Bettman finally admits the league will accept expansion applications

[radoran]

But that does work when it's the right city. That's pretty much what happened when the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg. The Atlanta metro area is bigger than the Phoenix metro area, and Winnipeg is slightly smaller than Quebec, yet, it's pretty clear that move worked. The key is that Winnipeg and Quebec live and breathe the sport, whereas Atlanta and Phoenix barely even recognize it.

 

Interestingly enough, the Thrashers averaged 16,240 per game when they won the SE Divison in 06-07.

 

Winnipeg is maxxed out at 15,037.

 

The move worked out fine, but they're drawing about 1,500 more fans than they did in the last year in moribund Atlanta - and they don't help the US television ratings which are the source of a potential big money payday for the league (and member franchises). Winnipeg is obviously more of a "hockey city" than Atlanta, but from a numbers perspective, the growth potential in Atlanta with 5M in the metro is significantly higher than the 730K in Winnipeg. That's why the NHL keeps trying to force something in there.

 

One point being that fans in Winnipeg are predisposed to like hockey even when there wasn't a team there. There's also clearly a concern as to whether the city can continue to support the team long term - especially as they have already lost a franchise. They're still in the honeymoon period. If the Canadian dollar slips again and the team is in a run like 88-96 with five first-round exits and four missed playoffs (or, indeed just two playoff round wins in 17 years), it could test even that fanbase's ability to support the team.

 

Atlanta's primary problem was that it was run by a bunch of idiots who couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag - and, of course, Dany Heatley's driving... Let's see how Winnipeg is doing if the team has one playoff round in the next 11 years...

[B21]

But that does work when it's the right city. That's pretty much what happened when the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg. The Atlanta metro area is bigger than the Phoenix metro area, and Winnipeg is slightly smaller than Quebec, yet, it's pretty clear that move worked. The key is that Winnipeg and Quebec live and breathe the sport, whereas Atlanta and Phoenix barely even recognize it.

 

Exactly my point. What "new" fans did/would the league win over by putting teams back in Winnipeg (or Quebec)?  Just because those cities lost teams doesn't mean that their fans stopped watching hockey or buying merchandise.  Granted, maybe not as much.  I think this is unique to Canadian markets.  It's a sound and safe business decision....offer your product to people who have been purchasing it.  But that's not how you grow a business.  You have to expand and that is what the owners want as it puts more dollars in their coffers.  The league has to at least try to make the game work in non-traditional markets even if it means "propping up" a few franchises.  At the end of the day - big picture - that's good for business.

[B21]

Vegas is a terrible idea, but the concept that there aren't any people that live there is laughable.

 

There are 1.9M people in the Las Vegas metro. It has been one of the fastest growing residential areas in the country for the past decade. It is more than twice the the size of Quebec City.

 

I, personally, can't stand the place for more than an overnight.

 

 

 

 

Every league "props up" franchises. The Kansas City Royals were a moribund franchise without even a shred for hope for decades. They won the Series in 1985 and then missed the playoffs for 28 years before getting back to the Series again.

 

The Bills went to four Super Bowls in a row from 90-93 but haven't made the playoffs since 1999. They haven't won a playoff game since 1995.

 

So we agree.

 

Maybe I'm wrong but I always though of Vegas as similar to Florida and Arizona in that there are very few people from there but a lot of people who move there....people who already have loyalties to other teams.  It's why the Rays always sell out when the Yanks are in town.  Just thinking out loud.

[ScottM]

@radoran That's all true, but I don't think anyone would argue that Winnipeg has more drawing potential for a hockey team that's not winning than Atlanta does. Also, while it won't bring the seating capacity up to what Atlanta had, they are adding seats to the MTS Centre, so that will help the attendance a bit.

 

@B21 I wasn't really on the same page as you before. I thought you were talking about attracting more fans to the games. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

 While I do understand the concept of trying to draw more fans to the sport in just the way you said, there's a part of me that feels that areas that have proven their true "fanship" should be rewarded for such. I know there's a balance to be struck, but deep down inside, I feel that Quebec deserves a team.

 

Anyway, as for Las Vegas, it's one of the fastest growing metro areas in the U.S. Saying that there aren't as many people who are from there as move there is probably a pretty accurate statement. Depending on how many of them are snowbirds, the question of how many have loyalties already set could be very significant.

[radoran]

What "new" fans did/would the league win over by putting teams back in Winnipeg (or Quebec)?

 

So , we agree

 

So we agree.

 

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes..
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

 

but I don't think anyone would argue that Winnipeg has more drawing potential for a hockey team that's not winning than Atlanta does.

 

Absolutely, but there is a reason they lost their team before and it had a lot to do not only with the economy but also the inability of the team to ice a competitive franchise (which was, circularly, related to the economy to an extent).

 

Winning solves many problems.

 

But the fact remains that you're seeing 1,500 more butts in seats in "hockey hotbed" Winnipeg than in "non-hockey town" Atlanta - and that was for a terrible, losing Thrasher franchise. That's not really "growing the sport."

 

The extra 250-300 seats won't make that much of a difference and the ownership has "no plans" to expand it beyond that and "never considered" it. Will Winnipeg fork up for a new arena?

 

Again, IMO the bloom will go off that rose pretty quickly if Winnipeg fans get the idea that the team simply isn't going to be competitive.

 

I feel that Quebec deserves a team.

 

I think they could support a team as well - but, again, for how long?

 

They lost the team last time because they refused to fund a new arena - in large part because despite being a "hockey hotbed" the team had two first round losses in eight years leading up to relocation. The second of those came the year before they moved with the writing pretty much on the wall.

[ScottM]

@radoran I may be dead wrong. Honestly, I'm going off of my gut and little else on that. When it comes to Atlanta, I do base it partly on my experiences with southern sports fans. It is so hard to get them to give hockey a chance. If you can get them to do so, they very well may end up liking it, but it can be like pulling teeth. I also think fans just about anywhere are fickle when it comes to a sport they aren't attached to, which is another strike against non-traditional markets in my mind. Seriously though, I completely understand what both of you are saying. There is definitely something to that.

 

However, apparently, it doesn't matter because:

 

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!

Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes..
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

 

The world has ended... Lol

[jammer2]

Not going to happen.

 

Every league wants to expand, but the NHL is the North American league that can least afford to. The talent pool isn't there. The NHL does not have 30 stable franchises as it is. If MLB has 30 teams, there is no way on earth that the NHL should have 30 teams. This is a league that should rightfully have somewhere between 24-26 teams. 30 is already more than the NHL can handle. This is an epic farce, and it's not happening. 

 

Sorry to poo poo things.

 

 Things can change quickly. What if the KHL (which is propped up by the failing Ruble) breaks up? Then you have a huge influx of Euro players looking to make a decent living. From where I sit, the writing is on the wall for the KHL...only a matter of time until it falls apart.

[radoran]

@radoran I may be dead wrong. Honestly, I'm going off of my gut and little else on that.

 

I don't think you're dead wrong at all - it's just a matter of goals.

The league as a whole has a "goal" of expanding the fanbase and trying to grow the audience for the game. IMO that's primarily driven by the desire for a big TV deal (which rightnow comes from one of their own owners).

 

Georgia is undoubtedly a college football state. North Carolina is primarily a college basketball state. It's just the nature of how these states have grown.

 

I do think the success of Tampa - bolstered by a Cup win and a return to the Final - shows that "southern" fans (Gulf Coast Florida not exactly your typical "southern" area south of the Panhandle) can support a team.

 

While Miami (and Atlanta and Phoenix) shows that - without success - trying to "grow the game" in a non-traditional market is a serious uphill climb. Like, Everest uphill.

 

Things can change quickly. What if the KHL (which is propped up by the failing Ruble) breaks up? Then you have a huge influx of Euro players looking to make a decent living. From where I sit, the writing is on the wall for the KHL...only a matter of time until it falls apart.

 

The KHL can't continue to be a "Russian" league if it wants to be a serious international player. Expansion into central and western Europe is essential for them to be taken seriously and to free themselves from the vagarities of PetroRubles and the whims of their insane despot.

 

I don't know that the KHL is capable of that. If I was the NHL, I might be trying to create some sort of Euro AHL league to gauge interest and expand the sport ahead of the flailing KHL.

 

That said, the collapse of oil prices have made Canadian PetroDollars a lot less valuable and could cause problems in the short- and long- term for franchises like Winnipeg (and Quebec) that couldn't support a team in a "down" economy last time.

 

To be clear, I love the Canadian teams* and have a TON of respect for Canadian fans and their devotion to the sport. Whether that translates into areas with 800K people in them being able to support a competitive team in a league with the Tronnos, New Yorks, Los Angeleses and Philadelphias of the world has yet to be seen.

 

 

 

* Leafs notwithstanding

[jammer2]

That said, the collapse of oil prices have made Canadian PetroDollars a lot less valuable and could cause problems in the short- and long- term for franchises like Winnipeg (and Quebec) that couldn't support a team in a "down" economy last time.

 

 I might be wrong, (if I am, I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong....lol) but I was under the impression that the Nords left because the city and or owners refused to build a new arena to repalce the aging Le' Collissium. There was never a question that the fan base could support a team, pretty sure they sold out almost every game they played in Quebec City.

 

 Moving a team back to Quebec is a slam dunk....guaranteed to be loved and supported from the outset. If the NHL moved expanded based on season ticket sales alone, Quebec would be playing this October. It would be a shame to see Quebec left out due to geography, that the conferences would be uneven etc.....for my money, Quebec is guaranteed to suceed, which is more than you can say for Vegas and Seattle...although I belive Seattle is a great choice also. There is no question in my mind that the fan base will gobble up tickets faster than they can spit them out.

[ScottM]

I don't know that the KHL is capable of that. If I was the NHL, I might be trying to create some sort of Euro AHL league to gauge interest and expand the sport ahead of the flailing KHL.

 

I think that would be a great idea, but there might be a big obstacle to clear in the IIHF. They have been cold toward the idea of the NHL creeping into Europe to say the least. If that can be overcome, however, that cements the NHL as THE league for the foreseeable future, which I'm sure all of us North Americans would love to see.

[B21]

@ScottM

 

What @radoran said.

[WordsOfWisdom]

The best way to get "more" fans is to have "more" teams in "bigger" cities.  You don't attract more fans to the NHL by taking a team from Phoenix (metro area population of 4.5 million - 12th in the U.S.) and moving them to Quebec (metro population 750,000 - 7th in Canada). 

 

 

The question is this: Do you want to make money (yes or no)?

 

If the answer is yes, then you put another team in Quebec. The Canadiens are the 3rd richest team in the NHL. Putting a team in Quebec City adds that same amount of profit to league revenues. You're effectively creating another Montreal Canadiens franchise.

 

Some cities just don't work for hockey, just like some cities don't work for baseball. Phoenix is not the climate for hockey. It's a challenge just to keep the building cold. It's a bad fit. People in Phoenix don't see snow or ice. They don't skate. They don't play hockey. That will never change. It's not in the culture. It's like the NHL wants to fit a square peg in a round hole.

 

I'd take Quebec City over Phoenix any day, in any decade. You've got 750,000 hockey fans in Quebec City. There are about 12 hockey fans in Phoenix. The fact that Phoenix has 4.5 million people only means that 4.5 million of them aren't interested in hockey. It might as well be lacrosse or curling. 

[Scotta99fan]

Exactly my point. What "new" fans did/would the league win over by putting teams back in Winnipeg (or Quebec)?  Just because those cities lost teams doesn't mean that their fans stopped watching hockey or buying merchandise.  Granted, maybe not as much.  I think this is unique to Canadian markets.  It's a sound and safe business decision....offer your product to people who have been purchasing it.  But that's not how you grow a business.  You have to expand and that is what the owners want as it puts more dollars in their coffers.  The league has to at least try to make the game work in non-traditional markets even if it means "propping up" a few franchises.  At the end of the day - big picture - that's good for business.

Actually I think that the fans of the Nordiques did stop watching. I think that they grew tired of their team tanking and they recognized that the team didn't have long term plans to stay in Quebec. I don't blame the fans for losing interest, because it was clear that the team had lost interest in them. I believe that a team could work in Quebec, but the circumstances would have to be quite different.

[WordsOfWisdom]

 Things can change quickly. What if the KHL (which is propped up by the failing Ruble) breaks up? Then you have a huge influx of Euro players looking to make a decent living. From where I sit, the writing is on the wall for the KHL...only a matter of time until it falls apart.

 

The future of the NHL is to get into Europe. Any future expansion is going to involve the creation of a European division or conference. 

 

If I was pulling the strings in the NHL, it would be happening right now. I would fold: Carolina, Florida (Panthers), Phoenix, and Nashville and set up teams in London, Berlin, Prague, Moscow, Stockholm, etc.

 

I would set up the league schedule to minimize travel as much as possible, but this is where I want to be to make the NHL a global game.

[radoran]

 I might be wrong, (if I am, I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong....lol) but I was under the impression that the Nords left because the city and or owners refused to build a new arena to repalce the aging Le' Collissium. There was never a question that the fan base could support a team, pretty sure they sold out almost every game they played in Quebec City.

 

 Moving a team back to Quebec is a slam dunk....guaranteed to be loved and supported from the outset. If the NHL moved expanded based on season ticket sales alone, Quebec would be playing this October. It would be a shame to see Quebec left out due to geography, that the conferences would be uneven etc.....for my money, Quebec is guaranteed to suceed, which is more than you can say for Vegas and Seattle...although I belive Seattle is a great choice also. There is no question in my mind that the fan base will gobble up tickets faster than they can spit them out.

 

Actually I think that the fans of the Nordiques did stop watching. I think that they grew tired of their team tanking and they recognized that the team didn't have long term plans to stay in Quebec. I don't blame the fans for losing interest, because it was clear that the team had lost interest in them. I believe that a team could work in Quebec, but the circumstances would have to be quite different.

 

I think the Quebec fans would pack a building when it first opened with a new franchise there. Absolutely pack it.

 

But if the team stinks and shows no signs of being able to get better, I don't know that they keep up that fervor.

 

The Nords left because the city refused to build a new arena but one has to wonder if they had a Cup winner and perennial playoff team instead of a perennial loser they would have come down differently.

 

I kinda think they would have.

 

But 1993 looms HUGE  Twenty two years without a Canadian Cup...

[B21]

If the answer is yes, then you put another team in Quebec. The Canadiens are the 3rd richest team in the NHL. Putting a team in Quebec City adds that same amount of profit to league revenues. You're effectively creating another Montreal Canadiens franchise.

 

How? Montreal has a metro population of over 4,000,000.  Quebec is what? 800,000?  Montreal is - by far - the premier franchised in the NHL. Are you really comparing them to Quebec City? A city that has already lost an NHL franchise?  The expansion fee is the same no matter what city gets the team, no?  So how does Quebec benefit the NHL financially more son than say - Seattle? 

 

 

 

Some cities just don't work for hockey, just like some cities don't work for baseball. Phoenix is not the climate for hockey. It's a challenge just to keep the building cold. It's a bad fit. People in Phoenix don't see snow or ice. They don't skate. They don't play hockey. That will never change. It's not in the culture. It's like the NHL wants to fit a square peg in a round hole.

 

It certainly won't work if they have no team - and to a lesser extent - a consistently bad team.  Climate has nothing to do with.  As for not skating or playing...huh?  Do you think are large majority of fans at a hockey game have actually played?  Maybe in Canadian cities - sure.  New York? Philly? Detroit?  Chicago?  Those are some of the best markets in the U.S. and I'd wager that on average about 95% of the fans at their games on any given night have never played organized hockey.

 

 

 

I'd take Quebec City over Phoenix any day, in any decade. You've got 750,000 hockey fans in Quebec City. There are about 12 hockey fans in Phoenix. The fact that Phoenix has 4.5 million people only means that 4.5 million of them aren't interested in hockey. It might as well be lacrosse or curling.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. As @radoran said - even Atlanta drew when they were good. Better then Winnipeg. Butts in the seats is not the "end all be all" of a successful franchise either.  If it were, Quebec and Winnipeg would have never lost teams in the first place.

[jammer2]

So how does Quebec benefit the NHL financially more son than say - Seattle?

 

 Easy....guaranteed season ticket sales, guaranteed corporate involvement. The size of the cities of Monteal and Quebec are different, but the one thing they have in common, and it's HUGE is that hockey is not a sport in Quebec, it's a religion. The sport is SOLIDLY entreched from a cultural standpoint, kids learn to skate before they walk in some cases...and it will always be that way. You can't say that about Seattle or any other potential American suitor.

[radoran]

 Easy....guaranteed season ticket sales, guaranteed corporate involvement. The size of the cities of Monteal and Quebec are different, but the one thing they have in common, and it's HUGE is that hockey is not a sport in Quebec, it's a religion. The sport is SOLIDLY entreched from a cultural standpoint, kids learn to skate before they walk in some cases...and it will always be that way. You can't say that about Seattle or any other potential American suitor.

 

There's no way they put a team in Seattle without some coroporate/season ticket commitment beforehand.

 

That's pretty much how they've done expansion.

 

To be clear, I'd put a team (*cough* Panthers *cough*) in Quebec in a heartbeat.

[Scotta99fan]

The question is this: Do you want to make money (yes or no)?

 

If the answer is yes, then you put another team in Quebec. The Canadiens are the 3rd richest team in the NHL. Putting a team in Quebec City adds that same amount of profit to league revenues. You're effectively creating another Montreal Canadiens franchise.

 

Some cities just don't work for hockey, just like some cities don't work for baseball. Phoenix is not the climate for hockey. It's a challenge just to keep the building cold. It's a bad fit. People in Phoenix don't see snow or ice. They don't skate. They don't play hockey. That will never change. It's not in the culture. It's like the NHL wants to fit a square peg in a round hole.

 

I'd take Quebec City over Phoenix any day, in any decade. You've got 750,000 hockey fans in Quebec City. There are about 12 hockey fans in Phoenix. The fact that Phoenix has 4.5 million people only means that 4.5 million of them aren't interested in hockey. It might as well be lacrosse or curling. 

Sorry, but I can't agree with your assessment of Coyote fans. I don't know whether you have been to a Yotes game or not, but I've been to quite a few. The Coyotes fans are full of life and seem to have a genuine care for the game of hockey. Fans have to buy into a team, and it's hard to do that when a constant threat of being relocated is always looming over your team.. A Coyote game is a family event in Glendale, and that's what the NHL has to focus on, not just the immediate ability to turn a profit.

[Hatrik98]

 

The worst kept secret in hockey has finally been acknowledged. Bettman says there's no guarantee, and if expansion does happen, there's no set number of teams that will be added. It does seem certain that should it happen, Las Vegas will get a team. If two teams are added (which seems to be the expectation right now), Seattle and Quebec are thought to be the favorites. My gut says Seattle wins so that the conferences are balanced, thought it could be interesting to see how the Coyotes situation factors into this.

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/nhl-to-announce-opening-of-expansion-process/

There is no way Las Vegas should have an NHL Team. There is a reason there are no professional teams in Vegas. Also Arizona is a good example of what happens when you put a team in the desert. Quebec should definitely get a franchise and I would agree on the Seattle one too, although I think Portland is a better hockey market than Seattle. A Seattle franchise would create another rivalry. ( The I-5 rivalry) with the Canucks.

[WordsOfWisdom]

Sorry, but I can't agree with your assessment of Coyote fans. I don't know whether you have been to a Yotes game or not, but I've been to quite a few. The Coyotes fans are full of life and seem to have a genuine care for the game of hockey. Fans have to buy into a team, and it's hard to do that when a constant threat of being relocated is always looming over your team.. A Coyote game is a family event in Glendale, and that's what the NHL has to focus on, not just the immediate ability to turn a profit.

 

But they've had a team since 1997 and I don't think they have ever turned a profit in any season (even when it was new to Phoenix).

 

I'm not saying they don't have some fans that really care. They just don't have enough of them.

 

I'm all for growing the game and developing new markets, but I think you have to do that only after your core market has been served. The NHL has always had to be coerced into putting teams in places where fans like hockey. ie: Edmonton. The Oilers only came about because of the merger with the WHA. The NHL had to either merge or face the possibility of being wiped out by a rival league.

 

I think it's putting the cart before the horse to put teams in markets where fan interest in minimal or non-existent while leaving core markets unused and wasting potential revenue. The NHL has a history of bad decisions, and a history of making life difficult for themselves. It always takes brute force to get the NHL to do what is right. 

[jammer2]

  Seems to me, an expansion team can only succeed if two extenuating factors are present....

 

 A) a pre-existing infrastructure of minor league hockey aimed specifically at kids from 3-17 years old.

 B) the sport must be somewhat culturally entrenched into the fibre of the area in question.

 

 You can *try* to grow the sport without A and B....but it's basically a waste of time. The lack of A and B are the reasons why Florida and Arizona will ultimatley fail. Hockey is not the kind of sport where you can just hope and pray it gets accepted, the adoption papers must be already filed.

[AJgoal]

While I agree that Quebec should get a team, I think that the NHL will want to relocate a team from the East to the West (even if just on paper) before putting a team there, rather than further unbalance the conferences. Locations are too hard to predict without knowing how many teams are actually going to move (Arizona? Florida? Carolina?)

[Scotta99fan]

But they've had a team since 1997 and I don't think they have ever turned a profit in any season (even when it was new to Phoenix).

 

I'm not saying they don't have some fans that really care. They just don't have enough of them.

 

I'm all for growing the game and developing new markets, but I think you have to do that only after your core market has been served. The NHL has always had to be coerced into putting teams in places where fans like hockey. ie: Edmonton. The Oilers only came about because of the merger with the WHA. The NHL had to either merge or face the possibility of being wiped out by a rival league.

 

I think it's putting the cart before the horse to put teams in markets where fan interest in minimal or non-existent while leaving core markets unused and wasting potential revenue. The NHL has a history of bad decisions, and a history of making life difficult for themselves. It always takes brute force to get the NHL to do what is right. 

A couple of things, I don't believe that the NHL was ever in any jeopardy of being wiped out by the WHA, the teams absorbed were the ones that the NHL felt had the best chance of surviving.

 

Also, I'm not sure what you mean about a core market, as far as I can see, that market has been fulfilled by the Original Six, everything else has been normal and healthy growth of the league. As  far as minimal interest goes, I think that the people of Quebec demonstrated that during the recent Memorial Cup where attendance was abysmal.   

[B21]

 Easy....guaranteed season ticket sales, guaranteed corporate involvement. The size of the cities of Monteal and Quebec are different, but the one thing they have in common, and it's HUGE is that hockey is not a sport in Quebec, it's a religion. The sport is SOLIDLY entreched from a cultural standpoint, kids learn to skate before they walk in some cases...and it will always be that way. You can't say that about Seattle or any other potential American suitor.

 

I don't disagree with hockey being more established in Quebec versus Seattle but again - the NHL is looking for new fans. Not existing fans.  You don't grow your game by putting a team in a small market that already lost a team.  I know there were issues with new arena funding, the Canadian dollar, etc.  But - and I don't mean this to knock Quebec fans - if they are "that" dedicated, why did the Nords never average a sellout? 

 

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=7584

 

This is their attendance from 1979-80 (their first in the NHL) through 1994-95. Colisée de Québec was renovated per NHL rules to a capacity of 15,250.  The Nords topped and average of 15,000 three times between 1979-80 and 1994-95.  Put those numbers in Consol (18,087) an all of a sudden they are at 83% capacity which is not all that impressive.  This year, only Florida, Carolina and Arizona averaged less than 15,000 per game. Would you expand to any of those cities right now? That's not impressive company for Quebec City.

 

Sure - it's impressive for a city with a metro area of 765,000 but that doesn't cut it in today's NHL. Certainly not a city trying to make the case for expansion or a relocated team.  That said - I'd love for Quebec to get a team somehow - for sentimental reasons. Economically? It's a pure numbers game.  When you only have 765,000 fans in your neighborhood, it's hard to sell 15,250 tickets 41 nights a year (let alone 18,000). 

 

I know - Winnipeg.  I agree with @radoran 100% there. Let's see where they are in 10 years.

 

As for the corporate aspect of it, Seattle has Amazon, Microsoft, Starbucks, T-Mobile, Nintendo and Boeing (among others). Quebec has??  There are a lot more corporate dollars to be spent in Seattle than Quebec.