You are completely 100% missing my point. If Paul Allen and a NHL group wanted a NHL team they would have gotten it. We are talking about relocation of the thrashers with a total price tag + relocation fee of 230m. 170m for team 60m for relocation fee I don't think that would been that huge of a problem for portland. Btw Seat capacity for hockey at Moda Center (portland arena) is 18,280 vs 15k for winnipeg. So my point stands if there were better options than winnipeg, they would have gone with the better choice but there wasn't thus the only choice was winnipeg.
Quebec still waiting patiently.
- Thread starter Dynamite Kid
- Start date
You are completely 100% missing my point. If Paul Allen and a NHL group wanted a NHL team they would have gotten it. We are talking about relocation of the thrashers with a total price tag + relocation fee of 230m. 170m for team 60m for relocation fee I don't think that would been that huge of a problem for portland. Btw Seat capacity for hockey at Moda Center (portland arena) is 18,280 vs 15k for winnipeg. So my point stands if there were better options than winnipeg, they would have gone with the better choice but there wasn't thus the only choice was winnipeg.
If the arena in Winnipeg was not financially viable Bettman would have said so by now. It has been 8 years already.
I was talking about when thrashers had to move back in 2011 not today. If there was a better option back in 2011, the thrashers would have relocated moved there instead but there wasn't a better option back then that's why they ended up in Winnipeg. The NHL had no choice but to accept winnipeg's 15k capacity arena.
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
TNSE built a 15k arena with the NHL in mind then spent years working towards an opportunity. They certainly didn't build it that big for the AHL Manitoba Moose.
Jus' sayin........
Jus' sayin........
I'm not so sure.
The NHL spent quite a bit of time with the ownership group that became True North before they became owners of an NHL franchise. Based on discovery during the Coyotes' bankruptcy saga, it appears that Bettman had met with Mark Chipman and company and wanted a team in Winnipeg. Although it appears that there was "no other option" to sell the Thrashers to anyone but TNSE, I'm in the belief that the next franchise ownership transfer and relocation was going to Winnipeg, period. After all, it's looking like there was an agreement in principle to sell the Coyotes to TNSE in 2009 during the Coyotes' bankruptcy until Glendale came up with the "extortion" money, the $25 million a year. Then the discussions were ongoing in 2011 to sell first the Coyotes, and then ultimately the Thrashers.
GuelphStormer
Registered User
your understanding of the situation is quite lacking, tommy. perhaps you should lean back, read, and try to learn more. there is nothing about the Jets2.0 that indicates the league dumped them there in lieu of a different, passable location. as others here have pointed out, TNSE was well prepared and had been working with the league for years prior to the thrashers being relocated. and having one of the richest men in the world as the new owner paved the way.
over the years, seattle has been one of the most disorganized efforts to enter the league and one can easily argue that the only reason it is even being considered is due to its time zone. sure, the market has potential but success is hardly guaranteed. indeed, given fast rising renovation costs, and the vagueness of ownership structure, it should come as no surprise that the league is probably more concerned about the viability of a team in seattle than it ever was about one in winnipeg.
edog37
Registered User
there is no such thing as "guaranteed success" in any business venture, but there are safe bets. Seattle will be fine...
Bonsai Tree
Turning a new leaf
- Feb 2, 2014
- 9,253
- 4,593
Given the discussions on this panel I wonder if the reason that there is no team in Quebec is that one or two (or three) teams in the general region are blocking any move to Quebec?
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
The most popular target in that tangent is Montreal.
Its literally politics,the rumored owner has ties with the separatist party in Quebec ...The league and Bettman have stated they dont want this brought into the league...
Mightygoose
Registered User
Palideau has been out of politics for 4 years even when he got in, Daly stated it's not a factor
As long as the cheques clear, no league would care. Montreal would be affected too and considering MLB has endorsed the market and is considering putting a team there part time, I don't think they're concerned either.
Actually It's known unofficially that Portland didn't want to pay the fees for the Thrashers. Think about it this way, if the Coyotes had moved back to Winnipeg 8 years ago where would the Thrashers be right now?
A very good question since the only place to play in Quebec in 2011 was the Colisee Pepsi, and the government had not committed yet to a new arena. In short, no one really knows.
The hang up for Quebec, as stated here, is:
1- NHL questioning the long term stability given how much the CDN $ moves
2- Whether an owner can afford the asking price and find partners, if necessary
3- There is no need to go to the region to develop continent-wide media rights
Pretty simple, really.
That's the thing reality is there wasn't really any interested out of Portland. It was more of a what if scenario had a better option been available back to the league in 2011 then i don't think thrasher would have ended up in winnipeg.
If another western team came in (Houston) Quebec could work. They don't Detroit/Toronto back in the west, and with good reason. All these questions could be asked of Ottawa or even Calgary. Especially ownership and stability. This all comes down to conference balance. They are not right there yet even with Seattle. They still have to fill out the west.
Not sure what you mean by conference balance and filling out the west. If you are referring to future expansion, then I agree. If you are speaking of the present situation, I disagree. Presently, I think the BOG is very satisfied with the conference balance and alignment. It's too bad that the West spans 3 time zone, but the 16 ETZ teams is a perfect situation because no one is at a disadvantage.
As to the rest of this:
Houston doesn't seem to be a possibility unless there is another arena, because Fertitta doesn't seem to want to pay the price.
Comparing Ottawa and/or Calgary to Quebec is a gine comparison if you were speaking of a NEW team in either market. But, we are not. Ottawa and Calgary have a team already.
Calgary's ownership situation has plenty of cash. They are negotiating for a new arena. Even though the CDN$ fluctuates, that market has shown itself to be a top-half revenue generator.
Ottawa has issues, as has been discussed quite a bit elsewhere on this board. Melnyk doesn't have much $$, and most of it is tied up in the team. His negotiating moves seem to suggest that he is trying to play his team ownership into something much more valuable, which you expect someone like that to do. In sum, it seems the Ottawa market might be fine with different ownership. Or, it may have the same struggles that we speak of toward Quebec. So, that is a good comparison.
In neither case does the BOG really have a way to dictate what happens. But, in the case of QC, they obviously do.
My 2 cents.
Why does everyone keep bringing attendance numbers? The jets have one of the highest ticket prices in the league. 15k at $100 a pop is much better than 18k at $60. Revenue matters more.
DowntownBooster
Registered User
Actually, the total was $170M. The franchise went for $110M + relocation fee of $60M.
DowntownBooster
Registered User
Hey, no problem. It's a figure that sticks in my mind. Winnipeg got in at a good price. The fee charged for expansion teams recently is astronomical by comparison.
voyageur
Hockey fanatic
- Jul 10, 2011
- 9,467
- 8,157
Right now you get the sense that Quebec is the safety valve if Ottawa ever goes bankrupt again. That arena is/was a disaster, never made any sense. It's not the field of dreams out there in the pasture. Ottawa has some rich folk who could invest, but politics in Ottawa have always been a bit backwards, it's not their money they spend. Florida is still a mystery once their lease expires. No one ever expects them to build a fan base like Tampa, or fill the rink.
In the West Houston makes a lot of sense, but with the Rockets being strong, that's a big shadow to play under, for a new entity that isn't football related. Taxes help in Texas, for profitability, but Houston is no slam dunk. I think the allure is the big picture, number of households, and really at this point now, how many more households in Houston are going to watch hockey over households in Phoenix. You get the sense that if the Suns ever vacated, the Coyotes would do a lot better in terms of popularity, back in a central location.
The one market that never gets discussed and it kind of surprises me is Kansas City. They have been used as a front for relocation. They have a potentially strong ownership group if the Hunts invest. They have a nice arena, without a major tenant. Across the state St. Louis puts up some of the best local TV numbers for U.S. hockey. And they seemed to enjoy their playoff run, passionately. Colorado is a profitable hockey market, and can manage a few losing seasons. The NBA would likely never go to K.C., with bigger markets to be had. Are they off the map?
Barclay Donaldson
Registered User
They were never truly on the map to start with. They were used by the Penguins Lemieux ownership group to hold the city hostage to get a brand new and free arena. Kansas City jumped the gun and was under the impression that it would be subject to immediate relocation or expansion by either the NBA or NHL, neither materialized. Louisville did the same thing with the KFC YUM! Center.
Bill Daly is on the record as saying he’s aware that they have an arena, but the market hasn’t submitted a bid for any team so they don’t even look at it further. If they dug down every rabbit hole with an arena and a rich guy, they wouldn’t get anything done. And the market would still have to pass the demographic and ownership tests. Lamar Hunt Jr. is also on record calling the $500 million expansion fee ridiculously big, I get the feeling he’s like Fertitta and recognizes the difference between market price and asset price. Link: https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id...ity-trying-stay-conversation-future-expansion
Viola is also investing in the team for the first time in the franchise’s history. The team has been horrific for almost its entire history, there’s been no investment from ownership, and it’s very poorly marketed. Quenneville, Panarin, and Bobrovsky could easily pull a Vegas and spark a landslide of interest.
Ted Hoffman
Done
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,289
- 8,719
Yes ...... and no. Revenue matters to the players, because the more revenue that exists the more money they can make. They're all for revenue maximization. There's a pretty decent argument that owners don't have an interest in maximizing revenue because it ultimately impacts small-revenue markets negatively by putting more pressure on them to spend money they don't have. Certainly if I'm an owner of a team in the lower half of revenues, I don't want to keep adding teams that generate [a lot] more revenue because then that drives the salary cap up and forces me to spend more money and reduces my chances to make a profit..
I've mentioned this before, but my feeling is that Quebec will never be considered as long as no private entity seeks ownership. The NHL would not want a relatively small local public corporation owning the team and having to publicize any financial details of the team and league to shareholders. If PKP could arrange a private ownership group not involving his company, the odds would increase greatly of getting a franchise.
Quebec is the new Hamilton.
Host city getting stroppy about the sweetheart deal a Team wants for a new stadium?
Shaddup or we're moving you to Quebec.
Ownership trying to get money out of the community and people are balking?
Pay up or we're moving you to Quebec.
