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

ThrasherMinion

Just Chucky
Oct 2, 2006
4,255
0
[mod] Gary and your *** state of the game. You lied to Atlanta and never even to our faces because you never set foot in our city or spoke to any of our local reporters, TV or radio.

You gave Nashville the opportunity to sell season tix for a year before the "threat"
You BOUGHT Phoenix.
You BAILED out Buffalo and Ottawa.

10 DAYS (According to the liars of ASG) vs. 2+ YEARS in Phoenix. YOU SIR ARE A SNAKE and a *******


Now, back to your thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
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.

I'm sure as hell that the League doesn't want to be having to relocate another US-based team to Canada anytime soon. It would be a real negative for the League to have the appearance in the US that hockey is failing there and needs to be transplanted to Canada. Not saying that Quebec City won't get a team, because I'm quite sure they will, but if another relocation is needed as soon as next year, the League will be doing its damndest, first to try and avoid the relocation, and second to find a US destination for the team to be relocated. We already heard that the League is even shopping around in a place like Seattle that doesn't even have a suitable arena... Why? Because it's desperate for another option, other than Quebec City, I'm sure.
 

Hamilton Tigers

Registered User
Mar 20, 2010
1,374
4
Hamilton
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.

Elliotte Friedman said something similar in an interview with Peter Mansbridge last night.

This obsession with growing the game has become nothing more than misguided greed. While some operating losses are tolerated by owners because of expectations of recouping them through increased franchise value, I don't think anyone expected some of these huge operating losses and poor selection of owners that is resulting in some depressed franchise values and inability to find owners for some of those franchises. This is not good.
 

Finlandia WOAT

js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
May 23, 2010
24,134
23,681
Elliotte Friedman said something similar in an interview with Peter Mansbridge last night.

This obsession with growing the game has become nothing more than misguided greed. While some operating losses are tolerated by owners because of expectations of recouping them through increased franchise value, I don't think anyone expected some of these huge operating losses and poor selection of owners that is resulting in some depressed franchise values and inability to find owners for some of those franchises. This is not good.

Please stop.

Creating fans in new markets is the stated agenda of all 4 major sports leagues. Hell, it's the standard prcedure for any buisness that is created.

This is the Business of Hockey. In business, new customers is a GOOD thing.

Honestly, I am shocked that people would argue against that basic tenant of business.
 

dronald

Registered User
Mar 4, 2011
1,171
0
Hamilton, ON
Please stop.

Creating fans in new markets is the stated agenda of all 4 major sports leagues. Hell, it's the standard prcedure for any buisness that is created.

This is the Business of Hockey. In business, new customers is a GOOD thing.

Honestly, I am shocked that people would argue against that basic tenant of business.

The Tim Hortons across from the Tim Hortons in Hamilton would disagree with you. :heart:
 

Finlandia WOAT

js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
May 23, 2010
24,134
23,681
The Tim Hortons across from the Tim Hortons in Hamilton would disagree with you. :heart:

Not really, they are just trying to capture those who are too lazy to cross the street.

On a related topic, I wish they had that many donut shops down here. We are 1 hour away from the birthplace of Krispy Kreme and the first one opened here 4 months ago!!!
 

dronald

Registered User
Mar 4, 2011
1,171
0
Hamilton, ON
Not really, they are just trying to capture those who are too lazy to cross the street.
To be honest mate, a team in Hamilton would capture those who cant afford or cant get on the waiting list to see the Leafs play. One of those people would be myself :(

When Canadians get bent out of shape about Southern expansion, it's not because we're elitists, it's mostly because we really wish we could go see a team play live, but arent cappable.
On a related topic, I wish they had that many donut shops down here. We are 1 hour away from the birthplace of Krispy Kreme and the first one opened here 4 months ago!!!
I'm not sure what a bigger religion in Canada is... Hockey or Tim Hortons? XD
 

RandR

Registered User
May 15, 2011
1,901
411
Please stop.

Creating fans in new markets is the stated agenda of all 4 major sports leagues. Hell, it's the standard prcedure for any buisness that is created.

This is the Business of Hockey. In business, new customers is a GOOD thing.

Honestly, I am shocked that people would argue against that basic tenant of business.
Indeed, new customers are always a good thing, but especially in franchise-based businesses there is also something called market saturation.

Tim Horton's is actually a good example, as are Krispy Kreme and so many other franchises, where growth is not always possible nor even desirable, especially during difficult economic conditions. Some expansion plans haven't "gone as planned" (eg- both Tim Horton's and Canadian Tire stores in parts of the U.S.), and sometimes consolidation and even contraction should be the order of the day to ensure long-term stability and profit growth for existing stakeholders.

I agree with Friedman and many others that with the current state of affairs in the NHL, the league would best focus for the time being on consolidating the number of franchises they have now (in conjunction with a successful resolution to the next CBA talks).

I also think there is a reasonable business case for "trimming the fat" by contracting a couple of teams in order to reduce revenue sharing, raise franchise values (by creating a greater demand for them), and improve the product on the ice.
 

knorthern knight

Registered User
Mar 18, 2011
4,120
0
GTA
I could see a couple US teams folding outright if the US economy doesn't perk up. Contraction is ugly, but may be becessary. Winnipeg had an ownership group with a relatively new arena looking for team, and were waiting in the wings. There is nobody similar around right now. Talk about Quebec is premature. ASSUMING that...
  • The province Quebec gets its political act together and legalizes the sweetheart Quebecor deal in the next 4 weeks
  • and no major construction strikes (this is Quebec we're talking about)
The new arena opens September 2015. So moving a team to Quebec for the 2012-2013 season means AT LEAST 3 seasons in the Colisee. Unlike the US sunbelt, you cannot dig into the ground in Quebec in winter... it's frozen. A delay of a few months will snowball into a 1-season delay. If PKP is willing to carry the losses in the Colisee, it can be done, but the NHL would have to be desparate.

What I expect to happen is at least one more franchise (call it "Franchise X") in serious trouble next year (not sure which). The NHL will fold both Phoenix and Franchise X next spring, and re-align to 4 divisions of 7 teams each. If/when yet another franchise gets into trouble, a relocation to Quebec becomes possible.
 

Brodie

the dream of the 90s is alive in Detroit
Mar 19, 2009
15,399
359
Chicago
Not really, they are just trying to capture those who are too lazy to cross the street.

On a related topic, I wish they had that many donut shops down here. We are 1 hour away from the birthplace of Krispy Kreme and the first one opened here 4 months ago!!!

There's a Tim's in Hampton Roads... make the trip, order a double-double with a maple donut and experience life as a Canadian.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
I could see a couple US teams folding outright if the US economy doesn't perk up. Contraction is ugly, but may be becessary. Winnipeg had an ownership group with a relatively new arena looking for team, and were waiting in the wings. There is nobody similar around right now. Talk about Quebec is premature. ASSUMING that...
  • The province Quebec gets its political act together and legalizes the sweetheart Quebecor deal in the next 4 weeks
  • and no major construction strikes (this is Quebec we're talking about)
The new arena opens September 2015. So moving a team to Quebec for the 2012-2013 season means AT LEAST 3 seasons in the Colisee. Unlike the US sunbelt, you cannot dig into the ground in Quebec in winter... it's frozen. A delay of a few months will snowball into a 1-season delay. If PKP is willing to carry the losses in the Colisee, it can be done, but the NHL would have to be desparate.

What I expect to happen is at least one more franchise (call it "Franchise X") in serious trouble next year (not sure which). The NHL will fold both Phoenix and Franchise X next spring, and re-align to 4 divisions of 7 teams each. If/when yet another franchise gets into trouble, a relocation to Quebec becomes possible.

In other words, the NHL is screwed.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,662
37,457
No one will fold, no one will contract. The NHL will never again have less than 30 teams, even if they have to put one on the Moon.
 

davemac1313

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
524
0
Keewatin, Ontario
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Winnipeg/2011/06/02/18226526.html?cid=rsssportsslam! hockey

So not quite last minute/last choice. I keep thinking about what Bettman said...No Owner who wants to own a team in that market.

Phoenix is a prime example, to me, how long or has he already begun the feeling out for owners in KC/Que/Seattle or maybe even Hamilton. The Coyotes and COG seem to think that the arrangement can go on forever. I do not think that the NHL will be content to let this continue past next Spring without an owner in place. Do or Die is on the horizon for COG.

I wonder if the total quiet from Rim Jim over the last 2 years has meant that he is sitting in the corner, in the time out chair, trying to show Gary he has learned his lesson?

I think Chipmans comments indicate that if the JR deal had not worked out with the COG/Moyes in spring 2009 that the NHL might well have considered something as drastic as BK to get out of the Glendale lease and move the team. Seems to me that they knew NHL would not work there, without a ton of freebies either for JR or another owner. If GWI has shut the door to freebies....do they see another chance at success there or do they just do due diligence for a relocation to wherever? Daly said 6 places had interest, how does he know...did they come to the league or did is the league quietly solicit for interested parties to come forward?

"It was just before the Coyotes were plunged into bankruptcy, when NHL commissioner Gary Bettman approached True North boss Mark Chipman about taking over the Coyotes in time for the 2009-10 season. "

I would be surprised, but not shocked if Rim Jim didn't somehow enter the picture quietly at a future date, by following all the rules. Like a Steve Downie reclamation, to become a valuable asset to the team (league).
 
Last edited:

Koss

Registered User
Please stop.

Creating fans in new markets is the stated agenda of all 4 major sports leagues. Hell, it's the standard prcedure for any buisness that is created.

This is the Business of Hockey. In business, new customers is a GOOD thing.

Honestly, I am shocked that people would argue against that basic tenant of business.


Actually , the whole idea of constant growth in business may be unsustainable. Business growth is also ingrained deeply into the American psyche and is less accepted as a tenant of business elsewhere.

No one will fold, no one will contract. The NHL will never again have less than 30 teams, even if they have to put one on the Moon.

Were are the owners going to come from? Will the league operate more than one franchise? The only potential owners right now are Matt Hulsizer who doesn't want to spend more than $60M, the Quebec Ownership Group and Jimmy B. I'm not so sure that the US economy has bounced back to the point were there is an appetite to invest in such ventures as professional ice hockey at this point.
 

Koss

Registered User
To be honest mate, a team in Hamilton would capture those who cant afford or cant get on the waiting list to see the Leafs play. One of those people would be myself :(

When Canadians get bent out of shape about Southern expansion, it's not because we're elitists, it's mostly because we really wish we could go see a team play live, but arent cappable.

I'm not sure what a bigger religion in Canada is... Hockey or Tim Hortons? XD

That's a great point. I get frustrated seeing arena's in the league where you can get into the lower bowl, at will, for less than the cost of a junior game in Canada, while I'm lucky to be able to get to one NHL game every few years, and they still have crappy tickets.
 

DeathToAllButMetal

Let it all burn.
May 13, 2010
1,361
0
Please stop.

Creating fans in new markets is the stated agenda of all 4 major sports leagues. Hell, it's the standard prcedure for any buisness that is created.

This is the Business of Hockey. In business, new customers is a GOOD thing.

Honestly, I am shocked that people would argue against that basic tenant of business.

Where are these customers? Are you talking about the guys paying $49 for four games in Glendale? The 7,000 people who packed Atlanta?

I agree with growth, but what the NHL did was idiotic. The league decided it wanted a national footprint in the US and then expanded due to rich suckers who believed Bettman's ******** about a big national TV deal and the NHL becoming more popular than the NBA. No smart business on the planet would expand like this, going all-out into new markets with no idea of the popularity of the product.

The NHL should have made small steps at first. Get some teams in regional centers, like one in the whole US southeast, one in the southwest, etc. Make them flagship teams and branch them out with the odd regular season game in the region. So put a team in Miami, and have them play the odd game in Tampa, Raleigh, etc. Like the NHL did briefly with the offsite games in the 90s. Build the markets, then commit to adding NHL teams if and when market conditions warrant.

Instead, the NHL rushed in foolishly, and destabilized the entire league. The expansion plan was foolish, arrogant, and doomed to failure. More dominoes will be falling shortly.
 

DeathToAllButMetal

Let it all burn.
May 13, 2010
1,361
0
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.

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon...
 

Hamilton Tigers

Registered User
Mar 20, 2010
1,374
4
Hamilton
Please stop.

Creating fans in new markets is the stated agenda of all 4 major sports leagues. Hell, it's the standard prcedure for any buisness that is created.

This is the Business of Hockey. In business, new customers is a GOOD thing.

Honestly, I am shocked that people would argue against that basic tenant of business.

Not sure what that reply has to do with huge operating losses, depressed franchise values, incompetent owners and franchises for sale that no one wants to own in their present markets.

Balsillie and TNSE both proved how much more value an NHL franchise can have when it is portable, and moving it to a strong hockey market thereby going dead against this "growing the game" decades old fantasy. If anything, the game has grown in it's strongest, most traditional markets. Ticket prices and TV ratings are sky high.
 

Scandale du Jour

JordanStaal#1Fan
Mar 11, 2002
62,002
28,718
Asbestos, Qc
www.angelfire.com
not until they get that arena built. but yah they'll be the new Southern Ontario

It will get build. The government will adopt an omnibus law if they proposed private law doesn't pass at the Assembly. Everybody wants the arena to be build, they ONLY problem SOME people have is the management contract between Quebecor and the City. The arena will be built and the Coyotes will likely become the Nordiques in a near future.
 

knorthern knight

Registered User
Mar 18, 2011
4,120
0
GTA
No one will fold, no one will contract. The NHL will never again have less than 30 teams, even if they have to put one on the Moon.
If you change your statement to "The NHL DOES NOT WANT TO ever again have less than 30 teams", I'd agree. To quote the Rolling Stones... "You can't always get what you want".

A lot depends on the US economy. One primary indicator, namely home prices, is pretty negative. Home prices are showing the much-feared "double-dip". If the economy doesn't turn around, the average American's disposable income isn't going to increase soon. And hockey tickets aren't exactly "necessities of life" in the USA. Even worse, American billionaires and multi-millionaires are not going to have as much money with which to play "hockey franchise owner" (think Hulsizer).

Winnipeg was the only 100% "ready-to-go" location for an orphan franchise. With Quebec, you're stretching the definition of "ready-to-go". I.e. you're talking AT LEAST through the 2013-2014 season at ye olde Colisee ASSUMING QUEBEC LEGALIZES THE QUEBECOR DEAL AND THERE ARE NO CONSTRUCTION STRIKES/LOCKOUTS THE NEXT 4 YEARS.

And forget about KC/Seattle/Portland/Hamilton and various others. Maybe we should do a sticky or FAQ about "Why doesn't the NHL put a franchise in _______?", to avoid having to answer the same newbie questions over and over.

In short, there's only one extra "musical chair". If 2 or more franchises run into trouble, the NHL may not have any choice in the matter of contraction. The Coyotes will probably lose more UFAs and RFAs this summer. Given how much they lost as a playoff team in 2010-2011, imagine how much they'll lose in 2011-2012 as a cellar-dweller. In addition to whether Glendale is willing to continue shelling out $25 million per season, how long is the BOG willing to take the losses in excess of $25 million? If they ask Glendale to ante up $50 million per year, I expect that to get voted down. Unless somebody new pops into the picture, I expect the Coyotes to use up the Quebec slot.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Then theres the little matter of the Islanders. August 1st the public votes on an arena referendum. That doesnt pass, Wang & the NHL have a problem on there hands. The arena in Brooklyn only seats 14,000 for hockey & you wont be getting much from the suites & advertising. Untenable & impracticable. The lease on LI expires in 2015 so who knows?. Then theres the Panthers. No way is that gonna last regardless of their long-term lease. 3 teams (including Phoenix) that could be house hunting in the very near future. Where do they wind up?.
 

SavageSteve

Registered User
Mar 28, 2008
777
67
Nashville, TN
Where are these customers? Are you talking about the guys paying $49 for four games in Glendale? The 7,000 people who packed Atlanta?

I agree with growth, but what the NHL did was idiotic. The league decided it wanted a national footprint in the US and then expanded due to rich suckers who believed Bettman's ******** about a big national TV deal and the NHL becoming more popular than the NBA. No smart business on the planet would expand like this, going all-out into new markets with no idea of the popularity of the product.

The NHL should have made small steps at first. Get some teams in regional centers, like one in the whole US southeast, one in the southwest, etc. Make them flagship teams and branch them out with the odd regular season game in the region. So put a team in Miami, and have them play the odd game in Tampa, Raleigh, etc. Like the NHL did briefly with the offsite games in the 90s. Build the markets, then commit to adding NHL teams if and when market conditions warrant.

Instead, the NHL rushed in foolishly, and destabilized the entire league. The expansion plan was foolish, arrogant, and doomed to failure. More dominoes will be falling shortly.

I'm not so sure that the idea of expanding the game was as foolish as the ownership groups that were allowed to operate teams that were unprepared to operate under the rigors of the business of professional sports. If you look at the M.O. of a lot of the Dot.Com success stories, they never had a product that really made any sort of money; but rather value and lending by banks was based off of potential of the increased value down the road. Plus how many jokers have there been like Craig Leipold that after not making it work here in Nashville on his wife's money (S.C. Johnson Wax heiress) is running a once profitable organization in freaking Minnesota, a.k.a the State of Hockey, into the ground. Look what Bill Laurie did to the Blues w/ his wife's Wal-Mart money!! I could see a guy like Reinsdorf still making a run at PHX; but its going to be a long process w/ all of the big money leagues having financial debacles (like PHX and also the LA Dodgers) as well as the impending labor strife of the NFL, MLB, and NBA coupled w/ there being three NHL teams still in play for new owners (PHX, DAL, StL) in a tight lending environment and lease considerations/bond obligations/etc. Plus there is too much money in todays games to seriously consider contraction (not since the 70's in the NHL w/ the Cleveland Barons being absorbed by the MN North Stars) and the rampant movement of teams that has occurred in the past w/ todays lease restrictions on newer buildings. I guess this is a snapshot of the sad state of where business as a whole actually is and unlikely to get a lot better where universities seem to crank out business majors armed w/ mainly high finance info and little of how to manage/operate a business.

What the NHL needs to do IMHO, is to find a way to help guide its teams to a business model that works and is sustainable for the 20+ teams out there that aren't MAJOR markets to remain in place. Nashville was seemingly inviable because we had an inept owner, to a lesser extent than the ASG group; but one that did not connect to and eventually embittered/alienated local business folks nor made a real attempt to make game night an 'event' any more than opening the doors and saying we had a great team. We always had decent amounts of 'Average Joe' fans but lacked the corporate one that filled the expensive seats that make the modern bottom line work. Now we have an ownership group that gets it and has put good sports management people in place to make those inroads and grow the fan base, while icing a really good team w/out taking shortcuts or mortgaging the future. Silly things like sending a thank you e-mail for ending a game on a night where inclement weather has kept many folks away like I got on 12/16/10 after attending the previous nights Preds game vs the Sharks despite ice storm warnings from all of the media to stay home or like on St. Patty's when i renewed my season tickets and having team CEO Sean Henry pour me and my buddy a couple of draft beers and ask if there was anything that they could do better and actually take notes of what you say and share a joke. Things like that have helped to turn us around and get us out of the normal throw-in status in relocation talk and have really made going to Preds games an event rather than just something else to do. I'm really thankful for us being lucky enough to have such a great group in place here now and am VERY excited to start next season already. Anyway, I've rambled long enough....
 
Last edited:

Mwd711

Registered User
Jan 20, 2006
624
0
potential owners right now are Matt Hulsizer who doesn't want to spend more than $60M, the Quebec Ownership Group and Jimmy B. I'm not so sure that the US economy has bounced back to the point were there is an appetite to invest in such ventures as professional ice hockey at this point.

Hard to say. Not everyone needs to lobby publicly like Quebecor or JB. Nobody knew who Jeff Vinik was but he seems to be doing just fine in TB. He never held press conferences, made websites, etc., just quietly bought the Lightning and is in the process of turning the franchise around. Same goes for Pegula in Buffalo. Evidently, things are done differently in the States. Just because people aren't actively lobbying doesn't mean much. Most of the deals in the US are done quietly. Much of that has to do with the media, I'm sure.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->