Seattle investor has plans to build downtown arena

[hwy19man]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

NFL, MLB, MLS, eventual NBA, Washington Huskies.

WHL teams in Kent and Everett. PCL in Tacoma and NWL in Everett.

Seattle is heavily saturated already. The NHL would be a tough go.

I think the NHL would be okay going into the Seattle sports market but, I agree that it could be more difficult because of so many other sport options. In that case, the NHL and prospective owners should consider Portland, Oregon in the wonderful Rose Garden just 280 kilometres south of Seattle.

[Red Slinger]

I seem to recall a time in the 80's where there was some interest in bringing the NHL to Seattle but there simply wasn't any local appetite for it. It seems to me that people see the population (really big), the geographic location (close to Vancouver and California) and the natural fit into the western conference and want a team to work in Seattle.

However, I still fear that there isn't a local appetite for the NHL.

[FireItUp]

Well if they bring the Seattle SuperSonics back they should name their NHL team the Seattle SuperStorms.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by hwy19man

I think the NHL would be okay going into the Seattle sports market but, I agree that it could be more difficult because of so many other sport options. In that case, the NHL and prospective owners should consider Portland, Oregon in the wonderful Rose Garden just 280 kilometres south of Seattle.

When I lived in Portland there was a referendum on bringing hockey to the city. The answer was an unequivocal no. I'm pretty sure that Seattle has had a referendum on this issue previously as well and the answer was the same. There was little support for NHL hockey in either city although it's possible that this sentiment could be changing I guess. These are cities that are very wrapped up in college sports. Also, Portland has always wanted a MLB team before anything else.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

When I lived in Portland there was a referendum on bringing hockey to the city. The answer was an unequivocal no. I'm pretty sure that Seattle has had a referendum on this issue previously as well and the answer was the same. There was little support for NHL hockey in either city although it's possible that this sentiment could be changing I guess. These are cities that are very wrapped up in college sports. Also, Portland has always wanted a MLB team before anything else.

Portland and the state of Oregon in general are too busy building meth trains (MAX) and squandering money on other useless pet projects to even consider something nice like a sports team. Portland will NEVER have another Major league franchise other than the blazers (sorry the MLS doesn't count as "major").

As for a team up in Seattle, I'd travel up there to watch flames games!

[sandlakislord]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Tampa: 18,474 per game, ahead of the likes of Boston, Buffalo and Edmonton.

Florida: 16,685 and Nashville: 16,600, both comparable to Edmonton.

Carolina: 15,489, ahead of Colorado.

i don't want to drag this to far off topic, but stay golden and resolute 14 had an interesting exchange concerning attendance. attendance is a red-herring when it comes to arguing viability of a franchise in the nhl. the nhl is a gate-driven league and nothing demonstrates that better than attendance vs gate receipts.

yes, tampa has impressive attendance numbers, but they are papering the crowd with some of the cheapest seats in the league. tampa had the 4th lowest per-game gate revenue in the entire league last year. only atlanta, phoenix and the islanders pulled in less money per game. to compare, calgary generated 1.5 million usd/game from straight gate receipts in 2010/2011. tampa, with its impressive attendance, (17,285 in 2010/2011) generated a measly 440,000usd/game last year. calgary averaged 1,062 more fans per home date than tampa but pulled in almost three times the ticket revenue. you'll find a link to these numbers in this blog post from january of this year: http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=4102

all that being said, i would love to see an nba team back in seattle. an nhl team would be the cherry on top.

[tomo]

Originally Posted by cgy2london

Very intresting view. When i was growing up playing midget aaa, seattle only had two minor hockey associations....talking to guys who played in the Lower mainland league, the two teams from seattle were a joke. Hockey just never seemed to be a popular concept in seattle. Rinks were few and few between, I believe one of the associations even played in an old grocery store/mall? something to that affect.

Oshie coming out of washington state was an absolute shocker. I dont know what its like now but in my day minor hockey in seattle was very uncommon. compare it to a place like Chicago.....where they have programs such as the Chicago chill or team illinois who entered the macs regularly, i find it very surprising that you see more of a hockey youth movment in seattle compared to chicago.

Would love to see a team in seattle but I was always under the impression hockey at the grass roots level in seattle was very bare.

The grass roots hockey programs are in full bloom here now.
The Greater Seattle Hockey League is the largets in the northwest and one of the largets hockey leagues in the United States. Tonight one of the league reps told me it is bigger than the leagues in Chicago.

The Seattle Times reported that there is three proposed plans and one has been submitted to city counsel already (which would be next to Safeco field). Rumor around town is that Paul Allen is part of it. They were also saying that Bellevue would be preferred for NBA/NHL because when the Sonics were around around 60-70% of season ticket holders were from the Eastside (Bellevue/Redmond/etc..).

The Paul Allen thing makes a lot of sense to me. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't he try to buy the Canucks in the late 90's? He owns the Portland Trailblazers, do the blazers move to Seattle?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by tomo

The grass roots hockey programs are in full bloom here now.
The Greater Seattle Hockey League is the largets in the northwest and one of the largets hockey leagues in the United States. Tonight one of the league reps told me it is bigger than the leagues in Chicago.

The Seattle Times reported that there is three proposed plans and one has been submitted to city counsel already (which would be next to Safeco field). Rumor around town is that Paul Allen is part of it. They were also saying that Bellevue would be preferred for NBA/NHL because when the Sonics were around around 60-70% of season ticket holders were from the Eastside (Bellevue/Redmond/etc..).

The Paul Allen thing makes a lot of sense to me. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't he try to buy the Canucks in the late 90's? He owns the Portland Trailblazers, do the blazers move to Seattle?

Wasn't aware of it, if Allen wanted them he could have bought them, the Nucks weren't really expensive in the late 90's so I doubt he was interested.
I do recall there was fear that he would to ship them to Portland but I think that was more newspaper fearmongering after the Grizzlies were sold/shipped.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

When I lived in Portland there was a referendum on bringing hockey to the city. The answer was an unequivocal no. I'm pretty sure that Seattle has had a referendum on this issue previously as well and the answer was the same. There was little support for NHL hockey in either city although it's possible that this sentiment could be changing I guess. These are cities that are very wrapped up in college sports. Also, Portland has always wanted a MLB team before anything else.

They had a referendum on whether people wanted a hockey team? Yeah I doubt that. What they likely had was a referendum on publicly funding arena construction (that's actually a political issue, where 'do you like hockey?' is not) and that area has a pretty long history of being tough to convince when it comes to public funding.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by valo403

They had a referendum on whether people wanted a hockey team? Yeah I doubt that. What they likely had was a referendum on publicly funding arena construction (that's actually a political issue, where 'do you like hockey?' is not) and that area has a pretty long history of being tough to convince when it comes to public funding.

Wrong, the Rose Garden (the building itself) would be an excellent NHL venue as the bowl was designed around a hockey rink. Now the city itself would likely not support it.

BTW, if the rumored Seattle billionare is Paul Allen, don't be surprised if the Blazers become the relocated NBA franchise to Seattle.

[Pacem]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Tampa: 18,474 per game, ahead of the likes of Boston, Buffalo and Edmonton.

Florida: 16,685 and Nashville: 16,600, both comparable to Edmonton.

Carolina: 15,489, ahead of Colorado.

How much money are they making tho? Attendance per game isn't the greatest measure of how well a team is doing. It is all about $$$

You know Edmonton is bringing in more money per game then Tampa, Florida, Nashville, and Carolina. Boston is definitely doing that as well. Buffalo, prolly. They got a ton of pre season hype and i'm sure a lot of fans were buying into it. Colorado, maybe? They have a pretty good short history with the team, so I think they would be.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Josh

Wrong, the Rose Garden (the building itself) would be an excellent NHL venue as the bowl was designed around a hockey rink. Now the city itself would likely not support it.

BTW, if the rumored Seattle billionare is Paul Allen, don't be surprised if the Blazers become the relocated NBA franchise to Seattle.

Wrong? Huh? I didn't even comment on the Rose Garden, or anything to do with Portland.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Pacem

How much money are they making tho? Attendance per game isn't the greatest measure of how well a team is doing. It is all about $$$

You know Edmonton is bringing in more money per game then Tampa, Florida, Nashville, and Carolina. Boston is definitely doing that as well. Buffalo, prolly. They got a ton of pre season hype and i'm sure a lot of fans were buying into it. Colorado, maybe? They have a pretty good short history with the team, so I think they would be.

Just looking at how much a team is making from ticket revenues also isn't the greatest measure of how well a team is doing.

What are their concession revenues? What's their corporate support like? What's their advertisement sales revenue? What are there expenses?

There are so many factors, and they vary from team to team, that looking at any one thing as a gauge of the health of a franchise is flawed.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Pacem

How much money are they making tho? Attendance per game isn't the greatest measure of how well a team is doing. It is all about $$$

You know Edmonton is bringing in more money per game then Tampa, Florida, Nashville, and Carolina. Boston is definitely doing that as well. Buffalo, prolly. They got a ton of pre season hype and i'm sure a lot of fans were buying into it. Colorado, maybe? They have a pretty good short history with the team, so I think they would be.

No doubt. That wasn't the thrust of my argument though. I was just rebutting the faulty assumption that "nobody attends games in the south, hyuk hyuk".

Valo notes below that there is much more to revenue than just ticket sales, but it is also very true that ticket sales drives the league. From the standpoint of finances, all we have, really, is Forbes' estimates. Here is last year's revenue estimates, from lowest to highest.

Disregarding Atlanta/Winnipeg since that data is clearly stale, it is interesting to note that Forbes estimated the St. Louis Blues as the third worst generator of revenue. The Canes, Preds and Panthers near the bottom as well, as one would expect, but right there with Colorado, Tampa, Buffalo and Dallas. Now, this was last year's numbers. Several teams have seen huge changes in attendance from last year to this: Columbus +1541 (+12%), Dallas -1774 (-12%), Florida +1657 (+11%), Isles +2601 (+26%), Tampa Bay +1670 (+10%), Winnipeg* +6936 (+86%). Even Phoenix is up 750 per game. In those cases, their revenue will be rising as well.

[tomo]

Originally Posted by Josh

Wrong, the Rose Garden (the building itself) would be an excellent NHL venue as the bowl was designed around a hockey rink. Now the city itself would likely not support it.

BTW, if the rumored Seattle billionare is Paul Allen, don't be surprised if the Blazers become the relocated NBA franchise to Seattle.

On the news here (I think it was KOMO news) they were talking about how the Rose Garden is out of date and they need a new building in Portland as well.

I would agree that if Paul Allen is behind the bid here that the Blazers will have some sort of future change, be it by being sold or moved.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by valo403

What are their concession revenues? What's their corporate support like? What's their advertisement sales revenue? What are there expenses?

I bet most of those other things (concessions, corporate support, advertising) are highly correlated to ticket revenue. If the hockey team is the #1 draw in town, it'll attract the corporate support. If nobody cares, then not so much.

Granted, there are some exceptions (the Islanders TV deal, etc) but it's probably as good a basis as anything else for estimating those revenues.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I bet most of those other things (concessions, corporate support, advertising) are highly correlated to ticket revenue. If the hockey team is the #1 draw in town, it'll attract the corporate support. If nobody cares, then not so much.

Granted, there are some exceptions (the Islanders TV deal, etc) but it's probably as good a basis as anything else for estimating those revenues.

It may get you in the ballpark, but it's not going to get you anywhere close to an accurate read on franchise health, especially when you consider that a modern professional sports franchise is but one entity in a maze of related companies. Losses for company A don't mean anything if they're due to payments made to company B.

My point is that I find that people generally take a far too simplistic view of these things.

[North East Goon]

Seattle Lumberjacks
Seattle Pilots
Seattle Grizzlies
Seattle Cascades
Seattle Emeralds
Seattle Salmon
Seattle Rainiers

[Josh]

Originally Posted by tomo

On the news here (I think it was KOMO news) they were talking about how the Rose Garden is out of date and they need a new building in Portland as well.

I would agree that if Paul Allen is behind the bid here that the Blazers will have some sort of future change, be it by being sold or moved.

I'm by no means a Portland "homer" but that's the first time I've ever heard someone regard to the rose garden as being "out of date". It was constructed in 1995 and recently underwent a minor facelift. I'm rather curious as to why it's now considered to be an out of date facility./

[tomo]

Originally Posted by Josh

I'm by no means a Portland "homer" but that's the first time I've ever heard someone regard to the rose garden as being "out of date". It was constructed in 1995 and recently underwent a minor facelift. I'm rather curious as to why it's now considered to be an out of date facility./

It has to be part of the Paul Allen angle.
I think it is crazy to think the Blazers would ever leave Portland, but I said the same thing about the Sonics. I guess only time will tell.

My personal belief is that if Paul Allen is involved in the Seattle team/arena is that he sells the Rose Garden and the Blazers and the NBA expands by one team back to Seattle.

Opinions?