Thoughts on San Diego?

[Yukon Joe]

The NHL has conceded in court that the “home team veto” is not enforceable due to anti-trust laws. Any final decision whether to approve a franchise entering the home territory of another franchise and how much compensation would be due is made by the BoG.

MLSE has publicly disputed the League’s position. Personally I don’t think MLSE could prevail legally due to the anti-trust problem.

My usual disclaimer: I am a lawyer, I am not licensed to practice anywhere but Alberta, and I don't specifically practice competition/anti-trust law.

But I struggle to see why anti-trust law would mean the league itself can't decide where to put a franchise? I mean anti-trust law isn't going to compel Starbucks or McDonalds to put a franchise somewhere they don't want to - how is hockey any different?

The only time this has ever been tested in court is during the whole Jim Balsillie / Phoenix Coyotes bankruptcy proceedings. In it the judge ruled he could NOT force the NHL to put a team to place a team against it's own rules.

Competition law is designed to prevent monopolies, to put it very, very simply. Competition law does sometimes run up against pro sports leagues - but more on the issue of players. When it comes to teams themselves, the leagues are more seen as in competition to other leagues, and leagues can control their own operations without interference from competition law.

Now that being said - if you have a link where the NHL admits that they can't in fact control team location do to competition/anti-trust law I'm very happy to see it.

 

[Tawnos]

My usual disclaimer: I am a lawyer, I am not licensed to practice anywhere but Alberta, and I don't specifically practice competition/anti-trust law.

But I struggle to see why anti-trust law would mean the league itself can't decide where to put a franchise? I mean anti-trust law isn't going to compel Starbucks or McDonalds to put a franchise somewhere they don't want to - how is hockey any different?

The only time this has ever been tested in court is during the whole Jim Balsillie / Phoenix Coyotes bankruptcy proceedings. In it the judge ruled he could NOT force the NHL to put a team to place a team against it's own rules.

Competition law is designed to prevent monopolies, to put it very, very simply. Competition law does sometimes run up against pro sports leagues - but more on the issue of players. When it comes to teams themselves, the leagues are more seen as in competition to other leagues, and leagues can control their own operations without interference from competition law.

Now that being said - if you have a link where the NHL admits that they can't in fact control team location do to competition/anti-trust law I'm very happy to see it.

I thought what he was saying was that a single team doesn't have the power to stop the league from putting a team wherever it wants. In other words, the Leafs and Sabres couldn't stop a team in Hamilton if the rest of the league decided to put one there. To use your example restaurant franchise example, the owner of a McDonald's on 12th and Broadway in Manhattan couldn't stop McDonald's from approving a new franchise on 13th and Broadway if that's what the company decided to do.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I thought what he was saying was that a single team doesn't have the power to stop the league from putting a team wherever it wants. In other words, the Leafs and Sabres couldn't stop a team in Hamilton if the rest of the league decided to put one there.

So I think that's true - but that it's up to the league to run it's own affairs - which includes its own constitution and by-laws.

So if the league wanted to amend its own constitution to remove the 50 mile rule it's free to do so.

If the league however just wanted to pretend the 50 mile rule didn't exist and put a team in Hamilton without consent ot Toronto / Buffalo - I think there's a good chance of a lawsuit. It wouldn't be under competition law however, just under plain-old breach of contract.

It's worth noting however (and some people already have) that the NHL is an extremely small and exclusive club. There are only 32 owners, many have been in the league for decades, and they meet multiple times per year. There's zero chance that a majority of the league decides to say "screw the Leafs - we're going to put a team in Toronto no matter what they say". That's probably double true when you consider MLSE ownership in Bell and Rogers give hundred of millions of dollars to the league every year. You just don't screw over your colleagues and business partners like that.

 

[Tawnos]

So I think that's true - but that it's up to the league to run it's own affairs - which includes its own constitution and by-laws.

So if the league wanted to amend its own constitution to remove the 50 mile rule it's free to do so.

If the league however just wanted to pretend the 50 mile rule didn't exist and put a team in Hamilton without consent ot Toronto / Buffalo - I think there's a good chance of a lawsuit. It wouldn't be under competition law however, just under plain-old breach of contract.

It's worth noting however (and some people already have) that the NHL is an extremely small and exclusive club. There are only 32 owners, many have been in the league for decades, and they meet multiple times per year. There's zero chance that a majority of the league decides to say "screw the Leafs - we're going to put a team in Toronto no matter what they say". That's probably double true when you consider MLSE ownership in Bell and Rogers give hundred of millions of dollars to the league every year. You just don't screw over your colleagues and business partners like that.

On that last paragraph, absolutely. That's what I was saying on the last page. It doesn't really matter if teams truly have the right to veto. The BoG is never going to approve a team in someone's territory unless that team agrees to it. They're not even going to go as far as saying "we've determined $XXX million is the appropriate indemnification and you're just going to have to accept it."

The owners I'm sure are going to go by the rule in the league constitution. It's still an open question on what "home territory within a home territory" means though.

 

[mouser]

My usual disclaimer: I am a lawyer, I am not licensed to practice anywhere but Alberta, and I don't specifically practice competition/anti-trust law.

But I struggle to see why anti-trust law would mean the league itself can't decide where to put a franchise? I mean anti-trust law isn't going to compel Starbucks or McDonalds to put a franchise somewhere they don't want to - how is hockey any different?

The only time this has ever been tested in court is during the whole Jim Balsillie / Phoenix Coyotes bankruptcy proceedings. In it the judge ruled he could NOT force the NHL to put a team to place a team against it's own rules.

Competition law is designed to prevent monopolies, to put it very, very simply. Competition law does sometimes run up against pro sports leagues - but more on the issue of players. When it comes to teams themselves, the leagues are more seen as in competition to other leagues, and leagues can control their own operations without interference from competition law.

Now that being said - if you have a link where the NHL admits that they can't in fact control team location do to competition/anti-trust law I'm very happy to see it.

As Tawnos said, the League said (during the Moyes bankruptcy) that no individual team can veto another team moving into their territory. The NHL (BoG) collectively can exercise full legal powers to approve or deny the location and/or relocation of a team. So long as the process to make such decision is compliant with anti-trust law. The NFL vs Raiders creating the most relevant legal anti-trust precedents to my knowledge.

Of course the BoG is very unlikely to approve a team in the GTA against the Leafs' wishes, but that doesn't mean they don't have the power to do so.

 

[Yukon Joe]

As Tawnos said, the League said (during the Moyes bankruptcy) that no individual team can veto another team moving into their territory. The NHL (BoG) collectively can exercise full legal powers to approve or deny the location and/or relocation of a team. So long as the process to make such decision is compliant with anti-trust law. The NFL vs Raiders creating the most relevant legal anti-trust precedents to my knowledge.

Of course the BoG is very unlikely to approve a team in the GTA against the Leafs' wishes, but that doesn't mean they don't have the power to do so.

Do you have a link on either point? Because that doesn't match my memory of the bankruptcy lawsuit.

 

[mouser]

Do you have a link on either point? Because that doesn't match my memory of the bankruptcy lawsuit.

Sorry, I don't have a link. It may have actually been in oral arguments where the NHL conceded the veto was not enforceable. I attended many of the bankruptcy court hearings.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

I think San Diego could be a successful NHL market, but it'd need things to happen a certain way. A new arena being a major stumbling block, especially as it'd almost certainly need to be built with private money. Selfishly San Diego would be great, either as an excuse to get me to take the Pacific Surfliner down a couple times a year or as a new adopted 'home' team as I'm considering a move there.

I'd imagine San Diego is behind a decent number of markets, though, not just because of the arena issue. Southern California is not an underserved market, though I do think San Diego is far enough away to attract its own following. I can't imagine Anaheim would be thrilled, but at nearly 100 miles apart I don't know how much they'd be able to do.

As the crow flies you could definitely argue that San Diego is 'too close' to the LA teams, but it is absolutely not a trip people are going to take for a regular season sporting event because of traffic. I don't think I need to explain that Southern California traffic is miserable and ~100-120 miles is considerable because of it. Manhattan to Philadelphia is about 100 miles apart as well and you're not going to see too many people try to make the argument that they're the same market. Regardless I'd have to imagine more underserved markets, like Houston & Atlanta, would be preferred by the league.

The biggest problem San Diego has as a sports market is its limited scope for growth. Half of the population is transplants, for one, but more importantly is just geography - east of San Diego is largely just desert, west is obviously the Pacific, north is Orange County, and there's only about 15 miles between downtown and the Mexican border. Tijuana is a large city in its own right (~2 million) and it's right across that border, but you have to be realistic about how much that's really going to sway the needle in San Diego's favor for a hockey team. For a market the size of San Diego's, it has a relatively small footprint. There's 3.3 million people in San Diego County, almost all of which live in or around San Diego itself. Go north and you're in another market, go south and you're in another country, you can't go west, and there's almost nothing to the east (Imperial County is the least populous county in SoCal at ~180k). San Diego somehow manages to both be a deceptively large market and a deceptively small market.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I think San Diego could be a successful NHL market, but it'd need things to happen a certain way. A new arena being a major stumbling block, especially as it'd almost certainly need to be built with private money. Selfishly San Diego would be great, either as an excuse to get me to take the Pacific Surfliner down a couple times a year or as a new adopted 'home' team as I'm considering a move there.

Sigh.

So the good news - San Diego is getting a brand new 16000 seat arena. It's one of these deals where (as best as I can tell) it's built with private money but the developers get a sweet-heart deal on the land and taxes. Again like many such deals in addition to the arena there's an entertainment district, as well as affordable housing.

Midway Rising gives updates to City Council on project

Midway Rising, the professional team master planning the new housing and entertainment center to replace Pechanga Arena, recently visited both

sdnews.com

The bad news - the development is being headed up by Stan Kroenke, who already owns an NHL team in Colorado, so I don't see a path to the new SD Arena hosting an NHL team.

I feel like I've mentioned this a few times already...

 

[Tawnos]

I'm not so convinced that Kroenke's involvement in the project really is much of a barrier. Oak View Group, for example, built Climate Pledge Arena in Seattle and is the operator, but does not own the team (though Tod Leiweke, brother of the owner of OVG, does have ownership stake and is President and CEO). At the same time, they're part of an ownership partnership that built and owns UBS Arena, but that group does not own the Islanders. The point I'm making is that Kroenke building the arena doesn't really mean that he needs to own the team and clearly the NHL is fine with some cross-ownership on the arena side of things.

If an NHL were to land in San Diego, it would likely be owned by a consortium of owners (like in Seattle) while Kroenke's group operates the arena. You don't really know who is going to be part of it until it starts to become a reality. Once the arena is under construction, I would be surprised if we didn't start hearing names of people who would be interested in heading up a group like that.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I'm not so convinced that Kroenke's involvement in the project really is much of a barrier. Oak View Group, for example, built Climate Pledge Arena in Seattle and is the operator, but does not own the team (though Tod Leiweke, brother of the owner of OVG, does have ownership stake and is President and CEO). At the same time, they're part of an ownership partnership that built and owns UBS Arena, but that group does not own the Islanders. The point I'm making is that Kroenke building the arena doesn't really mean that he needs to own the team and clearly the NHL is fine with some cross-ownership on the arena side of things.

If an NHL were to land in San Diego, it would likely be owned by a consortium of owners (like in Seattle) while Kroenke's group operates the arena. You don't really know who is going to be part of it until it starts to become a reality. Once the arena is under construction, I would be surprised if we didn't start hearing names of people who would be interested in heading up a group like that.

OK so thank you for engaging.

So a lot of these details are very opaque when it comes to pro sports (likely because teams don't want to publicize how much they gut subsidized).

As a general principle though - you can't run an NHL team profitably if you have to pay market rents for your building (outside a mere handful of teams - maybe). Hell that was the issue that caused my beloved Jets to leave back in the 90s. The model seems to be that you control the arena so you get all the revenue - from concessions, concerts, whatever else - plus you might also get revenue from neighboring property - plus hopefully get a break on taxes.

So that's what I think the issue is with San Diego. You'd never be successful owning an NHL team if you had to pay rent to Kroenke.

Now who knows - maybe they can set something up where it's Kroenke's nephew or whomever who owns the team, thus getting around the "you can't own two teams" rule while the team can still benefit from getting all the arena revenues. But that's the issue. And since Kroenke already is going to get all the revenue from the new arena, plus he already has an NHL team, I'm not sure he'd be interested in setting up a scheme where a family member owns a NHL team.

 

[Tawnos]

OK so thank you for engaging.

So a lot of these details are very opaque when it comes to pro sports (likely because teams don't want to publicize how much they gut subsidized).

As a general principle though - you can't run an NHL team profitably if you have to pay market rents for your building (outside a mere handful of teams - maybe). Hell that was the issue that caused my beloved Jets to leave back in the 90s. The model seems to be that you control the arena so you get all the revenue - from concessions, concerts, whatever else - plus you might also get revenue from neighboring property - plus hopefully get a break on taxes.

So that's what I think the issue is with San Diego. You'd never be successful owning an NHL team if you had to pay rent to Kroenke.

Now who knows - maybe they can set something up where it's Kroenke's nephew or whomever who owns the team, thus getting around the "you can't own two teams" rule while the team can still benefit from getting all the arena revenues. But that's the issue. And since Kroenke already is going to get all the revenue from the new arena, plus he already has an NHL team, I'm not sure he'd be interested in setting up a scheme where a family member owns a NHL team.

There are two separate questions here. Arena ownership and arena operating rights. More than half the teams in the league (17) do not own the arena that they play in. But of those 17, 13 for sure have the operating rights. They're paying rent, but bringing in a lot of the revenue streams you mentioned (though each operating agreement differs on exactly which streams and how much of each). Another two I couldn't verify quickly (Florida and Columbus). Climate Pledge in Seattle and PPG Paints in Pittsburgh both are in situations where they neither own nor operate their building. OVG operates Climate Pledge and AEG operates PPG. In addition, Bill Foley owns 15% of T-Mobile Arena, while MGM and AEG each own 42.5%. MGM operates it.

It's perfectly possible that Kroenke will own the building and lease both it and its operating rights to a team that puts in there.

 

[ThePlanet]

The hockey market in the LA basin seems too saturated to me, so might as well kill two waterfowl with one stone:

Move the Ducks to San Diego.

 

[KevFu]

Sure its optimal but you until you have the terms of the deal we're all talking hypotheticals. If Kroenke has a JV partner who wants to own an NHL team they can work out a deal that works for both. Remember LA stadium deal has Stockbridge Capital as owner of some of the development around the stadium but he owns the stadium and the team. So something can be worked out where he builds stuff around the arena and the team controls the arena
Remember when you're looking at operating income that doesn't include the debt service on the arena itself.

I agree with you, I just think if you're the NHL, you're looking more for "IDEAL" than "this could work."

Maybe the NHL has faith because of the relationship with Kroenke.

(The NHL is obviously in on Salt Lake City because they know it's obvious that the team won't leave Utah unless something comes up and they HAVE TO. They know Smith is committed to Utah for the long haul; they don't want a fly by night, I just bought a team to get the land, ASG situation).

 

[KevFu]

I really wish we had an official answer on the issue of territories. The NHL constitution really can be interpreted two ways, but in one of them they would need to pay indemnification to the Ducks and Kings and in the other, they would not.

The way it's worded and accepted by fans for the purposes of our fan conversations:

San Diego CAN get a team without paying LA or ANA because they're more than 50 miles away from those cities.

San Diego CAN'T build an arena and play in an area that's within their own 50-mile territory, but ALSO within someone else's, unless they pay for that right.

In other words, you don't "get a full circle" if you buy the SD team. (Which is fine, because you don't WANT to build an arena in Carlsbad anyway, and 40% of the "full circle" is the Pacific Ocean).

Being outside the 50mi radius didn't stop Philadelphia from holding up the Rockies' move to New Jersey (roughly 100mi from city limit to city limit) until that owner paid up. With this in mind, if Anaheim and LA wanted to block a team in San Diego, or Chicago really wanted to block a team going to Milwaukee, they could certainly try.

I'm sure there are acceptable limits to indemnification, but based on what Philadelphia did, despite East Rutherford being well outside Philadelphia's market area, don't expect ANA/LA or CHI to go down without a fight.

The thing with Philly and New Jersey was probably threefold (And I'm not pretending to be a historian here, it just stands to reason..)

#1 - Despite being technically "allowed" by the rules as we have them written now (might not have been exactly the same back then), a team in New Jersey has 40% of their circle overlap with 40% of Philly's circle.

Jersey would have like 7% of their circle NOT be covered by NY/PHI, so the intention to steal fans from other people was obvious.

#2 - That's Philly's TV territory. You had rules written for the ticket sale era, and now we're starting the cable TV era. So the dispute was like about TV rights.

#3 - The vote. We don't know the details of the vote. They could have had to buy off Philly to get enough votes for approval. In a 21-team league, you need 16 yes votes to move.

In the New York Times article (God Bless their online archives!) it says:
"The final problem blocking the proposed sale and transfer had been that of realigning the N.H.L.'s teams geographically within the four divisions. It was solved when the Winnipeg Jets agreed to move from the Norris Division to the Smythe, joining Edmonton, Los Angeles, Vancouver and Calgary. In return for joining a division that plays most of its games two time zones to the west, Winnipeg received financial aid and scheduling concessions."

Whereas if the NHL expands to San Diego, there's no realignment required. San Diego goes in the Pacific and no one has to move unless the NHL adds another team West of Vegas, or two more Western conference teams.


One thing with league votes is that every vote ENDS unanimous (or maybe 1 dissenter max) in the press release. Not just NHL, but most leagues/organizations. It's a closed door meeting and NO ONE wants it to get out that they voted against something that passed. Everyone votes how they feel, you see the results, and then VOTE AGAIN, and all the people who lost change their vote so you can have a unanimous vote in the press release.

Specific example of this: The ACC announced that Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College were invited after unanimous votes. But their FIRST votes wren't unanimous, because Boston College LOST and had to be invited later (and join the league a year later).

The only time you see a vote NOT be unanimous is when someone wants to make a public statement (George Steinbrenner voting against the first MLB CBA with a luxury tax).

On that last paragraph, absolutely. That's what I was saying on the last page. It doesn't really matter if teams truly have the right to veto. The BoG is never going to approve a team in someone's territory unless that team agrees to it.

Yeah, I think it's truly moot because the league is not set up in a way where the juice is worth the squeeze of forcing a team upon someone else.

The hockey market in the LA basin seems too saturated to me, so might as well kill two waterfowl with one stone:

Move the Ducks to San Diego.

Anaheim isn't Los Angeles; and San Diego isn't Los Angeles or Anaheim either.

 

[ThePlanet]

Anaheim isn't Los Angeles; and San Diego isn't Los Angeles or Anaheim either.

Anaheim and Los Angeles are both within the LA Basin.

 

[Tawnos]

The way it's worded and accepted by fans for the purposes of our fan conversations:

San Diego CAN get a team without paying LA or ANA because they're more than 50 miles away from those cities.

San Diego CAN'T build an arena and play in an area that's within their own 50-mile territory, but ALSO within someone else's, unless they pay for that right.

In other words, you don't "get a full circle" if you buy the SD team. (Which is fine, because you don't WANT to build an arena in Carlsbad anyway, and 40% of the "full circle" is the Pacific Ocean).

That is not interpretation accepted by fans. It's just your own. And frankly, that second part is a pretty convoluted way of looking at it. Much moreso than the "no overlap" one.

Until we hear Bettman, Daly or an uninterested party in the BoG (i.e. if we're discussing SD, not the LAK or ANA owners) explicitly state what it is in reality, then there is no universally accepted interpretation of this.

And most likely, the only way that would happen is if San Diego was getting a team. It's the only market where it would come up. The only other viable markets for a team where this is an issue are Toronto 2 or Hamilton, and both of them are unambiguously within the Leaf's home territory. Though I will also note that FirstOntario Centre is just barely outside of Buffalo's home territory (by about 2 miles) and no one seems to doubt that the Sabres would need to be paid off if there were a Hamilton team coming. Yes, I'm 100% discounting the idea of Milwaukee.

 

[Yukon Joe]

One thing with league votes is that every vote ENDS unanimous (or maybe 1 dissenter max) in the press release. Not just NHL, but most leagues/organizations. It's a closed door meeting and NO ONE wants it to get out that they voted against something that passed. Everyone votes how they feel, you see the results, and then VOTE AGAIN, and all the people who lost change their vote so you can have a unanimous vote in the press release.

You are absolutely correct. At the BOG level there are only 32 votes, so you know damn well that the league knows what the outcome of any vote will be before it's held.

An example of why you don't want "no" votes publicized. During the WHA merger the NHL voted and the vote was 12 yes (out of 17). That wasn't enough to make 75% however so the vote failed. One of the franchises that voted "no" was Montreal, owned by Molsons. This promptly led to a boycott of Molsons beer which noticeably cut into Molsons sales. A second vote was held and this time it passed with 14 votes, which now included Montreal. (Vancouver was the other one to change their vote, though I'm not as clear on why)

Anyways though if you're the league why do you want that kind of negative publicity? If you don't have the votes you just don't hold a vote at all. And if there are enough votes then even franchises who would have voted "no" will vote "yes" just to avoid the bad publicity.

 

[Yukon Joe]

There are two separate questions here. Arena ownership and arena operating rights. More than half the teams in the league (17) do not own the arena that they play in. But of those 17, 13 for sure have the operating rights. They're paying rent, but bringing in a lot of the revenue streams you mentioned (though each operating agreement differs on exactly which streams and how much of each). Another two I couldn't verify quickly (Florida and Columbus). Climate Pledge in Seattle and PPG Paints in Pittsburgh both are in situations where they neither own nor operate their building. OVG operates Climate Pledge and AEG operates PPG. In addition, Bill Foley owns 15% of T-Mobile Arena, while MGM and AEG each own 42.5%. MGM operates it.

It's perfectly possible that Kroenke will own the building and lease both it and its operating rights to a team that puts in there.

So as I understand it the sweet spot for teams is to NOT own the building, but as you say to have operating rights. That way you get all of the benefits of the arena, but then after 25-30 years (which is when the arena probably needs a bunch of renos) you can threaten to just walk away. As well once the arena is at the end of it's life you aren't responsible for tearing it down (Edmonton has been struggling for years now with what to do with the old Northlands Coliseum since it's owned by the city).

Coming back to Kroenke though - why would he pay money to build a new arena in San Diego and then give away the operating rights to someone else? That's where his company is going to make its money.

 

[Tawnos]

So as I understand it the sweet spot for teams is to NOT own the building, but as you say to have operating rights. That way you get all of the benefits of the arena, but then after 25-30 years (which is when the arena probably needs a bunch of renos) you can threaten to just walk away. As well once the arena is at the end of it's life you aren't responsible for tearing it down (Edmonton has been struggling for years now with what to do with the old Northlands Coliseum since it's owned by the city).

Coming back to Kroenke though - why would he pay money to build a new arena in San Diego and then give away the operating rights to someone else? That's where his company is going to make its money.

He wouldn't be giving away the operating rights. He'd be selling them off as part of the lease agreement, which is what all of the municipally owned stadiums do. He'd be making money from the lease agreement as well as the housing development in the district. Frankly, since he wouldn't be allowed to own an NHL or NBA team there, that's likely how it would have to happen. I have a feeling that a lease and operating rights agreement would represent more revenue for him than non-major league sports and concert revenue would.

We don't really want to get too into the weeds with what the details would look like for something like that. The main point I'm making is just to support the idea that it's Kroenke's involvement in the arena construction doesn't pose much of a barrier to an NHL team playing there.

Also, are we sure that Kroenke *would* own the building? After all, OVG built Climate Pledge, but it's owned by the city. Edit: yes, a quick Google search confirmed that he would own 90% of the whole development.

 

[bossram]

Houston does have ownership figured out - it would have to be Tilman Fertitta. If the NHL and Fertitta can come to a deal then great. If they can't then no team in Houston.

Isn't the word that Fertitta just...doesn't want an NHL team? But he controls the only viable arena.

So that would make the ownership and arena pieces clearly not figured out.

 

[PCSPounder]

I'm not so convinced that Kroenke's involvement in the project really is much of a barrier. Oak View Group, for example, built Climate Pledge Arena in Seattle and is the operator, but does not own the team (though Tod Leiweke, brother of the owner of OVG, does have ownership stake and is President and CEO). At the same time, they're part of an ownership partnership that built and owns UBS Arena, but that group does not own the Islanders. The point I'm making is that Kroenke building the arena doesn't really mean that he needs to own the team and clearly the NHL is fine with some cross-ownership on the arena side of things.

If an NHL were to land in San Diego, it would likely be owned by a consortium of owners (like in Seattle) while Kroenke's group operates the arena. You don't really know who is going to be part of it until it starts to become a reality. Once the arena is under construction, I would be surprised if we didn't start hearing names of people who would be interested in heading up a group like that.

Seattle has insane corporate money. New York is New York. Vegas is kind of different.

San Diego is its own market, and I firmly believe it is significantly separated from the Los Angeles market. The ways this affects the Padres are significant, for instance. In this case, that’s the problem. Being in the LA market is what would provide the extra revenue streams to not worry about renting the arena, something you definitely wouldn’t think twice about in New York.

 

[KevFu]

That is not interpretation accepted by fans. It's just your own. And frankly, that second part is a pretty convoluted way of looking at it. Much moreso than the "no overlap" one.

Until we hear Bettman, Daly or an uninterested party in the BoG (i.e. if we're discussing SD, not the LAK or ANA owners) explicitly state what it is in reality, then there is no universally accepted interpretation of this.

I said it "stands to reason" because...

You can reason that the NHL would follow it's own rules, right?

Buffalo and Toronto have overlapping 50 miles.
New York and Philadelphia have overlapping 50 miles.
Boston and Hartford used to have overlapping 50 miles. (That's one's different because of the merger).
Ottawa and Montreal don't have an overlap from city center to city center, but do from city border to city border.

Hence, stands to reason that overlapping is okay as long as the cities are over 50, and the arenas aren't in the overlap.

OR the NHL just doesn't follow their own rules, at which point arguing over rules they don't even follow is moot.

 

[VaCaps Fan]

Basketball/ hockey at a new arena could work.

 

[KevFu]

As the crow flies you could definitely argue that San Diego is 'too close' to the LA teams, but it is absolutely not a trip people are going to take for a regular season sporting event because of traffic. I don't think I need to explain that Southern California traffic is miserable and ~100-120 miles is considerable because of it.

The biggest problem San Diego has as a sports market is its limited scope for growth.

For a market the size of San Diego's, it has a relatively small footprint. There's 3.3 million people in San Diego County, almost all of which live in or around San Diego itself.

To me, the key part there is the 3.3 million people centrally located in San Diego.

The Tampa Bay market has 3.5 million people, and they're NOT centrally located, which is (part of) why their baseball team has significant attendance issues despite being very very good for a decade plus; and has to trade Tyler Glasnow, David Price, Evan Longoria, etc, etc... vs why San Diego's baseball team can sign Manny Machado, Fernando Tatis, and Xander Bogaerts.

The other factor is how the Padres got a whole lot richer when the Chargers left. The corporate money with the Chargers flowed into the Padres pockets, enabling them to go spend.

If you're looking for a market that's big to expand to, and faces little to no competition from the NFL and NBA, you're looking at places A LOT smaller, like Hartford, or Austin -- whom you're probably not adding before Houston -- or Virginia Beach, which is half the population of San Diego.

It's mostly transplants? Great. Hopefully they grew up with hockey and miss it.

Isn't the word that Fertitta just...doesn't want an NHL team? But he controls the only viable arena.

Yes, although to me more accurate it's not that "only viable arena" that's the problem, It's that, essentially, the Houston government gave him a non-compete clause on that arena.