[News] Update: NHL green lights season-ticket drive for Las Vegas

[DOOM]

I love Las Vegas and would love to plan a trip around a Flames game.

I disagree with expansion though, keeps it at 30 teams.

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

A population of 600 000 is tiny by American standards. Surely somebody living in Taipei would appreciate this.

Putting professional sports teams in retirement communities is a bad idea. It's failed many times before. See: All south Florida sports teams, Phoenix Coyotes. Old people don't have the disposable income. Also they follow their old teams and rarely switch allegiances

Should the NHL go to Seattle with an estimated population of 652,405?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle

When looking at population to support a sports team you really have to look at the metro population and the population of other cities/towns in the State/area that will likely adopt the team as their home team.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Yes, which is why I think you'd see a lot of weekday games along with weekend afternoon games. It could work.

Given the normal schedule of Vegas patrons we'll likely start seeing weekday afternoon games.

[Finger Cookin]

What if the existing owners divvy up a $500M expansion fee, the market doesn't succeed, and then the team moves to Quebec City? Everyone wins!

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

A population of 600 000 is tiny by American standards. Surely somebody living in Taipei would appreciate this.

Putting professional sports teams in retirement communities is a bad idea. It's failed many times before. See: All south Florida sports teams, Phoenix Coyotes. Old people don't have the disposable income. Also they follow their old teams and rarely switch allegiances

This is only partly true. Tampa Bay has a very strong following. And, while not a retirement city, Nashville also has a very loyal fan base. Hockey can work in southern markets. Look at L.A., San Jose, Anaheim (Ducks have a little more problem filling their building though).

It's important to look at disposable income, competition for entertainment dollars, affinity for the sport, and possible corporate purchases (box seats, season seats etc.). Vegas has at least 2 of those nailed, but I worry about relative affinity for hockey amongst the population, and the vast, vast amount of competition for entertainment dollars, even for tourists that might be "comped" a game. The locals would have to be really passionate about hockey the way they've become in Nashville and Tampa to make a successful team there.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

Should the NHL go to Seattle with an estimated population of 652,405?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle

When looking at population to support a sports team you really have to look at the metro population and the population of other cities/towns in the State/area that will likely adopt the team as their home team.

I know you're making a case for looking at metro populations, and not city proper, but I don't think it's a comparable. Phoenix metro is 3.25m and they can't buy a fanbase. On the other hand, Seattle has a lot of things going for it. To name a few, proximity to the Canadian border, home to some pretty high profile tech companies which equals $$$, and sure, King County's population is 2.04m (3.6m if you look at the Seattle Metro / Puget Sound region as a whole).

I'd bet on a team being more successful in Seattle than in Las Vegas.

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

Should the NHL go to Seattle with an estimated population of 652,405?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle

When looking at population to support a sports team you really have to look at the metro population and the population of other cities/towns in the State/area that will likely adopt the team as their home team.

Which I clearly touched on in post #292. Las Vegas is the 31st largest metro population in the states. By any metric of measurement, LV is not a large American city.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I know you're making a case for looking at metro populations, and not city proper, but I don't think it's a comparable. Phoenix metro is 3.25m and they can't buy a fanbase. On the other hand, Seattle has a lot of things going for it. To name a few, proximity to the Canadian border, home to some pretty high profile tech companies which equals $$$, and sure, King County's population is 2.04m (3.6m if you look at the Seattle Metro / Puget Sound region as a whole).

I'd bet on a team being more successful in Seattle than in Las Vegas.

You forgot the most important thing. They actually like hockey there.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Median Household Income (National: $54,083)

Las Vegas: $52,601
Seattle: $63,470

You don't put a franchise in a location where the majority of your fans will be transient. Las Vegas would be an epically bad decision and would make the Coyotes look like one the of the original six from a stability stand point. Seattle makes more sense, from an economic and cultural standpoint.

[Table 5]

Why even think about placing an extra team into a market that is going to be fighting an uphill battle right from the start? There are plenty of markets where you wouldn't have to find some new way of doing business or make special timing concessions. Ontario, Quebec City, Seattle, Portland, Connecticut....these places actually have some hockey fans. How about trying to serve these already existing fans, instead of trying to turn a random blackjack dealer at some casino into one?

Putting a team in Vegas would just cheapen the whole league. There's a reason only mickey-mouse leagues have ever tried.

[calf]

I'm wondering if Las Vegas, as a tourist heavy city, becomes more of a strategic team for the NHL.

With a team in Seattle or Quebec City, you're going to be drawing upon the local population, which is fine. But the transient nature of Las Vegas isn't just going to be relied on to keep the team afloat (I think it will have to, and that is risky), but the tourist attendance could also expose a lot of new people to the game and create new fans in new regions of the US. That might be grasping at straws a bit, but it could be another reason why Vegas is being looked at over Seattle, Kansas or Quebec.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Putting a team in Vegas would just cheapen the whole league. There's a reason only mickey-mouse leagues have ever tried.

I don't understand this sentiment.

Anyone trying to rig sporting events would be doing it online like everyone else these days. So how does it cheapen the league?

[868904]

Seattle isn't really that great a market when it comes to attendance. The Mariners were in the thick of the wild card race this year and they were playing to a half empty stadium.

The Seattle sports fan seems like a weekend type crowd, which explains the strong attendance of the Seahawks and Sounders.

There's no guarantee an NHL team would have success in Seattle. This is also a city that didn't support an NBA team enough, and in terms of ticket purchases and games, the NBA product is most similar to the NHl.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

NFL, NBA, MLB-no interest in Vegas whatsoever.

NHL-let's go to Vegas we're so smart. Hockey in the desert works.

And here's the worst part for the NHL: The other sports are going to let it be the guinea pig. If the NHL in Vegas goes well, the NBA will be in right behind it...and the NBA will swipe the majority of corporate support and fan interest, leaving the NHL team as the clear second option. That's what the NHL clearly doesn't see here, it can work in Vegas as the only pro sports option, it has no chance of succeeding if there are multiple pro sports options. Being the first pro sports team is not nearly as important as being the only pro sports team there.

[sureLoss]

IMO the fact that the MGM/AEG arena is 100% private funded allows the NHL to take the risk of putting a team in Vegas.

Even if the team fails, there is no public backlash or bad taste left in taxpayers mouths when left with an empty arena if the team eventually relocates. Nor is there promises made by the NHL to civic leaders that the team will stay long term to help pay off the arena

Unlike Glendale or Miami, the Vegas arena can still be profitable without a sports team as a primary tenant.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't understand this sentiment.

Anyone trying to rig sporting events would be doing it online like everyone else these days. So how does it cheapen the league?

Who said it has anything to do with rigging sporting events?

Las Vegas is all show and no substance. It's about money, glitz, hype, and short-term gratification. It has no soul. Chasing that soulless buck is what second-tier leagues like the XFL, Arena League and 90s CFL do.

Franchises should be placed where there are already fans of your sport, or where there exists the possibility to build a long-term fan base, and some legitimate sporting history. If Vegas is such a viable market, why aren't the MLB, NBA or NFL already there? There are actual fans of those sports there at least.

Nobody gives a crap about hockey in Nevada, and chances are very few ever will. After the initial shine wears off, the only people who will be attending the game are some tourists, and those with freebies. All this while there are legitimate hockey fans desperate for hockey in Quebec.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Franchises should be placed where there are already fans of your sport, or where there exists the possibility to build a long-term fan base, and some legitimate sporting history. If Vegas is such a viable market, why aren't the MLB, NBA or NFL already there? There are actual fans of those sports there at least.

One could argue that the NFL & NBA should be pretty worried about their players spending too much time in Vegas.

I also think Vegas is closely tied to the South Cali region, and that is one area where the NHL has vary successfully made allot of in-roads.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by #-3

One could argue that the NFL & NBA should be pretty worried about their players spending too much time in Vegas.

I also think Vegas is closely tied to the South Cali region, and that is one area where the NHL has vary successfully made allot of in-roads.

but people aren't going to drive from SoCal to Vegas to watch a hockey game... or is tht not what you are trying to say?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Who said it has anything to do with rigging sporting events?

Las Vegas is all show and no substance. It's about money, glitz, hype, and short-term gratification. It has no soul. Chasing that soulless buck is what second-tier leagues like the XFL, Arena League and 90s CFL do.

Franchises should be placed where there are already fans of your sport, or where there exists the possibility to build a long-term fan base, and some legitimate sporting history. If Vegas is such a viable market, why aren't the MLB, NBA or NFL already there? There are actual fans of those sports there at least.

Nobody gives a crap about hockey in Nevada, and chances are very few ever will. After the initial shine wears off, the only people who will be attending the game are some tourists, and those with freebies. All this while there are legitimate hockey fans desperate for hockey in Quebec.

With that attitude you'd have no LA Kings, San Jose Sharks and other NHL success stories (Tampa, etc). You can stick teams in Canada and the Northern US and have a 15 team league or you can to actually grow the sport.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by JJ1532

Because how easy is it to simply plonk a new team in a city and expect to develop a proper fan base, not just your everyday tourists/neutral hockey fans? Look at Arizona as the perfect example. Las Vegas has a 1.3m metro, Pheonix has a 4.4m metro and they can only get 13,000 fans in. Thats a franchise that has had 18 years to develop a fan base and still can't.

Ok, they are competing with other major sports teams, something Vegas won't have, but what evidence is there to suggest that your average Vegas resident would embrace Ice Hockey? I think there is a clear reason why none of the other major sports have expanded or moved into this market. Because they think it would fail.

If this Vegas team caught on and did well very quickly, I think it would have a fighting chance, but if it doesn't, then you will end up with another failing franchise on your hands, losing money hand over fist.

What annoys me is that they will keep failing franchises like Arizona and Florida in place and won't move them. What also annoys me is that other areas like Seattle and Quebec would be much better choices to expand into before Vegas. I think once the novelty factor of any new franchise wears off in Vegas, you could easily see them with less crowds than the Panthers or Coyotes, even factoring heavily discounted tickets or the tourist crowd.

Comes down to the arena location in a lot of those places. Arizona and Florida both put their arenas no where near the cities where they are supposedly based and shockingly... no one is willing to drive to the games. Even Ottawa can struggle with attendance because they pulled the same move of putting the arena outside the main city.