Here we go again..........expansion?

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

So with the recent open talks of expansion happening again this is probably the best time for this. Now I understand pro hockey is now a business more than a sport/game but one simple question.

 

Why do we talk of expansion when there is still issues of viability with some teams? Sure there are some places where the NHL may do well but currently there are teams that are not. Fix the current issues before potentially creating more, is that too much to ask?

 

rant over........maybe.

[Zirakzigil]

Expansion does not stop relocation. The NHL wants 500mil for expansion, something they wont get for a relocation. Expansion is a pure money grab. 

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

Expansion does not stop relocation. The NHL wants 500mil for expansion, something they wont get for a relocation. Expansion is a pure money grab. 

I totally agree and I'm almost hopeful that a $500 mil entry fee is enough to scare off the groups that only half heartedly think a team may work in a particular area. That alot of money to lose over what could be a potential coyotes v2.0.

[Kulstad]

I totally agree and I'm almost hopeful that a $500 mil entry fee is enough to scare off the groups that only half heartedly think a team may work in a particular area. That alot of money to lose over what could be a potential coyotes v2.0.

 

Worst misspelling of "Atlanta Thrashers" that I've seen in quite awhile

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

Worst misspelling of "Atlanta Thrashers" that I've seen in quite awhile

 

Living in Winnipeg thats one of the things I can't really wrap my head around.  The Yotes have been failing miserable almost from day 1 and Bettman is adamant about keeping them there. Where as he seemed unusually quick to get the Thrashers out of Atlanta.

 

[Flyerfan52]

Living in Winnipeg thats one of the things I can't really wrap my head around.  The Yotes have been failing miserable almost from day 1 and Bettman is adamant about keeping them there. Where as he seemed unusually quick to get the Thrashers out of Atlanta.

 

I went to the Thrashers NHL site after it was announced they would be the team moved to the 'Peg for their fans take on it. Unlike many I wasn't there to gloat so got the fans (there were many more that felt betrayed than I expected) were a bit more open.

The sale of Phillips Arena, the Hawks & Thrashers were a package deal & Atlanta Spirit only took on the Thrashers to close the deal as they had 0 interest in the hockey part. They saw it as an annoyance.

 

My guess is the Gnome had already commited to the 'Yotes as his "succeed @ all costs" team in the barrens & if the AS put the team up for sale & relocation the BoG was unlikely to want to own 2 teams. Even if they did there was no place for them to play as the very people trying to dump the team owned the arena.

 

@ least in Phoenix there was a city offered subsidy. In Atlanta it was ownership saying we don't want this team.

 

It probably worked out best for TM. Team cost $170 million including $60 for relocation to the league. IMO the league would have wanted more for the Coyotes after pouring money into them.

 

As you'd know this was short notice but Chipman & Co had a partial organization in place that they quickly rounded out. Coach Noel had no game tapes & didn't meet most of his players until training camp. 4 years later the Jets bear little resmblance to the former Thrashers (in a good way).

[unit51]

I'm sure they'd like to have an equal number of teams in each division.   I guess expansion is the most logical way to do that. :lol

I hate the idea of expansion and am actually all for contracting two teams.  Imagine each team losing it's two worst players and possibly gaining one top roster player and on mid-level player.  It's funny how that sounds like a "the NHL is watered down" argument but the expansion era was also the time when it became easy for players from the former Soviet Union and other eastern block countries to come fill those roster spots.  I feel strongly for contraction for another reason as well but since I'm still new here I'll get off the soapbox for now.

[Crzydrvr]

I'll take it. I gotta get a job and feed myself somehow, right? 

[cross16]

Expansion is a big mistake for the NHL IMO. I don't think the quality of play in the NHL right now is good enough to handle another 40 more players entering the league. It's a pure cash grab and a short sighted move. They should learn from the last expansion deal they did and remember how once that money dried up the league was in shambles. The lady expansion deal is easy drove salaries up like crazy and if the NHL was smart they would think long term not short term.

[Flyerfan52]

Expansion is a big mistake for the NHL IMO. I don't think the quality of play in the NHL right now is good enough to handle another 40 more players entering the league. It's a pure cash grab and a short sighted move. They should learn from the last expansion deal they did and remember how once that money dried up the league was in shambles. The lady expansion deal is easy drove salaries up like crazy and if the NHL was smart they would think long term not short term.

There are factors like:

1) Cap restrictions bringing more EL players into the league for economic reasons

2) Older players having lived a healthier lifestyle with an ongoing workout regiem playing longer

3) Countries that weren't normally looked @ to produce top players actually doing so. The exponental developement of US hockey players is shown by WJC success & the fact many are now among the highest draft picks. Add that countries like Denmark & Switzerland are producing a few high caliber players & it's a pool that is relatively new to draw from other than the usual 1s

4) Collapse of the ruble having not only Russians (NHL defectors or otherwise) but those from other countries currently/formerly playing in the KHL looking west

 

With all of those you would think that the AHL would be overflowing with players too good for the minors & that the existing clubs 4th lines would be excellent. Neither would be a true statement. If you can't fill 30 teams with top end players you certainly can't fill 2 more.

The NHL & it's fans would be best served by a combination of relocation & contraction but some owners have $signs in their eyes so the Gnome will do his best to make it happen. Expansion fees are said to be starting @ $500 million & he'll probably get a bonus before the money is distributed.He's 63 so might decide to retire & play with his money before the latest mistakes start to wallow in bankruptcy. By then it's someone else's problem.

[robrob1974]

I agree! Teams are having trouble filling out top6 and then there is that elusive #1 center everyone covets because theyre rare. Then the top4 puck moving D guys, how hard is it going to be to get them?

[cross16]

So expansion deadline came and went and only 2 groups put in bids, Quebec City and Vegas. both are somewhat attractive because both have a lot of money behind them and new arenas but both have pretty big risks. The season ticket drive didn't exaclty go fantastic in Vegas and you have the ongoing issue of do you want to have a pro sports team in Vegas? I think Quebec city would have been really attractive a couple of years ago but now your face with a low, and lkely to go lower, Canadian dollar and the president of Quebecor (potetnial owners) is a vocal seperatist.

 

what I found the most interested about the process is they only got 2 bids. No Kansas City and no Seattle who were two teams we've always been told really wanted teams. I know there is still close a billion, 500mill per expansion team, riding on this for the NHL but you have to wonder if this makes them re think expansion. It doesn't appear the interest in having a team is as high as the NHL thought it was. if they are really interested in the Vegas or Quebec city markets i'm sure moving 1 or 2 teams via relocation can be done, albeit not for close to a billion dollars.

[Crzydrvr]

So expansion deadline came and went and only 2 groups put in bids, Quebec City and Vegas. both are somewhat attractive because both have a lot of money behind them and new arenas but both have pretty big risks. The season ticket drive didn't exaclty go fantastic in Vegas and you have the ongoing issue of do you want to have a pro sports team in Vegas? I think Quebec city would have been really attractive a couple of years ago but now your face with a low, and lkely to go lower, Canadian dollar and the president of Quebecor (potetnial owners) is a vocal seperatist.

 

what I found the most interested about the process is they only got 2 bids. No Kansas City and no Seattle who were two teams we've always been told really wanted teams. I know there is still close a billion, 500mill per expansion team, riding on this for the NHL but you have to wonder if this makes them re think expansion. It doesn't appear the interest in having a team is as high as the NHL thought it was. if they are really interested in the Vegas or Quebec city markets i'm sure moving 1 or 2 teams via relocation can be done, albeit not for close to a billion dollars.

 

Not to be rude but the idea that Las Vegas' ticket drive has been disappointing is blatantly false. They've had deposits placed on nearly 14000 seats. Whether or not those same people are willing to pay the full price is another matter, but so far it's almost done too well for itself, so far everything is going smoothly in Vegas (so much so that I'm almost expecting something bad to happen soon).

 

To compare, the Predators entered the NHL after passing 12,000 season ticket deposits on March 31st, knowing that they were guaranteed a team should that happen. Las Vegas did the same thing, without the use of corporate support, despite not being guaranteed a team even if they did sell these deposits.

 

If there's a team that doesn't have competition for professional sport money, it's Las Vegas.

 

16 parties requested for the forms required to apply for expansion. 2 of them willingly put down millions of dollars up front to get a team. Therefore, the NHL is going to work with those groups and are happy to do so. Just because 14 other groups chose not to do so doesn't mean expansion is a bad idea (plenty of other legitimate reasons for that).

 

If $500 million is considered expensive, but 2 groups are willing to pay that, then why should the NHL go back and say "Well, it looks like not many people are biting, we should lower our ask"? They found people willing to pay what they want. If you sell a house and it's too expensive for everyone to buy, but then someone comes along and says "I'll take it", would you go back to the other interested parties and lower your price to accommodate? Of course not.

 

The NHL wanted people desperate enough to pay the price they wanted. They got it. Seattle and the other groups still can get teams though other methods. There are existing teams like Arizona and Carolina that are in a state of transition. There will be more in the future. Honestly, it might be more cost effective to buy a team to relocate, and if that's more of a fair deal to them, then so be it.

 

Seattle's big issue is that all 3 parties have done nothing to facilitate getting a team besides saying they want a team. Ray Bartoszek is willing to put private money into an arena, but it's not in the most ideal location possible (not bad just not great) and Ray himself doesn't have the ability to pull together $10 million in a few weeks, not without completely knowing he can put shovel to dirt on Tukwila (and with $2 million of that not coming back if he doesn't get a team).

 

Victor Coleman isn't willing to put more money into an arena. Chris Hansen doesn't yet have approval to build a facility for NHL-first. Hansen and Coleman have no interest in working together to fund the building of an arena. And Coleman himself isn't hugely wealthy, he's simply the front of a larger group. Not to mention the Seattle city council not entirely supportive of NBA-first (or NBA at all) to begin with, let alone the NHL. Jac Sperling and his group left because Bellevue, the third proposed site, wasn't going to give them the financial backing to build an arena there.

 

Nobody was willing to bet $2 million that they could have all their bearings together in time to get a team. Doesn't mean they're not interested, just means they aren't going to gamble considering the manner in which things are proceeding.

 

The NHL is going to put teams in Vegas and Quebec (PK Peladeau's power in Quebecor has been greatly diminished in large part because they want a team there) because those two groups have everything already in place. Why rethink $1 billion in non-hockey-related revenues?

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

Not to be rude but the idea that Las Vegas' ticket drive has been disappointing is blatantly false. They've had deposits placed on nearly 14000 seats. Whether or not those same people are willing to pay the full price is another matter, but so far it's almost done too well for itself, so far everything is going smoothly in Vegas (so much so that I'm almost expecting something bad to happen soon).

 

To compare, the Predators entered the NHL after passing 12,000 season ticket deposits on March 31st, knowing that they were guaranteed a team should that happen. Las Vegas did the same thing, without the use of corporate support, despite not being guaranteed a team even if they did sell these deposits.

 

If there's a team that doesn't have competition for professional sport money, it's Las Vegas.

 

16 parties requested for the forms required to apply for expansion. 2 of them willingly put down millions of dollars up front to get a team. Therefore, the NHL is going to work with those groups and are happy to do so. Just because 14 other groups chose not to do so doesn't mean expansion is a bad idea (plenty of other legitimate reasons for that).

 

If $500 million is considered expensive, but 2 groups are willing to pay that, then why should the NHL go back and say "Well, it looks like not many people are biting, we should lower our ask"? They found people willing to pay what they want. If you sell a house and it's too expensive for everyone to buy, but then someone comes along and says "I'll take it", would you go back to the other interested parties and lower your price to accommodate? Of course not.

 

The NHL wanted people desperate enough to pay the price they wanted. They got it. Seattle and the other groups still can get teams though other methods. There are existing teams like Arizona and Carolina that are in a state of transition. There will be more in the future. Honestly, it might be more cost effective to buy a team to relocate, and if that's more of a fair deal to them, then so be it.

 

Seattle's big issue is that all 3 parties have done nothing to facilitate getting a team besides saying they want a team. Ray Bartoszek is willing to put private money into an arena, but it's not in the most ideal location possible (not bad just not great) and Ray himself doesn't have the ability to pull together $10 million in a few weeks, not without completely knowing he can put shovel to dirt on Tukwila (and with $2 million of that not coming back if he doesn't get a team).

 

Victor Coleman isn't willing to put more money into an arena. Chris Hansen doesn't yet have approval to build a facility for NHL-first. Hansen and Coleman have no interest in working together to fund the building of an arena. And Coleman himself isn't hugely wealthy, he's simply the front of a larger group. Not to mention the Seattle city council not entirely supportive of NBA-first (or NBA at all) to begin with, let alone the NHL. Jac Sperling and his group left because Bellevue, the third proposed site, wasn't going to give them the financial backing to build an arena there.

 

Nobody was willing to bet $2 million that they could have all their bearings together in time to get a team. Doesn't mean they're not interested, just means they aren't going to gamble considering the manner in which things are proceeding.

 

The NHL is going to put teams in Vegas and Quebec (PK Peladeau's power in Quebecor has been greatly diminished in large part because they want a team there) because those two groups have everything already in place. Why rethink $1 billion in non-hockey-related revenues?

 

That's one thing that I've always questioned. With all the supposed investors, money, potential and fan base, why haven't any of the other big 3 set a team up there? It seems football and basketball would be sure fire winners, moreso than hockey. Is there something the other leagues see that Bettman is blind to?

[AlbertaBoy12]

That's one thing that I've always questioned. With all the supposed investors, money, potential and fan base, why haven't any of the other big 3 set a team up there? It seems football and basketball would be sure fire winners, moreso than hockey. Is there something the other leagues see that Bettman is blind to?

IM assuming the same reason lots of hockey minds have been worried, and thats the distractions of living or playing in vegas.

[Crzydrvr]

That's one thing that I've always questioned. With all the supposed investors, money, potential and fan base, why haven't any of the other big 3 set a team up there? It seems football and basketball would be sure fire winners, moreso than hockey. Is there something the other leagues see that Bettman is blind to?

 

 

IM assuming the same reason lots of hockey minds have been worried, and thats the distractions of living or playing in vegas.

 

More specifically, the idea that players and officials could have easy access to gambling areas, and thus have an influence on the game in favor of their bets, is always something that has scared away potential investors.

 

The NBA and NFL are the most popular sports among young people living in the US, and it's those young people who are betting on sports games. That plays a factor. On the other hand, the NHL doesn't have that same sports betting cache (at least, not in the US) so they stand to lose less, and as a whole the odds of NHL games being rigged is less likely than the other two sports, as well as baseball, where one player deliberately playing poorly can have a huge influence on the results of a game.

 

That being said, on the whole sports betting is becoming more and more popular and as a result the commissioners are more and more inclined to support it due to the sheer amount of money involved (such as Adam Silver) so the idea is that with proper regulation it won't be an issue, and if that's the case then all of a sudden Vegas becomes a market without a home team that's begging to get one.

 

I mean , Vegas has the rap, but really it's no different than having teams in California, which is arguably a bigger den of everything wrong with the world today. LV is more than just casinos, there's an actual city if you look at most of it isn't related in any way to the Strip; it's actually got quite a few nice suburbs and overall is a good looking place for the most part, like any other normal city. The key is to make sure that players respect themselves enough so that they don't fall into the trap of human greed or materialism.

 

It's gonna be a tough sell, but with the proper management and an owner with deep pockets, there's no reason to believe Vegas couldn't be a success.

[cross16]

Not to be rude but the idea that Las Vegas' ticket drive has been disappointing is blatantly false. They've had deposits placed on nearly 14000 seats. Whether or not those same people are willing to pay the full price is another matter, but so far it's almost done too well for itself, so far everything is going smoothly in Vegas (so much so that I'm almost expecting something bad to happen soon).

 

To compare, the Predators entered the NHL after passing 12,000 season ticket deposits on March 31st, knowing that they were guaranteed a team should that happen. Las Vegas did the same thing, without the use of corporate support, despite not being guaranteed a team even if they did sell these deposits.

 

If there's a team that doesn't have competition for professional sport money, it's Las Vegas.

 

16 parties requested for the forms required to apply for expansion. 2 of them willingly put down millions of dollars up front to get a team. Therefore, the NHL is going to work with those groups and are happy to do so. Just because 14 other groups chose not to do so doesn't mean expansion is a bad idea (plenty of other legitimate reasons for that).

 

If $500 million is considered expensive, but 2 groups are willing to pay that, then why should the NHL go back and say "Well, it looks like not many people are biting, we should lower our ask"? They found people willing to pay what they want. If you sell a house and it's too expensive for everyone to buy, but then someone comes along and says "I'll take it", would you go back to the other interested parties and lower your price to accommodate? Of course not.

 

The NHL wanted people desperate enough to pay the price they wanted. They got it. Seattle and the other groups still can get teams though other methods. There are existing teams like Arizona and Carolina that are in a state of transition. There will be more in the future. Honestly, it might be more cost effective to buy a team to relocate, and if that's more of a fair deal to them, then so be it.

 

Seattle's big issue is that all 3 parties have done nothing to facilitate getting a team besides saying they want a team. Ray Bartoszek is willing to put private money into an arena, but it's not in the most ideal location possible (not bad just not great) and Ray himself doesn't have the ability to pull together $10 million in a few weeks, not without completely knowing he can put shovel to dirt on Tukwila (and with $2 million of that not coming back if he doesn't get a team).

 

Victor Coleman isn't willing to put more money into an arena. Chris Hansen doesn't yet have approval to build a facility for NHL-first. Hansen and Coleman have no interest in working together to fund the building of an arena. And Coleman himself isn't hugely wealthy, he's simply the front of a larger group. Not to mention the Seattle city council not entirely supportive of NBA-first (or NBA at all) to begin with, let alone the NHL. Jac Sperling and his group left because Bellevue, the third proposed site, wasn't going to give them the financial backing to build an arena there.

 

Nobody was willing to bet $2 million that they could have all their bearings together in time to get a team. Doesn't mean they're not interested, just means they aren't going to gamble considering the manner in which things are proceeding.

 

The NHL is going to put teams in Vegas and Quebec (PK Peladeau's power in Quebecor has been greatly diminished in large part because they want a team there) because those two groups have everything already in place. Why rethink $1 billion in non-hockey-related revenues?

 

 

I never said it was a dissapointment but i don't think its fair to call it a glowing success either. Yes they got to 14k but that took months and months so that to me sends a bit of a red flag about the actual passion/interest of the fan base. Fantastic to me is you sell upwrads of around 10k within the first month, thats the type of fan response i would want to see to konw you are truly going into a great market.

 

And no where am i suggesting that the NHL lower their asking price on expansion. I just threw out 500million becuase i believe thats what they got the last go around so maybe its even higher. What i mean is does now relocation became a more attractive option then expansion. the sense i've been getting is the league was partly pushing expansion as well as relocation because as many as 4 or 5 markets were really interested in teams. if that number is 2, maybe now you get to those markets via relocation as opposed to expansion which i think makes way more sense from a good of the game standpoint. I get that expansion makes alot of sense form a buisness and profit standpoint but i don't think it makes good long term sense from a good of the game perspective and thats why i would prefer the league look in a different direction then expansion right now.

[Flyerfan52]

I guess they found the suckers willing to ante up the expansion fees to make the BoG happy.

They also know the degree of interest in the other makets for when the weak teams are relocated. Say Seattle still shows interest & puts shovels in the ground for a rink to buy the Coyotes & relo them @ a 60-100 million $ transfer fee the NHL still has that $500 million x 2 from the desperate markets & the relocation from the the 1s less so.

Florida to KC along with the Arizona to Seattle gets even more relocation $s so owners pocket money to build a warchest like many players are settling contracts with an eye towards a lockout/stoppage in the 2018-2020 range.

[OilersAreHighlyFlammable]

I guess they found the suckers willing to ante up the expansion fees to make the BoG happy.

They also know the degree of interest in the other makets for when the weak teams are relocated. Say Seattle still shows interest & puts shovels in the ground for a rink to buy the Coyotes & relo them @ a 60-100 million $ transfer fee the NHL still has that $500 million x 2 from the desperate markets & the relocation from the the 1s less so.

Florida to KC along with the Arizona to Seattle gets even more relocation $s so owners pocket money to build a warchest like many players are settling contracts with an eye towards a lockout/stoppage in the 2018-2020 range.

NO MORE WORK STOPPAGES!

I do like the relocation idea along with expansion, as I believe all 4 cities could work well, with the possible exception of Vegas (Hockey in a desert again?)

[OilersAreHighlyFlammable]

It'd be nice if we had more Canadian cities able to support a team... The fans up here are just crazy-hockey-devoted. It's unfortunate Quebec City is really the only one in the running. I heard someone mention a team in Saskatoon might be a good idea, but I disagree. I think another Ontario team could be feasible, Hamilton, Brampton, Mississauga. Or maybe even a team in Halifax, NS or Surrey, BC.
I just wish we had more Canadian representation in the way of hockey teams. Sigh..

[zima]

We should send Oilers to Vegas and put an AHL team there and we will put the heat in Airdrie Van can put the comets in ABBY

[Crzydrvr]

I never said it was a dissapointment but i don't think its fair to call it a glowing success either. Yes they got to 14k but that took months and months so that to me sends a bit of a red flag about the actual passion/interest of the fan base. Fantastic to me is you sell upwrads of around 10k within the first month, thats the type of fan response i would want to see to konw you are truly going into a great market.

 

And no where am i suggesting that the NHL lower their asking price on expansion. I just threw out 500million becuase i believe thats what they got the last go around so maybe its even higher. What i mean is does now relocation became a more attractive option then expansion. the sense i've been getting is the league was partly pushing expansion as well as relocation because as many as 4 or 5 markets were really interested in teams. if that number is 2, maybe now you get to those markets via relocation as opposed to expansion which i think makes way more sense from a good of the game standpoint. I get that expansion makes alot of sense form a buisness and profit standpoint but i don't think it makes good long term sense from a good of the game perspective and thats why i would prefer the league look in a different direction then expansion right now.

 

Glowing success is like Winnipeg selling out in 7 minutes. Reality is that in a new American market, you're never going to sell out tickets that quickly even with all the excitement surrounding a new team.

 

It may seem nothing to Canadian fans to be able to sell 14,000 season tickets, but it's quite rare and significant for a non-Canadian, non-O6 franchise to have more than 10,000-12,000 season tickets sold in a season (and judging by Ottawa, even hockey markets can struggle to reach that at times too).

 

Nashville took around 3 months to get to its deposit goals. Columbus took just over 2 (if I recall correctly, I'm less certain on that one). So while Las Vegas might not be lighting the world on fire, it's fairly in line with the other markets that have come to the NHL in recent years.

 

This is an area that has a few years' worth of hockey history, but not enough to make it a hotbed. So at best I'm cautiously optimistic about the franchise moving forward.

 

The big key is whether or not they can place a competitive product on the ice. As seen in other expansion eras, it takes a long time to really build up a group of core players that can attract fans and entice them to stay for new teams in the US. And it'll be just as bleak as Columbus circa 2011-12 if Vegas can't show any hints of competitiveness.

 

I think the plan in Seattle was always to get a team via relocation if possible. The prices for expansion are grossly unnecessary and it's just way easier to get a team with the hockey infrastructure already in place than to build one from the ground up. Then again, it doesn't surprise me that Quebec and LV don't care about those. Quebecor wants a team and will pay the world if they have to, while Bill Foley and the Maloofs are exactly the kind of people that would relish the fact that they "started" a team and built it from the ground up. Maybe a little egocentric, but in this case it's not a bad thing (for the NHL).

 

Honestly, my ideal NHL would have an eastern team move to Houston and a team in the West moving to Seattle. Houston is the best market available, except that Les Alexander has no interest in letting a team play in his arena because he already won the arena war in Houston and basically has all the cards in the deck if any team wanted to play there.