[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by RogerAnthony

Hartford has had pro soccer for years with Hartford Athletic. Bridgeport is getting a pro soccer team a step down from that, and Danbury is getting a pro indoor soccer team.

I meant an MLS big league team

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

No it’s not the only way. The league owners and commish would not allow the Canes to move back even if the wanted to.

This is about the only valid reason as to why it is such a long shot to get a pro team back in Hartford. Politics. The clout that Boston and NYC owners have with their respective leagues will make it virtually impossible unless one of those teams moves to the state. The other reasons being thrown around by various people about the lack of population, lack of interest, lack of a new arena are not valid and I've pointed this out on numerous occasions. Unfortunately though the teams in the two huge adjacent markets are the problem and that is the most difficult hurdle to leap.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

This is about the only valid reason as to why it is such a long shot to get a pro team back in Hartford. Politics. The clout that Boston and NYC owners have with their respective leagues will make it virtually impossible unless one of those teams moves to the state. The other reasons being thrown around by various people about the lack of population, lack of interest, lack of a new arena are not valid and I've pointed this out on numerous occasions. Unfortunately though the teams in the two huge adjacent markets are the problem and that is the most difficult hurdle to leap.

Alas, it’s happened! Finally someone gets it.
You’re absolutely right

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

Alas, it’s happened! Finally someone gets it.
You’re absolutely right

You've probably missed some of my posts on previous threads on this subject. I've mentioned the politics being the sole issue that likely will prevent another team from coming to town unless a new, competing league starts up.

Pros. Population density is there. Disposable income is there. TV market size is there. Sufficient population within a 30 to 40 mile radius will lead to patrons contingent upon a team being competitive despite the teams in NYC and Boston. People in the Hartford region will support a winner. And people like me did not (when I lived there) want to go two to three hours away to Boston or NYC to catch any game despite most of my favorite teams were in the region. That will be the case still and in fact, newcomers to the Hartford region that came from metro areas with teams would likely attend games too. I don't have to go to a game with a favorite team to enjoy a game. :-)

Con. Unless potential owners of a team that want to bring a team to Hartford can find a way to win some support from most of the other league owners, regardless of the league, it will be very very tough to get a team including an expansion team. Moving a Boston or NYC team is likely the only real chance at this point without a new competing league starting up.

[Beeker2211]

The only thing I'll say that I think adds to the conversation is that all of the big leagues chased the boom metros with little success. The NHL's strategy of trying to expand the sport geographically top-down had remarkably little success financially or to move the needle in the sport's popularity nationally. Many of the Southern expansion teams consistently have attendance and market deals less than the nadir of the Whaler's worst seasons. In football the NFL has a lot riding on Las Vegas as proof of concept for forcing owners (and thus the thinking goes, the communities those stadiums are in) to redo all the current stadia soup to nuts to "modern standards." It's early but the team is already seemingly having attendance issues.

Would Hartford be a good fit in reality? Absolutely. Would the Coyotes moving to SLC be successful? That doesn't seem as likely. But hey, if they don't move a team to Hartford let them touch that hot stove again.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

The only thing I'll say that I think adds to the conversation is that all of the big leagues chased the boom metros with little success. The NHL's strategy of trying to expand the sport geographically top-down had remarkably little success financially or to move the needle in the sport's popularity nationally. Many of the Southern expansion teams consistently have attendance and market deals less than the nadir of the Whaler's worst seasons. In football the NFL has a lot riding on Las Vegas as proof of concept for forcing owners (and thus the thinking goes, the communities those stadiums are in) to redo all the current stadia soup to nuts to "modern standards." It's early but the team is already seemingly having attendance issues.

Would Hartford be a good fit in reality? Absolutely. Would the Coyotes moving to SLC be successful? That doesn't seem as likely. But hey, if they don't move a team to Hartford let them touch that hot stove again.

I don't know if Vegas had attendance issues with tourism fans coming in, but it doesn't matter, anything is better than the Oakland Coliseum.

Hartford would be a good fit for the Bruins and Rangers only in the NHL. That's it, no one else.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by ct1615

TD Garden 90 luxury suites
MSG 95 luxury suites
Barkley Arena 101 luxury suites
XL center 46 luxury suites, yeah that's getting torn down if you even want a NHL owner to sniff around Hartford

Suites is what it is all about. It's not the casual fan that makes teams decide where to be; it's the corps buying luxury suites. The business of Big 4 sports has grown up since we lost our only professional team.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by ct1615

It's not politics, it's money is the sole reason to prevent a team from moving to Hartford. Money lost by the Bruins, money lost by the rangers. Money lost by a team not going to Salt Lake City, Quebec, or any other city you want to name. You drop off enough bit coins or chucky cheese tickets to Dolan or Jacobs and they will let you put a NHL franchise in Yonkers and Dorchester. Why a potential owner would want to pay those guys off, plus have broadcast issues to take care off, XL center update issues to take care of is beyond me when you have cities like Atlanta and Salt Lake with good basketball arenas already in place.



Why people are so happy to be taxed so a billionaire can get free sports arena is also beyond me. Yet those same people scream at a town's board of ed for increasing the budget 3% so teachers won't have to pay out of pocket for pencils, paper, and tissues.

Money and politics are the same thing in this situation. Territorial rights or the perception thereof are also included and that is largely a political matter. Exactly the same situation UConn had with BC after the Big East dissolved. BC made sure UConn would not be admitted to the ACC by garnering support from most member schools asking them to vote against UConn's admission to the ACC. It worked.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Money and politics are the same thing in this situation. Territorial rights or the perception thereof are also included and that is largely a political matter.

I was going to say the same thing. Politics in the context of Big Four team owners, not politics politics.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

I was going to say the same thing. Politics in the context of Big Four team owners, not politics politics.

Exactly. People need to understand the context in which this word applies and politics and money are very much intertwined.