Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Why would the NHL let any team move to Seattle? They want a 600 million expansion fee not a 200 million relocation fee. This is greater than the difference between the city and the flames
|
A $600M expansion fee? That's not going to happen. $500M isn't going to happen again. Expansion fees are based on what the traffic will bear, and the last round of expansion showed there was only really one group desperate enough to pay that kind of money for a team. There are no other suckers out there willing to pay that. I would expect an expansion fee somewhere in the $250-300M range, but with weaker options in the expansion pool of talent.
You're also not going to see a $200M relocation fee. I'm not sure where some of these numbers are being dreamed up, but that just isn't reasonable either. The Jets relocation fee was $60M. I would expect something a little north of there, but no where near 330% increase. The league benefits from relocation as much as the new owner. It is in their best interest to move teams in trouble, or if it gives the league access to better ownership/markets.
Quote:
|
Calgary also is currently a top 10 market for revenue without a new Arena. It is also competing with other teams with new Arenas. With he Saddledome as is revenues remain stable plus inflation so do all other teams. Unless other teams who already have modern arenas find new places to get revenues the list will be relatively constant minus the ebb and flow of team success.
|
That's the thing, other cities are getting new arenas and access to new revenue streams. That is part of the problem. The Flames need those same revenue streams to remain competitive. With the weak Canadian buck, that just adds more pressure on the team.
I don't think this point will be driven home until the Flames start losing talent as a result of budget constraints, like they did in the 90s. Once that starts happening, then maybe you'll see people start to see the picture being painted. The salary cap helps in this regard, but if we get to the point that revenues are able to support spending to the cap, then we will see that slippery slope to player loss.
Quote:
|
The value of the Flames market in the next Rogers national deal is about 15-20 million. (Assumes that you lose half of the Flames market). This is greater than the difference between the city and the flames
|
How did you arrive at that number? I'm curious? Not saying you're wrong, just curious where that number comes from. If it is that small, that is a number the team and the league can recoup easily. That can be folded into an relocation fee.
Quote:
|
Seattle is not a credible relocation threat. Quebec City might be as it preserves the potential on a rogers TV deal.
|
Seattle is very credible. A population three times the size of Calgary's, an economy almost three times the size of Calgary's and not dependent on the price of oil, and with a history and connection to the game of hockey, they are a very serious threat. I think the league would be much better off moving Florida to Seattle, but Calgary could be an option too. The timing of everything certainly makes Seattle a credible threat, especially if the out from the Rogers contract is only $15-20M CDN. I would not discount Seattle at all, especially with Calgary being an existing team in the west, and a move to Seattle would not disrupt the divisional/conference balance.