Should the NHL expand or move 2 existing teams?
2007-10-12 02:24:14 · 29 answers · asked by AbsoluteMart! 4 in Sports ➔ Hockey
No city deserves a franchise any more than any other city.
As far as moving existing teams, that is out of the question. The owners make no money off of that.
The current project franchise fee is $350MM. That's 11.66MM per team, that does not have to be shared with the players, or the league.
What people don't realize, is that Bettman is against expansion, and so are a small group of owners. However, the majority of owners see adding two franchises as a financial windfall.
One of the reasons that Harley Hotchkiss stepped down as chairman of the Board of Governors was that he was the one that didn't want Leipold selling outside of Nashville, he loses money that way. And some of the other owners (MLSE and MSG) felt that was the wrong mentality for the Chairman (like Jacobs will be any better)
If Nashville moves to an open city, that takes away $350MM dollars. It opens up Nashville again, but you can't go back there right away. It was 28 years for Atlanta. It's been 30+ years for Kansas City.
Minnesota was an exception because Norm Green wanted a downtown arena and was unable to negotiate a deal with the Target Centre, so he moved to a city where they would build him an arena. Green made more money in the Twin Cities than he made in Dallas and ended up selling the Stars to the Hicks family.
Sadly, as long as Del Baggio has deep pockets, I see Nashville moving to Kansas City sooner rather than later. It would be cheaper (about $150MM) for him to buy out the rest of the Nashville partners than it would be to pay an expansion fee. And since it is ALL about the mighty dollar........................................
2007-10-12 03:12:41 · answer #1 · answered by Like I'm Telling You Who I A 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
This Site Might Help You.
RE:
Does Kansas City and Las Vegas deserve an NHL franchise?
Should the NHL expand or move 2 existing teams?
2015-08-06 04:00:02 · answer #2 · answered by Cos 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1
2016-12-23 05:10:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No and maybe. Kansas City has had a franchise fail already (2 actually) and as a small market has seen their other franchises struggle as well. I believe a basketball team called the Kings left there once as did the Scouts of hockey and the As of baseball. Historically that should say there is some issue with the area supporting any team.
As for Las Vegas, fastest growng big city in North America, perhaps a team would do well there but it should be a relocated team and not an expansion team, there are too many NHL teams already. Take your pick Preds or Panthers or Thrashers or Coyotes.
2007-10-12 02:58:47 · answer #4 · answered by PuckDat 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would have to say no to both, I think that the NHL should be more worried about some teams relocating. They have about 5 teams that may need to relocate with in the next 5 years. With the relocating teams KC will more then likely will end up with Nashville. When Thrashers leave, they should come to Canada where they can stay (Winnipeg, Quebec, Toronto) and make money for a league that cant get a good TV contract in the states. After there are no spots left in Canada then maybe Las Vegas, but Basketball will end up there first and after that they may not be looking for another sports team.
2007-10-12 08:51:17 · answer #5 · answered by Menace_to_the_game 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Kansas City - No
Las Vegas - No
If yoru going to expand, do it in a cold market areas, preferably north of the border. Hamilton may deserve one but we already have the Sabres, the Senators, and the Leafs, and the Red Wings all pulling fans from the Hamilton area, why would you dilute the fan market of that many teams in order to give another franchise a shot?
30 teams is too many as it is, you have teams like pheonix that can't even compete (they did a little better when they were in winnipeg, but they were still a joke). Plus with 30 teams and an 82 game unbalanced schedule the league has bigger problems to worry about than expansion.
But as Bettman (yes I know he is pulicly against expansion) and the rest of the nhl cronies have said time and time again through their actions, its not about what the fans want, its how we can make money.
2007-10-12 04:32:03 · answer #6 · answered by tdr8256 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
As a 14 year Las Vegas resident , moved from NYC, while the casinos wouldn't mind giving up the betting on the games, as they don't obtain a geal deal of profits from hockey betting, I don't think that it can support an NHL franchise. The population is somewhat transient, especially with the housing slump. Despite the annual pre-season game sell-out between the Kings and Rockies, residents here don't seem to support anything. Any team that moves here would also have to pay one of those"territorial rights" fees, since Las Vegas is actually considered part of the LA Kings territory. I'm not sure about the" Los Angeles Ducks of the City of Anaheim" ;) I am A Wranglers season-ticket holder. I can get entire ECHL season on the redline for the price of a single Kings, Ducks ,or Coyotes game.
2007-10-12 19:06:53 · answer #7 · answered by Laying Low- Not an Ivy Leaguer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Kansas City, absolutely not. They tried already. Sure, nice, they have a ready rink. Do they have any bums to put in the seats? Vegas would sell I think, as it would be the first major sport there. Lots of Canadians visit.
However, expansion is a stupid idea, more dilution. Teams are already lucky if they can put together as much as 2 solid lines.
What should be happening is moving out of the hopeless hockey markets. But Bettman's an idiot, so for now the league looks doomed to more bad decisions.
2007-10-12 02:43:00 · answer #8 · answered by AJCrocks 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I used to live in Kansas City. I can tell you without a shadow of one iota of a doubt that if a nhl team goes there that will be one of the worse blunders in entire sports history. Those inbred hill billy rednecks (the people that any team would require to fill arenas) have REPEATEDLY said the only way that building would be somewhat successful is if an nba team moved there. They have also said time and again that there is almost no interest in the nhl from the general population, those that would have to support the team. Hell they cannot even sell 80% of Royals tickets in any given season and you guys expect them to sell hockey tickets? If anyone truly has SHOWN they deserve a team it is Hamilton. The people have spoken with an unmatched fervour and with money and support. If it was not for Bettman, we would be watching NHL hockey in the Copps Coliseum this season.
2007-10-12 04:04:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It should expand and give teams to Kansas City and Las Vegas. Las Vegas doesn't have any franchises in any major league sport.
2007-10-15 12:34:01 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋