Looks to finally be official. Kansas City Penguins?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07064/767020-100.stm
Doesn't look like it's any change from the current situation. Mario said about 3 months ago that he was declaring a 30-day limit on negotiations with the city and state, after which he would aggressively pursue other offers. He's about 60 days slow in getting around to fulfilling his brinksmanship.
This all just smells like a standard corporate welfare stick up. I suppose if KC or Seattle are stupid enough to take the bait...
Nah. Declaration of an impasse is a step in the process. It probably frees them to explore other options - and if it does, you can expect the Pittsburgh arena to sue, claiming that they haven't actually reached impasse (which may be an objective standard that has to be judicially determined).
Once the Penguins sign a deal with another arena, that's when you know they are leaving.
Bring on the Pitt Panthers...::popcorn::
[quote calgARI '07]Looks to finally be official. Kansas City Penguins?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07064/767020-100.stm[/quote]
[Q]The declaration of an impasse doesn't mean the Penguins have definitely decided to leave, but at this point there is no indication they intend to talk any more with local officials.[/Q]
Sounds standard legalize to me. Put the pressure on and see.
Why would anyone voluntarily move a pro-sports franchise to Kansas City? Ever looked at the Royals over the last 20 years?
[quote KeithK]Why would anyone voluntarily move a pro-sports franchise to Kansas City? Ever looked at the Royals over the last 20 years?[/quote]
Well they just built a ridiculous, state of the art arena in a rapidly developing area of town. They also have sold something like 15,000 season tickets and every single luxury box for an NHL team should one come. Great situation IMO especially when you have the best team in the league, Nashville, not drawing that well.
http://www.sprintcenter.com/
[quote KeithK]Why would anyone voluntarily move a pro-sports franchise to Kansas City? Ever looked at the Royals over the last 20 years?[/quote]
The Chiefs do pretty well both attendance and performance wise. Granted, selling out eight home games a year might be easier than getting a good crowd for 41 games a year.
[quote Pete Godenschwager][quote KeithK]Why would anyone voluntarily move a pro-sports franchise to Kansas City? Ever looked at the Royals over the last 20 years?[/quote]
The Chiefs do pretty well both attendance and performance wise. Granted, selling out eight home games a year might be easier than getting a good crowd for 41 games a year.[/quote]
You have to consider the product as well. The Royals are not the product of the people of Kansas City, but that of an owner who simply refuses to put a serviceable product on the field. Crosby, Malkin, Staal, etc are easy to sell to people... Angel Berroa and Gil Meche are not.
[quote ajec1][quote Pete Godenschwager][quote KeithK]Why would anyone voluntarily move a pro-sports franchise to Kansas City? Ever looked at the Royals over the last 20 years?[/quote]
The Chiefs do pretty well both attendance and performance wise. Granted, selling out eight home games a year might be easier than getting a good crowd for 41 games a year.[/quote]
You have to consider the product as well. The Royals are not the product of the people of Kansas City, but that of an owner who simply refuses to put a serviceable product on the field. Crosby, Malkin, Staal, etc are easy to sell to people... Angel Berroa and Gil Meche are not.[/quote]
My point was that the local revenue stream likely to be generated by the Kansas City market makes it inadequate for a major league team these days. The Chiefs are a poor example because of NFL revenue sharing. Then again, I can't remember how much revenue sharing came out of the lockout. I have to think that NHL teams are somewhat dependant on local revenue though and selling out the arena is just a part of that.
[quote KeithK]I have to think that NHL teams are somewhat dependant on local revenue though and selling out the arena is just a part of that.[/quote]One thing that can offset this is a sweetheart deal on the lease. KC has offered to put up a team in the new arena for free. Hard to get sweeter than that.
You really can't blame Rendall, nor can the currently elected Pittsburgh officials be blamed. What we have here are the culmination of events, at least 15 years in the making. Other than the NYC area teams (New Jersey is building the New Jersey Performing Arts Center),and Detroit, Edmonton, Calgary and Anaheim (1993),every NHL city has an arena that opened no earlier than 1996. Look at how many opened new arenas in the past 5 years. Here is a project that Pittsburgh should have taken care of instead of stalling or ignoring.
[quote Trotsky][quote KeithK]I have to think that NHL teams are somewhat dependant on local revenue though and selling out the arena is just a part of that.[/quote]One thing that can offset this is a sweetheart deal on the lease. KC has offered to put up a team in the new arena for free. Hard to get sweeter than that.[/quote]I'm pretty sure that the Royals own their own stadium. They don't try to build a winning team, it is obvious that they don't try, and fans have stopped caring.
As a Penguins fan, I just keep hoping they'll get a deal done in Pittsburgh. While I root for the Blue Jackets on the side, living here in Columbus, my heart is with the Pens, and it would SUCK if they moved to KC. I couldn't bring myself to cheer for the KC Pens. Of course, then I'd devote to the CBJ entirely, though I must say the long term prospects are about 50 times better for the Penguins than the Blue Jackets right now.
Go Pens Go! (but, Stay Pens Stay!)
[quote ajec1]You have to consider the product as well. The Royals are not the product of the people of Kansas City, but that of an owner who simply refuses to put a serviceable product on the field. Crosby, Malkin, Staal, etc are easy to sell to people... Angel Berroa and Gil Meche are not.[/quote]Which, of course, is great while the Crosby-Malkin-Staal honeymoon lasts, but what happens 15 years from now when those guys are retired or playing for other teams, ticket prices are high because the team has been successful even though now they're not so good, and everybody in Kansas City realizes they'd rather watch college basketball on TV for free than pay $40 to go to a hockey game?
[quote amerks127]You really can't blame Rendall, nor can the currently elected Pittsburgh officials be blamed. What we have here are the culmination of events, at least 15 years in the making. Other than the NYC area teams (New Jersey is building the New Jersey Performing Arts Center),and Detroit, Edmonton, Calgary and Anaheim (1993),every NHL city has an arena that opened no earlier than 1996. Look at how many opened new arenas in the past 5 years. Here is a project that Pittsburgh should have taken care of instead of stalling or ignoring.[/quote]
Good for Rendell and Ravenstahl for standing their ground. Pittsburgh is a city which has managed to bounce back from massive economic devastation, and they shouldn't give in to corporate threats that require them to pay millions of dollars in corporate welfare. If Burkle and Lemieux really want a new rink, they should cough up the change to build it themselves, or go elsewhere and prove they have no loyalty to Pittsburgh.
I found this book pretty provocative and interesting when I read it in the fall:
http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Sports-Resistance-United-States/dp/1931859205/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-1809016-9643356?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173198548&sr=8-1
Among other issues, it discussed whether there was any actual benefit to states/cities funding new arenas for sports teams. The conclusion Zirin reached was similar to what Ben Rocky said in his post above.
[quote Ben Rocky 04][quote amerks127]You really can't blame Rendall, nor can the currently elected Pittsburgh officials be blamed. What we have here are the culmination of events, at least 15 years in the making. Other than the NYC area teams (New Jersey is building the New Jersey Performing Arts Center),and Detroit, Edmonton, Calgary and Anaheim (1993),every NHL city has an arena that opened no earlier than 1996. Look at how many opened new arenas in the past 5 years. Here is a project that Pittsburgh should have taken care of instead of stalling or ignoring.[/quote]
Good for Rendell and Ravenstahl for standing their ground. Pittsburgh is a city which has managed to bounce back from massive economic devastation, and they shouldn't give in to corporate threats that require them to pay millions of dollars in corporate welfare. If Burkle and Lemieux really want a new rink, they should cough up the change to build it themselves, or go elsewhere and prove they have no loyalty to Pittsburgh.[/quote]
I think we can definitely blame Rendell. For lots of things unrelated to the Penguins :-D. But on this one Ben is absolutely right. It makes little sense for a municipality to build arenas/stadiums for professional sports teams. If your business requires a new facility to be competitive do what every other type of company does. Secure financing and build the facility yourself. (Though admittedly it's standard procedure to seek tax benefits too...)
[quote ebilmes]I found this book pretty provocative and interesting when I read it in the fall:
http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Sports-Resistance-United-States/dp/1931859205/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-1809016-9643356?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173198548&sr=8-1
Among other issues, it discussed whether there was any actual benefit to states/cities funding new arenas for sports teams. The conclusion Zirin reached was similar to what Ben Rocky said in his post above.[/quote]
I remain skeptical about such a finding. I'm in Pittsburgh right now and I love the city, but if there isn't NHL hockey there, it's not a city I want to be in. That means the city loses another young about-to-be professional and their potential lifetime of taxes and general spending.
I might be the only one that feels this way, but I suspect there are at least a few others. Professional sports go a long way to keeping young people in a city.
[quote KeithK]I think we can definitely blame Rendell. For lots of things unrelated to the Penguins :-D. But on this one Ben is absolutely right. It makes little sense for a municipality to build arenas/stadiums for professional sports teams. If your business requires a new facility to be competitive do what every other type of company does. Secure financing and build the facility yourself. (Though admittedly it's standard procedure to seek tax benefits too...)[/quote]
Aww, Keith, are we having a moment? :-D
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tax breaks for new developments, rerouting mass transit systems to bring the public to a new facility, perhaps even city- financed parking garage next-door or municipal help in securing construction loans; but paying half the cost, or any of the cost for a new sports 20,000 seat facility is a bad idea, and its bad government. A local, county or state government should do everything it can to foster economic development within the realm of government (better schools, police, parks and infrastructure), but this stinks of corporate welfare. A smaller rink like those in Rochester or Syracuse is much more reasonable for a city to partially own, since it can be used for local youth hockey and other events. An NHL rink is too huge for these uses. The Steelers would never hold the 'Burgh hostage for this kind of cash, because their ownership cares about the city & their fans. This just speaks volumes about the ownership of the NHL franchise's attitude.
Grant, you're right that professional sports keep young folks in the city, but I'd suspect the availability of good restaurants, bars, coffee shops, and the presence of CMU, Pitt, UPMC, and low cost of living go a long way too. Pittsburgh is one of the smallest cities in the US to have three major professional sports teams, and because of that, perhaps this move was inevitable (though the dorky city planner in me has to point out that the KC metro area is actually smaller than Pittsburgh's by about 400k people, but I think they only have two major teams at the moment).
[quote Ben Rocky 04](though the dorky city planner in me has to point out that the KC metro area is actually smaller than Pittsburgh's by about 400k people, but I think they only have two major teams at the moment).[/quote]
Is it really fair to call the Royals a major team at this poin?
[quote KeithK][quote Ben Rocky 04](though the dorky city planner in me has to point out that the KC metro area is actually smaller than Pittsburgh's by about 400k people, but I think they only have two major teams at the moment).[/quote]
Is it really fair to call the Royals a major team at this poin?[/quote]
I thought "The Wizards" (http://kc.wizards.mlsnet.com/t105/) were the second team that he referred to.:-}
(I will now step aside so that the grammar police can re-hash the debate about ending sentences with prepositions);-).
[quote Ben Rocky 04][quote KeithK]I think we can definitely blame Rendell. For lots of things unrelated to the Penguins :-D. But on this one Ben is absolutely right. It makes little sense for a municipality to build arenas/stadiums for professional sports teams. If your business requires a new facility to be competitive do what every other type of company does. Secure financing and build the facility yourself. (Though admittedly it's standard procedure to seek tax benefits too...)[/quote]
Aww, Keith, are we having a moment? :-D
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tax breaks for new developments, rerouting mass transit systems to bring the public to a new facility, perhaps even city- financed parking garage next-door or municipal help in securing construction loans; but paying half the cost, or any of the cost for a new sports 20,000 seat facility is a bad idea, and its bad government. A local, county or state government should do everything it can to foster economic development within the realm of government (better schools, police, parks and infrastructure), but this stinks of corporate welfare. A smaller rink like those in Rochester or Syracuse is much more reasonable for a city to partially own, since it can be used for local youth hockey and other events. An NHL rink is too huge for these uses. The Steelers would never hold the 'Burgh hostage for this kind of cash, because their ownership cares about the city & their fans. This just speaks volumes about the ownership of the NHL franchise's attitude.
Grant, you're right that professional sports keep young folks in the city, but I'd suspect the availability of good restaurants, bars, coffee shops, and the presence of CMU, Pitt, UPMC, and low cost of living go a long way too. Pittsburgh is one of the smallest cities in the US to have three major professional sports teams, and because of that, perhaps this move was inevitable (though the dorky city planner in me has to point out that the KC metro area is actually smaller than Pittsburgh's by about 400k people, but I think they only have two major teams at the moment).[/quote]
The city did put up more money for the Steelers and Pirates new facilities just 8 years ago, totaling $840 million. If you ask me, the money on the Pirates should have been spent on the Penguins, who are and will be much more competitive over the coming years.
[quote Rita][quote KeithK][quote Ben Rocky 04](though the dorky city planner in me has to point out that the KC metro area is actually smaller than Pittsburgh's by about 400k people, but I think they only have two major teams at the moment).[/quote]
Is it really fair to call the Royals a major team at this poin?[/quote]
I thought "The Wizards" (http://kc.wizards.mlsnet.com/t105/) were the second team that he referred to.:-}
(I will now step aside so that the grammar police can re-hash the debate about ending sentences with prepositions);-).[/quote]
It's definitely not fair to call a franchise that plays metric football a major team. :-P
[quote KeithK][quote Rita][quote KeithK][quote Ben Rocky 04](though the dorky city planner in me has to point out that the KC metro area is actually smaller than Pittsburgh's by about 400k people, but I think they only have two major teams at the moment).[/quote]
Is it really fair to call the Royals a major team at this poin?[/quote]
I thought "The Wizards" (http://kc.wizards.mlsnet.com/t105/) were the second team that he referred to.:-}
(I will now step aside so that the grammar police can re-hash the debate about ending sentences with prepositions);-).[/quote]
It's definitely not fair to call a franchise that plays metric football a major team. :-P[/quote]
It's not metric football. The goal size is 24 feet by 8 feet. The "penalty box" (this is an area on the field, not the hockey equivalent) extends 18 yards from the end line, the penalty kick is from 12 yards out, players must stay 10 yards from a free kick, etc. Note: these are the international standards, not just for non-metric countries.
[quote Giffy]The city did put up more money for the Steelers and Pirates new facilities just 8 years ago, totaling $840 million. If you ask me, the money on the Pirates should have been spent on the Penguins, who are and will be much more competitive over the coming years.[/quote]Of course, nobody knew 8 years ago how effectively the draft lottery would get rigged in Pittsburgh's favor (resulting in how competitive they'll be in the coming years).
[quote Josh '99][quote Giffy]The city did put up more money for the Steelers and Pirates new facilities just 8 years ago, totaling $840 million. If you ask me, the money on the Pirates should have been spent on the Penguins, who are and will be much more competitive over the coming years.[/quote]Of course, nobody knew 8 years ago how effectively the draft lottery would get rigged in Pittsburgh's favor (resulting in how competitive they'll be in the coming years).[/quote]
yeah, i guess they probably didn't. But did anyone really think the Pirates would get better?
[quote Josh '99][quote Giffy]The city did put up more money for the Steelers and Pirates new facilities just 8 years ago, totaling $840 million. If you ask me, the money on the Pirates should have been spent on the Penguins, who are and will be much more competitive over the coming years.[/quote]Of course, nobody knew 8 years ago how effectively the draft lottery would get rigged in Pittsburgh's favor (resulting in how competitive they'll be in the coming years).[/quote]
No matter how well the Steelers did last year, or the Penguins are going to do this year, Pittsburgh shouldn't have spent money on the stadiums. Past spending on the other facilities doesn't mean that they should continue to give in to unreasonable demands.
[quote Giffy][quote Josh '99][quote Giffy]The city did put up more money for the Steelers and Pirates new facilities just 8 years ago, totaling $840 million. If you ask me, the money on the Pirates should have been spent on the Penguins, who are and will be much more competitive over the coming years.[/quote]Of course, nobody knew 8 years ago how effectively the draft lottery would get rigged in Pittsburgh's favor (resulting in how competitive they'll be in the coming years).[/quote]
yeah, i guess they probably didn't. But did anyone really think the Pirates would get better?[/quote]The Pirates were a competitive franchise as recently as the early 1990s (if you'll forgive the cumbersome phrasing, as recently as 10 years ago 8 years ago). It's certainly possible they could (or at least possible that someone 8 years ago could have thought they would).
[quote Ben Rocky 04][quote Josh '99][quote Giffy]The city did put up more money for the Steelers and Pirates new facilities just 8 years ago, totaling $840 million. If you ask me, the money on the Pirates should have been spent on the Penguins, who are and will be much more competitive over the coming years.[/quote]Of course, nobody knew 8 years ago how effectively the draft lottery would get rigged in Pittsburgh's favor (resulting in how competitive they'll be in the coming years).[/quote]
No matter how well the Steelers did last year, or the Penguins are going to do this year, Pittsburgh shouldn't have spent money on the stadiums. Past spending on the other facilities doesn't mean that they should continue to give in to unreasonable demands.[/quote]
Quote from: Ben Rocky 04The Steelers would never hold the 'Burgh hostage for this kind of cash, because their ownership cares about the city & their fans.
I'm not disagreeing that Pittsburgh shouldn't spend money on stadiums, I'm just pointing out that your thought of the Steelers might be wrong. The city immediately respected their request for a new stadium, if they had not I'm sure the Steelers would have threatened to move, at least to a suburb of Pittsburgh.
[quote jkahn]It's not metric football. The goal size is 24 feet by 8 feet. The "penalty box" (this is an area on the field, not the hockey equivalent) extends 18 yards from the end line, the penalty kick is from 12 yards out, players must stay 10 yards from a free kick, etc. Note: these are the international standards, not just for non-metric countries.[/quote]
Although Germans, being unable to comprehend English units, call penalty kicks "elf-Meter Schießen".
[quote ebilmes]I found this book pretty provocative and interesting when I read it in the fall:
http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Sports-Resistance-United-States/dp/1931859205/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-1809016-9643356?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173198548&sr=8-1
Among other issues, it discussed whether there was any actual benefit to states/cities funding new arenas for sports teams. The conclusion Zirin reached was similar to what Ben Rocky said in his post above.[/quote]
Take CB 603 with Kahn - Collective Bargaining and Economics of Sports. Spectacular class and a whole unit is dedicated to this area.
The Penguins in Las Vegas.....Now, there's an interesting idea!
http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/story/6535738?MSNHPHMA
The Penguins are moving.
To a new arena in Pittsburgh.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07071/769025-100.stm