AlexGretzchenvid
Registered User
- Jan 19, 2013
- 3,855
- 2,334
Yep. I won't be shocked with expansion teams costing 1 billion going forward.Easy. Utah owner was willing to pay up a cool billion. Houston owner said "that's a naw for me dawg. But I still want a team"
You want a team in Utah? That's how you get a team in Utah
IT'S NOT an odd # IT'S STILL 32 w/ 1 inactive....I think their next expansion is at least two teams. That probably means Houston and either Arizona or some other market they think is ripe for the picking.
Adding a single team and having an odd number in the league presents some scheduling problems. The easiest answer is to add four (assuming they keep four divisions), but then you have to find two or three other markets that are solid for the NHL. I'm not close enough to how various potential places feel and how solid their economic outlooks are to answer that question.
If I were you I would listen to what Gary Bettman said instead of what some random reporter has suggested.
Very little of the money that a team makes is shared with the other owners, whereas an expansion or relocation fee is split equally among the owners (with a few exceptions) and only the owners. These fees are not considered hockey-related revenue and, thus, not included in the calculation of the salary cap and, most importantly, not shared with the players.It's not the same market though. The potential of making so much more money via Houston could offset the price.
He thought the $650 mill Seattle paid was high. Now, for a market like Houston, with TB's sale last year at a $1.4 billion valuation, it's likely to be between double to triple the price Seattle paid at $1.5 billion or more plus.Fertitta ain't paying the NHL's expansion price. That's pretty much the only thing keeping it from happening.
He thought the $650 mill Seattle paid was high. Now, for a market like Houston, with TB's sale last year at a $1.4 billion valuation, it's likely to be between double to triple the price Seattle paid at $1.5 billion or more plus.
I don't see the NHL putting 3 teams in TX. So, NHL may have to make the decision that if they can't get into Houston in the next 5-8 years with TF owning the Rockets, do they give that hope up and look at Austin?
If you are privately funding the arena, Houston is the better way to go, which I would agree. If it is government funded, there is wording in the lease with the Rockets that the city can't contribute funds to a competing building currently, and I doubt that wording goes away on a lease renewal with the Rockets.Without doing research, I'm guessing the big question would be "Does Austin have a viable arena".
If they don't, and you've gotta build one from scratch, you might as well just do that in Houston with a different owner than Fertitta.
Austin the #35 TV market in the US. Houston #6.
Without doing research, I'm guessing the big question would be "Does Austin have a viable arena".
If they don't, and you've gotta build one from scratch, you might as well just do that in Houston with a different owner than Fertitta.
Austin the #35 TV market in the US. Houston #6.
also, SSE has their G-League team thereIt does not. Dallas' AHL team plays there, but the arena seats less than 10,000.
The only other major league sized arena is where the Longhorns basketball team plays, but that wasn't built/designed to accommodate hockey.
Not dependent on the city. It's really dependent on an ownership group and associated arena. Which in those cities, they all have NBA teams and thus it's logical to share an arena. AZ, arena isn't NHL caliber, Hou, NHL caliber arena but don't know if owner will pay the price NHL wants. ATL, NBA owner not involved in the interest in the NHL. Another group(s) who are looking at building another arena outside of Atl.NHL is now the only one of the NFL/NBA/MLB not to have a team in Houston (5th), Phoenix (6th) nor Atlanta (10th). All three other leagues have team representation in all top 10 largest markets.
My Best-Carey
That's why I said the next expansion would be two teams.IT'S NOT an odd # IT'S STILL 32 w/ 1 inactive....
not immediately....That's why I said the next expansion would be two teams.
I don't think they are going to do anything in the short term. They gave Phoenix 5 years to get an arena built, and I don't think anything happens sooner than that. They should have a good idea what the situation with the Coyotes will be in about three years, if not sooner. The land auction will probably give them about half of their answer.not immediately....
Well, anyone would have to build their own stadium in LA, which Kroenke had to do at $5 billion. Houston, you are selling the team to Fertitia unless you can build an $800 mill or whatever new arena there.I don't think they are going to do anything in the short term. They gave Phoenix 5 years to get an arena built, and I don't think anything happens sooner than that. They should have a good idea what the situation with the Coyotes will be in about three years, if not sooner. The land auction will probably give them about half of their answer.
Who knows what happens if two or three years go by and Phoenix is no closer to getting an arena built than they are today. Expansion may be off the table, since Houston is a good weapon to threaten any market with whose attendance is lousy or digs their heels in and won't build a new arena.
The NFL used Los Angeles as that threat for over 20 years.
Houston will get it in the next few rounds. I expect expansion to 36 within the next decade.
If I were you I would listen to what Gary Bettman said instead of what some random reporter has suggested.
Move Dallas to Houston
Problem solved