Bettman: ATL relo "one-off" (no more foreseen); Balsillie-approach not suggested

[Tony O]

What if I said it was pure lunacy to keep saying he's done anything "for the good of the game"?

Exactly what is it he's done then?

We can't give him credit for expanding because kdb will come along and point out that was a BOG plan before Bettman was brought in.

He's been the overseer for two CBA's, one deemed so wretched in its results that a lockout was necessary to right the ship.

Only problem though is that it seems the new CBA is making it very hard on revenue-challenged teams to survive. How many more owners have to come along and say they cannot stomach losses of $20-30 MM per year any longer before the Bettman supporters wake up and smell the coffee?

While I'm pleased for the Winnipeg fans, very sorry for the Atlanta fans, this IS a step back for the NHL's strategic plan, now in its second decade.

And before anyone claims he did something magnificent about revenues, I would point that yes, they grew organically in some markets, but the CAD sure has made things look a heck of a lot rosier than if it stayed depressed.

Furthermore, the 'wonderful' TV contract is finally recovering from a step backwards, thanks to the earlier mismanagement and lockout.

~Imagine~ if they'd done it better the first time.

So again--- what is this good of the game of which you speak?

the winter classic.

 

[Steve Passless*]

Atlanta is one of the great sports hubs of the world, specifically the Braves, as they were labeled "America's Team".

This is because the Braves aired almost all their games on TBS for about 30some years, and had the entire southeastern United States to themselves before Tampa got a team. The Hawks, Falcons, Thrashers, and Georgia Tech have much more localized fanbases. I don't know what a "great sports hub of the world" is, but I'm not sure that Atlanta is one of them.

 

[Steve Passless*]

Oh, and what I learned today is that when a team and its arena are separate money-losing entities and the team has an awful lease, this isn't a problem, it's "just me."

 

[Fugu]

the winter classic.

I'm still waiting for the other guy to give me his list of all that has been done "for the good of the game". The Winter Classic has been a winner that has helped the NHL get a nice new contract with NBC-- slightly ahead of the ESPN/ABC one of over ten years ago.

 

[jacketracket*]

Oh, and what I learned today is that when a team and its arena are separate money-losing entities and the team has an awful lease, this isn't a problem, it's "just me."

Exactly.

 

[Steve Passless*]

So that 40-page thread in the Blue Jackets folder about team/arena finances is just to discuss how well everything's going.

 

[Guardian17]

Bettman needs a city that he can use as leverage to extract concessions from cities like Glendale.

I'm certain Quebec City has now become that city.

 

[jacketracket*]

So that 40-page thread in the Blue Jackets folder about team/arena finances is just to discuss how well everything's going.

Nope.

That 40-page thread in the Blue Jackets folder about team/arena finances is just to discuss how the CBJ are one team of many - two-thirds of the league last season, IIRC - operating at a loss, for one reason or another.

Doesn't make them a relocation candidate (topic of the thread, no?) any more so than the next money-loser, until CBJ ownership suggests otherwise.

 

[kdb209]

I'm still waiting for the other guy to give me his list of all that has been done "for the good of the game". The Winter Classic has been a winner that has helped the NHL get a nice new contract with NBC-- slightly ahead of the ESPN/ABC one of over ten years ago.

And who got that "ESPN/ABC one of over ten years ago" (and the FOX one before that, the NHL's first real network deal since Peter Puck) - picking up the pieces after the disastrous Sports Channel America fiasco?

 

[New User Name]

First, we agree that the NHL's main problem is that it has the least amount of impact out of the 4 major sports leagues in the U.S., the weakest national brand? As in, the NHL needs to increase it's national brand (this does include "growing the game", but I am referring to the larger portion of that here).

Assuming that we do, then the move from Atlanta to Winnipeg, while almost certainly an improvement in the short term, is not beneficial and arguably harmful to this goal in the longterm.

In the short term, Winnipeg will probably make money (at least, more money than the Thrashers!). They will cause more interest in Canada (specifically Manitoba), and they will probably increase the value of sponsorship packages in Canada.

In the long term, however, these benefits do not outweigh the loss of the Atlanta market. The Atlanta market is huge, with both enormous population bases and corporate support, of which Winnipeg (indeed, the majority of NHL markets) cannot begin to compare.

A successful franchise in Atlanta will help to a much greater extent of the NHL's aims (national impact) than a successful franchise in Winnipeg. A successful franchise in Winnipeg reaches to a metro area of around 750,000 people; one in Atlanta reaches to a metro population of nearly 5.5 million. Further, Atlanta is one of the great sports hubs of the world, specifically the Braves, as they were labeled "America's Team".

Basically, the way I see it, while Winnipeg will, in the short term, perform much better than the Thrashers in the business department, the NHL just closed itself off to not only a large amount of people, but a large amount of corporate support and potential media exposure.

EDIT: Now, it could be that Fidel Astro was referring to the problem of "trouble franchises". That I disagree with on the basis of being a short sighted viewpoint, as well as the fact that relocation is absolutely no way to fix the problem in the first place.

I don't know why so many have this need to grow the game. I'm happy with the way it is. Just because it's not big in some parts of the states, who cares.

Fix the problems with the teams bleeding money first, then try to grow the game.

Sometimes bigger is not always better.

I really wish there was 10 multi billionaire Canadians that would start up a pro league and leave Gary to do what Gary wants.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

I don't know why so many have this need to grow the game. I'm happy with the way it is.

Because more people watching = more money.

And more money makes everyone happy.

 

[Killion]

The NHL had no true control over much of the situation..

Good points. Im not exactly sure what Gary Bettman coulve' done to stave off Atlanta's meltdown either, as the whole thing's been shrouded in a messy legal haze for what, almost 5yrs now?. According to the media, bloggers in Atlanta & the fans, and by ASG's own admissions, they never cared about the Thrashers, had zero interest in hockey or the NHL. Redheaded stepchild of the family.

Adoptions an option. How about the league 5-6yrs ago beat the bushes to find an owner willing to take the team off of ASG's hands provided a viable long-term lease for the incoming owner could be negotiated?. Honestly, I think remedies were available back then however the doors were shut once the fur started to fly amongst the partners. Ultimately, as is obvious to one & all, the NHL was left with no option. Move it or lose it. ASG found itself in the drivers seat.

Playing hardball & reaching for the hammers, ASG breached virtually every single clause of League By-Law 36.4 pursuant to a sale for relocation. Bad faith in abundance. Nuke em'. The NHL could've contracted the franchise and sold an Expansion Franchise to TNSE, pocketing the full fee. You mentioned St.Louis. The Blues were contracted when Ralston-Purina walked & 15mins' later Harry Ornest awarded an Expansion Franchise in St.Louis, the Blues.

Complicated I know, and very very messy in terms of ASG, the Thrashers & Winnipeg, but mechanisms were available. The league opting for the best worst choice. Im quite certain this mustve' been & likely still is a rather galling & humbling experience for Mr.Bettman. No matter how you cut it, this is a blackmark on the league and his tenure as Commissioner. I can only hope that he has learned from the experience & starts stepping in earlier when fires are spotted on the horizon, and there are a few to be seen that are looking dangerous, spreading....

 

[Metamucil]

Bettman can't say anything else.

We all know by now that he has to stick to the "we don't relocate" line until the very last minute, so even if the Coyotes do need to move to Quebec (here's hoping), he's going to deny, deny, deny until the official announcement is made, just like he did here in Winnipeg.

I almost felt sorry for the guy, having to deny what had become common knowledge with the Altanta-Winnipeg situation, but then I remembered it's Gary Bettman. There's a reason everyone at the Forks booed him every time he opened his mouth during the announcement.

he's really just a politician, half of what he or anyone else in his situation says can't really be taken seriously.

he's not going to come out and say "there are other canidates for relocation and lots of hungry canadian cities" b/c that'd provide unstability to the other owners and the league in general.

IMO we fans tend to debate what he says a little too much b/c he's in all respects really a politician.

I bet at least one more goes in the next 3 years. I'm hoping for PHX to QC.

 

[Fugu]

And who got that "ESPN/ABC one of over ten years ago" (and the FOX one before that, the NHL's first real network deal since Peter Puck) - picking up the pieces after the disastrous Sports Channel America fiasco?

1999-03 --- $120 MM per yr, for 5 yrs ($600 MM).

04/05 --- $0

06&07 -- $67.5 MM ($135 MM)

08-11 -- $72-ish MM ($216 MM)

That's 11 yrs (I may be off) and $86.45 MM per year average, or $2.88 per team.

We only had to wait....... 18 yrs to get that number up to $200 MM per year, purportedly.

 

[Qratt]

They have bought another year in Phoenix, enough time for the shovels to hit the ground in Quebec. Quebec becomes the new "leverage".

 

[CorbeauNoir]

Because more people watching = more money for the BoG.

And more money makes people who are already stupidly rich happy.

fixed. A bigger league most certainly does not make 'everyone' happy - certainly not in a financial sense.

Seeing the egos and examples of spoiled childish immaturity that have been produced out of the much larger North American leagues (and the mind-boggling popularity of those individuals in spite of their behaviour), I get a bit ill thinking that the NHL actively desires to attain the kind of finances that promotes such behaviour out of its participating athletes. It's bad enough in the NHL as it is, why do we want it to be even worse?

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

fixed.

Didn't really change anything.

 

[Jonjmc]

I don't know why so many have this need to grow the game. I'm happy with the way it is. Just because it's not big in some parts of the states, who cares.

Fix the problems with the teams bleeding money first, then try to grow the game.

Sometimes bigger is not always better.

I really wish there was 10 multi billionaire Canadians that would start up a pro league and leave Gary to do what Gary wants.

So do I, then there could be a board somewhere else where everyone can whine about all this emotional BS and I wouldn't have to wade through it on the Business of hockey board.

 

[kdb209]

1999-03 --- $120 MM per yr, for 5 yrs ($600 MM).

04/05 --- $0

06&07 -- $67.5 MM ($135 MM)

08-11 -- $72-ish MM ($216 MM)

That's 11 yrs (I may be off) and $86.45 MM per year average, or $2.88 per team.

We only had to wait....... 18 yrs to get that number up to $200 MM per year, purportedly.

And before GB - $17M/yr on SCA ('89-'91) and $12.5M/yr on ESPN ('93-'98).

Within a year GB did get the network deal that had eluded Zeigler/Stein for over a decade - the 5yr/$155M deal with FOX, followed by the 5yr/$600M ABC/ESPN deal.

In 6 years, GB increased the US national broadcast revenue almost 10 fold.

 

[Rob]

Didn't Gary say that they had 5 other relocation options for the Thrashers?

 

[Fugu]

And before GB - $17M/yr on SCA ('89-'91) and $12.5M/yr on ESPN ('93-'98).

Within a year GB did get the network deal that had eluded Zeigler/Stein for over a decade - the 5yr/$155M deal with FOX, followed by the 5yr/$600M ABC/ESPN deal.

In 6 years, GB increased the US national broadcast revenue almost 10 fold.

And then he lost it, dropping to about half.

I think if you want to say that $6.6 MM per team per year is an awesome feat (for the next 10 yrs) on a national US deal, that's fine. I'm not impressed.

To recap, his first 18 yrs, the peak value per team on US national TV money was $2.88, and for the next TEN years, that will go up to $6.6 MM. That's a fairly high bar you got there, kdb.

 

[Ryan34222]

Bettman needs a city that he can use as leverage to extract concessions from cities like Glendale.

I'm certain Quebec City has now become that city.

not until they get that arena built. but yah they'll be the new Southern Ontario

 

[Melrose Munch]

fixed. A bigger league most certainly does not make 'everyone' happy - certainly not in a financial sense.

Seeing the egos and examples of spoiled childish immaturity that have been produced out of the much larger North American leagues (and the mind-boggling popularity of those individuals in spite of their behaviour), I get a bit ill thinking that the NHL actively desires to attain the kind of finances that promotes such behaviour out of its participating athletes. It's bad enough in the NHL as it is, why do we want it to be even worse?

That happens here.

All the phoenix players on moving to Winnipeg, Sean Avery, Brashear, Mcsorley, Probert, Kordic.

Come On.

 

[Melrose Munch]

In 10 years Copps will be pushing 30-35 years. Then Hamilton will need a new arena too.

 

[RandR]

This may be the case, but I have a hard time believing it.
If the NHL was able to mock up TWO schedules including one with a team in Winnipeg, and now just pick which one they need (w/ ATL or w/ WPG), then could they not have included a divisional re-alignment in that mock?

I'm racking my brain to figure out what else might have been effected by a divisional re-alignment, but can't come up with anything that would have been irreversibly planned PRIOR to the release of the schedule.

I'd love to be corrected on this though....

Bettman briefly addressed the realignment question in the press conference yesterday. I didn't write anything down, but he confirmed that Winnipeg was playing 1 year in the Southeast. And he said something to the effect that there were "multiple interests" to deal with for realignment so it would be dealt with next year.

It is safe to conclude that the problem was that not everybody was in agreement with what the realignment would have been. For example, if Detroit has some sort of promise to be next in line to move to the East conference, then that would create a ripple effect impacting quite a few teams, not all of which would be happy about it.