AP: Las Vegas expansion is 'done deal'

[dmiles2186]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f665e04a ... -expansion

The NHL is ready to roll the dice on Las Vegas.

A person with direct knowledge of the NHL's decision says the league has settled on Las Vegas as its choice for expansion, provided organizers can come up with a $500 million fee.

The person spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity because details have not been released by the league ahead of its Board of Governors meeting on June 22 in Las Vegas. Quebec City was also considered for expansion.

A second person who had been briefed on the decision said Las Vegas was a "done deal" following the recommendation of the NHL's executive committee.


The 2017-18 season would be the earliest the league would expand.

The franchise would be the NHL's 31st team and the first major professional sports franchise in Las Vegas, the rapidly growing gambling center of the American West.

The NHL hasn't expanded since 2000, when Minnesota and Columbus paid $80 million each to join the league. Prospective Vegas owner Bill Foley is a wealthy businessman who isn't likely to blink at the elevated price tag previously proposed by NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman as an expansion fee.

The Las Vegas bid says it has secured more than 13,200 season-ticket deposits for the new team, which will play in T-Mobile Arena, the sparkling new multipurpose building on the south end of the Las Vegas Strip. The arena, which seats 17,500 for hockey, was built entirely with private money by MGM Resorts International and Anschutz Entertainment Group, the owners of the Los Angeles Kings.

The Las Vegas area had nearly 2.2 million people in the 2010 census, making it the largest population center in the U.S. without a major pro sports franchise. Public support for Foley's bid has been robust, and the NHL has noticed the appeal of being the only big sports show in a town that loves a big event.

The days when sports leagues were wary of the potential corruption in Vegas' massive sports betting scene are apparently finished, making the city an attractive candidate for sports looking to get in on a growing market.

The Oakland Raiders have held serious discussions with Vegas leaders in recent months about a move to Nevada, with owner Mark Davis suggesting that he and his partners, including casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, could build a $1.4 billion domed stadium near the Strip with substantial public money. David Beckham met with the group in April, and the English soccer superstar suggested Vegas would be a candidate for an MLS team with that new field.

But Foley and the NHL have been working on a deal for much longer to bring hockey to the city — with the enormous advantage of an NHL-ready building freshly opened in town. T-Mobile Arena had its grand opening April 6 with a concert featuring Wayne Newton and the Killers, and Canelo Alvarez knocked out Amir Khan in a middleweight title bout on May 7 in its first competitive sporting event.

The NHL has debated expansion for a few years, with Seattle and the Toronto suburbs also generating interest for another team. Bettman has said he doesn't worry about the league's product suffering from dilution.

Quebec City still has a strong bid for expansion, but owners have expressed concerns about the strength of the Canadian dollar and a geographical imbalance if they add another team to the Eastern Conference, which currently has 16 teams to the West's 14.

Even with the serious financial woes of the Arizona Coyotes, who were owned by the league for four years while losing money and struggling to find permanent ownership, the NHL apparently remains confident in its belief that hockey can thrive in a non-traditional Southwest market.

Vegas is in the middle of the Mojave Desert, but it has grown as a hockey town over the past 20 years since local youngsters like Jason Zucker, now with the Minnesota Wild, had to practice on one of the three rinks in town.

The IHL's Las Vegas Thunder attracted large crowds in the 1990s when they played at the Thomas and Mack Center, and the ECHL's Las Vegas Wranglers took the Thunder's place until 2014 while playing at the Orleans Arena.

Foley hasn't said what he will call his new team, but the bid is run by a company named Black Knight Sports and Entertainment, the same name as his financial services company. Foley graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

[ecbm]

Bad idea-but that never stopped the current NHL administration from doing anything.

Still yet to hear one positive argument for expansion other than: MONEY GRAB FOR OWNERS!!1!11!

[Kerfuffle]

I'm okay with it - just happy that Quebec is not getting it - at least for now. Keep it in the USA.

[ecbm]

I'm okay with it - just happy that Quebec is not getting it - at least for now. Keep it in the USA.

[cprice12]

I'm okay with it - just happy that Quebec is not getting it - at least for now. Keep it in the USA.

Yeah, I wasn't so sure about that comment either.
I'd have zero issues with a deserving market in Canada getting a team. I'd love to see Quebec get a franchise. I'd probably rather Quebec get a team than Las Vegas. I don't see a team lasting in Las Vegas for more than 20 years...but maybe I'll be wrong on that.

But...ideally, a couple teams should probably relocate instead of expanding...buuuuut maybe that's just me.

[ecbm]

I'm okay with it - just happy that Quebec is not getting it - at least for now. Keep it in the USA.

Yeah, I wasn't so sure about that comment either.
I'd have zero issues with a deserving market in Canada getting a team. I'd love to see Quebec get a franchise. I'd probably rather Quebec get a team than Las Vegas. I don't see a team lasting in Las Vegas for more than 20 years...but maybe I'll be wrong on that.

But...ideally, a couple teams should probably relocate instead of expanding...buuuuut maybe that's just me.

Yeah, completely agreed. I'd prefer Quebec. There's the solidarity I feel with cities that are robbed of teams and then there's the practical issue of Quebec being home to somewhere between 5-6X as many hockey fans as Vegas. A franchise in Quebec would potentially be great for the NHL's TV numbers and general economy. That leads me to believe this whole thing is a publicity stunt-cum-money grab.

Really though, there should be no expansion now. You have clubs in Florida and Phoenix that are utter shambles, have very little support and lose money. They're not the only ones either.

Still waiting for one argument in favor of expansion that believably claims it's good for the league or the game as opposed to simply an opportunity for owners to grab cash and for Bettman to stick a flag in Vegas and say: I done that!11!

[fargoblues]

I've been to T-Mobile Arena in Vegas. Beautiful stadium. Won't get filled on most nights.

Went to two George Strait concerts. Place was about 80% full.

[glen a richter]

Will we be able to keep Coach Yeo unprotected in the expansion draft?

[Portland Blues]

Will we be able to keep Coach Yeo unprotected in the expansion draft?

[Kerfuffle]

Quebec already had a franchise and failed. So I'd rather see a franchise in Las Vegas over Quebec any day. Anyone remember Eric lindros and how he didn't want to play for Quebec so he sat it out until they could trade him? Can't blame him - I wouldn't want to play there either. So you have to go with the new town and not give Quebec another try when they already failed once.

[cprice12]

Quebec already had a franchise and failed. So I'd rather see a franchise in Las Vegas over Quebec any day. Anyone remember Eric lindros and how he didn't want to play for Quebec so he sat it out until they could trade him? Can't blame him - I wouldn't want to play there either. So you have to go with the new town and not give Quebec another try when they already failed once.

During the Nordiques 16 seasons in the NHL, they were over 100 games under .500.
They only won 12 games in 89-90...and 16 games the following season and then 20 the season after that. They missed the playoffs 6 of their final 8 seasons in Quebec.

The Lindros situation was the best thing to happen to that franchise as the players they got by trading him (along with acquiring Roy because of his meltdown in Montreal) helped win them a cup after moving to Colorado.

The fans in that area put up with some really bad hockey, and then had their franchise stolen from them because the owner saw dollar signs in Colorado...right when they were getting better.

Las Vegas is not a better hockey market than Quebec. Not even close. The NHL isn't excited about Quebec for the same reasons Lindros didn't want to go there...far less endorsement and marketing opportunities. But if we are just talking about which market would support their team better, it's Quebec, no question.

They shouldn't even be expanding anyway. Carolina is rumored to be borrowing money from the NHL just to stay afloat...and Florida and Phoenix should probably be moved to better hockey markets as well. I'd rather they move two of those teams to Las Vegas and Quebec than expand there.

[Kerfuffle]

The Lindros situation was the best thing to happen to that franchise as the players they got by trading him (along with acquiring Roy because of his meltdown in Montreal) helped win them a cup after moving to Colorado.

It didn't benefit the city of Quebec at all though - what it really showed is that the overall #1 pick had absolutely no desire to play in that location. They had also had a history of challenges trying to entice free agents to sign there. Hard to compete on that and also a very frustrating experience for Nordique fans.

The fans in that area put up with some really bad hockey, and then had their franchise stolen from them because the owner saw dollar signs in Colorado...right when they were getting better.

The market was much better in the USA though and Colorado has done well supporting that franchise. It was the right move to make.

Las Vegas is not a better hockey market than Quebec. Not even close. The NHL isn't excited about Quebec for the same reasons Lindros didn't want to go there...far less endorsement and marketing opportunities. But if we are just talking about which market would support their team better, it's Quebec, no question.

I don't think either market is for hockey. Winter sports tend to struggle in warmer climates in general. So I don't see Las Vegas lasting for the long term. But compared to Quebec I believe it's a no brainer that you go with the city that hasn't had a team before. Don't forget Quebec had their chance already and failed. That had to be a big red flag in trying to put the team back in there. And I'm sure the PA wasn't thrilled about it either. Where would you rather play? Sin city with nice weather and gambling, or a northern Canadian town where French is the native language and there is no marketing/endorsement opportunities? It's a no brainer - Las Vegas it is.

They shouldn't even be expanding anyway. Carolina is rumored to be borrowing money from the NHL just to stay afloat...and Florida and Phoenix should probably be moved to better hockey markets as well. I'd rather they move two of those teams to Las Vegas and Quebec than expand there.

I agree they shouldn't be expanding and I also don't think Columbus or Nashville should have gotten franchises either - the league over-expanded 20 years ago. But the owners love those buy-in fees from new cities - it's pure profit for them. And expansion is going to happen even though we don't want it to. Personally I'd rather see contraction but that won't happen. I will also predict that in the future some teams will collapse financially. A few years ago the Buffalo Sabres couldn't make payroll one month. You can already see the seeds being planted for the next labor dispute and future CBA where revenue sharing will come into play like they do in MLB.

[cprice12]

The Lindros situation was the best thing to happen to that franchise as the players they got by trading him (along with acquiring Roy because of his meltdown in Montreal) helped win them a cup after moving to Colorado.

It didn't benefit the city of Quebec at all though - what it really showed is that the overall #1 pick had absolutely no desire to play in that location. They had also had a history of challenges trying to entice free agents to sign there. Hard to compete on that and also a very frustrating experience for Nordique fans.

The fans in that area put up with some really bad hockey, and then had their franchise stolen from them because the owner saw dollar signs in Colorado...right when they were getting better.

The market was much better in the USA though and Colorado has done well supporting that franchise. It was the right move to make.

Las Vegas is not a better hockey market than Quebec. Not even close. The NHL isn't excited about Quebec for the same reasons Lindros didn't want to go there...far less endorsement and marketing opportunities. But if we are just talking about which market would support their team better, it's Quebec, no question.

I don't think either market is for hockey. Winter sports tend to struggle in warmer climates in general. So I don't see Las Vegas lasting for the long term. But compared to Quebec I believe it's a no brainer that you go with the city that hasn't had a team before. Don't forget Quebec had their chance already and failed. That had to be a big red flag in trying to put the team back in there. And I'm sure the PA wasn't thrilled about it either. Where would you rather play? Sin city with nice weather and gambling, or a northern Canadian town where French is the native language and there is no marketing/endorsement opportunities? It's a no brainer - Las Vegas it is.

They shouldn't even be expanding anyway. Carolina is rumored to be borrowing money from the NHL just to stay afloat...and Florida and Phoenix should probably be moved to better hockey markets as well. I'd rather they move two of those teams to Las Vegas and Quebec than expand there.

I agree they shouldn't be expanding and I also don't think Columbus or Nashville should have gotten franchises either - the league over-expanded 20 years ago. But the owners love those buy-in fees from new cities - it's pure profit for them. And expansion is going to happen even though we don't want it to. Personally I'd rather see contraction but that won't happen. I will also predict that in the future some teams will collapse financially. A few years ago the Buffalo Sabres couldn't make payroll one month. You can already see the seeds being planted for the next labor dispute and future CBA where revenue sharing will come into play like they do in MLB.

Saying the franchise "failed" in Quebec isn't really accurate.
You could say that the Rams "failed" in St. Louis, but really, a greedy owner wanted to make as much money as possible and ripped the team out of St. Louis and went to LA. The fans supported the Rams well here despite the product being awful for a long time. The Rams didn't fail here, the billionaire owner just wanted to make even more money.

The same can be said for the Nordiques. They were a really bad team for a number of years, but their attendance was pretty good during those years, which are in bold below.

81:77.6%
82:96.0%
83:95.6%
84:95.1%
85:94.4%
86:93.8%
87:94.1%
88:94.8%
89:92.3%
90:95.7%
91:90.0%
92:86.7%
93:95.1%
94:92.7%
95:91.3%

And if I recall, the economy in Quebec was kind of bad at that time, so that may have had some effect on attendance. At any rate, they supported that team.
Colorado is a good hockey market...no doubt (but it did help that they had a good team when they arrived because of the high draft picks and the Lindros trade). I'm not doubting that...but they could have expanded to that market.

I'm just not a fan of teams moving unless the market just can't support the team any longer and the franchise is losing money despite their best efforts to put a good product on the ice and to attract fans. Owners moving teams in any situation except an absolute last resort, is a bastard thing to do...and yes, I am including the Rams moving from LA to STL as part of that. STL should have gotten the Jaguars franchise when they expanded...we were robbed at that time.

[ecbm]

It didn't benefit the city of Quebec at all though - what it really showed is that the overall #1 pick had absolutely no desire to play in that location.

Seriously? Reason deductively much? What it showed-I'm guessing you're too young to recall it given your mischaracterization-is that Lindros was (is?) a narcissistic douchebag who thought way, way, WAY too highly of himself. Yeah, the place that's good enough for LaFleur, Stastny, Sakic & Sundin wasn't good enough for Lindros. Because, you know, hype. Where's the "wanking" smiley? I'll settle for this one-

Truth is, that deal could have been Lindros for Forsberg straight-up and the Nordiques still win it. Easily.

Your assertion that Vegas is a better hockey market than Quebec-noticeable that you've put forth not one actual argument to support that-is absurd.

Don't forget Quebec had their chance already and failed

Truth is, in the not-too-distant past, the Blackhawks looked more like a failed franchise than the Nordiques ever did. By your logic, they should have moved to Seattle. Then again, by your logic, Vegas should get a team that's doomed to fail because...Quebec once had a team that was moved to Colorado as a money grab despite good attendance through terrible seasons. Got it.

Seriously, where the hell is that wanking smiley?

[ecbm]

STL should have gotten the Jaguars franchise when they expanded...we were robbed at that time.

Very true and related to the topic at hand. I'm beyond tired of explaining to people who buy the media narrative that the NFL has serially screwed St. Louis. The Cardinals left because they didn't want to share a building with the real Cardinals. They went to Arizona and played in a college stadium for 18 (Franking) seasons. Then, expansion comes around they give teams to two cities that are weaker in every way as candidates for a pro team and...wait for it...both play in shitty college stadiums for several seasons. Now, shocker, the Jags can't fill their building despite having had far more recent successful seasons than the Rams.

But don't wait for the media to point that out. It's all: StL is nuthin' but ghetto 'cuz Kroenke's lawyers sez so. Sure-that must be a complete deal breaker for the NFL and I'm sure they'll soon withdraw the franchises in Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinatti, Indianapolis...Just like the media is all: PRO TEAM IN VEGAS!!! FIRST!!1 And that completely non-analytical line is then parroted by folks claiming Las Vegas is a good market for hockey with no argument to support it.

[Kerfuffle]

Saying the franchise "failed" in Quebec isn't really accurate.

A team can have good attendance and still not be a viable business financially. The owner had requested a bail out to keep the city in Quebec due to heavy financial losses. When the bail out was not approved he had no choice but to sell the team. He did not move the team. He sold it to investors, who then as the new owners moved it to Colorado - a much more stable market. You also had an older arena in Quebec City, a smaller Canadian market, and one where French is the primary language. It was no secret 20+ years ago that free agents didn't want to play in Quebec. The NHL could put a franchise there again for a second chance but what has changed? Nothing - you got the same old arena, small market, little to no endorsement opportunities for star players, and a French speaking market. Just nothing attractive about that. I agree with you Curt that expansion was not needed and I don't think Las Vegas will succeed either but between the 2 locations it was a no brainer.

[theohall]

STL should have gotten the Jaguars franchise when they expanded...we were robbed at that time.

Very true and related to the topic at hand. I'm beyond tired of explaining to people who buy the media narrative that the NFL has serially screwed St. Louis. The Cardinals left because they didn't want to share a building with the real Cardinals. They went to Arizona and played in a college stadium for 18 (Franking) seasons. Then, expansion comes around they give teams to two cities that are weaker in every way as candidates for a pro team and...wait for it...both play in shitty college stadiums for several seasons. Now, shocker, the Jags can't fill their building despite having had far more recent successful seasons than the Rams.

Off-topic: What recent success for the Jags are you referring to? The playoffs twice since 2000 and then sucking hind tit since 2007? Both the Rams and Jags have won 39 games since the Jags last playoff appearance in 2007. Jaguars have been as bad as the Rams, but Khan is actually trying to improve the team now which wasn't happening under the prior owner. St Louis folks always over-state things related to the Jaguars with out actually checking facts. Living here in Jacksonville, I notice this having been raised in St Louis. Jacksonville does support the team. The Jaguars, since 2010, were only under 90% capacity once - and that was 2013 when Khan had just bought the team and waited to make changes and the attendance was still 89.2% of capacity. In 2012 and 2014 the Jags had attendance capacities of 96.8% and 97.5% FYI, the Jags stadium is slightly bigger than the Edward Jones dome so the capacity numbers matter. But supposedly, Jacksonville doesn't support the Jaguars, which is a media created concoction. Meanwhile, St Louis hasn't cracked 90% capacity in a slightly smaller stadium once since 2010. FYI it takes fewer seat sales to break 90% in the Edward Jones Dome than it does to break 90% at Everbank Field.The Rams best percentage of capacity in attendance (87.2% 2013) since 2010 is actually lower than the Jaguars worst attendance (89.2% 2013) over the same time frame. But St Louis deserves the team more???? If Everbank Field (67164 seats) is a "college stadium," what is the Ed which has fewer seats (66965)?? Hmmm???

Sorry for the rant, but I get sick of people stating things which are blatantly untrue, because they just believe what their local media and sometimes the national media is feeding them, instead of actually looking into the facts.

Back OT. If Vegas has 13,200 season ticket deposits for a 17000 seat facility, they have the initial support. We shall see if it holds out over time which I doubt it will, especially if other teams move there.

[Oaklandblue]

What I understood to be the biggest reason the Nordiques had issues acquiring players was that they pretty much demanded they spoke French and were highly dismissive to the point of being discriminatory about a player who couldn't, regardless of their skill set or desire to join up with the Nords.

Way I see it, everyone who got "robbed" got a team back, from the Bay Area (Sharks), Winnipeg (Jets) to Atlanta (Flames and Thrashers, a city that was outright robbed twice and whom the NHL totally allowed to fail). The issue isn't the feasibility of a team, with the right support from BOTH the fanbase AND the league, a team will work. Bettman screwed over several cities to move teams only to move them back again (Seals/Sharks the exception) only to move them back. If you're going that far, Quebec had better get a team. Hell, Columbus got a team and that can be -thinly- construed (going on a ledge here) as replacing the Barons franchise that was there.

Putting a team in Las Vegas, whose 'visiting' population greatly outnumbers the population living there is a horrible, horrible place to even try and stage a professional team, and that's without considering what the main income of that city and the state comes from.

[WaukeeBlues]

Atlanta's biggest problem in my humble opinion is that they never won. They got swept in their lone playoff appearance and had some atrocious luck in their draft picks, most notably Patrik Stefan.

They could just never get a consistent winning product on the ice and very few high profile names stuck around for long enough to catch fire. Heatley was good for a few years then traded. Same for Kovalchuk.

You have to win. The Panthers had that cup run in '96 which gave them a boost early on. Tampa has won a cup and been to another finals. Better ownership groups than the Thrashers had... just wasn't a good situation. I don't know that you can say the NHL had a big part to play in it. But I could be wrong.

[WaukeeBlues]

... Putting a team in Las Vegas, whose 'visiting' population greatly outnumbers the population living there is a horrible, horrible place to even try and stage a professional team, and that's without considering what the main income of that city and the state comes from.

See many people, myself included, think that that's an asset and not a liability. Those box seat tickets and lower bowl tickets are going to go vast from the sheer number of venues who would give tickets for promotions, business trips, etc, which would include some east coasters and northern populations.

Snow birds are a real thing. Plenty of people who love hockey and love Vegas visit on a very regular basis to that city. Many people have winter homes/condos/apartments there.

Now how many "hard core" fans are you going to have? Well that's the question but as far as attendance to games and people in the building? I don't think that will be any problem whatsoever.