|
Post by Ric O. on Aug 9, 2013 19:56:51 GMT -6
I've always felt Colorado's support (Rockies and Avs) was directly proportional to their success on the ice. In today's era I can't see them ever being in enough trouble to actually move, but for the sake of ownership they better start winning soon... IMO
|
|
|
Post by Lions67 on Aug 9, 2013 20:06:09 GMT -6
i wasnt suggesting that they would move. all i was doing was pointing out that Seattle will be a better market than Denver.
|
|
|
Post by Ric O. on Aug 9, 2013 20:44:06 GMT -6
True, I wasn't saying you suggested that, just giving my take on what I see as the best/worst case for that market. Seattle, I haven't got a clue how a good a market they'll be...my gut feeling is that they'll be very successful at first and in the long term, say 7-10 years, they'd be about on par with a team like Dallas.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Aug 10, 2013 0:00:30 GMT -6
you cant compare Seattle to Colorado. Seattle would be much, much better than colorado. remember, they lost the Rockies before because of horrid attendace. no one there cared. the Avs were different ONLY because they were winners. winning the Cup the first year helped and the team remained strong for many years. we have seen the cracks appear already in colorado due to the poor play of the avs of late. so meh to colorado. but i do think Seattle can and will work. I like the comparison and think it’s good. I don’t consider Seattle that much better than Colorado unless Canadians are REALLY interested in traveling to Seattle a ton more than even I expect. Both cities are probably lower 2/3rd viable markets that are far from perfect but worth having around. Another Seattle comparison I like is Buffalo another lower 2/3rd market. I like Ric O’s Dallas comparison too. In Colorado I don’t think it’s so much that cracks are showing, it’s that Colorado is returning to it's natural state of a lower 2/3rd market team. When the Avalanche were killing it attendance wise and gate wise the first 10 to 12 years it was because of as you say a great team. Colorado just isn’t that type of market. The Avalanche rank number 4 in terms of local interest and Denver is the smallest 4 team market. There was no reason to think once the elite team disappeared Colorado would pull in top 10 type revenue. Back in the day when Colorado lost the Rockies Denver was a very small city. It wasn’t just lack of interest that killed the Rockies it was outright lack of people. So you can’t hold one that against Denver. The last 20-30 years Denver has grown very fast. It's a completely different city compare to then though it’s still kind of small to have 4 teams. 3.2 million or 4.1 million if you want to throw in Colorado Springs/Fort Collins. When the Avalanche started up in Denver the city was only in the 2 millions yet they had 4 teams. That’s crazy. The NHL/Bettman went back into Colorado WAY too soon but lucked out/got away with one because they had a ready-made team to help cover up the market oversaturation. You do have to keep in mind Colorado reports legit attendance figures unlike a lot of the other teams. In 2010-11 attendance they finished 24th with only 14,821. But in the leaked gate data for that year they finished tied for 16th in the league. In 2007-08 they finished 17th in attendance with 16,843 but finished tied for 9th in leaked gate data. So even though attendance has gone down things aren’t as bad as they seem. In terms of overall revenue/franchise value forbes(insert disclaimer) says they usually make a profit and have them ranked around the high teens to low 20’s yearly in franchise value and revenue. For the foreseeable future I think Colorado will be pretty similar to what they are now unless they luck out with another elite team. Long term I think they could move up to a mid-market or a hair better team because of Denver’s still explosive population growth. Denver is one of the top 10 growth cities in the US % wise still. In a couple decades Denver is going to be a VERY big city.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Aug 11, 2013 0:47:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Sept 10, 2013 17:14:35 GMT -6
Court rejects Longshore challenge to Seattle arena planTentative plans for a new professional basketball and hockey arena in Seattle do not violate state environmental law, a Washington appeals court said Monday in rejecting a challenge brought by longshore workers. Hedge fund manager Chris Hansen has been trying to build a $490 million arena, with a $200 million public investment, to draw the NBA and NHL to Seattle. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 19 sued, saying traffic congestion from basketball and hockey games would kill jobs because it would interfere with container shipping and related businesses nearby. The longshoremen said a memorandum of understanding between Hansen and city and county officials violated the State Environmental Protection Act by creating irreversible momentum for building the arena, even before environmental studies were performed. But a three-judge Court of Appeals panel unanimously disagreed Monday, upholding a lower court's ruling from February. The panel said the memorandum merely sets out how the decision over whether to build the arena will be made. "The memorandum does not license, fund, or undertake an activity that will directly modify the environment, nor does it purchase, sell, lease, transfer or exchange natural resources," the court wrote. Hansen had been trying to relocate the Sacramento Kings to Seattle, but NBA owners rejected his $625 million bid. A group of investors led by technology executive Vivek Ranadive bought the team a day later for $535 million with plans to keep the franchise in place www.komonews.com/sports/Court-rejects-challenge-to-Seattle-arena-plan-223017321.html
|
|
quackbeth
Captain "C"
By the pricking of my thumbs Something hockey this way comes!
Posts: 741
|
Post by quackbeth on Sept 10, 2013 20:05:31 GMT -6
I think Seattle can be another Anaheim-- A mid-level market team that can keep its head above water in the worst of times, and do well at the best of times, all while weaving a legacy... Forming a legacy and franchise identity is so important for a successful franchise--after all, look at the expansion teams that succeeded-- We can all name plenty of Senators, Sharks, Ducks and Avalanche... Few could name non-Jets Coyotes (Keith Thachuk is the only name that comes to mind pre-2010s)... Ditto the Thrashers except for Dany Heatley... Not too many Florida Panthers most can name besides Pavel Bure... And so on and so on. But the Sharks had an identity--Bay Area Hockey, great goal scorers, physical play...President's Trophies but no Cups... The Ducks were smart (and lucky) to get Kariya and Selanne and have an attention-grabbing Dynamic Duo and great goalies in Hebert and Giguere... The Avs had Forsberg, Sakic, Roy, they had Ray Borque for that one Cup year...and their 2 Cups and rivalry with the Red Wings defined them... And the Senators are a Canadian hockey team, so that's a big boost to its prestige and support right there. I think if Seattle can get a team AND build an early identity, be it via physical play, a Dynamic Duo, or a rivalry (maybe with Vancouver or the Sharks?) that can define their early, formative years, they'll do fine. That's the key, I think. Forming an identity to get traction and garner fans is vital--it's how I and many my age became Ducks fans, by latching on to that Dynamic Duo of Kariya and Selanne...and now I've been a fan for years and even have a Selanne jersey! Fail to do that, and they'll wind up, if not like the miserable Yotes, than like the Columbus Blue Jackets-- A team in a location that does have potential but, because they lack success and/or a definite team identity, they're a non-factor and go nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Sept 13, 2013 0:37:28 GMT -6
Adam Silver, David Stern say Chris Hansen’s secret financial contributions won’t hurt Seattle’s chances of landing an NBA teamIncoming NBA commissioner Adam Silver and current commissioner David Stern each said Seattle’s opportunity to acquire a team will not be damaged by Chris Hansen’s cash contributions to a group opposed to an arena in Sacramento Chris Hansen’s secret contribution to a group opposed to a new arena in Sacramento will not hurt the billionaire’s efforts to deliver an NBA team to Seattle, said incoming NBA commissioner Adam Silver. “I would say it won’t affect Seattle’s chances,” Silver said Sunday in Springfield, Mass., before the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame ceremony. “I haven’t talked to Chris since those allegations came out. I think as he said, he got caught up in the moment.” On Monday, Hansen and two political consultants agreed to pay a $50,000 fine for failing to disclose a donation to a group hired to help in an attempt to block a new Sacramento sports arena. Hansen lost his bid to buy the Sacramento Kings to an investment group led by technology executive Vivek Ranadive that bought the team for $535 million. The NBA said Sacramento must build a new arena as part of the deal. Before the NBA rejected his $625 million bid to buy the Kings on May 15, Hansen said he engaged the Los Angeles law firm of Loeb & Loeb to conduct background research concerning the viability of a new arena in Sacramento. He said he also agreed that a portion of money paid to the law firm could be used for political purposes, under certain conditions, to oppose the building of a new arena in Sacramento. Hansen said he paid his legal bill to Loeb & Loeb on June 21, but was unaware the law firm then gave $80,000 to GOCO Consulting of Tulare, Calif., for a signature-gathering effort on behalf of arena opponents that would force a citywide vote on Sacramento’s planned $258 million subsidy for a $448 million downtown arena. Under California campaign-disclosure laws, Hansen’s contribution should have been reported by July 31. Hansen said he didn’t learn of the payment to GOCO until Aug. 10. After an investigation, the California Fair Political Practices Commission filed a lawsuit in civil court to uncover the anonymous contribution. Hansen issued an apology Monday. It’s unclear how NBA owners, who decide on relocation and expansion issues, will view Hansen’s actions. However, Silver indicated concerns about anyone holding a grudge are overblown. “We have a lot of competitive owners in the league,” he said “I’m sure all of that will be put behind us.” Commissioner David Stern, who retires Feb. 1 after 30 years at the helm, echoed Silver’s sentiment. When asked about Hansen’s financial contribution to the anti-Sacramento arena group, he said: “I don’t think that matters vis-à-vis the NBA and Seattle’s potential at all.”Hansen has a little more than four years to secure an NBA team and finalize an agreement with Seattle and King County to build a $490 million arena in Sodo with $200 million in public subsidies. Given the fact there aren’t any teams currently for sale, the bigger question is whether the 30-team NBA is going to expand anytime soon. “That’s up to commissioner Silver,” Stern said. And Silver replied: “I would never say it’s never going to happen. There’s nothing in the works at the moment. ” Silver said the NBA has more immediate concerns, namely negotiations on a television contract that expires in 2016. “Obviously the league has grown over the years and there may come a point to look at it,” Silver said, regarding expansion. “But right now coming off of our new collective bargaining agreement, we really want to make sure we have 30 franchises that are all financially sound.” seattletimes.com/html/nba/2021804210_hansennba12xml.html
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Sept 13, 2013 0:40:30 GMT -6
What BS. I bet privately Hansen was warned if he ever pulled a stunt like he did again he won't be getting a team and would become the NBA's version of Jim Ballselly. Other thing is the NBA is going to wait to see what happens in Sacramento and Milwaukee before expanding.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Sept 17, 2013 14:47:22 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Sept 18, 2013 12:43:17 GMT -6
florida got sold today, looking like its going to be a 2 team expansion and i have a feeling quebec gets one of them. Worst case scenario if the new owners in phx or florida tank they can move them to vegas or another american market
|
|
|
Post by peter26 on Sept 18, 2013 13:38:21 GMT -6
Unfortunately, I'm not confident at all. Seattle will get one. I feel maybe Portland the other one, so we're getting screwed again.
Not sure what's wrong with us right now. PKP? Habs blocking? Bettman's ego?
Weird that after all this time, in a 2 month span 3 weak teams are being "saved"...
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Sept 18, 2013 19:49:18 GMT -6
Not weird at all. No sports league is going to leave a new building when there is only 1 tenant in the new building. It's never happened before. Of the 3 teams only 2 were weak. New Jersey is a good market(the problem was a debt problem with the arena), Florida makes money off concerts(the entire operation makes money), Phoenix survives off the Glendale council.
The hold up is Seattle isn't ready yet. The final environmental review isn't coming out until early next year now. When they expand they announce a 2 team expansion though both team may not join the league the same year. My guess is they announce in 2014 Quebec will get an expansion team in 2015(when the new arena opens, no reason anymore to play in the Colisee) and Seattle will get a team when the new arena opens a few years after that. I doubt Portland gets a team. Only a 1000 some people in Oregon play hockey according to the article Donwood posted and Portland is board line demographically to support 2 full time teams and they are god awful corporation wise. They only have 5 fortune 1000 companies. Excluding Tampa Bay every single city that supports at least 2 full time teams(NHL,MLB,NBA) has at least 11 fortune 1000 companies bear minimum.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Sept 18, 2013 19:52:45 GMT -6
florida got sold today, looking like its going to be a 2 team expansion and i have a feeling quebec gets one of them. Worst case scenario if the new owners in phx or florida tank they can move them to vegas or another american market Vegas??? Yikes . I think compare to Vegas Florida would look like Montreal or Toronto. I think even lowly Phoenix looks good compare to Vegas.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Sept 19, 2013 9:07:19 GMT -6
i know vegas sucks, but its missing alocal sports franchise and this is the nhl, they love the suck
|
|