"One of the great tragedies that happened over the summer with respect to the Coyotes and Hamilton and, before that, with respect to the Predators and Hamilton, is that expectations were built up. I don't want to do that to people.
"The fact is, the lines of communications are open. We understand the possibilities but we're not in position to make any promises at this time other than: If we're going to be in a situation either by relocation or expansion where a franchise is a possibility, these are markets that are going to be looked at seriously."
about 1 month ago
James Mirtle
89 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Winnipeg?
You Canadians need to help me out here. I could have sworn that there was a report of an actual ownership group interested in owning a Winnipeg franchise. Granted, this was last season but I remember reading about it and hearing it on XM Home Ice. Is there any truth to that?
I know about the Toronto Legacy project and who DOESN’T know about Balsillie/Hamilton – but what other prospective ownership groups are there up there? I had heard rumors of a second group interested in owning a Hamilton franchise (I remember the key to their pitch being that they would work WITH the NHL instead of taking them to court) but is there any interest in re: ownership for Quebec City, or is there just an arena development project going on there?
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Oct 16, 2009 1:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
If you listen to the Jetsowner fantasists, there has been an ownership group waiting in the wings since pretty much the day the Jets relocated. Apparently there is a group, but as has been the case for years, nobody has ever actually stepped up and said “yeah, I’m researching the possibility”. In my view, it’s a fantasy until that happens.
by Resolute on Oct 16, 2009 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you listen to the Jetsowner fantasists, there has been an ownership group waiting in the wings since pretty much the day the Jets relocated.
Who failed to step up when the Jets were leaving because…they were on the can and missed the phone call?
Crazy talk.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
by Doogie2K on Oct 16, 2009 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
With Bettman at the helm, I suspect that the next time expansion happens, it will be in the US. With an already hockey-mad culture in Canada, expanding there doesn’t grow the sport like it does 5000 fans at a time in Phoenix [snark]. There are three possible spots in Las Vegas, Seattle/Portland, and Oklahoma City that will probably get endorsed first, but you might know of more.
The only way I see another team coming to Canada is…
1. Bettman is ousted or leaves. The new commissioner is concerned about the legacy of hockey and takes teams out of the SouthEast and probably abandons the shootout, too.
2. An out clause occurs. Something to the extent of the team’s attendance falling, poor scouting, and an owner going bankrupt. The new owner is going to have to play ball and probably eat a lot of debt for a few years, though.
3. Favors. There’s a chance, and I’ll call it small, that Bettman expands the league by two teams, one to a “we’re growing the sport” area and then the other to Canada because he finally cares about equity.
4. The NHL finally passes the NBA in attendance and popularity. But for real this time, not like when everyone says the percentage-of-capacity is higher for the NHL, even if raw attendance is not. It will have to be significantly higher, so Bettman can show off his wonderful data about how his growth experiment worked.
As a Californian (San Jose, exactly), I would really like to see a team in Las Vegas. It’s one of the cities where things are familiar to almost all visitors. It’s cheap to fly in and fly out. I would imagine that most season tickets would be owned by hotels and casinos, so there would be lots of packages and deals. For $100 per person plus hotel, I would definitely attend some away games to see the Sharks, and probably other teams, if I had a free weekend.
Jon Casey fan since '84
by stufflife on Oct 16, 2009 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and I meant Kansas City. Sorry.
Jon Casey fan since '84
by stufflife on Oct 16, 2009 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let’s look at the cities you’ve mentioned: There are no NHL arenas or timetables for arenas in any of the cities you mentioned. On top of that FACT, Vegas has too much competing for the entertainment dollar, OKC can’t financially support a CHL team at the moment, much less a NHL team (and they never will), Seattle just lost their NBA team because the taxpayers won’t support a new arena, and Portland is too small compared to half a dozen other US sites. I realize your post was nothing but a thinly veiled Bettman-bash, but please don’t throw out these pie-in-the-sky stuff.
Just a few days ago on this very sight James had a look at the possibility of a return to Quebec City. There are rumblings and maybe even some back-door conversations, but like Winnipeg, there’s nothing concrete.
Kansas City has an empty arena. The NHL has numbers in hand to take a really strong look at Hamilton/Toronto. Both would likely be preferred expansion sites, but the necessity of relocation may change that desire.
"I know everyone has their own opinion, but your opinion is wrong. "
by Mike @ MHH on Oct 16, 2009 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Size matters?
Portland is too small compared to half a dozen other US sites
Its not entirely about Metro population.
Its about about available dollars to waste on pro sports teams.
MLB, and, to a lesser extent, the NFL, suck up a tonne of dollars.
Portland, with an arena in place, and only NBA competition, is actually a better location than many larger cities.
by Mr DeBakey on Oct 16, 2009 5:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is that the NHL and NBA seasons almost entirely overlap one another. It would seem to me that if you’re looking for a market to plop a team in with only one other competing pro sports franchise, you’d want to find a market where your team (which is new and has no roots) won’t be playing on many of the same nights as the team that’s been there for decades.
Kansas City makes more sense to me from that angle. Not to say that it makes great sense, just that it makes more sense.
by dzuunmod on Oct 16, 2009 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kansas City makes no sense...
The market has enough pro sports for its size already. The market lost teams in the NHL, NBA and MLB previously. The arena deal is designed for AEG to make scads of money, not to give a potential NBA/NHL tenant the sort of sweetheart deal they’d want to move there. It’s Phoenix without the cactus.
by bison on Oct 17, 2009 10:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You must have missed my last two sentences: I wasn’t saying that Kansas City makes sense, just more sense than Portland, where it would share a season almost entirely with an established pro team.
by dzuunmod on Oct 17, 2009 10:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I saw them...
bit you weren’t the only one to mention KC ;-)
by bison on Oct 17, 2009 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re making the assumption that the Chiefs and Royals are “professional”
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 19, 2009 8:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
your post was nothing but a thinly veiled Bettman-bash
I apologize if you felt I was holding back. Bettman is an idiot and a hypocrite. “We need a lockout to roll back these player salaries, but I’m going to more than double my salary as soon as it’s over.”
There are no NHL arenas or timetables for arenas in any of the cities you mentioned.
…nor is there a timetable for an expansion. How many times has a team been awarded the night before the season is to begin?
I didn’t mention any of the Canadian cities ready or willing to accept an NHL franchise because the point of my post was that I feel it’s more likely the NHL expands in the US.
Las Vegas is built upon the idea of competing for entertainment dollars. The plan obviously needs work to happen, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t increase the popularity of the NHL, which is what Bettman has obviously had as a priority for the past few years.
Jon Casey fan since '84
by stufflife on Oct 16, 2009 7:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course the owners doubled Bettman’s salary when he won the lockout. That tends to happen when executives do the job they were hired to do.
You aren’t going to find a ton of support here when it comes to blind anti-Bettman ranting. I don’t think many regulars here have bought into the “Bettman hates Canada” myth.
by Resolute on Oct 16, 2009 11:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course the owners doubled Bettman’s salary when he won the lockout. That tends to happen when executives do the job they were hired to do.
And executive salaries aren’t out of control? I do my job every day, that’s how I earn my salary. Doubling one’s salary is ludicrous, especially when it is a contractual issue. Try being a civil servant before you attack my understanding of (the lack of) ethics in business.
I don’t think Bettman hates Canada. I think he’s using questionable judgment while in charge of an honorable sport. He’s obviously got an idea to force hockey down the throats of people who would otherwise not watch by purposely placing franchises in non-traditional markets. If he did that with retail stores or restaurants, the board would likely sign his walking papers when they failed.
Jon Casey fan since '84
by stufflife on Oct 17, 2009 1:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bettman is just following standard NHL operations
The league has been looking for its major US TV deal for 42 years.
The expansion into the sun belt was to try and grow the game and attract a real TV deal.
In that vein he’s no different than Clarence Campbell or John Ziegler Jr.
The greater issue facing hockey is at the grass roots level where the sport is becoming unaffordable for many families.
That’s the challenge that will face the NHL within the next decade.
by Exit716 on Oct 17, 2009 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You could say that about every sport, though. All of them have gone for the huge, flashy stadia with luxury boxes and gourmet food and microbrews and anything to get a lot of money out of the wealthy who might wish to be seen more than actually watch the game. Sports teams are sometimes backdrops for whatever socializing is going on, just a highly visible part of the overarching brand. There was an opinion piece in the New York Times just today talking about how families have been priced out of even baseball, which given the capacity of the parks and the number of games and the fact that kids are off in the summer should be the most economical of the sports to see live on the major league level, even for families – and this is no longer the case.
“Joe Fan” or “Jill Fan” has been priced out of sports for a little while now.
(It makes me even more thankful for my local minor-league baseball team. Lovely new ballpark, fun atmosphere, quick drive right over from work at the end of a day – and a ticket for the lawn area is only $6.00.)
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Oct 17, 2009 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s why I miss junior hockey… even if those tickets are getting more expensive.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Oct 17, 2009 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m glad I’m a season-ticket holder (and pay the student price at that), because the reds are now up to $25 a pop. Fine, it’s the reds, and you could buy the blues for 2/3 of that, but still, $25 for junior hockey? Really?
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
by Doogie2K on Oct 18, 2009 10:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could be wrong, but I think Exit716 might also have been referring to the fact that increasingly, even in hockey-mad areas, it’s getting too expensive for families to get their kids playing the games.
What does it cost to outfit a kid in gear these days? How much are registration fees? A lot. Baseball and basketball don’t face these issues to nearly the same extent, and in the case of football, (in my experience at least) kids are loaned the gear for the season by their school or community team.
I can’t think of a sport that’s more expensive for a child to play in an organized league than hockey.
by dzuunmod on Oct 17, 2009 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it’s really sad. I’m involved locally helping to sponsor our new Junior A team (Arizona RedHawks FTW) and we have some kids who are holding car washes today to help raise cash just for their equipment. The Coyotes bankruptcy situation has hit every level of AZ hockey pretty hard in terms of exposure and support. Hopefully that will rebound a bit now that the team is staying for the year.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Oct 17, 2009 5:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know, but it’s also important for kids to be able to attend with families. If a kid isn’t athletic, or they are interested in playing other sports, it doesn’t mean they can’t be a fan.
The “you can’t be a real fan unless you have played the game” is one of the dumbest memes ever. It’s great to play, if a kid has the time, the interest, and the desire, but it is far from necessary to be a fan.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Oct 17, 2009 6:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree on all of that. But you can’t deny that generally speaking, the areas where hockey is most widely played are also the areas that produce the most NHL-calibre players and also the areas where hockey as a spectator sport is most popular.
It’s possible to grow the game in places where kids aren’t playing it, but it’s sure as hell a lot harder to, as well.
A lot of kids will go to games without ever having played, and while sitting in the stands, turn to their moms and dads and say, “That looks like something I want to do!” It’s very important for the future of the sport that mom and dad are able to make it happen and, increasingly, they can’t.
by dzuunmod on Oct 17, 2009 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s great to play, if a kid has the time, the interest, and the desire, and the money but it is far from necessary to be a fan.
It costs a lot of money to play hockey in warm weather states. You can’t just take your stick and skates to the nearest pond.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 19, 2009 9:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention it’s very difficult to even get ice time in some cities. Here in Vancouver it’s ridiculous. Minor hockey associations have huge waiting lists even with the expense of equipment, registration fees, etc.
On a more positive note I work with group called H.E.R.O..S (sic) which provides equipment, ice time,and coaching to inner city kids in Vancouver and various other cities. Sorry for the link but you can find out more at heroshockey.com
by yrmom on Oct 17, 2009 9:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The HEROS group is working with Phoenix kids to help introduce them to hockey. Great bunch of people and if you’re working with them you have my admiration.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Oct 17, 2009 11:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There was an opinion piece in the New York Times just today talking about how families have been priced out of even baseball
The studies that say this are crap. Note that they tend to assume that a family is not only buying tickets, but also hot dogs and sodas for everyone, beer for the adults, and souvenirs for the kids. If all you care about is seeing the game as a family, pretty much anyone can go. Maybe most people don’t realize this, but both stadiums in New York, as well as a lot of other MLB teams, allow you to bring in your own food.
So, at Yankee Stadium, buy four grandstand tickets for a total of $56, pack a picnic basket, and go watch the game. Sure, it’s not like the days when you could go to a game for a nickel, but it doesn’t merit the sort of scorn that it gets. Very few people are really priced out of going to a baseball game.
by J. Michael Neal on Oct 17, 2009 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously? I have never been to a sporting event at any level where you were allowed to bring in your own food – or even bottled water. Diaper bags were searched, backpacks weren’t allowed at all, and even purses had to be opened to make sure that no contraband was being brought in. That is remarkable.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Oct 17, 2009 6:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I don’t follow NASCAR, so there is that.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Oct 18, 2009 5:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m with you. I’ve heard of situations where people with specific medical conditions or dietary requirements have had to call ahead and make special arrangements just to bring with them the orange juice or whatever it is they need in.
Spectator sports have become divided way more along class lines than they used to be. Sure, as J. Michael Neal says, you may be able to get in for cheap at the new Yankee Stadium, but the experience you’re getting is a distinctly different one from the people sitting between first and third. Like, as in, the people in those seats at least get to see the entire playing field.
by dzuunmod on Oct 17, 2009 9:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is it a different experience? Probably. But, if your concern is to watch a game of baseball, you can do so pretty cheaply. If you’re concerned about getting seat side waiter service, yeah, that’s going to cost you more.
I spent my childhood watching baseball from the bleacher seats at Fenway, the 700 section at Vet Stadium, and the outfield at Tiger Stadium. The best seats in the house have always been a luxury purchase. I remember the excitement of getting two box seat tickets for a game at Fenway for Christmas. If your complaint is that you don’t get to sit between first and third, I don’t have a lot of sympathy.
In the same way, there’s nothing new about obstructed view seats. Thousands of seats at old Tiger Stadium were behind posts, and thousands of seats at Fenway still are. For two years as a student, I had season tickets to watch the Gopher hockey team at old Mariucci Arena, and I couldn’t see one of the goals because of a support column.
Given that sports have managed to survive this for a century, I have a hard time believing that it’s going to kill them now. Mostly, I hear a lot of whining.
by J. Michael Neal on Oct 18, 2009 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not whining. I’m pretty sure if you compare sports ticket prices versus inflation and average salaries over the years, you’re going to find that sports ticket prices have increased at a much faster rate than either of those.
You can argue this is because prices were too low before, but it’s far less affordable, on balance, to go see games now.
by dzuunmod on Oct 18, 2009 6:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are ticket prices higher? Yes. Are they so much higher that this sort of existential angst is at all merited? No. In real terms, average ticket prices are about 50% higher than they were in the 1950s. Given the escalation at the highest end of ticket prices, this means that the lowest prices are up by less than that.
Now, one thing that is true, is that average ticket prices today are about double than they were when a lot of us were kids, namely in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but that’s because prices were at historical lows in real terms at that point.
As I said, even in New York, at New York prices, and at the more expensive of the two stadiums, you can get bleacher seats, most of which are not obstructed view, for $14 apiece. If you wanted to go to Minnesota Twins games, you could get in for $8, for a playoff team, for a single game, or get season tickets to all 81 games for a total of $250.
Baseball is not unaffordable except for a very small number of people. Saying otherwise is whining.
by J. Michael Neal on Oct 18, 2009 7:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
http://sportsbybrooks.com/6000-tix-unsold-alcs-game-one-tipping-point-26509
Yes, they’re the expensive seats, but this indicates that teams are at least starting to misjudge how many premium seats they can sell versus how many affordable seats they can sell.
If you want to make the case that ticket prices for teams like the Yankees (and by extension, Yankee player salaries and Yankee profit margins) ought to stay at their present level or even increase, good luck fighting your lonely battle.
by dzuunmod on Oct 18, 2009 8:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you want to make the case that ticket prices for teams like the Yankees ought to stay at their present level or even increase, good luck fighting your lonely battle.
Wow. Having lost the battle honestly, you’ve taken to putting words into my mouth. I never made any comment one way or the other as to what ticket prices should be. This is purely in your imagination. All I said was that, at current prices, the argument that families are priced out of going to major league baseball games is spurious. If you would like to respond to that argument, fine. If you want to engage in an argument as to whether ticket prices “ought to stay at their present level,” go find someone else.
by J. Michael Neal on Oct 19, 2009 8:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, how many of those 'cheap' tickets are there, anyway?
The existence of ‘bargain priced’ tickets is fine. The existence of them in limited quantites to the point that they aren’t available for regular purchase sort of defeats their purpose with regards to your position.
Just eyeballing the season ticket packages announced for 2010, it looks like there are less than 1000 seats a game priced at under 40 bucks a ticket.
So, yes, cheap tickets theoretically exist for families to purchase. Given the nature of the NY market, however, I would tend to think that they may be somewhat difficult to come by.
by HockeyinHD on Oct 19, 2009 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
1) Do you have a source for the figures? Could you even bother to tell me which teams you’re talking about?
2) Do you have evidence that the cheap seats were consistently sold out?
3) Do you have any evidence that what is available as a part of season ticket packages is the entire total of all cheap seats available? These are the kind of tickets that teams typically want to hold back for single game and day-of-game sales.
by J. Michael Neal on Oct 19, 2009 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In reply.
1) The Yankees. Wasn’t that the team you were referencing?
2) No, but do you really think they didn’t?
3) Entirely plausible. Again, I am merely postulating that the existence of minimal ‘bargain’ tickets stands somewhat at oods with your apparent assertion that the existence of those tickets means fans who want to go to a game can afford to do so.
So, to the degree that you’ll wait on seeing detailed seat-by-seat price level by price level information before acknowledging there are some flaws in your rationale here, it appears we sit at something of a stalemate.
by HockeyinHD on Oct 19, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
1) Actually, I’ve referenced several different teams. As I’ve pointed out, you are using the most expensive team in the league as your example, which means it’s hardly representative. You also need to compare it to general prices in New York, and not the rest of the country.
2) I have no idea. Can you present any evidence, or are you just guessing?
3) Yes, that is exactly what you are postulating. You don’t provide any evidence to support your postulation, which means it is hard to take seriously. Further, if the seats do sell out, is that evidence that families are taking advantage of lower prices to take their kids to games?
4) It’s not much of a stalemate. You have claimed that families can’t afford to take their kids to games. I have pointed out that there are, in fact, tickets that allow them to do so. Those tickets are real, and they exist. You haven’t done anything to refute that. Until you can demonstrate why the existence of those tickets does not refute your claim, you have a problem.
by J. Michael Neal on Oct 20, 2009 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think using the New York market, and the Yankees in particular, is a good representation of baseball.
by RedBirdie on Oct 19, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've brought food into...
Wrigley Field, AT&T Park, HP Pavilion, Soldier Field, Petco Park and Dodger Stadium this year. All legal. I’ve brought a Big Gulp from the 7-11 across the street from Wrigley into the park every game for 20+ years. Sealed water bottles are Ok at most. Some places make you it in a clear bag, but food simply isn’t an issue at many places.
by bison on Oct 17, 2009 10:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting. That has not been my experience at all. Hmmm.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Oct 18, 2009 5:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am talking only about baseball. Every baseball stadium where I’ve ever tried to bring in food, it’s been fine. When I was a kid, my family went to Vet Stadium to watch the Phillies from the 700 section with a picnic basket 8-10 times a year.
I’m not familiar with any other sport that allows fans bring in food.
by J. Michael Neal on Oct 18, 2009 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I've just been hitting the right places...
http://sharks.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=46422
Guest Food: Guests may bring in reasonable amounts of food and non-alcoholic beverages for their own personal consumption at most events.
But then I did a quick check of other team websites: only Columbus allows outside food other than baby food/allergy-free food. Lucky us!
Baseball, as the original poster mentioned somewhere above, is far more liberal about that.
by bison on Oct 19, 2009 5:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve never had a problem bringing my own food to the Saddledome. Of course, it’s always been smuggled in by coat or Mom’s purse, but the usher’s never said anything after the fact when we’re actually eating.
As an aside, isn’t it illegal to search someone’s purse like that?
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
by Doogie2K on Oct 18, 2009 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They justify it by saying that no one has to show up for the game and they need to look out for the public safety. I generally transfer my essentials to a smaller purse if I expect it may be searched (and they are pretty casual about it, but I normally carry a Gerber multi-tool and a few other things in case I need them and anything sharp makes people nervous). I’m just glad I don’t need to travel by plane routinely, because the complete ineffectiveness of the security measures and the dreadful lack of thought that goes into doing not much more than looking busy and putting on a show would drive me nuts and I’d wind up in trouble.
Sometimes it just isn’t worth the effort or trouble to stick up for yourself – it’s less expensive and less of a hassle to just stay home and save the money for something else, and avoid being treated with suspicion or the traffic in the parking lot or (in my case) drunken leering and comments that security has at times dismissed as “you should be flattered by the attention.” Sigh.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Oct 18, 2009 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can refuse, and they can then refuse you entry by refunding your ticket price. That’s about it.
by Resolute on Oct 18, 2009 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously? I have never been to a sporting event at any level where you were allowed to bring in your own food – or even bottled water. Diaper bags were searched, backpacks weren’t allowed at all, and even purses had to be opened to make sure that no contraband was being brought in. That is remarkable.
You can bring damn near anything into a Baltimore Orioles game (where tickets start at a mere $8). And the Nationals have $5 tickets and a fairly liberal policy (and insanely lax security at some gates!) on food.
by RedBirdie on Oct 18, 2009 9:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn’t Bettman’s plan to expand to the south dude. Try learning the history before spouting off.
Tampa and San Jose entered under Ziegler.
Florida and Anaheim were awarded after Bettman started, but the entire expansion cycle came under Stein.
The BOG approved the relocation of the North Stars to Dallas under Stein.
The remainder of the expansion and relocations occurred under Bettman as per the goals of the BOG.
As far as questionable judgment goes, this was a $500 million industry when he was hired, and is now a $2.8 billion industry just 16 years later. Why don’t you dig up the salaries that the CEOs of other companies with such growth rates are earning compared to 16 years ago?
by Resolute on Oct 17, 2009 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And there haven’t been any new teams since Tampa, San Jose, Florida, Anaheim, or Dallas?
Stop trying to give me part of a history lesson. I’m as much interested in your opinion as you are in mine. I’ll make my own interpretations. Growth of the NHL as a business wasn’t even the crux of my argument.
Jon Casey fan since '84
by stufflife on Oct 18, 2009 9:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course it wasn’t. In order to achieve an ideal measure of Bettman hate, you have to disregard some of his major achievements. Unfortunately for you, growth of the business is a major reason why he is paid what he is (and he is still paid far less than the commissioners of the MLB, NFL and NBA).
As to the history lesson, I could simply say “your opinion is based around a myth”, or I could show you how it is based around a myth. I chose the latter, as that usually is more effective. “Cramming the sport down their throats” was a strategy that predated Bettman. More to the point, the majority of expansion applications at the time came from southern markets, so it isn’t like the league was forcing itself into markets that didn’t want it.
by Resolute on Oct 19, 2009 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it isn’t like the league was forcing itself into markets that didn’t want it.
Well, who wouldn’t want hockey? This shit is awesome!
I’m not even an apologetic Bettman hater. Of course he has made some strides in the right direction; he’s been there 16 years! But for every mistake he makes, it gets multiplied 7.1 million times. There’s no need to compare to other sports commissioners’ salaries. He acted like an insubordinate child with the Phoenix issue this summer – not because he didn’t want them to move away, because he said Balsillie’s bid wasn’t good enough and then he undercut it. If it’s a business move, there is money to be made in Hamilton. There is money to be made in Winnipeg. There is money to be made in Quebec City. He’s got an agenda, and I would rather he keep an open mind. That agenda could have easily changed in the last decade or two.
All I said was that my gut tells me he is thinking more about the US than Canada. You can’t tell me that this is a myth. It’s an opinion. If it was fact, there wouldn’t be 82 comments in this thread.
Jon Casey fan since '84
by stufflife on Oct 19, 2009 11:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He acted like an insubordinate child with the Phoenix issue this summer – not because he didn’t want them to move away, because he said Balsillie’s bid wasn’t good enough and then he undercut it. If it’s a business move, there is money to be made in Hamilton.
It had NOTHING to do with Balsillie’s bid and a desire to screw him over. It had EVERYTHING to do with the NHL maintaining control over to whom they give a franchise. Balsillie and Moyes tried to circumvent the NHL in a transfer of ownership. Surprise, the NHL fought back. Guess who was on their side of the courtroom? MLB, NFL, and NBA.
The PHX debacle didn’t become personnel until Balsillie made it personal by challenging the BoG’s ruling that they didn’t want him based on his perceived character flaws. Flaws that included him undercutting two market to try to get a team on the cheap.
"I know everyone has their own opinion, but your opinion is wrong. "
by Mike @ MHH on Oct 20, 2009 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. Bettman is ousted or leaves. The new commissioner is concerned about the legacy of hockey and takes teams out of the SouthEast and probably abandons the shootout, too.
Bettman does what the owners want him to do so you’ll need them to change course first.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Oct 16, 2009 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“With Bettman at the helm, I suspect that the next time expansion happens…”
There are how many financially desperate clubs right now… expansion would be insane!!
Keep in mind that these clubs are losing tens of millions of dollars a season PRIOR to the economic downturn / recession.
As long as there are multiple financially troubled clubs there will not, or maybe, SHOULD not be expansion. There should be relocation!
by lightweight on Oct 16, 2009 5:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I completely agree that expansion is insane. It was an idea brought up in the article, though; it’s not my own pie-in-the-sky stuff. Relocation is a much more viable option, but I think it was a bad idea to expand so quickly in the last 20 years. It’s going to slow down any future plans, especially if a relocation has to occur.
I am not against contraction, but it’s so painful I wouldn’t wish it upon my worst enemies, even the Ducks. ;) I hadn’t watched baseball in 5 years, but when I heard rumors about the Twins being contracted a long while back, I was pissed. I wasn’t even living in Minnesota at the time.
Jon Casey fan since '84
by stufflife on Oct 16, 2009 7:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you bring in expansion teams, then the teams currently in trouble look good compared to the new teams. Problem solved!
The West Coast is the Best Coast.
by RudyKelly on Oct 17, 2009 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Oooh, sarcasm much?
Occam's Razor keeps the cutting clean.
by russellguldin on Oct 17, 2009 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe he does a great deal, actually. :)
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Oct 17, 2009 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely reform shootouts + more
If I were commissioner, I’d certainly address shootouts and possibly even overtime-loss points.
I’d rather see shootouts used solely as a bonus point for end-of-season tiebreakers. i.e. if Dallas has 88 points (4 shootout wins), Anaheim has 88 points (3 shootout wins), and Colorado has 87 points (+6 shootout wins), you’d still rank them
Dallas
Anaheim
Colorado
I’ve also always disliked the point for an overtime loss, as it puts more points into a game than there are otherwise (ties are 1 point apiece for 2 points total; wins are for 2 points, with the loser’s 0 adding to 2 points total; ot-loss points are worth won, while the winner still gets 2 points, adding the points total to 3), but that’d be up to the teams to decide via a vote.
I’d also heavily push promotion/relegation to break the ‘single entity’ monopoly that is the NHL. Not only have I spoken on this before, but Wired Magazine recently ran an article on this subject in a supporting manner. Not only does it decrease the ability of owners to strongarm cities into building them multimillion sports palaces on the taxpayers dime (when there are clubs in nearly every city, the threat of relocation is weak), but it also insures that only the strongest clubs survive. Teams would not only have to put a quality product on the ice, they’d also have to organically grow support within their community to sustain their fanbase at the level they play. Moreover, owners would have to be financially sound to compete with the big boys. Cities that have an argument they could hang with the big boys would have their shot, and markets that struggle would play in the second tier until they had the organizational structure, finances, and fan support to play up.
by VA Libertarian on Oct 16, 2009 8:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the idea of a two-tiered NHL. It won’t ever happen, but it is a gem of a concept!!
by lightweight on Oct 17, 2009 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A double-tiered NHL would be amazing. They could have each tier be 20 teams, and promote and relegate the top/bottom 4. That would make just about every game down the stretch important – playoff contention or not. The toughest sell would be to fans of the 10 current teams that would drop to the lower level, and I’m sure those owners wouldn’t much like it either. But that would be the logical way to get Winnipeg, Quebec, Hartford, KC, Seattle, Portland, and other borderline markets into the league in some form.
by Arenacale on Oct 17, 2009 5:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They should call themselves the King Arthur Group.
Also, the Legacy group was a huge a joke.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Oct 16, 2009 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most of the chatter I’ve heard surrounding potential ownership in Quebec City is that Quebecor would be a likely candidate.
It is a large media conglomerate (the largest in Quebec)with television, newspaper, internet and magazine/book publishing arms.
Quebecor was sniffing around the Montreal Canadiens when they were put up for sale recently, putting in a bid that ultimately lost out to the Molson brothers.
by Robert J on Oct 16, 2009 1:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Other NHL cities?
I was thinking of possible cities that would be viable for relocation (not specifically the Coyotes, but also Florida, Atlanta, Long Island, Tampa, or Nashville). In no particular order…
City pop arena?
Seattle 3.3 million yes (94 renovated)
Kansas City 2.0 million yes (new)
Houston 5.7 million yes (2003)
Inland Empire, CA 4.1 million no, not NHL size
Hamilton, ON 0.7 million yes, but not NHL ready
Portland 2.1 million yes
There are other cities such as Oklahoma City and Charlotte with new arenas, but they would seem to be extremely unlikely destinations. Any other ones I didn’t think of?
by birky on Oct 16, 2009 2:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Seattle is not viable. There is no arena. KeyArena was unsuitable for junior hockey, and there is no way in hell it will pass muster for the NHL, even on a temporary basis.
by Resolute on Oct 16, 2009 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I won Lotto Gigantix
The only two on that list I’d look at would be Hamilton & Portland.
Hamilton is bigger than you show – add Niagra peninsula, southern third of metro T.O.
Hartford & Quebec City with new arenas would both work, or could both work
by Mr DeBakey on Oct 16, 2009 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Charlotte has an ECHL team that plays at the arena, iirc.
by RedBirdie on Oct 16, 2009 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are other cities such as Oklahoma City and Charlotte with new arenas…
OKC’s newly renovated to NBA standards arena isn’t the same as new. Plus the little fact that we currently can’t support a CHL team means THERE WILL NEVER BE NHL HOCKEY IN OKLAHOMA CITY. Please, everybody, stop looking at NBA maps and throwing darts at areas without NHL teams.
"I know everyone has their own opinion, but your opinion is wrong. "
by Mike @ MHH on Oct 16, 2009 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The truth is there’s only one great market available.
Houston might be the second best, if you had great ownership involved that was willing to eat losses in the beginning.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Oct 16, 2009 6:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was actually looking at arenas in underserved markets that are currently capable of an ice surface and have decent capacity. I didn’t mean that those arenas were necessarily long term solutions.
Plus, I’m pretty sure I said OKC was highly unlikely.
by birky on Oct 16, 2009 11:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How do they decide which troubled team gets to relocate where? I am beginning to think that the NHL owners have some kind of “if I can’t have her, no one can” sort of mentality when it comes to Southern Ontario. Unless there is a completely ridiculous expansion fee that gets divvied up between them all. Because seriously, whoever lands that turf is going from pauper to prince overnight. Any other location will be much harder going in comparison.
by mogo on Oct 18, 2009 10:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why wouldn’t the current owners want a piece of that Southern Ontario pie?? The pauper-to-prince journey won’t happen by putting a hockey team in that market. It will happen because you’ve put a NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE team in that market. The current owners have control of that brand. Of course they want some of that sweet, sweet money that’s lying in wait.
That’s like telling McDonalds they shouldn’t get any cash from a franchisee. It makes no sense, so why bring it up?
Point of fact: It’s only a ridiculous expansion fee if nobody will pay it. If somebody will pay it, THEY DIDN"T ASK FOR ENOUGH.
"I know everyone has their own opinion, but your opinion is wrong. "
by Mike @ MHH on Oct 19, 2009 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Capitalism, for the win.
What is the expansion fee for Hamilton? The NHL and Balsillie’s lawyers came up with radically different numbers. And didn’t Toronto abstain from the vote, as well as Nashville, since Jimmy Balls had tried to purchase them, too?
Jon Casey fan since '84
by stufflife on Oct 19, 2009 11:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
okay, thanks.
Jon Casey fan since '84
by stufflife on Oct 20, 2009 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I meant expansion as opposed to relocation. An expansion team would be welcomed, as everyone gets a piece of the pie. But if you have multiple teams in trouble and looking to move, I would think there’d be some jealousy about who gets to land on the most fertile soil, and who has to make do with yet another lukewarm market.
by mogo on Oct 20, 2009 12:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha, Bettman moving a team or putting an expansion in Canada. He sure knows how to jerk around fans.
by WebBard on Oct 16, 2009 2:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Interesting?
The morning after the announced attendance in Glendale was a reported 6,081 Bettman decides to issue a statement concerning the possibility of relocation of certain franchises within the NHL. " All lines of communication are open" no doubt they are..no doubt they are.
It's never about the eventual destination, but rather the long journey and its challenging obstacles that are presented and what it takes to overcome them, that makes the taste of success all the more worthwhile!!!
by hawks61 on Oct 16, 2009 2:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
More along the lines of “We want what’s best for the franchise,” while trying to force their own agenda. It’s the two faces of the NHL.
Jon Casey fan since '84
by stufflife on Oct 16, 2009 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The ridiculous situation in southern Ontario didn’t crop up yesterday, Gary.
These episodes with Pittsburgh, Nashville, and now Phoenix are embarrassing to the league and the NHL has no one to blame but itself. It’s all due to the terrible mismanagement of both the NHL’s cash cow market (southern Ontario) and its sun-belt expansion market, and I would expect similar embarrassing episodes to continue as long as these markets are not taken care of.
by FourFeetOfCurl on Oct 16, 2009 3:34 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Here’s the story on Quebec City mayor’s announcement today.
We’ll have to wait to see if the different levels of government jump into the project or decline it:
by Fred Poulin on Oct 16, 2009 6:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The Feds cant
The second they even hint at supporting this plan, Calgary, Edmonton and Hamilton all come along looking for similar handouts. The federal government won’t touch that one with a ten foot pole.
by Resolute on Oct 17, 2009 6:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think one of the great tragedies this summer
Was allowing Bob Gainey to keep his job and make a ton of horrible signings that will cripple the Next Habs GM for the next five years.
by Exit716 on Oct 17, 2009 11:40 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Could be worse
You coulda had Burke…
by Resolute on Oct 17, 2009 6:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The other tragedy
Was allowing Montreal to have unlimited centre ice ceremonies prior to every freaking game.
Wow. New stamps from Canada Post.
by Exit716 on Oct 17, 2009 6:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
