ATLANTA: Thrashing about for answers

[Plub]

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.

Can you please define "really hockey markets" for me?

Huh? I think you have extended your analysis well past the available evidence.

Nope. He said:

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.

The Jets left because no one was willing to "drop big coin to keep" the team there. Therefore, by his logic, it is not an attractive market. If you disagree with this, question him. Not me. As I don't agree with it.

 

[saillias]

No, there were investors ready to keep the team there, but the NHL came up with unmeetable criteria such as a majority investor having 600 million net worth, guarantees of no relocation for 20 years and other things.

 

[Puckschmuck*]

The Jets left because no one was willing to "drop big coin to keep" the team there. Therefore, by his logic, it is not an attractive market. If you disagree with this, question him. Not me. As I don't agree with it.

I'll match this. By today's facts and logic, Phoenix is not an attractive market because no one is willing to pony up the entire sum of the purchase price on their own without serious government handouts to help ensure they don't loose too much money in the investment. Makes sense to me. And as for Atlanta? Well, not one single group has stepped up with intentions to purchase the team to keep the team in Atlanta. There appears to be no interest whatsover for the Atlanta market. I know what this tells me, logically.

 

[Duke749]

I'll match this. By today's facts and logic, Phoenix is not an attractive market because no one is willing to pony up the entire sum of the purchase price on their own without serious government handouts to help ensure they don't loose too much money in the investment. Makes sense to me. And as for Atlanta? Well, not one single group has stepped up with intentions to purchase the team to keep the team in Atlanta. There appears to be no interest whatsover for the Atlanta market. I know what this tells me, logically.

Have you not been following anything?

 

[Melrose Munch]

I'll match this. By today's facts and logic, Phoenix is not an attractive market because no one is willing to pony up the entire sum of the purchase price on their own without serious government handouts to help ensure they don't loose too much money in the investment. Makes sense to me. And as for Atlanta? Well, not one single group has stepped up with intentions to purchase the team to keep the team in Atlanta. There appears to be no interest whatsover for the Atlanta market. I know what this tells me, logically.

This is a blatant lie. The Balkan for one.

 

[Melrose Munch]

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.

Thank you!

 

[OthmarAmmann]

The Jets left because no one was willing to "drop big coin to keep" the team there. Therefore, by his logic, it is not an attractive market. If you disagree with this, question him. Not me. As I don't agree with it.

Um, I'm pretty certain he meant 'at the time'. I would have figured that would have been obvious. If you go back far enough, applying that logic would rule out anything west of the Mississippi (or in North America for that matter).

 

[cbcwpg]

I'll match this. By today's facts and logic, Phoenix is not an attractive market because no one is willing to pony up the entire sum of the purchase price on their own without serious government handouts to help ensure they don't loose too much money in the investment. Makes sense to me, right?

To me an attractive market, to an owner, is one of two things...

1- where the owner believes they have a fair chance to break even or make money

2- just wants to own a team in thier home market.

As far as #2 goes, if I am a billionaire and I want to own a team in my hometown, and I am willing to even lose money at it, but convince the NHL that I will operate under those conditions and keep the team for a long time period... I could get a franchise. Attractiveness has nothing to do with it in this situation.

for #1, in the case of Atlanta, Phoenix, or wherever, this is the main criteria a new owner is going to look at.

According to the Atlanta fans, the current owners have never made an honest effort to try and build a decent team, so its an unknown as to what might happpen if it was a decent team. If I was a billionaire, given the above ownership issues, I would seriously concider buying the Thrashers because I see potential there, EXCEPT for ONE ISSUE.

I would not buy the team if I still had to work out a lease and work under the pathetic ownership umbrella of the ASG. Because given that they want to make money, I doubt that they would give me as the leasee, an honest opportunity to make money. Now if I was to buy it all, then that would be do-able.

 

[Puckschmuck*]

Have you not been following anything?

This is a blatant lie. The Balkan for one.

Okay so let me get this straight. When it's announced that there is a business group out of Canada interested in purchasing either the Yotes or the Thrashers for relocation to Winnipeg but they have not made any announcement officially, it's pure speculation/gossip, even though there are clear signs of this occuring. YET, when this mythological creature called "The Balkan" who has yet to be proven to actually exist, is to be taken more seriously, even though this "person" also has yet to make an official announcement of interest?

Okay, got it!

I've said my peace.............carry on.

 

[Duke749]

Okay so let me get this straight. When it's announced that there is a business group out of Canada interested in purchasing either the Yotes or the Thrashers for relocation to Winnipeg but they have not made any announcement officially, it's pure speculation/gossip, even though there are clear signs of this occuring. YET, when this mythological creature called "The Balkan" who has yet to be proven to actually exist, is to be taken more seriously, even though this "person" also has yet to make an official announcement of interest?

Okay, got it!

I've said my peace.............carry on.

#thebalkan isn't the only one that's interested. There are other parties as well that have signed NDA's. I guess you haven't followed this very closely.

 

[Puckschmuck*]

#thebalkan isn't the only one that's interested. There are other parties as well that have signed NDA's. I guess you haven't followed this very closely.

I have been following it closely, and again, not a single entity has come out to announce their official interest in buying the Thrashers and keeping them in Atlanta. Could there very well be? Sure, anything is possible. You never know.

Just pointing out the hipocrisy of the situation.

Peace.

 

[Whileee]

#thebalkan isn't the only one that's interested. There are other parties as well that have signed NDA's. I guess you haven't followed this very closely.

How do you interpret the recent statements by Bettman and the current owners to the effect that despite extended efforts they have been unsuccessful in finding local buyers? One of the owners recently went so far as to send out a plea to fans to identify potential owners and have them contact ASG. Does that not seem more relevant than media reports about shadowy background figures with fictional monikers?

I expect that there might very well be some folks who might have an interest in buying all three entities, but ASG doesn't seem interested in that. It would be like me trying to sell my car and someone saying, "I'll buy the car, but only if you also sell me your house and cottage".

 

[Dado]

There are other parties as well that have signed NDA's.

Signing an NDA doesn't mean you ARE interested - it means you WERE interested.

 

[Dado]

Can you please define "really hockey markets" for me?

Markets where teams will thrive without revenue sharing.

 

[Dado]

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.

Your argument comes across as "the NHL can do whatever it wants". His counter argument is that NEITHER the NHL nor any individual owner can do whatever they want.

There isn't a clear line, and sometimes the courts get involved, both sides are both beholden and in conflict with each other. Kinda like a family, or a tribe.

 

[Dado]

Why is the NHL becoming so anti-capitalist?

It has never been any different. Ask the people in Vancouver, who were denied an earlier expansion franchise because THEIR OWN CANADIAN BROTHERS in Toronto and Montreal didn't want the (revenue) competition.

And that's 45 years ago now....

 

[Dado]

The Jets left because no one was willing to "drop big coin to keep" the team there. Therefore, by his logic, it is not an attractive market. If you disagree with this, question him.

I'm "him".

Yes, at the time, Winnipeg was clearly not an attractive market. And now, for a variety of reasons, it is.

Things change, life goes on.

 

[Killion]

Signing an NDA doesn't mean you ARE interested - it means you WERE interested.

Past or present tense, they usually have a window on them, often into perpetuity or upon dissolution of the entity with whom you've signed it. If breached, resolution hearings held at the Crazy Horse Saloon, Paris.

 

[William Satterwhite]

I expect that there might very well be some folks who might have an interest in buying all three entities, but ASG doesn't seem interested in that. It would be like me trying to sell my car and someone saying, "I'll buy the car, but only if you also sell me your house and cottage".

This is part of the problem though, it appears all three entities are (and have been) on the market and for whatever reason, ASG isn't selling them together right now as a package deal. Based on some of the Forbes reports, there is a theory that the Hawks and the arena are/have been already in the process of being sold without the Thrashers. No one in the local Atlanta media has gotten Levenson or Gearon to go on the record with a clear and concise answer as to whether someone could still purchase all three entities together, as evidenced by the Levenson video, all the answers regarding what exactly is up for sale are vague and open to interpretation.

 

[Roughneck]

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 NHL doesn't own professional hockey. It's a business and is running the way it sees fit. Sure it might not be considered the best way to run it, but that's their prerogative. Why shouldn't they determine how their clubs are sold and located? If you owned a business and franchised it out wouldn't you want a say in how those franchises are sold and run?

Nobody is preventing anyone from setting up their own professional hockey league with teams in whatever city they damn well please. If people want to watch that instead of the NHL and where it has it's teams and how they're run, the free market will win out. If no league does pop up that could challenge the NHL, its because nobody is willing to take that risk in the free market.

 

[Killion]

It has never been any different. Ask the people in Vancouver, who were denied an earlier expansion franchise because THEIR OWN CANADIAN BROTHERS in Toronto and Montreal didn't want the (revenue) competition.

And that's 45 years ago now....

Vancouver?. Partly right Dado. The other obstacle was the fact that Punch Imlach was part of one of the leading groups bidding & had been burying talented players in the Leafs minor league system in order to get a leg up on the competition when he received the franchise. Ballard caught wind of it; Application Denied.

 

[Plub]

It seems impossible for me to debate this, as my posts will simply be deleted. So I guess I'll just say good luck ATL.

 

[SuperDave21]

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.

I see what you're saying, but what if the shoe was on the other foot? I've read some statements regarding the sale of the Oilers to Houston years ago, and the NHL stepped in to save that franchise as well. If, theoretically, the Senators experienced the same situation as the Thrashers/Coyotes, would you still have the same opinion? Would you also proclaim, "The Ottawa market be damned if they can't get ownership!" as well?

I think many people are missing the big picture. The NHL knows it needs to expand to more markets in order to not only grow the game, but to generate more revenue. The more revenue generated, the more money there is to go around any and all teams in the league. Without expanding the market, as any business owner will tell you, then the business does not grow. The NHL is ranked last in the U.S in terms of popularity. Would you rather the NHL stay where they are, or try to gain more popularity? How would one go about moving up the proverbial "popularity" chain? Expansion to populous cities with no hockey team is the answer. Give Bettman credit where credit is due; He is trying to make the game more relevant to everyone in the world. It's either that or the NHL market share shrinks to the other 3 major sports, and eventually fades away into obscurity.

Can anyone name a large, successful, company who has not expanded beyond its initial brand? Google, Microsoft, Apple, Ford, Wal-Mart, Bank of America, etc? All of these companies started small and expanded to something much greater than the sum of its parts. If you can't find/name a company who has been successful because they chose not to expand, then there's your reason.

The last paragraph is intriguing. I listened to a national sports commentator a few weeks ago regarding the state of the 4 national sports with relation to their CBA's. He stated that the leagues with the weakest player unions had the best disparity (it was a different word that I can't think of now!) between teams. In other words, it's not one team winning the championship every year. Hockey, he stated, had the best disparity compared to any other league, and that it made the game more accessible and exciting to the causal fan since the new CBA was implemented. Going away from the CBA could be a damaging blow to the league. I thought it was an interesting analysis.

In conclusion, I believe that expanding teams to areas where hockey is not seen as popular by traditional standards is the smart, and correct, move by the NHL. The more teams expand, the more people are exposed to the game, the more people want to play the game, and better talent is brought into the league itself. Teams like Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Dallas, San Jose, Columbus, Phoenix, etc, are the beginning of a new era in hockey.

 

[saillias]

Teams like Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Dallas, San Jose, Columbus, Phoenix, etc, are the beginning of a new era in hockey.

You're 10-20 years late, when these franchises appeared or started being successful. In between 2 cups, several winning seasons, if Tampa Bay, San Jose and Dallas haven't already been part of a new era, then when is it going to start... After 30 years of existence? Columbus is a smaller, secondary market in NE USA. Lets make that clear, its no sunbelt team, and not vital to US expansion interests in the slightest.

 

[Killion]

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?

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.

Theories, speculation as to why the NHL has not been more vocal, proactive?. Honestly, I think it simply boils down to the fact that ASG has been & continues to be involved in messy litigation. The picture is still unclear. If Bettmans' assertions that ASG has "tried very hard" to find a buyer for the franchise are true, why then when ordered by a judge to release all documentation visa-vie their on-going internecine litigation, was there not a word relating to it?. They were swamping one anothers boats in rough seas & couldnt see past the next cresting wave to find blue sky's. You & many others are assuming that Gary Bettmans' speaking truthfully. I'm not. I think he's covering until such time as the seas part, trying to calm the waters with platitudes until the league can come up with a strategy and a solution, a buyer to step in & takeover. If indeed ASG has clear legal sailing rights to sell off-market & the clocks run out, then sure, looks like the teams a goner. If indeed this is the case, I hope the NHL is just about as disgusted with themselves as they are with ASG for letting things get to this point.