From the Vancouver, BC, The Province

http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Gallag...story.html

A link on an arena being constructed by MGM:

http://www.vegaschatter.com/story/2014/5...Seat+Arena

TV Producer Jerry Bruckheimer has been rumored as a possible owner for a couple of years.

Shows how much money the big Vegas casino operators have. The MGM Grand Garden Arena is nice, though not luxe, and it's only about 20 years old, but I assume they'll tear it down when MGM's new arena opens.

SI is reporting the NHL will expand by four teams in by 2017: Las Vegas, Seattle, Quebec City, and a second Toronto team.

http://www.si.com/nhl/2014/08/26/report-...-expansion

Poor poor KC...still got that big arena downtown with not even a major college tenant. I guess they can still stick the Panthers there.

(08-27-2014 12:16 AM)justinslot Wrote:  Poor poor KC...still got that big arena downtown with not even a major college tenant. I guess they can still stick the Panthers there.

I've heard that the Sprint Center is one of the Marion's busiest arenas in terms of number of events booked, in spite of not having a sports team as a primary tenant.

Don't rule out the NBA either, as New Orleans or Memphis would probably love to move to the Eastern Conference.

Why 4 teams in terms of expansion? The West needs 2 teams so Las Vegas/Seattle make sense. But what good does adding 2 more Eastern time zones do to balance the 2 conferences East/West? Relocation is the only way that make sense at all. 32 teams is enough. Don't see the need for 34 and it would just water down the league and not solve the East/West balance.

(08-27-2014 07:22 AM)Ragu Wrote:  Why 4 teams in terms of expansion? The West needs 2 teams so Las Vegas/Seattle make sense. But what good does adding 2 more Eastern time zones do to balance the 2 conferences East/West? Relocation is the only way that make sense at all. 32 teams is enough. Don't see the need for 34 and it would just water down the league and not solve the East/West balance.

Yes, given the current NHL alignment, 2 teams is reasonable and creates balance.

4 is unnecessary (keeps current imbalance) as if the owners just want to collect expansion fees.

Personally, I think it would've been best for the Coyotes to move to Vegas and the Panthers to move to Seattle, but expansion is fine too. While I think a two-team expansion would be most prudent right now, at least the cities chosen are pretty solid. Only exception may be Markham; an expansion team is going to suck for the first few years, if the Leafs end up winning the Cup then the new team will be become a second class club pretty quickly. Then again, hockey is so popular in Canada it probably won't matter.

An NBA ready arena in Vegas? The Bucks are now on the clock.

I'm a little skeptical of this story as these types of rumors seem to pop up every other year or so and nothing ever seems to come of them. However, what makes this one seem more legit than some of the others is that it is very obvious that the NHL is looking to get into Seattle, ASAP. Gary Bettman and Bill Daley have been openly flirting with Seattle for about a year now.

That makes sense too as the divisions are currently unbalanced with 16 teams in the Eastern Conference and just 14 teams in the Western Conference.

Also, Seattle is one of the very best sports towns in the United States and with the NBA out of there right now and not looking like it is set to return anytime soon, this is a perfect opportunity for the NHL to get in there and become at least somewhat entrenched before an NBA team does eventually return. A Seattle/Vancouver rivalry could take off very quickly if the franchises are each competitive.

The problem has always been locating that second Western team to pair with the Seattle franchise. Las Vegas has always been the most logical second Western team – largely because of Jerry Bruckheimer's involvement.

As many of you undoubtedly already know, Bruckheimer is a Canadian and a fanatical hockey fan. He has long pushed for an NHL franchise in Las Vegas. The only holdup has been the fact that Phoenix has struggled so much attracting fans in its market and a lot of people see Las Vegas as being a very similar situation to that of the Coyotes. Also, by the nature of Las Vegas' business culture, much of their workforce is working in the evening and that too could negatively impact game attendance.

Personally, I do not see that last issue as a major stumbling block because I believe the casinos will buy up all of the tickets and comp those out to out-of-town guests as another perk to gamble with them. It may not make for the most electric arena atmosphere in the league but those seats will be sold.

So while I am unsure if this particular rumor is true, I do believe that this is very likely where the puck will eventually land.

(08-27-2014 08:06 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  So while I am unsure if this particular rumor is true, I do believe that this is very likely where the puck will eventually land.

Well if they are breaking ground on an arena, I'd imagine at least the Vegas part is true.

I fully expect all 4 places to have NHL Hockey within 2 years- be it expansion or franchise relocation. Seattle, Las Vegas, and Quebec make all the sense in the world. Toronto getting a 2nd team as well.

(08-27-2014 07:24 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 07:22 AM)Ragu Wrote:  Why 4 teams in terms of expansion? The West needs 2 teams so Las Vegas/Seattle make sense. But what good does adding 2 more Eastern time zones do to balance the 2 conferences East/West? Relocation is the only way that make sense at all. 32 teams is enough. Don't see the need for 34 and it would just water down the league and not solve the East/West balance.

Yes, given the current NHL alignment, 2 teams is reasonable and creates balance.

4 is unnecessary (keeps current imbalance) as if the owners just want to collect expansion fees.

Yeah, I agree with you guys on this one. Two Western Conference teams makes some sense. It does further dilute the talent pool but it also brings divisional balance to both conferences, which is a major issue in NHL circles right now.

Four expansion teams makes no sense at all. That would dilute the talent pool far too much and it would also bring the NHL right back to where it is now with unbalanced divisions in the East and the West.

Also, with the Canadian loonie dropping like a stone, the momentum to put teams in the Great White North is not the same as it was a few years ago when the loonie was practically even with the dollar and Winnipeg got its team.

I still think that Quebec City in particular is going to get its team back. However, I do not believe it will be via expansion but rather relocation of a struggling existing franchise.

Honestly, the Islanders would've been a perfect choice to move up to QC but that is not going to happen now with them just agreeing to a long-term lease to play in Brooklyn.

Also, Florida, the other most often rumored team to be on the move, is sinking a ton of money into that franchise and they are sincerely trying to make a go of it in Sunrise. I do not believe that is going to work but they are nowhere near the moving stage.

The Coyotes too or trying to make a serious go of it and Glendale. They just signed a long-term lease there and are committed for at least the next five seasons. Just about everyone else is doing alright for themselves right now so I just don't know where the relocated teams are going to come from?

As for Markham, Ontario, I see them as being the last in line. Having a second Toronto area team would certainly be good for the league at the gate – and the NHL is still a somewhat gate-driven league. However, a second Toronto franchise would not grow the league's television contract by a nickel and that is definitely a MAJOR problem for that group.

My prediction is that Seattle and Las Vegas will be awarded expansion franchises sooner rather than later - there is just too much money out there to ignore. It will lessen the overall quality of the hockey being played out there but the money will be too great for the owners to walk away from. I also believe that somewhere down the line Quebec City will get a relocated franchise – that would almost certainly have to come out of the Eastern Conference - probably Florida. However, that is more of a long-term project.

I do not see the Golden Horseshoe (Toronto and the rest of southern Ontario) getting a second team in the foreseeable future. That is a shame in some regards because that area would definitely support another NHL franchise. I just don't know where that team would come from or what would possess the NHL to expand there?

(08-27-2014 08:27 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 07:24 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 07:22 AM)Ragu Wrote:  Why 4 teams in terms of expansion? The West needs 2 teams so Las Vegas/Seattle make sense. But what good does adding 2 more Eastern time zones do to balance the 2 conferences East/West? Relocation is the only way that make sense at all. 32 teams is enough. Don't see the need for 34 and it would just water down the league and not solve the East/West balance.

Yes, given the current NHL alignment, 2 teams is reasonable and creates balance.

4 is unnecessary (keeps current imbalance) as if the owners just want to collect expansion fees.

Yeah, I agree with you guys on this one. Two Western Conference teams makes some sense. It does further dilute the talent pool but it also brings divisional balance to both conferences, which is a major issue in NHL circles right now.

Four expansion teams makes no sense at all. That would dilute the talent pool far too much and it would also bring the NHL right back to where it is now with unbalanced divisions in the East and the West.

Also, with the Canadian loony dropping like a stone, the momentum to put teams in the Great White North is not the same as it was a few years ago when Winnipeg got its team.

I still think that Quebec City in particular is going to get its team back. However, I do not believe it will be via expansion but rather relocation of a struggling existing franchise.

Honestly, the Islanders would've been a perfect choice to move up to QC but that is not going to happen now with them just agreeing to a long-term lease to play in Brooklyn.

Also, Florida, the other most often rumored team to be on the move, is sinking a ton of money into that franchise and they are sincerely trying to make a go of it in Sunrise. I do not believe that is going to work but they are nowhere near the moving stage.

The Coyotes too or trying to make a serious go of it and Glendale. They just signed a long-term lease there and are committed for at least the next five seasons. Just about everyone else is doing alright for themselves right now so I just don't know where the relocated teams are going to come from?

As for Markham, Ontario, I see them as being the last in line. Having a second Toronto area team would certainly be good for the league at the gate – and the NHL is still a somewhat gate-driven league. However, a second Toronto franchise would not grow the league's television contract by a nickel and that is definitely a MAJOR problem for that group.

My prediction is that Seattle and Las Vegas will be awarded expansion franchises sooner rather than later - there is just too much money out there to ignore. It will lessen the overall quality of the hockey being played out there but the money will be too great for the owners to walk away from. I also believe that somewhere down the line Quebec City will get a relocated franchise – that would almost certainly have to come out of the Eastern Conference - probably Florida. However, that is more of a long-term project.

I do not see the Golden Horseshoe (Toronto and the rest of southern Ontario) getting a second team in the foreseeable future. That is a shame in some regards because that area would definitely support another NHL franchise. I just don't know where that team would come from or what would possess the NHL to expand there?

Houston supported its WHA team fairly well and the Rockets owner at the time of the last expansion was trying to get a team to help fill Toyota Center, which was new. But the NHL doesn't seem to have any interest in going there.

(08-27-2014 08:14 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 08:06 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  So while I am unsure if this particular rumor is true, I do believe that this is very likely where the puck will eventually land.

Well if they are breaking ground on an arena, I'd imagine at least the Vegas part is true.

Well, not necessarily because they have also begun the process of building the arenas in Markham and Quebec City and yet there are no guarantees for either of those cities either.

Also, as somebody pointed out earlier, Kansas City has a new arena and no one has put a team there either and that does not look like it is going to ever happen.

It is a bit more complicated than if you build an arena you are assured of getting a team. I think it is probably more like if you don't have an arena ready to go - or at least in process - you have no chance of getting a team.

(08-27-2014 08:52 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Also, as somebody pointed out earlier, Kansas City has a new arena and no one has put a team there either and that does not look like it is going to ever happen.

It is a bit more complicated than if you build an arena you are assured of getting a team.

Big difference. Kansas City built an arena for other purposes, while also hoping to lure a team. Big difference (for the record Louisville, New Orleans, and Oklahoma City did similar things in the last decade). I am not saying building it will lure a team. I am saying that in Vegas they are not going to build one until they have been assured they have a team coming. That is the difference. Similar to what Seattle has in place.

If the NHL did go to 34 franchises, I wonder if they'd scrap divisions and just have two 17-team conferences.

(08-27-2014 08:05 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  An NBA ready arena in Vegas? The Bucks are now on the clock.

Doubtful. Bucks have $200 million for the new arena, without naming rights or facility fee factored into the equation (donations by the old and new owners). If you consider the naming rights in Milwaukee to be similar to those in Quebec, you are looking at debt service corresponding to another $75 million or so (NML Center anyone). A $4 facility fee on each ticket (well over 1 million tickets sold to BC events last year) translates into debt service on another $75 million or so. So, without tax dollars, Milwaukee has around $350 million or so for the new arena. State and city will kick in small amounts. Further, since the owners have to sell the team back to the league (for a very small profit) if the arena project isn't started by 2017, there is huge incentive to get thing done quickly. As a side note, the new owners sold minority shares (starting at $5 million) to what is believed to be 18 additional, local investors. Given the above scenario, its hard to see the team moving.

Now, not that the city could support it, but once the Bucks vacate the BC, could an NHL team be interested in that building? The BC was built for hockey, has wonderful sight lines and is in pristine condition. The lack of lower bowl seating has hurt the Bucks, but the layout is perfect for hockey and much of the facility is like new. I would think if the Bucks moved, Milwaukee would move to the top of the NHL expansion list. They would have gotten a team in the early 90s, but for the ownership group dropping out of the bidding at the last minute.

There's one itsy bitsy problem with the report, the NHL hasn't even reviewed any application for any expansion franchise yet. So I'd slow down on these rumours.

UPDATE: you can actually stop the rumour, the NHL says that expansion is not on the table right now.

Seattle makes a great deal of sense. The Seahawks and Sounders have fantastic support and Mariners aren't exactly scraping by. Jump in while there is a void with the NBA gone. The Seattle-Vancouver rivalry (along with Portland) has been great for MLS.