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

[Resolute 14]

If relocation makes your league look second rate, then there is no such thing as a "first rate" league.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by New Era

^^^. Which makes your league look weak and second rate. There are reasons no other league has gone into Vegas. The NHL should consider those same issues before going down this road.

I also don't hate non-traditional markets, seeing as I live in one, but I am very aware of the challenges these teams face in staying relevant in a city where the game is a mostly unknown. I am also very aware of the challenges these locations present to players, which Vegas would just intensify. It would be much more beneficial to the league to fortify the west coast, creating a very natural geographic zone for rivalries and travel, than to expand into the desert and an economically challenged city.

Yes....and they have nothing to do with anything related to being a traditional market for that particular sport. It has always been about the gambling aspect of things but with the advent of internet sports books, it really doesn't matter that the bookies are available legally or not in any particular city. If a guy is gonna gamble...he is gonna gamble. Climate has also been a small factor as well for the summer sports.

As for the "natural geographic zone" thing, where do you think Vegas is exactly? Its less than 250 miles from Los Angeles/Anaheim. Much closer than say Calgary/Vancouver.

Also, what is it exactly that makes Vegas an "economically challenged city"? It has been the fastest growing city in the entire USA for many years. There is money rolling all over the place. Granted much of it is in the hands of few, but that is no different than any other place.

Vegas may or may not work, but it will have zero to do with geography or climate. Like most expansion teams in all sports, it will come down to the product on the ice as far as season tickets etc, but they have a bit of an advantage in this case in regards to that as well as so many of those paid for tickets will be used by casinos as perks for guests.

This situation is well worth a shot for the league and its owners.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

If relocation makes your league look second rate, then there is no such thing as a "first rate" league.

I agree that relocation in itself isn't an issue, but you don't want your league to have a bunch of wandering teams either IMO. It's one of the reasons why I think the NHL has gone balls to the walls to keep the Coyotes in Arizona despite the fact that not only are there factors that make keeping them there difficult, but there seems to be some people in Arizona that simply want them to go.

I do think that in some American markets the NHL as a travelling side-show coming to town. You definitely want to avoid that image and to me it is questionable whether having the league represented in a city that markets itself around side-shows adds to that.

Or it could work. When the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim came into the league, I thought the side-show aspect was a black eye on the league, but they seemed to outgrow that image now.

[Vulcan]

At one time the gambling aspect was a negative for sports as it invited the shady side where the game could be compromised with fixing. Nowadays it's been shown that people who gamble on games, watch the games. If you watch the league makes more money, and that's what it's all about.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I agree that relocation in itself isn't an issue, but you don't want your league to have a bunch of wandering teams either IMO. It's one of the reasons why I think the NHL has gone balls to the walls to keep the Coyotes in Arizona despite the fact that not only are there factors that make keeping them there difficult, but there seems to be some people in Arizona that simply want them to go.

I do think that in some American markets the NHL as a travelling side-show coming to town. You definitely want to avoid that image and to me it is questionable whether having the league represented in a city that markets itself around side-shows adds to that.

Or it could work. When the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim came into the league, I thought the side-show aspect was a black eye on the league, but they seemed to outgrow that image now.

You mean like the NFL and NBA? The Raiders have moved twice themselves and are going to move again. The Rams have moved at least twice and so have the Cardinals. The NBA were portable franchises for years, Jazz/Kings/Lakers/Clippers/Pelicans/Grizzlies and others. MLB even moved everyone, except the Yankees, out of NY, plus the A's/Braves/Royals and many others. I don't think that teams moving to "better" markets makes the leagues look any worse in the fans eyes (the last comment is not aimed at your post)

[White Out 403]

I think of all the big 4 in North America the NBA and the NFL are the worst. But thats with no data at all.

Seems like MLB is the least relocation prone league, but, again, just me thinking about it for 3 seconds ...

[getbak]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relocat...l_sports_teams

Since 1970:

• MLB has had 3 relocations
• NFL has had 7 relocations
• NHL has had 9 relocations and 1 merger
• NBA has had 10 relocations

Since 2000:

• NFL has had 0 relocations
• MLB has had 1 relocation
• NHL has had 1 relocation
• NBA has had 3 relocations

Over the years, every league has had teams rumoured to be moving, or on the sale block, even though most of those are usually just empty threats to get funding for a new building.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yes....and they have nothing to do with anything related to being a traditional market for that particular sport. It has always been about the gambling aspect of things but with the advent of internet sports books, it really doesn't matter that the bookies are available legally or not in any particular city. If a guy is gonna gamble...he is gonna gamble. Climate has also been a small factor as well for the summer sports.

Gambling is indeed a big problem, and a massive risk. The other leagues have been wise to stay away from Vegas for the potential scandals that could surface as a result of someone being caught gambling on their own sport. The Pete Rose scandal is still a big black eye for baseball. You can bet leagues do not want to go through that again.

As for the "natural geographic zone" thing, where do you think Vegas is exactly? Its less than 250 miles from Los Angeles/Anaheim. Much closer than say Calgary/Vancouver.

The whole idea behind the geographic location is to establish not only natural rivalries but a natural flow for road trips and travel. An Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Jose, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver trip is natural, and leverages the regional rivalries that exist in other sports.

Also, what is it exactly that makes Vegas an "economically challenged city"? It has been the fastest growing city in the entire USA for many years. There is money rolling all over the place. Granted much of it is in the hands of few, but that is no different than any other place.

Las Vegas is not a great market money wise. The majority of jobs in Las Vegas are service industry, which are poor paying jobs. Hard to pay $10,000 for season tickets when your median household income is only $51K, below even the Nevada median income level. For comparison sake, Seattle's median income is over $67K. Portland's is just under $74K. The Las Vegas real estate market was ravaged, hitting home owners really hard, and leaving them in a poor economic state. That market has turned around, but not to the benefit of Las Vegasites. The majority of the housing rebound has been a result of investors from outside Vegas taking advantage of the market, driving prices up to where the locals can't afford a home. It also doesn't help that salaries are not keeping pace with inflation, giving people even less disposable income.

Vegas may or may not work, but it will have zero to do with geography or climate. Like most expansion teams in all sports, it will come down to the product on the ice as far as season tickets etc, but they have a bit of an advantage in this case in regards to that as well as so many of those paid for tickets will be used by casinos as perks for guests.

This situation is well worth a shot for the league and its owners.

This will have to be the game plan. It may work, but I am highly skeptical. How much revenue is going to be generated from comps? There are a lot of other entertainment options in Vegas that casinos can comp, many of which people can only see in Las Vegas. There is a lot of competition to think that comps are going to be the difference for survival of an expansion team.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by New Era

Gambling is indeed a big problem, and a massive risk. The other leagues have been wise to stay away from Vegas for the potential scandals that could surface as a result of someone being caught gambling on their own sport. The Pete Rose scandal is still a big black eye for baseball. You can bet leagues do not want to go through that again.

Any athlete in any sport can bet on his own sport anywhere on the planet now. You don't need to be in Vegas to bet on sports.

The whole idea behind the geographic location is to establish not only natural rivalries but a natural flow for road trips and travel. An Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Jose, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver trip is natural, and leverages the regional rivalries that exist in other sports.

A natural flow for road trips for decades has been Vancouver/Calgary/Edmonton.

If that is natural, so would a Vegas/Anaheim/LA trip.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Any athlete in any sport can bet on his own sport anywhere on the planet now. You don't need to be in Vegas to bet on sports.

Visibility is a big issue here. How bad does it look having pictures and stories plastered everywhere of your players being in Vegas? Think of NHL teams recently. The Oilers wunderkids were just photographed partying in a Vegas club and it lead to questions and a mini-controvery. And then there is this little gem.



Imagine if that picture was taken in a casino, and more importantly, in a Sportsbook? What do you think is going to happen when you have a team located in the gambling center of North America and these young men, mostly uneducated and with type A personalities, have gobs of disposable income available to them and casinos five minutes away? You have to place an awful lot of trust in your players, which is pretty misguided.

A natural flow for road trips for decades has been Vancouver/Calgary/Edmonton.

If that is natural, so would a Vegas/Anaheim/LA trip.

Really? What natural travel corridors exist that make them even a natural geographic rival? What natural rivalries exist between Las Vegas and Anaheim or Los Angeles? There's never been other sports teams in Vegas, outside of minor league baseball. UNLV doesn't play in the same conference as most of the California teams. You might be able to leverage the conference play between San Jose State and UNLV, but that would be a stretch as the schools have very different athletic focuses and rarely compete against each other for births to big events that would foster that rivalry. Portland and Seattle? Plenty of natural rivalries.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I've laid out all the reasons why this is a bad idea and why is has failure written all over it. I've yet to see a good argument stated as to why this would work. I think it is a massive mistake to think that a city known for gambling and whores is going to bring anything positive to the image of the sport or the league. All sports leagues are selling an image as part of their product, and I think this is the wrong image to sell. The economics are bad, the idea of a relying on a transient fan base is bad, the location is bad, and the lack of ties to the game are bad. I guess if they have trouble drawing in fans they can always have card slappers out on the strip trying to drum up some business.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I think of all the big 4 in North America the NBA and the NFL are the worst. But thats with no data at all.

Seems like MLB is the least relocation prone league, but, again, just me thinking about it for 3 seconds ...

MLB has been far more stable overall, but went through a huge shuffle in the 1950s and 1960s. There were 10 relocations between 1954 and 1972, but remarkably consistent otherwise. And much like how the NHL expanded to stave off fears that the Western Hockey League would become a second major league in the 60s, MLB started shifting west in the 1950s, in part to stave off the threat of the Pacific Coast League becoming a third major league.

The NBA has probably been the least stable, followed by the NHL.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

You mean like the NFL and NBA? The Raiders have moved twice themselves and are going to move again. The Rams have moved at least twice and so have the Cardinals. The NBA were portable franchises for years, Jazz/Kings/Lakers/Clippers/Pelicans/Grizzlies and others. MLB even moved everyone, except the Yankees, out of NY, plus the A's/Braves/Royals and many others. I don't think that teams moving to "better" markets makes the leagues look any worse in the fans eyes (the last comment is not aimed at your post)

Sure, relocations occur in every league, but also I guarantee you every league wants stable franchises partly for the reasons mentioned. Sure, it's not always possible, but it's still the goal.

It makes it really hard for fans to invest in a team if they think it's just going to move on in a few years anyway. If a league gets that reputation, it can be a hard thing to pull out of.

[Resolute 14]

In a league like the NLL, maybe. But the NHL has a century of history behind it is coming up to 20 years with only a single relocation. I don't think people in Las Vegas or elsewhere would be concerned about their team relocating - so long as the local support is there.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by New Era

Visibility is a big issue here. How bad does it look having pictures and stories plastered everywhere of your players being in Vegas?

But your original point was gambling in Vegas itself. Now you're talking about the optics of players partying there. Two separate scenarios. Players go to Vegas quite often already, so I don't think it's anything new, but I would agree that it's something that the NHL is a bit weary about.

Think of NHL teams recently. The Oilers wunderkids were just photographed partying in a Vegas club and it lead to questions and a mini-controvery.

I never heard anything about this. What happened?

What do you think is going to happen when you have a team located in the gambling center of North America and these young men, mostly uneducated and with type A personalities, have gobs of disposable income available to them and casinos five minutes away?

Two things. You're going to have to elaborate on players being 'uneducated'. How so?

And every major city in North America has casinos that could lure young players with gobs of money.

Really? What natural travel corridors exist that make them even a natural geographic rival?

L.A./Anaheim to Vegas is approx. 250 miles. That's less than L.A. to San Jose, Vancouver to Calgary, and roughly the same as Miami to Tampa and Ottawa to Toronto. Vegas isn't in Alaska, it's quite close to L.A., Anaheim, Colorado, San Jose and Phoenix.

What natural rivalries exist between Las Vegas and Anaheim or Los Angeles?

A rivalry has to start somewhere. You don't just stay away from a potentially solid franchise because they don't have other sports teams that play each other. There would be a rivalry between those teams in less than one season.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by New Era

Imagine if that picture was taken in a casino, and more importantly, in a Sportsbook? What do you think is going to happen when you have a team located in the gambling center of North America and these young men, mostly uneducated and with type A personalities, have gobs of disposable income available to them and casinos five minutes away?

Have you been to the Saddledome?

[FlamesAddiction]

The natural travel corridors lost all meaning when the current Atlantic division was constructed. (Ottawa and Miami?)

It's more about time zones and TV time blocks than anything these days, but Las Vegas is a natural of a geographic rival to the California teams anyway.

I'm not convinced that Las Vegas would be a good professional sports city mainly because I worry that the team will be viewed more as a tourist attraction than a point of pride for locals. Economically it could be viable as a tourist attraction, but those types of economies can also be very unpredictable.

The nefarious nature of Las Vegas isn't really a big deal though. As mentioned, it exists in many other cities too.

[CroFlames]

Like some poeple already stated, everyone thought Anaheim was going to be a joke (and they kinda were for a few years with the ridiculous name and owner), but look what they've become.

I don't think Vegas would be a joke. They would come out a serious team, but it would certainly take a few years to catch on. It may or may not catch on, but what is certain is they can't do worse than Phoenix, or should I say Glendale.

The arena is being built in a prime location. That is one MAJOR obstacle already out of the way. The season ticket drive has promising numbers so far. You have the obvious benefit of the Casinos sending clientele to the games, putting butts in the seats. Despite what some think, there would most certainly be an immediate LA/ANA/LV rivalry. Could possibly throw SJ in the mix too.

What evidence is there that this would fail? Or be worse that Phoenix?

I think Bettman kept the Coyotes afloat for so long because he wanted the NHL to be a truly north american league. Relocating to Vegas would still accomplish this, roughly speaking.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I think one thing a lot of people didn't take into consideration when it comes to Vegas is that unlike most larger cities in the US, the majority of those living in LV are not from there. It is very much the most "transient" city in the USA. Meaning a lot of folks who do move there for employment and the weather are from colder climates and have a fondness for hockey already.

Couldn't you say the same thing about Phoenix? Millions of transplants from Canada and the Northeastern U.S. Lots of money. Same with Florida. There are Millions of Canadian snowbirds and retired Americans from the Northeast living or vacationing in the Florida every winter. Surely a franchise can't go wrong with that kind of support from people with a fondness for hockey already!

[spetch]

Not sure how many of you have truly stayed in Vegas away from the strip. We have a place in the SW corner and it does not feel like a city of "whores and gambling" when we are out there. It just feels like a spread out, warm, sometimes windy, average desert city. I highly doubt many players will be living close to all that action.

The potential downside I can see which could turn fans away is parking. I just haven't figured out how game days will work out yet.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yes....and they have nothing to do with anything related to being a traditional market for that particular sport. It has always been about the gambling aspect of things but with the advent of internet sports books, it really doesn't matter that the bookies are available legally or not in any particular city. If a guy is gonna gamble...he is gonna gamble. Climate has also been a small factor as well for the summer sports.

As for the "natural geographic zone" thing, where do you think Vegas is exactly? Its less than 250 miles from Los Angeles/Anaheim. Much closer than say Calgary/Vancouver.

Also, what is it exactly that makes Vegas an "economically challenged city"? It has been the fastest growing city in the entire USA for many years. There is money rolling all over the place. Granted much of it is in the hands of few, but that is no different than any other place.

Vegas may or may not work, but it will have zero to do with geography or climate. Like most expansion teams in all sports, it will come down to the product on the ice as far as season tickets etc, but they have a bit of an advantage in this case in regards to that as well as so many of those paid for tickets will be used by casinos as perks for guests.

This situation is well worth a shot for the league and its owners.

I've always wondered what makes people say that Vegas is an 'economically challenged' city.

I go to Vegas about once a year and trust me, if there was a hockey team there I'd go more, but Vegas is far from economically challenged.

You make a good point, the majority of Vegas' wealth is in the hands of a few, perhaps fewer than most cities of comparable size.

But when I was in Vegas I kept hearing people talk about 'Vegas is hurting' and 'profits are down.'

Well...yeah. Imagine Las Vegas as a system, that system was built to withstand unbelievable throughput, not every hotel can be filled to capacity all the time, not every seat at every gaming table can be filled every day all the time, the system is just too big for that.

So when people say 'Vegas is hurting' and 'profits are down' they arent entirely wrong but its relative to their standards.

The Casinos are still raking in cash, they're making astronomical profits but they arent operating at 100% capacity and if thats their standard then yes, they're a long ways from it, but they're in no danger of going bankrupt or anything they're just not making as much money as they can or that their owners would like.

I wouldnt consider that hurting or challenged, thats just life.

And hell, as I was saying about hotel rooms and gaming tables, what do these businesses want? More people.

Guess what a hockey team will bring in?