ATLANTA: Thrashing about for answers

[OthmarAmmann]

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.

Well its not like the NFL is at the bottom of the heap because neither the Jets nor the Pats existed in the pre-expansion era. Anyway, I only threw Spike out as an example. If anybody wants to believe that the NHL holds better than #6 in this O6 market than they're free to do so (although I'd appreciate a PM so that I could arrange the sale of a certain bridge).

 

[Dado]

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?

From the dozen and a half teams in solid markets that would be left, of course.

 

[MaskedSonja]

Yes I know the reasons are being discussed, but I am still amazed at the vast contrast about how quiet the NHL has been about Atlanta possibly moving/staying. I know the NHL has said some things, but in comparison, for 2 years it's been "Yotes aren't moving, we are committed to Phoenix, Yotes are not moving at all, so be quiet!" compared to an almost by contrast, the occassional "we're working to work things out in Atlanta", with no hint of seeming desperation, or enthusiasm.

The difference in tone is just simply startling.

 

[cbcwpg]

Yes I know the reasons are being discussed, but I am still amazed at the vast contrast about how quiet the NHL has been about Atlanta possibly moving/staying. I know the NHL has said some things, but in comparison, for 2 years it's been "Yotes aren't moving, we are committed to Phoenix, Yotes are not moving at all, so be quiet!" compared to an almost by contrast, the occassional "we're working to work things out in Atlanta", with no hint of seeming desperation, or enthusiasm.

The difference in tone is just simply startling.

It's because we all got used to the exception (Phoenix ) which is public and loads of entertainment, vs the normal way teams are sold ( Atlanta ) which is behind the closed door and boring. What's going on in Atlanta as far as a sale goes is how sales should be done ( other than this Russian mob type called The Balkin ).

 

[tarheelhockey]

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?

Again, the local offerS were fair market value for the franchise. $8m might sound "low ball" to us today, but the economic scale of pro sports was different then.

I'm not interested in getting tangled into an argument over where teams should be located. That has been re-hashed ad nauseum already. My only reason for interjecting was to correct the myth that the Flames moved due to poor support. No, they didn't, and I kinda wish that the history books weren't constantly being revised on that point.

 

[Gnashville]

Markets where teams will thrive without revenue sharing.

Then why is everyone pushing for Winnipeg they would need RS money to survive.

 

[Alex The Loyal]

Would they? They'd obviously make a profit unlike the 'Yotes. I don't know about the Thrashers. I'm guessing they did that year they won the division...

 

[Dado]

Then why is everyone pushing for Winnipeg they would need RS money to survive.

You're asking the wrong guy - I believe the league should contract to 20 teams.

Plus it's not clear Winnipeg will need revenue sharing.

 

[dkehler]

Then why is everyone pushing for Winnipeg they would need RS money to survive.

That is debatable.

 

[Gnashville]

That is debatable.

Not really, unless they charge 150 bucks minimum for tickets (pricing themselves out of the market IMO), even then they would still qualify for RS, like Calgary and Edmonton. It's Bogus to believe they would not need RS money and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. The arena is not big enough to produce the types of revenue to survive. Just a fact of life. Getting RS money is Nothing to be embarrassed about as the owners voted for the RS plan.

 

[Jet]

Not really, unless they charge 150 bucks minimum for tickets (pricing themselves out of the market IMO), even then they would still qualify for RS, like Calgary and Edmonton.

Huh?

You might want to double check your sources. I know for a fact Edmonton is one of the higher revenue teams in the league and PAYS INTO revenue sharing.

 

[GreenHornet]

I'm not interested in getting tangled into an argument over where teams should be located. That has been re-hashed ad nauseum already. My only reason for interjecting was to correct the myth that the Flames moved due to poor support. No, they didn't, and I kinda wish that the history books weren't constantly being revised on that point.

Me, too. I'm tired of the revisionist history.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Not really, unless they charge 150 bucks minimum for tickets (pricing themselves out of the market IMO), even then they would still qualify for RS, like Calgary and Edmonton. It's Bogus to believe they would not need RS money and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. The arena is not big enough to produce the types of revenue to survive. Just a fact of life. Getting RS money is Nothing to be embarrassed about as the owners voted for the RS plan.

Huh?

You might want to double check your sources. I know for a fact Edmonton is one of the higher revenue teams in the league and PAYS INTO revenue sharing.

Calgary and Edmonton received revenue sharing from 1996 to at least 2001 jet.

 

[dkehler]

Not really, unless they charge 150 bucks minimum for tickets (pricing themselves out of the market IMO), even then they would still qualify for RS, like Calgary and Edmonton. It's Bogus to believe they would not need RS money and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. The arena is not big enough to produce the types of revenue to survive. Just a fact of life. Getting RS money is Nothing to be embarrassed about as the owners voted for the RS plan.

I'm not embarrassed about anything. But I also don't believe any Canadian clubs receive revenue-sharing and I don't believe Winnipeg will be either. Not for a while, anyways.

 

[digmor crusher]

Winnipeg will be fine and produce more revenue than at least 50% of US based teams.

 

[Gnashville]

Huh?

You might want to double check your sources. I know for a fact Edmonton is one of the higher revenue teams in the league and PAYS INTO revenue sharing.

FYI Getting accurate information on team finances is almost impossible even for the press which slants things anyways. Most teams pay into it. The Preds have before, but it's only reported how much we receive. Most reports say the Oilers paid in around 800K. Is that Net, because they also qualify and receive from the system? My question is how much do they receive??? They are in Canada so they get a pass on such things. Research what qualifies a market to get RS and Edmonton does. They drew 14K plus, are in a bottom 15 TV market, and did not spend to the cap, they may not have received a full share but should have received something.

 

[Doc Scurlock]

Calgary and Edmonton received revenue sharing from 1996 to at least 2001 jet.

That was not revenue sharing. That had to do with the Canadian dollar being so low compared to the American dollar. Basically, taking in money in Canadian dollars and having to pay salary in American dollars when the Canadian dollar is worth only $0.65 in relation to the American one pretty much guarantees that you are going to be poor.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

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.

If this is the case then let me assure you, that is not my intention, and poor wording on my part.

I am arguing against his assertion that Owners should not only be allowed to move their teams wherever they want to, but that it is the reality of the NHL. I am arguing that while the NHL can operate against the interests of the owners, the individual owner cannot operate against the NHL's business interests.

 

[headsigh]

Would they? They'd obviously make a profit unlike the 'Yotes. I don't know about the Thrashers. I'm guessing they did that year they won the division...

They turned a profit every year until 2008, iirc. The 1999 thrashers fiscal was a record for expansion team revenue (of course this record was quickly broken when the Wild joined).

It was when the team literally rebelled against the coach in 08, that's where everything went downhill. And the front office didn't know what to do, so they let Marc Savard walk, traded Marian Hossa, and decided Steve Rucchin would be their big star signing. And ASG didn't care either as long as the cash came in- which coincides with Levenson telling a STH to "deal with it" at a town hall meeting.

Personally, I don't buy the "we lost money and have been looking to sell for 5years". I'd believe them if the septotards said they lost money for the previous 3, or said that they lost money with the Thrashers, Hawks and Phillips combined. Basically, I think they're embellishing their financial issues- it hasn't been going on as long as they say. Been trying to sell for 5 years would mean they were attempting to unload the team less than a year after buying it.

 

[Melrose Munch]

That was not revenue sharing. That had to do with the Canadian dollar being so low compared to the American dollar. Basically, taking in money in Canadian dollars and having to pay salary in American dollars when the Canadian dollar is worth only $0.65 in relation to the American one pretty much guarantees that you are going to be poor.

Okay that lets call it League Assistance.

 

[Gnashville]

That was not revenue sharing. That had to do with the Canadian dollar being so low compared to the American dollar. Basically, taking in money in Canadian dollars and having to pay salary in American dollars when the Canadian dollar is worth only $0.65 in relation to the American one pretty much guarantees that you are going to be poor.

Agreed that is a different plan which has no bearing on todays Revenue Sharing.

 

[Metzen]

Okay that lets call it League Assistance.

Different eras. The most money received via "League Assistance" back then was $2M. How much does PHX, ATL, NSH get today? I suspect is "multiples" of that.

Regardless, Edmonton pays into revenue sharing, it does not receive funds back from it.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

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.

There are virtually no comparable US markets to the Canadian markets in terms of % of people that are interested in hockey and the NHL. The closest you will come are Buffalo, Twin-cities and certain suburbs of Detroit. That's not to say there are not a lot of hockey fans in other cities, especially Boston, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and NYC.

One reasons for that is simply media. The NHL is covered far more in the Canadian media.

GHOST

 

[ChapStick]

Without municipal support in some form to helping keep the Thrashers in Atlanta, the team is as good as gone.

Here's the Mayor, Mohammed Kasim Reed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasim_Reed



It's really not rocket science to figure out that, at a governmental level, the City of Atlanta really could care less about a professional hockey franchise.

 

[Brominator]

Not really, unless they charge 150 bucks minimum for tickets (pricing themselves out of the market IMO), even then they would still qualify for RS, like Calgary and Edmonton. It's Bogus to believe they would not need RS money and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. The arena is not big enough to produce the types of revenue to survive. Just a fact of life. Getting RS money is Nothing to be embarrassed about as the owners voted for the RS plan.

$150 minimum ticket price? That is delusional.

Why would you need to charge more than double the average NHL ticket price to make up for the fact that arena capacity is 20 percent below average?

Do I need to show my math to demonstrate why the idea of $150 minimum prices is absurd?