AP: Las Vegas expansion is 'done deal'

[gaijin]

Apperently they sold some 14,000 season tickets. That can't be full 41 game packages, though? Curious how they counted those numbers. I expect them to be full for first half of the year then just go down from there...

We'll see. It depends on a lot of different factors. I expect the team will make a concerted effort to ensure the games are as entertaining for attendees as possible (meaning pregame, during intermissions, stoppages in play, promotions, giveaways, etc.). Make it a show, and you can keep the attendance up, even if the team is not stellar. And if there is one thing Vegas knows, it's how to put on a show.

On a [mostly] unrelated note, I hope they stick with the Black Knights name. Good potential for logos and mascots, and it doesn't sound like a MLS or WNBA name.

[glen a richter]

Given the expansion draft rules (protect either 7 forwards, 3 d-men, 1 goalie OR a mix of 8 skaters and 1 goalie) and that guys with NTC's cannot be exposed, who do we protect assuming the roster is unchanged significantly from where we are right now?

I see a LOT of value in trading Elliott now. If we don't trade him, we have to decide whether to expose him or Allen in the expansion draft and risk losing Allen to the LV team and Elliott to free agency. Trade Ells now (hello, Calgary? About pick #6... package deal?) and protect Allen. Let's retain Anders Nilsson to backup Allen and expose him in the draft instead.

As far as which forwards and d-men they protect, there's some obvious choices... your Tarasenko's and Schwartz's obviously, Fabbri, Parayko, Edmundson are all exempt because they're in the 1st or 2nd year exemption category. Bouwmeester has the NTC so you can protect Pie, Gunnarrsson and Shattenkirk if he's still here which I don't think he will be. I guess they can probably get away pretty easily with leaving mostly only borderline 3rd and 4th liners exposed.

My prediction who LV will draft based on who I think we'll make available? Jori Lehtera.

[dmiles2186]

Apperently they sold some 14,000 season tickets. That can't be full 41 game packages, though? Curious how they counted those numbers. I expect them to be full for first half of the year then just go down from there...

The other thing we have to remember is that the NHL is the first (and only) pro game in town and that can set them apart from a situation like Miami and the Panthers. Will it last? Hard to say. But the NBA has done this for years where they expand into markets with no other pro sports and thrive. Indy (before the Colts), San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Phoenix (before the Cardinals, Coyotes, Dbacks), Portland, Sacramento, Charlotte (before the Panthers), and so forth. It's not a bad strategy and you can build a devoted fan base because the sports fans in that city want a pro team to call their own.

[cardsfan04]

I'm really surprised that they only are adding 1 team. My guess is that they'll add a second team soon to completely balance divisions.

Not real sure what to think of Vegas as the destination. I've thought it would get a pro team for awhile. I'm a bit surprised that hockey is the sport to do it though. But, like Kerfuffle said, I'm sure people will plan trips to Vegas around when their team will be there. Not everybody of course, but I'm sure that will happen.

"We should go see an away game."
"Ok, but when/where?"
"They'll be in Vegas on . . ."
"Sold."

Between that and the gaming industry out there likely buying tickets/suites as giveaways, I think it has a chance to survive. Hard to say though. Lots of hot weather markets struggle to support hockey.

[cardsfan04]

And Stan didn't start lobbying for the LA move until the summer of 2014.

Honestly, you don't know what you're talking about. He clearly planned to move the team from the day he bought it. That became more clear as time went on but his campaign to neglect the team so as to alienate fans so as to facilitate the move started from day one.

Again, ESPN isn't going to tell you about that though.

It's not like the St Louis RSA did their part to keep the team, either, and that wasn't on ESPN. Breaking a lease by not actually doing what they agreed to do certainly isn't the way to keep an NFL team, but it's clearly all Kroenke's fault, right?? The RSA committed a major fault in this, because had they lived up to the lease they signed, Kroenke could not have moved the Rams until much later. Kroenke didn't buy the large chunk of land in L.A. until he and the Rams had won the arbitration hearing against the RSA. But I clearly know nothing about this - probably as little as you actually know about the Jaguars and their consistently 90+% fan support. Which the Rams haven't had since 2007 long before SK bought the team.

St Louis politics have been ridiculous when it comes to the NFL basically from 1984 onwards. It's almost always been about what the city can get out of the team vice doing what is necessary to keep a team in the first place. And that's not on ESPN either.

That's not exactly how it happened though. The 30 year lease converted to yearly after 20 years if the stadium wasn't in the top 25% (top 8 ) of the NFL at year 20. By my count, there are 22 stadiums that are newer than the EJD. Making it one of the top 8 stadiums in the league wasn't very realistic, especially when the owner had no interest whatsoever in discussing improvements with the city. Even if he did, the lease would have been up in 10 years anyway.

So, they offered him a new stadium, one that was going to be pretty damn awesome at that. The problem wasn't fan support or the stadium. It's that it was in St. Louis and not LA. He'll make more money out there, which I get. That's his and many other owners' primary concern. But, the same could be said of the majority of markets. St. Louis was just the unlucky one.

[cardsfan04]

JR just said that we don't have to protect Bouwmeester in the expansion draft. Apparently a NTC doesn't require protection, but a no-movement clause does. Nobody on the roster has a no-movement clause.

[theohall]

And Stan didn't start lobbying for the LA move until the summer of 2014.

Honestly, you don't know what you're talking about. He clearly planned to move the team from the day he bought it. That became more clear as time went on but his campaign to neglect the team so as to alienate fans so as to facilitate the move started from day one.

Again, ESPN isn't going to tell you about that though.

It's not like the St Louis RSA did their part to keep the team, either, and that wasn't on ESPN. Breaking a lease by not actually doing what they agreed to do certainly isn't the way to keep an NFL team, but it's clearly all Kroenke's fault, right?? The RSA committed a major fault in this, because had they lived up to the lease they signed, Kroenke could not have moved the Rams until much later. Kroenke didn't buy the large chunk of land in L.A. until he and the Rams had won the arbitration hearing against the RSA. But I clearly know nothing about this - probably as little as you actually know about the Jaguars and their consistently 90+% fan support. Which the Rams haven't had since 2007 long before SK bought the team.

St Louis politics have been ridiculous when it comes to the NFL basically from 1984 onwards. It's almost always been about what the city can get out of the team vice doing what is necessary to keep a team in the first place. And that's not on ESPN either.

That's not exactly how it happened though. The 30 year lease converted to yearly after 20 years if the stadium wasn't in the top 25% (top 8 ) of the NFL at year 20. By my count, there are 22 stadiums that are newer than the EJD. Making it one of the top 8 stadiums in the league wasn't very realistic, especially when the owner had no interest whatsoever in discussing improvements with the city. Even if he did, the lease would have been up in 10 years anyway.

So, they offered him a new stadium, one that was going to be pretty damn awesome at that. The problem wasn't fan support or the stadium. It's that it was in St. Louis and not LA. He'll make more money out there, which I get. That's his and many other owners' primary concern. But, the same could be said of the majority of markets. St. Louis was just the unlucky one.

They offered him a new stadium which he would have to continue to pay a lease and share revenues (parking, concessions, ads, etc) with the city. This is something he won't have to share at all in LA and St Louis offered nothing comparable to the owner of the team and owner of the stadium getting all revenues (including concerts, soccer games, other events) from said stadium. We are told as fans when a player is traded or moves as a free agent, this is a business. Well, as a business decision, this one is a no-brainer - all revenues to the owner vs paying to play somewhere and getting partial revenues. Simple business decision.

[cardsfan04]

And Stan didn't start lobbying for the LA move until the summer of 2014.

Honestly, you don't know what you're talking about. He clearly planned to move the team from the day he bought it. That became more clear as time went on but his campaign to neglect the team so as to alienate fans so as to facilitate the move started from day one.

Again, ESPN isn't going to tell you about that though.

It's not like the St Louis RSA did their part to keep the team, either, and that wasn't on ESPN. Breaking a lease by not actually doing what they agreed to do certainly isn't the way to keep an NFL team, but it's clearly all Kroenke's fault, right?? The RSA committed a major fault in this, because had they lived up to the lease they signed, Kroenke could not have moved the Rams until much later. Kroenke didn't buy the large chunk of land in L.A. until he and the Rams had won the arbitration hearing against the RSA. But I clearly know nothing about this - probably as little as you actually know about the Jaguars and their consistently 90+% fan support. Which the Rams haven't had since 2007 long before SK bought the team.

St Louis politics have been ridiculous when it comes to the NFL basically from 1984 onwards. It's almost always been about what the city can get out of the team vice doing what is necessary to keep a team in the first place. And that's not on ESPN either.

That's not exactly how it happened though. The 30 year lease converted to yearly after 20 years if the stadium wasn't in the top 25% (top 8 ) of the NFL at year 20. By my count, there are 22 stadiums that are newer than the EJD. Making it one of the top 8 stadiums in the league wasn't very realistic, especially when the owner had no interest whatsoever in discussing improvements with the city. Even if he did, the lease would have been up in 10 years anyway.

So, they offered him a new stadium, one that was going to be pretty damn awesome at that. The problem wasn't fan support or the stadium. It's that it was in St. Louis and not LA. He'll make more money out there, which I get. That's his and many other owners' primary concern. But, the same could be said of the majority of markets. St. Louis was just the unlucky one.

They offered him a new stadium which he would have to continue to pay a lease and share revenues (parking, concessions, ads, etc) with the city. This is something he won't have to share at all in LA and St Louis offered nothing comparable to the owner of the team and owner of the stadium getting all revenues (including concerts, soccer games, other events) from said stadium. We are told as fans when a player is traded or moves as a free agent, this is a business. Well, as a business decision, this one is a no-brainer - all revenues to the owner vs paying to play somewhere and getting partial revenues. Simple business decision.

I'm not disputing that LA is better for Stan Kroenke than STL. I get that. I also get that he's a businessman and he made a decision to help his bottom line. I even get that this new stadium is going to be a lot better than the one in St. Louis and is good for the NFL.

What I'm saying is that the same could be said if you replace St. Louis in that first paragraph with almost every other NFL market. Billionaire Stan was offered $500MM+ in free money for no other reason than he's a billionaire. In return, he refused to meet with city officials, he completely ignored the fan base, he referred to himself as a victim, and he wrote a 30 page report of half truths about how terrible the city is.

The offer from St. Louis was a good one. It was good enough for an NFL team and I have a hard time believing many other markets would have given better offers. It just wasn't as good as LA. But, again, that's because LA is one of the top 3 markets in the country, not because St. Louis is insufficient as a market.

Even if it was a simple business decision, the way he treated St. Louis in the process of it was nothing short of slimy. And then he had the audacity to ask the city for $100MM a month after leaving so he could develop some land in the city that he just got finished saying couldn't support anything.

[theohall]

Let's break these down:

Billionaire Stan was offered $500MM+ in free money for no other reason than he's a billionaire.

Part 1: 500MM to help build a stadium. So what? That 500MM gets paid back to the city via the lease, loss of ad revenue, loss of concessions revenue, loss of parking revenue, etc... (heck, the city would get that 500MM back on the NFL alone in the first year) meanwhile, Kroenke, by building his own stadium in LA pays no lease and has all revenue going to him - even non-football event revenue which, again, he could not get from St Louis. Business decision. Had St Louis let him build his own stadium and keep everything, as he is getting in LA, then the team probably would not have moved. St Louis never offered that as an option - due the greed of the damn St Louis city politicians that have been that way for all 50 years of my life.

In return, he refused to meet with city officials, he completely ignored the fan base, he referred to himself as a victim, and he wrote a 30 page report of half truths about how terrible the city is.

Was St Louis ever going to offer a total ownership of the Stadium option to Kroenke? I never saw one anywhere. Every St Louis proposal involved the City owning the Stadium, which again, does not beat what Kroenke will earn in LA by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 20-30 year when ALL revenues are considered. Yes, the 30 page letter part is utter crap on Kroenke's part. At the same time, would St Louis honestly have ever offered a total ownership of a new stadium option to Kroenke, considering that's what the deal is in LA?

The offer from St. Louis was a good one. It was good enough for an NFL team and I have a hard time believing many other markets would have given better offers. It just wasn't as good as LA. But, again, that's because LA is one of the top 3 markets in the country, not because St. Louis is insufficient as a market.

Was it good enough to beat all revenue from the stadium going to the owner of the Rams? No. It was not. Again - simple business decision.

Even if it was a simple business decision, the way he treated St. Louis in the process of it was nothing short of slimy. And then he had the audacity to ask the city for $100MM a month after leaving so he could develop some land in the city that he just got finished saying couldn't support anything.

It's only audacious because he is still acting like a businessman who assumed people would accept a business decision which actually favored him making billions vs losing 70% of those billions based on what St Louis offered.

It's personal to Rams fans, including me, because St Louis lost the Rams and he acted like a dick afterwards. Objectively speaking, the city never offered anything matching what Kroenke will earn in LA. Look at the damn revenue before being so ticked at the business side of it.

Feel free to be ticked about the slimy letter, but don't be disingenuous by suggesting St Louis politicians would ever agree to total ownership of a stadium by a private entity. That was never on the table in any offers I read about. And, yes, I read about lots of them - not just "ESPN".

I kept asking on the Rams forum I frequent if anyone had heard anything about a serious offer for Kroenke to build his own facility in St Louis. The only thing anyone mentioned were rumors about a possible Earth City project, but nothing in an official offer from the city anywhere in relation a total ownership, no lease, all revenues option - which is what the city had to actually friggin' beat for this not to be a no-brainer business decision.

I was saying this in December of 2014 noting the Rams would move unless the city offered Kroenke a total ownership, build his own stadium option - which is what he was doing in LA. They never did. And I was lambasted for saying so by Rams fans who can't seem to comprehend that the NFL is a business first.

[cardsfan04]

While it's not something I like, Kroenke choosing LA over St. Louis isn't what bothers me. I get that owning a team isn't the same as cheering for one. You're right when you say he's a businessman and it's reasonable for him to care about his bottom line. In that sense, I totally get him choosing LA over St. Louis. That doesn't mean that what he did and how he did it isn't worthy of criticism though.

What blows my mind is that a city offers to pay for upwards of half of a new stadium that would have been a great stadium, Kroenke turns his nose up at all the free money because he wants even more money, and the city offering the money is the one considered greedy. I don't follow that logic for a moment. It's certainly not because they would have made the money back in a year. Cities don't tend to profit on paying for new stadiums even with the extra activity the stadium generates, so says Forbes.

It's also kind of absurd to me that he should get total ownership of a billion dollar stadium in which he pays for ~25% of. Why should that be the way it works? He's getting full ownership in LA because he's paying for it in LA. He's getting some tax breaks which help, but they top out around $100MM, ~3% of the stadiums' cost. So, ownership percentage from one to the other isn't an apples to apples comparison.

Also, it's not the people don't understand that it's a business first. Doing something for business reasons doesn't put somebody above criticism.

[fargoblues]

JR just said that we don't have to protect Bouwmeester in the expansion draft. Apparently a NTC doesn't require protection, but a no-movement clause does. Nobody on the roster has a no-movement clause.

this has my full attention and my full support.

[theohall]

JR just said that we don't have to protect Bouwmeester in the expansion draft. Apparently a NTC doesn't require protection, but a no-movement clause does. Nobody on the roster has a no-movement clause.

this has my full attention and my full support.

++

[WaukeeBlues]

They were talking on NHL network radio the other week that looking back at the last few expansion drafts, this might be a Vegas team that could make some noise out of the gate.

Generally speaking NHL teams are far more deep and talented now than they were back in the late 90's when these expansion drafts were happening and based on these structures some teams are going to have to expose some rather good players.

Vegas isn't going to be landing any superstars off the hop but all in all its projected they're going to have a deeper and more talented team than any of the previous Wild/Jackets/Thrashers, et al.

[glen a richter]

Best expansion team of my time, and I guess of most of our times, was Florida, by far. They came flying out the gate, missed the playoffs their first two seasons, if I'm not mistaken, by 1 point each season, then SCF the 3rd year. That team defined chemistry.

Bill Torrey was a (Franking) genius though, I wish he was our GM, all 82 years old of him.