Lee. Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Personally I'd get rid of Florida and Atlanta Nashville needs more fan support because they have been competitive for the last few seasons but there most likely going to move hopefully to Winnipeg we just need to expand the MTS Centre.As a former Winnipegger, why the do people feel the need to keep mentioning Winnipeg as an expansion/relocation market? Honestly.The MTS Centre can be expanded to ~16,000. Tops. There is no room to move in there as it is with 8,000 people at a Moose game, so who honestly thinks that adding another 700 seats to that thing will help lure an NHL team?Combine that with the fact that Winnipeggers will balk at paying $80-250 41 times per year for games, and that it's a frozen wasteland that no one will want to play in (ask how hard it was to get anyone to play in Edmonton), with a metro area of around 700k (smallest market in the league), and it's not hard to figure out.It's all wishful thinking, I know, but it's stupid wishful thinking. I just got back from there, and believe me, if there was any money in that town, there'd be more than one crane in the air at a time building something. Of course, this is a city that wants to put a new football stadium in the tranny hooker part of town, without a viable traffic or transit plan. There is one narrow four-lane road along the proposed route, and a two-lane bridge connecting that street to the east side of town. Sounds like a Godsend to me. Welcome to DrunjFlix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez Street Posted July 18, 2008 Author Share Posted July 18, 2008 Good God, we missed you. @DavidStreeter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee. Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Good God, we missed you.Yeah, everyone but Martinez. Welcome to DrunjFlix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korbyn Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Personally I'd get rid of Florida and Atlanta Nashville needs more fan support because they have been competitive for the last few seasons but there most likely going to move hopefully to Winnipeg we just need to expand the MTS Centre.As a former Winnipegger, why the do people feel the need to keep mentioning Winnipeg as an expansion/relocation market? Honestly.The MTS Centre can be expanded to ~16,000. Tops. There is no room to move in there as it is with 8,000 people at a Moose game, so who honestly thinks that adding another 700 seats to that thing will help lure an NHL team?Combine that with the fact that Winnipeggers will balk at paying $80-250 41 times per year for games, and that it's a frozen wasteland that no one will want to play in (ask how hard it was to get anyone to play in Edmonton), with a metro area of around 700k (smallest market in the league), and it's not hard to figure out.It's all wishful thinking, I know, but it's stupid wishful thinking. I just got back from there, and believe me, if there was any money in that town, there'd be more than one crane in the air at a time building something. Of course, this is a city that wants to put a new football stadium in the tranny hooker part of town, without a viable traffic or transit plan. There is one narrow four-lane road along the proposed route, and a two-lane bridge connecting that street to the east side of town. Sounds like a Godsend to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBGKon Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 I think after the Sonics left, you should try and get a team to Seattle, thats the only place that expansion makes sense. I guess the NHL hasn't learned their lesson about expanding to quickly, because the last time expansion happened it worked out real well (besides Minnesota and Columbus)Um the last time the NHL expanded was Minnesota and Columbus. Or are you counting Atlanta and Nashville as a part of the last expansion the couple seasons before?I believe technically those 4 teams were announced as expansion at the same time, it's just they all entered the league over a 3 year period. As for the Pacific Northwest, I'd target Portland before Seattle. With Vancouver already there and Seattle's arena not so friendly for hockey (look at a seating chart and see what I mean), Portland would be a better option with the distance from Vancouver and a decent venue for hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrySmalls Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Future NHL:Lemieux Conference (East): TorontoOttawaHamilton, Ont.Halifax, Nova ScotiaMontrealDetroitChicagoPittsburghPhiladelphiaBostonBuffaloHartfordNew York - 1 teamWashingtonGretzky Conference (West):VancouverLos Angeles - 1 teamSeattleSan JoseDenverCalgaryEdmontonWinnipegSaskatoon or Regina, Sas.St. Paul, Min.DallasBismarck, N.D.St. LouisLas Vegas - Bettman couldn't resist forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 I heard something yesterday that I found very interesting.Why it never crossed my mind before, I don't know.Regarding the situation in Nashville.Since our friend Boots screwed up, his stake in the steam will be sent to bankrupcy court.As we know, the bankrupcy judge doesn't give a flying you-know-what about who/what buys his stakes...all he wants to do is recoup the losses. I mean that's the guy's job. So the NHL is basically going to have no say in who ends up with 30% of the Preds is the working theory.Which of course leads up to the whole "own 30% is majority, and after 2 more seasons the majority owner can opt out of the contract at the areana if they don't average 14,000......" ect.This presumption is incorrect. It clearly states in the NHL's constitution that in the event of the bankruptcy of an owner (minority or majority), the league has the right to dispose of the franchise (or a partial ownership thereof) in whatever way it deems appropriate.So in essence, whoever would acquire any ownership stake would still be subject to NHL approval, and if not given, they'll have bought absolutely nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 I think after the Sonics left, you should try and get a team to Seattle, thats the only place that expansion makes sense. I guess the NHL hasn't learned their lesson about expanding to quickly, because the last time expansion happened it worked out real well (besides Minnesota and Columbus)Um the last time the NHL expanded was Minnesota and Columbus. Or are you counting Atlanta and Nashville as a part of the last expansion the couple seasons before?I believe technically those 4 teams were announced as expansion at the same time, it's just they all entered the league over a 3 year period. As for the Pacific Northwest, I'd target Portland before Seattle. With Vancouver already there and Seattle's arena not so friendly for hockey (look at a seating chart and see what I mean), Portland would be a better option with the distance from Vancouver and a decent venue for hockey.But Portland is blocked by the Trailbalzers, while in Seattle there is no other competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jer15 Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 I heard something yesterday that I found very interesting.Why it never crossed my mind before, I don't know.Regarding the situation in Nashville.Since our friend Boots screwed up, his stake in the steam will be sent to bankrupcy court.As we know, the bankrupcy judge doesn't give a flying you-know-what about who/what buys his stakes...all he wants to do is recoup the losses. I mean that's the guy's job. So the NHL is basically going to have no say in who ends up with 30% of the Preds is the working theory.Which of course leads up to the whole "own 30% is majority, and after 2 more seasons the majority owner can opt out of the contract at the areana if they don't average 14,000......" ect.This presumption is incorrect. It clearly states in the NHL's constitution that in the event of the bankruptcy of an owner (minority or majority), the league has the right to dispose of the franchise (or a partial ownership thereof) in whatever way it deems appropriate.So in essence, whoever would acquire any ownership stake would still be subject to NHL approval, and if not given, they'll have bought absolutely nothing.Really?I did not know that.What i'm about to say is not me doubting you, but it seems weird to me that the NHL constitution would be able to over-rule the government. Does that mean that the NHL essentially takes ownership away from (in this case boots) the owner then sells it off again? GTA United(USA) 2015 + 2016 USA Champions/Toronto Maroons (ULL)2014, 2015 + 2022 Gait Cup Champions/Toronto Northmen (TNFF) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Less Hockey ... YIKES!I am still recovering from the lack of hockey in 2004/05Poor baby. My argument is based on the fact that Bettman is basically ignoring Canada to try desperately to get a TV deal in place. My plan would address that differently. I would put together international TV deals with European countries instead, and even go so far as to schedule a prime time matchups at 1 PM EDT so that in the EU it would start at 7 PM local time.Ok....you lost me. How is that better than what Bettman is doing?Namely the market. Europeans on the whole enjoy and watch hockey much more than anything else except association football.I'm not saying that all the game would be scheduled for 1 PM EDT; that would be suicide. But certain marketable games would be earmarked to be broadcast to the European market. With a 72-game season, I could see at least 12 weekends a year that would be prime time for the broadcast.And of course, if the countries in question pay to host a game or two, that changes the whole dynamic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Future NHL:Lemieux Conference (East): TorontoOttawaHamilton, Ont.Halifax, Nova ScotiaMontrealDetroitChicagoPittsburghPhiladelphiaBostonBuffaloHartfordNew York - 1 teamWashingtonGretzky Conference (West):VancouverLos Angeles - 1 teamSeattleSan JoseDenverCalgaryEdmontonWinnipegSaskatoon or Regina, Sas.St. Paul, Min.DallasBismarck, N.D.St. LouisLas Vegas - Bettman couldn't resist forever.Kind of strange you have a conference named Gretzky, but you don't have a Gretzky owned team(Phoenix Coyotes)... Also Phoenix isn't going to move or get contracted. Sorry guys not happening, not when the Hockey God has a stake in the team and also has a new arena in a great market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korbyn Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Kind of strange you have a conference named Gretzky, but you don't have a Gretzky owned team(Phoenix Coyotes)... Also Phoenix isn't going to move or get contracted. Sorry guys not happening, not when the Hockey God has a stake in the team and also has a new arena in a great market. The Coyotes Avg. Attendance From the Last few years:2007/08 = 14,8202006/07 = 14,9982005/06 = 15,5822003/04 = 15,469 2002/03 = 13,2292001/02 = 13,161 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Kind of strange you have a conference named Gretzky, but you don't have a Gretzky owned team(Phoenix Coyotes)... Also Phoenix isn't going to move or get contracted. Sorry guys not happening, not when the Hockey God has a stake in the team and also has a new arena in a great market. The Coyotes Avg. Attendance From the Last few years:2007/08 = 14,8202006/07 = 14,9982005/06 = 15,5822003/04 = 15,469 2002/03 = 13,2292001/02 = 13,161I didn't mean it like that, I meant Phoenix overall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrosby Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 madison, wisconsin please https://twitter.com/OutOfThisWC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jer15 Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Kind of strange you have a conference named Gretzky, but you don't have a Gretzky owned team(Phoenix Coyotes)... Also Phoenix isn't going to move or get contracted. Sorry guys not happening, not when the Hockey God has a stake in the team and also has a new arena in a great market. The Coyotes Avg. Attendance From the Last few years:2007/08 = 14,8202006/07 = 14,9982005/06 = 15,5822003/04 = 15,469 2002/03 = 13,2292001/02 = 13,161I didn't mean it like that, I meant Phoenix overalli'm not arguing, i just want to know how you define a great market and how Phoenix qualifies for it? GTA United(USA) 2015 + 2016 USA Champions/Toronto Maroons (ULL)2014, 2015 + 2022 Gait Cup Champions/Toronto Northmen (TNFF) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC97 Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Kind of strange you have a conference named Gretzky, but you don't have a Gretzky owned team(Phoenix Coyotes)... Also Phoenix isn't going to move or get contracted. Sorry guys not happening, not when the Hockey God has a stake in the team and also has a new arena in a great market. The Coyotes Avg. Attendance From the Last few years:2007/08 = 14,8202006/07 = 14,9982005/06 = 15,5822003/04 = 15,469 2002/03 = 13,2292001/02 = 13,161I didn't mean it like that, I meant Phoenix overalli'm not arguing, i just want to know how you define a great market and how Phoenix qualifies for it?"Potential", like all failing NHL markets... and AJ Burnett. --- Chris Creamer Founder/Editor, SportsLogos.Net  "The Mothership" • News • Facebook • X/Twitter • Instagram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshawaggie Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Future NHL:Lemieux Conference (East): TorontoOttawaHamilton, Ont.Halifax, Nova ScotiaMontrealDetroitChicagoPittsburghPhiladelphiaBostonBuffaloHartfordNew York - 1 teamWashingtonGretzky Conference (West):VancouverLos Angeles - 1 teamSeattleSan JoseDenverCalgaryEdmontonWinnipegSaskatoon or Regina, Sas.St. Paul, Min.DallasBismarck, N.D.St. LouisLas Vegas - Bettman couldn't resist forever.BISMARCK?? North Dakota isn't gonna get an NHL anytime soon, but if they did, Bis would be about 3rd in line. Western ND doesn't do hockey, like Eastern ND. That's BBall territory. Grand Forks (UND) already has an NHL type arena, but is too small (11,000). Fargo is the biggest market (200,000), but is too small for the NHL. @josh_j12 CFA- Fargo Bobcats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 madison, wisconsin please Makes sense. Don't know if Madison's exactly hockey mad, though. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illwauk Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Future NHL:Gretzky Conference (West):Bismarck, N.D.Rule of thumb... if you have to say what state or province a city is in, it's not major league...madison, wisconsin please Makes sense. Don't know if Madison's exactly hockey mad, though.Couldn't tell if you were being facetious, but UW has led the NCAA in hockey attendance for quite some time now. Not that the NHL will ever come to Madison. Even if Madison was a big enough media market, Bucky would never allow it to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew22 Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Future NHL:Lemieux Conference (East): TorontoOttawaHamilton, Ont.Halifax, Nova ScotiaMontrealDetroitChicagoPittsburghPhiladelphiaBostonBuffaloHartfordNew York - 1 teamWashingtonGretzky Conference (West):VancouverLos Angeles - 1 teamSeattleSan JoseDenverCalgaryEdmontonWinnipegSaskatoon or Regina, Sas.St. Paul, Min.DallasBismarck, N.D.St. LouisLas Vegas - Bettman couldn't resist forever.You're not supposed to drink the bong water. Eagles/Heels/Dawgs/Falcons/Hawks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.