Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
You responded to my post where I derived the value of the rogers deal. Pick any number you want. It's more than the 5 million separating the teams. But my number is the Flames market is about 2.5 million people and viewership will cut in half in that region if the flames move.
We can use your numbers for relocation and expansion if you like. Why would the league accept a 60 million relocation fee instead of a 330 million expansion fee when it is clear they are looking to expand to 32 teams. Though there is no way they drop the fee just after Vegas paid it. And it is unlikely that the combined relocation fee plus franchise purchase fee will be less than 500 mil as well after Vegas just paid it.
The majority of the teams have already realized the revenue increases from their new arenas. Only Detroit remains. So if in an aging Saddledome we are still top 10 in revenues or even top 15 then their is no economic necessity for a new building to compete.
I agree with you that instead of moving at some point the flames will say they no longer can spend to the cap to create public pressure for a new building. It should have been their threat from day one.
Seattle is a credible location for an NHL team. It is not a credible relocation threat. The math for the NHL doesn't make sense.