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

[rj]

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.

10 years or so ago a Home Depot opened in my city.

3 months ago, it closed because it was losing too much money.

That's a basic tenant of business as well: at some point, you have to break even.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

I think, when you come right down to it, most if not all of us would agree with this. Regardless of our individual philosophies, I haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise than that the expansion process was rushed and in several cases ill-executed. Nearly every single one of the expansion markets has faced problems that descend directly from front-office corruption and/or incompetence, which is one of the most preventable afflictions that can ail a franchise.

If the league had waited to find the right owners, rather than hurrying to find the right venues, things might have turned out quite differently. And that extends far back into the past as well. The NHL should have been fully trans-continental by the 1980s, rather than still struggling to meet that goal in the 2010s.

That said... the reaction should not be to make the opposite mistake. A lot of posts here are to the effect that the league should just rip up the stakes in the sunbelt and "relocate or otherwise dispose of" unstable franchises. That, IMO, would be an egregious strategic error. Similar to abandoning a military campaign due to the loss of a single battlefield. To some extent, you have to be "all in" with these strategies or they will reverse with disastrous effect.

To the degree that it's still possible to do so, the league's best bet for the near future is to simply settle down and resolve its issues within current markets. That includes shoring up the Canadian franchises, making sure they are prepared for a rainy day.

 

[Fidel Astro]

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.

Speaking of T-Ho's, I was at one yesterday (one of the seven [no joke] locations within a 10-minute walk of my office), and they had a new "Winnipeg Jets" doughnut with red, blue and white sprinkles.

Pretty awesome.

 

[rj]

I think, when you come right down to it, most if not all of us would agree with this. Regardless of our individual philosophies, I haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise than that the expansion process was rushed and in several cases ill-executed. Nearly every single one of the expansion markets has faced problems that descend directly from front-office corruption and/or incompetence, which is one of the most preventable afflictions that can ail a franchise.

If the league had waited to find the right owners, rather than hurrying to find the right venues, things might have turned out quite differently. And that extends far back into the past as well. The NHL should have been fully trans-continental by the 1980s, rather than still struggling to meet that goal in the 2010s.

Nice in theory, completely ignores reality. The mass northerner influx to the South didn't occur til the past couple decades. For a business to work, you have to have a base of people that understand what the hell they're watching. Putting a hockey team in most Southern markets in 1980 when almost all the residents had no exposure to the product before would be analagous to me putting a cricket team in those same markets now: it'd've been a completely alien sport.

For another example of this phenomenon: the North American Soccer League of the 1960s and 1970s. It worked for awhile as a fad in a couple markets but in the end soccer was completely alien to most "native" Americans at the time and it fell off the map once everyone realized the money that brought the best soccer players in the world over here was not sustainable.

 

[MoreOrr]

Major League Relocations in the past 40 years….

Seems the NHL has been trying to keep pace with the NBA, not only in expansion but also in relocation. So, we can understand that the NHL doesn't wish to take the lead in this category.

NHL
1. 1976: California Golden Seals moved to Cleveland
2. 1976: Kansas City Scouts moved to Denver
3. 1978: Cleveland Barons franchise was absorbed into the Minnesota North Stars.
4. 1980: Atlanta Flames moved to Calgary
5. 1982: Colorado Rockies moved to East Rutherford, New Jersey
6. 1993: Minnesota North Stars moved to Dallas
7. 1995: Quebec Nordiques moved to Denver
8. 1996: Winnipeg Jets moved to Phoenix
9. 1997: Hartford Whalers moved to North Carolina
10. 2011: Atlanta Thrashers moved to Winnipeg.

NBA
1. 1971: San Diego Rockets moved to Houston.
2. 1972: Cincinnati Royals moved to a new primary home in Kansas City.
3. 1977: New York Nets, one year after the ABA-NBA merger, become the New Jersey Nets.
4. 1978: Buffalo Braves became the San Diego Clippers.
5. 1979: New Orleans Jazz moved to Salt Lake City, becoming the Utah Jazz.
6. 1984: San Diego Clippers moved to Los Angeles.
7. 1985: Kansas City Kings moved to Sacramento.
8. 2001: Vancouver Grizzlies moved to Memphis, Tennessee.
9. 2002: Charlotte Hornets moved to New Orleans.
10. 2008: Seattle SuperSonics became the Oklahoma City Thunder.

NFL
1. 1982: Oakland Raiders moved to Los Angeles.
2. 1984: Baltimore Colts moved to Indianapolis.
3. 1988: St. Louis Cardinals moved to the Phoenix area
4. 1995: Los Angeles Raiders moved back to Oakland
5. 1995: Los Angeles Rams moved to St. Louis.
6. 1996: Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore
7. 1997: Houston Oilers moved to Memphis

MLB
1. 1972: 2nd Washington Senators moved to Arlington, Texas
2. 2005: Montreal Expos moved to Washington, D.C.

 

[Grudy0]

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.

The League itself is far from destablized, there are a handful of teams, just like any league, where there are a few bad apples...

However, to expand on your theory, let's take the Los Angeles Kings. From the late 1970's to 1991, they had no teams around them for over 1000 miles. Regional centers is a bit bunk when that is taken into consideration, as a "regional center" didn't work with that theory.

The same certainly works currently with the Dallas Stars, who don't have a team within 700 miles of them.

Each and every market in the US can have parts of their "problem condition" put into perspective. Yes, part of that perspective may be that there aren't enough fans. But I can also guarantee a good chunk of that will also be that hockey is not the number one sport, and that since it must compete with other forms of entertainment, these owners better show they are attempting to put a good product on ice. Otherwise, you get Thrashed.

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

The NHL isn't destabilized? Then please tell me what you call it when you have a league where a chosen few teams are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and around a dozen couldn't be given away.

Franchise values in the NHL are a mess. All the US catastrophes are weighing the whole league down. You will see a scramble towards new markets now that the Wpg domino is down. Or more bankruptcies. Or both. That, to me, makes the NHL very unstable. Like I said before, people know what they're buying into now with the NHL. So owners want sweetheart deals like Vinik, o they're not interested. That doesn't bode well for the future, especially with the US economy in what seems to be a terminal slide.

 

[rj]

The NHL isn't destabilized? Then please tell me what you call it when you have a league where a chosen few teams are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and around a dozen couldn't be given away.

Franchise values in the NHL are a mess. All the US catastrophes are weighing the whole league down. You will see a scramble towards new markets now that the Wpg domino is down. Or more bankruptcies. Or both. That, to me, makes the NHL very unstable. Like I said before, people know what they're buying into now with the NHL. So owners want sweetheart deals like Vinik, o they're not interested. That doesn't bode well for the future, especially with the US economy in what seems to be a terminal slide.

It's not a terminal slide, it's just pretty much stagnant.

How that applies to sports, not just the NHL (as the NBA and NFL are right now in the middle of big money problem discussions), is that the owners are no longer selling their franchises for more than they bought them for. Once you take that away, owning a pro sports franchises doesn't make much sense unless it's a personal love since these owners usually have to heavily leverage themselves to buy them to start with (ditto infrastructure, apparently if games are lost Jerry Jones might have some troubles with all of the money he put into building Cowboys Stadium) and the amount of money put in to running a pro sports team compared to the profit if there is one, it's a horrible investment compared to other avenues. It's really not much different than the housing market crash. A lot of people built a lot of homes that don't make sense in the current market we have now, so either they realize their loss or go cap in hand to someone else - likewise the "pro sports franchise value bubble" popped.

What really sucks for some NHL teams is they're like Greece and Ireland in the EU right now. Those countries are tied to the eurozone currency system (the CBA that mandates a salary cap floor tied to NHL revenues) and the economy (NHL revenues) is improving meaning the interest rates (salary cap floor) are being increased due to Germany's economic performance as the driver (Maple Leafs and other highly profitable teams) while Greece and Ireland (teams losing money) are in dire financial straights: it's the worst of both worlds.

 

[King_Stannis]

especially with the US economy in what seems to be a terminal slide.

Uhm, do you know something the rest of us don't? "Terminal slide" is a bit of an overstatement, don't you think? If that was indeed true the value of Canadian hockey clubs wouldn't matter, seeing as there would be a worldwide depression. A real depression, not the recent recession that breathless newscasters tried to label a depression.

 

[tarheelhockey]

That doesn't bode well for the future, especially with the US economy in what seems to be a terminal slide.

If the US economy is terminal, you better get off this board and start learning Chinese.

 

[Killion]

Major League Relocations in the past 40 years.

Thanks for that. Nice to see it outlined in one spot. Good job you didnt include the WHA, wouldve' filled an entire page on this thread.

 

[Grudy0]

The NHL isn't destabilized? Then please tell me what you call it when you have a league where a chosen few teams are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and around a dozen couldn't be given away.

Franchise values in the NHL are a mess. All the US catastrophes are weighing the whole league down. You will see a scramble towards new markets now that the Wpg domino is down. Or more bankruptcies. Or both. That, to me, makes the NHL very unstable. Like I said before, people know what they're buying into now with the NHL. So owners want sweetheart deals like Vinik, o they're not interested. That doesn't bode well for the future, especially with the US economy in what seems to be a terminal slide.

Okay. Let's to a "reverse the table" exercise, by editing MoreOrr's table...

NHL
6. 1993: Minnesota North Stars moved to Dallas
7. 1995: Quebec Nordiques moved to Denver
8. 1996: Winnipeg Jets moved to Phoenix
9. 1997: Hartford Whalers moved to North Carolina

1998 - Les Alexander of the NBA's Houston Rockets attempted to purchase the Edmonton Oilers, but the NHL bent rules to allow a group of 38 investors to purchase the team and keep them locally. Seems as though some Oiler fans were not too thrilled with Peter Pocklington and voted with their wallets.

1999 - Pittsburgh Penguins looking to sell, Paul Allen of the NBA's Portland Trail Blazers looking to purchase. Time and time again, the Penguins received a hail mary and finally received the arena they so desparately needed last year.

2003 - Ottawa Senators file for bankruptcy, being $100 million in debt. There was a decent chance the team could move.

So, during this 10 year period, all of these "hockey markets" either lost or were tumultuously close to losing their teams. By your definition, that time period was definitely a destabilization. Because all that happened between 10 to 20 years ago it is now called history? The NHL is as stable as it was 15 years ago. And that was when franchises in northern markets were moving or on the verge of moving because of lack of revenues.

Does the NHL need to attempt to get its house in order? Yes. There are really only three franchises with issues that must be addressed:

Phoenix Coyotes, because the NHL owns the team
New York Islanders, because if the referendum fails the team may move
Columbus Blue Jackets, only because of their arena situation

Florida Panthers is not on that list because we've yet to hear the ownership group complain like the former ownership group of what used to be the Atlanta Thrashers.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Uhm, do you know something the rest of us don't? "Terminal slide" is a bit of an overstatement, don't you think? If that was indeed true the value of Canadian hockey clubs wouldn't matter, seeing as there would be a worldwide depression. A real depression, not the recent recession that breathless newscasters tried to label a depression.

9.1 percent unemployment. Looks bad over here.

 

[MoreOrr]

Okay. Let's to a "reverse the table" exercise, by editing MoreOrr's table...

1998 - Les Alexander of the NBA's Houston Rockets attempted to purchase the Edmonton Oilers, but the NHL bent rules to allow a group of 38 investors to purchase the team and keep them locally. Seems as though some Oiler fans were not too thrilled with Peter Pocklington and voted with their wallets.

1999 - Pittsburgh Penguins looking to sell, Paul Allen of the NBA's Portland Trail Blazers looking to purchase. Time and time again, the Penguins received a hail mary and finally received the arena they so desparately needed last year.

2003 - Ottawa Senators file for bankruptcy, being $100 million in debt. There was a decent chance the team could move.

So, during this 10 year period, all of these "hockey markets" either lost or were tumultuously close to losing their teams. By your definition, that time period was definitely a destabilization. Because all that happened between 10 to 20 years ago it is now called history? The NHL is as stable as it was 15 years ago. And that was when franchises in northern markets were moving or on the verge of moving because of lack of revenues.

Does the NHL need to attempt to get its house in order? Yes. There are really only three franchises with issues that must be addressed:

Phoenix Coyotes, because the NHL owns the team
New York Islanders, because if the referendum fails the team may move
Columbus Blue Jackets, only because of their arena situation

Florida Panthers is not on that list because we've yet to hear the ownership group complain like the former ownership group of what used to be the Atlanta Thrashers.

Ok, now that you've dug up those skeletons, to be fair to the original table you should go look see if there are any similar skeletons that can be added to the other major leagues' relocation history.

 

[Grudy0]

Without even delving into an analysis, the NBA would be similar. Off the point:

Seems the NHL has been trying to keep pace with the NBA, not only in expansion but also in relocation.

The NHL had granted 30 teams before the NBA even thought about going to 30 teams, by almost five years. The NHL went to 30 in 1997; the NBA had to add a 30th team to replace the Charlotte Hornets in 2002. But I digress...

They currently own one of their teams (New Orleans Hornets), they've had franchise relocations due to fan apathy over either the actual product or the owners lack of product:

Sonics went to OKC because the Seattle faithful were sick of the owner.
Grizzlies went to Memphis because of simple basketball apathy.
Hornets moved from Charlotte to New Orleans because fans were tired of George Shinn.

The Sacramento Kings want a new arena, and as their owners (the Maloofs of the Palms Casino in Vegas) have put a horrible product on the court as well as the fact they are hemorraging money, they want to move.

The Milwaukee Bucks owner doesn't make any money, and if he sells the team they'll probably leave as a new arena won't be built.

If people don't like the product put in front of them, or if there are percieved problems, support wanes.

Most of these leagues do have some skeletons. Yet no one is yelling the sky is falling. Unlike here, where for some reason some believe the NHL is simply a forty-two car pileup in waiting because of a few franchises.

 

[tarheelhockey]

9.1 percent unemployment. Looks bad over here.

Hmmm... unemployment in my town is 7.7 percent. Canada's is 7.6. Looks about the same to me.

Edit: Just for kicks, unemployment rates in the 19 American NHL cities:

Washington DC 5.4
Minneapolis 6.3
Boston 6.5
Pittsburgh 6.5
Buffalo 7.6
Dallas 7.7
Raleigh 7.7
Philadelphia 8.0
New York 8.1
Phoenix 8.1
Denver 8.3
St. Louis 8.5
Chicago 8.7
Nashville 8.7
San Jose 10.1
Tampa 10.5
Los Angeles 11.0
Detroit 11.1
Miami 11.1

The ones really in trouble are Detroit, then the Florida and California cities. Everybody else is chugging along under the national average, and 1% or less removed from the Canadian national average.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Hmmm... unemployment in my town is 7.7 percent. Canada's is 7.6. Looks about the same to me.

National rate on CNN yesterday.

 

[tarheelhockey]

National rate on CNN yesterday.

See above. National rate is meaningless to local investment.

 

[PuckNut]

9.1 percent unemployment. Looks bad over here.

I'm more worried about the debt ceiling and credit rating than the unemployment level rate.

 

[yotesreign]

especially with the US economy in what seems to be a terminal slide.

Coming to a Canadian theme park near you... "The US economy. Ride it if you dare!"

'what seems to be a terminal slide"... that cracked me up. Ha ha ha.

I agree with the other poster.

If it seems that way to you, go learn Chinese.

 

[BadHammy*]

Admittedly, the NHL looks bad with this because the NFL has had zero relocations since 1997 and the MLB has had 1 since 1972 BUT it's likely to be a consideration for a lot of teams in a lot of leagues going forward. The U.S. economy is too soft for many cities to assist in the building of new stadiums/arenas/etc and it will eventually affect all the major sports leagues with teams here.

 

[Confucius]

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.

So you own a Mcdonalds in city A, and you have so many customers your one store isn't big enough to serve them all. Rather than open a second location, you go and try to duplicate the success somewhere, they don't eat beef. Yep makes sense to me.

 

[Steve Passless*]

Sonics went to OKC because the Seattle faithful were sick of the owner.

Indirectly, maybe, but not quite. They were sick of Howard Schultz, yes, but Clay Bennett's group bought the team from Schultz with zero intention of doing anything but moving the team to Oklahoma City after they weren't allowed to buy the then-NO/OKC Hornets.

 

[MoreOrr]

The list was of the past 40 years, but if we just look at relocations during this last decade, or the past 10 years, the NHL doesn't appear so bad.

NHL
2011: Atlanta Thrashers moved to Winnipeg.

NBA
2001: Vancouver Grizzlies moved to Memphis, Tennessee.
2002: Charlotte Hornets moved to New Orleans.
2008: Seattle SuperSonics became the Oklahoma City Thunder.

NFL
None

MLB
2005: Montreal Expos moved to Washington, D.C.

 

[KevFu]

Plus, you figure the NBA is going to add at least one more between Sacramento and New Orleans.