Stan Kroenke joins real estate group building NHL/NBA quality arena in San Diego

[StreetHawk]

It’s very clear that while it’s not a long term thing, Ryan Smith is ready and willing to take a team any time the NHL is ready to give it to him in Salt Lake

Imagine the nhl wants a firm commitment on a new arena before SLC gets a team. Don’t want a team to linger in a non ideal home unless there is something set in stone on the horizon.

As long as Smith is willing they can wait on the arena in SLC.

 

[GKJ]

Imagine the nhl wants a firm commitment on a new arena before SLC gets a team. Don’t want a team to linger in a non ideal home unless there is something set in stone on the horizon.

As long as Smith is willing they can wait on the arena in SLC.

He is working on that but I don’t think they care much about that if he owns the building that exists, which he does.

 

[StreetHawk]

He is working on that but I don’t think they care much about that if he owns the building that exists, which he does.

Like the AZ one with the Suns, they pretty much have to build a brand new one vs retrofit it for hockey. I don't think this situation would rush the NHL to awarding an expansion team to SLC. Can wait til they are ready.

ATL, on the other hand seems to be further ahead with that planned development. If they needed to award a team to ensure that this development goes ahead, I think the NHL would do that.

That's why I think the NHL has no set time table as each situation is unique and the NHL has to be prepared to operate on the candidate's timeline with regards to arena decisions.

 

[GKJ]

Like the AZ one with the Suns, they pretty much have to build a brand new one vs retrofit it for hockey. I don't think this situation would rush the NHL to awarding an expansion team to SLC. Can wait til they are ready.

ATL, on the other hand seems to be further ahead with that planned development. If they needed to award a team to ensure that this development goes ahead, I think the NHL would do that.

That's why I think the NHL has no set time table as each situation is unique and the NHL has to be prepared to operate on the candidate's timeline with regards to arena decisions.

They would’ve done it for this season if they thought they could have. Salt Lake was/is the escape hatch for the Coyotes.

 

[StreetHawk]

They would’ve done it for this season if they thought they could have. Salt Lake was/is the escape hatch for the Coyotes.

That's relocation, which in a pinch the NHL would execute on that plan if needed for the Coyotes. But in terms of expansion, there is no rush to award SLC a team until they have an NHL ready arena.

 

[TheLegend]

Arizona is an obvious relo candidate.

Going on like….. what….. 15 years now.

Broken clocks have been more accurate.

 

[GKJ]

That's relocation, which in a pinch the NHL would execute on that plan if needed for the Coyotes. But in terms of expansion, there is no rush to award SLC a team until they have an NHL ready arena.

I’m not sure that would be the case here, the league may not wait as long as that would take. Of course, the timeline would accelerate if Salt Lake is awarded the Olympics as expected, which would be in June.

 

[Headshot77]

It’s very clear that while it’s not a long term thing, Ryan Smith is ready and willing to take a team any time the NHL is ready to give it to him in Salt Lake

I too think Ryan Smith is desperate for a team too and he'll stuff them into the Jazz's arena until a new NHL facility gets built.

They would’ve done it for this season if they thought they could have. Salt Lake was/is the escape hatch for the Coyotes.

The only reason I don't think SLC is the escape hatch is that (I believe) Smith is willing to pony up $1billion.

The real escape hatch should be a place like Houston or QC. Places with NHL level facilities already, in good markets, with ownership groups not willing to pay expansion prices.

 

[GKJ]

I too think Ryan Smith is desperate for a team too and he'll stuff them into the Jazz's arena until a new NHL facility gets built.

He definitely sees value in getting a team to relocate before having to resort to expansion. He’ll have to pay a relocation fee, but he seems unconcerned.

The only reason I don't think SLC is the escape hatch is that (I believe) Smith is willing to pony up $1billion.

The real escape hatch should be a place like Houston or QC. Places with NHL level facilities already, in good markets, with ownership groups not willing to pay expansion prices.

Salt Lake is THE escape hatch unless someone wise out west steps forward.

Houston just doesn’t seem like an option without Fertita willing to get involved.

The league cited a geographical imbalance as reason not to expand to Quebec City. They have to both wait for expansion and have assurances that the value of the Canadiens doesn’t go down.

 

[Bostonzamboni]

The Houston Rockets have been awful in recent years....and no longer sell out every game, with some weeknight games only drawing 13,000 to 14,000 out of 18,062 or so. In that huge tv market!

And the Astros just won the World Series last year but can't sell out every game. Yes, too many home games in baseball, so that's not unusual, and no baseball team has had any sellout streak in recent years.

But Houston is so large that even an NHL will succeed, right? Hmmm.

It doesn't matter as the NBA and MLB has a great tv contract of course.

But an NHL team likely will have attendance issues in Houston when the initial glory fades and the team eventually struggles for 5-10 years like almost all teams can.

The Utah Jazz have had a sellout streak for several years. And I think their MLS team sells out all or most games in recent years or even all years. But the NHL is a guaranteed success there -- or the market is still too small?

The Portland Trailblazers, non playoff team this year, did not sell out all games this season or recent ones, but close. Can the NHL expect any better? The MLS Portland Timbers, I think, have likely sold out most or all games for years at over 20,000 capacity, but only 20 home games or so, often concentrated on weekends like in most or all MLS cities -- unlike NHL, NBA and MLB who need to attract fans on Monday to Wednesday nights regularly for many more than only 20 home dates.

 

[Brodie]

NFL expanded to 32 long before NHL. And then NBA and MLB strongly hinted they will expand to 32.

And you think all of them will then tell themselves 32 is enough after that? Gimme a break man.

The NFL went to 32 two decades ago and hasn't even come close to hinting at additional expansion since, they always suggest it is at least a decade away. MLB and the NBA are only just starting making preliminary noises about expansion to 32.

The NHL went to 32 two years ago and is already aggressively hinting at expansion to 34.

I do not believe we will see leagues capped at 32 forever. I think, especially as Americans become more and more familiar with soccer pro/rel models, we will eventually see leagues in the 40s with movements between divisions, etc. But the NHL seems like it is trying to do a speed run there even as the smallest of the Big 4 leagues and the one with the fewest healthy markets.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

The NFL went to 32 two decades ago and hasn't even come close to hinting at additional expansion since, they always suggest it is at least a decade away. MLB and the NBA are only just starting making preliminary noises about expansion to 32.

The NHL went to 32 two years ago and is already aggressively hinting at expansion to 34.

I do not believe we will see leagues capped at 32 forever. I think, especially as Americans become more and more familiar with soccer pro/rel models, we will eventually see leagues in the 40s with movements between divisions, etc. But the NHL seems like it is trying to do a speed run there even as the smallest of the Big 4 leagues and the one with the fewest healthy markets.

NFL has been talking about putting a team in London.

Whether that will happen will remain to be seen but conversation has been happening. So that is inaccurate.

 

[Headshot77]

The NHL also has 6 more Canadian markets than any other league. You can extrapolate that to say that the NHL could reasonably fit 38 teams before saturating the US market

 

[Tawnos]

The NHL also has 6 more Canadian markets than any other league. You can extrapolate that to say that the NHL could reasonably fit 38 teams before saturating the US market

People seem to forget this a lot. You can’t put an MLB or NBA team in Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Winnipeg, or Quebec City. That’s 5. They also couldn’t put a second team for either of those leagues in GTHA, so that’d be 6. I think you were probably listing Vancouver in your 6, but I think either league could potentially work there same as Montreal (where neither league is currently, to your point).

I think the NFL’s ambitions bend more towards Europe than even going to Toronto.

The NHL could put 4 more teams in the US and only then would they have an equivalent American footprint to MLB and NBA today. By then, both leagues will probably have expanded and still be ahead of them.

 

[madhi19]

NFL has been talking about putting a team in London.

Whether that will happen will remain to be seen but conversation has been happening. So that is inaccurate.

Considering the NFL relatively short schedule and weekly games it the only North American league that could do that.

 

[KevFu]

No other major pro league has expanded in 20+ years meanwhile the NHL is out here hinting they want to go to 34 or 36 teams within 5 years of expanding twice

The NHL was also the smallest by far and playing catch up. MLB had 20 in 1966, the NHL had six. The NHL had 21 in 1988, MLB had 26.

And as others have mentioned, the NHL has Canadian markets where Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa will support HOCKEY teams the way US markets the same size can't support MLB or NBA.

 

[KevFu]

If we set talent dilution aside (which I am not sure is an issue these days to be honest). I figure they could all go the 34-36 teams. The NFL could go to 40 if they include Europe. This is what I see the 4 major leagues being able to do:

The NBA could put teams in the following cities: Seattle, Vegas, Vancouver, San Diego, Louisville, and Montreal. Figure Memphis and New Orleans are relo candidates so thats 34 teams.

MLB could put teams in Montreal, Portland, Vegas, Nashville, and Charlotte. Figure 2 of those spots can be taken by Tampa and Oakland. So they could go to 34. Or 36 if you take those 5 cities and add Mexico City.

The NFL could put teams in San Antonio, St Louis, Mexico City, Toronto, plus 4 in Europe. Only Jacksonville is a relo candidate. There is probably at least one more North American city I am missing so that's 40 they could do.

The NHL could put teams in QC, Hamilton, Portland, Salt Lake City, and Houston. Arizona is an obvious relo candidate. Maybe Florida if last years attendance spike isn't sustained. so 36 is a reasonable number for them,

See, this is the interesting thing to me...

NFL works in a ton of places because it's 8-9 games a year. You need to sell 700,000 tickets and on Sundays, cities can have fans drive from hours and states away to go to games. I saw something once that said the Denver Broncos have SEASON TICKET HOLDERS that live in SEVEN STATES. You can't drive from Wyoming to Denver for 81 MLB games or 41 NHL/NBA games, but you CAN for 8 football games.

So if Green Bay Wisconsin can support an NFL team, virtually anyone could... just not all at the same time. You'd need them to the thing that draws people from 4 hours away, because if Milwaukee and Madison both got their own NFL teams... the Packers slowly die, right?

It seems to me there'd be some kind of league-wide "market population, competition of teams, number of home games, size of roster" formula that would tell you how many teams each league could sustain.

 

[KevFu]

The Houston Rockets have been awful in recent years....and no longer sell out every game, with some weeknight games only drawing 13,000 to 14,000 out of 18,062 or so. In that huge tv market!

And the Astros just won the World Series last year but can't sell out every game. Yes, too many home games in baseball, so that's not unusual, and no baseball team has had any sellout streak in recent years.

But Houston is so large that even an NHL will succeed, right? Hmmm.

It doesn't matter as the NBA and MLB has a great tv contract of course.

But an NHL team likely will have attendance issues in Houston when the initial glory fades and the team eventually struggles for 5-10 years like almost all teams can.

The Utah Jazz have had a sellout streak for several years. And I think their MLS team sells out all or most games in recent years or even all years. But the NHL is a guaranteed success there -- or the market is still too small?

The Portland Trailblazers, non playoff team this year, did not sell out all games this season or recent ones, but close. Can the NHL expect any better? The MLS Portland Timbers, I think, have likely sold out most or all games for years at over 20,000 capacity, but only 20 home games or so, often concentrated on weekends like in most or all MLS cities -- unlike NHL, NBA and MLB who need to attract fans on Monday to Wednesday nights regularly for many more than only 20 home dates.

The key factor you're omitting is that the LOCAL OWNER of a franchise gets the ticket money, and the rest of the owners ONLY profit from another city having a team via the national TV contract.

It doesn't matter that MLB/NBA TV contracts are bigger than the NHL's. All that matters is that if Houston makes the NHL TV contract GO UP.

A hot climate city selling very few tickets and being a complete dumpster fire is largely THEIR PROBLEM, and the other owners just get the benefits of having that market included in TV negotiations.

The NHL US TV deal went from $45m to $120m after adding PHX (et al). It was a simple math equation, which is why the league keeps expanding.

 

[Reaser]

The NHL US TV deal went from $45m to $120m after adding PHX (et al). It was a simple math equation, which is why the league keeps expanding.

Ha! The U.S. TV deal absolutely did not jump up 167% because of "adding PHX." It was Disney (ABC/ESPN/espn2) keeping content away from FOX (FSN/FX) as the primary reason.

Also, it doesn't fit the narrative to go with the next number, huh?

When -after the league went from 27 to 30 teams during the length of the Disney deal- that $120m per annum was cut in half to $60m ($70m option years / NBC portion no upfront fees) in the next deal, that Disney eventually opted out of because the lockout happened.

To imply as an absolute that the U.S. TV deal exploded to $600m over 5-years because Phoenix, Raleigh, Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus and St. Paul were added via relocation/expansion is beyond disingenuous. It's flat out lying.

 

[Tawnos]

Ha! The U.S. TV deal absolutely did not jump up 167% because of "adding PHX." It was Disney (ABC/ESPN/espn2) keeping content away from FOX (FSN/FX) as the primary reason.

Also, it doesn't fit the narrative to go with the next number, huh?

When -after the league went from 27 to 30 teams during the length of the Disney deal- that $120m per annum was cut in half to $60m ($70m option years / NBC portion no upfront fees) in the next deal, that Disney eventually opted out of because the lockout happened.

To imply as an absolute that the U.S. TV deal exploded to $600m over 5-years because Phoenix, Raleigh, Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus and St. Paul were added via relocation/expansion is beyond disingenuous. It's flat out lying.

"Keeping content away from FOX" doesn't actually explain the price though. I'm not against another argument for the reason the TV contract increased in price so much, but FOX was conceivably willing to pay a price that Disney was able to beat. Disney didn't swoop in with a massive offer that blew the FOX offer out of the water. They came in with the lowest offer that beat FOX.

 

[Reaser]

"Keeping content away from FOX" doesn't actually explain the price though. I'm not against another argument for the reason the TV contract increased in price so much, but FOX was conceivably willing to pay a price that Disney was able to beat. Disney didn't swoop in with a massive offer that blew the FOX offer out of the water. They came in with the lowest offer that beat FOX.

Yeah, that's not how that played out, at all.

Opposite of what you said, Disney literally did swoop in with a massive offer. Disney didn't want to lose the rights on cable (ESPN/espn2) and specifically didn't want to lose them to FOX (FSN/FX) so they massively overbid and presented it in a way where most would say FOX got screwed on trying to match the offer -- you can look up the alleged broadcast/cable split, FOX & NHL dispute on how long they had to match the offer and even what the actual offer (broadcast or cable) was, and how in the end it ended up being an ESPN deal with ABC time-buy.

What isn't in dispute, is that it wasn't an auction style open bid where FOX said "well Phoenix is in the league now, so we bid $599m over 5-years!" and Disney countered with, "Phoenix and Raleigh! We're sold. We'll go to $600m over 5-years!" and then at that point FOX decided that was too rich for their blood and Disney had made the lowest offer that beat FOX. No. That is not what happened.

The "primary" (as I said) reason for the bid and how it was constructed, including price, was about Disney keeping the NHL on ESPN/2 and as equally if not more importantly keeping FOX (FSN/FX) from aquiring the cable portion of the package. This is basic knowledge. And there's a reason when ESPN extended the cable portion of the deal it went from $120m per annum to $60m for a year w/$70m options. Numbers that also go against the narrative of "added Phoenix, Raleigh, etc.." increased TV deal. $45m to $120m to $60m, the spike in the middle was due to Disney v. FOX, obviously.

 

[aqib]

See, this is the interesting thing to me...

NFL works in a ton of places because it's 8-9 games a year. You need to sell 700,000 tickets and on Sundays, cities can have fans drive from hours and states away to go to games. I saw something once that said the Denver Broncos have SEASON TICKET HOLDERS that live in SEVEN STATES. You can't drive from Wyoming to Denver for 81 MLB games or 41 NHL/NBA games, but you CAN for 8 football games.

So if Green Bay Wisconsin can support an NFL team, virtually anyone could... just not all at the same time. You'd need them to the thing that draws people from 4 hours away, because if Milwaukee and Madison both got their own NFL teams... the Packers slowly die, right?

It seems to me there'd be some kind of league-wide "market population, competition of teams, number of home games, size of roster" formula that would tell you how many teams each league could sustain.

Just one thing to note, the Packers have fans all over America and they aren't all transplanted Wisconsinites (or whatever they are called).

The flip side of what you said since people can and do follow teams from a distance adding a new team won't always get people to switch their allegiance. Like Columbus, Ohio shows up on those stupid "10 cities that deserve an expansion team" lists. The thing is people in Columbus already follow the Browns, Steelers, and Bengals and because they can get to those cities or watch them on Sunday Ticket they won't switch to whatever the Columbus team is. So in your example of putting teams in Milwaukee or Madison, its more likely those teams will flop because people are already fans of the Packers.

Carolina was able to cultivate a fanbase while Jacksonville has been up and down.

I think San Antonio would be able to carve out a strong fanbase of its own. They've been clamoring for a team of their own for over 30 years. If a team came to Toronto, I think you'd see a lot of people who are currently fans of the Bills or other random teams would convert to the new team.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

The NHL was also the smallest by far and playing catch up. MLB had 20 in 1966, the NHL had six. The NHL had 21 in 1988, MLB had 26.

And as others have mentioned, the NHL has Canadian markets where Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa will support HOCKEY teams the way US markets the same size can't support MLB or NBA.

Well I mean that's false. Milwaukee, New Orleans, Memphis are either the same size or smaller than Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa and they support the NBA and MLB (Milwaukee)

 

[KevFu]

Just one thing to note, the Packers have fans all over America and they aren't all transplanted Wisconsinites (or whatever they are called).

The flip side of what you said since people can and do follow teams from a distance adding a new team won't always get people to switch their allegiance. Like Columbus, Ohio shows up on those stupid "10 cities that deserve an expansion team" lists. The thing is people in Columbus already follow the Browns, Steelers, and Bengals and because they can get to those cities or watch them on Sunday Ticket they won't switch to whatever the Columbus team is. So in your example of putting teams in Milwaukee or Madison, its more likely those teams will flop because people are already fans of the Packers.

Carolina was able to cultivate a fanbase while Jacksonville has been up and down.

I think San Antonio would be able to carve out a strong fanbase of its own. They've been clamoring for a team of their own for over 30 years. If a team came to Toronto, I think you'd see a lot of people who are currently fans of the Bills or other random teams would convert to the new team.

That point is what I meant by "just not all the same time."

Let's say, hypothetically, that instead of the Rams/Chargers moving to LA, the Green Bay Packers moved to LA. Madison or Milwaukee absolutely could support an NFL team because they're bigger than Green Bay. Because that's absent the competition. WITH the Packers in Wisconsin, a team in Milwaukee would suffer from the "I'm not giving up the Packers" and it would take generations for Milwaukee to be the favorite team of Wisconsin.

Like how Sacramento has an NBA team, San Jose has an NHL/NFL team, San Francisco has an MLB/NBA team, and Oakland has an MLB team (for now) and had an NFL team. But if ALL FOUR cities had teams in ALL FOUR leagues, there'd be a lot of struggling franchises there.

Well I mean that's false. Milwaukee, New Orleans, Memphis are either the same size or smaller than Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa and they support the NBA and MLB (Milwaukee)

I meant that Canadians support their NHL clubs better than the small market cities in the US. The people in New Orleans love the Saints, but they're wearing paper bags over their heads in the lean times.

 

[Headshot77]

Completely unrelated, but I feel like if the New Orleans Pelicans relocated to San Diego barely anyone in New Orleans would even notice. That's a Saints town through and through.