(06-29-2015 11:43 AM)RobUCF Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 10:55 AM)Ragu Wrote:  Tampa and Carolina have great fanbases. There would be no reason for them to move either one.

Las Vegas and Seattle should get the expansion teams. Quebec and KC if they relocate teams...

Well, not only have the Lightning not experienced the attendance issues of the other southern markets, but in order to move a team you need an owner that is interested. The owner of the Lightning, Jeff Vinik, has already invested millions of his own dollars in upgrading the team's arena. He is also in process of developing a $1 billion complex of hotels, restaurants, condos, and office space centered on the arena. I don't get the impression that he plans to move the team anytime soon.

http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/news...ntown.html

Reread my post. Unless you are quoting to agree with me....

(06-29-2015 11:12 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  You have to understand that the NHL is said to be charging a $500 million expansion fee. That is easily the largest expansion fee ever extorted by a major sports league for expansion franchise – and yes, I used that word intentionally.

Quote:Well, if you're looking at that type of an expansion fee, why wouldn't you approach the Coyotes about simply moving their team to your city?

I think you're asking this question the wrong way.

The right way to ask it is: If you're looking at that type of expansion fee, and you're the NHL league office or a current owner, you would make sure that the Coyotes stay in Arizona, so that anyone who wants an NHL team in another area has to fork over $500 million for the privilege, wouldn't you?

My utterly baseless guess.

I concur that Las Vegas and Seattle have the inside track and a nice lead, but then again the guaranteed going to LA expansion team in the NFL is playing in Houston.

Las Vegas is the most perfect NBA city out there and the commissioner has made it clear he wants to get the NBA to have a closer relationship with gambling. But until the NBA does pull the trigger, the NHL is most likely to come in. The biggest issue for Las Vegas is TV. Las Vegas is served by Fox Sports Arizona (also carries Coyotes) but doesn't serve much north of Las Vegas. Fox West also serves southern Nevada but they are overloaded on content (both LA area NHL teams). Altitude serves Nevada but all the properties it has are based in Colorado. Root Sports Rocky Mountain gets NE Nevada. Comcast Bay Area serves Nevada but limited distribution and doesn't fit their other content.

There isn't an easy off-the shelf fit.

Seattle I feel even more comfortable with. Great soccer city and what I learned this year was watching soccer has made it easier for me to follow hockey, so many of the concepts on attack and defense translate. It could well be embraced as a raised middle finger at the NBA.

Less likely but in play if either of the front-runners stumble. In my best guess of probability.

1. Quebec City. Tons of fans to tap into, the Nordiques move was a perfect storm. Weak Canadian dollar, coupled with the lockout costing them essentially half of the season, remember the Jets moved the next season. It is going to be a hard market to get free agents into because it isn't as bilingual as Montreal but a team can do fine there.
2. Kansas City. Quality venue, Blues have done well with pre-season games there.
3. Toronto II. I think the least likely unless its some sort of split the sheets deal over the Maple Leafs and in that event it would be a brokered deal where the owner left holding the Leafs pays the expansion fee plus added cash to the owner giving up the Leafs brand. Forbes estimated the value of the Leafs at $1.3 billion in November. If an expansion franchise is going to command 0.5 billion, the Leafs are probably undervalued by Forbes since the lowest NHL valuation they had was 0.19 billion for the Panthers. You've also got the Raptors and Toronto FC tied up in the deal as well as some minor league teams, the Argos, Air Canada Center and BMO Field. It wouldn't be easy to do a neat clean sheet split.

Tend to think Làmar Hunt Jr in KC, Les Alexander in Houston, and Paul Allen in Portland see the $500 mill expansion price tag as too much, and are biding their time waiting for a sale price for a relocation that may inevitably happen. Winnipeg buying the Thrashers only cost Chipman $170 mil a couple of years ago.

http://www.defendingbigd.com/2015/6/29/5...c#comments

The NHL can price new franchises at a premium because they know buyers are available for faltered ones.

I know nothing abut hockey but am amazed at how regional the interest can be. In Tulsa and OKC there is minor league hockey but it's really not hard to get tickets and demand is fairly low. A few years back we were on our way to Mt Rushmore and we decided to stop in for a game in Rapid City. Holy crap!! Was like going to an OU football game. Place was packed and fans were into the game. Was watching TV a while back and ran across a Nebraska at Omaha game. Over 10k in attendance. I was shocked. It's just not the same down South. I guess that is why there is only 1 NHL team in Texas/Oklahoma but 4 NBA teams.

(06-29-2015 02:45 PM)Okielite Wrote:  I know nothing abut hockey but am amazed at how regional the interest can be. In Tulsa and OKC there is minor league hockey but it's really not hard to get tickets and demand is fairly low. A few years back we were on our way to Mt Rushmore and we decided to stop in for a game in Rapid City. Holy crap!! Was like going to an OU football game. Place was packed and fans were into the game. Was watching TV a while back and ran across a Nebraska at Omaha game. Over 10k in attendance. I was shocked. It's just not the same down South. I guess that is why there is only 1 NHL team in Texas/Oklahoma but 4 NBA teams.

Rapid City doesn't even have HS hockey except by clubs. Where HS have teams like Minn,WI, Mich, and ND, their is so much more basic awareness of the game. Some places like UND where there's 12000 seat sellouts every game are a major step up in fan experience from that.

(06-29-2015 11:12 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  You have to understand that the NHL is said to be charging a $500 million expansion fee. That is easily the largest expansion fee ever extorted by a major sports league for expansion franchise – and yes, I used that word intentionally.

For what it's worth, Bob McNair paid a $700 million expansion fee for the Houston Texans, plus had to pay (most of it) to build a stadium. The next highest that I know of was the Charlotte Bobcats paying $300 million over a decade ago, which was after Houston, but a smaller market NBA team without competition (Houston had competition on their bid). Based on that, a $500 million expansion fee seems about market value.

Could Fox make a "Fox Sports Las Vegas"? I imagine it would probably be largely the same as Fox Sports Arizona, but it would cover the expansion team instead of the Coyotes. Some of the college sports content could also be tweaked for regional interest.

(06-29-2015 02:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  My utterly baseless guess.

I concur that Las Vegas and Seattle have the inside track and a nice lead, but then again the guaranteed going to LA expansion team in the NFL is playing in Houston.

Las Vegas is the most perfect NBA city out there and the commissioner has made it clear he wants to get the NBA to have a closer relationship with gambling. But until the NBA does pull the trigger, the NHL is most likely to come in. The biggest issue for Las Vegas is TV. Las Vegas is served by Fox Sports Arizona (also carries Coyotes) but doesn't serve much north of Las Vegas. Fox West also serves southern Nevada but they are overloaded on content (both LA area NHL teams). Altitude serves Nevada but all the properties it has are based in Colorado. Root Sports Rocky Mountain gets NE Nevada. Comcast Bay Area serves Nevada but limited distribution and doesn't fit their other content.

There isn't an easy off-the shelf fit.

Seattle I feel even more comfortable with. Great soccer city and what I learned this year was watching soccer has made it easier for me to follow hockey, so many of the concepts on attack and defense translate. It could well be embraced as a raised middle finger at the NBA.

Less likely but in play if either of the front-runners stumble. In my best guess of probability.

1. Quebec City. Tons of fans to tap into, the Nordiques move was a perfect storm. Weak Canadian dollar, coupled with the lockout costing them essentially half of the season, remember the Jets moved the next season. It is going to be a hard market to get free agents into because it isn't as bilingual as Montreal but a team can do fine there.
2. Kansas City. Quality venue, Blues have done well with pre-season games there.
3. Toronto II. I think the least likely unless its some sort of split the sheets deal over the Maple Leafs and in that event it would be a brokered deal where the owner left holding the Leafs pays the expansion fee plus added cash to the owner giving up the Leafs brand. Forbes estimated the value of the Leafs at $1.3 billion in November. If an expansion franchise is going to command 0.5 billion, the Leafs are probably undervalued by Forbes since the lowest NHL valuation they had was 0.19 billion for the Panthers. You've also got the Raptors and Toronto FC tied up in the deal as well as some minor league teams, the Argos, Air Canada Center and BMO Field. It wouldn't be easy to do a neat clean sheet split.

Toronto II is more than just Maple Leafs rights.. if it's in Hamilton/St. Catharines it's the Sabres market too. Probably not going to happen.

I wish Quebec would get a team... believe it or not I think KC is the only market of those there that will get a team. If there was only a way to get a team in the Portland and Seattle markets at the same time... too far apart though.

Seattle and Portland, instant rivals with Vancouver.

(06-29-2015 03:36 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:12 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  You have to understand that the NHL is said to be charging a $500 million expansion fee. That is easily the largest expansion fee ever extorted by a major sports league for expansion franchise – and yes, I used that word intentionally.

For what it's worth, Bob McNair paid a $700 million expansion fee for the Houston Texans, plus had to pay (most of it) to build a stadium. The next highest that I know of was the Charlotte Bobcats paying $300 million over a decade ago, which was after Houston, but a smaller market NBA team without competition (Houston had competition on their bid). Based on that, a $500 million expansion fee seems about market value.

One can't compare the NHL franchise value with the NFL. The NFL is generally > MLB > NBA > NHL. The Clippers sale set a new standard, and its a second team in a premiere market. The Toronto Maple Leafs are probably the most valuable team in the NHL, with such a demand for seating that Toronto could easily support two team, or maybe even three which was what New York did with MLB and now does with the NHL. Many NHL owners would sell their team if offered a half billion UD$.

In my mind Portland doesn't work because of the presence of the Trail Blazers. Two winter sports teams in one small market simply will not work.

(06-29-2015 09:58 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  In my mind Portland doesn't work because of the presence of the Trail Blazers. Two winter sports teams in one small market simply will not work.

http://www.csnnw.com/winterhawks/theres-...rtland-nhl

If Portland had an NFL or MLB team, then an NHL would definitely overextend that market. But an NHL with Seattle and Vancouver would be fantastic, kind of like the MLS teams are rivals. Portland's Winter Hawks draw pretty well, so it isn't a virgin market with no hockey awareness.

(06-29-2015 10:06 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:58 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  In my mind Portland doesn't work because of the presence of the Trail Blazers. Two winter sports teams in one small market simply will not work.

http://www.csnnw.com/winterhawks/theres-...rtland-nhl

If Portland had an NFL or MLB team, then an NHL would definitely overextend that market. But an NHL with Seattle and Vancouver would be fantastic, kind of like the MLS teams are rivals. Portland's Winter Hawks draw pretty well, so it isn't a virgin market with no hockey awareness.

And I'm not sure there's a 3 way city rivalry quite like Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver have.

(06-29-2015 08:38 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 03:36 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:12 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  You have to understand that the NHL is said to be charging a $500 million expansion fee. That is easily the largest expansion fee ever extorted by a major sports league for expansion franchise – and yes, I used that word intentionally.

For what it's worth, Bob McNair paid a $700 million expansion fee for the Houston Texans, plus had to pay (most of it) to build a stadium. The next highest that I know of was the Charlotte Bobcats paying $300 million over a decade ago, which was after Houston, but a smaller market NBA team without competition (Houston had competition on their bid). Based on that, a $500 million expansion fee seems about market value.

One can't compare the NHL franchise value with the NFL. The NFL is generally > MLB > NBA > NHL. The Clippers sale set a new standard, and its a second team in a premiere market. The Toronto Maple Leafs are probably the most valuable team in the NHL, with such a demand for seating that Toronto could easily support two team, or maybe even three which was what New York did with MLB and now does with the NHL. Many NHL owners would sell their team if offered a half billion UD$.

And there is the problem with a $500 million expansion fee.

According to Forbes' guesstimation of NHL franchise values, only 10 of the 30 NHL franchises are worth more than $500 million. All of those top 10 franchises have good reasons for being worth that much that won't apply to an expansion franchise in any of the cities being discussed.

Thus, a potential owner would have to pay $500 million for a franchise whose best-case scenario is probably being worth as much as the Sharks or Stars (est. value $420-425 million) and worst case is being worth as much as one of the recent newer franchises (est. value $250 million or less). There are teams on that list that have won at least one Stanley Cup and are still worth less than $400 million.

Who is going to pay $500 million for an expansion fee plus maybe another $50-100 million in start-up costs for a franchise that will end up valued somewhere in the $250-425 million range? Maybe someone like Paul Allen who has so much money that he could spend $500 million and barely miss it, but probably no one else.

(06-29-2015 08:38 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 03:36 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 11:12 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  You have to understand that the NHL is said to be charging a $500 million expansion fee. That is easily the largest expansion fee ever extorted by a major sports league for expansion franchise – and yes, I used that word intentionally.

For what it's worth, Bob McNair paid a $700 million expansion fee for the Houston Texans, plus had to pay (most of it) to build a stadium. The next highest that I know of was the Charlotte Bobcats paying $300 million over a decade ago, which was after Houston, but a smaller market NBA team without competition (Houston had competition on their bid). Based on that, a $500 million expansion fee seems about market value.

One can't compare the NHL franchise value with the NFL. The NFL is generally > MLB > NBA > NHL. The Clippers sale set a new standard, and its a second team in a premiere market. The Toronto Maple Leafs are probably the most valuable team in the NHL, with such a demand for seating that Toronto could easily support two team, or maybe even three which was what New York did with MLB and now does with the NHL. Many NHL owners would sell their team if offered a half billion UD$.

I didn't./ I compared it to the NBA. The NFL number was in direct contrast to the statement that the NHL expansion fee was the highest ever, and the NBA number, which was a decade ago and in a different climate for sports franchise values, shows that $500 million is not extortion by any stretch.

(06-30-2015 01:30 AM)Wedge Wrote:  And there is the problem with a $500 million expansion fee.

According to Forbes' guesstimation of NHL franchise values, only 10 of the 30 NHL franchises are worth more than $500 million. All of those top 10 franchises have good reasons for being worth that much that won't apply to an expansion franchise in any of the cities being discussed.

Thus, a potential owner would have to pay $500 million for a franchise whose best-case scenario is probably being worth as much as the Sharks or Stars (est. value $420-425 million) and worst case is being worth as much as one of the recent newer franchises (est. value $250 million or less). There are teams on that list that have won at least one Stanley Cup and are still worth less than $400 million.

Who is going to pay $500 million for an expansion fee plus maybe another $50-100 million in start-up costs for a franchise that will end up valued somewhere in the $250-425 million range? Maybe someone like Paul Allen who has so much money that he could spend $500 million and barely miss it, but probably no one else.

The instances I listed above, the Texans and the Bobcats, at the time they paid their expansion fees, were similarly more than the majority of team values at that time. When the Texans paid $700 million, the average NFL team value was $550 million. In fact at that time, the Forbes highest valued team was the Washington Redskins at slightly over $740 million, with the Cowboys the only other team worth over $700 million. When the Bobcats came aboard, the average NBA team value was $247 million. That is the name of the game to buy in.

There are people willing to pay $500 million for an expansion hockey team that may only be worth $200 million in the short term.

(06-30-2015 09:56 AM)Chappy Wrote:  There are people willing to pay $500 million for an expansion hockey team that may only be worth $200 million in the short term.

Currently the average value of an NHL team is $490 million. The median value (15 Dallas Stars and 16 Ottawa Senators avg.) is $420 million.



I am actually surprised the Blues are so far down this list. This may not bode well for Kansas City's prospects.

(06-30-2015 09:43 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 01:30 AM)Wedge Wrote:  And there is the problem with a $500 million expansion fee.

According to Forbes' guesstimation of NHL franchise values, only 10 of the 30 NHL franchises are worth more than $500 million. All of those top 10 franchises have good reasons for being worth that much that won't apply to an expansion franchise in any of the cities being discussed.

Thus, a potential owner would have to pay $500 million for a franchise whose best-case scenario is probably being worth as much as the Sharks or Stars (est. value $420-425 million) and worst case is being worth as much as one of the recent newer franchises (est. value $250 million or less). There are teams on that list that have won at least one Stanley Cup and are still worth less than $400 million.

Who is going to pay $500 million for an expansion fee plus maybe another $50-100 million in start-up costs for a franchise that will end up valued somewhere in the $250-425 million range? Maybe someone like Paul Allen who has so much money that he could spend $500 million and barely miss it, but probably no one else.

The instances I listed above, the Texans and the Bobcats, at the time they paid their expansion fees, were similarly more than the majority of team values at that time. When the Texans paid $700 million, the average NFL team value was $550 million. In fact at that time, the Forbes highest valued team was the Washington Redskins at slightly over $740 million, with the Cowboys the only other team worth over $700 million. When the Bobcats came aboard, the average NBA team value was $247 million. That is the name of the game to buy in.

Betting that the value of an NFL expansion franchise will rise substantially after you buy it is a pretty safe bet. Making the same bet on an NHL expansion franchise isn't nearly as good as an investment. Which is why I said that the market for NHL franchises at that price is going to be limited to multi-billionaires like Paul Allen who can easily afford a $500 million toy that loses money.