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

[JA]

The Totems should have joined the NHL in the early 1990s if not for Barry Ackerley's involvement in derailing the negotiations between the Totems group and the league. They also nearly joined the NHL in the 1970s as the Colorado Rockies' expansion sibling. The Totems should have been an NHL team a long time ago.

Here's a great resource for anything Totems-related: http://www.seattletotems.org/

Bobby Schmautz:

http://www.seattletotems.org/totems_vs_nhl.html

SEATTLE TOTEMS VS. DETROIT RED WINGS September 27, 1959 Civic Ice Arena

The 1958-59 Western Hockey League champion Seattle Totems prepared for the '59-'60 season by hosting for the first time a National Hockey League team in an exhibition game. The opposition: Gordie Howe and the Detroit Red Wings.

The Red Wings, who had acquired Totems' star left wing Val Fonteyne in the off-season, were already riding a four-game exhibition win streak and had just trounced the Calgary Stampeders 6-1 before traveling to Seattle.

4,644 fans packed the Seattle Civic Ice Arena on September 27, 1959 to see their champion Totems take on a Detroit team, who aside from Howe had many other NHL legends like Terry Sawchuk, Norm Ullman, Alex Delvecchio and Red Kelly.

SEATTLE TOTEMS VS. MONTREAL CANADIENS September, 30, 1961 Civic Ice Arena

September 30, 1961 the Totems hosted an exhibition game with the legendary Montreal Canadiens who from 1956 to 1960 won a league record 5 consecutive Stanley Cup titles.

It's hard to imagine legendary NHL players like Jacques Plante, Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard and Bernie Boom-Boom Geoffrion playing in tiny Mercer Arena.

SEATTLE TOTEMS AT THE 1962 WORLD'S FAIR, CENTURY 21 EXPOSITION

During the 1962 Seattle World's Fair with all the different events and exhibits taking place, the Totems held an exhibition of their own. Two in fact. In late September, just as training camp was starting, the Totems held two exhibition games in order to “exhibit” the game of hockey to fair-goers.

As an added attraction, the opposition wasn't of the Western League variety, but of the National. The Totems were to host the New York Rangers in the first game, and the Stanley Cup champion Toronto Maple Leafs in the second game. Both games being played on consecutive nights.

SEATTLE TOTEMS VS. CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS October 5, 1967 Seattle Center Coliseum

The 1967 Lester Patrick Cup champion Totems, in preparation for their title defense in the upcoming 67-68 season, took on the National Hockey League's Chicago Blackhawks for an exhibition game at the Seattle Center Coliseum.

7,067 fans turned out to see the star-studded Blackhawks featuring the Golden Jet Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita, Hull's brother Dennis, Pierre Pilote and Pat Stapleton to name a few. In goal for the Hawks was a young Jack Norris, who came over to Chicago in a blockbuster trade that sent Phil Esposito to the Boston Bruins. Five years later, Norris would return to Seattle to tend goal for the Totems.

SEATTLE TOTEMS VS. TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS October 2, 1968 Seattle Center Coliseum

The 1967-68 Western Hockey League defending two-time champion Totems had only been training for nine days to prepare for the upcoming 68-69 season, when they took on the National Hockey League's Toronto Maple Leafs in an exhibition game.

SEATTLE TOTEMS VS. LOS ANGELES KINGS October 5, 1969 Victoria Memorial Arena (Victoria, BC, Canada)

With the 1969-70 season quickly approaching, the Totems already had some problems. Goalkeeper Don Head had been struggling due to wonky knees. '68-'69 WHL defenseman of the year, John Hanna, was also injured with a bruised thigh. In addition, the Totems had the challenge of filling the vast void left by the retirement of their all-time great Guyle Fielder.

And about their attempts to join the NHL:

http://www.seattletotems.org/totems_and_the_nhl.html

On June 12, 1974 the NHL awarded Seattle an expansion franchise to a group of investors headed by Seattle Totems' president, Vince Abbey. Abbey, a Seattle lawyer and lifelong hockey enthusiast who played hockey in Seattle's City League in the early 1940's, was a graduate of the UW (1947) and obtained a master's degree in law from Georgetown University.

A stockholder of the Totems since their inception, Abbey worked hard to make the Totems a successful franchise in Seattle.

...

Shortly after Abbey's acquisition, the Totems achieved great success winning two consecutive championships and maintaining a winning record throughout most of the 1960's. But with all successful teams there is always a lean period and the Totems were no exception. The 1970's proved to be a low point for the Totes on the ice and at the gate as well. In 1971, the Totems were taken over by the WHL due to financial troubles. Abbey persuaded Coleman Hall, a friend and an investor in the Vancouver Canucks NHL team, to purchase the Totems and use them as a farm club with the stipulation that Abbey could buy the team back if Seattle were to get a NHL franchise. Hall agreed and the Totems were rescued once again.

The Vancouver Canucks purchased a majority interest in the club in 1972 to rescue it from bankruptcy. Local owners Vince Abbey and Dr. Eldred Barnes retained a stake in the team and also held the right to buy out Vancouver’s should they be awarded an NHL franchise for Seattle in the future.

Seattle, along with Denver, were to start in the 1976-77 season.

...

The Vancouver Canucks' brass - people such as Coley Hall, Bill Hughes and Frank Griffiths - were big supporters towards NHL expansion in Seattle as it would reignite the rivalry that had existed for years between the two cities in the Western League.

...

With the announcement of this NHL expansion franchise, the Seattle Center Coliseum immediately began making preparations for the NHL.

...

Everything, it seemed, was coming together for Abbey and his dream of bringing the Stanley Cup back to Seattle; however, something went wrong along the way.

...

Abbey was now on the clock – a $180,000 deposit was due by the end of 1975 and the total franchise fee was a steep $6 million, plus he still had to repurchase the shares in the Totems held by the Canucks.

Abbey was confident, but he missed a number of deadlines and scrambled to secure financing. The NHL threatened to pull the franchise as there were a number of other suitors in the wings. Abbey allegedly passed on an opportunity to purchase a WHA team for $2 million during this period and he missed a golden opportunity to acquire an existing franchise when the Pittsburgh Penguins were sold in a bankruptcy auction for $4.4 million in June of 1975.

The NHL didn’t feel that Abbey could put together the financing. The Totems folded following the 1974-75 season and that summer the NHL pulled the expansion franchise from Seattle, leaving the city without hockey for the first time since 1954-55. However, Abbey wasn’t about to give up and in the fall of 1975 he filed suit against the NHL and the Canucks for anti-trust violations that he alleged prevented him from acquiring a team. The suit dragged on for over a decade before finally ending in a verdict in favor of the NHL in 1986.

The second attempt at expansion:

The conclusion of the lawsuit seemingly put an end of any hopes of bringing an NHL team to Seattle, but that changed in December of 1989 when the NHL announced a new round of expansion for the 1992-93 season. Two groups quickly established themselves as contenders for a Seattle franchise. The first was financed by Microsoft millionaire Chris Larson and led by former Seattle Totem Bill MacFarland. The other was headed by Bill Ackerley, son of Seattle Supersonics owner Barry Ackerley. Ackerley had already applied for a franchise and the two camps decided to pool their resources. While the $50 million expansion fee was much steeper than faced by Abbey 15 years earlier, the group had the money as well as additional funds to cover the necessary operating expenses for the first five seasons.

The presentation to the Board of Governors took place on December 5. The Seattle contingent consisted of four representatives: MacFarland, Larson, Barry Ackerley, and Bill Lear, a financial advisor for Ackerley. They met for breakfast and discussed their strategy, then adjourned to a room to await their turn to present.

Gil Stein, Vice President and General Counsel of the NHL, came to escort the group to the meeting. Ackerley then made a strange request. He asked if he and Lear could speak to the Board first in private before the others did their portion of the presentation. It was a complete surprise – they had not discussed this over breakfast, but MacFarland and Larson reluctantly agreed. After all, the application was in Ackerley’s name, so he had the final say. Ackerley and Lear proceeded to the meeting room with Stein while the others waited nervously for their turn. Ten minutes later Stein returned with a strange story. Apparently Ackerley introduced himself to the Board and informed them that the Seattle group was withdrawing its application. No reason was given. Ackerley and Lear then left the room through another exit.

MacFarland and Larson were stunned. The failure to get an application in their names had proven to be a fatal flaw and gave Ackerley the opportunity to pull the rug out from under them.

...

Franchises were eventually awarded to Ottawa and Tampa Bay, though neither group was ever able to come up with the full $50,000,000 fee, a fee the Seattle group was prepared to pay in full.

The Totems are also significant for being the team represented by Guyle Fielder, the third-highest point scorer in professional hockey history and the Western Hockey League's greatest all-time player. He is a member of the Washington State Sports Hall of Fame and wore the Totems crest proudly.

Their relationship with the Canucks has been well-documented over the years. Several prominent NHL figures, Pat Quinn included, once played for the Totems.

 

[RandR]

I don't blame the league for apparently having the following order of preferences:

1. keep the Coyotes in Phoenix, because then both QC and Seattle could bid for expansion franchises along with potentially 1 or more other cities where a bid could come from in a couple more years.

2. if that fails, move the Coyotes to Seattle, because putting a team in the American Pacific Northwest makes sense strategically over the long run because it opens a large untapped market region.

3. and if that fails, fall back on Quebec

However, given that there is virtually no doubt that QC would be a success from day one I don't think anyone should be surprised that Quebecers would be pissed about being no better than a 3rd choice in the league's eyes. I'd be pissed too if I lived in or near to Quebec City.

How would #2 fail.

The deal falls through.

define success.

just because quebec is guaranteed to be a profitable franchise, doesnt mean that it is what's best for the 29 other owners.

I use success in the context of those in Quebec... profitable club, large and enthousiastic fan support, TV deal, etc.

I agree that isn't necessarily what's best for the other 29 other owners... that is consistent with my statement that QC is the league's 3rd choice.

 

[danishh]

@danishh

Mind to explain how bringing more money to a private entity is not in the best interest of said entity?

take a look at the salary structure of the NHL.

since we introduced linkage in 2005, the more revenue the other 29 teams make, the higher your own payroll gets. On the other hand, if you're one of the top-10 revenue teams, your revenue sharing commitment is fixed. What this leads to is the top 15 revenue teams desiring the "phoenix coyotes" franchise to be as low revenue as possible (as long as they dont own it, as they do now due to a series of unfortunate events).

For the bottom 15 teams, who receive revenue-sharing, phoenix (and NYI now) is a problem due to the fact that they have significantly lower revenue than the rest of them, meaning they take a large chunk of that revenue sharing pie. On the other hand, moving phoenix anywhere (or getting that subsidy from glendale, as long as it's counted as HRR), alleviates that problem, whether it's quebec, seattle, houston, kc, or hamilton. Then the choice becomes what revenue level is best for them? And the answer, on average, is a team that ends up somewhere ~22nd/23rd in league-wide revenue.

There are two additional factors at play. One is TV contracts. Of course Quebec will get a sizeable RSN contract from TVA sports (Montreal currently gets 20M from RDS and another ~10M from TSN-Habs). But that goes to the owner of Quebec. What the other NHL owners care about is what happens to the CBC/TSN/RDS-National/TVA-National contracts, and the general feeling is that it does nothing. People who will be nordiques fans for the most part watch NHL hockey anyways. The ratings wont change, and therefore the money wont change. Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver drive the national canadian ratings (and therefore contract) anyways. Any american market, on the other hand, has the potential to take hold and drive the NBC revenues even higher. As has been mentioned, the NHL on NBC and NHL on NBCSN ratings in the Pacific North West leave much to be desired. Seattle, with even moderate on-ice success, can change that. Boom, suddenly NHL TV ratings are higher, and 9 years from now the NHL can get even more money for that, which is the ultimate goal of course because lets be honest, there really isnt much room for growth in the canadian TV ratings (and therefore contracts) beyond inflation. Edit: I should add that quebec hurts montreal and ottawa even more in terms of stealing territory. Currently the two teams share eastern ontario, quebec, and the maritimes. The noriques would likely be allowed to broadcast nationwide on TVA sports (which hurts ottawa significantly as it tries to build a relationship with their francophone fans, Montreal on RDS would likely be unaffected) and also gain access to english-language rights in the province of quebec and perhaps the maritimes as well (hurting both the sens and habs). And that's before even getting into the complexities of Montreal's parent corporation Bell Canada not wanting to give quebecor anything to grow the TVA sports brand or videotron subscriptions in the area.

The other factor is on-ice competitiveness, and in short, a poor owner barely making payroll is far better for 29 other teams than PKP. Makes it much easier to poach UFAs and RFAs.

The bottom line is that it is ideal for the NHL to relocate phoenix to an american market that is around 22nd in league-wide revenue. That's not anti-canadian bias, or pro-american stupidity, it's simply the reality of the business model. If people cant understand that, tough.

Remember, however, that what i'm talking about is ideal. Relocation hurts the NHL, and that is why it has and will fight to remain in phoenix. Seattle is not a sure bet, and in the background right now the NHL is making sure that they can get assurances regarding the arena. And of course, if the NHL is stuck in a situation where they have to move phoenix and no american markets have stepped up to the plate, well then vive le quebec.

 

[Killion]

The Totems are also significant for being the team represented by Guyle Fielder, the third-highest point scorer in professional hockey history and the Western Hockey League's greatest all-time player....

... yepp. Guyle Fielder, the Totems & the WHL. Thx for posting that, the pic's etc.

 

[kdb209]

@danishh

Mind to explain how bringing more money to a private entity is not in the best interest of said entity?

The NHL is not "a private entity" - it is 30 private entities.

Higher revenues from a Phoenix->Quebec move only benefits one of those entities - and the higher cap (due to increased HRR) financially hurts the remaining 29 (or at least those near the cap/floor).

 

[Brodie]

Significant new details from the Seattle Times (which is the better of the two local papers, from what I can gather)

http://seattletimes.com/html/othersports/2021206263_nhlseattlexml.html

Two weeks ago, McGinn and the Seattle City Council worked out a tentative deal with investors Ray Bartoszek and Anthony Lanza for the use of KeyArena for the 2013-14 season if they can to secure the team and relocate to Seattle.

...

Councilman Tim Burgess isn’t sure the project would begin with a hockey team as the primary tenant. He noted it would be a “substantial change” to the city’s agreement to go forward without an NBA team.

“Relying on an NHL team alone would not be a strong enough foundation,” Burgess said.

 

[danishh]

i'm disappointed that literally zero media outlets have yet to mention that Jeremy Roenick already works for Bartozsek and Lanza.

 

[superdeluxe]

Significant new details from the Seattle Times (which is the better of the two local papers, from what I can gather)

http://seattletimes.com/html/othersports/2021206263_nhlseattlexml.html

So essentially you don't bring NHL to Seattle unless you have a great feeling that the nba is coming. If you are bertzosek and lansa do risk it?

 

[Valhuen]

This whole QC vs Seattle thing is pretty silly. It's not about which market is better short or long term. The NHL could very well want to go to QC and Seattle but right now its about opportunity. The league could move any kind of team to Quebec whether it's expansion or not and never think twice about it. With Seattle it's a whole other game.

Right now is likely the best opportunity that the league will ever have to move a non expansion team into Seattle without an NBA team to compete against. There is also a chance that the NBA will not want to move back to Seattle if an NHL team gets established. The last piece of the puzzle is the political situation in Seattle that is currently pro-arena - that could change quickly. When you think about it in those terms it makes perfect sense for the league to go in now.

This x1000......

What many here don't get is precisely what is described above, the NHL has a chance to give the NBA a bloody nose in terms of a bold strategic move that could ultimately shut (or at least marginalize) the NBA out of a major NA market. Beating them to the punch, given the time is now ripe to do so, would be worth it on its own.
If the NHL waits any longer, the political climate will inevitably shift making a future move that much more difficult.

QC will always be there wanting an NHL team (and I do hope the Nords return soon, loved following the Nords in the old Adams growing up, some absolutely incredible rivalries). Seattle OTOH is ripe for the picking now, and may not be so next year.

Regarding team names, Totems, Thunderbirds and Chiefs (after Chief Seattle) are the most attractive IMHO. I think Seattle should stick with the Native American motif if you will. Metros would also work on the outside. Anything else just would not be as enduring IMHO.

 

[wunderpanda]

http://www.pittsburghsportingnews.c...-short-list-of-possible-nba-expansion-cities/

I haven’t heard anything about expansion from our owners. They have discussed contraction in conjunction with the last Collective Bargaining Agreement. I don’t think (expansion) is an option. Right now, we have no approved plan for an arena in Seattle. We have a very good potential ownership group and set of plans, but there’s a lot of work to be done. I keep a little green book with a list of all the cities interested in NBA teams and could respond pretty quickly. There’s all kinds of stuff going on in Pittsburgh, Columbus, Louisville, Virginia Beach, Las Vegas, Vancouver, Mexico City, Kansas City.â€

just something I saw, Mexico City

*edit* from feb

 

[Brodie]

http://www.pittsburghsportingnews.c...-short-list-of-possible-nba-expansion-cities/



just something I saw, Mexico City

that's 3 months old

you keep posting old articles

 

[wunderpanda]

that's 3 months old

you keep posting old articles

what other old article did I post?

*edit* oh I see, the Sonics history, that was just easier than telling someone to watch Sonicsgate for 90 minutes.

 

[Fenway]

The word a few days ago at the Final's press room in Chicago was that Seattle would offer free rent to Key Arena for THREE years if the NHL jumped now.

Seattle is a market that can support both an NBA and NHL team.

Bettman is a lot of things - BUT HE ISN'T STUPID.

He knows that Quebec will pay the expansion fee as the new Colisee needs an anchor tenant.

Key Arena may only have 11,000 seats for hockey but given the corporate money in Seattle ticket revenue could exceed Glendale. A team there would get a decent TV contract from either Root Sports or CSNNW.

Does Glendale cave? Nobody knows..

This x1000......

What many here don't get is precisely what is described above, the NHL has a chance to give the NBA a bloody nose in terms of a bold strategic move that could ultimately shut (or at least marginalize) the NBA out of a major NA market. Beating them to the punch, given the time is now ripe to do so, would be worth it on its own.
If the NHL waits any longer, the political climate will inevitably shift making a future move that much more difficult.

QC will always be there wanting an NHL team (and I do hope the Nords return soon, loved following the Nords in the old Adams growing up, some absolutely incredible rivalries). Seattle OTOH is ripe for the picking now, and may not be so next year.

Regarding team names, Totems, Thunderbirds and Chiefs (after Chief Seattle) are the most attractive IMHO. I think Seattle should stick with the Native American motif if you will. Metros would also work on the outside. Anything else just would not be as enduring IMHO.

 

[Kimota]

take a look at the salary structure of the NHL.

since we introduced linkage in 2005, the more revenue the other 29 teams make, the higher your own payroll gets. On the other hand, if you're one of the top-10 revenue teams, your revenue sharing commitment is fixed. What this leads to is the top 15 revenue teams desiring the "phoenix coyotes" franchise to be as low revenue as possible (as long as they dont own it, as they do now due to a series of unfortunate events).

For the bottom 15 teams, who receive revenue-sharing, phoenix (and NYI now) is a problem due to the fact that they have significantly lower revenue than the rest of them, meaning they take a large chunk of that revenue sharing pie. On the other hand, moving phoenix anywhere (or getting that subsidy from glendale, as long as it's counted as HRR), alleviates that problem, whether it's quebec, seattle, houston, kc, or hamilton. Then the choice becomes what revenue level is best for them? And the answer, on average, is a team that ends up somewhere ~22nd/23rd in league-wide revenue.

There are two additional factors at play. One is TV contracts. Of course Quebec will get a sizeable RSN contract from TVA sports (Montreal currently gets 20M from RDS and another ~10M from TSN-Habs). But that goes to the owner of Quebec. What the other NHL owners care about is what happens to the CBC/TSN/RDS-National/TVA-National contracts, and the general feeling is that it does nothing. People who will be nordiques fans for the most part watch NHL hockey anyways. The ratings wont change, and therefore the money wont change. Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver drive the national canadian ratings (and therefore contract) anyways. Any american market, on the other hand, has the potential to take hold and drive the NBC revenues even higher. As has been mentioned, the NHL on NBC and NHL on NBCSN ratings in the Pacific North West leave much to be desired. Seattle, with even moderate on-ice success, can change that. Boom, suddenly NHL TV ratings are higher, and 9 years from now the NHL can get even more money for that, which is the ultimate goal of course because lets be honest, there really isnt much room for growth in the canadian TV ratings (and therefore contracts) beyond inflation. Edit: I should add that quebec hurts montreal and ottawa even more in terms of stealing territory. Currently the two teams share eastern ontario, quebec, and the maritimes. The noriques would likely be allowed to broadcast nationwide on TVA sports (which hurts ottawa significantly as it tries to build a relationship with their francophone fans, Montreal on RDS would likely be unaffected) and also gain access to english-language rights in the province of quebec and perhaps the maritimes as well (hurting both the sens and habs). And that's before even getting into the complexities of Montreal's parent corporation Bell Canada not wanting to give quebecor anything to grow the TVA sports brand or videotron subscriptions in the area.

The other factor is on-ice competitiveness, and in short, a poor owner barely making payroll is far better for 29 other teams than PKP. Makes it much easier to poach UFAs and RFAs.

The bottom line is that it is ideal for the NHL to relocate phoenix to an american market that is around 22nd in league-wide revenue. That's not anti-canadian bias, or pro-american stupidity, it's simply the reality of the business model. If people cant understand that, tough.

Remember, however, that what i'm talking about is ideal. Relocation hurts the NHL, and that is why it has and will fight to remain in phoenix. Seattle is not a sure bet, and in the background right now the NHL is making sure that they can get assurances regarding the arena. And of course, if the NHL is stuck in a situation where they have to move phoenix and no american markets have stepped up to the plate, well then vive le quebec.

I don't think Quebec would hurt Ottawa tv-wise as the TVA Sports Sens ratings are abysmal, it's a non-issue. As far as the Habs, just put Nords games on a different day than the Habs.

 

[Kimota]

Yeah. He's never even hinted at it, which is why I don't understand all the hurt feelings from QC supporters. The NHL's natural progression wasn't always Winnipeg followed by Quebec. Bettman has a league to run and a sport to grow.

BEttman doesn't understand the meaning of growth.

 

[snovalleyhockeyfan]

Significant new details from the Seattle Times (which is the better of the two local papers, from what I can gather)

http://seattletimes.com/html/othersports/2021206263_nhlseattlexml.html

The Times is the lone local paper - the P-I is a web-only thing. As it is, it's a pretty good find, Brodie, and thanks for this. BTW, there is a poll attached to this story, so please vote there if you want to do so.

The next few days should be pretty interesting.

 

[snovalleyhockeyfan]

Here BTW is Chris Daniels' wrapup on yesterday's events - he was on the late news last night (11:00):

http://www.king5.com/sports/McGinn-We-believe-we-can-support-the-NHL-in-KeyArena-211753581.html

 

[Ugmo]

This x1000......

What many here don't get is precisely what is described above, the NHL has a chance to give the NBA a bloody nose in terms of a bold strategic move that could ultimately shut (or at least marginalize) the NBA out of a major NA market. Beating them to the punch, given the time is now ripe to do so, would be worth it on its own.
If the NHL waits any longer, the political climate will inevitably shift making a future move that much more difficult.

QC will always be there wanting an NHL team (and I do hope the Nords return soon, loved following the Nords in the old Adams growing up, some absolutely incredible rivalries). Seattle OTOH is ripe for the picking now, and may not be so next year.

That makes no sense to me. Yeah, let's teach the NBA a lesson by shoehorning a hockey team into the worst possible arena situation at the very last minute, with the possibility that they might not get a better arena built at all. Take that, David Stern!

Whatever benefit the NHL gets out of not having NBA competition in Seattle will be more than offset by having to play in deplorable conditions for three years.

BEttman doesn't understand the meaning of growth.

Yep. Growth = putting hockey teams in a bunch of places where they are very unlikely to succeed (not necessarily Seattle) and having the hockey-crazy cities subsidize the losses. Bettman's attempts at "growth" look like an abject failure from what I can tell.

 

[Stats01]

Chris Daniels ‏@ChrisDaniels5 3m
Seattle City Councilmember Tim Burgess confirms meeting with Lanza/Bartoszek, says they were "optimistic and positive" on Seattle. #NHL

Chris Daniels ‏@ChrisDaniels5 2m
Seattle City Councilmember Burgess says he believed there was a tentative lease deal on Key Arena, for the fall, for an #NHL team.

Chris Daniels ‏@ChrisDaniels5 1m
Burgess says oft-mentioned Chicago #NHL investor Don Levin was not part of the #Seattle meeting.

I've been pro Quebec in all of this but I have to say the NHL going to Seattle will be a great thing for the league, the PNW and for hockey fans in general. Again I'm not trying to bait Coyotes fans but whether it was Quebec or Seattle the best thing for the league was to finally move the team somewhere where it will be supported. I know it's not 100% official, but I just want to say welcome to the NHL Seattle!

 

[Nordskull]

That makes no sense to me. Yeah, let's teach the NBA a lesson by shoehorning a hockey team into the worst possible arena situation at the very last minute, with the possibility that they might not get a better arena built at all. Take that, David Stern!

Whatever benefit the NHL gets out of not having NBA competition in Seattle will be more than offset by having to play in deplorable conditions for three years.

Yep. Growth = putting hockey teams in a bunch of places where they are very unlikely to succeed (not necessarily Seattle) and having the hockey-crazy cities subsidize the losses. Bettman's attempts at "growth" look like an abject failure from what I can tell.

Are'nt Stern and Bettman very good friends?

IMHO, no NBA, no NHL.

Those new investors, why would they buy the Coyotes, move'em to the Key when the Devils are virtually for sale, the Panthers looking for partners, and team anonymus desperatly bleeding, close to throw the keys on Bettman's desk? Sorry, I don't buy the story.

Next rumour will be Hawaii.

Have a good day.

 

[madhi19]

Are'nt Stern and Bettman very good friends?

IMHO, no NBA, no NHL.

Those new investors, why would they buy the Coyotes, move'em to the Key when the Devils are virtually for sale, the Panthers looking for partners, and team anonymus desperatly bleeding, close to throw the key on Bettman's desk? Sorry, I don't buy the story.

Next rumour will be Hawaii.

Have a good day.

My money on Anchorage Alaska! Scott Gomez will head a group of Oil guys from BP and Exxon. Because Gary Bettman has never rejected a potential NHL owner that was too sleazy for the league!

 

[Nordskull]

My money on Anchorage Alaska! Scott Gomez will head a group of Oil guys from BP and Exxon. Because Gary Bettman has never rejected a potential NHL owner that was too sleazy for the league!

Its also strange this did not get out 6 weeks ago, before the NBA's decision on the Kings. Where were they?

I'd like Seattle to be in, I am no fool, this is the NHL preference, but its simply not doable now.

They are testing the market's reactions, putting the gun on CoG head and shutting off everybody here. Works great.

 

[GuelphStormer]

can someone please explain the money to me? it has been reported that Bartozsek et. al. would pay $220M to purchase the coyotes.

now, on top of that are expected renovations to key arena. who would pay for that? the city is supposedly offering free rent, but is it also offering to upgrade the arena for free? at the very least, it would need to put a fair amount into it just for TV cameras. or, would Bartozsek et. al. be expected to chip in? i dont think it's unreasonable to think the city might expect something. hansen was reported to be willing to pay between $3M and $20M for enhancements, so let's just arbitrarily say Bartozsek would be asked for $10M.

as well, operating losses. now presumably ticket prices in the seattle market would be higher than in phoenix, but with only 11K seats, net revenues could not be that much more than they are now? so that means the team would likely be operating in the red for three years until the new arena is built. anyone care to estimate annual losses? ... let's say $15M = $45M

ok, the arena. now hansen already owns the land and its valued at $50M. reports during his bid for the kings said he was willing to spend up to $800M for that team and his share of the arena costs, which were reported to be around $200M. so, if hansen was willing and able to put in $200M to $250M of his own money into the arena, are Bartozsek willing to do the same? or, would they expect to share that cost with Hansen (if he was still willing to do that)? so, let's again roughly ballpark the cost of the new arena to owner of the anchor team at around $100M to $200M.

so, now we are up to $220M (coyotes) + $10M (key upgrades) + $45M (losses) + $100M to $200M (new arena share) = $375M to $475M all in. now of course Im grossly estimating all sorts of things and making a bunch of simplistic assumptions which im sure people will task me for.

but here's the bottom line, are Bartozsek et. al. willing and able to pay $375M to $475M to buy this team now, run it for a few years and chip in for the new arena? at that level, it seems prudent to take a little more than a few weeks to decide.

 

[superdeluxe]

Well hansen's group introduced battoszek and Lanza to the political leadership 2 weeks ago, and before that it makes sense that they would have discussions prior to that, they might have all the numbers figured out.

This mornings article from the sun, mostly notable because of the poll.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/06/17/seattle-already-in-talks-to-bring-nhl-team-to-city

 

[Nordskull]

Well hansen's group introduced battoszek and Lanza to the political leadership 2 weeks ago, and before that it makes sense that they would have discussions prior to that, they might have all the numbers figured out.

This mornings article from the sun, mostly notable because of the poll.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/06/17/seattle-already-in-talks-to-bring-nhl-team-to-city

At this particular poll with 2 options (NHL in Glendale or Seattle) I would certainly vote Seattle.

Its a no brainer.