ScottM Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/17/report-prospective-seattle-owner-will-not-submit-expansion-bid-monday/ http://www.king5.com/story/sports/2015/07/17/nhl-seattle-monday-expansion-arena/30315745/ When the "official" talk of expansion began, Seattle was one city that seemed like a lock to at least bid for a franchise. That no longer seems so certain. Originally, there appeared to be multiple ownership groups ready to make proposals, but as things stand now, there may not even be one at the July 20 deadline for the first phase. To be clear, that does not mean that no one is interested. One of the prospective owners, Victor Coleman insists he is still interested, but will not submit a bid by the 20th, because he wants to finalize an arena location before submitting an application. According to King5.com, Coleman hopes to fast track the process after securing a site for a new arena. Coleman has said for some time now that he hopes to come to an agreement with prospective NBA owner Chris Hansen to share an arena, but thus far, no deal for an NBA team has come through, and Hansen says that he has received no formal offer on such an arrangement. Meanwhile, it is unclear if another potential owner, Ray Bartoszek, will file an application. The city of Tukwila, where a team would be located if Bartoszek applies for and lands a franchise, has already begun an environmental review of the project. Bartoszek has an option to purchase land in the city, and has said that construction on an arena could begin as early as the latter part of this year. Assuming no bids come in, the question is, does this eliminate Seattle as an expansion location? Coleman is clearly stated that he still wants to bring a team to the city, and Bartoszek's comments suggest the same. How hard and fast does the league consider the deadline to be? How interested is the NHL in the Seattle market? One would have to think that if the league wants a team in Seattle, they will work out a way to get around the passing deadline. After all, they put the Blues in St. Louis without ever receiving a bit for a franchise. Rather, once they decided to place a team in the city, they found an ownership group. If anything, the expansion process just got a lot more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TropicalFruitGirl26 Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Some very interesting stuff here indeed, @ScottM The one that jumped out at me was the mention of placing a potential team in "Tukwila, WA".Now, I don't know ANYTHING about the Seattle metro area, but I would assume Tukwila is either a suburb of Seattle (as Brandon would be to Tampa, or Arden Hills would be to Minneapolis/St. Paul), or its an area of the city like Queens, NY is to the city of New York? That is all fine, but if a product such as hockey, that may or may not succeed in this new market is placed somewhere where the main population of Seattle would have to go out of their way to get to, then the NHL would be setting itself up for failure right from the start. I think if one looks around the league, one sees that LOCATION is of the utmost importance (particularly in a city that either is a non traditional city or one where an NHL franchise has failed before)....and it really can make or break the success of an NHL team. One quick look at the state of Florida (about as non traditional as one can get for the sport of hockey), and see where the Lightning thrive (they have great marketing and more importantly, a nice arena located smack in the middle of just about everything in Tampa and it is VERY easy to get to...........then you look over at the Florida Panthers, who call the city of Miami "home", but have their hockey arena located way out of the city and I would imagine, quite a hike for the average family to have to trek in order to get to a game.Most successful NHL teams with regards to attendance have their arenas located in prime areas and they are easy to get to. I can't stress enough how important this is! Of course, with the NHL's continued insistence on placing a team in Vegas, which many think is a bad idea (including me), there may not be much hope for the NHL to look at this Seattle situation logically.And as you and your links suggest, this all may be moot points as Seattle may not even get a team in the first place. If the NHL is simply determined to get a team in Vegas, they are going to make that happen, come hell or high water, regardless of how much MORE sense a team in Seattle, Quebec City, or even Kansas City may make. But if somehow, someway, Seattle still manages a francise, I sincerely hope that someone has enough foresight to see that after the novelty of a new team wears off (plus the likelihood the team will SUCK for a few years), people will need a reason to come to hockey games.Positive marketing will go a long way, but easily accessible arenas are a tremendous part of that as well.........and they DON'T wanna go placing a team in a location of the metro area that is a chore to get to. And again, this is me knowing nothing of the Seattle area....just basing this off looking at maps.I could be dead wrong, and Tukwila, WA could be as "jumpin" as Times Square...........Costumed Creeps and all......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted July 18, 2015 Author Share Posted July 18, 2015 @TropicalFruitGirl26 Tukwila is a suburb of Seattle, but it actually borders the city proper, so it's not a suburb of a suburb situation like Sunrise. That truly was a bad place to put a team. I think Tukwila will be okay. The Vegas attitude is, as you suggest, going to be the driving force behind what happens. The league has a long history of simply doing what it wants, particularly under Bettman, and deadlines and common sense are not going to get in the way. If they want to put a team in Seattle, they'll likely do so regardless. The question is, where does the NHL want the teams to be located. Answer that, and you'll most likely answer the question of where the teams will be, barring a 1960s Vancouver-style uproar. They protested loudly enough and ended up with their team. The thing is, I don't see that happening anywhere this time unless it's Quebec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Blah, Blah, Blah... I need Seattle to have a team. It's as close to the Boise metro area I'm gonna get a NHL team (a days drive but if you haven't been to Seattle it's a blast. Most fun in a big city to be had so other reasons to make the drive!!!). I will "will" it to be so..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingNut722 Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Blah, Blah, Blah... I need Seattle to have a team. It's as close to the Boise metro area I'm gonna get a NHL team (a days drive but if you haven't been to Seattle it's a blast. Most fun in a big city to be had so other reasons to make the drive!!!). I will "will" it to be so..... You listenin' Bettman??? Put the team in Seattle! Get this man some hockey tickets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Blah, Blah, Blah... I need Seattle to have a team. It's as close to the Boise metro area I'm gonna get a NHL team (a days drive but if you haven't been to Seattle it's a blast. Most fun in a big city to be had so other reasons to make the drive!!!). I will "will" it to be so..... My wife and I were going to take the Victoria Clipper over to Seattle last weekend, but to hell with that when the Canadian dollar is a 77 cents US. Looks like fun, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted July 20, 2015 Author Share Posted July 20, 2015 And the latest news is that the Tukwila bid is probably coming. http://www.sonicsrising.com/2015/7/17/8997257/nhl-expansion-sodo-bellevue-out-tukwila-in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted July 20, 2015 Author Share Posted July 20, 2015 And then Bartoszek doesn't submit the bid after all. We have bids from Las Vegas and Quebec City. Does that mean those are the two? http://www.news4jax.com/sports/las-vegas-quebec-city-apply-for-nhl-expansion-teams/34264064 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TropicalFruitGirl26 Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 And then Bartoszek doesn't submit the bid after all. We have bids from Las Vegas and Quebec City. Does that mean those are the two? http://www.news4jax.com/sports/las-vegas-quebec-city-apply-for-nhl-expansion-teams/34264064 You know, if Quebec and Vegas get in, unless the NHL is going to run with 15 teams out west, and 17 teams out East, one unfortunate franchise will have to move back to the Western Conference from the Eastern Conference. And it likely would be one of the two that were JUST recently moved East (Columbus or Detroit)...and with the Wings having the "pull" they have with the league as far as a "marquee" franchise, if they don't wanna move back West (they bitched for years about the travel and start times for their road games.....so they likely will wanna stay put), then that means the poor Blue Jackets will be moved out West again. UNLESS, of course, the Panthers are relocated either out West and replaced by the new Quebec team in the East ....or the Panthers themselves BECOME the new Nordiques and only one real new team will be introduced...that being the Las Vegas Bad Ideas...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.