QUÉBEC CITY - New Quebec City Amphitheatre (18,482) [Archive]

koolio

February 14th, 2011, 03:13 AM

There are some elements of truth in what you are saying but you are exaggerating it a tad bit. When the Nordiques were in the league, they did not have a terrible time in attracting talent. Sure, there was the high-profile instance in which Eric Lindros refused to join the team after being drafted but those incidents were few and far between. Edmonton and Ottawa have had similar incidents (even in the recent years) but no body is saying that they should pack up their bags and move to the US. Would they have a slightly more difficult task in attracting free agents? Probably ... but the league is more draft and trade based nowadays anyways, so a level of success a team can have is not strictly correlated with their success in the free agent market.

In addition, attendance in away games is a non-issue. In a league that is increasingly driven through revenue sources other than attendance, the marginal drop in attendance that the Quebec team would cause (if at all) in away arenas will hardly make a dent in the overall sense. An average American knows jack about Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton either so in that sense, Quebec will be like just another Canadian city.

It also should be mentioned that hockey media (especially in Canada) is extremely comprehensive. Hockey fans these days know about various junior hockey players from the other side of the country ... you don't think a star in the NHL will not get any coverage just because they are based in Quebec?

Either way, from my own perspective, the real challenge to the team's sustainability would be corporate support. QC is a government-sector town, hence lacks the kind of corporate presence that major cities in Central and Western Canada have. Media conglomerate like Quebecor have shown keen interest in getting involved in this but who knows ... only time will tell who wants to be in and who wants to be out. Quite clearly they are not going to be nearly as financially successful as the Toronto Maple Leafs or the Montreal Canadiens but I think they will quite easily be sustainable if they are equipped with a modern arena and a bigger corporate support compared to last time around. In addition, the league has revenue sharing ever since the last CBA, hence they have an insurance policy if things go south for a period of time.

htpwn

February 14th, 2011, 04:13 AM

What about an NBA franchise? HaHaHa! A basketball gulag for misbehaving or underperforming players.

How do you say 'spanking the monkey' in French?

I completely agree. It must suck to live in one of the most beautiful cities in North America as supposed to American cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, and Memphis.

This is a project doomed to failure. Quebec builds an arena and the National Hockey League is supposed to move a franchise from the US to occupy it, is that the plan?

No, that is not the plan.

Quebec City needs a new arena built regardless of whether the NHL returns yet. Obviously that is a goal but it doesn't mean that the arena will be a disaster if it does not happen.

The Colisée is 60 years old and is on its last legs. The building is barely considered safe as it is. It needs a replacement. A new arena should bring new concert and show opportunities to the area and the QMJHL's Ramparts can operate as an anchor tenant until the NHL makes its return. They already outdraw several sunbelt teams on a regular basis.

The bottom line is if done right, the arena can be successful with or without an NHL tenant. This should not turn into a Glendale Arena-type situation, but follow the path of Winnipeg and its MTS Centre. Profitable building that is among the busiest in Canada, who's anchor tenant is a minor league hockey team in the Manitoba Moose (although that could change next year depending on the outcome of the next few weeks in Phoenix).

flashman

February 14th, 2011, 06:30 AM

Oh, Quebec's beautiful, alright. I've been there - skiied at Le Massif - and do business with Quebecor, so I don't have to be persuaded to its charms.

But this city has no significant industrial base. It lives on the industry of government, the presence of a big university and tourism. While the first two elements might make it financially stable and somewhat recession proof, it hardly qualifies Quebec to be a home for a major professional hockey team. Without that sort of anchor, it will be a white elephant, especially one that is entirely funded by the public purse.

From what I'm seeing from media coverage, there's an awful lot of politicians throwing on Nordiques jerseys and hopping on the bandwagon. They are all opportunists when they need to be realists.

As for the away appeal of a potential Quebec team, the NHL is a league that is very dependent on gate revenues. When fans don't know anything about the visiting team or where it's from, it makes it a hard sell. It's even tougher to sell this to TV and American networks want less Canadian presence in their televised sports, not more. So if three quarters of the league's markets don't know jack about the current Canadian teams or the cities they come from, why would anyone think adding a largely obscure, French language only city to the league would be an asset?

Within Canada, I would imagine western Canadians, particularly Albertans, will be not be thrilled to watch taxpayer-subsidized hockey games from Quebec.

I'm sure it's a very romantic notion to build this arena and try to revive a long-dead franchise. It probably expired for a good reason. If this arena has a business model that says it will make money with or without a NHL team, then why aren't private investors already building one?

Parce que, c'est la grande dinde and all it will do is gobble, gobble, gobble public money. Mange bien, mais pas avec l'argent publique.

koolio

February 14th, 2011, 08:15 AM

Well as of right now, there is no federal government money being used. Only the Quebec and Quebec City governments have promised their money and they have said that they will go ahead with it irrespective of what Ottawa decides. That may or may not be the case a year from now but it doesn't really matter the way I see it. It won't be the first federal government funded sporting venue in the country (or the continent) and it most certainly won't be the last. Western Canadians can whinge all they want but groups from Edmonton and Regina have asked the Canadian government for money for a new sporting venue as recently as this past year.

Also, in regards to away attendance, once again, that is irrelevant. An average American cannot tell apart his Ottawa from his Quebec City so certainly the new QC team won't be any LESS relevant. Unless you are suggesting that all Canadian teams are financially unsustainable because Americans don't know about Canadian cities, there really is not an argument to be made here.

What is financially unsustainable is teams in the South that are hemorrhaging money faster than the league can take funds from the Maple Leafs and give it to the eternally subsidized franchises. The American TV networks are not stupid. First of all, the NHL is currently with Versus and I seriously doubt that they are in any position to dictate where the NHL should locate teams. In addition, even if someday in the future ESPN strikes a deal, it is going to know that there is not a whole lot they can gain from shoving hockey down the throats of markets like Phoenix and Nashville in the first place. I heavily doubt that a team moving out of a dead hockey market in the US is going to prove as a deal breaker.

Either way, I do digress. As the poster above you stated, this arena is much needed, irrespective of what happens in the NHL front. Worst case scenario, an NHL team never moves into QC; QMJHL's Quebec Remparts will still call the arena their home (they have the highest attendance in junior hockey at an average of 11,000 per game). The city will still gain a much needed modern convention and concert facility.

schulzte

February 14th, 2011, 04:41 PM

The two biggest reasons the Nordiques left in the first place was 1) An old arena that did not have high revenue seating capabilities and 2) A weak Canadian dollar at the time. Attendance was not the problem. When the Nordiques were bad, they averaged 12,000-13,000 fans per game (in a 15,000 seat arena). When the Nordiques were good, like their final season, they averaged 14,500 in a 15,000 seat arena. I argue that Quebec should get first dibs on a new Canadian NHL team because they drew better attendance than the Winnipeg Jets did and they have a better market to draw fans from. Both Winnipeg and Quebec City are essentially the same size cities, about 750,000 in the metro areas. However, Winnipeg is much more isolated, whereas Quebec has several significant cities in the region to draw from such as Trois-Rivieres, Chicoutimi, and Drummondville.

I'd be a bit surprised if they started building this arena before the Thrashers or Islanders had committed to moving. It seems like it would be a good bargaining chip with an NHL team to get them to commit, rather that starting construction before they have a commitment. Quebec City could offer up the Colisee for 2 years while construction is underway, and break ground on the new arena the day after the team announces the move to Quebec. The Colisee would be big enough to actually increase the attendance of either franchise in year one.

http://www.newolympia.blogspot.com

TheKorean

February 15th, 2011, 04:42 AM

I completely agree. It must suck to live in one of the most beautiful cities in North America as supposed to American cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, and Memphis.

No, that is not the plan.

Quebec City needs a new arena built regardless of whether the NHL returns yet. Obviously that is a goal but it doesn't mean that the arena will be a disaster if it does not happen.

The Colisée is 60 years old and is on its last legs. The building is barely considered safe as it is. It needs a replacement. A new arena should bring new concert and show opportunities to the area and the QMJHL's Ramparts can operate as an anchor tenant until the NHL makes its return. They already outdraw several sunbelt teams on a regular basis.

The bottom line is if done right, the arena can be successful with or without an NHL tenant. This should not turn into a Glendale Arena-type situation, but follow the path of Winnipeg and its MTS Centre. Profitable building that is among the busiest in Canada, who's anchor tenant is a minor league hockey team in the Manitoba Moose (although that could change next year depending on the outcome of the next few weeks in Phoenix).
Phoenix isnt going anywhere.

And who wants to live in QC during winter? Brrr. cold nightmare. I live in NYC and I wanna get out.

flashman

February 15th, 2011, 07:01 AM

htpwn

February 15th, 2011, 12:47 PM

What is financially unsustainable is teams in the South that are hemorrhaging money faster than the league can take funds from the Maple Leafs and give it to the eternally subsidized franchises.

The worst part of that is watching teams like Nashville having success on our dollar, while we can't even sniff the playoffs.

I argue that Quebec should get first dibs on a new Canadian NHL team because they drew better attendance than the Winnipeg Jets did and they have a better market to draw fans from. Both Winnipeg and Quebec City are essentially the same size cities, about 750,000 in the metro areas.

Yes, but Quebec doesn't have David Thomson as a potential owner.

You could put 20,000 per game in the Quebec arena and it will still come down to what is more marketable to an American television audience. Quebec is not nearly as marketable to the average American as cities like Phoenix or Nashville or Atlanta.

The NHL is expected to do well in its next round of US network contract talks as NBC likes its potential. Quebec won't help achieve a bigger deal in future talks and a new arena still won't convince top players who are not French Canadian to play there.

The NHL has been after the "big" TV deal for over ten years. It hasn't materialized. Plus, teams like Nashville or Phoenix or Atlanta rarely, if ever, get any airtime on NBC anyways.

Phoenix isnt going anywhere.

And who wants to live in QC during winter? Brrr. cold nightmare. I live in NYC and I wanna get out.

We shall see in the upcoming weeks I guess.

The City Of Glendale will likely approve the adjusted, "final" lease today. After that it will come down to the bonds selling and a possible lawsuit due to spending taxpayer money on a private enterprise. Still some hurdles to clear yet.

schulzte

February 15th, 2011, 02:22 PM

The difference between having a team in Quebec City and having a team in Atlanta for the purposes of an American TV contract is virtually zero. Hockey makes ratings from individual markets, not a nationwide audience. There are some markets in the US that watch hockey, and some that don't. That is why you see Boston, New York Rangers, Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington, and Buffalo on TV all the time. Virtually all the value of the TV contract comes from those cities. St. Louis, Dallas, Colorado, Minnesota, and San Jose get decent local ratings, but don't have the national following right now.

But I get mad when people say the entire Southern US has been a failure with hockey. American TV revenues aren't that big of a deal in hockey, so I'm not going to complain about Phoenix getting the same share as Detroit. Its a league, and its not inappropriate to share some revenue with lesser teams, MLB and the NFL do it too. Nashville was profitable last year, and are drawing just shy of 16,000 a game this year, as is Carolina. Tampa Bay has been a box office success over the long term, as have the LA Kings, Dallas Stars, and Anaheim Ducks. It has been hit and miss with hockey in the South. New hockey markets have been hit and miss everywhere, remember the Oakland Golden Seals, Colorado Rockies, Kansas City Scouts, and Cleveland Barons? Five years ago, even the Blackhawks had average attendance of 13,000, and their home game weren't televised. Nobody was calling for their relocation, nor should they have.

Phoenix should have stayed closer to downtown with their new arena, that Glendale Arena was a huge mistake. Atlanta and Miami are overrated sports towns, the Hawks have never been well supported, the Marlins are incredibly poorly supported; even the Dolphins don't sell out. The Islanders are the Islanders, they need to just go away.

http://www.newolympia.blogspot.com

flashman

February 15th, 2011, 11:30 PM

The NHL should secure a vastly improved rights deal with NBC - maybe others - in their next contract. Their revenue sharing arrangement has not only begun to make money for both parties. the ratings have improved and both sides say they're very comfortable working with one another going forward.

A far cry from the last contract situation where ESPN basically put a gun to the league's head and said give us free hockey or we'll freeze you out of all our coverage options.

The NHL showed some courage in resisting this and going with the relatively tiny Versus and this deal with NBC that was, admittedly, a last resort. But now things are shaping up much better and more American markets are crucial to making the deal work.

Imagine if the league had bowed to the pressure of misguided Canadian critics and moved the Coyotes to Canada? That team is now playing very well and beginning to show some signs of long-term life. They're not out of the woods yet, but amazing to see the difference a little time and faith can create.

The NHL will also benefit immeasurably if the NFL and NBA have work stoppages.

It's hard to imagine the NHL will want to expand, so for now, Quebec better have an arena deal that works without pro sport.

Any word yet on a private investor getting involved? Bueller...? Bueller...? anyone...?

krudmonk

February 16th, 2011, 04:21 AM

As for the away appeal of a potential Quebec team, the NHL is a league that is very dependent on gate revenues. When fans don't know anything about the visiting team or where it's from, it makes it a hard sell. It's even tougher to sell this to TV and American networks want less Canadian presence in their televised sports, not more. So if three quarters of the league's markets don't know jack about the current Canadian teams or the cities they come from, why would anyone think adding a largely obscure, French language only city to the league would be an asset?
Um, teams like Phoenix, Florida and Atlanta fill the "who cares" role in this league. The Nords or Jets could come back tomorrow and instantly be stronger brands in the eyes of neutral fans.

JYDA

February 16th, 2011, 06:48 AM

Imagine if the league had bowed to the pressure of misguided Canadian critics and moved the Coyotes to Canada? That team is now playing very well and beginning to show some signs of long-term life. They're not out of the woods yet, but amazing to see the difference a little time and faith can create.

Signs of long term life? You must be talking about Glendale's commitment to cover 25 million/year in losses because that's the only thing they've got going for them. Their (padded) attendance numbers are down 5% from last year. You can get tix on gameday for as little as 2 bucks on stubhub.

flashman

February 16th, 2011, 09:06 AM

And none of these scintillating facts brings Quebec's proposed arena one iota closer to realizing it's must-hope-for-or-die dream of acquiring a NHL franchise.

It's still just some frozen, sub-Arctic fur trading station in the eyes of most American TV viewers. When les courier des bois become sexy on American television networks, then we'll talk.

Until then, we should consider a time-worn NHL phrase: don't even bother to stick a fork in this deal because it won't be done like dinner. The NHL won't even bother to turn the oven on.

So, again, let's hear about the many private investors jumping in on this Ultra Excellent Opportunity to make money?

Topher51

February 16th, 2011, 06:31 PM

Signs of long term life? You must be talking about Glendale's commitment to cover 25 million/year in losses because that's the only thing they've got going for them. Their (padded) attendance numbers are down 5% from last year. You can get tix on gameday for as little as 2 bucks on stubhub.

$2? Damn, that must be nice. You can have all the leg and elbow room you want too.

I really don't see how having a half empty building and completely dead atmosphere in Glendale is better than having full and rowdy buildings north of the border, or even in smaller US towns that would passionately support hockey like Milwaukee or Kansas City. TV can't have that much to do with it b/c there are only 8-10 teams in the league the average hockey fan would watch any given night if their team isn't playing.

As a Capitals season ticket holder, outside of our rivals, I would prefer to see a game against a Canadian team than a random American team. The games just seem to have more energy and you can't help but love to hear "O Canada" sung before a hockey game.

koolio

February 16th, 2011, 09:18 PM

Um, teams like Phoenix, Florida and Atlanta fill the "who cares" role in this league. The Nords or Jets could come back tomorrow and instantly be stronger brands in the eyes of neutral fans.

Exactly. I don't understand why people think that having teams in Bumfudge, USA is better than having a Canadian team. The networks are not stupid. They know that some cities in the NHL just are not hockey markets. Maybe Atlanta and Miami are markets that will justify their existence simply based on their sheer size but Phoenix, Nashville etc are not essential markets. The potential for growth is negligible over there. The amount of marginal money that the NHL will lose from a new American network contract will be more than off-set by the amount of money gained from the Canadian TV networks. Even as it is right now, NBC or Versus don't give a crap about these small market teams. I'd like to see the ratings for some of these games, especially those weekday ones that are broadcast locally. I bet the ratings are not significantly higher, if higher at all, than the amount of people in the arena.

koolio

February 16th, 2011, 09:24 PM

The worst part of that is watching teams like Nashville having success on our dollar, while we can't even sniff the playoffs.

LOL. There should be a rule that if the Leafs miss the playoffs (i.e. every year) those other teams can't qualify for the playoffs either :lol:.

But in all honesty, I am perfectly fine with revenue sharing. I think it is a terrific model. My only problem is that as it stands right now, the flow of money is constantly going to the same franchises that are fundamentally unsustainable. The goal of revenue sharing should be to help franchises that are sustainable in the long run but might have one-off financial problems ... an insurance policy, rather than a constant subsidy.

Axelferis

February 17th, 2011, 07:47 PM

belle arena comme toutes les autres quoi!

But why not to make more original all those projects? What is the difference between staples in LA, air canada centre in toronto and o2 atrena in london? :(

Darloeye

February 17th, 2011, 07:52 PM

^^^^ Ones in american ones in canada and the last one is in England :horse:

koolio

February 17th, 2011, 09:27 PM

belle arena comme toutes les autres quoi!

But why not to make more original all those projects? What is the difference between staples in LA, air canada centre in toronto and o2 atrena in london? :(

All those arenas are quite different as far as the exterior goes. You can't do much for the interior because there is an optimal capacity and layout that maximizes profits.

isaidso

February 17th, 2011, 10:05 PM

American fans don't want to come out and watch a team from a secondary Quebec city.

Don't watch then. Do you think we want to watch a team from places like Atlanta, St. Louis, Dallas, Tampa Bay, Phoenix, Nashville, Carolina, Miami, or San Jose?

Hell no.

steve617

February 17th, 2011, 10:50 PM

Don't watch then. Do you think we want to watch a team from places like Atlanta, St. Louis, Dallas, Tampa Bay, Phoenix, Nashville, Carolina, Miami, or San Jose?

Hell no.

Exactly. How dare we not constantly appeal to what the precious American fan wants. How about the NHL caters to what actual hockey fans want, wherever they happen to reside. If that means a regional (Northern U.S. and Canadian) audience, so be it. Before the NHL tried to be the NFL, the league actually had some respect instead of the punchline they've become.

Welkin

February 18th, 2011, 05:35 PM

You could put 20,000 per game in the Quebec arena and it will still come down to what is more marketable to an American television audience. Quebec is not nearly as marketable to the average American as cities like Phoenix or Nashville or Atlanta.

The NHL is expected to do well in its next round of US network contract talks as NBC likes its potential. Quebec won't help achieve a bigger deal in future talks and a new arena still won't convince top players who are not French Canadian to play there.

The trend to have public money pay for a sports facility may have been stronger in past decades, but that is changing toward either a public-private partnership or private ownership.

Flashman I do believe that you are an idiot and you have no idea what you are talking about. Several of my fellow Canadians have quite polite pointing out where you are wrong, but I am not so polite. Where do you come up with this stuff? A packed arena with screaming fans in Quebec is worse for a TV audience than the dead quite of a 1/3 full arena in Phoenix? I guess in your mind that makes perfect sense as long as you don't bother to think about it. American hockey fans know that the best hockey comes from Canada and that adding Quebec or Winnipeg improves the NHL dramatically over the dead hockey towns of Phoenix or Atlanta. This is hockey we are talking about, not baseball or football. Get you head out of your arse and understand the market. Go Canada.

shadyunltd

February 18th, 2011, 06:32 PM

shadyunltd

February 18th, 2011, 06:36 PM

Don't watch then. Do you think we want to watch a team from places like Atlanta, St. Louis, Dallas, Tampa Bay, Phoenix, Nashville, Carolina, Miami, or San Jose?

Hell no.

Dallas, Carolina, Tampa Bay have won more cups than Canada as a whole in the last 20 years. :lol::lol:

It's a bit rude to put all those teams in the same basket. Teams like Calgary, Ottawa and Vancouver don't have much of a "heritage" or history like the Oilers, Habs or Leafs. Calgary was a US team before (Atlanta, lol). The Nucks are an expansion team. And nobody cares about Ottawa.

shadyunltd

February 18th, 2011, 06:39 PM

Flashman I do believe that you are an idiot and you have no idea what you are talking about. Several of my fellow Canadians have quite polite pointing out where you are wrong, but I am not so polite. Where do you come up with this stuff? A packed arena with screaming fans in Quebec is worse for a TV audience than the dead quite of a 1/3 full arena in Phoenix? I guess in your mind that makes perfect sense as long as you don't bother to think about it. American hockey fans know that the best hockey comes from Canada and that adding Quebec or Winnipeg improves the NHL dramatically over the dead hockey towns of Phoenix or Atlanta. This is hockey we are talking about, not baseball or football. Get you head out of your arse and understand the market. Go Canada.

Improves, how?

If in terms of revenue, it's doubtful.

Fan support, likely. But, as a said, it's all dependent on success. Quebec had a team. It was not a successful team and definitely not a financial success --> Relocation.

Filling out an arena is not that important nowadays. You need a lot of luxury boxes, a rich (local) TV contract and a high ticket price.

ChrisDVD

February 18th, 2011, 06:43 PM

It's still just some frozen, sub-Arctic fur trading station in the eyes of most American TV viewers. When les courier des bois become sexy on American television networks, then we'll talk.

Wow, just go one to show how ignorant you are...
I don't think there is any coureurs des bois (not courier) in Québec city! Neither is the city a fur-trading center, and it's not frozen for more then half of the year.
And since when is hockey about being sexy?

Topher51

February 18th, 2011, 07:18 PM

It's still just some frozen, sub-Arctic fur trading station in the eyes of most American TV viewers. When les courier des bois become sexy on American television networks, then we'll talk.

The average American TV viewer doesn't watch hockey. Hell, the Capitals only average 40,000 or so viewers per game locally, but by any definition are very successful right now.

And those of us that do watch hockey like snow, ice and the cold. Having a team in Quebec City seems a hell of a lot more natural than having them in the Sun Belt. And most of the hockey fans in the Sun Belt are people that moved down from the north, still root for their old hometown team and would probably like to see another Canadian team, as long as their local (secondary team) doesn't move away.

And as a born and raised American that has traveled though Canada, Montreal and Quebec City are two of the nicer cities I've ever been. Most American cities don't come close to those in cultural appeal.

hngcm

February 18th, 2011, 07:49 PM

Darloeye

February 18th, 2011, 07:57 PM

http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20102011/GS020868.HTM that was from last nights game. Attendance 10,576

KingmanIII

February 19th, 2011, 04:56 PM

The Islanders too but at least they can move to Brooklyn and share the Barclays Center with the Nets.
Nope.

The Barclays Center seating bowl is oriented around a basketball court, making it suboptimal for hockey.

dfwabel

February 20th, 2011, 12:10 AM

Any chance for the Coyotes to move?

They have horrible attendance this year...

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

The Islanders too but at least they can move to Brooklyn and share the Barclays Center with the Nets.

The Coyotes still will depend on the bonds the City of Glendale is about to float. They will not move within the next 24 months though. Even then, Winnipeg wants the "Jets" back. Atlanta is the more obvious option.

from the original announcement a week ago, has a private organization come up with the difference in costs?

TheKorean

February 20th, 2011, 05:26 AM

Don't watch then. Do you think we want to watch a team from places like Atlanta, St. Louis, Dallas, Tampa Bay, Phoenix, Nashville, Carolina, Miami, or San Jose?

Hell no.

Why not? Its hockey. Why do you watch teams from New York, Detroit, Chicago, Denver, Columbus, Boston, St.Paul, Washington?

Whats wrong with those markets? Hell whats wrong with St Louis? Older than 4 Canadian clubs.

You aint a hockey fan at all if thats how you think. Hockey is hockey. I can understand it at least, if you want more Canadian teams, but not wanting to watch teams because of where they are from? Thats stupid, and shows that you arent a fan at all.

sweet-d

February 20th, 2011, 07:57 AM

How big is Quebic city's market I googled and the population of Quebic City is 491, 142 and the metro is 715,515.

htpwn

February 26th, 2011, 03:12 AM

So, again, let's hear about the many private investors jumping in on this Ultra Excellent Opportunity to make money?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/Quebecor_logo.png

All those arenas are quite different as far as the exterior goes. You can't do much for the interior because there is an optimal capacity and layout that maximizes profits.

Pretty much. A couple arenas are unique (Phillips Arena in Atlanta comes to mind), but most of them are based on a similar design in order to maximize profits. Long gone are the days when nearly every arena was unique (Maple Leaf Gardens, Boston Garden, etc.).

Any chance for the Coyotes to move?

They have horrible attendance this year...

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

The Islanders too but at least they can move to Brooklyn and share the Barclays Center with the Nets.

That is a very complicated question thanks to the 2009 bankruptcy and the events following it.

Yes, no, maybe, and a little in between all of those. One day the team seems set to stay in Phoenix, the next you can practically hear the moving trucks reeving their engines for the long trek up to Canada. It should wrap up within the next month or so, how it turns out is anyone's guess.

Either way, the team will not be going to Quebec City, but Winnipeg. They have the arena already built, have a strong potential ownership group in place, and the Coyotes were originally the Winnipeg Jets (so the city is likely to get first crack of the team should it have to relocate).

flashman

March 2nd, 2011, 09:25 PM

With NHL TV contract talks heating up, it's very likely the NHL will receive a nice upgrade from its current contracts with NBC and its cable subsidiary, Versus. Rival networks like ESPN and FOX are looking at bidding. It's likely the NHL will stay with NBC-Versus, but the rival attention means the next deal will not be a revenue-sharing deal with NBC but a proper rights fee.

The Versus deal was hatched coming out of the harmful 2004 lockout when ESPN only offered $30 mil to renew. The current Versus deal is worth about $77 annually and ratings have grown by 50% since the arrangement began. NBC were delighted to see the 2010 finals set US viewer records for the NHL.

Because of the recent, rival interest, a traditional rights fee deal with NBC-Versus should top $400 mil annually, which still doesn't match the last big deal the league had with ESPN at $600 mil. But combined with the $155 million the league receives from a trio of Canadian broadcasters and revenues are beginning to creep toward respectability.

All of which means bad news for Quebec hockey fans hoping to snag a NHL franchise.

Because if the league has stayed the course with struggling US franchises this long, with ESPN spitefully minimizing NHL coverage, then this financial rebound and growing visibility is going to make it easier for hurting teams to recover. And all of this new TV bounty is based around AMERICAN content.

Just look at the Versus or NBC broadcast schedules the past two years. There have been no Canadian teams on NBC and only four or five games each season where a single Canadian team has featured on Versus, usually Boston at Montreal or the league's best TV market club, Philadelphia, playing Toronto or Montreal. There is no interest in showing the lesser-known Canadian clubs in America. Quebec would be sub-zero.

In fact, it would be safe to say that even Canadian networks would hardly be overjoyed with Quebec in the league. Oh sure, once or twice a year, a Quebec-Montreal game might create some widespread interest if both teams were competitive. But a Quebec team will do little to raise Canadian network rights fees which are perceived to have plateaued as local telecast rights take up the slack for each team. Even Quebec broadcaster RDS would have mixed feelings, possibly having to up their rights fees slightly, plus bearing the added expense of having to produce Quebec games but gaining little in additional advertising revenue.

Sorry to say, but this arena is about to become another taxpayer-owned white elephant, just like Copps Coliseum in Hamilton, built decades ago to take in a NHL team. Still waiting. Might as well start their own league up with Winipeg and a Saskatchewan team. Play for the Quebecor Cup.

Quebecor's involvement is no surprise. Backscratcher with the province, who cut them all sorts of slack in taxes for creating jobs - slash workers in Ontario, re-hire in Quebec. Dropping in $3-4 million dollars per year over the course of the 25 year deal. A small portion of the overall costs, which you just know will soar, pick up naming rights - Place Quebecor? - and they've got their name very cheaply all over the media operations they don't already own. Not unlike Rogers and the baseball stadium in Toronto. Plus they get to make the money back by operating the arena. Sweet deal in a desperate city.

Without a NHL team, you won't see huge spending from corporations in Quebec City. Not that there are that many, in a town better known for its political functionaries.

Topher51

March 3rd, 2011, 07:30 PM

Why not? Its hockey. Why do you watch teams from New York, Detroit, Chicago, Denver, Columbus, Boston, St.Paul, Washington?

Whats wrong with those markets? Hell whats wrong with St Louis? Older than 4 Canadian clubs.

You aint a hockey fan at all if thats how you think. Hockey is hockey. I can understand it at least, if you want more Canadian teams, but not wanting to watch teams because of where they are from? Thats stupid, and shows that you arent a fan at all.

My personal reasons for wanting to watch games against some teams and not others is b/c I work 50 hours a week, have a wife, kids and only have so much free time a week. I go to 12-15 games a year and probably watch an additional 10 (not counting the playoffs on TV). When I have to pick 25 out of 82 games to watch, I would prefer to see interesting and competitive games. If you watch hockey enough, you realize that a team doesn't play the same every night. They play division games and games against rivals much more aggressively than they do teams they only see once or twice a year. For me, that means the 4 games against the Pens, Flyers and Rangers are must watches, no matter how good they are. The Canadian teams generally have rabid home crowds which brings up the level of play when we are on the road and occasionally follows those teams to Washington b/c a previous game got chippy. As for the rest of the Southeast Division, I'll watch those games if the other team is in the playoff hunt b/c it means something, but games in those buildings tend to be pretty dead and lackluster.

It's got less to do with where a team is from, but definitely how passionate their fan base is. If you don't think that matters, then you haven't been to enough games. Teams feed off their fan emotions and Canadian fans are rowdy as they come.

GunnerJacket

March 3rd, 2011, 08:15 PM

Maybe it's the NHL that needs to bring promotion/relegation to the North American Sports scene? 6 new franchises, two 18-team divisions and away we go.

Just thinking out loud folks.

Darloeye

March 3rd, 2011, 11:00 PM

6 New franchises haha keep on thinking

Lord David

March 4th, 2011, 03:41 PM

Will the Colisee Quebec remain once the new arena is up and running? As a historical building? It's a must for any prospective Winter Olympics bid as it should serve as the venue for short track speed skating and figure skating.

Should that be the case, it could end up in similar fashion as like the Pacific Coliseum for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. Expect no major upgrades, perhaps just a seating replacement, refurbishment of concessions and perhaps a new video board.

htpwn

March 4th, 2011, 11:26 PM

All of which means bad news for Quebec hockey fans hoping to snag a NHL franchise.

Because if the league has stayed the course with struggling US franchises this long, with ESPN spitefully minimizing NHL coverage, then this financial rebound and growing visibility is going to make it easier for hurting teams to recover. And all of this new TV bounty is based around AMERICAN content.

Just look at the Versus or NBC broadcast schedules the past two years. There have been no Canadian teams on NBC and only four or five games each season where a single Canadian team has featured on Versus, usually Boston at Montreal or the league's best TV market club, Philadelphia, playing Toronto or Montreal. There is no interest in showing the lesser-known Canadian clubs in America. Quebec would be sub-zero.

You know, perhaps you should follow your own advice. Look at the Versus and NBC schedules over the past five years. How many times did the Florida Panthers appear on it? The Atlanta Thrashers? The Phoenix Coyotes? Maybe 5 times combined over five years, not including playoff games?

NBC doesn't care about Canadian teams but they aren't stupid. They cater to the Northern American audience. Teams like Philadelphia, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Chicago, get preference over irrelevant teams in the south (Note: Not saying all southern teams are irrelevant).

This whole assumption that teams like Atlanta are what will lead to a national TV deal is absurd. Do you people think NBC is stupid? Do thousands upon thousands of empty seats translate to a good TV viewing experience? Do you think they just ignore the market's local TV ratings (Less people watch the Panthers then infomercials)? Do you think a team losing $45 million a year (in the case of Phoenix) is "good" for the league?

flashman

March 5th, 2011, 06:02 PM

NBC doesn't care about Canadian teams but they aren't stupid. They cater to the Northern American audience. Teams like Philadelphia, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Chicago, get preference over irrelevant teams in the south (Note: Not saying all southern teams are irrelevant).

That's not really news since most of the American clubs are based in northern states. But the casual American viewer they are trying to attract will have more affinity for ANY US-based opponent than one of the six Canadian teams not named Toronto or Montreal. Phoenix has been on five time this season alone, including once at home, which isn't bad for such a troubled team. And there's Tampa on twice the first week of March alone, while San Jose continues to make frequent annual appearances

This whole assumption that teams like Atlanta are what will lead to a national TV deal is absurd. Do you people think NBC is stupid? Do thousands upon thousands of empty seats translate to a good TV viewing experience? Do you think they just ignore the market's local TV ratings (Less people watch the Panthers then infomercials)? Do you think a team losing $45 million a year (in the case of Phoenix) is "good" for the league?

Assumption? They already have national TV contracts and NBC have handled their entry into NHL coverage very well. Like Canadian networks are fond of doing, some telecasts are split into regional games to maximize interest. What the NHL is about to do is add several hundred million dollars worth of value into their NEXT national TV contract and set the stage for further upward growth of future deals. Considering the scorched landscape created by the 2004 lockout, and the petulant treatment doled out by former partner ESPN, the NHL has made nice progress in restoring the game's visibility and importance. The addition of a Canadian team to the NHL would never have that impact. Particularly one in a small, French-speaking, largely irrelevant market.(despite the charm and culture of the place)

If the Panthers or the Coyotes aren't working locally, then they may be moved but the priority will always be to move them to American cities. Kansas City, maybe Seattle or Portland, Houston, Johnstown, Pa? Even hockey's equivalent of the Flint Tropics will create or sustain more US TV contract value than a Quebec team playing naked with their sticks on fire. And that's what you have to focus on here - US TV contract value.

That said, if a team were moved to Canada, then the preference would be to have an eastern NHL team - Atlanta or Florida - move to Winipeg so that Detroit could transfer into the eastern conference, where more natual rivalries exist and the higher importance of games with big market teams like the Rangers, Philly, Boston would push US ratings up further.

Which brings us all back to the principal point of this thread - this largely unnecessary arena deal in Quebec. It will prove to be little more than a publicity stunt for ego-tripping, vote-chasing politicians funded by a scandalous cash grab out of Canadian taxpayers' wallets. Canada doesn't need another Copps Coliseum.

weava

March 5th, 2011, 06:50 PM

If the Panthers or the Coyotes aren't working locally, then they may be moved but the priority will always be to move them to American cities. Kansas City, maybe Seattle or Portland, Houston, Johnstown, Pa? Even hockey's equivalent of the Flint Tropics will create or sustain more US TV contract value than a Quebec team playing naked with their sticks on fire. And that's what you have to focus on here - US TV contract value.

Calgary and Montreal are playoff teams so if they are playing a good US team (i.e. flyers/caps/etc) then people will watch in the US. If both teams in the game are canadian I can see there being not much interst but there won't be any interst in watching Houston vs Kansas City in most of the country either if both of those teams are at the bottom of the standings. The thing more than "markets" that hockey needs is for more than only ovechkin and crosby being household names, they need more "star players" to create interests in games.

Topher51

March 18th, 2011, 02:53 PM

That said, if a team were moved to Canada, then the preference would be to have an eastern NHL team - Atlanta or Florida - move to Winipeg so that Detroit could transfer into the eastern conference, where more natual rivalries exist and the higher importance of games with big market teams like the Rangers, Philly, Boston would push US ratings up further.

I am still hoping the Islanders move and everyone else stays put so, the Predators can move into the Southeast Division and the Caps can get back to their Patrick Division roots and play the Pens, Flyers, Rangers and Devils 6 times a season.

The chances of that are pretty slim though...

flashman

March 23rd, 2011, 09:19 PM

I am still hoping the Islanders move and everyone else stays put so, the Predators can move into the Southeast Division and the Caps can get back to their Patrick Division roots and play the Pens, Flyers, Rangers and Devils 6 times a season.

The chances of that are pretty slim though...

Ahhh, the good old Patrick Division. And the Norris, Smythe and Adams divisions. Back when hockey had culture and didn't act like it was ashamed of it or afraid that, if things weren't dumbed down, American fans wouldn't catch on.

No one likes the Islanders. Used to love hearing Steve Summers(SCHMOO-zing a little S-P-O, R-T-S) on WFAN radio in New York carefully baiting "Icelanders" fans, as he mockingly called them, getting them riled up to call in, then turning loose the audio replay of the Rangers winning the '94 Cup. Absolute matador.

Chatted with a Canadian hockey guy last week, someone in the biz. He thinks Winipeg is a decent bet to get a relocated team. Apparently, one of the NHL's concerns about adding more Canadian teams is the effect on the major junior hockey system, the developmental level where many Canadian, and a decent number of American and European, kids play until they are draft eligible.

Quebec has a big team in this system, a recent national champion that draws crowds over 10,000 regularly at home, plus are a big draw when playing on the road. A pro team in Quebec would badly affect the juniors, drawing fans in from a wider region where junior teams are located. Could possibly force the local junior team to move, hurt revenues across the league.

Winipeg's nearest junior team is more than two hours drive west, and they were there when the Jets were playing. Plus, a re-born Jets team would likely be a decent draw in neighbouring Minnesota and allow Colorado to maybe move out of a predominately Canadian division, let them stir up more natural rivalries with Dallas and Phoenix.

He also thought there was a far greater likelihood of seeing Toronto get a second pro team before Quebec ever got another. Huge, underserved fan base and corporate marketplace in Toronto and the junior teams mostly play outside the city, so no negative impact on player development.

Darloeye

March 23rd, 2011, 10:19 PM

Winipeeg can only get the Jets back if Phoenix loses their team which is likely

KingmanIII

March 24th, 2011, 06:01 AM

Winipeeg can only get the Jets back if Phoenix loses their team which is likely
I could see them possibly landing Atlanta or the Islanders

koolio

March 24th, 2011, 06:18 AM

Second Toronto team is a pipe dream. The Maple Leafs will never let a competitor come into their market. In fact the Leafs wouldn't even let a team come into Hamilton or any other place in Southern Ontario, which is one of the reasons why the NHL was so adamant about not letting Balisille purchase the Nashville franchise and move them to Hamilton. The ownership knows that if they continue to suck while a rival team moves into town, people will start watching the other team at the expense of the Leafs.

Aside from that, I think the point about the Quebec Remparts of the QMJHL being hurt if the NHL moves into town is interesting. I think it will indeed end up hurting them. They currently enjoy the highest attendance in all of Canada, which may not be possible to maintain if there is a higher level competitor. I don't know how much sway they have though. Will they be able to keep an NHL franchise away on their own? I know that another successful and popular Quebec sports club, the Laval University football team, has been successfully keeping away CFL from coming into town. They also enjoy the highest attendance in all of Canada, something I suppose they figured would be in jeopardy if a higher level team arrived.

Topher51

March 24th, 2011, 06:21 PM

Second Toronto team is a pipe dream. The Maple Leafs will never let a competitor come into their market. In fact the Leafs wouldn't even let a team come into Hamilton or any other place in Southern Ontario, which is one of the reasons why the NHL was so adamant about not letting Balisille purchase the Nashville franchise and move them to Hamilton. The ownership knows that if they continue to suck while a rival team moves into town, people will start watching the other team at the expense of the Leafs.

I was shocked to see this morning that the Maple Leafs are only 5 points out of the 8 spot. How the heck did that happen??? Anyway, I never really got the 2nd team in Toronto concept. Is is big enough to support two teams? Absolutely, but what Maple Leafs fan is going to stop rooting their team, which is the life blood of that city, to follow the Southern Ontario Thrashers?

There are multiple teams in New York and LA, but the NY teams are very well established and the Ducks were put in Anaheim to draw in new hockey fans. Possibly a couple of Kings fans converted. I just don't see that happening in Toronto. Not that I am against another team there...

Darloeye

March 24th, 2011, 08:32 PM

I could see them possibly landing Atlanta or the Islanders

Yes they could land any of them teams but can't use the name "Jets" since their playing in phoenix.

JYDA

March 24th, 2011, 09:24 PM

I've been following the Phoenix situation pretty closely and it's almost certain they will be leaving at the end of the season. The Phoenix suburb of Glendale (the arena owner) is trying to float bonds to subsidize the $50 million a year in losses the team suffers. They are absolutely desperate to avoid the arena becoming a white elephant. Some ideological advocacy group called the Goldwater Institute has threatened a lawsuit against the city claiming that it's against Arizona law to subsidize a private business. The lawsuit threat has effectively killed the market for the bonds. If they can't sell the bonds then they'll be unable to subsidize the team. No owner will buy a team just to lose their shirt so the only option left is to leave town.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/goldwater-steadfast-in-vow-to-block-sale-of-coyotes/article1950832/

With respect to Quebec, they're not going to get this team. The frontrunner appears to be Winnipeg.

Darloeye

March 24th, 2011, 10:51 PM

^^^^ Yeah heard little bit of that last night when watching the coyotes-red wings game last night but missed almost of the interivew. Moving the team back to Winnipeg would be the best choice

KingmanIII

March 25th, 2011, 03:43 AM

Anyway, I never really got the 2nd team in Toronto concept. Is is big enough to support two teams? Absolutely, but what Maple Leafs fan is going to stop rooting their team, which is the life blood of that city, to follow the Southern Ontario Thrashers?
those that decide they're fed up with being treated like shit by ownership

KingmanIII

March 25th, 2011, 04:57 AM

Alx-D

March 25th, 2011, 01:43 PM

As much as I would like to see the Jets back in Winnipeg I think it will be a mistake. They will be better supported there than they were in Glendale, but the arena is just too small. To break even in a 15,000 seat arena ticket prices will have to be much higher than the league average. Will there be demand in Winnipeg for $100 tickets? Who knows. The city really dropped the ball when they didn't build the arena to suitable NHL capacity.

Topher51

March 25th, 2011, 06:03 PM

Even if it's not the Coyotes that move back to Winnipeg, why can't the city get their name and history back? It's not like anyone in Arizona was following the team before the move and probably don't even know who the guys are who have numbers in the rafters (assuming there are any). Same with the Nordiques.

weava

March 26th, 2011, 03:52 AM

So it looks as if the Glendale taxpayers are getting stuck with a vacant $183 million arena. Sad. Just sad.

and our KC has a nice vacant $276 million arena they could play in...

JYDA

March 26th, 2011, 05:15 AM

and our KC has a nice vacant $276 million arena they could play in...

If a prospective owner emerges then KC may well move to the front of the line

carnifex2005

March 26th, 2011, 05:36 AM

and our KC has a nice vacant $276 million arena they could play in...

Sprint Arena in KC is the 3rd busiest in the country. They don't need a team there. Basically it makes no financial sense for AEG to buy or partner with a NBA or NHL team since that arena is doing plenty of business without one.

isaidso

March 26th, 2011, 07:18 AM

Dallas, Carolina, Tampa Bay have won more cups than Canada as a whole in the last 20 years. :lol::lol:

It's a bit rude to put all those teams in the same basket. Teams like Calgary, Ottawa and Vancouver don't have much of a "heritage" or history like the Oilers, Habs or Leafs. Calgary was a US team before (Atlanta, lol). The Nucks are an expansion team. And nobody cares about Ottawa.

99% of hockey exists beyond the NHL, so saying that those cities have little heritage is a huge stretch.

KingmanIII

March 26th, 2011, 09:05 AM

and our KC has a nice vacant $276 million arena they could play in...
KC is a great minor-league hockey town.

We'd fare much better with NBA basketball, however.

weava

March 26th, 2011, 04:52 PM

Sprint Arena in KC is the 3rd busiest in the country. They don't need a team there. Basically it makes no financial sense for AEG to buy or partner with a NBA or NHL team since that arena is doing plenty of business without one.

It's only the 3rd busiest in terms of concerts(other arenas sports attendences are not included), the district is actually financially struggling and costing taxpayers 10s of millions of $ because they aren't getting 40 crowds of 15,000 people to fill the resteraunts, parking lots, etc that was expected when the taxpayers financed the power and light district. The arena itself is turning a small profit for the city but the overall district is going to lose 100+ million subsidized by taxpayers over the life of its loans if they don't get a team.

carnifex2005

March 26th, 2011, 09:13 PM

It's only the 3rd busiest in terms of concerts(other arenas sports attendences are not included), the district is actually financially struggling and costing taxpayers 10s of millions of $ because they aren't getting 40 crowds of 15,000 people to fill the resteraunts, parking lots, etc that was expected when the taxpayers financed the power and light district. The arena itself is turning a small profit for the city but the overall district is going to lose 100+ million subsidized by taxpayers over the life of its loans if they don't get a team.

Actually it is 3rd busiest in the US INCLUDING (http://www.isitpacked.com/2010/11/04/top-5-busiest-arenas-in-america/) sporting events. As I said AEG has absolutely no incentive to buy or give extremely favorable lease arrangement to a pro team when the arena is already making money.

weava

March 26th, 2011, 09:43 PM

Actually it is 3rd busiest in the US INCLUDING (http://www.isitpacked.com/2010/11/04/top-5-busiest-arenas-in-america/) sporting events. As I said AEG has absolutely no incentive to buy or give extremely favorable lease arrangement to a pro team when the arena is already making money.

The list I've seen before didn't include sports so that is sweet. But it doesn't change the fact that the power and light district(21+) is failing(losing 10-15 million/year) due to the "disney on ice" and "circus" crowds not using the bars/resturants that were built to pull in the pro sports crowd before/after games.

DennisRodman817

March 27th, 2011, 04:54 AM

and our KC has a nice vacant $276 million arena they could play in...

What annoys me the most is the maloof brothers taking the kings to anaheim cali to be renamed Anaheim Royals....instead of bringing it back to kc as the kc royals like they were b4 :bash:

koolio

March 27th, 2011, 09:24 AM

Are the kings moving to Anaheim for sure.? I feel sorry for Sacramento. Too many franchise relocations in the NBA. They should at least pretend to care for the fans.

weava

March 30th, 2011, 01:53 AM

What annoys me the most is the maloof brothers taking the kings to anaheim cali to be renamed Anaheim Royals....instead of bringing it back to kc as the kc royals like they were b4 :bash:

they were the kings in KC

flashman

March 30th, 2011, 04:14 PM

those that decide they're fed up with being treated like shit by ownership

HaHaHa! Bingo!

[/QUOTE]...the arena is just too small. To break even in a 15,000 seat arena ticket prices will have to be much higher than the league average. Will there be demand in Winnipeg for $100 tickets? Who knows. The city really dropped the ball when they didn't build the arena to suitable NHL capacity. [/QUOTE]

Isn't that arena expandable? Thought it could be expanded to around 17,000. Big issue, I hear, for Winnipeg would be depth of corporate support.

Darloeye

March 31st, 2011, 07:22 PM

JYDA

April 1st, 2011, 02:59 AM

after watching an edmonton game on tv last night and seeing how small the stadium is. Would the team have moved long before wayne gretzkey play for them in the 80s ?
Are they only in that city still because of his legacy ?

They're not in any danger of moving. They're looking to get a new arena in the near future but it wouldn't come to a head for a long time. They've got the worst team in the league and still selling out every night with tickets that aren't cheap.

TheKorean

April 1st, 2011, 04:38 AM

If a prospective owner emerges then KC may well move to the front of the line

Houston has an arena and a somewhat willing owner in Les Alexander. He tried to bring Oilers to Houston.

Darloeye

April 1st, 2011, 06:38 PM

They're not in any danger of moving. They're looking to get a new arena in the near future but it wouldn't come to a head for a long time. They've got the worst team in the league and still selling out every night with tickets that aren't cheap.

what I am trying to say is would the team moved years ago if wayne gretzsky never played for the team.

htpwn

April 3rd, 2011, 08:21 AM

Isn't that arena expandable? Thought it could be expanded to around 17,000. Big issue, I hear, for Winnipeg would be depth of corporate support.

Some say yes, some say no. Mark Chipman, co-owner of the arena, has repeatedly said that it is not expandable and they believe a 15,000 seat arena can work for the Winnipeg market.

Corporate support would be no more of a problem in Winnipeg then it is in Edmonton and Ottawa.

after watching an edmonton game on tv last night and seeing how small the stadium is. Would the team have moved long before wayne gretzkey play for them in the 80s ?
Are they only in that city still because of his legacy ?
what I am trying to say is would the team moved years ago if wayne gretzsky never played for the team.

Short answer? Possibly, but it has little to do with the arena.

Some argue that the NHL owners have always had a grudge against WHA teams. That is why Winnipeg moved. That is why Quebec moved. That is why Hartford moved. The only reason Edmonton survived, some would argue, is because of the dynasty they had with Gretzky in the 1980s.

The arena itself isn't too small. It has 16,000 seats, which is bigger then Winnipeg's MTS Centre. The problem with Rexall Place is that it is very outdated. Only 1 or 2 small concourses, lack of luxury suites, the seats themselves are cramped and wooden. In short, a new arena is certainly needed. Most think it will get done though. The team is owned by billionaire Daryl Katz, who is from Edmonton, so many don't think he would allow the team to leave and is merely trying to bargain for the best deal possible.

htpwn

April 11th, 2011, 09:44 AM

cdWD7v0SefY

carnifex2005

April 12th, 2011, 05:28 AM

cdWD7v0SefY

That's awesome.

Jim856796

April 13th, 2011, 01:11 PM

If that new arena gets built in Quebec City, the old Quebec Coliseum will have to be replaced outright, right?

htpwn

April 13th, 2011, 01:41 PM

If that new arena gets built in Quebec City, the old Quebec Coliseum will have to be replaced outright, right?

Most likely it will be torn down if that is what your asking. Rumour has it the building is literally crumbling. Some in Quebec City say it won't be safe to enter within a few years.

Lord David

April 16th, 2011, 07:21 AM

The Colisee Quebec (Quebec Coliseum) SHOULD stay for several reasons:

If there is sufficient public support to maintain it as a historical building (assuming the Province of Quebec has some sort of "heritage building" list like say Victoria, Australia has).

If it can find some sort of post new arena use, even if it's not for regular hockey use.

If it can be kept until Quebec bids and hosts a Winter Olympics (it will be necessary as a secondary major arena for Short track Speed Skating and Figure Skating).

If the bid team and authorities are willing to invest several million in upgrading the venue specifically for a Winter Olympics (like what Vancouver did with the Pacific Coliseum, investing 20 odd million in refurbishing it).

So the question would be, if it is crumbling down, will there be sufficient support in investing the money to maintain the building? At least to be capable of operation until an Olympics come, or will it just sit there and be refurbished once an Olympics bid has been won?

Or will it be indeed torn down, and when an Olympics bid arrives, the bid team decides to propose say a 10,000 seater in the Coliseum's former location, similar in design to the old Coliseum, only in a smaller capacity with more modern amenities? This would obviously be very costly.

flashman

April 22nd, 2011, 09:16 PM

Word is the move to Winnipeg is a fait accomplit.

The Coyotes will be renamed the Manitoba Jets.

htpwn

April 23rd, 2011, 04:55 PM

Word is the move to Winnipeg is a fait accomplit.

The Coyotes will be renamed the Manitoba Jets.

Your not wrong, but your not exactly right either. The situation is in a state of limbo with speculation running rampant.

The Phoenix deal is hinging on the NHL and the City of Glendale finding $197 million in financing for potential owner Matt Hulsizer. If that cannot be found without violating local laws, then the team will relocate. As of right now, that is what I'm leaning towards, however the NHL has been known to pull rabbits out of their hats before.

The name of the team should it relocate has not been released in any way, shape, or form. There has been some speculation that they may use 'Manitoba' instead of 'Winnipeg.' There has also been speculation that the team may not even be called the Jets. Nobody knows except Chipman's inner circle.

koolio

April 23rd, 2011, 07:26 PM

shadyunltd

May 5th, 2011, 10:54 PM

Sort of unrelated but the NHL just signed a 10 year $2 billion deal with NBC for broadcast rights. It is a pretty good deal considering how poor the outlook was after the lockout. On an annual basis, this deal is worth about $6.7 million per team. This is certainly an encouraging sign that American networks are still interested in the league despite the fact that Phoenix and Atlanta are on the ropes. Just reaffirms what we've all been saying all along ... the networks are not stupid. They know who watches hockey and who doesn't.

Also, word is that once the Canadian rights are up, the price is gonna be much higher .... probably about $8-10 million on a per team basis. Maybe Bettman needs to realize that his experiment is not working anymore and that it is better for the sport and the NHL to have teams in places that care about hockey.

You couldn't be more wrong about the situation.

Phoenix's attendance is as good as Winnipeg's ever been and its upside is far greater. Phoenix is one of the biggest TV markets in the USA, while Winnipeg is a small city which no players (it seems) want to play in/for. Phoenix has just started making the playoffs. You need much more than 10 years to establish yourself in a market where there's barely any hockey at all.

The last sentence of your last paragraph shows your ignorance about the subject quite clearly. Atlanta has found a group of buyers and the sale could go through before next season. Phoenix is more complicated but it wouldn't surprise me to see the team staying in Phoenix.

The key element about NHL teams in Quebec and Winnipeg is that they wouldn't be massively profitable and would probably receive money from revenue-sharing instead of contributing money to the pot.

KingmanIII

May 6th, 2011, 07:23 AM

Phoenix's attendance is as good as Winnipeg's ever been
Winnipeg might've only drawn 13,000 or so per game but their figures were based upon gate receipts. Phoenix struggles to draw even half of their "announced" attendance from night to night.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5063/5611210537_ff958e8b3b_b.jpg

Keep in mind, this picture was taken March 24. For a team in the midst of a playoff hunt, that's downright turrible. (http://scarletandgame.com/files/2011/03/charles-barkley-cc.jpg)

and its upside is far greater. Phoenix is one of the biggest TV markets in the USA, while Winnipeg is a small city which no players (it seems) want to play in/for.
This has been beaten to death ad nauseam. A large population center does not translate into a large hockey market. This is the same train of thought that got the NHL into this mess.

Phoenix has just started making the playoffs. You need much more than 10 years to establish yourself in a market where there's barely any hockey at all.
The Coyotes have now played in Phoenix for 15 years and attendance has steadily declined over the years, even since moving into a hockey-specific arena. They've had their chance.

The key element about NHL teams in Quebec and Winnipeg is that they wouldn't be massively profitable and would probably receive money from revenue-sharing instead of contributing money to the pot.
It's really easy to look for reasons why something will fail when you want it to happen...

htpwn

May 6th, 2011, 09:22 AM

The last sentence of your last paragraph shows your ignorance about the subject quite clearly. Atlanta has found a group of buyers and the sale could go through before next season. Phoenix is more complicated but it wouldn't surprise me to see the team staying in Phoenix.

Oh come on, nobody knows what is happening in Atlanta. There is different sides of the story being reported left, right, and centre. Some local reports say that they have been talking to a couple of local buyers, but nothing constructive has been done yet. Others are much more pessimistic. David Shoalts reported today that Atlanta's owners are hoping that Hulsizer can close the Phoenix deal so that TNSE's attention can turn to them.

As for Phoenix, we will just have to wait and see what this last minute deal consists of. Goldwater is still lurking and will likely sue as soon as Glendale tries to buy parking rights that they appear to already own.

Topher51

May 7th, 2011, 02:15 PM

As someone who grew up an hour from Atlanta and has 3 very good friends living there who are sports nuts, NO ONE in Atlanta cares about hockey. I have tried for years to get them to go to games and get interested so that the Caps/Thrasher division "rivalry" could develop some more juice for me. I've even been to games at Philips Arena and the I've seen better atmosphere at junior high school basketball games. Atlanta is a big city, but it is mostly southern folk who have moved there from smaller southern cities who didn't grow up with the game. They don't even support the Falcons, Braves and Hawks all that well unless they are elite. Good teams in Atlanta just don't draw that well.

Phoenix on the other hand (as well as Tampa and Sunrise, FL) are cities full of people who have moved down from northern cities and love the sport of hockey. Hockey can prosper there, but it will take a generation to really take off. Adults will always support the team of their youth, but their kids can be as passionate about the local team. In the meantime, the adults can go see their favorite teams several times a year and take their families occasionally to see the home team. It is not a perfect situation, but a decent one.

Hockey in Atlanta is doomed to fail. Moving the team to a relatively small Canadian city like Winnipeg, Quebec or Hamilton might not be ideal either, but what it takes to be profitable is a passionate base with money to spend. Corporations looking to purchase club seats and suites is also a must and while there are fewer big companies in these cities, they are more willing to make that investment.

I'd personally like to see the Coyotes stay put and the Thrashers move to metro-Toronto or Seattle. Both are huge northern cities with a hockey culture, under served fan bases and plenty of corporate money to spare. Both already have "local" teams (i.e. the Canucks just north of Seattle) and would need to build a new arena, but the team would have a built-in rivalry to start out and a passionate following. The Leafs and Canucks would probably fight such a move, but those would be by far the most profitable solutions for the Trashers.

JYDA

May 7th, 2011, 07:31 PM

I'd personally like to see the Coyotes stay put and the Thrashers move to metro-Toronto or Seattle. Both are huge northern cities with a hockey culture, under served fan bases and plenty of corporate money to spare. Both already have "local" teams (i.e. the Canucks just north of Seattle) and would need to build a new arena, but the team would have a built-in rivalry to start out and a passionate following. The Leafs and Canucks would probably fight such a move, but those would be by far the most profitable solutions for the Trashers.

Seattle would definitely be a good place for the league to go. I wonder if the possibility of two tenants (NBA and NHL) would help in getting a new arena built. The rivalry with Vancouver would be great.

shadyunltd

May 8th, 2011, 09:41 AM

Seattle would definitely be a good place for the league to go. I wonder if the possibility of two tenants (NBA and NHL) would help in getting a new arena built. The rivalry with Vancouver would be great.

Seattle is a godawful sports city and the city has no money for a new arena.

As for the guy arguing about attendance, you couldn't be more wrong. Attendance has only fallen in the last 2 years (because of unstable ownership)... if not, it was fairly stable at ~15,000...

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/index.php/site/comments/nhl_average_attendance_since_1989_90/118-2008-09

A large population does not necessarily imply a large hockey market but there's always a bigger upside. And Phoenix is a large TV market.

Winnipeg will face many issues in a couple years (if it does indeed get a team). Its arena is too small, it will likely be unable to attract star free agents (same problem occuring for Edmonton and to a certain extent Calgary and Ottawa).

KingmanIII

May 8th, 2011, 07:20 PM

Seattle is a godawful sports city and the city has no money for a new arena.
Tell that to Sounders fans.

As for the guy arguing about attendance, you couldn't be more wrong. Attendance has only fallen in the last 2 years (because of unstable ownership)... if not, it was fairly stable at ~15,000...

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/index.php/site/comments/nhl_average_attendance_since_1989_90/118-2008-09
Again, many of those figures are based upon paid attendance, not actual turnstile counts. Corporations buy up large blocks of tickets and (often struggle to) give them away for free. Announced attendances at many of these venues are sometimes twice the average number of people actually in attendance.

A large population does not necessarily imply a large hockey market but there's always a bigger upside. And Phoenix is a large TV market.
http://www.poormojo.org/pmjadaily/archives/Blank-Facepalm.gif

Winnipeg will face many issues in a couple years (if it does indeed get a team). Its arena is too small, it will likely be unable to attract star free agents (same problem occuring for Edmonton and to a certain extent Calgary and Ottawa).
So basically we should relocate all Canadian franchises except Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal?

Topher51

May 9th, 2011, 08:42 PM

Seattle is a godawful sports city and the city has no money for a new arena.

This is the first I have EVER heard of Seattle being a bad sports town. Not only do the Sounders fans seem as hardcore as most EPL fan bases, but the Seahawks always sell out and are renown for their fan's enthusiasm.

Yes, the Sonics moved, but that is not an indictment on the fan base. They had a slightly outdated building (renovated in 1995) and an owner that specifically bought the team so he could move it to his hometown of OKC. Clay Bennett tried to buy at least one other team before that.

Like I said, Seattle would need to renovated the arena again or build a new one, but I am sure Paul Allen has enough loose change in his sofa to buy the Thrashers, pay the relocation fee and build a new downtown arena and still have enough left over for a latte.

shadyunltd

May 9th, 2011, 11:34 PM

Tell that to Sounders fans.

Again, many of those figures are based upon paid attendance, not actual turnstile counts. Corporations buy up large blocks of tickets and (often struggle to) give them away for free. Announced attendances at many of these venues are sometimes twice the average number of people actually in attendance.

So basically we should relocate all Canadian franchises except Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal?

So what? What ultimately matters for the owner is paid attendance, not people that show up to the game.

As for Ottawa and Edmonton, they haven't been quite successful recently, have they? Edmonton had a cup run the year after the lock out but that's it. They are hoping the homegrown young crop of players will bring the glory back but it's highly doubtful without some quality free agents.

Ottawa got rid of many good players and its top players are declining. So is the attendance.

I am not saying we should relocate them. Stop your trolling. I am just saying Edmonton and Ottawa struggle to attract quality free agents because the markets are not attractive enough, a fate which also awaits Winnipeg. Current and retired NHL players have publicly come out about Winnipeg's lack of attractiveness as a hockey market. With the salary cap, even a wealthy owner WILL NOT be able to overpay all its roster, and it's highly unlikely that Winnipeg will spend up to the cap since the team will be severely limited by its building.

As for Seattle, the Seahawks are 17th in the NFL, in terms of total home attendance. Yes, they do sell out but Qwest Field is one of the smallest stadiums in the NFL. The Mariners ARE 29TH!!! in attendance right now in the MLB and were 21st last year! The Sonics were 20th in attendance in their last year (2008). Bottom line is... Seattle is not that great a sport city. Certainly not on par with NYC, Chicago, Philly, Boston.

htpwn

May 10th, 2011, 07:40 AM

So what? What ultimately matters for the owner is paid attendance, not people that show up to the game.

The Coyotes average ticket price was $37.45, the league average was $51.41, Toronto (highest) was $117.49. Before the team entered bankruptcy, it was only generating $450,000 in ticket revenue per game, lowest in the NHL. Their attendance numbers were also grossly inflated by giveaways. They averaged closer to 10,000 per season, not 14,000.

I am not saying we should relocate them. Stop your trolling. I am just saying Edmonton and Ottawa struggle to attract quality free agents because the markets are not attractive enough, a fate which also awaits Winnipeg. Current and retired NHL players have publicly come out about Winnipeg's lack of attractiveness as a hockey market. With the salary cap, even a wealthy owner WILL NOT be able to overpay all its roster, and it's highly unlikely that Winnipeg will spend up to the cap since the team will be severely limited by its building.

Matter of opinion I guess...

I love it here and everybody knows that. The Whiteout ...It’s a fantastic experience. When we played those games we never got tired because you were carried by the audience. It was unbelievable. -- Former Jet Thomas Steen (source (http://www.winnipegsun.com/2011/05/01/players-will-come-here-jets-star-thomas-steen))

It's a great Canadian hockey town. It's as simple as that. I enjoyed my time there, I was there nine years. -- Former Jet and HHOFer Dale Hawerchuk (source (http://www.winnipegsun.com/sports/hockey/2011/03/11/17575301.html))

I think Winnipeg could hold a franchise again if the NHL saw fit. It would be good for the NHL and for the city. -- Toronto Maple Leaf goalie James Reimer (source (http://www.calgarysun.com/sports/hockey/2011/03/07/17526211.html))

It's not nice being in the NHL and playing in a half-empty building. It doesn't feel right and if we can get teams up to the places where people want to watch them, that would be the best thing. -- Toronto Maple Leaf forward Jay Rosehill (source (http://www.calgarysun.com/sports/hockey/2011/03/07/17526211.html))

Topher51

May 10th, 2011, 02:52 PM

shadyunltd

May 11th, 2011, 06:18 AM

The Coyotes average ticket price was $37.45, the league average was $51.41, Toronto (highest) was $117.49. Before the team entered bankruptcy, it was only generating $450,000 in ticket revenue per game, lowest in the NHL. Their attendance numbers were also grossly inflated by giveaways. They averaged closer to 10,000 per season, not 14,000.

Matter of opinion I guess...

LOL. All those "quotes" came from the Winnipeg Sun. They're hardly going to thrash the city, aren't they? And Reimer is a Manitoba native...

Real quotes from actual Coyotes players (and Bryzgalov, their star goalie, has joked about returning to Russia rather than play for a Winnipeg-based team)

He knows that the Coyotes' days in the dessert are likely numbered, but Belanger, who rarely minces words, doesn't see Winnipeg as a dream destination.

“The guys have been talking about it a bit more every day, and the one sure thing is that we want to play in Phoenix and not in Winnipeg,” said Belanger. “Personally, and I won't name any names, but I've chatted with guys that have played (in Winnipeg) and don't want to go back. There are reasons why hockey wasn't working in Winnipeg at the end, I don't see how that would have changed.”

Belanger, who has also played for the Los Angeles Kings, Carolina Hurricanes, Atlanta Thrashers, Minnesota Wild and Washington Capitals says he has nothing against the Winnipeg hockey fans that are desperate to see a team back in their city.

“There are good fans there, but Winnipeg is still Winnipeg,” Belanger said. “In January and February, I doubt that my family would follow me out there for a holiday.”

Belanger added that while the preference of he and his teammates is to stay in Arizona, Quebec would be the front-runner over Winnipeg if they had to choose.

“It's different in Quebec,” Belanger said. “They are the same fans, but the economy seems to really be rolling along. The guys that I talk to loved playing in Quebec. You can't go to practice in shorts and t-shirts like I did this morning, but Quebec is attractive. At least there are things to do there!”

Added Belanger: “In the mind of the players, it's Quebec before Winnipeg, for sure.”

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=360417

Anyway... the NHL is not yet ready to give up on the Southern teams and Nashville, Dallas and Raleigh have shown that hockey CAN work in the area. You just need success. If Phoenix moves, then I'll believe about an eighth Canadian team. If Phoenix stays, then forget about it.

shadyunltd

May 11th, 2011, 06:20 AM

I didn't say Seattle was on par with NYC or Chicago as a sports town. I said that it made more financial sense for the Thrashers to move there or Toronto than to Winnipeg or Quebec. Are either or those cities on par with NYC???

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more teams in Canada. That is why I came into this thread in the first place. Not b/c I wanted a team to move to Seattle.

As for the issue of if players would want to live and play in a smaller Canadian town, aren't a huge number of players from Canada? Just because I wouldn't want to spend my February's in Manitoba doesn't mean they wouldn't.

The players are like you. They wouldn't want to spend their winters in Winnipeg.

Seattle is not an option unless basketball returns and they can both share a new arena. And locals seem to care very little about hockey. Actually, Portland, OR seems to be a better destination than Seattle for a potential hockey team. They already have a building (Trailblazers') and hockey is fairly popular down there.

htpwn

May 11th, 2011, 08:03 AM

LOL. All those "quotes" came from the Winnipeg Sun. They're hardly going to thrash the city, aren't they? And Reimer is a Manitoba native...

Real quotes from actual Coyotes players (and Bryzgalov, their star goalie, has joked about returning to Russia rather than play for a Winnipeg-based team)

Comical response.

You argue that my quotes are biased because they are from the Winnipeg Sun, but yet your quotes, from players who are currently playing for the Coyotes aren't? You think they want to move? Some have been playing in Phoenix for years, it is their home.

Bottom line is several players have said they loved playing in Winnipeg (including one Teemu Selanne) and several players have said they would love playing for a Winnipeg franchise.

shadyunltd

May 11th, 2011, 09:01 AM

Comical response.

You argue that my quotes are biased because they are from the Winnipeg Sun, but yet your quotes, from players who are currently playing for the Coyotes aren't? You think they want to move? Some have been playing in Phoenix for years, it is their home.

Bottom line is several players have said they loved playing in Winnipeg (including one Teemu Selanne) and several players have said they would love playing for a Winnipeg franchise.

Whatever. The team left Winnipeg for a reason.

Anyway, this doesn't matter as the Coyotes are OFFICIALLY staying in Phoenix for another season.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=365374

So I guess no Quebec or Winnipeg until 2012. Their best bets are now the Panthers/Thrashers.

KingmanIII

May 12th, 2011, 12:01 AM

I am just saying Edmonton and Ottawa struggle to attract quality free agents because the markets are not attractive enough, a fate which also awaits Winnipeg. Current and retired NHL players have publicly come out about Winnipeg's lack of attractiveness as a hockey market.
As a hockey market, or as a place to live during the winter?

I'll take a city of 700,000 with 500,000 hockey fans over a city of 7 million with 50,000 hockey fans anyday, thanks.

As for Seattle, the Seahawks are 17th in the NFL, in terms of total home attendance. Yes, they do sell out but Qwest Field is one of the smallest stadiums in the NFL. The Mariners ARE 29TH!!! in attendance right now in the MLB and were 21st last year! The Sonics were 20th in attendance in their last year (2008). Bottom line is... Seattle is not that great a sport city. Certainly not on par with NYC, Chicago, Philly, Boston.
Again, take a look at your average Sounders crowd if you think Seattle isn't a sports city.

Qwest Field is widely regarded as one of the top homefield advantages in the NFL. Crowd volume regularly reaches over 100 dB, which is directly responsible for the most false starts committed by visiting teams in any NFL stadium since 2002.

The Mariners sat comfortably near the top of the league in attendance less than five years ago. Too bad the ownership continues to run them into the ground.

The Sonics' attendance declined because it was virtually inevitable that the new ownership would move the franchise. Who the hell in their right mind shows up to support a lame duck team sitting at the bottom of the standings?

KingmanIII

May 12th, 2011, 12:19 AM

LOL. All those "quotes" came from the Winnipeg Sun.
Two of those quotes came from the Calgary Sun.

Anyway... the NHL is not yet ready to give up on the Southern teams and Nashville, Dallas and Raleigh have shown that hockey CAN work in the area.
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000503049/polls_lol_wut_3318_427606_answer_3_xlarge.jpeg

The Preds were this close to being relocated less than five years ago and their attendance remains among the league's worst.

KingmanIII

May 12th, 2011, 12:24 AM

Whatever. The team left Winnipeg for a reason.
Yeah, because the Winnipeg taxpayers -- like the Seattle taxpayers -- ballsed the fuck up and refused to be extorted for arena money.

George Cantstandya

May 12th, 2011, 02:03 AM

Two of those quotes came from the Calgary Sun.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000503049/polls_lol_wut_3318_427606_answer_3_xlarge.jpeg

The Preds were this close to being relocated less than five years ago and their attendance remains among the league's worst.

Not true. This year they averaged 16,142 fans or 94.3% of their capacity. They made a lot of strides this year, and captured the hearts of many in the community with a solid 2 round showing this year in the playoffs, selling out every game.

And by no means are they an elite team - without any 30 goal scorers and playing the 1-3-1 trap formation, they're a working man's team that's quite boring to watch. Even still, returning to Nashville for Game 6 of the second round 6,000 fans greeted them at the airport.

By no means have they 'made' it in Nashville, but they should be able to build on the momentum. Especially if they commit to building a winner and sign some offensive players that will let them adopt a more exciting style of play.

Alien x

May 12th, 2011, 12:22 PM

So I guess no Quebec or Winnipeg until 2012. Their best bets are now the Panthers/Thrashers.

:ohno:Why do you include the Panthers as a possibility? Even though the have not made the playoffs in a decade they have a stable attendance of 15300 + every year with solid corporate support, a favorable arena lease which is not even halfway complete. The only problem with the Panther franchise are the result on the ice.

JYDA

May 12th, 2011, 04:09 PM

You can add Columbus to the list of teams in financial distress. They lost $25 million this season.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2011/05/11/blue-jackets-lose-25-million-nhl-source-says.html?sid=101

JYDA

May 13th, 2011, 03:34 AM

Some more stuff on the Atlanta situation.

I tweeted earlier today about a text message conversation I had with an Atlanta Thrasher player who I was interested in having as a guest on our morning show in Toronto. I’ve gained his trust and he’s gained mine in a couple previous interviews/exchanges, and as such I broached the subject of the stability of the Thrashers staying in Atlanta. It’s not exactly Woodward & Bernstein stuff, given that a conference call is/was taking place today (May 11th) between at least three parties: 1) True North Sports & Entertainment, 2) Gary Bettman, and 3) The Thrashers ownership group, headmanned in part by Atlanta Spirit LLC. They aren’t having this conference call to decide where the best places to canoe will be this summer in Cottage Country.

Per my sources, wheels got in motion, and got in motion fast following the Glendale decision to pay the $25 million to keep the Coyotes for at least (some will wager, again, at most) for one more season. The Thrashers player in question told me he has been told among other things “be ready to move” and to “expect a major announcement regarding the franchise relocating”.

http://blog.rogersbroadcasting.com/fan590_gregbrady/2011/05/12/this-is-not-an-exityet-nhl-style/

flashman

May 13th, 2011, 04:49 PM

Long, sloppy blog from a guy who says he heard from a great inside source about the move then spends many, many paragraphs saying it's only a maybe. Lame article.

The NHL has bought a year's grace with Phoenix and with a new long-term TV deal with NBC-Versus, they aren't likely to want a reduction in their potential American viewership. Winipeg's presence in the league would do nothing to grow American hockey audiences. If nothing can be resolved in Phoenix, they'll be looking to house the team in another American city, with KC my guess to get one.

They'll want to keep the team out west and if Atlanta is to move - and Winipeg is the only Canadian city with the slightest chance - it too will move west. Detroit is pushing hard to move into the eastern conference to restore sagging attendance and the league is inclined to help them.

Although it looks good on paper, has a decent corporate culture and has a good hockey history, Seattle is still a longshot. A new arena and a very strong - rich - owner would be essential. Big ask at this point, but a good time to buy into the market and the Key Center arena - or whatever it's called these days - could certainly serve as a temporary home.

The NHL could actually benefit if it were to contract slightly and shorten its regular season to around 70 games. Less teams would mean better players on the ice more often. A shorter schedule to reduce the impact of fatigue, which is why most players get injured, would allow top players to play to their capabilities more often. Reduce costs, create a better and more consistent show for fans, and the result is an improved television product that creates higher interest and restores lost game-day revenues through growth in advertising revenue.

And no role - or need - in this scheme for a team in Quebec City.

KingmanIII

May 14th, 2011, 05:50 PM

Winipeg's presence in the league would do nothing to grow American hockey audiences.
neither would another American team's presence

If nothing can be resolved in Phoenix, they'll be looking to house the team in another American city, with KC my guess to get one.
NHL couldn't even beat out the Royals for attendance here.

The Isles-Kings game in '09 barely sold 10,000 tickets (discounted to $10) after being heavily advertised and publicized for nearly eight months. Even with Zack Greinke pitching that night for the Royals en route to his Cy Young award, the Royals only drew 21,000 themselves, so it's not like they were facing stiff competition for fans.

Let me stress this: KC is a great minor-league hockey town. The Blades drew very well here, even playing down at that shithole in the West Bottoms (Kemper), and now the Mavs are filling that niche very nicely themselves in Independence. But the NHL? Please. Nobody could recognize one player on either team's roster that night -- hell, everyone thought the Kings' all-time leading goal scorer was GRETZKY. :ohno: (it's Robitaille)

They'll want to keep the team out west and if Atlanta is to move - and Winipeg is the only Canadian city with the slightest chance - it too will move west. Detroit is pushing hard to move into the eastern conference to restore sagging attendance and the league is inclined to help them.

...the Key Center arena - or whatever it's called these days - could certainly serve as a temporary home.

Nope. Built around a basketball court.
http://static.keyarena.com/images/Seating%20Charts%20-%20UPDATE/Seating_KeyArena_hockey.jpg

If any U.S. cities make sense, they're Portland and Milwaukee, who built venues suitable for NHL hockey, one in the market for another major-league franchise, the other in a hockey-mad state that has recently packed its two largest football stadiums -- only capacity reductions due to sightline concerns prevented them from selling out.

The NHL could actually benefit if it were to contract slightly and shorten its regular season to around 70 games. Less teams would mean better players on the ice more often. A shorter schedule to reduce the impact of fatigue, which is why most players get injured, would allow top players to play to their capabilities more often. Reduce costs, create a better and more consistent show for fans, and the result is an improved television product that creates higher interest and restores lost game-day revenues through growth in advertising revenue.
And just *which* cities' franchises would you contract...?

And no role - or need - in this scheme for a team in Quebec City.
...I think that answers it...

flashman

May 16th, 2011, 05:13 AM

Phoenix' continued presence in the league certainly won't diminish American audiences. The NHL must feel a certain obligation to maintain the landscape in the short term after signing a decent new TV deal. So it spends $25 million to maintain its current ties to a decent US TV market and keep a $2 billion partner happy. Bet it happens at least once more.

KC has the barn and the management agitating for a professional tenant. Yes, the NBA would be the preferred choice. But no one would gripe too loudly if the Coyotes were shifted in a cut-price deal. Some think an immediate rivalry with St. Louis Blues would help spark interest. NBC-Versus would be fine with it and that's where the rubber meets the road.

I had initially considered Milwaukee, but wonder about the strength of corporate support there. The Admirals have well established the minor pro game there and the Bradley Center is still a viable venue despite its age. A comfortable and familiar name for American audiences and would certainly add to rivalries involving Detroit, Chicago, Minnesota and maybe even Columbus.

Both it and Portland would be cities that would become instantly viable if the NHL worked to scale down its schedule, reduce overall costs and establish a stronger salary cap. Their building's are both viable and there's certainly strong hockey audiences established in both regions. Given a new arena, though, Seattle would be the more appealing west coast setting.

Re: Key Center. There's a dismissive tone in that reply that isn't called for here. I did stress the need for a new barn and a stout owner and used the word 'temporary'. I've seen the junior Thunderbirds team play there in front of pretty decent and enthusiastic crowds. But those factors alone don't make it NHL viable.

Assuming shifting franchises won't work because the NHL won't allow itself to become less bloated, what franchises could be trimmed to make the league more efficient? Florida and Atlanta for starters.

I'd also make the NY Icelanders or NJ Devils a priority in shifting franchises west to the cities discussed above. The NFL, NBA, and MLB all find two teams sufficient for the New York metropolitan market. The NHL goes with three. Wonder who's right? A second team in Toronto would be a good move, too. Much better than Quebec.

JYDA

May 17th, 2011, 02:52 AM

GunnerJacket

May 17th, 2011, 07:37 PM

khodri

May 18th, 2011, 01:49 PM

nice stadium.!! awsome.!! amazing!!

lets check our stadium projecy in indonesia

visit us

national stadium Indonesia (http://suasanapekanbaru.blogspot.com/2011/05/update-terbaru-stadion-utama-pon-2012.html)

Indonesiam stadium (http://suasanapekanbaru.blogspot.com/2011/05/stadion-balikpapan.html)

other nice stadium (http://suasanapekanbaru.blogspot.com/2011/05/stadion-utama-pon-2012-pekanbaru-riau.html)
peace world!

JYDA

May 18th, 2011, 08:01 PM

So why bother "saving" Phoenix to begin with? That the expansion into the US SunBelt has had little-to-marginal overall impact on the broader TV appeal of the league suggests the league overreached in size moreso than in choices for locations. Even if Winnepeg and Quebec City franchises packed houses like we would want, they're unlikely to impact the TV revenues due to their market pull.

Perhaps the NHL should move one team and fold all three of Phoenix, Atl and Miami in hopes of raising per-team revenues? (Rhetorical)

The Phoenix situation was not just about Phoenix itself. It was about egos and a power struggle with Jim Balsillie, a guy who tried to pull a fast one on the league without going through the proper channels. It wasn't just about keeping the team in Phoenix, it was about showing Jim Balsillie who really runs the show. The owners bought the team out of bankruptcy more to keep it out of the clutches of Balsillie than it was to keep it in Phoenix.

I actually agree with you about contraction. Problem is, do the owners want to shell out of their own pockets for a contraction fee?

GunnerJacket

May 18th, 2011, 10:27 PM

The Phoenix situation was not just about Phoenix itself. It was about egos and a power struggle with Jim Balsillie, a guy who tried to pull a fast one on the league without going through the proper channels. It wasn't just about keeping the team in Phoenix, it was about showing Jim Balsillie who really runs the show. The owners bought the team out of bankruptcy more to keep it out of the clutches of Balsillie than it was to keep it in Phoenix.Either way the league failed, IMO. There's little reason they couldn't have made Balsillie go through some process that worked in their favor and removed the Phoenix issue from their tables, be it the fees, the political process... whatever. I think your reference to egos is spot on, and that's one reason why the NHL continues to struggle in this regard - The league hasn't commanded the respect of the owners to lead them into vesting in the interests of the league above their own egos, and least not collectively. Thus the NHL continues to handle each franchise in an inconsistent and haphazard manner. Columbus, the Islanders and Tampa Bay would face equal scrutiny if not for this policy and, in Tampa's case, the shear fact that so many teams make the playoffs.

I actually agree with you about contraction. Problem is, do the owners want to shell out of their own pockets for a contraction fee?See above. The inability to act for the betterment of the league is tieing their hands. "Forest through the trees" and all that. Sadly.

koolio

May 19th, 2011, 04:34 AM

I think the difference between Phoenix and Atlanta is that in Atlanta, the ownership group is only selling the team while keeping the ownership of Phillips Arena. I think the NHL head honchos in all their collective wisdom have counted their beans and figured that it would not be possible for the new owners to turn any sort of profit without the ownership of the arena. As much as it is a pipe dream, technically Phoenix/Glendale can still turn a profit with complete vertical integration.

Either way, I do agree that this is all a bit stupid. Eventhough I'm against "strategic" expansion, it feels that the NHL has failed in its own experiment. Atlanta is one of the biggest and the fastest growing markets in the US and to fail to keep a team there should get Bettman fired, frankly.

GunnerJacket

May 19th, 2011, 08:31 PM

I think the difference between Phoenix and Atlanta is that in Atlanta, the ownership group is only selling the team while keeping the ownership of Phillips Arena. Actually they're exploring the sale of the Hawks and Arena mgmt., as well.

http://www.ajc.com/sports/atlanta-hawks/spirit-also-pursuing-hawks-949288.html
I think the NHL head honchos in all their collective wisdom have counted their beans and figured that it would not be possible for the new owners to turn any sort of profit without the ownership of the arena.If this is the fiscal reality then their model is bad for fans and taxpayers that must support multiple arenas for hoops and hockey. Surely lease conditions can be worked out that make something feasible in this day and age.
As much as it is a pipe dream, technically Phoenix/Glendale can still turn a profit with complete vertical integration.That profit has come at quite the cost to the local taxpayers. Perhaps metro Phoenix viewed the Coyotes as "too big to (be allowed to) fail." :ohno:

Archbishop

May 31st, 2011, 11:08 PM

JYDA

May 31st, 2011, 11:56 PM

Getting back to television revenue, according to the Globe and Mail, the NHL is looking for 200 million per year (up from 100 million) for the saturday night prime time television rights in the next round of negotiations. This is the Hockey Night in Canada package that has been held by CBC for generations but they may need partners to keep it going.

Topher51

June 1st, 2011, 06:15 PM

Reading through this thread is kind of funny. People did not think there was a serious shot of a team in Winnipeg and now there is one. I was one of the skeptics. Any chance Quebec gets a team back like Winnipeg did? An arena like this in a hockey city would have to be attractive to some owner even with the issues with a language difference and small market. Nordiques Deux?

A coworker of mine who is the most knowledgeable/rabid hockey fan I know thinks the Coyotes are bound for Quebec after the courts hold up the lawsuit preventing the sale of bonds by Glendale. That ruling just wasn't going to happen fast enough to make changes this year and the NHL wanted to let it play out. If the Coyotes move to the east while the Thrashers move to the west, that would avoid the NHL having to deal with major realignment issues next year.

My personal hope is that with two teams going back to Canada, we can go even more old school back to the good ole Patrick, Norris, Adams and Smythe Divisions, with some minor tweaks, of course.

Husarz

June 2nd, 2011, 08:17 AM

QUÉBEC CITY better start building, or else some one else will get one of the money losers.

If the Can Gov could speed up pop growth with in 20 years half the NHL would be residing in Canada.

dfwabel

June 6th, 2011, 02:52 AM

Still there are a couple of issues.

#1: http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Sharp+discord+Quebec+City+arena+hearings/4884832/story.html

#2: http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Quebec+City+hearings+bare+what+behind+arena+project/4892273/story.html

flashman

June 6th, 2011, 05:02 AM

Anybody else do a double take when they saw that picture in the first Montreal Gazette article showing Quebec's sleekit mayor, Regis Labeaume?

http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/4387203.bin

Remind you of this crooked barsteward, Alan Eagleson, who swindled money from naive hockey players, left, right and centre, and impoverished a hobbling Bobby Orr?

http://bobbyorr.net/photos/1975/1975-Laughing%20With%20Alan%20Eagleson.jpg

Looks like he operates in the Eagleson tradition. Trying to sneak around regulations. Loved this paragraph from the second Gaz article, discussing the provincial government hearings and how rules are being bent:

And they made it appear as though Labeaume circumvented the conventional open bidding contest because he wanted to make sure that the arena lease went to Quebecor and not the latter's rival, Bell Media.

In a city with more government fonctionaires than factory workers, it's always going to be a hard road to justify the blind spending of public money. There may be corporate support from Quebecor, but trying selling that 34th private suite at full price.

GunnerJacket

June 6th, 2011, 08:36 PM

A coworker of mine who is the most knowledgeable/rabid hockey fan I know thinks the Coyotes are bound for Quebec after the courts hold up the lawsuit preventing the sale of bonds by Glendale.Good for Quebec and at least there would be some justice in this measure, then. Doubly so because it would further illustrate the league's/Bettman's foolishness in managment of the whole Southern US experiment. Wonder if this might be another reason for delaying the realignment talk even after the Thrasher's move?

Kleber_Recife

June 8th, 2011, 01:47 AM

Nice city!!

htpwn

September 15th, 2011, 07:39 AM

Former Nordiques owner is saying Quebec could get an NHL franchise within two years.

Aubut says his hometown could have had a team sooner had a new arena been ready by this year, but the $400-million facility won't be completed until 2015.

That means an NHL team that relocates in 2013 would have to play its first two seasons in the Pepsi Colisee, a 61-year-old facility that's not up to NHL standards.

A naming and management deal has also been brokered for the proposed arena:

Media and telecom giant Quebecor Inc. will pay $33 million for naming and management rights to the NHL-ready arena in Quebec City -- an amount that would nearly double should Quebec City land an NHL franchise.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/09/14/aubut-nhl-in-quebec-city-soon

koolio

September 17th, 2011, 07:18 PM

Yes! Now lets bring back the Hartford Whalers too!

htpwn

November 18th, 2011, 10:20 AM

http://tvanouvelles.ca/archives/lcn/infos/regional/media/2011/11/20111117-181620-a.jpg
http://tvanouvelles.ca/lcn/infos/regional/archives/2011/11/20111117-181620.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Darloeye

November 19th, 2011, 08:19 AM

^^^^ & What is the photo trying to tell use ?

RMB2007

November 19th, 2011, 10:15 AM

^^ Sampling wells. Oh, don't blame me if Google Translate has it wrong. ;)

The executive committee of the Quebec City releases $ 50 million for work on the construction of the new amphitheater.

Of this amount, it is anticipated that approximately $ 19 million will be spent in 2012 and the remainder in 2013. Essentially, says Vice President François Picard, these amounts are used for site preparation of the new amphitheater.

"It includes the work of soil preparation, excavation, remediation, groundwater, soil consolidation, taxes and professional fees."

Besides drilling is underway on the site to be built the new amphitheater. Sixty sampling wells will be dug, which will allow to assess the costs of soil remediation and development of the foundations of the amphitheater. And then, to salve his conscience, we will dig wells in two other places on the site ExpoCité, if the prospective site should be abandoned.

"The contamination, you know it's surface. So it can be treated quite well. However, to know the level of the water table, soil type, it is at least sixty wells on the future site of the amphitheater. So it's a study that is very exaustive and there will be very accurate results ...
The report of the study of soils should be shipped in January, but already in Quebec City, we know we will have to pay to settle on the ground, consisting of fillers, clay and sand, which has already long ago, is part of the river St. Lawrence.

"We know that the rock is at a depth large enough. So that will make sitting very important, probably thinking, to establish the amphitheater. These are things that we see commonly in other projects."

krnboy1009

November 20th, 2011, 08:51 PM

QUÉBEC CITY better start building, or else some one else will get one of the money losers.

If the Can Gov could speed up pop growth with in 20 years half the NHL would be residing in Canada.
this is so false its not even funny, most Canadian cities are too small.

JYDA

November 21st, 2011, 01:29 AM

There's been reports on television here in Canada over the past week that sources in the league say this is absolutely the last year the league will own the Coyotes. The league owners are out of patience and want the Coyotes off their balance sheets. So unless an owner emerges, or if Glendale wants to buy the team, this will be the last year in Phoenix for the Coyotes.

Sonrise

November 21st, 2011, 04:56 AM

It would be funny if they wound up in Hamilton after all of that. lol

There's been reports on television here in Canada over the past week that sources in the league say this is absolutely the last year the league will own the Coyotes. The league owners are out of patience and want the Coyotes off their balance sheets. So unless an owner emerges, or if Glendale wants to buy the team, this will be the last year in Phoenix for the Coyotes.

krnboy1009

November 21st, 2011, 05:06 AM

It would be funny if they wound up in Hamilton after all of that. lol
They wont, the league wont and shouldnt let Balsillie own a team.

QC is probably the destination if Yotes move, I can see them staying another year though.

Bossman1

November 21st, 2011, 05:55 AM

They wont, the league wont and shouldnt let Balsillie own a team.
Ok I'll bite. Why shouldn't they let Balsillie own an NHL team?

Rumors

November 21st, 2011, 06:02 AM

^^^^ & What is the photo trying to tell use ?

I think they are taking soil samples. :cheers:

JYDA

November 21st, 2011, 06:53 AM

The TV pundits were also saying the league really wants to be in Seattle if they can find a way to sort out the arena situation. They like that it's a wealthy northerly city with no NBA competition. It would also provide a local rival and travel partner for Vancouver.

Personally, I don't see the arena situation getting solved any time soon. If it does, the NBA would most certainly return which would eliminate the NHL's desired winter monopoly in the city.

Ok I'll bite. Why shouldn't they let Balsillie own an NHL team?

It's more due do the fact the owners and Gary Bettman hate him. He tried to buy three different teams (Pittsburgh, Nashville, Phoenix) and sneak them back to Canada through a side door without playing by the NHL's rules. The third time he had the Phoenix owner put the team into bankruptcy in hopes that a judge could overrule the league's authority. If he had played nice he probably would've gotten a team because there's no shortage of financially troubled NHL teams with owners looking to get out. Just needed to be patient and respectful like Winnipeg.

His net worth has taken a massive hit with the fall of RIM's stock so he might not be quite so eager now.

htpwn

November 21st, 2011, 01:11 PM

delete.

Marimeko

November 24th, 2011, 12:47 AM

Too small

Darloeye

November 24th, 2011, 01:06 AM

Too small

What is the stadium size, the size of the parking lot ?

Think 18,000 is right for a arena

flashman

November 25th, 2011, 06:04 PM

Ok I'll bite. Why shouldn't they let Balsillie own an NHL team?

Have to think through this issue from a hockey industry-wide perspective.

He wants a team in Hamilton. Fine. Where do his fans and corporate supporters come from? Hamilton-Burlington-Stoney Creek initially, which have a combined population of less than 500k. He'd have to draw fans from further away, like Toronto's western suburbs of Mississauga and Brampton, plus nearby places like Guelph, Kitchener and St. Catharines.

Why is that a bad thing?

Because it would cause severe problems for five of the 20 junior hockey teams that play in the Ontario Hockey League, a vital part of the major junior hockey system that provides important development for the bulk of today's professional hockey players.

The NHL works very closely with the junior leagues and knows there are places it can add teams in Canada without damaging junior hockey's finances. The average fan looking for a cheap ticket might still watch junior hockey, but a Hamilton NHL team would skim off the junior clubs' best revenue earners from advertising and suite sales.

Balsillie was willing to risk causing that disruption to the nursery as well as create some future uncertainities for the Buffalo Sabres, who draw a lot of fans from the Hamilton-St.Catharines area. In fact, they need those fans to stay viable. All in all, Balsillie's maverick approach didn't go over well with anyone in hockey except chauvinistic Canadian fans, who weren't thinking bigger picture. I still think he's an interesting guy and someone the NHL should re-build bridges with down the road.

Winnipeg was a perfect choice to re-locate a team to, since the closest Western Canadian junior team is over two hours away to the west(Brandon).

The Toronto area is another good choice since the packed professional sports marketplace there totally squeezes out the juniors and there are no junior teams within Toronto proper, only in outlying areas.

Quebec is a tricky situation since the junior Remparts are the Quebec league's biggest club - many games with crowds over 10k - and an attractive draw when playing away. They offer a good brand of hockey at affordable prices in a town where a lot of income is earned from government administration, education and tourism. There's still a lot of questions whether the required corporate support is truly there to make a pro team work in Quebec. It's like a smaller Ottawa, but Ottawa has a burgeoning high-tech sector driving economic growth.

Hopefully, if Quebec gets its new barn and an NHL team, it would work to preserve the Remparts in the same manner that the Calgary Flames work with the Western junior league's Hitmen and the Edmonton Oilers work with the Oil Kings.

The Quebec junior league could not begin to replace the value the Remparts bring to that league if they were unable to stay in Quebec.

flar

December 12th, 2011, 05:05 PM

I can assure you that the number of people from Hamilton that go to junior games in places like Guelph or Kitchener is somewhere around zero.

The city of Hamilton by itself has over 500,000 people. Hamilton plus the other municipalities that directly border it have around 2,000,000. This market is large enough to have attracted many attempts to bring an NHL team to Copps Coliseum over the years.

The market is quite large enough to support an NHL team and a bunch of junior teams in the surrounding communities.

flashman

December 12th, 2011, 08:25 PM

And the Buffalo Sabres? Spasibo, Tovarich, but the NHL's answer to this issue will be a perpetual Nyet.

Get over it and move on. This thread ain't about Hamilchuk. Start another one if you like. Strap it onto the one about the Pan-Am Games stadium and extrapolate all the turmoil that process has created for a declining city into a fresh debate about an even more expensive and even more unlikely facility to be built.

Spent the weekend skiing in the company of a number of Quebecers and they were unanimous in their condemnation of the Quebec arena plan. All are huge hockey fans yet none of them found any appeal in a plan to pay for the building with their tax dollars. Not when they're fighting to keep schools and libraries and hospitals functioning properly. They're already Canada's most-taxed citizens and a playpen for Peladeau and company is way down their priority list.

None of them could find a way to justify this project nor do any foresee Quebec City's local or regional economy evolving sufficiently past the current base of government-education-tourism to create enough sustained private wealth that would make a pro hockey team viable.

JYDA

January 21st, 2012, 03:23 AM

LABEAUME PREDICTS FIRST-CLASS NHL ARENA FOR QUEBEC CITY

Quebec City is confident its planned $400-million arena will rival the best in the NHL, mayor Regis Labeaume said Friday, but architects already have been told to make some minor alterations so that the project doesn't exceed its budget.
After touring Pittsburgh's one-year-old Consol Energy Center, Labeaume told reporters it would be a "dream" to deliver a similar building to his hockey-starved constituents. Quebec lost an NHL team when the Nordiques moved to Denver in 1995 and were renamed the Avalanche.

And should an NHL team, perhaps the Phoenix Coyotes, look to relocate before the Quebec City arena opens in 2015, Labeaume said the city is ready to welcome it to the existing Pepsi Colisee as early as "tomorrow morning."

"I will be careful what I say, but if the League called, (we) would be ready," he said.

The Colisee, which opened in 1949, is outdated by new-arena standards, but Labeaume said it can be spruced up to a level that would at least match and perhaps exceed the Saddledome in Calgary and Nassau Veterans Coliseum on Long Island.

Quebec doesn't have a preference whether a team is acquired via the transfer of an existing club or expansion. However, the NHL has given no sign it might add more teams beyond its current 30. No team had relocated since the 1990s before the Atlanta Thrashers moved to Winnipeg this season.

"We want a club," Labeaume said in an interview conducted in French and translated by an aide to the mayor and bilingual reporters. "But, for the rest, I will let Mr. (Pierre Karl) Peladeau have discussions with the league. My duty is to deliver an amphitheater."

Peladeau is the president and CEO of media giant Quebecor, which has agreed to pay the city to manage the arena for at least 25 years. Quebecor would ante up $63.5 million for naming rights if an NHL team is acquired, plus $4.5 million in annual rent. The amounts would be less if there is no team.

Quebec City is intent on building an arena similar to Consol, the Bell Centre in Montreal or the Xcel Energy Center in Minnesota, but Labeaume said its features must be unique to Quebec and cannot merely duplicate what already exists.

With inflation estimated at five per cent annually, Labeaume said it might be difficult to build an arena identical to Pittsburgh's 18,387-seat building in Quebec City. Consol, a 720,000-square foot building that cost $321 million, opened as scheduled in mid-2010 and did not go over budget.

"The $400 million, we have no choice but for it to be enough," Labeaume said. "But I'm leaving (Pittsburgh) a little more nervous than when I arrived."

Labeaume said architects already "have been asked to cut a few thousand square feet. From my heart, it's going to hurt, but we have to make choices."

A groundbreaking ceremony will be held sometime this summer or fall, Labeaume said.

Labeaume explained an arena must incorporate fan necessities such as scoreboards with large video replay boards, expensive sound system and kitchens, all of which add to the cost over and above the actual construction.

While being guided through Consol by assistant general manager Rob Goodman, Labeaume focused on features such as its much-praised seating -- Consol is designed so that none of its 18,387 seats has an obstructed view or is overly far from the ice -- and flexibility.

Its $1 million-plus curtaining system allows Consol to be reconfigured to accommodate as few as 2,500 spectators or as many as 20,000 for events, all with equal amenities. There also are numerous meeting rooms of various sizes that provide revenue on a daily basis aside from games or concerts.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=385636

BoulderGrad

January 21st, 2012, 10:50 AM

Granted it's hanging in limbo right now, but the current realignment plans allow for 2 expansion teams to even out the divisions. A new team in Quebec would perfectly with the so called 'conference C'. Keep the Coyotes out west (Seattle perhaps :-D). Add a team in Quebec and Hamilton and you got your 4 confereces of 8 teams.

koolio

January 22nd, 2012, 02:43 AM

I was watching an old black and white NFB documentary about the popularity of hockey in Canada and they had footage of a packed Colisee. It looked better than the Maple Leaf Garden and they only had a junior team at that time . QC definitely deserves to have a big league team once more.

JYDA

January 27th, 2012, 10:07 PM

Councillor: Glendale flirting with financial disaster over Coyotes
David Shoalts
Globe and Mail Update
Published Friday, Jan. 27, 2012 2:15PM EST

If Glendale city council follows through on its plans to cough up yet another $25-million (all currency U.S.) to help finance the Phoenix Coyotes next season, it will be flirting with financial disaster, according to a dissident councillor.

Phil Lieberman, who opposes the subsidy for the NHL, which owns the Coyotes, says the city of 250,000 simply cannot afford it. Glendale has already paid the NHL $50-million over the last two years to cover some of the financially crippled team’s losses.

Lieberman is also skeptical about NHL commissioner Gary Bettman’s statements on Thursday that there is a third party interested in buying the Coyotes and keeping them in Glendale. The only parties known to be interested at this point are two groups led by former San Jose Sharks president Greg Jamison and local Republican political fixer John Kaites. Glendale council is supposed to get an in-camera update on the negotiations Tuesday night but no progress is expected.

If the NHL cannot sell the team to someone willing to keep it in Arizona, the Coyotes will probably be moved this summer, with Quebec City as one of the candidates. However, Glendale council wants to head off a move by paying the NHL another $25-million. But there is a twist to the latest payment.

This time, the $25-million the NHL gets will be called a management fee for running Jobing.com Arena. However, Lieberman said it still amounts to subsidizing the Coyotes’ losses because it is an excessive payment compared to what other managers would charge to operate the arena.

Lieberman noted the city is already carrying a total debt of $1.13-billion “and I’m not going to vote for millions and millions we would hand away on top of that.” But the councillor noted Glendale Mayor Elaine Scruggs wants to give the $25-million to the NHL and has three votes she can count on among the seven-member council so the payment will likely be made if Bettman decides to keep the team in Glendale for the 2012-13 season if he cannot sell it.

Glendale is already in some financial difficulty because of the $50-million it’s paid out to the NHL. Moody’s Investors Service recently downgraded Glendale’s bond rating on $680-million of it total debt and blamed it on the NHL payments. This will make it more expensive for the city if it follows through on plans to refinance its debt.

Also, the city has to contend with a large drop in its general fund from $38.8-million in 2010 to $11.7-million in 2011. This fund pays for a large number of city services and Lieberman said by law, given the size of the city’s debt, the fund cannot legally remain that low.

Bettman brought up the alleged third party during his weekly radio show, which was broadcast from Ottawa, the site of Sunday’s NHL all-star game. He would not identify the group. Lieberman and NHL sources were skeptical about the prospects of another buyer surfacing this late in the game.

Lieberman said it’s his personal assumption “the NHL has not accepted the two [prospective buyers] I know of, Jamison or Kaites, because otherwise they would have been after us to lease the arena to one of them. They have not made any attempt to do that, so the only obvious conclusion is [Jamison and Kaites] do not qualify.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/councillor-glendale-flirting-with-financial-disaster-over-coyotes/article2317577/

krnboy1009

January 29th, 2012, 02:53 AM

Balsillie probably cant own a team now anyways.

carnifex2005

February 8th, 2012, 04:37 AM

Marcel Aubut was on Prime Time with Bob McCown on the Fan 590 and confirmed that the 400 million dollars of financing was in place and the building will be ready by 2015. Then Sean Gordon from the Globe & Mail joined after Aubut and confirmed the story. The enviromental studies are being done and the mayor of Quebec toured the Consol Energy Center in Pittsburgh because that is the arena model the new one will be based off of.

JYDA

February 11th, 2012, 05:34 AM

Quebec wisely offers silent treatment

By Chris Stevenson ,QMI Agency
Friday, February 10, 2012 06:10 PM EST

As the clock ticks in Phoenix on the fate of the Coyotes, it's interesting to note the Cone of Silence has descended in Quebec City where Marcel Aubut, still a hockey power-broker, and Regis Lebeaume, the once chatty mayor, have dialled down the rhetoric.

That pattern served True North Sport and Entertainment well in Winnipeg in its quest to land an NHL franchise.

Things went dark in Winnipeg and then, boom, True North was announcing it had bought the Atlanta Thrashers and turned them into the Jets 2.0.

In researching a two-part piece on the Coyotes, the status of Quebec City and the potential return of NHL hockey there -- which will be published Sunday and Monday -- it was interesting to find fewer and fewer people willing to wax philosophical about Quebec's charms as a soft landing spot for the Coyotes.

Aubut was busy (in his capacity as the honcho with the Canadian Olympic Committee, he was jetting off to London to eyeball preparations for the London Olympics).

The mayor has been contrite, having received a slapdown from NHL commissioner Gary Bettman on all-star weekend: "The mayor is obviously passionate about the building. The mayor understands and has been told repeatedly by others and me what the situation is," Bettman said.

"The mayor has commented on league business, on things that I don't know he is fully informed about, but I respect his passion and I respect the fact he loves Quebec City and he is trying to do things for the city, but as it relates to what the NHL may or may not do, the mayor is not your best source for that."

Lebeaume, during a recent visit to Pittsburgh to check out the new arena there, said: "I will be careful what I say, but if the league called, (we) would be ready."

Inquiries to Quebecor (publisher of the QMI chain of newspapers) were politely rebuffed. Quebecor has an arena management deal for the proposed new rink, while its president and CEO, Pierre Karl Peladeau, is touted as owner of the franchise if and when the NHL returns to Quebec.

It will be an interesting 90 days, starting with what happens in Phoenix, where Bettman said there are three bidders for the Coyotes intent of keeping them in Glendale.

In Quebec, they wait.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/10/nhl-saturday-quebec-wisely-offers-silent-treatment

blacktrojan3921

February 11th, 2012, 07:26 AM

JYDA

February 11th, 2012, 09:20 AM

Don't be so sure of the Coyotes, for one thing they're ticket sales have gone up pretty considerably recently and have managed to attract three potentional owners willing to purchase the coyotes. And even if that owner is planning on relocating the team, there's a 50/50 chance that the new home may in fact be Seattle.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/article/1129597--seattle-arena-plans-fuel-speculation-phoenix-coyotes-will-move-there

Bettman is a professional bull$hitter. He's just trying to create an artificial market for the franchise price because the owners are 200 million in the hole from taking on ownership of the team. Bettman assured them they would recoup every dime and he can't afford to hand negotiating leverage to the lone interested party.

krnboy1009

February 12th, 2012, 04:42 AM

carnifex2005

February 12th, 2012, 06:21 PM

JYDA

February 12th, 2012, 09:15 PM

Bettman is NOT a bullshitter, and if you think that you are blind.

Its IMPOSSIBLE to create an artificial market with Coyotes. Or make up stats about attendance. Attendance has gone up in Phoenix. Not tremendously.

Phoenix moving isnt a gurantee.

LOL! Bettman has been blabbing on and on for years about all these phantom buyers that are supposedly lining up to buy the team yet nobody ever makes an offer. It's nothing new.

Even if there hypothetically was a buyer, the problem is the NHL owners want there money back from owning the team. That means they'll need a sale price close to $200 million. The team is only worth that kind of money if it moves. It isn't worth a penny if it stays in Phoenix. The St. Louis Blues just sold for $135 million and that's a team not nearly as financially disastrous as the Coyotes.

As for for attendance, apparently you're a bit of a bullshitter yourself considering the average has actually gone down this season from 12,188 to 11,829

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

JYDA

February 12th, 2012, 09:23 PM

Passion for hockey glows
But is Quebec City ready for NHL's return?
By Chris Stevenson ,QMI Agency
Sunday, February 12, 2012 02:00 AM EST

QUEBEC CITY - Huge flakes of snow are swirling in what is now the sixth or seventh hour of a storm that has the tenacity of Dale Hunter and outside Le Colisee, the rising tide of white is muffling sounds as thousands of fans make their way into a game between the Quebec Remparts and the Victoriaville Tigres of the QMJHL.

The people stop inside the doors of the old building, which was once home to the likes of Jean Beliveau and Guy Lafleur in their junior days and Hunter, the Stastnys and Peter Forsberg for 16 years in the NHL. They shake or brush the snow from their hats and shoulders with a laugh, thankful for the respite from the storm and the warm anticipation of a hockey game.

There will be more than 10,000 fans at this game on a miserable night in La Vielle Capitale, the type of winter's day and night where drifts of snow, driven by a sharp-edged wind, swirled off the ramparts from which the junior club draws its name and then across the Plains of Abraham.

As Quebecois singer/songwriter Gilles Vigneault sang in the 1960s, "mon pays, ce n'est pas un pays, c'est l'hiver (my country isn't a country, it's winter)."

This is winter.

As cold and bitter as this couple of days has been here, through it all, like a nice fire in a stone hearth, the passion for hockey here glows.

There's a sense of anticipation here, not just for this game between teenagers, but for the return again of NHL stars, for the Battle of Quebec and, in the minds of many, Quebec's return to its rightful place in the best hockey league in the world.

* * *

Thousands of miles to the southwest, the ongoing fate of the Phoenix Coyotes is now accompanied by the ticking of a doomsday clock. If an owner can't be found to keep the team in suburban Glendale in the next 90 days or so, it is the belief of many inside and outside the corridors of the NHL that, like the Atlanta Thrashers before them, the Coyotes will be heading for Canada.

At the NHL's all-star game in Ottawa, following a meeting of the board of governors, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman reiterated there are three potential owners kicking the tires in Glendale and he was not prepared to start discussing "Plan B."

"What else do you expect him to say?" wondered one source, who works for an investment firm with ties to the professional sports world. "He's not going to say anything about the Coyotes while the season is on because he doesn't want to further damage the franchise or hurt the team's chances with the playoffs approaching. Don't forget, he's the owner of the Coyotes.

"As somebody else said, and I agree with this, Glendale is an abyss for the NHL. Gary Bettman's job is to create value for his owners. How do you do that? It's like selling your house. If somebody believes there are other buyers, that somebody else is coming in for a viewing as soon as you leave, you create your own market."

The rumoured price for the Coyotes franchise is $170 million, perhaps an ambitious target when a team such as the St. Louis Blues, its American Hockey League affiliate and the lease for the rink in which the Blues play -- in an established hockey market -- went for about $135 million, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Of course, the value of the Coyotes franchise is tied to where it will wind up playing.

Bettman has promised his owners the league won't be on the hook for any losses when the NHL finally takes a shower -- and hopefully not a bath -- and cleans itself up after leaving Glendale.

One source believes the patience among some owners with the league's involvement in Gendale has run out.

"When you've got 20 teams losing money, another three breaking even and just six that are making money, what do you think they want to do? Keep writing cheques for another team that's losing money? Most of them have got their own problems.

"I can't see a business plan that works in Glendale unless the city is willing to underwrite the club's losses -- and the appetitive for that is diminishing after giving the NHL $50 million over the last two years -- or you find a billionaire who doesn't care about losing $30 million a year. Given the way the economy is here (in the U.S.), there aren't too many of those guys left."

As NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said in Ottawa about trying to find an owner who would keep the Coyotes in Glendale: "at some point, if you're not successful, you have to turn the page and move on. And I think there's a growing sense that we're getting there."

* * *

Over at J'ai Ma Place (I Have My Place) in Quebec City, things have been busy. They're hoping they get busier.

J'ai Ma Place is a consortium of local interests in Quebec City that has contracted with Quebecor -- the media giant which, among other things, owns the new all-sports network TVA Sports in Quebec and publishes the Le Journal de Montreal, Le Journal de Quebec and all the Sun Media newspapers -- to sell luxury suites and seats in the proposed new rink in Quebec City. Quebecor has a deal with the city and province to manage the new rink and put its name on the $400 million building.

J'ai Ma Place has 8,000 of the approximately 20,000 seats to sell -- the buyer owns the seat for all events in the building -- and have sold half of them. They are allowed to sell 74 of the 86 corporate suites in the building and have sold all 74 with a deposit of $25,000 each.

"People are afraid there aren't enough businesses in Quebec," said J'ai Ma Place chairman of the board Mario Bedard, "but (the suites) are the first thing we sold out."

The other suites are being reserved for team sponsors.

Because the building is being funded by public money, a large chunk of the seats have to be set aside and made available to the public on a per-game basis (which might make it impossible to have the kind of sell-out-the-building-for-the-year frenzy there was in Winnipeg).

"The general feeling here is very good," Bedard said. "The people here are very emotional and every time there is any kind of declaration surrounding the topic people are getting excited."

Quebec's excitable mayor, Regis Lebeaume, has said there will be a shovel in the ground this summer and the building is scheduled to open in the fall of 2015.

Pierre Karl Peladeau, the president and CEO of Quebecor, is poised to become the owner of the franchise. Owning an NHL franchise like the Nordiques would create a nice synergy with his new all-sports network and put TVA Sports in a position to challenge the Montreal Canadiens and RDS, an arm of TSN and Bell Media, for the hearts, minds and wallets of Quebeckers.

A spokesman for Quebecor declined comment on the company's potential NHL involvement. "We want to maintain a low profile," he said. "We don't discuss our business plans."

As far as the market goes, what's changed in Quebec City from 1995 when they couldn't hang onto the Nordiques and lost them to Colorado?

The Canadian dollar for one thing. It's helped all the Canadian teams and has helped drive the league's revenues to record heights.

"This is also the city with the second-lowest unemployment in Canada. The economy is good here," Bedard said. "We did not feel the recession of 2008 here. It's like we're in a bubble here. The economy now is much better than it was."

Comparisons with Winnipeg will be inevitable. What the fans have done for the Jets there was remarkable.

But in terms of market size, Quebec has the upper hand. The two cities are comparable as far as metropolitan population goes, but drive for an hour outside of the Manitoba capital and you're counting acres, not people.

There are another million people living within a hour's drive of Quebec City.

Supporters of Quebec's NHL bid will also point out Winnipeg might have the Manitoba market to itself, but the just released Canadian census had the population of Manitoba at 1.2 million. The new Nordiques will be in a potential provincial market of 7.9 million, many -- like in the case of the Jets -- already with an allegiance to the Nords from the last go-round.

More than 50,000 people turned out on the Plains of Abraham in October of 2010 for the Marche Bleue, a rally to show support for a return of the Nordiques to the NHL.

I ran into a bunch of former Nordiques that day.

"Quebec has changed since the Nordiques left," said Andre Savard, the former Nordique who went on to scout, coach and manage in the NHL (he's currently a pro scout for the Pittsburgh Penguins). He's also a businessman in Quebec.

"I think it's in a much better position than it was in 1995. The city has grown. You can see it from the traffic. Obviously, getting the NHL back will be a challenge, but attendance won't be a problem.

"I think it's the young people who didn't get to see the Nordiques who want it the most. They're pushing for it."

* * *

If we assume a shovel will go into the ground and the new rink in Quebec City will become a reality, it won't be until 2015.

If an owner can't be found in the next 90 days or so to take over the team and keep it in Glendale, could the old Colisee be given a facelift and serve as a temporary home for three years?

Of course it could.

The precedent is there: The Calgary Flames played in the Corral until the new rink was ready and the Senators played in the Ottawa Civic Centre while the Palladium was being built. Perhaps more significantly, the Carolina Hurricanes played miles away in Greensboro when they relocated from Hartford until the rink in Raleigh was ready.

Le Colisee already holds as many for hockey as the MTS Centre in Winnipeg, though Le Colisee lacks corporate suites (it apparently has 15 small ones for the Remparts).

When asked about that possibility, Bettman said: "I don't know the answer to that. The last time I was in Le Colisee was for the world championships and I didn't go on a site tour. I sat in the stands. So I don't know the answer to the question because it's not anything we've looked at. To suggest anything else gets the excitement (going)... and I'm not looking to raise expectations because that's unfair.

"We've told anybody in any market who has asked that doesn't have a team, don't do anything planning on having a team because we're not making anybody any promises of anything."

There apparently is a plan in place for a $10 million renovation of Le Colisee which would include a refrigeration plant, air conditioning and expanded, NHL-calibre dressing rooms.

That's all well and good, but if Quebec is going to get an NHL team, it must get that new building started.

Dirt needs to be flying.

"I think the Colisee is an option, but only if construction has started on the new building," said one governor when asked under what conditions he would approve a move of a franchise to Quebec.

"There has to be that commitment."

The movers and shakers in Quebec insist that is going to happen.

The new rink in Quebec will be designed along that maritime theme, what look like a ship's masts supporting windows that swell outward like a ship's hull.

The feeling here is Quebec's NHL ship will come in, again.

It's not a matter of if, but when.

sublime1

February 13th, 2012, 01:09 AM

Have they put shovels in the ground yet for the new arena? If quebec city gets an arena built then getting a team is inevitable. Maybe not this year, or the next, but in 5 years minimum. The response here in Winnipeg has been overwhelming, and all of the doubters who said Winnipeg is too small, people can't afford tickets, no corporate support, etc is proving totally false.

Season tickets for the next 4 years sold out in less than an hour. Just getting a single game ticket is almost impossible and prices are second highest in the league. And merch sales are massive. Now that will cool off as time goes on but make no mistake this team is way more profitable than Atlanta, Phoenix, Florida, has ever been. The move has turned out to be the best thing that happened to the league in a long time. They would be foolish to not put a team in Quebec too, there is no doubt it would be very successful.

carnifex2005

February 13th, 2012, 06:29 AM

blacktrojan3921

February 13th, 2012, 08:27 AM

Krnboy is basically right, it is impossible to create an artificial market and fiddle with the attendance numbers in this day and age.

sublime1

February 19th, 2012, 12:59 AM

Also how does Quebec City not have a CFL team or stadium yet? Metro Quebec is a bit bigger than Winnipeg and in my opinion quite a bit nicer, last time I was there. Plus there is a bigger regional population to draw from. Is Quebec not a big sports town? Seems to me they should have had an arena and NHL team before Winnipeg.

testdrive

February 19th, 2012, 01:53 AM

What do you guys think about Seattle's interest in the Phoenix? What do you feel this does to your chances?

htpwn

February 23rd, 2012, 08:10 AM

delete.

JYDA

March 3rd, 2012, 08:30 PM

Bettman talks Quebec, Coyotes
Relocating struggling franchises a last resort

REJEAN TREMBLAY, QMI Agency
Friday, March 02, 2012

NEW YORK - When you enter the building at 1251 Avenue of the Americas, you are initially held up for a good 10 minutes by security. It is also located at the heart of Manhattan, three minutes from Times Square.

The offices of the National Hockey League are on the 15th floor. Hypermodern, in steel-grey tones, the meeting rooms line the way as you approach the office of Gary Bettman. A huge space, where many objects and photos remind you that you have indeed stepped into the office of the NHL commissioner. It's a work area, not overly luxurious.

Today, Gary Bettman receives visitors in a shirt and tie.

Half an hour later, the conversation is very animated. We have already spoken of the league's successes despite a difficult economy in the United States and started in on the situation of the Phoenix Coyotes.

The commissioner understands what's going on in Quebec: "I am aware of the new TVA Sports network. I am aware of the efforts of Pierre Karl Peladeau. I am informed of what is going on in my world. I also know that the economic power of Quebec City is much bigger than it was. The studies that I have read have kept me informed. And I know the mayor of Quebec, Mr. (Regis) Labeaume, and I know that he is certainly a determined and opinionated man. But I also know that the people of Quebec are lucky to have a mayor like that," Bettman said.

But every time he seems to open a door, he always adds, and sometimes repeats a dozen times in a louder voice: "If ... if ... if ... if ... if ..."

In other words, if one day a team can be moved, he will let us know.

Expansion is never talked about, but wouldn't that be logical?

"We aren't talking expansion because we are not planning an expansion," Bettman said. "We are comfortable with 30 teams. We are continually receiving requests for information or signs of interest. We have received interest from Quebec, Seattle, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Southern Ontario, from Saskatoon, even Halifax. I always give the same answer.

"We don't like moving teams and, currently, there are no teams available. Maybe one day the circumstances will allow for one but for now, there is nothing available."

When he says this, Bettman's voice is unequivocal. However, he will take the time to explain to what point the league feels responsible towards fans of the teams.

He says -- and repeats -- that the league will work to the limit to protect the Phoenix fans or any other affected team.

"As we speak (last Thursday) we have been working with three groups to save the Coyotes," he said. "We are going to the limit. In the past, when we moved the Nordiques and the Jets, there was a reason. We had no owner ready to continue operations in those cities. Despite our efforts, we couldn't find one. That's what happened in Atlanta. The team became available for Winnipeg the day where it was certain that it was impossible to find an owner for Atlanta.

"The rule is that when we are in a city, we stay in the city and we do everything we can to make it work where it is. We don't want fans to worry. We have a commitment to them."

Seattle, Kansas City, Quebec? Bettman shrugs his shoulders. He repeats that as long as things aren't finished in Phoenix, there will be no option of a move.

Which doesn't stop him from preparing everything discreetly. For example, he knows Peladeau is interested in bringing an NHL team to Quebec.

"I met Pierre Karl a few times. At least two or three times. I know very well of his interest and his passion for hockey and to bring a team to Quebec. I also know his sophisticated business sense and I am aware that he brings an extraordinary environment along with him.

"If ... if ... if ... if ... a franchise was available, there would be three factors to consider. One, the owner. Two, the arena. And three, the market. That is how we must analyze the demands and make a decision."

But all the cities will have a new arena, so that's no longer a determining factor.

"It's a base condition," Bettman said. "I already said it. In fact, what weighs most in the decision is the new owner. Because we invite them to become one of the 30 owners in the NHL. He is invited to sit with the others at the big table. He becomes one of ours. As for the market, it might already be established or still needing development. But it goes without saying that we have never once doubted the passion and love of our fans in Quebec."

There has to be a deadline to get the Phoenix situation resolved but Bettman won't confirm it.

"I don't know. All I know is that we are working to save the Coyotes," he said. "And I should also say that there is no list of favourite cities in case of a move. There is no conspiracy. Look on the walls, do you see a list of cities? If you want, go look in the files on my desk, you won't find a list. For the simple reason that there is no team available. But when something moves, it is clear that these ones are ready to move forward.

"When we had to leave Atlanta, Mark Chipman and David Thomson were ready. They had made me aware of their intentions for a few years already. As did Pierre Karl Peladeau. But I'm not saying Quebec is ahead, I'm saying that I haven't yet thought about what we would do if...if...if...if it wasn't working in Phoenix."

Meanwhile, the commissioner made another point. Referencing the fans of Winnipeg and Quebec, he noted: "I understand that we had to leave a city like Quebec for economic reasons at a certain time. I think that you have to consider that these fans that had their team taken away because of a decision to move. If you went somewhere else and have a chance to come back, you have to keep it in mind."

And contrary to public opinion, Bettman doesn't consider himself biased towards the United States: "I am perfectly aware of the passion and power of hockey in Canada. And the economy in Canada is strong. It's a country that has been extraordinarily well directed for many years. It shows today. With the Canadian dollar at par, that weighs heavily."

My feeling after speaking with the commissioner and a few of his lieutenants? If the Phoenix Coyotes have to leave in the spring, they will end up in Quebec. Even the people in his office are dreaming about it.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/01/bettman-talks-quebec-coyotes

JYDA

March 8th, 2012, 09:52 AM

Quebec City has approved a $6.8 million upgrade of the old Colisee to be carried out this summer contingent upon the arrival of the NHL. It includes cooling systems and various upgrades to locker rooms and media facilities

Lord David

March 11th, 2012, 07:22 AM

Good. This means that the Colisee will remain, as a permanent building, even when a new arena is built.

A big boost to any future Quebec Winter Olympics bid.

BOSDAN

March 25th, 2012, 09:16 PM

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/7734874/construction-quebec-arena-set-september

Looks like the new arena is a go. Hopefully an NHL will move up there and give Canada another team.

JYDA

March 25th, 2012, 09:51 PM

There have been a lot of tweets out of the Quebec media over the past week stating the Coyotes move is now a done deal.

Additionally, all staff of the Quebec Remparts junior team have been told to pack up all their stuff and leave the Colisee once the Remparts are out of the playoffs.

carnifex2005

March 26th, 2012, 02:52 AM

krnboy1009

March 26th, 2012, 02:53 AM

Buffalomatt1027

April 5th, 2012, 12:00 AM

Dont believe Quebec media. Same group that was outraged Habs didnt hire Freanch speaking coach.

Ugh.

Yeah well the Mayor of Phonex wants the Coyates gone ....he doesnt want to pay the 20 to 25 million from the city anymore. He said hes ok with paying 5 mil a year.

davidivivid

April 5th, 2012, 12:07 AM

Quebec City's new Arena is officially a go. Construction will begin in september, following the end of Expo Québec, which basically is the biggest agricultural fair Eastern Canada, celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. The news was announced sunday and certain details about the arena emerged, including certain cutbacks in order to respect the budget.

- Construction cost: $400M (estimated construction cost actually is $326,5M and a sum of $73,5M is put aside for risks and contingencies)

- Out of the bugget, $46M will be geared towards state of the art sound and video technology.

- 18000 seats

- The surface area covered by the Arena will be 64000m2, which is smaller than the 68000m2 originally planned in order to save a substantial amount of money.

- Quebecor will pay $65M for naming rights, $5M/year to use the amphitheater and about $40M to built diffusion and broadcasting technology infrastructure.

- Purchasing rights to the 86 corporate boxes have already been sold and about 4000 individual purchasing rights have been sold as well and it has been very busy since yesterday. The purchasing rights basically give you access to a presell for your seat for every show, match or event taking place in the new amphitheater. 8000 such rights are available out of the 18000 seats. These purchasing rights will inject an additional $35M of private money.

- It won't be situated on the site originally chosen because this particular piece of land was heavily contaminated and it would have cost an additionnal $45M to decontaminate it preceeding the construction. On the following picture, the red circle indicates the original site whereas the blue one indicates the actual construction site, on the race track which closed this year.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-b-zg1f4gEGA/T3CC_FsSLWI/AAAAAAAABWI/RaX8AhmLD_Y/s1600/jhvyg.jpg
http://www.quebechebdo.com/Actualites/2009-10-23/article-1587263/La-privatisation-d%26rsquo%3BExpoCite-dans-la-mire-de-Jeff-Fillion/1

http://images.lpcdn.ca/924x615/201111/17/424303-meme-expocite-veut-voir-disparaitre.jpg
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/sports/actualites-sportives/201111/16/01-4468709-fin-des-courses-a-lhippodrome-le-club-jockey-garde-bon-espoir.php

Important fact: the facade of the race track is considered an heritage building. Hence, it will be integrated to the design of the new Arena. I wasn't sure about that at first but the more i think about it, the more I believe that if done properly, the inclusion of this beautiful brick facade could really give an impressive result!! The grounds in front of the race track will be transformed in a grand entrance. The final design will be revealed in a couple of months.

http://images.lpcdn.ca/924x615/201202/16/471337.jpg
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/sports/actualites-sportives/201202/15/01-4496454-courses-de-chevaux-si-ce-nest-pas-a-quebec-ce-sera-ailleurs.php

The surrounding area is a mix of commercial, residential and industrial, though the industrial land use is fairly limited. The city does hope that the construction of the new Arena will incite major private investment in the area and already, it seems to be working. In the last few months, real estate (both commercial and residential) have been on fire and buying offers seem to be flying around.

In the following picture, the blue circle surrounds the Fleur de Lys shopping mall. The owner of this mall has already said that plans are on the way to upgrade the infrastrure through some major investments.

The area delimited by the orange line is occupied by some light industry companies and I do wonder what this sector will look like in the future. It isn't a big area but it is strategically placed next to the new arena so I hope some commercial development will take place.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MbhMAF0S5OU/T3Dtm-bXBpI/AAAAAAAABWg/QZjIk-SMtWI/s1600/cghj.jpg

The area delimited by the green line is completely owned by the city and is called Expo City, which is a cluster of exposition halls, smaller spectacle venues, etc. Here's a good picture of the area. On the center left, you can see the main exposition hall which was recently expanded. It now boasts 250000 SF of exposition space. On the upper right, you can observed the old Arena,*originally built in 1949 and housing 10000 seats at the time. The other buildings have multiple uses: administration, small exposition and music show venues, etc.

http://images.lpcdn.ca/924x615/201202/16/471367-quelque-sorte-retour-case-depart.jpg
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/dossiers/vers-un-nouveau-colisee/201202/16/01-4496455-nouvel-amphitheatre-la-ville-de-quebec-forcee-de-revoir-ses-plans.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_en-vedette_91290_article_ECRAN1POS2

The area surrounded by the red line is the site of a future eco-neighbourhood. The project is already well advanced and the propositions of multiple architecture firms will be released soon. However, here are some preliminary renderings of the site:

http://www.ledevoir.com/images_galerie/73411_66314/apres-le-quartier-de-la-pointe-aux-lievres.jpg
http://www.ledevoir.com/galeries-photos/et-combien-ca-coute/66314

http://blog.ccm2.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/pointe_aux_lievres_hiver.jpg

http://blog.ccm2.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Perspective-cour-Pointe-aux-Li%C3%A8vres.jpg

http://blog.ccm2.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/pointe_aux_lievres_aerienneTop.jpg

http://blog.ccm2.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/pointe_aux_lievres_aerienne01.jpg

http://blog.ccm2.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/pointe_aux_lievres_a%C3%A9rienne02.jpg
http://blog.ccm2.ca/une-nouvelle-etape-franchie-pour-lecoquartier-pointe-aux-lievres/