For all the sick and rabid people in Winnipeg already claiming two potential franchises as their own, can someone point to me exactly what kind of recent statements TNSE or its apparently rich owner have made about making a bid for one of those teams. It seems like everyone assumes they will, but I don't recalls hearing them say anything specifically in these recent times concerning Phoenix or Atlanta. I haven't been following things that closely on the Winnipeg side though, so maybe they have a website that I missed or something.
Part 5: True North Sports & Entertainment's efforts to acquire an NHL team (Winnip
- Thread starter masterquan14
- Start date
- Status
I don't believe they have.
The problem, of course, is that news is rumor before it's news.
And sometimes, it's rumor even after it's news. That's not the Way, True North does business. If you're looking for them to make public proclamations of wanting to buy this or that team, you're not going to find it. But rest assured when one becomes available for relocation, they will be there. If and when the NHL ever pulls the plug somewhere, I expect a deal will very swiftly be consummated to bring the team to Winnipeg.
this^,chipman has kept his mouth closed for years on speculation and relocation talk,hes not about to leak anything at this point when a chance of them landing a team is closer then ever....the chipman/thomson pair have been rocks for a long long time.
CorbeauNoir
Registered User
- Apr 13, 2010
- 928
- 154
Gonna have to call you crazy on this one. The only thing worse than a dead downtown is an attitude of leaving it dead in favour of more sprawl. What you propose would only further exasperate your ultimate complaint. It's particularly ironic considering that fundamentally linked to the MTS' Center's function as an NHL host is this TNSE-orchestrated program set in place specifically to revitalize downtown and that such a plan likely wouldn't be in place to begin with if the arena was out in the boonies like you propose. Doubly so given that the idea of dropping an arena some distance from the city core and assuming it'll work because there happens to be parking space and a few shops closeby is a huge reason why teams like the Coyotes are in so much trouble right now.
But I'm studying architecture and am a SkyscraperPage junkie, so I have a natural biased inclination to be horrified at the thought of promoting yet more suburban blandness instead of addressing the actual problems with urban development. Especially when as far as I can tell projects like TNSE's SHED and the Human Rights Museum are major steps forward in doing exactly that. Halifax has recently been undertaking similar revitalization projects and it's extremely exciting to see downtown slowly but surely beginning to attract people back - and this is a city overrun with rabid NIMBYs who possess far too much political power and where the presence of a major historical landmark is a huge obstacle for downtown development. I don't see what about Winnipeg would make similar efforts prohibitive to the point of giving up on it outright like you suggest, especially when people are already investing in it to begin with.
Last edited:
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
End of the line?
Is it the end of the line? This from Dave Molinari of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/pro-sports/penguins-plus/109209-end-of-the-line
GHOST
Is it the end of the line? This from Dave Molinari of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/pro-sports/penguins-plus/109209-end-of-the-line
GHOST
ThrasherMinion
Just Chucky
- Oct 2, 2006
- 4,255
- 0
http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-thrash...dated-little-gets-dan-snyder-memorial-trophy/
As an Atlantan for longer than anyone on this thread, I can tell you that that info came from Chris Vivlamore's lazy compilation of historical twitter feeds in this morning's Atlanta Urinal and Constipation....the local rag.
It's old news, the comment that the "employees were told..." was from a December meeting before anyone declared the team for sale. At that time, the loser ownership was still looking for wallets to steal instead of potential buyers.
The action to really get serious about selling didn't start until early March and now it looks more and more like the team will be sold locally and the panic attacks that turned into internet mayhem will be nothing more than legend after the summer passes with no relocation.
maybe St.Louis or Long Island or Toronto or Dallas. All of those teams are for sale to my knowledge.
I don't care which arena employee with Pittsburgh ties referenced the article to your source....they are NOT ahead of the curve. Trust me, I've been attending Thrasher games since they were the Flames. Arena employees all the way up are not exactly renaissance people, no offense.
Jesus Christ Horburn
Registered User
- Aug 22, 2008
- 13,942
- 1
IMO, ASG seems to have some sort of agreement in place with TNSE to sell to the team to them if 1) no local owners can be found and 2) if Phoenix fails.
But I wonder what happens if no local owners can be found and Phoenix does indeed fail and moves to Winnipeg.
Would ASG simply look to recoup their money buy selling to the next highest bidding relocation interest? What happens if Balsillie reappears and offers a huge amount?
But I wonder what happens if no local owners can be found and Phoenix does indeed fail and moves to Winnipeg.
Would ASG simply look to recoup their money buy selling to the next highest bidding relocation interest? What happens if Balsillie reappears and offers a huge amount?
edog37
Registered User
Broken Stix
Registered User
How would the NHL's divisions be re-aligned if the NHL returned to Winnipeg. Obviously a move from Atlanta to Winnipeg would take more wiggling than a move from Phoenix and I would think the NHL would want it's 4 Western Canadian teams in the same division. Can anyone comment on this?
Wouldn't it also make sense to put Minnesota in the same division as Winnipeg? They would be natural rivals. That would be a 5-team division right there.
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
Mod: deleted.
Excellent post on choice aspects.
I really getting tired with this topic. Peter Sullivan's musings on his trip to LA are really pointless, mainly because they are based on a false premise: the idea of choice.
I'm sure a lot of NHLers would love to live in LA and have a multi-million dollar salary. However there are only a few slots there for those NHL players. Fact is only 40 or 50 of the 700 or so NHL players can play in that market (including Anaheim) and almost none of them made the choice to play there -- it's simply luck of the draw. For elite players making $5MM plus there are very few spots in LA due to the salary cap and the economic realities of NHL teams.
NHL players for the most part don't decide where they play/work. Their first objective is to make the NHL after they are drafted. The vast majority of them are just focused on finding a good spot/fit in order to maximize their potential as players and earn as much money as they can in their short careers. They can live anywhere they want during the off season and at the end of their careers. The average age of an NHL player is 27; the average career is something like 4 or 5 seasons.
It's kind of like doing a professional program in law, medicine or business -- you go where you are accepted and is the best spot (for hockey it's whatever NHL team drafted you). Sure you'd like to go to Columbia in NYC or Harvard in the Boston area, but you will settle for Cornell in upstate New York -- it's still the IVY League (i.e., NHL) and hey you got in and it will meet most of your career objectives. Once you get in you are focused on graduating and getting a well paying job (making the team and getting a large contract that can set you up for life). And another thing: maybe you find out that Cornell wasn't really that bad a place. You made a lot of close friends there. You got a quality education. Maybe in the end you are even glad you went there. Maybe you even develop some loyalty to the people and institution. Maybe, maybe not. You had little choice anyway (if you are an NHL player).
There are only a select few players that actually have any choice in where they would play -- older, elite payers who are UFAs and/or have no-trade clauses. And even their choices are limited by available cap space and other external considerations. Some of those players may not want to play for a team in Winnipeg if presented with other options. I grant that. And they may not want to play in a number of other markets given only the choice of location.
The bottom line is that a decent team can be built in any NHL market with good management. It may have to be built differently or with different considerations but it can be done in my opinion.
GHOST
Excellent post on choice aspects.
I really getting tired with this topic. Peter Sullivan's musings on his trip to LA are really pointless, mainly because they are based on a false premise: the idea of choice.
I'm sure a lot of NHLers would love to live in LA and have a multi-million dollar salary. However there are only a few slots there for those NHL players. Fact is only 40 or 50 of the 700 or so NHL players can play in that market (including Anaheim) and almost none of them made the choice to play there -- it's simply luck of the draw. For elite players making $5MM plus there are very few spots in LA due to the salary cap and the economic realities of NHL teams.
NHL players for the most part don't decide where they play/work. Their first objective is to make the NHL after they are drafted. The vast majority of them are just focused on finding a good spot/fit in order to maximize their potential as players and earn as much money as they can in their short careers. They can live anywhere they want during the off season and at the end of their careers. The average age of an NHL player is 27; the average career is something like 4 or 5 seasons.
It's kind of like doing a professional program in law, medicine or business -- you go where you are accepted and is the best spot (for hockey it's whatever NHL team drafted you). Sure you'd like to go to Columbia in NYC or Harvard in the Boston area, but you will settle for Cornell in upstate New York -- it's still the IVY League (i.e., NHL) and hey you got in and it will meet most of your career objectives. Once you get in you are focused on graduating and getting a well paying job (making the team and getting a large contract that can set you up for life). And another thing: maybe you find out that Cornell wasn't really that bad a place. You made a lot of close friends there. You got a quality education. Maybe in the end you are even glad you went there. Maybe you even develop some loyalty to the people and institution. Maybe, maybe not. You had little choice anyway (if you are an NHL player).
There are only a select few players that actually have any choice in where they would play -- older, elite payers who are UFAs and/or have no-trade clauses. And even their choices are limited by available cap space and other external considerations. Some of those players may not want to play for a team in Winnipeg if presented with other options. I grant that. And they may not want to play in a number of other markets given only the choice of location.
The bottom line is that a decent team can be built in any NHL market with good management. It may have to be built differently or with different considerations but it can be done in my opinion.
GHOST
Last edited by a moderator:
OthmarAmmann
Omnishambles
Last edited by a moderator:
OthmarAmmann
Omnishambles
Frankly I thought Peter's posts also went toward some reasons why the NHL BoG would be reluctant to go back to Winnipeg rather than just players. I personally felt they were topical... I myself have said many times that the only reason the NHL goes back to Winnipeg is because they have absolutely no other choice. Many believe the reason there has been no announcement regarding Phoenix is to sell tickets, but I believe the reason is because nobody has truly pulled the plug yet.
pirate94
Registered User
- Mar 18, 2010
- 1,713
- 1
pirate94
Registered User
- Mar 18, 2010
- 1,713
- 1
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the thought that the only reason the NHL goes back to Winnipeg is because they have no other choice.
I do think however that the reason they go back is because they want TNSE and it's money in the league as well as TNSE being successful owners thus far in the AHL and have been model potential owners. For the NHL it's a non brainer to want smart ownership that stays out of the drama spotlight and can sell the hockey product and the NHL brand the way it's sold the AHL brand.
Noone has pulled the plug yet in Phoenix, but the hand is on the cord
I tend to agree with this.
It is my view that the NHL has real concerns about not only Phoenix, but also Atlanta. It would be very difficult for them to lose both markets simultaneously; maybe even unthinkable. I have a sense that notwithstanding the interminable and often bizarre saga in Phoenix, the NHL is more inclined to fight for that market right now, for some reason. Perhaps they know that the arena lease situation in Atlanta gives them much less flexibility in terms of negotiating with a new owner than in Phoenix. In any case, I tend to agree that they still plan to salvage something in Glendale, having given up on Atlanta (in the near term). Call it a hunch or speculation, but that is how I read things.
Right now, I think I would be a bit more surprised if the Coyotes relocated than the Thrashers.
KevFist
is best pony
I'll be surprised if the NHL just gives up on either market. I feel like the real reason we hear more going on about Phoenix than Atlanta is because of the nature of the situation.
In Atlanta, you have a litigious ownership group that has self destructed. The member of the group who REALLY had money (Steve Belkin) figuratively "took his ball and went home." That leaves the other seven owners trying to make up for Belekin's cash... But then they decide to sue the law firm they used for malpractice. they allegedly can't make money in one of the top arenas in the world in the Southeast's business hub. there's also potentially a building operations agreement AND an NBA team on the block as well. Remember, whatever the NHL does, the NBA and the City of Atlanta's going to have to do as well.
In Phoenix, the league owns the team. The league directly gains or loses money based on what happens with the team. The league pays for their lawyers to handle potential litigation.
In Atlanta, you have a litigious ownership group that has self destructed. The member of the group who REALLY had money (Steve Belkin) figuratively "took his ball and went home." That leaves the other seven owners trying to make up for Belekin's cash... But then they decide to sue the law firm they used for malpractice. they allegedly can't make money in one of the top arenas in the world in the Southeast's business hub. there's also potentially a building operations agreement AND an NBA team on the block as well. Remember, whatever the NHL does, the NBA and the City of Atlanta's going to have to do as well.
In Phoenix, the league owns the team. The league directly gains or loses money based on what happens with the team. The league pays for their lawyers to handle potential litigation.
pirate94
Registered User
- Mar 18, 2010
- 1,713
- 1
You're hearing more about Phoenix because of the situation the team has put itself into with bankruptcy, $500 million claimed losses, Bailsillie. The dramatics of that team have been played out on a national scale while Atlanta has been under the radar nationally with it's ownership issues.
Basketball is easier to market in the south than Hockey, so the Hawks being on the block, someone is more likely to take a risk on the Hawks in Atlanta than the Thrashers. The Hawks can be salvaged and i've heard this echoe'd from many analysts. The Thrashers team-wise i think are very close to being a solid team, but the fans just aren't there. I think Phoenix is much worse, but Atlanta isn't far off.
dj4aces
An Intricate Piece of Infinity
I know this isn't really the thread for it, and I hope I'm not stirring the hornets nest as it were, but I think you'll find the fans come out here once new local ownership is established.
pirate94
Registered User
- Mar 18, 2010
- 1,713
- 1
I know this isn't really the thread for it, and I hope I'm not stirring the hornets nest as it were, but I think you'll find the fans come out here once new local ownership is established.
I know what you're saying but what's holding people back from supporting the team now? Why is the ownership situation stopping people from buying tickets?
I hate saying this but you watch hockey not the owner.
dj4aces
An Intricate Piece of Infinity
Check your PMs. I don't want to drag this thread off topic, so I'll respond to you there. No disrespect intended to anyone. I just wanna keep everything clean!
The Hawks only average a couple thousand more fans than the Thrashers.....if you're going to use fans as an argument, at least make sure it's a solid one
The problem in Atlanta lies only with the ownership. I feel like the same holds true with Phoenix to a lesser extent.
The best case scenario either way is that both teams stay put
IceAce
Strait Trippin'
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
GAME 7 - North Bay Battalion @ Oshawa Generals - Series tied 3-3Wagers: 4Staked: $875.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Series Winner Florida Panthers vs Boston BruinsWagers: 14Staked: $110,895.00Event closes- Updated:
-