Milwaukee getting NHL team?
terh...@cnsvax.uwec.edu
team? The Milwaukee Sentinal the past two days has mentioned that Lloyd Petit
may buy the Whalers, Lightning, or the Jets and move them to Milwaukee. If
anyone else has heard this please reply
Hockey fan from Wisconsin
Rich Edmondson
I don't know anything specific, but I do know that when the NHL was
doling out expansion franchises, Petit lost interest due to the rule
which would force him to pay the Blackhawks like $100 million because
his arena was witin 100 miles of their arena (~97 miles as I
remember). I don't pretend to be informed, just what I remember from
before.
> Hockey fan from Wisconsin
Rich Edmondson
Rob Callum
>terh...@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>
>> Has anyone out there heard anything about Milwaukee getting an NHL
>>team? The Milwaukee Sentinal the past two days has mentioned that Lloyd Petit
>>may buy the Whalers, Lightning, or the Jets and move them to Milwaukee. If
>>anyone else has heard this please reply
>
live part-time in Connecticut) but the Smurfs aren't going anywhere for at
least 10 years. They signed a deal with the State of Connecticut. Now, I
dunno why the State of Connecticut would want them, but that's the way it
is.
--
If I could do one thing Rob Callum
I would try to write and sing cal...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
A song that ends your questioning
And makes you believe in me. --Dan Fogelberg
Eeyore's Evil Twin
>which would force him to pay the Blackhawks like $100 million because
>his arena was witin 100 miles of their arena (~97 miles as I
Since then, the power structure of the NHL has changed and Wirth is
basically out (along with his buddy Ziegler) and McNall is in and trying to
bring the league into the 19th century. I'd say there's a good shot that
Wirth wouldn't get remotely that much under the new regime.
--
Chuq "IMHO" Von Rospach, ESD Support & Training (DAL/AUX)
Member, SFWA =+= Editor, OtherRealms
ch...@apple.com | GEnie: MAC.BIGOT | ALink:CHUQ
Sterling Holloway: We'll miss you.
tom wilson
Why would Lightning owners, who spent two years getting the franchise built,
sell the team 3 months into its first year? Why would Jets owners, who got
economic assistance to keep the team in the Smythe for several years, sell the
team one year into the deal? That leaves Hartford. The only rumor I've heard
is that Hartford is moving to Miami. I think we know what we can do with
Hartford rumors (i.e. it's just talk). If you're getting a team, it will be
a front page story, on the TV news, etc.
Tom
Marc Foster
Other rumors along these lines involves a group of Dallas businessmen buying
the Whalers and moving them down. The FW/D Media jumped on the idea a few
months ago, just as the CHL was forming. I've heard nothing about it since,
most likely for the reasons stated. The Whalers aren't going anywhere, thanks
to the Connecticut taxpayers. Winnipeg isn't going anywhere, and the idea
that the Lightning moving is just plain stupid, I don't care if it was in the
_Milwaukee Sentinal_. The only hope for Milwaukee, Dallas, Houston, Seattle,
or any other hopeful is expansion.
marc, r.s.h contact, Central Hockey League
Marcus Lindroos INF
In other words, no hope at all. Only idiots pay $50 million for an NHL
franchise as long as there is no national TV contract pouring $s into the
sport. Face it, even the NBA (which is stronger and more popular than ever) did
not dare charge more than $35 million for their last expansion.
---
No offense to Ottawa and Tampa Bay fans, but the only reason your teams are in
the league is because the NHL governors are idiots. The last time I looked,
neither ownership group looked like coming close of actually possessing the
$50 million demanded by the NHL. In fact, as far as finances go some
observers feel the National Hockey League chose the two *WORST* bids available.
Tampa and Ottawa merely pretended to have the goods necessary to operate a
financially successful team, and the league (blinded by the dollar signs as
usual) believed them.
---
The worst part about this is that the NHL might not be able to expand again
although the talent pool (with the fall of communism in Eastern Europe) is
deeper than ever before. In fact, pro hockey may well be the only sport where
expansion is absolutely necessary, otherwise more and more Canadian and
American players will lose their jobs to European imports. Yet, not many
ownership groups will be interested to pay that much for the privilegie(sp) of
owning a team - especially if Tampa or Ottawa fail to survive. And there is no
way the league can charge less than $50 million the next time, unless they give
back some $10 million each to Tampa, San Jose and Ottawa. Perhaps they should,
but I predict they won't.
---
We can only hope that the Whalers move out of Hartford (one of my favorite
options). Frankly, Connecticut citizens should not be asked to pay to keep a
franchise losing millions there. If they want to support the team (and there
are countless good reasons why the team is struggling to average 9,000 at the
moment) they should buy tickets and attend games like anyone else - not have
to pay some kind of tax. As bad as the Connecticut economy is, it would be much
better for everyone if the Whalers moved to a bigger city.
> marc, r.s.h contact, Central Hockey League
>
MARCU$
Gerald Olchowy
>The worst part about this is that the NHL might not be able to expand again
>although the talent pool (with the fall of communism in Eastern Europe) is
>deeper than ever before. In fact, pro hockey may well be the only sport where
>expansion is absolutely necessary, otherwise more and more Canadian and
>American players will lose their jobs to European imports. Yet, not many
>ownership groups will be interested to pay that much for the privilegie(sp) of
>owning a team - especially if Tampa or Ottawa fail to survive. And there is no
>way the league can charge less than $50 million the next time, unless they give
>back some $10 million each to Tampa, San Jose and Ottawa. Perhaps they should,
>but I predict they won't.
Further expansion is still in the works, and the NHL owners look like
they have learnt something from the Tampa and Ottawa fiascoes. Disney
in Anaheim and the Blockbuster Video/Marlin co-owner in Miami are close
to being on the front burner for two years from now. Plus the Compuware
people are still interested, and there is Milwaukee. The only problem
with the $50 million dollar franchise fee is that the NHL chose owners
in Tampa and Ottawa who didn't have any money.
Gerald
Sheng Li
> Hockey fan from Wisconsin
I don't know about the other two team, but Winnipeg Jets is certainly out of the picture for this deal. They made a deal with the city to stay at least until 1996 or 97.
Marcus Lindroos INF
Thanks Gerald! For the first time I am happy to be proven wrong. As I said, the
NHL needs to keep the Canadian and American players it has got, don't think
having a bunch of Eastern Europeans who speak no English will make the
league more attractive to the sports public.
---
Anaheim? Bruce McNall and the LA Kings are reportedly against the idea of
adding a second team in the Greater LA area. I have my doubts too, although
Orange County residents reportedly live too far away to be able to commute to
Kings games on a regular basis. So it might not hurt the established NHL team
that much.
---
The number of European & American players joining the league is great news
indeed. In 1984-85, 82% of all NHLers were Canadian, 11.4% American and 6.4%
from Europe. Today, the corresponding percentages are 66.2%, 16.5% and 17%!!
Impressive stuff, by 1994-95 a 28-team-league may well contain better players
on average than the 21 teams that played eight years ago had.
The following candidates have been mentioned in the HOCKEY NEWS during the
last few years:
SOUTH:
Houston, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta
WEST:
Seattle, Anaheim, San Diego, Phoenix, Denver
MIDWEST:
Milwaukee, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Kansas City
CANADA:
Hamilton
If I had my way, the league would choose Milwaukee, Seattle, Cleveland, either
Houston or Dallas and move the Whalers to...Miami or Southern California.
What do you think?
> Gerald
MARCU$
David Vessell
>SOUTH:
>Houston, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta
Atlanta had a team in the past that wasn't supported and moved to Calgary,
though future success of the Atlanta Knights (Lightning farm team) may
persuade the NHL to take another chance on the city.
I would personally despise the idea of a team in Miami, but only because
Miami fucked Tampa Bay for a baseball team, so I don't have a logical
reason for opposing a franchise in Miami. However, the success of Tampa
Bay will be crucial to any chances of a team in Miami. Tampa has the
benefit of a healthy chunk of Canadian retirees; I don't know if Miami has
the same thing or not.
I have no idea of the popularity of hockey in Texas.
>WEST:
>Seattle, Anaheim, San Diego, Phoenix, Denver
I could see Seattle rating a team. Anaheim, San Diego, Phoenix...who
knows? Denver had a team and lost it (Colorado Rockies), but for reasons
I'm not sure about.
>MIDWEST:
>Milwaukee, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Kansas City
Milwaukee would be a good choice. Both Cleveland and Kansas City have had
teams in the past which collapsed. The midwest puzzles me. It seems
the St. Louis Blues are the only small-market midwest team that has ever
gotten any support. Anyone care to speculate why? It certainly hasn't
been their winning ways....Teams in this area would be well advised to look
at St. Louis and see what they're doing right.
>CANADA:
>Hamilton
You could put a team anywhere in Canada and they'd do well.
>If I had my way, the league would choose Milwaukee, Seattle, Cleveland, either
>Houston or Dallas and move the Whalers to...Miami or Southern California.
>What do you think?
I think the NHL should wait and see what their three new franchises are
going to do before dumping more on the pile. Part of the NHL's problems in
the 1970s and 1980s were that the NHL expanded with no real aim, and teams
moved and collapsed and merged and it was really crazy there for awhile.
Do you know how the St. Louis Blues came into being? The Chicago
Blackhawks wanted a cross-state rival! St. Louis had to be talked into
asking for a team! Fortunately, that situation worked out really well, but
teams from Colorado, Atlanta, Cleveland, and Kansas City all either moved
or collapsed during that period of time. That's a pretty severe record
for a major sports league.
Now, with the success of San Jose and the success so far of Tampa Bay and
Ottawa (in terms of fans, anyway), maybe the NHL has learned from its past
mistakes and poor planning. But I would be none too eager to start
trolling for expansion until I was sure that the teams I had were all
strong and viable.
--
davE. Making the world safe for intelligent dance music. da...@bradley.edu.
########## David L. Vessell -- Bradley University Computing Services #########
"I generally don't sing along with people who tie me up." - Robin Williams
matthew militzok
Pat Murphy
obviously i'm a bit biased... but i'd like to see 'em
bring hockey back to denver. the college hockey scene
as well as the local pick-up games are boomin' all
along the front range...
AND i'll get to see the FLYERS at least once per year!!
:)
Marcus Lindroos INF
> MLIN...@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF) writes:
> [concerning future NHL expansion]
>
> >SOUTH:
> >Houston, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta
>
> Atlanta had a team in the past that wasn't supported and moved to Calgary,
> though future success of the Atlanta Knights (Lightning farm team) may
> persuade the NHL to take another chance on the city.
The Flames had no problems until management decided operating a hockey team was
too expensive because of the World Hockey Association forcing up salaries.
Cliff Fletcher once said they had loyal fans at first, but that many people
were annoyed by the owners' cheap approach to the game. They wouldn't invest
enough money to operate a truly successful team and sold the team to Calgary
for a hefty profit instead. That's sad because, as far as I know, fan support
in Atlanta wasn't that bad even in the late 1970s. It is easy to imagine that
the "Braves effect" could have hit the Atlanta Flames instead, had the owners
remained loyal and let Fletcher assemble a team capable of winning the Cup -
which hed did in 1988(?).
---
Another problem is the Omni, it's location isn't that good but a new arena will
be built for the Atlanta Olympics. Perhaps the league will give the city
another try then.
> I would personally despise the idea of a team in Miami, but only because
> Miami fucked Tampa Bay for a baseball team, so I don't have a logical
> reason for opposing a franchise in Miami. However, the success of Tampa
> Bay will be crucial to any chances of a team in Miami. Tampa has the
> benefit of a healthy chunk of Canadian retirees; I don't know if Miami has
> the same thing or not.
Isn't Miami bigger, with a larger Canadian population?
> I have no idea of the popularity of hockey in Texas.
Houston might be a better choice as they had a successful WHA team that won the
Avco Trophy on two occasions. The usually drew well and had a core group of
some 9,000 loyal fans. Plus, none of the other three teams there (Astros,
Oilers, Rockets) ever win the championship.
> >WEST:
> >Seattle, Anaheim, San Diego, Phoenix, Denver
>
> I could see Seattle rating a team. Anaheim, San Diego, Phoenix...who
> knows? Denver had a team and lost it (Colorado Rockies), but for reasons
> I'm not sure about.
San Diego has lost two NBA teams, one ABA team and one WHA hockey club because
of poor fan support. Their baseball club almost left in 1977 as well. I
wouldn't count on them, although the city has grown a lot since the 1970s
when the WHA Mariners played there. The IHL San Diego Gulls are almost "major
league", being owned by a rich Canadian, and fan support has been good so far
(8,000 on average). Denver didn't draw crowds the last time, mainly because the
team stunk. It's a comparatively small market with established NFL and NBA
teams and a new baseball franchise as well. Count them out, and Anaheim as well
(the have the Kings already, who might play some games at the Anaheim Convention
Center to please the Orange County residents).
>
> >MIDWEST:
> >Milwaukee, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Kansas City
>
> Milwaukee would be a good choice. Both Cleveland and Kansas City have had
> teams in the past which collapsed. The midwest puzzles me. It seems
> the St. Louis Blues are the only small-market midwest team that has ever
> gotten any support. Anyone care to speculate why? It certainly hasn't
> been their winning ways....Teams in this area would be well advised to look
> at St. Louis and see what they're doing right.
Cleveland had problems with the arena, which is in Richfield - one of the
suburbs. Eric Ridkin told me most of the city's hockey fans live in the
opposite half of town. The NBA "Cadavers" averaged 4,000 fans in 1982, but
money from TV kept them from moving or folding. The NHL does not have that
luxury (income from TV).
Still, the Cavs are planning a new building in downtown and the NHL is
said to be interested in putting an expansion team there. I am all for it as
Cleveland is the only huge northern market without a hockey team.
---
Kansas City appeared to be too small a market the last time the NHL tried
to sell hockey there in 1974-76. Indianapolis had a successful WHA team (the
Racers, which is where Gretzky started his pro career) and there isn't much
competition from other sports (two lousy basketball and NFL teams). Cincinnati
was a good WHA town and their IHL team is extremely popular. Hm, that's
four fairly strong candidates...
---
I'd try to maintain a strong presence in the Midwest because that's where many
of tomorrow's NHLers should come from. Currently, only Minnesota and Michigan
are major producers of talent, although there are some Illinois, Wisconsin and
Ohio natives as well. Putting teams in Milwaukee and Ohio (and Indiana) could
have a positive influence on amateur hockey there. Seattle fits in the same
category(sp) - junior hockey has been very popular and some Washington
natives are starting to come up through the system.
>
> >CANADA:
> >Hamilton
>
> You could put a team anywhere in Canada and they'd do well.
Yes, but would the Sabres, Red Wings and Maple Leafs like it? Face it, all
three teams draw fans from Southern Ontario, putting a fourth team in the
middle doesn't appear to be a smart move at all. Ottawa "deserves" to be in the
NHL, Hamilton does not - unless we move the Sabres out of Buffalo.
>
> >If I had my way, the league would choose Milwaukee, Seattle, Cleveland, either
> >Houston or Dallas and move the Whalers to...Miami or Southern California.
> >What do you think?
>
> I think the NHL should wait and see what their three new franchises are
> going to do before dumping more on the pile. Part of the NHL's problems in
> the 1970s and 1980s were that the NHL expanded with no real aim, and teams
> moved and collapsed and merged and it was really crazy there for awhile.
> Do you know how the St. Louis Blues came into being? The Chicago
> Blackhawks wanted a cross-state rival! St. Louis had to be talked into
> asking for a team! Fortunately, that situation worked out really well, but
St.Louis is in a different state (Missouri), but you're correct about the
traditional rivalry.
> teams from Colorado, Atlanta, Cleveland, and Kansas City all either moved
> or collapsed during that period of time. That's a pretty severe record
> for a major sports league.
Not! The NBA has been forced to move three times as many franchises during the
last twenty years. Even the NFL has been as unstable as the NHL in this
respect.
> Now, with the success of San Jose and the success so far of Tampa Bay and
> Ottawa (in terms of fans, anyway), maybe the NHL has learned from its past
> mistakes and poor planning. But I would be none too eager to start
> trolling for expansion until I was sure that the teams I had were all
> strong and viable.
Certainly , hockey has been a big hit in the Bay Area -especially considering
how lousy the Oakland Seals were doing (their best average was 6,900 fans!)
before moving to Cleveland. But Tampa Bay have failed to sellout their current
10,500-seater arena. Not good.
Philip Jeuck
>Now, with the success of San Jose and the success so far of Tampa Bay and
>Ottawa (in terms of fans, anyway), maybe the NHL has learned from its past
>mistakes and poor planning. But I would be none too eager to start
>trolling for expansion until I was sure that the teams I had were all
>strong and viable.
I wouldn't say San Jose is proven successful - yet. Sure they have sold out
the 10,000 seat Cow Palace but the number of season ticket noshows grows
with each game. I would estimate that last Saturday against the Penguins
there were only 9,000 fans actually there. Now next year they move to San
Jose Un-named Arena and have 18,000 seats available. I would bet they
actually decrease the number of season ticket holders because now you will
be able to get a ticket anytime you want. Give them a couple of years in
the new arena before you proclaim success after all they are loosing money
right now.
Phil Jeuck
je...@unix.sri.com
Stan Willis
In an article in the recent issue of The Hockey News, Lloyd Petit was quoted as
saying that he dropped out of the expansion race because of the $50 million
price tag for the new franchises. He expects that several teams will be
available for purchase and relocation to the Milwaukee area.
The Kings just played a neutral site game there last week and the Bradley arena
got rave reviews from everybody invloved. In a recent NHL column in the LA
Times (they have all of a suden discovered that the Kings are playing hockey),
sportswriter Lisa Dillman reported that Tampa Bay and Hartford have contacted
the Petit organization about relocating there. There seems to be growing
confidence that a team will be in Milwaukee at the start of next season.
Also, it was mentioned that the territory fee that would be owed to the Chicago
Blackhawks would be approx $9 million.
Stan Willis
net contact: LA ings
Bill Hart
on Tampa Bay. However, Hartford, Winnipeg, Minnesota, and New Jersey are
also being mentioned as possible relocation to Milwaukee.
Bill Hart
b_h...@macsch.com
Allan Sullivan
>>
>> >CANADA:
>> >Hamilton
>>
>> You could put a team anywhere in Canada and they'd do well.
>Yes, but would the Sabres, Red Wings and Maple Leafs like it? Face it, all
>three teams draw fans from Southern Ontario, putting a fourth team in the
>middle doesn't appear to be a smart move at all. Ottawa "deserves" to be in the
>NHL, Hamilton does not - unless we move the Sabres out of Buffalo.
>
Hamilton deserves an NHL francise as much as Ottawa, Tampa, or Buffalo.
They were basically screwed out of the franchise by the Sabres.
Detroit is a very sports-oriented town (Hockey, football, baseball, etc.).
Not only do the Red Wings sell out every game, Detroit also has successful
Junior teams. (One of the few places that has supported Junior and Pro teams.)
They wouldn't have to worry about a Hamilton NHL team.
Tornoto is closer to Hamilton, but remember, Ontario has 8 million people, and
most of them are concentrated in southern Ontario. A Toronto and
Hamilton francise would have many mid-size cities to draw support
from (Oshawa, Kitchener-Waterloo, Missisagua, London, Guelph, and
Barrie are all near by.) So Toronto wouldn't care too much if they
got a francise. (In fact, Toronto may like it, since it would lead
to a heated rivalry, much like the CFL teams.)
That leaves the Buffalo Sabres as the sole opponent a Hamilton francise.
They were likely the cause of the NHL overlooking Hamilton in the last
expansion, and it seems like many Hamiltonians agree with me (as witnessed
by the low turnout at a Neutral site game in Hamilton with the Sabres).