Does Bettman fear Ballsile so much that even KC looks good to him? Wikipedia tells me KC has a population of 444 965 which actually makes it smaller than Quebec City, Winnipeg or Hamilton. Doesn't the fact that the NHL already failed in KC say something? Doesn't the fact that the NHL is the second choice for the city after the NBA decided to stay away say something? AFAIK folks in that part of the world are more interested in basketball than hockey, so if the NBA can't be bothered how can the NHL make it?
2007-06-30 09:31:16 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Hockey
...because they can't find an NBA team.
I wish 'em well but I don't think it's going to be a great success. I really think that the NHL should take a serious look at contraction, before it just gets laughed right out of the country. The debacle with NBC (ie NBC pays NHL $0.00) shows how "major league" Buttman's NHL is.
Hockey is a great game, but in the US it is not MLB, NFL or even NBA -- it's a niche sport. And that's fine, it's better to stay small and strong than try to be something that you aren't and look like a bunch of jackasses.
2007-06-30 16:23:01 · answer #1 · answered by Terry S 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dude, the KC metro area has over 2 million people. They also have a new arena that's almost finished (and looks very nice).
I'm assuming that if a team does come here, they will be run far better than the Scouts were. THAT is what screwed KC out of the NHL the first time, 30 years ago.
2007-06-30 17:06:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The NHL owners are engaged in a time of greed. They hired Bettman to enable them to make money. Kansas City has a brand new arena that can make money for any indoor team. Nothing has been decided yet, but the one thing you can take to the bank is that it would require an astronomically insane deal for the NHL to place a team in Canada. That's because a greater profit can be made in the United States, and your owners do like to make money. This is where loyalty, tradition, and the opinions of fans will ALWAYS lose to profitability.
2007-06-30 20:22:22 · answer #3 · answered by Awesome Bill 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well then heck we need to shut down the Senators and the Thrashers and probably a few more teams. After all if you have a team ONCE and it leaves then you don't get another chance EVER. Oh and Winnipeg is off your list because they had their chance, or doesn't it count because they are a Canadian city? Oh and clearly Quebec wouldn't be allowed to have a team either. The REASON Winnipeg failed is because the fans wouldn't go and the Canadian dollar was worth so little at that time.
2007-06-30 20:27:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The new owner already had an agreement with AEG/Sprint Center/KC to bring an NHL team (expansion or otherwise) to KC before the Nashville team came up. He chose Kansas City before he even chose the Predators. He would not buy them if he couldn't move them.
2007-06-30 19:45:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
WINNIPEG is a hockey city you still see people walikng around with there jets jerseys the only reason they folded was cause the nfl made them give up there star players when they entered the NHL after the WHL folded because they didnt want a expansion team comin iand rapeing the league, plus they have a new arena the MTS arena which is the most visited venue in NA right now for concerts
2007-06-30 17:21:30 · answer #6 · answered by Oak Park 17 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bettman is an azzhole. If he could take ALL the Canadian teams out of the nhl and move them to the states, he would. He needs to piss off...he's not even a hockey guy...he's a basketball guy. And he fubar'd basketball so bad he now has to take a turn at hockey. He's a puswad
>:o/
2007-07-01 04:46:53 · answer #7 · answered by scorpianne 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
this is deja-vu all over again... nashville got the new arena- then an nhl franchise.. same with k.c.--new buildings spawn energy and enthusiasm especially given the preds situation... but hold on; dont be so sure boots will move them anytime soon.. he said he is" not married to the idea of bringing a team to kansas city"... besides, nashville WILL hit the 14000 mark next year then maybe boots will really invest long term and go for the cup as unhibitedly as leipold did.. if they move; according to bettman; k.c. is logical, but it will not be for at least 5 to 7 years given attendance is met as it will be.. that gives nashville plenty of time to win over boots who seems a more honest man than blackberry boy was... so its up to nashville now-- bring the numbers and this new owner will commit to nashville long term (because he would have to)..
2007-06-30 19:36:40 · answer #8 · answered by Copas -- Tit,Toots & Leggy line 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Kansas City has a new arena that needs a tenant and Winnipeg has also had a failed team. Besides if the Blues are any indication of interest in Missouri, Kansas City would make a nice natural rivalry for them.
2007-06-30 18:26:01 · answer #9 · answered by Jeffrey W 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Indeed, why KC, why not those CANADIAN cities that you mentioned? I just don't get it. They're trying to twist arms to 'sell' the game down south when there are millions of us rabid hockey fans up north who would happily support another NHL team or three...
...Bettman you're a loser. What have you got against Canada?
2007-06-30 16:46:33 · answer #10 · answered by megalomaniac 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋