NHL announces expansion process for Houston and Austin to be owned by Friedkin family

[TheLegend]

The person who owned the Suns at the time they shared the arena is irrelevant to my point, whether or not it would have benefit the Coyotes is irrelevant as well. StreetHawk heavily implied that Fertitta would have to give up some ownership of the arena to have the Houston hockey team play there. As evidenced by the Coyotes first 7 seasons, and the Bruins and Celtics since forever, that clearly isnt the case

Okay....

But you're overlooking some crucial context.... player's salaries were nothing from 1995-03 compared to the other pro sports leagues. An NHL could be just an arena tenant then and survive...... somewhat.

Can't do that in 2026. Team's need all sorts of outside revenue streams these days to support an $100+ million per year roster (not counting all the other minor contracts). That's why the impetus is trending towards a team needing to own/control a full Sports Entertainment District to turn anywhere near a profit.

 

[KevFu]

Kev I get the feeling this is going to be Houston OR Austin, not both.

I also tend to think Houston is the preferred destination, bit the Friedkin family will pit both cities against each other on who's going to give them the better deal on the arena.

It's "Houston or Austin not both" NOW. Not for the rest of human civilization.

The point stands: We act like all these decisions are supposed to be the Best Choice Wins, when the smartest thing to do is long-term strategic planning.

You go Houston first and Austin becomes such diminishing returns that you'll never go there.

The level of interest/fandom is going to be proportional to the proximity. Say you get 25% of Houston to be fans of the Houston Aeros, but only 10% are going to be fans of the Austin Whatevers. And San Antonio, too. That's another factor.

You go Houston, you get like 2.5m fans from Houston, and 10% of Austin and San Antonio (.25m each). That's 3m combined. You add Austin later, and you're going from 10% of Austin to 25% of Austin. That's only 125,000 more NHL fans.

But you go Austin first and get 25% to be fans of the local team (0.625), and San Antonio's 10% (0.25) and Houston's 10% (0.8)... Now the Austin Whatevers have a fan base of 1.7m fans across those three cities...

And you go to Houston SECOND, and you're increasing Houston from 10% to 25%. That's 1.275m more fans. That juice IS worth the squeeze. And you've already made San Antonio an "Austin market" first, so San Antonio fans won't leave their Austin team for the Houston team and Austin team can survive the incursion of Houston chewing off some of their fan base.


Austin is the smarter play. Because there's always going to be 8 million reasons to go to Houston.

 

[LT]

It's "Houston or Austin not both" NOW. Not for the rest of human civilization.

The point stands: We act like all these decisions are supposed to be the Best Choice Wins, when the smartest thing to do is long-term strategic planning.

You go Houston first and Austin becomes such diminishing returns that you'll never go there.

The level of interest/fandom is going to be proportional to the proximity. Say you get 25% of Houston to be fans of the Houston Aeros, but only 10% are going to be fans of the Austin Whatevers. And San Antonio, too. That's another factor.

You go Houston, you get like 2.5m fans from Houston, and 10% of Austin and San Antonio (.25m each). That's 3m combined. You add Austin later, and you're going from 10% of Austin to 25% of Austin. That's only 125,000 more NHL fans.

But you go Austin first and get 25% to be fans of the local team (0.625), and San Antonio's 10% (0.25) and Houston's 10% (0.8)... Now the Austin Whatevers have a fan base of 1.7m fans across those three cities...

And you go to Houston SECOND, and you're increasing Houston from 10% to 25%. That's 1.275m more fans. That juice IS worth the squeeze. And you've already made San Antonio an "Austin market" first, so San Antonio fans won't leave their Austin team for the Houston team and Austin team can survive the incursion of Houston chewing off some of their fan base.


Austin is the smarter play. Because there's always going to be 8 million reasons to go to Houston.

These are completely arbitrary numbers.

"8 million reasons" is exactly why Houston needs to be first. Austin has been thrown into the picture as leverage for a better arena deal somewhere in Houston.

There is also probably some interest from the NHL to see how a team might do in Austin eventually, and the NHL is going to get that research and information out of this.

 

[LT]

I do wonder if a new arena in Houston is going to have to be outside of Harris County.

The county has a fairly complicated deal regarding the Toyota Center that IIRC effectively prevents any other sports arena from being built within Harris County.

The Woodlands would be the most logical place, but areas to the southwest of Downtown may also be viable. The Woodlands is the most affluent area, but somewhere near Katy would have cheaper, more accessible land and would also be easier for larger populations to get to.

There is also always a chance Fertitta caves and works out a deal, but this seems to be undesirable to the NHL and the Friedkin group. Fertitta's purchase of the WNBA's Sun likely satiated his desire to get more events in Toyota Center for the time being.

There are currently only three rinks (a fourth one is opening this fall, while a fifth one is closing in the next couple months), so there isn't really much of a hockey presence in the city. I would hope that (perhaps eventually) a new Houston team would follow what the Stars did in Dallas and develop a series of new rinks across southeast Texas. Growing the game and including a multitude of other income paths will be the key to longterm financial success.

 

[Brodie]

Houston with an arena in some suburb just feels like setting the table for Yotes 2.0 to me. Especially when so much of the rationale is just population size above all else.

 

[TheLegend]

Houston with an arena in some suburb just feels like setting the table for Yotes 2.0 to me. Especially when so much of the rationale is just population size above all else.

Problem with the Yotes was they chose the wrong suburb. Nearly 80% of their STHs were in the east valley and they chose to go the exact opposite direction.

So it would be wise for the Friedkins to choose wisely.