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

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

50% higher is "marginally" higher?

Currently yes, but if the Phoenix business plan can increase revenue by 7-10% per year it is minimal in regards to NHL revenues. Use it in context of 50-50 split with players, $33M split would be $16.3M to the players, so just over $500K per team, barely a fourth line player. With no marketing and planning in Phoenix they were 27th in revenue and if they increase it by $5-6M per year for 3 years they will be almost the same as Winnipeg then it doesn't look so bad.

I am sure the market for a 2nd team in Toronto/Montreal could generate more but it won't be $100M, which would be more than Calgary or Vancouver. I believe that the economists working with the league have evaluated these numbers and see a greater opportunity to increase some of the lower, or underutilized markets.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Joborule

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.

Breaks up the west coast swing into very nice bite sized pieces, so the trvl problems can be marginalized. Big difference between a hour and a two or three hour flight. Also, Portland is a proven hockey market. A lot of the other cities mentioned aren't and really have no connection to the game in any way. Just make more business sense.

[Caged Great]

I'm sure that next year, whoever wins the lottery will be an important team that needs a boost, and they will magically overcome the odds, just like Pittsburgh last time.

I wouldn't be shocked if one of the teams in the New York area got McDavid (not Buffalo)


As for expanding, there needs to be a balance to the conferences. Quebec or Toronto doesn't help to balance the situation. Seattle and KC are the two likeliest cities to get new teams.

[troutman]

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

50% higher is "marginally" higher?

$33 million in a $3 billion industry...?

[Vulcan]

Looking at the map, I can see them adding one team to the Pacific and one to the Central. Probably Seattle and Kansas City although adding Seattle and Portland while moving Edmonton to the Central is also tempting.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

50% higher is "marginally" higher?

Wish my income was "marginally" higher

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Looking at the map, I can see them adding one team to the Pacific and one to the Central. Probably Seattle and Kansas City although adding Seattle and Portland while moving Edmonton to the Central is also tempting.

Why would you have Calgary and Edmonton in two different divisions?

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

As for expanding, there needs to be a balance to the conferences. Quebec or Toronto doesn't help to balance the situation. Seattle and KC are the two likeliest cities to get new teams.

I agree about the balance, but I think it's Vegas. Florida will move to Quebec/Toronto at some point.

I would also be very surprised to see an announcement about Seattle expansion at any point in the next calendar year. They need an NBA tenant first.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

I agree about the balance, but I think it's Vegas. Florida will move to Quebec/Toronto at some point.

I would also be very surprised to see an announcement about Seattle expansion at any point in the next calendar year. They need an NBA tenant first.

Do you think maybe there could be a benefit to the NHL beating the NBA to the punch there?

My thought is the seasons overlap and getting there first could put them first in line for corporate and fan support. There could be a lot of both that are going to jump on the first bandwagon that rolls into town.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Igster

Or we could just have 18 make the playoffs instead of just 16

With 32 teams, they could let ALL teams get into the playffs by just adding one more round

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if the NHL moved to the soccer format of separate regular season championship and a cup championship. Makes the regular season actually mean something, gives more teams possibility to be winners, and reaching the ultimate achievement (of a double championship) wouldn't happen every year.

(Obviously not going to happen. But I'm seriously having trouble with the NHL regular season; it's just way too long with too little meaning.)

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Do you think maybe there could be a benefit to the NHL beating the NBA to the punch there?

My thought is the seasons overlap and getting there first could put them first in line for corporate and fan support. There could be a lot of both that are going to jump on the first bandwagon that rolls into town.

The problem is that the city has specifically said that construction of the arena cannot begin until there is an NBA tenant. Granted, the NHL team could gamble but there's really no other suitable facility for more than a season or two.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

The increase of $33M is not worth losing out on the potential market growth.

The Coyotes had that 5 year out-clause as part of the sale. They're stuck there for a couple more years before they can use it (if they lose enough money). At that point the Coyotes will have been in Phoenix for over 20 years. At this point they have already been the Coyotes longer than they were the Jets in the NHL. Come this June there will be players drafted that were born after the original Jets played their last game in Winnipeg.

They're just a half-season removed from going to the Conference Finals as well. So at one point or another this growth needs to start paying dividends or it can't be called growth. And I have a feeling the new owners are going to give them until that 5 year out-clause comes in effect to show some of that growth.

[sun]

Booo! NHL needs fewer teams, not more. This dilutes the product.

Unless they are announcing the oilers relegation to the AHL, this will be disappointing news IMO.

[Joborule]

I don't mind more teams, and it's going to happen anyway. Reducing by two or adding by two isn't really going to make that much of a difference. Plus, the quality of players that will be coming up in future drafts should be better than the past; so the product should improve (in any way that it could) despite marginal league size changes.

[agulati]

It would be nice if Seattle gets a team. Add to the western conference.

The alignment, when made, seemed geared towards two teams in the west. Seattle in the pacific and Kansas City in the central would fit great.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by New Era

Breaks up the west coast swing into very nice bite sized pieces, so the trvl problems can be marginalized. Big difference between a hour and a two or three hour flight. Also, Portland is a proven hockey market. A lot of the other cities mentioned aren't and really have no connection to the game in any way. Just make more business sense.

While they do a good job supporting junior hockey I don't know that Portland would support an NHL franchise long term. They are baseball crazy and MLB is number one on their wish list. Football crazy also. Hockey is barely on the radar in Portland.

[Matty81]

Wouldn't that be such a classic flames moment to finish last and lose McDavid due to expansion.

If Quebec and Seattle come in and pick 1-2 in the McDavid Eichel draft that would be so brutal. Never mind the ####ty expansion draft, if I recall correctly we were forced to trade Giguere or lose him for nothing last time around.

[BigTuna]

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?

Yes and it was laughably unfair. It cost Vancouver Tim Duncan.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Itse

(Obviously not going to happen. But I'm seriously having trouble with the NHL regular season; it's just way too long with too little meaning.)

I agree completely. The futility of good franchises like the SJ Sharks is frustrating. They've had great regular seasons for a decade. They build teams through great scouting. They don't get enough credit for that. To come out on top consistently over the 6-7 month NHL schedule for that long and nothing to show for it is kind of a slap in the face to their fans. I'm not convinced the Stanley Cup playoffs accurately show who is the best team in hockey every year.