agree that there's no more expansion until there's enough competition for 36. Just wondering which two you counted for conversation purposes.

Houston and Atlanta?

Yup.

And that still doesn't mean the NHL is expanding beyond 32 and gonna suddenly charge less than Seattle. Its not 650m for a team or more nothing else.

There is nothing say the NHL is going to stop at 32 teams. No official sources. And frankly they shouldn't

That being said, hoping for the best from seattle.

 

[gstommylee]

Yup.

There is nothing say the NHL is going to stop at 32 teams. No official sources. And frankly they shouldn't

That being said, hoping for the best from seattle.

They don't have any more markets that they can charge extremely high fees anymore. Seattle was the last.

 

[BattleBorn]

They don't have any more markets that they can charge extremely high fees anymore. Seattle was the last.

Today's extremely high fees are tomorrow's reasonable costs.

 

[Melrose Munch]

They don't have any more markets that they can charge extremely high fees anymore. Seattle was the last.

Today's extremely high fees are tomorrow's reasonable costs.

Exactly. I don't like it but the cost will keep going up. 650m may not be all that bad in 10 years.

 

[brewski420]

Although I think relocation is far more likely sometime in the future to Houston and Atlanta (two remaining large markets) definitive statements like never or the last cannot be proven or even really justified. Like has been stated $650M understandably seems high but so did $500M. Never say never is always the smart way to go.

 

[gstommylee]

Although I think relocation is far more likely sometime in the future to Houston and Atlanta (two remaining large markets) definitive statements like never or the last cannot be proven or even really justified. Like has been stated $650M understandably seems high but so did $500M. Never say never is always the smart way to go.

heres the thing expansion fee will always increase so what might be 650m today might be 800 to 900m 5 to 10 years from now.

 

[powerstuck]

And that still doesn't mean the NHL is expanding beyond 32 and gonna suddenly charge less than Seattle. Its now 650m for a team or more nothing else.

This close to Seattle expansion, sure 650M is the price, but even that price is speculative.

Melnyk in Ottawa is probably the next owner in line to sell a team. What if he cannot get 650M for the Sens ? If he gets around that or more, prices rise, if he gets less...prices cannot rise. At this point, it's all still speculative, even the 650M price tag for Seattle which will become official only, and only onde it is voted by BOG.

 

[Fenway]

I can't see another expansion after Seattle for a long time.

The NHL has to resolve issues with 3 teams right now before expanding again. Those teams are Arizona, Ottawa and Calgary.

Calgary will get done somehow - too valuable a market to walk away from.

Ottawa - I think you have to go back to the Cleveland Barons to find another NHL team that was in the shape Ottawa is right now. The Blackhawks of 15 years ago were a trainwreck as well and the owner had to die for things to change.

When the GM goes on national TV and reacts like this to an easy question



Arizona???? If a relocation to Houston does happen they are the most likely team to move.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Arizona???? If a relocation to Houston does happen they are the most likely team to move.

Don't hold your collective breath waiting for that, though, of course.

 

[Gm0ney]

This close to Seattle expansion, sure 650M is the price, but even that price is speculative.

Melnyk in Ottawa is probably the next owner in line to sell a team. What if he cannot get 650M for the Sens ? If he gets around that or more, prices rise, if he gets less...prices cannot rise. At this point, it's all still speculative, even the 650M price tag for Seattle which will become official only, and only onde it is voted by BOG.

Carolina, 2018, $420M
Vegas, 2016, $500M
Arizona, 2014-17, $305M?
NY Islanders, 2014, $485M?
Florida, 2013, $250M
New Jersey, 2013, $320M
St. Louis, 2012, $120M
Buffalo, 2011, $189M
Dallas, 2011, $240M
Atlanta, 2011, $110M
Tampa, 2010, $170M

 

[KevFu]

Carolina, 2018, $420M
Vegas, 2016, $500M
Arizona, 2014-17, $305M?
NY Islanders, 2014, $485M?
Florida, 2013, $250M
New Jersey, 2013, $320M
St. Louis, 2012, $120M
Buffalo, 2011, $189M
Dallas, 2011, $240M
Atlanta, 2011, $110M
Tampa, 2010, $170M

Two things to remember:

1. Sale prices vary widely based on the difference between “I want that property, what will it cost me to get it?” vs “I gotta get rid of this team, I’ll let it go if I can get at least this back.”

2. The differences is prices between existing franchise sales and expansion fees is due to debt/obligations of existing teams vs “fresh start” of an expansion team.


You buy St. Louis, you’re locked into the arena for the rest of the lease, you’re taking on the $70 million in debt the franchise carries, etc. That lowers the price compared to a sparkling brand new arena with no lease yet, and zero debt (the debt instantly becomes created with an expansion team, though. The Knights are at 42% compared to the Blues 16%).

 

[LadyStanley]

Duhatschek Notebook: The harsh realities of modern NHL...

Duhatschek notes that Seattle group will be presenting to BOG on 10/2, and likely to be voted on at December meeting. Also that timing of "start date" dependent on arena renovations AND state of labor negotiations. Suggests a few personnel options like Sean Burke and Ron Francis.

(paywall).

 

[Tawnos]

I can't see another expansion after Seattle for a long time.

The NHL has to resolve issues with 3 teams right now before expanding again. Those teams are Arizona, Ottawa and Calgary.

Calgary will get done somehow - too valuable a market to walk away from.

Ottawa - I think you have to go back to the Cleveland Barons to find another NHL team that was in the shape Ottawa is right now. The Blackhawks of 15 years ago were a trainwreck as well and the owner had to die for things to change.

Not for nothing, but prior to the Vegas expansion people said "I can't see expansion until the NHL resolves 3 issues: Arizona, Carolina and Florida." None of those were resolved before the NHL opened the expansion process. (Although Florida isn't the issue people think it is)

 

[Gm0ney]

Two things to remember:

1. Sale prices vary widely based on the difference between “I want that property, what will it cost me to get it?” vs “I gotta get rid of this team, I’ll let it go if I can get at least this back.”

2. The differences is prices between existing franchise sales and expansion fees is due to debt/obligations of existing teams vs “fresh start” of an expansion team.


You buy St. Louis, you’re locked into the arena for the rest of the lease, you’re taking on the $70 million in debt the franchise carries, etc. That lowers the price compared to a sparkling brand new arena with no lease yet, and zero debt (the debt instantly becomes created with an expansion team, though. The Knights are at 42% compared to the Blues 16%).

There are definitely going to be differences due to the circumstances, but the trend is pretty clear.

 

[DougieMellon]

Duhatschek notes that Seattle group will be presenting to BOG on 10/2, and likely to be voted on at December meeting.

They will be giving their presentation on the 2nd to the NHL executive, not the BOG. A partial BOG meeting will be held later that evening to hear from the committee and a vote will likely be held during the first week of December. When I spoke with the league last they hadn't released a specific date yet but expect it to be either the 7th or 8th.

Bylawas require a full vote from the BOG and that won't be happening (ASFIK) when they meet in New York. That of course can all change.

 

[Fenway]

Not for nothing, but prior to the Vegas expansion people said "I can't see expansion until the NHL resolves 3 issues: Arizona, Carolina and Florida." None of those were resolved before the NHL opened the expansion process. (Although Florida isn't the issue people think it is)

The major concern the NHL has in South Florida is local TV ratings are not good. When the numbers are broken down the eyeballs are in Broward and Palm Beach counties and Dade lags behind but the overall numbers are awful.

Once Seattle is approved they will be at 32 teams which gives them a nice balance between east and west. I can't see them going to 34.

The last expansion process was a sham - Bill Foley wanted a toy and was willing to pay $500 million for it and the BoG liked him.

Ottawa is the dumpster fire now and nobody knows what Melnyk is going to do.