THN: Coyotes to Seattle this Summer? UPD: Healy - Jul2 for COG, or it's Seattle
- Thread starter superdeluxe
- Start date
- Status
I think it's as simple as this... the NHL sees a small city in an overwhelmingly Francophone region, in a province which already has a team, with a small corporate base and which would require another contentious realignment battle but with all of the pieces in place. And then they see a major American city with a massive corporate base that feels a huge gap on the league map and requires no realignment but with a bit of work required.
I think as far as they're concerned, the latter would be more worth the risk (Quebec's not going anywhere, is it?), assuming they can get their ducks in a row.
I think as far as they're concerned, the latter would be more worth the risk (Quebec's not going anywhere, is it?), assuming they can get their ducks in a row.
I think two things were lacking as far as KC: not all BOG convinced they should be in KC, plus that a potential owner never seemed to surface. Iirc, AEG still runs the arena.
cptjeff
Reprehensible User
That, and the arena agreement has them tied to control over arena operations. If they move, their current owner loses control of arena events, which are massively profitable. The Panthers are there for the long term, folks.
cptjeff
Reprehensible User
I suspect you'll be getting a team soon. The current alignment was a very, very obvious sign that the NHL will be expanding soon, and it looks like QC/Seattle will be the cities unless Phoenix moves first. I think if they get an owner and the team stays, we hear expansion announced this offseason. If they do move, I think they wait another year.
Ugmo
Registered User
- Oct 24, 2011
- 12,300
- 0
If Seattle were a serious option for 2013, we would have been hearing about it over the past few weeks. Instead we've had dead silence since the Kings move fell through, followed by a press conference in which Bettman is asked about Quebec City and Daly said realignment wouldn't be a problem if the Coyotes had to move there. And then within a couple of hours all the league's mouthpieces start talking about Seattle. Meanwhile Quebec City is literally already upgrading le Colisée and PKP has hired a guy to run a sports entertainment division... for an arena that's not going to open for another couple of years? Hardly. Seems pretty obvious to me that the league is negotiating with PKP but just lost 100 percent of its leverage because Glendale got three serious bids to run its arena. Seattle, at this point in time, is leverage. I have no doubt that the league eventually wants into Seattle, and would probably make that move right now if everything there were in place. But QC has beaten Seattle to the punch as evidenced by all the moves Quebecor has been making over the past few weeks.
mikelvl
Registered User
The bottom line is that, ideally, the NHL wants a hefty EXPANSION fee from Quebecor. A fee that only a hockey-mad market would be willing to pay. If Seattle had an arena right now, they would blow QC out of the water in terms of Phoenix. I have no doubt that QC will get a team within the next several years. I would like it to be Phoenix. But the NHL sees $$ in expansion.
Ugmo
Registered User
- Oct 24, 2011
- 12,300
- 0
No doubt the league would like that, but the reality on the ground is that QC is the only viable option right now, that has all its ducks in a row. I'm not disparaging Seattle because I think the league really wants into Seattle, but right now QC is what Winnipeg was two years ago: the only city with everything in place to take on an NHL team at only a couple of months' notice.
Shawa666
Registered User
mikelvl
Registered User
Just listened to Pierre Maguire on Team1200 Ottawa, he has heard that Seattle is the frontrunner for Phoenix if they move. The league likes the idea of being main tenant in Seattle now that Sacramento is not moving there. And there is a deep-pocketed owner in the Chicago area that is interested in buying and moving there. My guess is Don Levin.
worstfaceoffmanever
These Snacks Are Odd
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.
That doesn't seem to be stopping the Islanders:
It's a temporary facility anyway, for, what, a year? Two? Three at the absolute most? Tampa Bay played at bloody Tropicana Field for three years, a Seattle team could certainly play at KeyArena as an interim home while a new arena is being built.
Sorry but the NHL expensions team are not what they are in others sports. Like NBA or NFL, an expension teams means they suck very bad. But in the NHL, there's a lot of team that can be considered expensions team because they don't have superstars.
Look just this year, Anaheim & Montreal finish 14th and last in their conference and finish 2nd this year, the NHL is so well balanced that ANY club can actually wins the Stanley cup.
Icedog2735
Registered User
You are right, however, the lack of any progress/news about the new arena in Seattle since Sacramento did not move there is concerning. The arena was to be bankrolled by a potential NBA owner with the NHL being allowed to play there. Unless there has been a change of heart or someone who wants to own an NHL team in Seattle comes forward with a plan in place to pay for an arena, to say Key Arena would be a 1-3 year stop gap would at best be just a guess.
Mightygoose
Registered User
The only way I see Seattle in play next year realistically is if the MOU is revised to say ground can break on the new arena with either NBA or NHL only.
Anyone know what are the chances of that happening in the coming weeks?
Anyone know what are the chances of that happening in the coming weeks?
Last edited:
The article mentions the NHL ownership dream team of Matty Hulsizer and Oren Kouleas as somehow going to swoop in to buy the Coyotes? Seriously? Both failed spectacularly and miserably in either attempting to buy teams (Hulsizer with both the Coyotes and Blues) or owning teams (Kouleas was kicked to the curb in Tampa losing an absolute fortune in the process). These two are teaming up? Lord help us all.
My guess is you may be right on that.
Is there a podcast of that interview up yet online?
No need to bring up that failure of a franchise. Stupid idiots moving into an NBA-only arena that could of been used for the NHL if somebody had ponied up the funds back when the arena was in its planning stages. Ranks right up there with the CoG paying $25 million a year for the Coyotes in boneheaded moves.
Ernie
Registered User
- Aug 3, 2004
- 12,845
- 2,318
Four? Five? Infinity?
There's no arena without a NBA team, and that doesn't look to be imminent. A potential buyer in Seattle would be going wayyy out on a limb.
Jatt
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2005
- 717
- 0
I used to really root for the Nordiques to return to QC, however given that the much needed corporate funding for a pro franchise would be coming from Quebecor, a media outlet that feeds off of spreading bigotry and hatred, I can't support it any longer, hope this franchise moves to Seattle.
Phil Parent
Sorel, 'fant d'chienne!
which they DONT have in kansas city, and worse there is currently ZERO demand for the game here. Kansas city has ONE thing going for it, a nice arena without a primary tenant. That's it.
if they put a team in KC, you are putting that ownership at such an immense hole from the get go, that a perfectly run ownership group would still likely fail and fail miserably or they would have to have insanely deep pockets to bear the decades of losses.
i dont know about Cleveland, but the demand for ice hockey ( as they will inevitably call it here) around KC is pretty much non existant. has the nhl not learned anything from the fallacy of thinking new arena + large population = good market ?
We get cable from topeka, and fox midwest shows the blues games and after show. its on the cable listing and it is always replaced with things like women's billiards or darts. I called the cable operator in topeka to ask why and was told that as far as he can remember he gets mabey a dozen complaints of hockey getting preempted for recorded non sports a year.
I recall hearing an interview between Dave 'Softy; Mahler and Chris Hansen that Hansen was open to the idea of renegotiating the MOU to better accomodate the NHL.
http://www.sportsradiokjr.com/cc-co..._2013-05-28_Chris_Hansen_1369782166_15837.mp3
One can assume that an existing NHL team (the "Seattle Coyotes") would probably expediate the process. I'm guessing the parties don't want to go through the process of changing the MOU if it's simply for a possiblity of being needed.
Seattle will get a team when it's 100% sure that they'll get a new arena and an owner.
Then, no chance at all next year.
Then, no chance at all next year.
Last edited:
- Status
