Thoughts on San Diego?

[SImpelton]

Anaheim and San Diego are close on a map, but they're entirely different markets and when there are competing sports they have seperate and unique fanbases. I honestly don't think San Diego being added to the NHL would in any way hamper the existing SoCal draws or that SD would be hurting drawing only from say south of San Clemente.

If there's really an interested party that wants to buy in is another matter. The rumored arena plan feels more like it's using the allure of NHL or NBA teams as a carrot to get support whereas in reality they'd be happy having it as a venue without a permanent pro tenant.

Ducks vs Gulls would be an interesting annoying water fowl rivalry, though. And San Diego would climb to the top of my road city that I most want to visit list. Just an insanely pleasant city.

It really is like saying that New York and Philadelphia are the same market. Only real difference is the lack of a state line between LA and SD.

I mean there's a lot of "no true Scotsmen" type reasoning going on here.

I would definitely argue that the 2006 Carolina Hurricanes or the 2019 St Louis Blues were not doing great financially. If you say they don't count as "genuinely unhealthy" then what teams are - besides Arizona I guess?

Winning the cup is hard no matter what. But I think we've seen that as long as you aren't playing games just to get to the salary floor that any team has a shot at winning the cup, and that the wealthiest clubs (your NYRs, TMLs or Habs) have no better shot at it than anyone else.

You do realize that "all but impossible" admits that it is possible. Just extremely unlikely as it's rare for a cash strapped franchise to spend to the cap for multiple seasons.

If you can't consistently spend to the cap, which is my definition of an unhealthy franchise, then you're fighting uphill right from the start, and yes, it is all but impossible to win the Cup in that environment, against a bunch of other teams that have more resources to attract and keep talent.

This isn't a fallacy. It's just the facts of life for marginal teams. Pretty much nothing can go wrong for them or it's just over.

 

[Yukon Joe]

It really is like saying that New York and Philadelphia are the same market. Only real difference is the lack of a state line between LA and SD.


You do realize that "all but impossible" admits that it is possible. Just extremely unlikely as it's rare for a cash strapped franchise to spend to the cap for multiple seasons.

If you can't consistently spend to the cap, which is my definition of an unhealthy franchise, then you're fighting uphill right from the start, and yes, it is all but impossible to win the Cup in that environment, against a bunch of other teams that have more resources to attract and keep talent.

This isn't a fallacy. It's just the facts of life for marginal teams. Pretty much nothing can go wrong for them or it's just over.

So no - I don't think spending right to the cap is required to win the cup.

But since you started this thread and brought up SD a couple of time - why don't you try engaging with my point (repeated twice) that San Diego is not a market to be considered because the arena is controlled by Stan Kroenke who already owns an NHL team?

I could come up with a list or probably 20 markets that, ignoring anything else, would probably make fine NHL markets if you ignore issues around ownership and arenas. That's not a very interesting conversation though because of course you have to consider arenas and ownership.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

And the owner is…

(Um, blerg)

Mind you, do we know who even would own the suburban Atlanta team?

Do not be surprised if this incident kills expansion hopes for a while.

That would not surprise me at all.

The NHL has two markets they seem to want to get into: Atlanta and Houston. They could certainly expand to 34 teams. But Houston does not have the ownership figured out, and that will probably take a few years. That leaves Atlanta.

Atlanta may turn out to be for the NHL what LA was to the NFL for 20+ years. Starting in about 1995, LA was a tool for any owner wanting a new stadium and not getting the "proper recognition" from the local fans and politicians, or if attendance was lagging and the fans expressing displeasure. The NFL would mention how badly it wanted a team or two in LA. That ultimately culminated with three teams throwing their hats in the ring for two slots.

From the owners' perspectives, having what looks like a strong untapped market or two is a powerful hammer to keep the minions in line.

 

[Yukon Joe]

That would not surprise me at all.

The NHL has two markets they seem to want to get into: Atlanta and Houston. They could certainly expand to 34 teams. But Houston does not have the ownership figured out, and that will probably take a few years. That leaves Atlanta.

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.

 

[Melrose Munch]

It was ignored before, so I'll try again why San Diego won't work. It's because of Stan Kroenke.

The arena in San Diego is the Pechanga Arena. It's home to the AHL Gulls, Originally built in 1966, but last year Stan Kroenke's group announced they were the major investor in a redevelopment of the arena to include housing, mixed use development and an entertainment district. You know - all the bells and whistles new arena developments come with., and all the alternate streams of income an NHL team needs.

https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/pechanga-arena-designated-as-a-local-historical-resource/

But then here's the problem. The only owner that makes sense in San Diego is Stan Kroenke - but Kroenke already owns the Avalanche.

It doesn't make sense to build a second brand new arena in San Diego, which is large but not that large. It also doesn't make sense for anyone else to purchase a team and pay rent to Stan Kroenke.

His son can own the team. Josh.

 

[PCSPounder]

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.

Figuring out ownership means actually writing the check that supports the sale price of the other owners. The evidence of Fertitta coming to that conclusion is scant at best.

That’s one element of what I mean by figuring out ownership.

 

[aqib]

It was ignored before, so I'll try again why San Diego won't work. It's because of Stan Kroenke.

The arena in San Diego is the Pechanga Arena. It's home to the AHL Gulls, Originally built in 1966, but last year Stan Kroenke's group announced they were the major investor in a redevelopment of the arena to include housing, mixed use development and an entertainment district. You know - all the bells and whistles new arena developments come with., and all the alternate streams of income an

It doesn't make sense to build a second brand new arena in San Diego, which is large but not that large. It also doesn't make sense for anyone else to purchase a team and pay rent to Stan Kroenke.

I think Kroenke may want NBA and/or NHL teams in San Diego to make sure no one ever thinks of putting and NFL team there.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I think Kroenke may want NBA and/or NHL teams in San Diego to make sure no one ever thinks of putting and NFL team there.

Sure - but he already owns an NHL team.

 

[aqib]

Sure - but he already owns an NHL team.

No I mean he would want an NBA or NHL team to go to San Diego so that an NFL team won't go there, not that he would want to own the team there.

 

[KevFu]

No I mean he would want an NBA or NHL team to go to San Diego so that an NFL team won't go there, not that he would want to own the team there.

Be that as it may, an NHL owner isn't going to buy a franchise so they can rent from Kroenke. That's just a non-starter. (That's why the Thrashers left, no one is renting from ASG).

You need control of your building and when you don't have it, that's when teams find themselves in lease hell.

So either Kronke sells the Avs and gets San Diego NHL as an expansion switch-a-roo, or San Diego has the nicest AHL arena ever.

 

[aqib]

Be that as it may, an NHL owner isn't going to buy a franchise so they can rent from Kroenke. That's just a non-starter. (That's why the Thrashers left, no one is renting from ASG).

You need control of your building and when you don't have it, that's when teams find themselves in lease hell.

So either Kronke sells the Avs and gets San Diego NHL as an expansion switch-a-roo, or San Diego has the nicest AHL arena ever.

The Golden Knights only own 15% of their arena. Something CAN be worked out if Kroenke wants it to.

 

[KevFu]

The Golden Knights only own 15% of their arena. Something CAN be worked out if Kroenke wants it to.

Yeah, there's some room. I'd argue that Vegas is just a different animal than MOST cities for the obvious reasons of billions of dollars in that city and how casinos embrace loss leaders.

It's more about control and lease terms than just blanket thing.

But generally speaking, your list of teams that are robust business enterprises vs your list of teams that have had threads regarding their lack of financial health... Look very similar to the lists of "own/operate" and "don't."

For example, here's the Islanders value, revenue and operating income over the last 10 Forbes Reports. The two bars on the right are NVMC under SMG, and the two bars on the left are owning/operating UBS.

Teams who OWN their arenas average $30m more in revenue than teams who don't.

 

[aqib]

Yeah, there's some room. I'd argue that Vegas is just a different animal than MOST cities for the obvious reasons of billions of dollars in that city and how casinos embrace loss leaders.

It's more about control and lease terms than just blanket thing.

But generally speaking, your list of teams that are robust business enterprises vs your list of teams that have had threads regarding their lack of financial health... Look very similar to the lists of "own/operate" and "don't."

For example, here's the Islanders value, revenue and operating income over the last 10 Forbes Reports. The two bars on the right are NVMC under SMG, and the two bars on the left are owning/operating UBS.


View attachment 891908


Teams who OWN their arenas average $30m more in revenue than teams who don't.

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.

 

[Jason316]

I think the NHL wants Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix in that order. So a decade from now, after people have had a chance to forget the AM mess, Phoenix will need a partner. Portland, Austin and San Diego all make sense to me. I could see any happening depending on what the arena and ownership options are at that point. Still a little too far down the line to make a guess on that though.

Portland is a disaster not happening at all....this isn't the 90's Portland

 

[The McMafia]

As a local in San Diego for 20 years, a team *could* work here but a new fully privately-funded state of the art arena is required and the owners are going to need to invest significantly into the team.

The Padres and Dischargers were poorly run for decades and in the case of the latter, the Spanos family really burned the city bad on the way out. NFL ratings in SD dropped by 75% once the Chargers left. Even I was pissed about it and I am a Raiders fan.

The Padres owner (passed away last year) started investing on players and stadium upgrades about 4-5 years ago right after the Chargers f'd off to LA and it has paid off in spades for them. The Padres last night (7/5) had their biggest crowd at Petco Park ever.

The distance between Anaheim + LA and San Diego isn't far in terms of miles but the road travel time between the two regions can be atrocious. LA fans come down to San Diego more so than the inverse, so there is an untapped fan base in the region.

About 50% of local San Diegans are transplants. A team here doesn't necessarily have to win, but it does have to have a very nice facility and be entertaining. I could see an NHL team carving out a winter sport niche to go along with San Diego State FB and BB.

 

[StreetHawk]

SD vs the other 4th options. ATL, Hou, AZ we all slot to get 3 of the next 4.

Main advantage for SD and POR for example are their time zones, as there are currently 6 PST teams and 4 MST teams in the NHL. Adding AZ gets them to 5 MST teams, so 11 in total for that region. Without another one, it means that one of the CST teams has to be a part of one of these 2 divisions in a 6x6 setup. So, likely down to a Win/Min/Stl (since you would not break up Dal/Hou).

Sounds like SD (kroenke, Avs/Nuggets/Rams owner) is part of the group that is looking at building a new arena to replace the old barn they have now with something modern. Just a matter of how nice (similiar to OKC I guess back in the day before they got the Thunder).

Not sure SD has a good chance of securing an NBA team down the line. Sea/LV are getting the next 2. If of NO was going to get relocated, major battle to see who would buy and relocate them.

 

[AlexBrovechkin8]

Lived in San Diego for five years and as much as I love the city, I’m pessimistic it would work. The only way it might work, maybe, is if the arena is right downtown. The NFL team (Chargers) left SD for LA in part due to poor attendance and part of that issue was due to the stadium’s location.

Nobody living in San Diego is from San Diego or cares about San Diego sports teams. Everyone is a transplant and spends more time at the beach or outside than watching sports. The Padres are a big hit but that’s because they play outdoors and in a stadium that’s perfectly located downtown and it’s a social event for people — PetCo Park is famous for having 50+ craft beers available (at least it did when I was there).

 

[The Millencolin]

Great ideas all around, but most important thing is being missed. Anaheim and LA control the local market. With Anaheim especially, they aren't allowing a team to come into their market and also lose their AHL team which they pushed hard to get to the west. Same issue as Chicago blocking Milwaukee, it's just not happening.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Great ideas all around, but most important thing is being missed. Anaheim and LA control the local market. With Anaheim especially, they aren't allowing a team to come into their market and also lose their AHL team which they pushed hard to get to the west. Same issue as Chicago blocking Milwaukee, it's just not happening.

Anaheim has no ability to block a team coming to San Diego. They don't control the arena, and San Diego is far enough away it's well outside the 50 mile radius. Chicago has even less ability to stop a team coming to Milwaukee - they don't own the Admirals, don't control the arena, and again it's outside the 50 mile radius.

The reason why neither San Diego or Milwaukee have NHL teams is because nobody wants to pay the money to own an NHL franchise in either market, Related is the fact that because there are arenas in both cities (under construction in San Diego) there is only one possible owner in each city, and if they aren't interested then there's no other option.

 

[Tawnos]

Great ideas all around, but most important thing is being missed. Anaheim and LA control the local market. With Anaheim especially, they aren't allowing a team to come into their market and also lose their AHL team which they pushed hard to get to the west. Same issue as Chicago blocking Milwaukee, it's just not happening.

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.

To refresh memories, which I think is appropriate in this thread, the NHL constitution:

(1) Defines home territiory as "the city in which it is located and within 50 miles of that city's corporate limits." In other words, it's not from the arena. It's from the city boundary. That makes the size of each team's territory slightly different depending on the size of the city itself.
(2) States that "No other member of the league shall be permitted to play games (except regularly scheduled League games with the home club) in the home territory of a member without the latter member's consent." This definitely prevents a team from putting an arena in another team's territory.
(3) States that "No franchise shall be granted for a home territory within the home territory of a member, without the written consent of such member." This is the tricky one.

In my opinion, "a home territory within a home territory" means that there can't be any overlap. If there is, then the existing team gets to veto. But since they didn't define what they mean by that phrase, it remains open to debate. As you can see below, the territories do overlap, but neither LA nor Anaheim's territory comes into the city limits of San Diego.

 

[mouser]

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.

To refresh memories, which I think is appropriate in this thread, the NHL constitution:

(1) Defines home territiory as "the city in which it is located and within 50 miles of that city's corporate limits." In other words, it's not from the arena. It's from the city boundary. That makes the size of each team's territory slightly different depending on the size of the city itself.
(2) States that "No other member of the league shall be permitted to play games (except regularly scheduled League games with the home club) in the home territory of a member without the latter member's consent." This definitely prevents a team from putting an arena in another team's territory.
(3) States that "No franchise shall be granted for a home territory within the home territory of a member, without the written consent of such member." This is the tricky one.

In my opinion, "a home territory within a home territory" means that there can't be any overlap. If there is, then the existing team gets to veto. But since they didn't define what they mean by that phrase, it remains open to debate. As you can see below, the territories do overlap, but neither LA nor Anaheim's territory comes into the city limits of San Diego.

View attachment 893656

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.

 

[dj4aces]

Anaheim has no ability to block a team coming to San Diego. They don't control the arena, and San Diego is far enough away it's well outside the 50 mile radius. Chicago has even less ability to stop a team coming to Milwaukee - they don't own the Admirals, don't control the arena, and again it's outside the 50 mile radius.

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.

 

[JianYang]

Not sure about hockey but San Diego just might be my favourite place in America.

 

[Tawnos]

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.

Even if it isn't enforceable, I really can't see the BoG approving a franchise entering the home territory of another franchise without their approval. Maybe the veto isn't enforceable, but it still de facto exists.

 

[RayMartyniukTotems]

Like to see hockey NHL style in San Diego think its a great idea and like someone said earlier the Mexicanos would love it if they haven't already