It's down to Vegas or Quebec.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireSto...ocess-33238707

I don't see any suggestion in that article that it is either/or. My impression was that if the NHL was going to expand, they would add two teams in order to even up the conferences.

I agree with this. I would say both cities are getting teams if anyone gets one.

My error in using or versus and. I agree as well that it will be both or none with both being more likely than none.

Also this post is a good example of using and at the end of a sentence. (:

i like the 2 million non-refundable deposit for the application.

quebec and vegas NHL teams for the 2017 season would be soooo dope!

+1 but no expansion, move teams like Atlanta and Carolina.

Atlanta moved the Winnipeg a few years ago. I think the team they always talk about moving is Phoenix.

Thank god, go Jets! I moved to Houston and lost track. If only I still had CBC and hockey night and Don Cherry.

I heard that the latest in this Vegas hockey saga is that they are working to sell the Phoenix Coyotes to move them to Vegas for the 16-17 season. That's no longer the plan?

Kansas City is a sleeper city here. As much as they'd like Sauga City or QC, Kansas City has a building ready to go and a desperate need to fill it. Not to mention many Chicago transplants that will watch hockey.

But they didn't submit a bid so Kansas City is a moot point.

Don't you know even though the developer implied they would get us a team, they should be forgiven because Sprint Center doesn't need one to be successful.

Power and Light on the other hand is a different story.

That has never been the plan. The Vegas ownership group will only take an expansion franchise, not a relocated one. The Arizona Coyotes and Glendale recently worked out their arena disagreement and they're not moving. Plus the NHL doesn't want to swap one desert spot for another - they want the natural rivalry.

To the ignoranus who said the Raiders sucked in L.A.:

From 1982-1994

8 winning seasons out of 13 (5 w/ 10+ wins)
7 playoff appearances
4 division titles
2 AFC title games
1 Super Bowl (Won 38-9 over WAS SB18)

It wasn't because they sucked - it was because Al Davis couldn't get a stadium deal done with Los Angeles or and of the surrounding cities, so he moved the team back to Oakland.

More speculation on this:


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...191021204.html

I would totally go see a game while in town. I think it would be a good break from the typical vegas stuff.

NHL team in Vegas + Raiders relocation combo would be absolute nuts

I would love it if they brought a MLB team out here but will take NFL and NHL if they are being offered. I doubt they will build a baseball stadium but maybe they could use the NFL stadium for MLB as well. It has been done before and although it ruins the field for baseball games after an NFL Sunday, I would take that over no baseball at all.

But I really am getting ahead of myself here. Let's get hockey and football and see if they can fill the stadiums/arenas.

They're not only not going to bring MLB to Vegas but they won't ever do combo stadiums again. Those days are long gone.

NHL hockey in Vegas will be sweeeet!!! It's a no brainer that it will do well seeing as they have already collected 13,000 +/- deposits (in a roughly 19,000 seat arena) from individuals committing to purchase season tickets, and that's before the casinos, business owners, and ticket brokers purchase any tickets. There are many teams that have big travelling fan bases as well. I for one am a Bruins season ticket holder and already have a few buddies who are planning a Vegas road trip to see the Bruins play when/if they are in Sin City. I can see many fans from cold weather climates using this as a chance to see their team play on the road, escape the frigid winter climate, and mix it all in with a mini vacation to Las Vegas... what could be better to beat the winter blues?

The NFL stadium is a fantasy, at least as it has been presented. The only reason the deal hasn't been completely laughed off is because the the R-J is owned by the same guy pushing for the stadium.

The parts about how we will almost certainly lose the Riviera convention center expansion if we build the stadium and that the private investors will get their money back from the tax increase but still run the place seem to be missing from all the R-J articles. Most or maybe all of the articles slant in favor of the stadium for obvious reasons.

The stadium has massive opposition, including powerful people that want the convention center. You just wouldn't know it from reading the paper here.

Baseball/football stadiums are dead, thank goodness. And for baseball a dome is an absolute necessity. I think it would be cool if a team like the A's could move there. Imagine how good they would be if they actually had some money.

Todays ESPN article cited the mayor who says the stadium wouldn't be an issue.

Interesting to hear a totally different perspective.

And you know this as fact?