ATLANTA: Thrashing about for answers

[DeathToAllButMetal]

Playing Devil's Advocate for a second here: Atlanta is a crappy sports town. If sports teams always followed "the good markets" - which Atlanta is not, apart from the Falcons - the Thrashers would never have existed.

Again, this is a great example of the NHL forcing a team into a market for spurious reasons. Was there a big fan base in Atlanta demanding a team, for instance? Any real business case to shoe that the NHL would work here?

This is what happens when the leagues try to determine where teams should be, instead of opening up moves and expansions and letting the best markets win out.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Listen, the NHL is not a democracy. It is 30 cold hearted evil Republicans voting Socialist.

When an owner buys an NHL franchise, they are not given the keys and told "ok, you can do whatever the fu!k you want!!!" There are rules and regulations that the not only must follow, but they agreed to when they purchased the franchise.

 

[Whileee]

Listen, the NHL is not a democracy. It is 30 cold hearted evil Republicans voting Socialist.

When an owner buys an NHL franchise, they are not given the keys and told "ok, you can do whatever the fu!k you want!!!" There are rules and regulations that the not only must follow, but they agreed to when they purchased the franchise.

Absolutely, and reciprocally the NHL cannot just abrogate agreements and understandings based on their own whims and fancies. If there is a legitimate (if tortuous) path to sale and relocation, then this has to be open to all owners. Moreover, the league cannot say that an ownership group and market (i.e. TNSE and Winnipeg, in this instance) is okay for relocating one franchise, but not another.

There is only so much capriciousness that can be tolerated in an organization like the NHL while retaining some semblance of order for its members.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

That's just not true, and is an absurd stretch of my point. There aren't enough good or big enough markets in NA to allow for that sort of movement.

Anyhow, the NFL is the gold standard for pro leagues. Yet it has allowed moves out of LA, Houston, Cleveland, Oakland, St. Louis, and Baltimore the past couple of decades. And it has always been rock solid. The NHL, otoh, fights moves tooth and nail, as in Phoenix, and look at what a mess much of the league is.

You're arguing from an emotional place that has no room in pro sports. I actually agree with this, in that I'd also like things to be the way you think. But they're not. They never have been and never will be. This is just a myth to keep us buying tickets. I can buy into it on game nights, but not when discussing the nuts and bolts of the business reality of leagues.

What are you talking about? I am arguing that owners can not do whatever the heck they please because they are in a binding legal contract with their parent corporation and must abide by its rules.

Are you saying that the NHL is for relocation? Because recent history would suggest that is incorrect.

The NFL is successful for a variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with them allowing the teams you listed to relocate.

The NHL is in questionable financial shape, again for a variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with their fight to keep the Phoenix market (though they do have to do with the current weakness of the Phoenix market).

I have explained my point, and until you can offer evidence that a policy of allowing the owners to relocate wherever and whenever they want has a direct and positive effect on League profit, or more broadly, even exists, then I will not respond.

EDIT- Also, I find it ironic that you label Southern Expansion "stupid", despite it being a great example of franchises moving to better markets.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Playing Devil's Advocate for a second here: Atlanta is a massive market, but a crappy sports town on the whole. If sports teams always followed "the good markets" - which Atlanta is not, apart from the Falcons - the Thrashers would never have existed.

Perhaps, but remember that Atlanta's huge population, especially population with disposable income, as well as amazing corporate sponsorship (Coca-Cola and Chik-Fil-A? Yes please!!!) make it a very attractive market.

When the Thrashers were established, the owners did not have the prior knowledge of the fact that ASG would bomb, or that Atlanta would receive the Thrashers poorly because of that.

 

[Killion]

So what can the NHL do, absent a local buyer?

They can get off their duff's & start making a real effort to try & secure ownership that'll keep the team in Atlanta. Im sorry, but Dalys' comment that the leagues been beating the bushes' rings hollow to me. The team hasnt been in a position, from a legal perspective, to seriously market itself. ASG has been engaged in its own little internecine war. No one wants to deal with them. Calm the waters. Find some bidders. The "easy way out" is TNSE. The league claims it doesnt take the easy way by running out on its fans. Do the right thing.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Well, if that is the case, then the Leafs having been bucking that trend for the last fifty years.

When I say stability, I mean they are physically in one place for an extended period of time.

 

[MJB Devils23*]

I think the league SHOULD have every right to control where franchises go or don't go. While each team is privately owned, they're all playing under the roof of the NHL.

 

[Dado]

...make it a very attractive market.

If someone is willing to drop big coin to keep a team there, then it's an attractive market. If not, then it's not.

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

Anton, they're not better markets. The NHL forced its way into the south, with poor owners, poor rinks, and poor markets almost across the board. Phoenix was terribly executed, with an awful rink and subpar ownership. Atlanta had no proven market. Florida went into a ridiculous location. Tampa has had a revolving wheel of crazy owners since the start. Etc., etc.

And all this was because the NHL had dollars in their eyes and were still chasing the illusion of the league's becoming the #3 sport in the US. That despite the fact that this myth was a blip based on Gretzky and the Kings getting to the final in 93. That old Sports Illustrated cover story on the rise of the NHL has a lot to answer for. I bet Gary still has a framed copy of that in his office.

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

If someone is willing to drop big coin to keep a team there, then it's an attractive market. If not, then it's not.

Exactly. That's really what it comes down to. Bucks and a business plan and you should be good to go.

 

[DEANYOUNGBLOOD17]

the owner is granted a team / franchise for a particular city... he does not have the right to pick it up and move it on a whim...... he has to ask permission from his partners the other 29 owners.....each franchise is worth what they are worth locally...hence forbes list of franchise values......local intrest should be considered first,,,,, in this instance local values are valued at 110 mill...any value above that should be shared among all the partners..... WINNIPEG is plus 60 mill ......what would 2nd team in Toronto be valued at plus 390 mill

 

[Whileee]

They can get off their duff's & start making a real effort to try & secure ownership that'll keep the team in Atlanta. Im sorry, but Dalys' comment that the leagues been beating the bushes' rings hollow to me. The team hasnt been in a position, from a legal perspective, to seriously market itself. ASG has been engaged in its own little internecine war. No one wants to deal with them. Calm the waters. Find some bidders. The "easy way out" is TNSE. The league claims it doesnt take the easy way by running out on its fans. Do the right thing.

Agreed. That is what fans ought to expect of them. Do you have any theories as to their rather tepid approach to the Atlanta situation?

 

[MAROONSRoad]

Some Bettman comments on Thrasher situation:

“With respect to any other franchise, it comes down to ownership,” Bettman said. “It’s the reason we ended up leaving Quebec City and Winnipeg. Those teams moved when nobody wanted to own the club there anymore. If you get to that position, where somebody is not prepared to own the club anymore and you can’t find a new perspective purchaser, then you are really between a rock and a hard place.

“We know that the current ownership of the Thrashers has been trying for a long period of time to try and sell the franchise and they haven’t been able to do it. … If they can’t find local ownership, then we might all have to deal with that. But I know they have tried very hard and I assume that they continue to try very hard.”

Bettman echoed deputy commissioner Bill Daly’s statements to the AJC’s Jeff Schultz earlier in the day and would not guarantee that the Thrashers would be in Atlanta next season. Bettman said questions about the team’s future were not his to answer and referred them to team ownership.

http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-thrash...tations/?cxntfid=blogs_atlanta_thrashers_blog

What do you think?

GHOST

 

[peter sullivan]

^ it's funny that yesterday when asked if the thrashers will move their owner said that Bettman won't let that happen. Today Bettman when asked if the thrashers will relocate says it's up to their owners.

It's verbal hot potato.

 

[macavoy]

the owner is granted a team / franchise for a particular city... he does not have the right to pick it up and move it on a whim...... he has to ask permission from his partners the other 29 owners.....each franchise is worth what they are worth locally...hence forbes list of franchise values......local intrest should be considered first,,,,, in this instance local values are valued at 110 mill...any value above that should be shared among all the partners..... WINNIPEG is plus 60 mill ......what would 2nd team in Toronto be valued at plus 390 mill

I completely agree with this. Each NHL team is a franchise and the NHL owns the other territories, they should charge a team for relocating if it significantly increases that owners value.

I would make an exception if the current owner moved the team and has incurred past losses.

Some Bettman comments on Thrasher situation:

What do you think?

GHOST

Its funny how GB's answers are like night and day when you compare the Phoenix situation to Atlanta. For some reason, the NHL doesn't believe Atlanta is worth fighting for the same way they've fought for Phoenix.

 

[Whileee]

I completely agree with this. Each NHL team is a franchise and the NHL owns the other territories, they should charge a team for relocating if it significantly increases that owners value.

I would make an exception if the current owner moved the team and has incurred past losses.




Its funny how GB's answers are like night and day when you compare the Phoenix situation to Atlanta. For some reason, the NHL doesn't believe Atlanta is worth fighting for the same way they've fought for Phoenix.

Credible or not, Bettman has already given his reasons for the different treatment. The NHL had to purchase the Coyotes to protect their rights on ownership choice and franchise location, now they are the motivated sellers. More importantly, the COG has been willing to highly subsidize the Coyotes operations, and buy the NHL time to work out a solution.

I think that Bettman's comments that the current owners have "tried very hard" and for "a long period of time" to find a local owner to be particularly telling. For one thing, it directly contradicts the oft-stated opinion that the ASG has not made any real efforts to sell the team locally, and certainly not until recently. Second, I expect that this statement is an important one in relation to the NHL's disposition with respect to relocation. If the NHL believes that the current owners have made a good faith effort to sell the team locally without success, then presumably that would clear some of the path for an out-of-town sale.

It is all a bit strange...

 

[Duke749]

Anton, they're not better markets. The NHL forced its way into the south, with poor owners, poor rinks, and poor markets almost across the board. Phoenix was terribly executed, with an awful rink and subpar ownership. Atlanta had no proven market. Florida went into a ridiculous location. Tampa has had a revolving wheel of crazy owners since the start. Etc., etc.

And all this was because the NHL had dollars in their eyes and were still chasing the illusion of the league's becoming the #3 sport in the US. That despite the fact that this myth was a blip based on Gretzky and the Kings getting to the final in 93. That old Sports Illustrated cover story on the rise of the NHL has a lot to answer for. I bet Gary still has a framed copy of that in his office.

Atlanta actually had a somewhat proven market. The Flames did well attendence wise when they were here. The Atlanta Knights of the IHL did very well in their short time here and the Gwinnett Gladiators still do very well. Atlanta has a lot more hockey fans then one might think.

 

[C77]

I completely agree with this. Each NHL team is a franchise and the NHL owns the other territories, they should charge a team for relocating if it significantly increases that owners value.

I would make an exception if the current owner moved the team and has incurred past losses.




Its funny how GB's answers are like night and day when you compare the Phoenix situation to Atlanta. For some reason, the NHL doesn't believe Atlanta is worth fighting for the same way they've fought for Phoenix.

I would be livid if I was a Thrashers fan. Bettman/the league is willing to lose millions to save Phoenix but the Thrashers franchise is dealt with like an unwanted child.

 

[PHYS251]

100+ posts of Thrashers ownership speculation, and virtually no Atlanta fan-blaming? Mind=BLOWN

I want Atlanta to keep their team and for Winnipeg to get one as well, but at the same time I don't want expansion to dilute league talent. 30 is a good terminal number. We need another franchise to fold/relocate to make this all work out... Hey Columbus, I don't respect you much up here.

Heh heh. I wish there were a way to make this work, not just for Atlanta, but for Winnipeg or any other potential hockey market as well. I wish that the league would speculate over moves based solely on recent years' attendance numbers. If they did that, the Coyotes and the Thrashers would still be in the discussions, but I think some people would be surprised at other teams who would be right there in the mix. But this is a business, and the decision to move is a lot more complicated than that.

Here's number 3. Since this an official Atlanta thread, hopefully this post won't cause it to get locked.

You don't get to be rich by being stupid, so if I have to choose, I'd go for ASG being evil. There are factors that give me reason to believe that ASG wants to see the NHL leave Atlanta.

• http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/elli...eefe-has-coaching-chops-plus-30-thoughts.html
  
• http://www.sprintcenter.com/news/detail/sprint_center_recognized_as_americas_third_busiest_arena
  
  Yeah, I know it's KC, but bear with me for a minute, this is relavant...
  
  
• And a similar blurb from Philips Arena in Atlanta at http://philipsarena.com/Content/view.aspx?CID=94f53b8b-860b-4721-852c-d90b195af67c

Atlanta and Kansas City are respectively the #2 and #3 busiest arenas in the USA. They aren't like Podunk or Glendale desparately seeking a tenant for 45 dates a year. Maybe the reason that KC doesn't have an NHL team, or an NBA team for that matter, is because the arena management feels thay can make more money on event bookings AND MAYBE THEY DON'T WANT AN NHL TEAM. And I feel that Philips Arena, being even busier than Sprint Center, may be in the same position... "NHL team? We don't need no steenkin NHL team". You probably can't come up with a lease that is both...

1. Affordable enough that an NHL team could make a profit
2. Rich enough to make it worthwhile for Philips Arena in Atlanta (or Sprint Center in KC) to host it

Remember also that a Justin Beiber or Lady Gaga concert...

• Will attract fans, in Atlanta and KC, willing to pay $100 for a "nosebleed" seat, unlike an expansion NHL team in a US city
• Does not require flooding and freezing a larg ice surface, which is not cheap

If the management at the only suitable hockey arena in the city says they don't want to talk with the NHL, the NHL would have no bargaining power in this situation. This would be the opposite of the Glendale situation, the ultimate slap-in-the-face for the NHL. The NHL's only recourse in this situation might be to penalize the current owners if they aren't willing to negotiate a reasonable lease with potential buyers. That could land them in court.

Hmm, interesting. This may explain why KC still doesn't have an NHL or especially an NBA team; after witnessing the resounding success of the OKC franchise, I'm convinced that the NBA could work in KC. If nothing else, they'd be the only NBA team in Missouri, which would concentrate fan interest that much more.

Playing Devil's Advocate for a second here: Atlanta is a massive market, but a crappy sports town on the whole. If sports teams always followed "the good markets" - which Atlanta is not, apart from the Falcons - the Thrashers would never have existed.

That is very true. Despite having teams from all four big leagues, professional sports is not nearly as much a part of Atlanta's culture as it is in other cities (the Braves may be the only exception). The most popular sports team there is probably the UGA Bulldogs, despite the fact that they play 1.5 hours to the east.

 

[Fugu]

Credible or not, Bettman has already given his reasons for the different treatment. The NHL had to purchase the Coyotes to protect their rights on ownership choice and franchise location, now they are the motivated sellers. More importantly, the COG has been willing to highly subsidize the Coyotes operations, and buy the NHL time to work out a solution.

I think that Bettman's comments that the current owners have "tried very hard" and for "a long period of time" to find a local owner to be particularly telling. For one thing, it directly contradicts the oft-stated opinion that the ASG has not made any real efforts to sell the team locally, and certainly not until recently. Second, I expect that this statement is an important one in relation to the NHL's disposition with respect to relocation. If the NHL believes that the current owners have made a good faith effort to sell the team locally without success, then presumably that would clear some of the path for an out-of-town sale.

It is all a bit strange...

What everyone is overlooking is the original Glendale lease with the Coyotes.

Up to the point where the existing owner had exhausted all local possibilities with selling the team, Moyes and ASG were in IDENTICAL situations. Failing to find a local buyer means you then turn to a relo possibility. Unlike ASG, Moyes couldn't break the lease with COG-- unless he went the bankruptcy route.

Someone mentioned that forcing an owner to take a local deal (with the NHL bringing JR in to present to Moyes) might not be something that could be forced realistically if there were a far better offer for a relocation to an approved destination.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say Moyes had tried to sell to TNSE. He was still precluded from doing that because he'd be liable to COG for penalties for breaking the lease. ASG, on the other hand, is the lease holder and only the Hawks are tied to the arena; thus they are free to sell the Thrashers to whomever as long at the NHL approves the owner (e.g., there is no territorial claim by any other NHL team).

 

[Whileee]

What everyone is overlooking is the original Glendale lease with the Coyotes.

Up to the point where the existing owner had exhausted all local possibilities with selling the team, Moyes and ASG were in IDENTICAL situations. Failing to find a local buyer means you then turn to a relo possibility. Unlike ASG, Moyes couldn't break the lease with COG-- unless he went the bankruptcy route.

Someone mentioned that forcing an owner to take a local deal (with the NHL bringing JR in to present to Moyes) might not be something that could be forced realistically if there were a far better offer for a relocation to an approved destination.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say Moyes had tried to sell to TNSE. He was still precluded from doing that because he'd be liable to COG for penalties for breaking the lease. ASG, on the other hand, is the lease holder and only the Hawks are tied to the arena; thus they are free to sell the Thrashers to whomever as long at the NHL approves the owner (e.g., there is no territorial claim by any other NHL team).

Good points, and it seems clear that the NHL has de facto accepted that TNSE is a suitable owner, since they had been identified as the alternative if the Coyotes deal had fallen through last year.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I think there might also be a bit of a breaking point, if the Atlanta ownership can't find a local buyer, what is the NHL going to take them over too? What about other potential situations then? The NHL isn't in the business of running a whole division's worth of teams.

I also don't think giving up the Thrashers means giving up Atlanta. Washington is on its third baseball franchise if you just count franchises that still exist, I think its 5th or 6th if you count all franchises. You could come back to Atlanta once there's a motivated ownership group with an arena etc. in place again.

 

[obsenssive*]

Why is the NHL becoming so anti-capitalist? The purchase and sale of NHL hockey clubs should be something that the free market determines.

The argument that a "national footprint" in the US is important to give the league legitimacy is just wrong and misinformed. It has probably harmed the NHL to have expansion franchises in the US south. The constant ownership and attendance problems are damaging to the league. Further it has created considerable tension between the fans in real hockey markets and the league.

Cut the floor, install a soft cap, and leave the market for NHL franchises open and free of head office interference and then we will have a perfect market outcome. If that means 3 franchises in the golden horseshoe, 26 teams, and still no franchise in Winnipeg, then that's what it is and the NHL has to deal with it. US national footprint be damned.

 

[cbcwpg]

I would be livid if I was a Thrashers fan. Bettman/the league is willing to lose millions to save Phoenix but the Thrashers franchise is dealt with like an unwanted child.

Now you know how everyone else in those places that once had teams, feels.

What the NHL is doing in Phoenix is definitely breaking new ground.