Attendence was crappy before the economy tanked and it tanked in every metro area in North America. Thats not why team didn't survive.
Will Atlanta Get Another Team?
- Thread starter Hockeyholic
- Start date
- Status
Attendence was crappy before the economy tanked and it tanked in every metro area in North America. Thats not why team didn't survive.
Because why not? And what's your obession with Atlanta never having a team again when Minneapolis and other places got another chance.
Cricket? Stop.
Yeah Minneapolis and Atlanta are the exact same situation. Its not as if there is more interest in the sport of hockey in Minnesota or anything.
There are many other markets that deserve a team. QC and Hamilton to name two. Atlanta doesn't. What's with your American fascination anyway?
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
It's not about who deserves what. That kind of emotional reasoning just isn't a factor. It's all about franchise values and revenue for the 31 owners in the league. I don't think QC or Hamilton would do anything to increase franchise values, whereas a viable franchise in cities like Atlanta and Houston would do more. Hell, I honestly think that there are several other US cities would do more on that front. Portland, Milwaukee, San Diego, and Kansas City for example. This isn't me advocating for those places to get teams, but if you had an open expansion bidding process where all 6 US cities and the 2 Canadian cities put in bids with viable ownership and arena situations, I think the 2 Canadian cities would be at the bottom of the rankings.
The only thing the Canadian cities have going for them is the relative lack of risk, and I don't think that does much of anything for the league at this point.
But yes, Atlanta and Minnesota are two totally different situations.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Atlanta was on the block for a while before Winnipeg was given the go-ahead to make the deal and no one bid to keep them in Atlanta. KC has had an arena for years and no one has tried to put a team there. Arizona could have moved there by now if there was enough of a market. Milwaukee has MLB, NBA, and NFL (yes I know Green Bay is a couple of hours away but the Packers draw money out of Milwaukee) and its in the middle of Big 10 country.
Any of those markets other than possibly Houston and Portland would be revenue sharing receipents. QC and Hamilton would sell out at high prices and would probably be paying into revenue sharing.
TheLegend
Hardly Deactivated
Oh??
Got a moment on my phone here so let’s take a look then....
Atlanta Thrashers yearly attendance at hockeydb.com
First year= 17,206
2005-06 (just before economy tanked and owned by ASG) = 16,240
The years before and after 2005-06 were in the mid-15k range. Placing them in the middle third of all franchises those years.
I wouldn’t call that “crappy”
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Right, attendance suffered because product was garbage.
Which happens in literally every sports.
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
OK, if you're going to peddle patently false revisionist history, I'm not sure how we can have a conversation. There were plenty of investor groups who explored keeping the Thrashers in Atlanta, but ASG didn't want to sell to a local buyer, so nothing ever got off the ground. Yeah, no one bid because it never got to a point where a local buyer could do so.
I don't need an education on the situations in KC, Milwaukee or Arizona... or really anywhere else. But thanks for completely missing my point anyway. In my hypothetical situation, none of the issues you're raising really matter. If they were on equal footing in terms of ownership and arena, every American city I listed would be more attractive to the league than any Canadian city.
QC and Hamilton would, at best, be middle of the pack in terms of revenue despite the likelihood they'd sell out every game. They'd be Calgary and Winnipeg. That's fundamentally my point. These aren't markets that do much for the overall look of the league. If they were looking to expand anywhere that would have them, the NHL would be in QC already. Yes, alignment does come into play, but that kind of thing isn't a roadblock to a league eager to put a team somewhere.
Any talk about the NHL in any city lies in who operates the arena. In Atlanta the arena is owned by the Fulton county sports authority but operated by the Atlanta Hawks. So, like Fertitia in Houston, does the ownership group want hockey?
The hawks owners bought the team in 2015, so pretty tight to apply for an NHL expansion team at that time frame.
The hawks owners bought the team in 2015, so pretty tight to apply for an NHL expansion team at that time frame.
Mightygoose
Registered User
While the window was tight for the 2015 expansion for the new Hawks owners, Fertitta missed it completely....by a couple.years....yet he's still shown his intention for the NHL in Houston including meeting with the league.
Resler has had the opportunity to the same which is why Atlanta is going to a non-option for likely a generation.
No one has an american facination, it's about gowing the game. It's about the future of the NHL. Why do you think Jacobs and Bettman are so wrong to make more money for themselves?
All of these are completely different situations.
Agreed.
Exactly, this is about making more money and the owners see more money down south.
As far as I know no one from the NHL has contacted Resler. So we don't know at this time. Maybe they should.
zetajerk
Registered User
- Jan 1, 2015
- 738
- 589
What is your obsession with excluding people from participating in hockey? Do you have any idea how it Sounds? Why don't you stop assuming you know everything about the people there. I know it's closer to the equator than it is Santa Claus' house but that only matters in your head.
Atlanta should get another chance. I realize there's no reaching you, but the fans there got stabbed in the back twice and it's too valuable to ignore.
And btw I went to an NHL game yesterday. In Raleigh. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Last edited:
Agree with the idea that the current BOG thinks in terms of growing the overall $$ of the game.
From the BOG standpoint:
1- The one major issue that the NHL has is that it is still "local money" driven. In other words, the national TV contracts bring in 600M a year (depending on CAD, I think, and even if I am wrong about that, it's still only 733M). But the total HRR is over 4B. That means that local revenue is 75% or of all revenue. That's the #1 reason that Arizona and other clubs struggle. Their markets don't keep up with the TOR, MTL and NY of the league. The first priority of the BOG (when they act collectively) should be to try to rectify that. As stated, Hamilton does little to nothing for that. QC does a little because of the French broadcasting, but it's still not much. On the other hand, the big increase will be if, and I mean IF, hockey can penetrate the US consciousness to the point where some Americans in every place are interested. That's how the national revenue will grow. For that reason, Phoenix still has a team. For that reason, Atlanta should NEVER be counted out, and for that reason, Houston is very attractive.
2- From the BOG standpoint, each individual owner is not worried about the other guy's bottom line. This is why OVG is on its own building a privately financed arena in Seattle. The entire BOG wants a team there, obviously, but the league isn't investing in the arena. The owners will be on their own. So, on an individual basis, I don't care if it's Houston, with 10M/yr losses or QC, which 5M/yr profits. That doesn't matter to me. So, to a certain extent, market strength is really NOT a factor. (Obviously, that has limits, but you get the idea).
3- If I am trying to promote the idea that I am an important league, it simply looks better to be in big American cities that much smaller Canadian ones.
So, it's not an Anti-Canada bias. It's where the money is for the present owners. And, unfortunately, Canada doesn't help them much (except the entrance fee). And, that comes from someone who thinks Centre Videotron should have 41 Nordiques games a year.
From the BOG standpoint:
1- The one major issue that the NHL has is that it is still "local money" driven. In other words, the national TV contracts bring in 600M a year (depending on CAD, I think, and even if I am wrong about that, it's still only 733M). But the total HRR is over 4B. That means that local revenue is 75% or of all revenue. That's the #1 reason that Arizona and other clubs struggle. Their markets don't keep up with the TOR, MTL and NY of the league. The first priority of the BOG (when they act collectively) should be to try to rectify that. As stated, Hamilton does little to nothing for that. QC does a little because of the French broadcasting, but it's still not much. On the other hand, the big increase will be if, and I mean IF, hockey can penetrate the US consciousness to the point where some Americans in every place are interested. That's how the national revenue will grow. For that reason, Phoenix still has a team. For that reason, Atlanta should NEVER be counted out, and for that reason, Houston is very attractive.
2- From the BOG standpoint, each individual owner is not worried about the other guy's bottom line. This is why OVG is on its own building a privately financed arena in Seattle. The entire BOG wants a team there, obviously, but the league isn't investing in the arena. The owners will be on their own. So, on an individual basis, I don't care if it's Houston, with 10M/yr losses or QC, which 5M/yr profits. That doesn't matter to me. So, to a certain extent, market strength is really NOT a factor. (Obviously, that has limits, but you get the idea).
3- If I am trying to promote the idea that I am an important league, it simply looks better to be in big American cities that much smaller Canadian ones.
So, it's not an Anti-Canada bias. It's where the money is for the present owners. And, unfortunately, Canada doesn't help them much (except the entrance fee). And, that comes from someone who thinks Centre Videotron should have 41 Nordiques games a year.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
@MNNumbers agreed, however I think the connection needs to continue to be made that higher national revenue means higher franchise values and more than anything, that’s the core of what owners care about.
Mightygoose
Registered User
Resler has been the owner of the Hawks for 3 1/2 years and took over before the NHL started the expansion process.
Considering the overlap between ownership with many NHL and NBA teams, I think it's safe to say the league reached out to him on ownership already.
I disagree. Just because you talk doesnt mean anything happenes. Fertitta and the NHL talked yet nothing so far.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Cities that NHL feels warrants a team gets a team are cities that deserves NHL teams. There are more to sustaining NHL teams than popularity of hockey.
Namely corporate support.
I do not understand why you cannot get this through to your head.
HisIceness
This is Hurricanes Hockey
Corporations only support teams if there is fan interest. You only buy advertising if people are watching games or luxury boxes/club seats if there is enough interest in the team that tickets to the game are a valuable perk to give out to customers or employees. Clearly there wasn't enough fan interest that even when bundled with the Hawks they couldn't break even.
Considering that ASG tried to make a deal for the Hawks a few months after selling the Thrashers the idea they were adamant the team leave is just a conspiracy theory with no basis. They weren't even given the go-ahead to negotiate with an out of town buyer until Glendale agreed to pay $25 million for a second straight year with the Coyotes. Had that vote failed the Coyotes would have gone to Winnipeg, locking out that option for the Thrashers.
The league also admitted that a Hamilton team would likely be top 5 in revenue. I have no idea where you're getting that they would be middle of the pack from other than your own imagination.
HisIceness
This is Hurricanes Hockey
- Status
