AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
Seattle is comparable to Buffalo, IMO.
Not even close. I think the Twin Cities comparison is spot on.
Seattle is comparable to Buffalo, IMO.
Seattle is comparable to Buffalo, IMO.
Much bigger, which will help, but also going to benefit a lot from being so close to Canada.
Non-Seattle person here coming in peace, with a question:
What $$ input is a new NHL owner in Seattle going to have to put into an Arena? .
1991, the League had 22 teams, 13 of which were ETZ, but in 1992 it expanded with 2 more ETZ teams
In 1993, the League added yet another ETZ team plus a PTZ team.
In 1995, the west gained 1 by the relocation of the Nordiques to Colorado...but still: 15-ETZ, 11-rest of the League.
By 1998, the rest/west gained one, but only to have the ETZ gain another in 1999.
Finally again, in 2000, the rest/west gets one but so does the ETZ.
In addition to all of that, during that period of time there had been a couple of failed bids made by Houston.
So, with all of that, I don't see a history of the League trying to establish some balance between the number of ETZ teams and non-ETZ teams.
And there's no guarantee that Portland, Houston, Kansas City or whichever is going to put forward a reasonable bid to get an expansion team.
Could the League be planning a Florida-style expansion?
1992 - Tampa
1993 - Florida
So as not to have two fresh expansion teams in the same Division in the same Season?
Although, I'd think that if the League is thinking to take that route, it would still do it a little less drastically, with perhaps a 2-year gap.
2015 - Seattle
2017 - Portland
Whatever they try, I still say 33 is better: Seattle, Quebec City, and Portland.
No putting words in my mouth...so the NHL's model of growth is to hope that anchor clubs are run soo poorly that teams that ARE being run poorly don't look so bad in comparison ? how long is that sustainable ? What's the alternative, more and more RS schemes that increasingly punish well run teams with no possibility of ever recouping this investment ?
You'll get no complaint from me, other than to say I don't think the NHL is predominately a gate-driven League anymore.An a lot of this " But quebec wont make new fans" argument seems to conveniently ignore the fact that the NHL is still ( and will likely be in the near future) predominantly a gate driven league. Are there currently NHL fans in QC ? sure, but except for a few road trips to long island I dont see them spending anywhere near what they would in the new collissee ( or whatever it is going to be called).
But it isn't the NHL's problem to penetrate these markets. The NHL awards a franchise, the franchise is then responsible for the growth, unless the team ends up back in the hands of the NHL: see four years of Coyotes ownership, two years of Stars bankruptcy, backstopping St. Louis while finding an owner, forwarding money to Devils to help them pay down their debt.Based on sheer population a self supporting team in Seattle could bring in a lot of new fans, but I am not convinced if they will bring in more revenue in the near to mid future. Winnipeg has already demonstrated that small markets can do well. And as nice as the idea is, the current NHL has shown a completely inability to penetrate many of these non traditional markets.
You know my feeling on the matter. Quebec deserves a team. I'm just tired of the argument that a self-sustaining anchor franchise is what's needed.This "pro-growth" approach, if left unfettered, has the real possibility to eventually alienate established markets and the notion that people in QC will always support the nhl even as they see less "deserving" cities as a real possibility.
Why don't you think Portland is good to pair with Seattle? I think that's the best possible pairing with Seattle.
I just don't know the situation in Portland.
Is there a rink ready or possible? How far is it from Seattle (have only been to the Pacific Northwest 3-4 times for hockey). I thought it was only 1-2 hours away? Is there an ownership group ready? Will that put too much of a strain on the Pacific Northwest with 2 new major league teams to go along with Trailblazers, Sounders, Seahawks, Mariners?
Basically, would the financials work in Seattle and Portland, particularly introducing them at the exact same time?
The Rose Garden seats 18,000 for hockey, it's closer to 3 hours away from Seattle, Paul Allen would obviously have to be the owner but if he's interested the NHL would approve him in a second. Portland has almost 3 million in its metro and it's growing fast. They already do a good job supporting the Winterhawks. Natural rivals with Seattle and Vancouver, balances out conferences. It just makes a ton of sense if Allen is interested.
Is Rose Garden a suitable rink (seating isn't everything). I do know nothing of the place, I am honestly asking.
I wouldn't say its 3 hours, I would say its 2 hours. Sure it shows 2 hours 48 minutes, but that is if you do the speed limit. I would say 2:15 or 2:30 is closer to the time frame.
Hi, I'm not fully knowledgeable in these things but I don't think Seattle is comparable to either Buffalo or St. Paul because of the weather and college hockey. Weather is what keeps Vancouver from putting out so disproportionately few players compared to other Canadian cities, no opportunities to play outside, and the college hockey scene in the Pacific Northwest is nothing like that in the midwest or upstate NY.
Maybe you could say more like St. Louis if not for the fact that they've already had a team there for 40 years.
3 hours is further than I thought, that makes sense (it's like Calgary and Edmonton who have 0 overlap).
Is Rose Garden a suitable rink (seating isn't everything). I do know nothing of the place, I am honestly asking.
No doubt Winterhawks are supported, I have absolute NO doubt about the interest of hockey in all of the Pacific Northwest.
Balancing out conferences is nothing to me, re-alignment is not the biggest deal, IMO.
I do agree, I think Paul Allen is the key. Since he owns the Trail Blazers (and the rink?) he really controls things.
Houston, Las Vegas will both even out conferences as well. Houston has had interest in NHL as recently as Portland (again that depends on Les Alexander, however Houston did have a group put an expansion put on a presentation in 2007). Could be another option. Vegas has a new rink being built right on the strip.
So all in all, I agree Portland could work, but right now I am just not sure whether Paul Allen is interested right now.
The Rose Garden seats 18,000 for hockey, it's closer to 3 hours away from Seattle, Paul Allen would obviously have to be the owner but if he's interested the NHL would approve him in a second. Portland has almost 3 million in its metro and it's growing fast. They already do a good job supporting the Winterhawks. Natural rivals with Seattle and Vancouver, balances out conferences. It just makes a ton of sense if Allen is interested.
I think it depends on the club. You choose Toronto... What about a team like LA, or Carolina? The gate likely covers at least 60% of most teams income.You'll get no complaint from me, other than to say I don't think the NHL is predominately a gate-driven League anymore.
If we assume Forbes' numbers are correct, the Leafs took in $200 million in revenue in 2012. However, if we assume a $2.2 million average game day revenue, that's an awful lot short of $200 million; it's even short of halfway, $100 million. At this point I have to assume TV and Sponsorships are a large part of the equation.
At this point, game-day tickets may be the largest revenue generator, but I don't think it is at 50 percent of revenues anymore.
Upon trying to realign in 2011, the Flyers adamantly opposed losing either Pittsburgh or the Rangers. <snip> It appears to me that the anchor teams are the anchor teams because they put themselves in a position to generate their revenue at a higher rate of growth than others in the League.
They won't go for an odd number of teams. If Quebec wants a team after Seattle and Portland it'd be relocation.