[Rumour] NHL and Seattle talking about expansion fees (~$225M)

[sureLoss]

http://seattletimes.com/html/hockey/...ttle14xml.html

Sources say there have been negotiations between the league and potential ownership groups in Seattle about the cost of expansion fees. To the point where the NHL and local officials could be prepared to make some type of announcement shortly after the Olympic Games in Sochi conclude — at a time the NHL hopes nationwide interest in its sport will be at a high point.

Daly makes no promises about when the NHL will announce expansion plans — despite varying levels of interest already expressed by Seattle, Quebec City, Kansas City and the Toronto suburb of Markham, Ont. But he does suggest the league feels it’s finally solidified some of its more unstable franchises as best it can in the short term.

update (discussion starts from post #182):
Seattle group is going to Vancouver to learn more about the NHL:
http://seattletimes.com/html/hockey/...tle20xml.html#

Local sources have said the league has held discussions with potential ownership groups here about what the fee would be to land an expansion franchise to begin play in the 2015-16 season. Reports last summer had pegged it at $275 million, but sources now say they expect the price to be somewhere between $200 million and $250 million.

Any league expansion would likely involve a second team to balance the schedule. Potential expansion sites besides Seattle include Quebec City, Kansas City, Portland, the Toronto suburb of Markham, Saskatoon and Las Vegas.

Among those candidates, Quebec City is furthest along, having already begun construction on a new arena and identified an ownership group led by media magnate Pierre-Karl Peladeau. Unlike Quebec City, local officials insist a new arena deal be contingent upon the league first awarding Seattle an expansion franchise.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Seattle will get a team through expansion and Portland will get one of the problem franchises to solidify the west coast swing.

[Joborule]

I imagine that when Seattle gets an expansion team, there would be another one announced so the league remains balanced. It'll be interesting to see if it's in the west (Kansas City, Las Vegas) so there's an even distribution of teams per division. Then they can have a true divisional playoff system.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by New Era

Seattle will get a team through expansion and Portland will get one of the problem franchises to solidify the west coast swing.

What makes you sure Portland would get a team? Especially if Seattle gets one? Might be pressing that region a bit to much doing it so quickly.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I imagine that when Seattle gets an expansion team, there would be another one announced so the league remains balanced. It'll be interesting to see if it's in the west (Kansas City, Las Vegas) so there's an even distribution of teams per division. Then they can have a true divisional playoff system.

Kansas City makes sense, I think a team could do well there. Do they have an arena?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by codynw

Kansas City makes sense, I think a team could do well there. Do they have an arena?

They have the nicest and newest arena in North America without a major league tenant.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I imagine that when Seattle gets an expansion team, there would be another one announced so the league remains balanced. It'll be interesting to see if it's in the west (Kansas City, Las Vegas) so there's an even distribution of teams per division. Then they can have a true divisional playoff system.

Yeah, the lack of conference symmetry still bugs me. I wish they could just relocate a team from the east or add even another team in the West through expansion. I am not sure that the league is read for 32 teams though.

Having potential relocation markets is a great bargaining chip for teams with financial issues (both to fans and for arena funding). The threat of relocation becomes less serious when there are fewer viable options. There are still enough teams close enough to the red that removing those bargaining chips might not be best in the long run.

Part of me would love to see another expansion draft though. It's always interesting to see how those go and it has been a long time.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Yeah, the lack of conference symmetry still bugs me. I wish they could just relocate a team from the east or add even another team in the West through expansion. I am not sure that the league is read for 32 teams though.

Having potential relocation markets is a great bargaining chip for teams with financial issues (both to fans and for arena funding). There are still enough teams close enough to the red that removing those bargaining chips might not be best in the long run.

Part of me would love to see another expansion draft though. It's always interesting to see how those go and it has been a long time.

Plus we'd be well positioned in an expansion draft type situation.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by codynw

Kansas City makes sense, I think a team could do well there. Do they have an arena?

The Sprint Center cost $276 million and has a capacity of 17,544 for hockey.

[Cole436]

There goes McDavid.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I imagine that when Seattle gets an expansion team, there would be another one announced so the league remains balanced. It'll be interesting to see if it's in the west (Kansas City, Las Vegas) so there's an even distribution of teams per division. Then they can have a true divisional playoff system.

With the conferences already unbalanced, it doesn't matter if they only add a single expansion team if it's in the west (which I think was the plan all along with Seattle)

[Senator Clay Davis]

Just move Phoenix there and save the Glendale taxpayers the expense of propping up a failing franchise that has little to no chance of succeeding.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Cole436

There goes McDavid.

When Vancouver and Toronto were added to the NBA wasn't there a rule that those teams couldn't get the top pick their first couple years?

[CaptainCrunch]

So does Katz demand 1 Billyion dollars from the Edmonton government or he'll move his franchise to Seattle and not complete the new rink?

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

When Vancouver and Toronto were added to the NBA wasn't there a rule that those teams couldn't get the top pick their first couple years?

Maybe that is what I was thinking of, but I thought maybe the NHL had that same rule during one or some of their expansions too.

...my first thought was also about McDavid winding up in Seattle.

[the_only_turek_fan]

No more teams...

[Buff]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

No more teams...

I heard talk of expansion for a couple of years now, but it has been my wish that instead of re-locating that they would expand and then contract a couple of the troubled teams within a couple of years. I'm happy with only 30 teams, and my wish should be the NHL's command right? Besides, expansion fees bring in mucho money to the NHL so it makes sense that they would want to expand. With the way the salary cap keeps going up they can crunch the numbers to make a business case that the NHL is doing well and can afford to support two more teams.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Cole436

There goes McDavid.

That's perfect case scenario really as while I would love the Flames getting him I would rather he become the name of a new franchise than have one of the regular losers like the Oilers, Panthers, Islanders, etc benefiting from their constant ineptitude. I shudder to think of the tanking race for last place that will go on next March.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Buff

Maybe that is what I was thinking of, but I thought maybe the NHL had that same rule during one or some of their expansions too.

...my first thought was also about McDavid winding up in Seattle.

I don't recall that for the NHL, but Ottawa picked 2nd overall (Yashin) in 1992 which was their first draft before their first season (1992-93) so it looks like there was a restriction.

It sucks regardless for Calgary as unless they finish in a spot for McDavid and/or win the lotto, they'll get pushed back a spot bc of the new Seattle team.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Buff

I heard talk of expansion for a couple of years now, but it has been my wish that instead of re-locating that they would expand and then contract a couple of the troubled teams within a couple of years. I'm happy with only 30 teams, and my wish should be the NHL's command right? Besides, expansion fees bring in mucho money to the NHL so it makes sense that they would want to expand. With the way the salary cap keeps going up they can crunch the numbers to make a business case that the NHL is doing well and can afford to support two more teams.

I define a losing season as a year where you don't make the playoffs.

16 teams make the playoffs. Right now 14 miss. You add two more teams and you get 16 teams that will miss the playoffs. That is 2 more teams with "losing seasons".

2 more teams that will possibly fire their coach. 2 more fanbases that will be disgruntled that their team didn't make the playoffs, 2 more empty buildings, etc...

Is this about revenue or profit? Because you will add revenue to the NHL with 2 more teams, but overall league wide profit will come down.

The NHL should invest in buying out 2 teams, and going back to 28. Reduce the number of games to 76-80, and end the season by the end of May.

This is getting ridiculous. 32 teams.