THN: Coyotes to Seattle this Summer? UPD: Healy - Jul2 for COG, or it's Seattle

[Phil Parent]

QC is ready? I dont think so. Are they building the new arena yet?

If not they are in the same boat as Seattle.

See for yourself.

http://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/webcameras/amphitheatre/amphitheatre_ensemble.aspx

 

[GKJ]

QC is ready? I dont think so. Are they building the new arena yet?

If not they are in the same boat as Seattle.

Recall Bettman on record as claiming Le Colisee would be suitable until the new arena is built. No such thing for Seattle, although I think that's just a matter of logistics.

 

[The Korean*]

Recall Bettman on record as claiming Le Colisee would be suitable until the new arena is built. No such thing for Seattle, although I think that's just a matter of logistics.

It will be suitable as a temporary arena until new one is finished, thats why I am not putting QC over Seattle.

I think NHL prefers Seattle.

 

[GKJ]

It will be suitable as a temporary arena until new one is finished, thats why I am not putting QC over Seattle.

I think NHL prefers Seattle.

They obviously prefer Seattle because they know Quebec will shell out a bigger expansion fee. It would take more work for Seattle.

 

[MarkhamNHL]

It will be suitable as a temporary arena until new one is finished, thats why I am not putting QC over Seattle.

I think NHL prefers Seattle.

only because QC is worth more as expansion city than Seattle would ever be worth

 

[The Korean*]

They obviously prefer Seattle because they know Quebec will shell out a bigger expansion fee. It would take more work for Seattle.

And Seattle needs winning product more than QC.

 

[Ugmo]

And Seattle needs winning product more than QC.

Sounds like a great place to put a team then...

(For the record, I'm not questioning Seattle's viability. I'm ridiculing the argument that the league would base a relocation decision on which markets will only support a winner.)

 

[The Korean*]

^Its not that Seattle only support a winner but Seattle is a new market. Well technically not. But it would be better if Seattle got a winning team.

 

[Ugmo]

^Its not that Seattle only support a winner but Seattle is a new market. Well technically not. But it would be better if Seattle got a winning team.

Not that the league hasn't made dumb decisions before, but rushing the Coyotes to Seattle just because they'd be better than an expansion team rather than carefully laying the groundwork for a couple of years so that the team can get started on a solid foundation seems like it would be one of the NHL's more questionable moves.

 

[GordonGraham]

Are we even sure than the city of seattle will pay their part of the new arena if its for the NHL with no nba team?

 

[The Korean*]

Not that the league hasn't made dumb decisions before, but rushing the Coyotes to Seattle just because they'd be better than an expansion team rather than carefully laying the groundwork for a couple of years so that the team can get started on a solid foundation seems like it would be one of the NHL's more questionable moves.

You cant market the league and sell if the city doesnt have a team

 

[maruk14]

We can put the "Key Arena has no ice making system" to bed.

https://twitter.com/ChrisDaniels5/status/344988516796747776

 

[Free Edler]

I'm a Seattle backer. Hopefully they get a team this off-season if Phoenix has to move. QC will get their chance later. There are enough teams in Eastern timezones.

 

[LadyStanley]

Are we even sure than the city of seattle will pay their part of the new arena if its for the NHL with no nba team?

I think it's a matter of ***when*** there will be a NBA team in Seattle, not **IF**. Would not be surprised if Hansen and Seattle/King county have been told that off the record by Stern.

 

[Fugu]

Are we even sure than the city of seattle will pay their part of the new arena if its for the NHL with no nba team?

Yes.

 

[Eskie Jetski]

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2012/2/6/2774912/seattle-nhl-relocation-phoenix-coyotes-key-arena

Key Arena doesn't appear to be a great place to watch hockey; not even the Western Hockey League's Thunderbirds could handle playing there. If the scoreboard hangs over the blue-line and half the lower bowl has to be tarped off, potential new owners will inevitably have to prepare for huge financial losses for about two or three seasons.

 

[The Korean*]

Doesnt matter, its a temporary home.

 

[Blue Regime]

The NHL will want to move them to Seattle because they when the league expands in a few years, they will get more money off of expanding to Canada than the US. Seattle and QC will both end up with teams within the next 5 years, its inevitable.

 

[knorthern knight]

I don't see Phoenix in Seattle this fall. Every argument about Quebec not being ready this fall is multiplied 10 times when it comes to Seattle. The old Colisee in Quebec has the junior Quebec Remparts as its current tenant. Their AVERAGE ATTENDANCE this past season was 11,345 per game. They have some experience with handling large crowds, with the capacity being 15,176, slightly more than MTS Centre (Winnipeg Jets). Plus which the Colisee literally was an NHL rink as recently as 1995. And they have been upgrading it to current NHL standards the past couple of summers. Key Arena has at best 9,500 seats with an unobstructed view of an NHL-sized rink. And there is no new Seattle arena committed to, let alone being built, like in QC. Remember the reason the Coyotes are in this mess today...

• there was no prospect of a new arena in WInnipeg in the mid 1990's, so Jets 1.0 were slated to move to Minnesota
• arena plans there fell through, so the destination was hurriedly changed to US Airways Center in Phoenix, which sucked for hockey, and they ended up with a horrible lease similar to what they had at the old Winnipeg Arena
• There was a plan for an arena in Scottsdale (Los Arcos). If that had gone through, the Coyotes would probably be like Nashville or Columbus or Tampa today. But that fell through also.
• Then a new NHL arena was built out in the boonies in Glendale, which didn't help attendance. That takes us to where we are today.

With that history in mind, I don't think the NHL BOG would approve a franchise in Seattle without at least the promise of a new arena. Don't get me wrong. If Seattle/Hansen/whoever can guarantee a new arena, the NHL will approve a conditional NHL franchise in a heartbeat. But they've been burned before by going into a situation without a guaranteed arena, so they'll cover themselves this time.

Seattle's best hope is some Seattle billionaire teaming up with Hansen to run the new arena 50/50 with both NBA and NHL franchises. This has worked well for the Dallas Stars (NHL) and the Dallas Mavericks (NBA) at American Airlines Center

 

[Ernie]

A franchise in Seattle with a new stadium would be worth more than a Quebec City franchise would be. Seattle is a big, wealthy city with good demographics for the NHL. Could be worth as much as a $250m expansion fee.

The chance that Seattle owner emerges to plunk down $170m for a team without any guarantee of a new stadium to play in within the next two weeks is slim to none.

 

[rasarhdasd]

I can't see Seattle being more ready than Quebec. It would be forcing the issue, meanwhile Quebec City seems to be waiting for the call to get things going. If they move, it has to be Quebec. Seattle wants the NBA first.

 

[Brodie]

is it really an issue of readiness? Cleveland is more ready than either, the NHL just doesn't want to be there

 

[Fugu]

Seattle's best hope is some Seattle billionaire teaming up with Hansen to run the new arena 50/50 with both NBA and NHL franchises. This has worked well for the Dallas Stars (NHL) and the Dallas Mavericks (NBA) at American Airlines Center

Which is exactly what's going to happen. The city's name is coming up far too many times from too many sources, inclusive of the NHL execs' 'admitting' there are possibilities, for this to be dismissed.

is it really an issue of readiness? Cleveland is more ready than either, the NHL just doesn't want to be there

I think this is correct.

So is Kansas City. I don't think it's an issue of readiness at all. It's where the NHL wants to have a team coupled to where they can find a good longterm owner/arena situation.

 

[superdeluxe]

It can't be 2 years because it takes 2 or 3 years for the construction and nothing started or is planned to start anytime soon in the coming months...

The goal was about 19 months from shovel into ground to opening.

 

[Free Edler]

Which is exactly what's going to happen. The city's name is coming up far too many times from too many sources, inclusive of the NHL execs' 'admitting' there are possibilities, for this to be dismissed.




I think this is correct.

So is Kansas City. I don't think it's an issue of readiness at all. It's where the NHL wants to have a team coupled to where they can find a good longterm owner/arena situation.

Kansas City also has an arena that is very profitable without an anchor tenant. I reckon the NHL would love to put a team there if a potential owner was interested.