My reading mainly hinges on this point:
Enduring a few years in a 3.5k building if you've got a new arena deal right around the corner is one thing - Staying there indefinitely without anything realistic on the horizon is another.
I wouldn't put any one outcome over 50 per cent of happening, that's for sure.
My opinion should be taken with a huge grain of salt, considering I was pretty far off on my referendum prediction - I did recognize that reported high turnout was not a good sign though.
Bettman's vibe (and therefore, the BOG vibes) around the team has certainly shifted since the vote. The tea leaves around SLC are giving off the vibes of "This is our backup plan market".
This opinion is probably also fed by my overall opinion of the Tempe plan, which I was very high on. The Tempe plan was their best shot at getting a new building constructed in Arizona, and any other plan will require MORE public funds and backing, which it appears there isn't any political will for.
So that leaves us with existing buildings:
Return to Glendale? - No chance current ownership pulls it off, and I don't think they'll scrounge up another owner that could pull off that magic bean job - Could be wrong though.
Partnership with Suns - While there appears to be some political will there, It doesn't seem like Suns ownership is keen on the idea, and IIRC the building renovations to get it hockey ready would be almost prohibitive.
Thanks. I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just wanted to see the logic, because it seemed like something is missing... And that helped me uncover what's missing.
YES, Salt Lake has TWO arenas they can temporarily play in. But the team isn't moving without a Permanent Arena Solution.
They have put $40 million into making a temporarily solution as close to NHL standards as they possibly can, despite its massive shortfalls; and spending more money on another one makes little to no sense... unless the Permanent Arena Solution is reached in another market and there's just no reason to stay when your move has been announced.
Delta Center is an NBA Arena. It CAN hold hockey, but it's not a P-A-S for the team. During the SLC Winter Olympics, it was dubbed "The Ice Pit" because of sightlines, and it's easy to see why.
Its' capacity for hockey is LISTED at 14,000 but - much like Barclays Center -- that doesn't mean there are 14,000 sellable seats with a view of a hockey game.
Delta Center also has the problem of locker rooms. Can it have a "permanent" home locker room for the NHL team, the Jazz, and visiting locker rooms for an NBA and NHL team all at the same time? And can it do that without an investment of millions? And is that investment worth it if the bowl configuration for hockey is the Ice Pit like the pictures?
There's also Maverick Center, which holds an actual LEGITIMATE 10,100 for hockey. But it probably doesn't have NHL broadcast, locker room, or back of house the league needs; and while it might have some suites, they're not NHL quality/quantity.
The number one argument for Salt Lake City as the "most likely" outcome is that the Delta Center and Maverick Center both SOUND/SEEM a lot better than Mullett Arena.
AND it's easy to see that the Olympic bid makes Salt Lake City seem VERY LIKELY to build a new NBA Arena that can fit a hockey team within the next decade -- making it the most logical place a "Permanent Arena Solution" can happen in.
But the 2030 and 2034 Winter Olympics are still a way off from having their funding pass through the governments and getting shovels in ground; and there's a TON of moving parts here.
I don't think the NHL will be saying "committed to Phoenix, committed to Phoenix.... (abruptly) Oh, Now They're Moving to Salt Lake." Because "voting on what to build" in Salt Lake is going to be far more public: True North had previously built an NHL Arena, for their AHL team "for now," with the goal of getting the Jets back... all they needed was a backroom deal for a team to bring the Jets back. Salt Lake needs a very public funding package to build what they want to build
