(12-15-2014 04:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 04:12 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 01:14 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I see the Seattle thing from a different lens.

Seattle has an ownership group ready to go and Steve Ballmer may still be involved. They know they are not getting an NBA franchise without a new arena and this NHL franchise allows them to build one for both.

I believe that once Las Vegas is green lit, Seattle will quickly fall into place because I believe that Seattle (No. 14 market) is their real target, not Las Vegas (No. 42 market).

Supposedly the new Seattle Arena will not get the city of Seattle's cash input until an NBA team is announced. The NHL doesn't have any bearing on that financing decision. The ownership group of an NBA franchise and the city of Seattle have an agreement to finance the arena, once a Environmental Impact Statement OKs it and the NBA grants a new franchise. Maybe it can be redone with the NHL to get it earlier, but the financing is all dependent on the NBA giving the go ahead.

That ownership group doesn't exist now. The ownership group that had that understanding with Seattle included Steve Ballmer, who isn't available anymore because he bought the LA Clippers.

The only named person is Steve Hansen, who was a hedge fund manager.

(12-15-2014 07:41 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 04:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 04:12 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 01:14 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I see the Seattle thing from a different lens.

Seattle has an ownership group ready to go and Steve Ballmer may still be involved. They know they are not getting an NBA franchise without a new arena and this NHL franchise allows them to build one for both.

I believe that once Las Vegas is green lit, Seattle will quickly fall into place because I believe that Seattle (No. 14 market) is their real target, not Las Vegas (No. 42 market).

Supposedly the new Seattle Arena will not get the city of Seattle's cash input until an NBA team is announced. The NHL doesn't have any bearing on that financing decision. The ownership group of an NBA franchise and the city of Seattle have an agreement to finance the arena, once a Environmental Impact Statement OKs it and the NBA grants a new franchise. Maybe it can be redone with the NHL to get it earlier, but the financing is all dependent on the NBA giving the go ahead.

That ownership group doesn't exist now. The ownership group that had that understanding with Seattle included Steve Ballmer, who isn't available anymore because he bought the LA Clippers.

The only named person is Steve Hansen, who was a hedge fund manager.

Chris Hansen is the hedge fund manager, Steve Hansen is on the Sacramento city council.

I read a month or two ago that Ballmer is no longer involved in Seattle's NBA bid because he bought the Clippers. However, he may be interested in contributing to an NHL team there if it does not violate any conflicts of interest. I have no idea whether or not that was true but that story was definitely floating around a month or two ago.

I think all is quiet on the Seattle front because it is basically a done deal. Also, I think the NHL is keeping an eye on the Arizona and Florida situations in case they need to relocate franchises to Las Vegas and/or Seattle rather than expand to those cities. In that instance the expansion would then likely be to Quebec City and/or Markham, Ontario.

Either way, the NHL is going to 32 teams. You can bet your bottom dollar on that production coming true.

So 32 teams with teams in Las Vegas, Seattle and Quebec looks to be happening in some way. I agree with the people saying expansion for the first 2 and moving a team to Quebec for the last one . Florida makes a lot of sense there and it wouldnt sadden me as much since I know longer like by their arena :)

(12-16-2014 12:13 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Also, I think the NHL is keeping an eye on the Arizona and Florida situations in case they need to relocate franchises to Las Vegas and/or Seattle rather than expand to those cities.

The worst part about those two in particular is they already had NBA arenas and went and built separate NHL arenas away from the downtown area. If those NHL teams leave, those arenas become albatrosses.

That is absolutely true and in Glendale's case specifically, that is the only reason the Coyotes are still in Arizona. That city has given its hockey team a bunch of concessions because they are worried that if they don't, the team will skip town. That would leave a 11-year-old arena sitting vacant in the middle of an otherwise sprawling shopping area.



Still, at some point the law of diminishing returns begins to come into play. If the Coyotes cannot cultivate a fan base in Phoenix, the Coyotes cannot stay in town. It really isn't any more complicated than that. Florida is in the same boat.

I was in Sunrise a few years ago for a Panthers game and it was pathetic. There could not have been 5,000 people in the arena and it was completely dead. I asked the old man sitting a few rows in front of us - and he was the closest person sitting to us – if this was unusual and he said no. He literally said, "I can't understand how this team makes any money because this building is always empty?"



That really stuck with me because I think it shows the level of their plight. Now, if you win, more fans will come. However, you aren't always going to win and when you lose you can't plummet two the 4,000–5,000 fans per game level.

Personally, I believe that eventually both Phoenix and Florida will move. I just don't know that it will be as soon as some people think.

(12-16-2014 10:17 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That is absolutely true and in Glendale's case specifically, that is the only reason the Coyotes are still in Arizona. That city has given its hockey team a bunch of concessions because they are worried that if they don't, The team will skip town. That would leave a 10-year-old arena sitting vacant in the middle of an otherwise sprawling shopping area.

In Arizona they had to build another one. The Suns' arena is built only for basketball. And while it is convertible for hockey, it simply doesn't work. I think the Islanders may find the same problem in Brooklyn. I had this conversation once before with some UCF fans, who were talking about the Magic arena being suitable for hockey, and they didn't comprehend what I was talking about with this, and why the NHL all but forced them to build that second arena, and why they made a rule that they would never again go to an arena built around a basketball court again (although again they have done it with Barklays, which is even worse for hockey than America West was). I am not really sure why Miami built a second arena in Sunrise , since AAA is built for hockey?

(12-16-2014 10:23 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:17 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That is absolutely true and in Glendale's case specifically, that is the only reason the Coyotes are still in Arizona. That city has given its hockey team a bunch of concessions because they are worried that if they don't, The team will skip town. That would leave a 10-year-old arena sitting vacant in the middle of an otherwise sprawling shopping area.

In Arizona they had to build another one. The Suns' arena is built only for basketball. And while it is convertible for hockey, it simply doesn't work. I think the Islanders may find the same problem in Brooklyn. I had this conversation once before with some UCF fans, who were talking about the Magic arena being suitable for hockey, and they didn't comprehend what I was talking about with this, and why the NHL all but forced them to build that second arena, and why they made a rule that they would never again go to an arena built around a basketball court again (although again they have done it with Barklays, which is even worse for hockey than America West was). I am not really sure why Miami built a second arena in Sunrise , since AAA is built for hockey?

The condition of Nassau Coliseum, along with the inability to gain any traction on building a new facility, forced the Islanders and the NHL's hand. Of course, I still don't understand why anyone makes a basketball only arena. The difference in sight lines is marginal.

(12-16-2014 10:30 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Of course, I still don't understand why anyone makes a basketball only arena. The difference in sight lines is marginal.

Oh I would not say that. The KFC YUM Center in Louisville is built like that. It makes a HUGE difference for sideline seats and sideline upper deck seats, as well as endzone suites and premium seats. It also allows you to put more seats in a lower bowl of the same footprint. IT also puts the seats closer to the court.

If you know you will never have hockey (as in an NHL team), it makes good sense because it can create a lot more high income seats, and makes the experience better. The tradeoff is you can hold the same events as hockey arenas, but some won't work as regular reoccurring events, such as NHL hockey.

The Barklay's Center was going to be built for hockey and then they changed it's design at the 11th hour to make it a basketball only arena.

It was a stupid decision at the time because everyone knew that it was a very likely spot for the Islanders or the Devils or another team. It's New York City for God's sake!

Now, they are forced to try and retrofit it and of course it is going to be messy and ridiculous looking. It never should've come to this.

(12-16-2014 10:34 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:30 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Of course, I still don't understand why anyone makes a basketball only arena. The difference in sight lines is marginal.

Oh I would not say that. The KFC YUM Center in Louisville is built like that. It makes a HUGE difference for sideline seats and sideline upper deck seats, as well as endzone suites and premium seats. It also allows you to put more seats in a lower bowl of the same footprint. IT also puts the seats closer to the court.

If you know you will never have hockey (as in an NHL team), it makes good sense because it can create a lot more high income seats, and makes the experience better. The tradeoff is you can hold the same events as hockey arenas, but some won't work as regular reoccurring events, such as NHL hockey.

For the YUM Center, basketball only does make sense. But since Phillips Arena has all the boxes on one side, I at least couldn't see much difference in perspective when watching the Hawks or the Thrashers in the lower bowl. My only other arena experience was with the Verizon Center, so I might have a little bias.

(12-16-2014 10:57 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  The Barklay's Center was going to be built for hockey and then they changed it's design at the 11th hour to make it a basketball only arena.

It was a stupid decision at the time because everyone knew that it was a very likely spot for the Islanders or the Devils or another team. It's New York City for God's sake!

Now, they are forced to try and retrofit it and of course it is going to be messy and ridiculous looking. It never should've come to this.

Agreed.

(12-16-2014 11:08 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  For the YUM Center, basketball only does make sense. But since Phillips Arena has all the boxes on one side, I at least couldn't see much difference in perspective when watching the Hawks or the Thrashers in the lower bowl. My only other arena experience was with the Verizon Center, so I might have a little bias.

The differences are in the endzone both in sight lines, and in capacity. with a hockey arena and the temp seats, there is a lot of space in the corners that are not used, plus you often have a bunch of seats that are flat on the ground to fill in areas. So it makes a difference.