ST. LOUIS -- NHL commissioner Gary Bettman doesn't think Mario Lemieux was being pessimistic a few days ago when the player-owner said he thinks there is only "a slim chance" the Penguins will remain in Pittsburgh after their lease at Mellon Arena expires in 2007.
Rather, Bettman said before Tuesday's Penguins-Blues game in St. Louis that he thought Lemieux "very realistically" assessed the situation, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported.
Lemieux, the Penguins' primary owner, and other team officials have said for years the team needs an up-to-date arena to be financially viable, and Bettman reiterated his support for that position.
"It's a situation that needs to be rectified," Bettman said in the Post-Gazette. "This team needs a new arena. Nobody can dispute that. Nobody has disputed that."
Bettman listed seven cities -- Houston; Kansas City, Mo.; Las Vegas; Portland, Ore.; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Quebec; and Hamilton, Ontario -- that have expressed interest in getting an NHL team, but he said the league is "not looking to relocate" any of its franchises. He allowed, though, that "circumstances may cause it."
The Penguins' lease expires in June 2007, and the deal allows them to begin soliciting offers for the franchise a year earlier. Bettman said Tuesday night that "at some point in the process," the Penguins "have to explore their alternatives."
The commissioner also mentioned several times that the Steelers and Pirates play in venues that were built, in part, with public money, and said that having new facilities "gives them a great advantage" over the Penguins in the competition for support from Pittsburgh fans and sponsors.
Bettman said he is in "constant contact" with Lemieux and team president Ken Sawyer about the state of the franchise, and that he thinks the Penguins can be a successful franchise.
"I believe Pittsburgh is a good hockey market," Bettman said in the Post-Gazette. "We belong there."
For the Penguins, it's ALL ABOUT the Pirates and Steelers geting new stadiums and the Pens NOT getting one. Why? I have said before, if a sports franchise is trying to hold up a city for a new arena, let the franchise move. The NHL is not the high dollar sport like football... but the football stadium also hosts U of Pitt football games and probably regional playoff high school [almost as big as Texas HS football]... basball stadium gets 80 games a year. Should the city of Pittsburgh pick up the tab for an arena for a team that can't get 16,000 people a night to see tham? What does the City get out of the deal that they aren't getting now? I am glad someone is taking a stand against sports team owners. Let the Penguins go to Kansas City or Winnepeg or Quebec City [three places the NHL failed before, and realistically, the Maple Leafs will never let them into Hamilton].
It's just like New Orleans worrying, of ALL things, about getting the damn Superdome repaired and operational. Of all the things that need fixed down there, this shows the most fucked up sense of priority that I can recall in a while... 'come to the Sugar Bowl or the New Orleans bowl... we don't have running water yet, but come spend your money!' What is wrong with people?