|
Post by donwood on Jun 15, 2013 20:25:25 GMT -6
Yeah, and do what play in a crappy 11.000 seat arena with NO guarantee for a new arena. Your schtick is old - why was QC not even mentioned then? And your great source Healy was the one who said it was Seattle on July 2.... I;m sorry if you only want to listen to Todd, I don;t care who said, moving to Seattle without a new arena makes no sense,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2013 20:26:22 GMT -6
Apparently I'm not the only one that heard him say that as well. People on Twitter are talking about it too. Pretty bold statement. I wonder if its true or if this is just another negotiating ploy by the NHL to twist the screws a little tighter on the CoG. Anyway, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just reporting what I heard.
|
|
|
Post by donwood on Jun 15, 2013 20:28:41 GMT -6
We'll see soon, one way or another. Ans YES, I still firmly believe the team is going to Quebec. And If I'm wrong I'll be the first to say so.
|
|
|
Post by JayR on Jun 15, 2013 20:36:57 GMT -6
Your schtick is old - why was QC not even mentioned then? And your great source Healy was the one who said it was Seattle on July 2.... I;m sorry if you only want to listen to Todd, I don;t care who said, moving to Seattle without a new arena makes no sense, It wasnt Todd - Glen Healy who you claim has great ties in the PA. Keep the blinders on, they may very well go to QC but for you to always deny other options being said by mainstream media is comical.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2013 20:43:52 GMT -6
Here's more of what some other guy heard (I was busy working so I only caught half of what comes out of Heatly's mouth)....
George Malik @georgemalik Hotstove stuff: Healy: plan B for NHL for PHO is $220 mil ownership bid w/ subsidy by July 2 or club will move to Seattle. JR would help run
That would be "Jeremy Roenick".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2013 20:58:55 GMT -6
Everyone battling over Plan B.
Even Healy, who a week ago assured everyone the end is nigh, is now dropping the Plan B opinion and CALLING it Plan B by saying IF they don't stay in Glendale.
Plan A will happen, despite every excuse that people are desperately grasping for by reading between the lines of the handshake agreement (yes, we all know its not a done deal .....but when the lease is finalized and the vote is Yes as it has ALWAYS been even when Joyce Clark voted No, then you can go on to praying for $ deal w/NHL to blow up or GWI to ride in).
Team is staying in Glendale.
Plan A is the way. Embrace it.
-TODD
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jun 15, 2013 21:01:58 GMT -6
Everyone battling over Plan B. Even Healy, who a week ago assured everyone the end is nigh, is now dropping the Plan B opinion and CALLING it Plan B by saying IF they don't stay in Glendale. Plan A will happen, despite every excuse that people are desperately grasping for by reading between the lines of the handshake agreement (yes, we all know its not a done deal .....but when the lease is finalized and the vote is Yes as it has ALWAYS been even when Joyce Clark voted No, then you can go on to praying for $ deal w/NHL to blow up or GWI to ride in). Team is staying in Glendale. Plan A is the way. Embrace it. -TODD Yup plan A has happened several times now and the team is still owned by the nhl.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2013 21:07:10 GMT -6
Fortunately for all of you, my vote lesson was saved to my IPhone notes while I was spellchecking. Isn't that lucky for you that it wasn't lost in the Delete Disaster? ------------------------------------
Since we're approaching those fun days where people begin to count CM votes, I thought I would revisit a post I made here a few weeks ago.
Especially in light of a quote from one of Giblin's AZRepublican articles on the NHL/RSE visit.
CM Ian Hugh, who everyone counts as a no-vote because he is a staunch republican, said after Tuesday's meeting that he "would love to have an anchor tenant playing at the arena." Appears to support my comment on him below.
So, for your summer re-run enjoyment. __________________________
You guys keep talking about the new council as if it is drastically different in votes, but it truly isn't. The only drastic difference is going to be Chavira definite NO to a Clark YES, and yet a couple of definite NOs from the previous council can not currently be defined as definite.
Chavira replaced Clark.
Sherwood is pro Yotes. He replaces a Pro Yote
Hughes replaced Lieberman. Lieberman was a guaranteed NO. Hughes could be, thus a one-for-one, as he is very conservative and this not prone to spending. However, he is very pro business and the argument regarding the affect on local businesses may intrigue him. Thus, he is not nearly as strong a NO as the man he replaced.
Weiers replaces Scruggs, who was a strong NO the moment her boyfriend Hulsizer left town. Is Weiers a definitive NO based on his campaign and early comments? Not lately he isn't. Lately, Weiers has shown strong signs of being interested in finding a way to make this work.
So, your praising of the new council comes down to: a NO replaces a YES, a YES replaces a YES, a maybe-NO replaces a definite-NO, and a mayor looking for a win on both sides replaces a definite NO.
Don't count your council votes before they hatch.
__________________________
I believe elsewhere I even boldly predicted that a 4-3 Yes vote could even end up 5-2. The two being Alavrez and Chavira. Yet, it's not like Chavira is yapping anti-Coyote sentiment all over the place, and Westgate IS in his district......6-1?
-----------------------------------------
Ah, I am now leaning to Chavira having an even stronger chance of voting Yes. Political animal who will not want to risk Westgate failing, because that possible failure, WHICH IS THE GIST OF HIS DISTRICT, could be in high gear just in time for his re-election.
-TODD
|
|
|
Post by domi on Jun 15, 2013 21:54:53 GMT -6
Well I've stated a few times that I refuse to believe the NHL is going to put a team in Seattle, especially with such short notice. That being said, if they actually do, I'll be the first to buy a 10 pack or 6 pack ticket package. It would be awesome to have an NHL team in Seattle. Still I hope Quebec gets their team back first, and by first I mean next season. Here's a pretty good overview on how hockey would or wouldn't work in Seattle for the next two years (note that Key Arena only has something like 9,000 to 11,000 seats for hockey): sciencewitness.com/the-nhl-in-seattle-can-key-arena-be-a-temporary-home-2/
|
|
|
Post by JordyRamone on Jun 15, 2013 22:03:09 GMT -6
Quite the news on the Hot Stove tonight! - League blocked Canucks from putting their farm team into Key Arena in Seattle - Glendale council votes June 25th - if it fails, two new co-owners (names I cannot recall) will buy team for $220M and move to Seattle on July 2nd...Jeremy Roenick will be part of hockey ops department - not a mention of QC which was strange Discuss ?! this is like right before we got our team back. Always heard next team is going to Veas, Seattle, KC, Toronto, etc. but it went to Wpg. Why? Cause it made sense. Does moving a team to a city with one crappy arena that isnt even adequate for junior and no plans for a new one make any sense? Nope. They would fold the team before moving them to a city without a capable arena. Also Bettman has played the "we like to go back to markets that never got a fair shot the first time" card. It's gotta be QC.
|
|
|
Post by JordyRamone on Jun 15, 2013 22:05:35 GMT -6
Apparently I'm not the only one that heard him say that as well. People on Twitter are talking about it too. Pretty bold statement. I wonder if its true or if this is just another negotiating ploy by the NHL to twist the screws a little tighter on the CoG. Anyway, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just reporting what I heard. Maybe twisting them on QC. Squeezing more cash out
|
|
|
Post by NHLWinnipeg on Jun 15, 2013 23:45:48 GMT -6
If this Seattle rumour turns out to be true it follows a pattern of
a) Canadian cities begging for NHL teams and receiving secondary consideration at best; and b) the NHL handing NHL teams to cities in the US that express even mild interest without broad based fan lobbying or even widespread knowledge in the community of the possibility an NHL team could arrive.
For that reason alone, it would not be entirely surprising. The NHL, or a certain contingent of it, often treats Canada as a afterthought or second class citizen.
|
|
|
Post by Guardian on Jun 16, 2013 0:39:18 GMT -6
Too bad the old thread was lost.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 16, 2013 1:17:18 GMT -6
If this Seattle rumour turns out to be true it follows a pattern of a) Canadian cities begging for NHL teams and receiving secondary consideration at best; and b) the NHL handing NHL teams to cities in the US that express even mild interest without broad based fan lobbying or even widespread knowledge in the community of the possibility an NHL team could arrive. For that reason alone, it would not be entirely surprising. The NHL, or a certain contingent of it, often treats Canada as a afterthought or second class citizen. If this is true this would be by far the worst thing any sports league has ever done by a longshot! It's very possible that a new Seattle owner could end up playing in 11,000 seat Key Arena for 6 years! If Sacramento comes through with a new arena the NBA might wait until after the 2016-17 season to give Seattle a team. Milwaukee still needs a new arena(things will be decided after 2016-17) and I'm not sure the NBA would expand before then since they would lose leverage with Milwaukee since Seattle is the last realistic NBA open city left. If the NBA did wait for a Milwaukee resolution the NHL would be in Key Arena for 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Plus 2 years of construction 2017-18 2018-19 Is Seattle really a good enough market to be able in the long run to make up for 6 years of crushing losses? Plus there is also the risk they alienate a good chunk of Canadian fans in British Columbia if they pick Seattle over Quebec. A Seattle team is going to have to draw a decent chunk of fans from Canada on 10 game packages to make this work long term. The other risk is the arena doesn't get built at all. What if one of the long shot lawsuits stops it. You never know. What if you get the right hippie activist judge? If the NHL had to pull out after a handful of years the Seattle market would be destroyed forever. I can't see how any sane person takes the risk of going to Seattle at this point.
|
|
|
Post by NHLWinnipeg on Jun 16, 2013 3:42:01 GMT -6
Dave Lozo writer for NHL.com
Dave Lozo (@davelozo) tweeted at 0:13 AM on Sun, Jun 16, 2013: Seattle as the backup plan for Phoenix is something that's been in the works for a while. I'm glad it's finally been leaked.
|
|