I lived in Seattle for four years and they would love a team there. The idea of having a rivalry with Van Couver would be great and they are a big city with the money and hockey interest to make it a good choice.

_________________

the only problem with seattle is the lack of an NHL ready facility. key arena doesnt drag out the seats to surround the basketball court like other multi purpose arenas, they actually have to fold in a large chunk of seats to fit ice on the floor. so there goes like 5000 seats.



but the idea of a seattle based NHL team, especially with the relocation of the super sonics, they would gain a massive fanbase REAL fast.

_________________

Seattle is an awesome city and it'd make a great hockey market. Unfortunately, key arena would need some renovations. It's too small.

But I've been to Seattle and it'd be a perfect hockey market.

_________________
Wheelhouse

I don't doubt there are a lot of hockey fans, but you would think if there was some interest, they'd have applied for an expansion team sometime in the last 6 cycles.

For what it's worth, friends of mine in the Seattle area have told me that one big blocker for getting a team in there is that the NHL has concerns of a team so close to Vancouver effecting the Canucks market.

_________________

i think the super sonics/lack of arena hurt that. but, i dont know for sure. lemme look it up.

_________________

That's probably a legitimate concern. The NHL seems to have been pretty protective of the remaining Canadian teams after they let Winnipeg and Quebec leave.

I personally feel it would be a great rivalry. Vancouver is a couple hours north and both cities are big enough to hold their own in the hockey market. There is a lot of hockey interest up there and from what I saw, way less football interest than you'd expect.

_________________

Wouldn't be surprised. Key Arena was the primary reason the Sonics left. It's an old building, even after the remodel in the 90s.

remember, the sonics and the grizzlies co-existed.. for like 5 years. but no one cares about the NBA in canada. the canucks are beloved in vancouver.

i found out seattle was awarded an expansion franchise for the 76-77 season.

"Seattle was awarded an NHL franchise in a planned expansion for the 1976-77 season. But Vince Abbey, part owner of the Totems of the Western Hockey League, couldn't get the money together and the deal collapsed, as did Abbey's attempts to buy and relocate the NHL's Pittsburgh Penguins."

"Any recent hopes for the NHL were dashed by the 1994-95 rebuild of the Seattle Center Coliseum, the Sonics' home that was renamed KeyArena.

Then-Sonics owner Barry Ackerley, afraid of competing with an NHL team for sponsorship dollars and favorable dates, was adamant during the planning stages that the layout be basketball-specific and not facilitate hockey. Ackerley got his way, but for logistical reasons. Queen Anne residents insisted the arena not grow any taller, which meant the playing surface had to remain underground. The arena's footprint wasn't big enough for the underground portion to grow significantly, so it was all but impossible to create an arena that would be big enough for NHL standards.

In its hockey configuration, KeyArena can't seat more than about 10,000; the Thunderbirds seat fans only in the lower bowl and list their capacity as 6,324."

http://www.seattlepi.com/hockey/301974_puck01.html

_________________

So let's create an ownership group and move the Coyotes

_________________

We need an Arena also.

_________________

The Sabres? Or Seattle?

_________________
Girgensons for captain. Team Keep Nick DesLauriers forever.

@TJLuckman550

Seattle.

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.

I was talking about our ownership group to buy Phoenix. haha

_________________

And WE were talking about the Sabres getting a new owner.

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.

Golisano is asking $175M for the Sabres

http://blogs.buffalonews.com/sabres/2010/12/sabres-price-tag-175-million.html

_________________
mechaphil

That 175M is the total franchise worth, meaning that both Minority owners would be out as well.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/31/hoc ... 13362.html

The total estimation of the worth of the Franchise is 169M according to Forbes, who is arguably the best at appraising the value of any business or franchise. I'd say that 175M would mean both Quinn, and whats his nuts are both out.

_________________
"She's like plan C after an 18 pack"

Squanto 7/27/2010

$175M seems more in line with the market value of the team. I know the NHL would shit bricks if they actually tried for $150M.

That $175M probably buys out BTG / LQ / DD. People are suggesting that BTG will require that LQ/DD stay on as part of the sale out of loyalty, but I just can't see that happening. The fact that he gave those two an ownership piece is loyalty enough, knowing that they'd be handsomely paid off in the event of a sale. Just think: if they each owned 5% of the team, they'd clear $8.75M from the sale. That's more than they've made in salary for sure.

It's not a losing proposition for Pegula. He's getting the Sabres, Bandits, and HSBC Arena. He gets a team with a steadily rising revenue, a maxed out season ticket base, and top 5 league wide merch sales. Any financial losses from the Sabres (which I still don't believe are that much) get offset by revenues generated by the Bandits and HSBC Arena events.

Downside is franchise appreciation, as near term it would be hard to push the team valuation above $200M, but I get the feeling that he's not into this for that reason.

The fact the Golisano has a price, means he's willing to sell. VERY good sign

_________________


"Let's just trap Sekera in the caverns underneath HSBC arena." -BlueandYellow

Reporter: "Steve, you guys now lead the league in defensive scoring."
Montador: "It's probably because of how good-looking we are."