ATLANTA: Thrashing about for answers

[peter sullivan]

@ super Dave

expanding into non traditional markets is fine. It has grown the game. It is a gamble however and you can't win every time. Losing Atlanta will not end the southern dream. Every company shores up it's fringes now and then. Like how pruning the hedge makes it grow back stronger and more full.

There is a place for hockey in the sunbelt but that doesn't mean every place in the sunbelt needs hockey.

 

[peter sullivan]

Killion. You think Bettman has been calming the waters with platitudes? Doesn't appear to be working. The waves are crashing over the bow and everyones hangin' on to the railing for dear life.

I admire the optimism in the face of despair.

 

[SuperDave21]

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.

Thanks for the reply!

I guess it depends on what your definition of "success" is to you personally. Is it placing teams in "non-traditional" markets, and therefore exposing people to hockey for the first time in their lives, or is it Stanley Cup championships? If so, what's the baseline in which to compare teams? Would 5 Cups be considered successful? If so, then Ottawa, Chicago, both New York teams, Pittsburgh, et all, should be relocated. Do you see what I'm trying to say? It's all subjective.

I think your 30 years of existence baseline is intriguing. Does that mean 30 years of no cup, winning seasons, attendance, etc? How many teams have taken that long to win a cup? Phoenix has 15 years in with no cup, so does that mean they get another 15 years, and then the boot? I'm not being sarcastic by any means. I'm really interested because it's a very cool discussion!

@ super Dave

expanding into non traditional markets is fine. It has grown the game. It is a gamble however and you can't win every time. Losing Atlanta will not end the southern dream. Every company shores up it's fringes now and then. Like how pruning the hedge makes it grow back stronger and more full.

There is a place for hockey in the sunbelt but that doesn't mean every place in the sunbelt needs hockey.

I completely agree with you. However, does the argument go both ways? If a "successful" team experiences the "Sunbelt team syndrome," Canadian or U.S., should they also lose their team? I guess my question is, at what point does the NHL abandon ship with regard to any team in the league? The Blackhawks were having ownership and attendance issues only a few years ago, and I don't remember even a whisper of relocation at any point. Thank for the reply!

 

[thinkwild]

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.

I’m not sure I’d equate the leagues public relations statements with the work behind the scenes to find ownership. I would have to think the league is just as concerned with Atlanta as Phoenix as markets.

Many also point to Ottawa, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh as cities where Bettman bent over backwards to save them, but really, those were all solid markets with solid business plans once the previous owners took their bath for incompetence, corruption, or greed, and the sales process was then rather easy. However many fans had confused their owners personal plight with that of their franchise.

Last I heard a while back, the multi-headed Atlanta ownership monstrosity was suing its lawyers for bungling the sale. Something regarding setting the price?

And as we can see from posts such as this which are not uncommon at all

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.

In spite of all the information in this thread, there are still those that look at these situations and see nothing that another round of cba givebacks by the players cant solve.

The Atlanta ownership monstrosity does an absolutely terrible job running their business, but does anyone suggest they should try selling the franchise the way other badly run businesses would have to? At a loss? Of course not, the assumption is that they are owed their capital gain and if they cant sell at that gain, there is something wrong that needs to be fixed.

I bet many local buyers would step up if the franchise was selling for $50 mil.

And I think the importance of the “national footprint” is not just for legitimacy, but for national advertising and sponsorship dollars. If the Winter Classic is on in all the big TV markets of the States, the big advertising money comes in. Atlanta is an important market. Hopefully good new ownership gets the right price to try and restore it.

 

[Dado]

TIf a "successful" team experiences the "Sunbelt team syndrome," Canadian or U.S., should they also lose their team?

There's no "should" in any of this.

If someone wants to carry the freight on a specific team in a specific location, the NHL will help facilitate that. They've done it in cities both US and Canadian, and will no doubt continue to do that in both the US and Canada.

But if nobody wants to foot the bills, there's ****-all the NHL can do about it, and the team will either fold or move.

Relocation isn't forbidden, that's impossible to do - it's just strongly discouraged. The Coyotes continue to exist not because of the NHL, but because of a city willing to burden itself with the responsibility in lieu of finding a permanent owner. The reason it looks like the NHL is doing less in Atlanta is because Atlanta itself is doing less.

 

[Killion]

Killion. I admire the optimism in the face of despair.

"Despair" peter?. I dont know this word & it doesnt know me.

Last I heard a while back, the multi-headed Atlanta ownership monstrosity was suing its lawyers for bungling the sale. Something regarding setting the price?

Excellent post overall wild. And yes, that would be correct. Valuation is but one of the issues you'll find in the voluminous filings. Unfortunately, the librarians havent been able to keep up with the cataloging & indexing. How these Wunderkinds even managed to come up with a figure of $110M or $135M or whatever the Hell it is this afternoon is beyond me.

 

[ColinM]

@ super Dave

expanding into non traditional markets is fine. It has grown the game. It is a gamble however and you can't win every time. Losing Atlanta will not end the southern dream. Every company shores up it's fringes now and then. Like how pruning the hedge makes it grow back stronger and more full.

There is a place for hockey in the sunbelt but that doesn't mean every place in the sunbelt needs hockey.

I think this is true. Since the Gretzky trade 9 cities were added that are south of St. Louis. That still means the majority of teams will have gone on to have succeeded. It's not that much different than MLB expanding into Canada in 1969 and 1977.

 

[Alex The Loyal]

Yeah, losing Atlanta (IF it happens) won't kill Hockey in The South. Hockey has done well in cities like Dallas, Nashville, and even the California cities. Hockey probably won't become #1 in those cities, but it will survive.

 

[SuperDave21]

There's no "should" in any of this.

If someone wants to carry the freight on a specific team in a specific location, the NHL will help facilitate that. They've done it in cities both US and Canadian, and will no doubt continue to do that in both the US and Canada.

But if nobody wants to foot the bills, there's ****-all the NHL can do about it, and the team will either fold or move.

Relocation isn't forbidden, that's impossible to do - it's just strongly discouraged. The Coyotes continue to exist not because of the NHL, but because of a city willing to burden itself with the responsibility in lieu of finding a permanent owner. The reason it looks like the NHL is doing less in Atlanta is because Atlanta itself is doing less.

That's my point. It can happen to any team at any time. So my question becomes, why is there such a hatred/animosity for the Sunbelt teams when in fact every team is vulnerable? Should we not band together as hockey fans and support the cities/fans that are in turmoil regardless of team allegiance? After all, it's the fans who are deluded at the end of the day, not the NHL or cities in question, is it not?

What is the difference between a Thrashers or Coyotes team in trouble and a Canadian team in trouble? I'd hate to think my hockey brethren up North are so selfish, and self centered, to ridicule and mock based on location alone. I know that isn't that case. What is it then? Where is the line drawn?

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

That's my point. It can happen to any team at any time. So my question becomes, why is there such a hatred/animosity for the Sunbelt teams when in fact every team is vulnerable? Should we not band together as hockey fans and support the cities/fans that are in turmoil regardless of team allegiance? After all, it's the fans who are deluded at the end of the day, not the NHL or cities in question, is it not?

What is the difference between a Thrashers or Coyotes team in trouble and a Canadian team in trouble? I'd hate to think my hockey brethren up North are so selfish, and self centered, to ridicule and mock based on location alone. I know that isn't that case. What is it then? Where is the line drawn?

It wouldn't happen to the Original Six teams, too much marketing appeal there.

In general though, it's probably to do with the fact that when Winnipeg, Quebec, Hartford, Minnesota moved people were told that it was for the good of the league and smaller Northern markets were reminders of a small-time past whereas the Sun Belt locations represent a bright future. I don't think people ever forgave the impression that the league wanted teams to relocate. So when Southern teams get in trouble, there's on the one hand,bitterness that the league seems to do everything to keep them in place and on the other hand scorn over the NHL's failed strategy.

 

[Alex The Loyal]

Edit: Nevermind

 

[Killion]

....there's on the one hand,bitterness that the league seems to do everything to keep them in place and on the other hand scorn over the NHL's failed strategy.

For sure. Its a vocal minority who felt they were treated contemptibly, the NHL applying double standards. Its complicated.

 

[King_Stannis]

And I think the importance of the “national footprint” is not just for legitimacy, but for national advertising and sponsorship dollars. If the Winter Classic is on in all the big TV markets of the States, the big advertising money comes in. Atlanta is an important market. Hopefully good new ownership gets the right price to try and restore it.

People keep saying that Atlanta just needs to ice a competitive team, then the fans will come to the arena, and fans will watch the team on TV. Admittedly, the Thrashers have been bad. But I'd say it's fair to take a look back at the playoff TV ratings for the one season they did make the playoffs as a barometer of sorts.

Warning, the results are not pretty if you're a Thrasher fan.

http://www.aolnews.com/2007/04/23/not-so-hotlanta-abysmal-local-t-v-ratings-for-thrashers/

If I told you that an Atlanta Thrashers' playoff game had fewer viewers in the Atlanta metro area than a Braves game or a NASCAR race being televised at the same time, you wouldn't be surprised. You might not even be shocked to hear that more locals were watching figure skating than their hometown Thrash (insert Marian Hossa joke here). But the raw numbers are fairly jaw-dropping...

 

[VAThrasher]

With my 25 years experience in business, working through NDAs and the like and my 40+ years of being a hockey addict, I can't for the life of me tell you how this is going to end. Nor will I put all the blame on my team's attendance woes all at the feet of ASG, although they are certainly culpable. That said, given the heartburn Thrasher fans are having over the situation, it's truly galling to hear a "fan" of a team that, but for the luck of drafting first in a couple truly special drafts would have long since collapsed, dogging Thrasher fans.

That's all.

 

[OthmarAmmann]

It wouldn't happen to the Original Six teams, too much marketing appeal there.

In general though, it's probably to do with the fact that when Winnipeg, Quebec, Hartford, Minnesota moved people were told that it was for the good of the league and smaller Northern markets were reminders of a small-time past whereas the Sun Belt locations represent a bright future. I don't think people ever forgave the impression that the league wanted teams to relocate. So when Southern teams get in trouble, there's on the one hand,bitterness that the league seems to do everything to keep them in place and on the other hand scorn over the NHL's failed strategy.

For sure. Its a vocal minority who felt they were treated contemptibly, the NHL applying double standards. Its complicated.

Sounds about right. Certainly in market like Winnipeg that lost a team there's going to be some people pissed off that a team moved from a place where NHL hockey was #1 by far to a place where it's probably 6th or 7th in popularity. Not really shocking.

When I moved to New York I was surprised at how distant hockey is even here. Pretty much the only people I had hockey conversations with were other Canadians at the office. I've had people on who grew up on Long Island say that hockey was a fringe sport. Spike Lee was interviewed on Talk Stoop recently and said that he hated Boston, he hated the Red Sox, the Celtics, and the Patriots. Bruins didn't even warrant a mention.

 

[Killion]

Spike Lee was interviewed on Talk Stoop recently and said that he hated Boston, he hated the Red Sox, the Celtics, and the Patriots. Bruins didn't even warrant a mention.

Oh for sure. Ive' traveled & worked extensively throughout the US and encountered plenty of that from Pennsylvania to California. People looking at you like you've lost it naming a team (the Kings pre, during & post Gretzky) theyve barely heard of in Burbank or wherever. Tons who just plain think the sports really impossible to watch & follow (puck, archaic rules etc), violent, complicated & boring (Philly). Bring up Penn State, the Lakers or the absence of the NFL in LA & boy do they get animated. Even here in Canada, theres a rather sizeable segment of the population who share the same lack of interest in the sport as their American cousins.

 

[Alex The Loyal]

People keep saying that Atlanta just needs to ice a competitive team, then the fans will come to the arena, and fans will watch the team on TV. Admittedly, the Thrashers have been bad. But I'd say it's fair to take a look back at the playoff TV ratings for the one season they did make the playoffs as a barometer of sorts.

Warning, the results are not pretty if you're a Thrasher fan.

http://www.aolnews.com/2007/04/23/not-so-hotlanta-abysmal-local-t-v-ratings-for-thrashers/

Damn that is bad

 

[tarheelhockey]

You mean that nobody local was willing to pay more than half the market value of the team, so it got moved? I think we all pretty much got that, some time ago.

I just want to correct the record on this. $8m for the Flames was a fair, market-based offer that would have kept them in Atlanta. IIRC there were multiple local groups involved in bidding up to that number.

The Flames were moved because the Calgary group was willing to write a blank check. Local support was irrelevant in the end, as Cousins simply took the money and ran.

 

[Killion]

Local support was irrelevant in the end, as Cousins simply took the money and ran.

Absolutely correct. You cant really blame Cousins for accepting double what was offered locally. It was a Dastardly Deed by Skalbania, but no fear, Dudley Dooright of the RCMP finally caught up with that one. That team shouldve gone to Glenn Ford. Not only the city, but the league couldve' used some Star Power, still could.....

 

[Dado]

That's my point. It can happen to any team at any time. So my question becomes, why is there such a hatred/animosity for the Sunbelt teams when in fact every team is vulnerable? Should we not band together as hockey fans and support the cities/fans that are in turmoil regardless of team allegiance? After all, it's the fans who are deluded at the end of the day, not the NHL or cities in question, is it not?

What is the difference between a Thrashers or Coyotes team in trouble and a Canadian team in trouble? I'd hate to think my hockey brethren up North are so selfish, and self centered, to ridicule and mock based on location alone. I know that isn't that case. What is it then? Where is the line drawn?

You ask some good questions. It seems to me the reality is that there are lots of fans of the game itself, and lots of fans of specific teams, but there are very few fans of the "NHL". So in the end, it is a pretty personal matter, and when people take things to heart, emotions like "hatred" can bubble to the surface.

Personally I believe the league should get out of the business of picking locations altogether. Expand to 40 teams, and then split into Tier 1 and Tier 2, with teams determining on an annual basis which level they're at by their on-ice success, which will be a function of ownership competence and fan support. Toss in a measure of revenue sharing, and let things take care of themselves instead of having the BoG constantly playing God, and nobody is put in a position of having to play favorites.

Yes, I know it will never happen.

 

[Dado]

Absolutely correct. You cant really blame Cousins for accepting double what was offered locally.

If there had been sufficient local support, someone local would have matched the offer, or at least come close. But when the local support is too low to support anything but a low-ball local offer, then what can you do?

Business realities are what they are, and the level of local support is intimately tied in with franchise location, as it should be.

IMO, etc...

 

[William Satterwhite]

Lee was interviewed on Talk Stoop recently and said that he hated Boston, he hated the Red Sox, the Celtics, and the Patriots. Bruins didn't even warrant a mention.

While I wouldn't doubt that the Bruins (or the Rangers, for that matter) truly aren't on Spike Lee's radar, to be perfectly fair, there are big New York-Boston rivalries that exist with those other teams that I'm not sure exists between the Bruins and Rangers. Someone feel free to correct me but I don't think Ranger fans and Bruins fans themselves would consider themselves major rivals along the same lines as Yankees-Red Sox, Knicks-Celtics and Jets-Patriots.

 

[OthmarAmmann]

You ask some good questions. It seems to me the reality is that there are lots of fans of the game itself, and lots of fans of specific teams, but there are very few fans of the "NHL". So in the end, it is a pretty personal matter, and when people take things to heart, emotions like "hatred" can bubble to the surface.

Personally I believe the league should get out of the business of picking locations altogether. Expand to 40 teams, and then split into Tier 1 and Tier 2, with teams determining on an annual basis which level they're at by their on-ice success, which will be a function of ownership competence and fan support. Toss in a measure of revenue sharing, and let things take care of themselves instead of having the BoG constantly playing God, and nobody is put in a position of having to play favorites.

Yes, I know it will never happen.

Never say never. Who knows how deep a hole they'll dig themselves in Phoenix, and who knows how desparate that will make them.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107554/quotes?qt=qt0179733

Someone feel free to correct me but I don't think Ranger fans and Bruins fans themselves would consider themselves major rivals along the same lines as Yankees-Red Sox, Knicks-Celtics and Jets-Patriots.

You are correct. And that's my point. The Rangers and Bruins have been around longer than all but the Yankees and Red Sox. I'm not saying there's no fans here - that's BS - but NHL is probably #6 at best in an O6 market.

 

[knorthern knight]

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

Because it's a co-operative business, not a bunch standalone businesses. If you own one of 30 shoe stores in town, and compete ruthlessly and drive the other 29 shoe stores into bankruptcy, you are sitting pretty. If the Maple Leafs used their revenue streams to force player salaries through the roof, and drove the other 29 teams out of business, who would they have to draw spectators to ACC and play against?

 

[William Satterwhite]

You are correct. And that's my point. The Rangers and Bruins have been around longer than all but the Yankees and Red Sox.

The Bruins and Rangers may have been around longer but for the most part, if my understanding of NHL history is correct, they were both largely irrelevant for much of the pre-expansion era. Rivalries and perception levels are largely based on relevance- because of the Yankees success in MLB people in Boston have always had a reason to hate them and because of the Celtics success in the NBA people in New York have always had a reason to hate the Celtics. With the Canadiens, Maple Leafs and Red Wings winning everything in the NHL, there was never a reason for people in either New York or Boston to hate or really even care about the other.

If anything, considering that pro sports in the US have basically always revolved around New York and Boston (and Chicago and LA to a much lesser extent), the fact that neither the Rangers or the Bruins are the NHL's "glamour" franchise probably has a lot to do with the league's stature on the larger sports landscape. There's no way to prove it but I dare say that if the Rangers had been winning Stanley Cup after Stanley Cup in the 40s, 50s and 60s, hockey would be held in a much different regard all over the US than it actually is.