trust me, im from from winnipeg...i fully understand the 'long term goals' concept...we were fed it in healthy doses many years ago.
I'll try to address this bit by bit.
my question is how long term is long term?....is 15 years not long enough to test the strategy?
In regards to the 'growing the game' part of the strategy, this has absolutely succeeded; junior/minor/rec etc hockey has gone way up in Georgia, Alabama, the southeast in general
.....how long does the NHL wait before shoring up the failing franchises?
The NHL fully expects some newer franchises to operate at a loss as they work on their long term goals, this is part of why revenue sharing exists. Obviously, they don't expect to lose as much as they have with, say, Phoenix, but 'new market' plus 'terrible ownership' always equals disaster.
....they have locked themselves into a marginal tv contract for a decade
Marginal compared to some other US sports, but this is an extremely lucrative deal for the NHL compared to what they've had in the past. It's an indication of growth.
....obviously their dream has ended....
You underestimate their stubbornness.
and clearly the giant untapped market of atlanta was meaningless in the negotiation if they are being moved not much more than a month later.
Aside from the market not getting much of a healthy shot from their owners, the only reason the team is moving right now is due to arena issues beyond the control of the NHL; had the NHL chosen their business partners more carefully that may not be a concern even with the losses the Thrashers are taking.
and i'll ask, who is supposed to fund this experiment?.....its pretty clear that the successful owners are not interested in subsidizing these teams beyond revenue sharing....and it is equally as obvious that local owners are not interested...so what is the option?
Clearly, the owners of the Canadian franchises and the more profitable US franchises. And clearly they do support it with their money, because not only did they support the idea of revenue sharing (they do the decision making, Bettman is just their frontman), but they also are in majority agreement on investing extra in the future of Phoenix. They bought a team out of bankruptcy for the sake of their agenda.
i can understand wanting to have a good footprint, but there is no reason that 20 successful teams across the US can not be considered a success....a very good tv contract can be had with that footprint....nascar is successful without a physical presence in every region.
Short term, sure, it's a success. Long term you seek to grow further. Stagnation in business is usually death. You don't just sit there and go "well, we've got 20 American franchises, we're done here."
it is time for the NHL to reassess the strategy.....they are losing credibility with 1/3 of the league hemmorraging money and oceans of empty seats being shown on the highlight packs every night....a couple of teams in california, one in florida, texas and DC is good coverage for the disinterested south....the league will be much better off allowing 6 teams to move to better markets, QC, hamilton, portland, milwaukee etc....
Milwaukee would be as bad off as some of the south cities; certainly there's more support per capita, but it's also way smaller. Corporate support is just as important as fan support, something a place like Milwaukee can't generate.
Expanding into a Canadian team (QC, Hamilton, Winnipeg for that matter) does absolutely nothing for the NHL's goals unless the team contributes to revenue sharing. Those 3 markets are all likely good enough to be self-sustaining, but they wouldn't likely contribute much of anything to revenue sharing and certainly don't do anything to advance the NHL's goals of growing the game in an already saturated market.
Portland (and a couple other cities) are possibilities for future expansion, but with the leagues goals in mind it's more desirable for them to expand into such a place rather than just relocate to it.
the reality is that the revenue is in growing the game in areas where the game exists....there is lots of growth to be had without forcing it into places where a handful of local arenas in a city of 4 million is considered growing the game 'extremely well'.
But they aren't interested purely in short term revenues. They either want revenues that are substantial enough to contribute significantly to revenue sharing, which will help further their expansion/game-growing goals (and the major Canadian markets capable of doing so are already occupied), or they want to popularize hockey in untapped markets, even if this is an extremely long-term goal.
No one reasonable expects a place like Atlanta to suddenly be churning out Sidney Crosbys or even Darren Helms overnight, such a goal is generational or multi-generational. 50-60 years ago US talent was almost non-existent in the NHL compared to now; even now guys like Kesler, Parise, and Kane are among the US's top 3 skaters while the Canadians have Crosbys, Getzlafs, Staals, St. Louis's, Thorntons, and the like all over the place. These are very long-term goals.
i understand that the growth potential is in the US market but that doesnt have to mean the south...there are large segments of the country not represented in the NHL that might prove to be a greater success in the long term....a southern footprint doesnt have to mean a saturated southern market.
Of course it doesn't have to mean the south. It just so happens that some of these southern markets are the largest TV/population-based markets that are currently untapped. It's not like they're expanding into, say, Jacksonville, FL or Albuquerque, New Mexico over places like Portland or Milwaukee; they're expanding into places like Atlanta and Phoenix, which are way, way frigging bigger.
So even if the sale doesn't go through, Atlanta fans should give up because the team will be contracted anyway. Brilliant.
