Kansas City faces the preseason test

by James Mirtle on Sep 22, 2009 11:54 AM CDT Comment 44 comments

Tonight the NHL preseason touches down in Kansas City, a game arranged between the need-a-new-building Islanders and the owner of the Kings who has a building to fill in K.C.

From what I've heard, however, tickets have been a tough sell. John Tavares won't be in the Isles lineup, and there has been steep discounting on tickets in recent weeks as it's become apparent the building wouldn't be full.

For those in the city looking to land an NHL team, a brutal attendance number – even for a preseason game – would be bad for business, and it makes sense they'll attempt to fill 'er up any way they can. So while tickets for exhibition games in places like Regina, Sask., and Everett, Wash., are going for $50 to $100-plus, hockey fans in K.C. (wherever they may be) can get into the Sprint Center's lower bowl tonight for $10.

Make of that what you will.

0 recs | Comment 44 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

1) Former isles PR man Chris Botta says despite a big push with comps galore, the building won’t be even close to being filled.
2) On the same day that Isles owner Charles Wang is being given stiff opposition from the Town of Hempstead over his Light House project which would include a new arena.
3) Doesn’t look good for the isles staying in Nassau, but the NHL might be careful to make a move to another market that’s failed in the past

I find sometimes it's easy to be myself
sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else

by Fauxrumors on Sep 22, 2009 12:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Side note

I was going to go to the Preseason game between Tampa and Phoenix in Loveland tomorrow, but the cheapest tickets in the arena are $45.

$45 for a game that doesn’t count is criminal, I will not be attending.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 22, 2009 12:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Saskatoon’s prices started at around $65 (that’s with the service harges) and went up to $88.50. Scalpers had a hard time flipping them, so that was a positive I suppose. Apparently tickets were available on Kijiji for half price in the final week.

But the games sold out.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Sep 22, 2009 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

But Saskatoon’s closest NHL team isn’t less than an hours drive away

Why would I pay $45 for a preseason ticket to two teams I don’t care much about when I could watch the Avs play the Kings for $25 on the same evening, closer to my (and most Denver resident’s) house?

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 22, 2009 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What are the chances of Seattle being a potential target as opposed to KC?

I’m very curious about the potential for a team in seattle because of the whole sonics leaving and stuff…

by JustJeff on Sep 22, 2009 12:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Lack of an NHL arena is the biggest obstacle, considering that’s why the Sonics left (to over simplify things…)

by Afino on Sep 22, 2009 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

Agree.

I still think they are the most viable NHL market in the US right now though.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 22, 2009 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would agree (actually, Seattle/Portland), although I would wonder what a Milwaukee-based team might do…

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 22, 2009 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve always thought about Milwaukee, but I don’t think they could support a team unless the Bucks move out. But Wisconsin is certainly hockey-country and it may not be a bad place to go.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 23, 2009 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just think that anywhere in the Great Lakes area is a good place for hockey. All that cold lake air and ice… :)

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 23, 2009 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not just lack of an NHL arena, but resistance to any new gov’t funded arena. KeyArena could hold the team temporarily, but after the new stadiums for both the Seahawks and Mariners the taxpayers were taxed out (hence why the new Sonics arena was always a pipedream).

by Arenacale on Sep 22, 2009 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still find it odd that they let the one local team with a championship to their name leave, though.

Seattle would be an excellent market for the NHL if an owner/arena were to emerge, especially now that there is no NBA to compete with.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Sep 22, 2009 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Taxpayers of Seattle had paid for upgrades to Key 10 years earlier. Then they built the Mariners and Seahawks new stadiums, and then the NBA decided that upgrades weren’t good enough, they wanted a new arena too. One that cost 1/2 a Billion dollars, as far away from Seattle as Glendale is from Phoenix.

Seattle taxpayers balked (as they should have).

I still find it odd that they let the one local team with a championship to their name leave, though.

The NBA kind of used this reasoning to try and extort a new unnecessary arena. When they didn’t get it the NBA decided ti would take it’s ball and leave.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 22, 2009 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Portland would be a better choice...

They have an NHL-ready arena and they’re a sizeable and strong hockey market in the same region as Seattle.

by Forsch31 on Sep 23, 2009 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They also have an NBA team. Seattle doesn’t

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 24, 2009 9:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If (when?) the Coyotes end up shipping out of Phoenix on Bettman’s terms, then KC will get a team. Right now, I think owners are happy to keep it as the “threat arena”, where your local team might be headed if they don’t get what they want for a new arena deal. You would note the success of LA as a similar market for NFL owners. It also wouldn’t suprise me to see an NBA team get in there first, especially now that the Zombie Sonics are relatively close by.

My gut feeling all along has been that the Isles will end up at the Barclays Center (the proposed Nets place), assuming it gets built. I also think Hartford’s best chance at a team would be the Islanders – the two cities are fairly close, but they’d have to offer a hell of a sweetheart deal to Wang to be successful.

by Arenacale on Sep 22, 2009 1:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Why is KC suddenly considered a solid hockey market? What magical history do they have supporting hockey at any level? The Blades folded with the IHL and was the best example of hockey support in the town’s history. All other attempts at professional hockey in KC have been pretty much failures! When I hear KC batted around as a destination for expansion or transplanted NHL teams, I think of the situation in Atlanta. NHL Hockey failed in Atlanta once and I have no idea why the league went back there, beyond a new building and an expansion fee. The Thrashers have an ownership mess, aren’t managed very well and the fans are starting to stay home. If a team lands in KC, and it’s not very good, will the team be DOA? Will a bad team in KC draw flies? Will a good team in KC draw flies? Why not go to markets that have a history of supporting hockey, like Seattle, Oklahoma City and Hamilton, ON?

by NHL Observer on Sep 22, 2009 1:13 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

1) Just a guess but KC and or Las Vegas get teams before any of those listed cities.
2) As for the isles: From the past when Charles Wang gives a deadline he means it. Ask players who held out. They stayed home and/or were then traded. If there isn’t an agreement with Nassau by October 3rd, you can bet your boots he’ll keep his promise and start to look elsewhere. Queens and Kings(Brooklyn) NY being the most logical destinations

I find sometimes it's easy to be myself
sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else

by Fauxrumors on Sep 22, 2009 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

A) Your argument is flawed. The NHL moved out of KC because the team was AWFUL and the ownership group was thrown together at the last minute. For every Atlanta reference, you can go back to Colorado, the Rockies sucked, they moved. The Avs were great, they stayed and set attendance records.

B) The Blades were one of the highest drawing IHL teams in the 90s. The team went under because Dan DeVos bought the team in 1997 and owned two teams in the IHL, essentially using the Blades as a “farm” club for Grand Rapids. He increased ticket prices and decreased talent. People in KC hate him.

C) KC is not “suddenly” being considered a solid hockey market. We’ve been clamoring for a team since the NHL began expanding again in the late 90s. They moved to markets like Nashville and Columbus because those cities had brand new arenas, KC did not. KC missed the boat in the latter part of the 90s because of non-progressive thinking. Hockey WILL succeed in KC. Corporate support, brand new building, passionate sports fans. If the team makes the playoffs within the first two seasons, KC will fall in love and never look back.

by kcdynasty on Sep 22, 2009 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

KC would become one of the most saturated pro sports markets in North America with a NHL team. Generally speaking, markets need to be a certain size to a certain number of pro sports franchises in the region. It’s possible the NHL team could do well, but the Royals would probably fall off the map completely (if they haven’t already). I don’t see KC as a 3 horse town being sustainable, considering it’s already stretched a bit as a 2 horse one.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Sep 22, 2009 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I hear you. However, if KC gets a team, it’s not gonna be a GOOD one, and it’s not gonna be one that makes the playoffs in the first two years. The team KC gets, if it gets one, is going to be a BAD expansion team or team that is uprooted from somewhere else that is pretty bad. GOOD teams don’t really move that often, because people go to see them and spend money.

by NHL Observer on Sep 22, 2009 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why not go to markets that have a history of supporting hockey, like Seattle, Oklahoma City and Hamilton, ON?

Dear NHL and intraweb readers everywhere,

Please remove OKC from you list of potential relocation/expansion cities. OKC has supported cheap, fight-filled minor-league hockey well. Unless Anaheim and Philly are going to merge into one douche-tastic team lead by Bertuzzi, Carcillo, and Phaneuf they will never draw well.

Thank you.

2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: Nothing Inspirational Comes to Mind

by Mike @ MHH on Sep 22, 2009 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just like KC is too small for 3 pro sports teams, OKC is too small for 2. The NBA got there first. They can have OKC.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Sep 22, 2009 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay, you make a point and I have to admit OKC is a reach, but they at least have a tradition of supporting minor pro hockey, whether it’s good or bad.

by NHL Observer on Sep 22, 2009 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The key word in my open letter to everybody is CHEAP.

2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: Nothing Inspirational Comes to Mind

by Mike @ MHH on Sep 23, 2009 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

NHL Hockey failed in Atlanta once and I have no idea why the league went back there, beyond a new building and an expansion fee.

Because it’s a huge, growing market with a lot of northerners. And I would be shocked if it doesn’t support an NHL team if it ever gets a decent one.

by David M. Getz on Sep 22, 2009 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because it’s a huge, growing market with a lot of northerners.…that stay home a lot. Everybody likes GOOD teams. It’s the folks that stay in the building when the team is struggling the defines the market. Atlanta stays home when the going gets tough, and not just at the hockey rink, either.

by NHL Observer on Sep 22, 2009 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hell, the Braves have trouble selling out playoff games, and making the playoffs in MLB is a significantly bigger deal than the NHL.

by dzuunmod on Sep 22, 2009 6:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve never been able to figure out Atlanta. The fans there who DO go to events in that city are some of the best in sports, but wow… they have a hard time getting company even when things are going well and I’m not sure why.

No offense to Thrashers fans, either – it’s not just hockey. Doesn’t matter if it’s MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, or NASCAR… it’s tough to get people to sell out a stadium there.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 22, 2009 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Same deal, more or less, in Miami. The Marlins are by some measures on the field one of the best-run organizations in baseball and they even managed to finagle a new stadium out of the voters there, but five years into that stadium’s existence, let’s just see how many bums are in the seats.

by dzuunmod on Sep 23, 2009 1:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

See my response below but change it to seminoles, gators, and hurricanes.

2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: Nothing Inspirational Comes to Mind

by Mike @ MHH on Sep 23, 2009 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Check the poverty index

Atlanta had a decrease in income of nearly 5% between 2000 and 2004; since they were a city that was rapidly expanding, it was hit hard by the W.’s First Recession. When the housing bubble burst, Atlanta saw another large loss in income; current unemployment rates are above the national average at 10.4%.

The real reason some expansion teams are successful is because there is a stable, mid-to-high-end economy to support the team. San Jose, Anaheim, and Denver all have a good economy with nominal growth that isn’t based on cheap housing and business property costs, such as Atlanta and Phoenix. Companies don’t move to those cities because they are transportation hubs, or that their primary markets exist in those regions. Most companies move to Atlanta, Phoenix, and Tampa because it is much cheaper to operate there than it is in Chicago, Boston or NYC.

Occam's Razor keeps the cutting clean.

by russellguldin on Sep 23, 2009 5:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unless that stadium sports a bulldog, a tiger, or a yellow jacket. COLLEGE FOOTBALL is king in Georgia. All of the pro sports play second fiddle to the NCAA gridiron.

2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: Nothing Inspirational Comes to Mind

by Mike @ MHH on Sep 23, 2009 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Everybody likes GOOD teams. It’s the folks that stay in the building when the team is struggling the defines the market.

By that definition the only good markets in the NHL are Montreal, New York and Toronto.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 23, 2009 10:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also NHL Observer, there are no guarantees that the Isles would move to Brooklyn because they’ve been trying to get an arena deal done for the Nets there for over 5 years. It would be the same situation if Wang decided to do that. I think he might be ready to take the path of least resistance: moving to KC.

by kcdynasty on Sep 22, 2009 1:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

1) KC dynasty: If Wang left NY the lucrative TV deal gets left behind too. That’s ONE reason why another NY area destination makes more sense to the isles.
2) Can’t see the Isles leaving for KC, but Brooklyn/Queens or even Suffolk county are better possibilities. Keep in mind they still are under a lease to stay another 5-? or so years which Wang has already said he would honor

I find sometimes it's easy to be myself
sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else

by Fauxrumors on Sep 22, 2009 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I haven’t paid much attention to the situation, but I have the idea that there’s a better chance of a Seattle arena before the Brooklyn Nets arena gets built.

by Afino on Sep 22, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you want the Islanders, take them. They’re a bad team, with bad management. A new building in KC won’t change the fact that Charles Wang is a terrible owner, who can’t get decent hockey people to work with him for very long, if at all.

by NHL Observer on Sep 22, 2009 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, if the team moves, it won’t be Wang retaining ownership, so you needn’t worry.

Regardless of K.C.‘s current credentials (or lack thereof), the whole “it failed there before” idea is just not a very convincing point. That was 30 years ago — anyone evaluating the market should be looking at current conditions, not what an awful owner did in the middle of the NHL’s WHA scramble. As others have pointed out, other markets have “failed” and then thrived with new teams in far less time than that. Conditions change.

For an extreme example of how different 30 years can be: NHL hockey “failed” in St. Louis during the Great Depression (after “failing” in Ottawa), then was revived as the Blues 34 years later while the Beatles were still together.

Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.

by Dominik on Sep 22, 2009 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My point about KC isn’t really so much a reflection of the Scouts, but about minor league support in KC afterwards. The Blades didn’t make it and nobody has been trying to make the AHL work there. They tried a UHL team in 2005 and it died in a year.

The NHL may have failed in Ottawa and St. Louis (and Pittsburgh and Philly) on their first attempts, but follow-up attempts at the minor and junior levels over those decades proved there was a market there, and the NHL was able to make a second attempt work. KC’s last two minor league attempts have been failures.

by NHL Observer on Sep 22, 2009 6:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Attendance figures for tonight's game being tossed around...

by several people (including NYIPB via a Newsday reporter) are only 3,000. Take that for what it’s worth. Does that count as a brutal attendance number?

by DanNOLA on Sep 22, 2009 8:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, let’s see… the Coyotes drew 2000 for their first home preseason game and about 5-6000 for their second… and we’ve had a summer-long courtroom soap opera going on that has killed any media or promotional activity around the team whatsoever.

So yeah, it’s pretty brutal… :P

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 22, 2009 10:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It would be brutal, but it was incorrect (as saskhab noted below). Not sure how that one made the rounds. I thought it was a nice crowd, given the circumstances, but I also think those people are tired of playing the fool and pretending an exhibition game will get them a team.

Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.

by Dominik on Sep 23, 2009 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

9972

Is the recorded attendance. Less than last year’s exhibition game, but not terrible. There’s no incentive for a casual fan to see the Kings and Isles, two lottery teams from last year, other than seeing a level of hockey a bit above the AHL level.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Sep 22, 2009 11:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs