Why fight so hard for Phoenix, but let Atlanta move so easily?

[not a trapdoor]

NorthPolar, to summarise the thread:

Coyotes: The City of Glendale is willing to cover losses while a buyer is found. This allows the NHL to tread water, with the team in limbo & the NHL not losing money. Glendale's folly perhaps, but the NHL likes that arrangement. If Glendale stops throwing money into trying to keep the Coyotes then things change, but for now the City of Glendale has bought the NHL time in which they can continue their efforts.

Thrashers: The Owners want them gone. Out of the building unless a new owner will pay stupid amounts to use it. Which would mean the Thrashers would lose even more money per season. The City of Atlanta doesn't care. Given that the NHL isn't willing to buy the franchise (it's not bankrupt & the already own the Coyotes), they're left with little choice to but allow the ownership group to accept the only offer on the table - which happens to involve a relocation.

It's quite possible that the ownership of the Thrashers have (privately) told the NHL that they'd rather fold the franchise than lose money for another season (I'm speculating here!!!!). In which case the NHL would _much_ rather Winnipeg - otherwise they'd run into TV contract problems with the loss of a team, not to mention the 29 other teams losing revenue from the lost games (and a rescheduling nightmare). The ownership group would obviously also rather sell it that fold it

As to why Phoenix was in the new & Atlanta out of it: The owners of Atlanta have been quietly shopping the franchise in the background. Phoenix being in bankrupcy court meant that the details of the situation was in the public domain & the NHL has had limited ability to keep things out of the public domain. So the media had a LOT more info on the Phoenix situation that the Atlanta one.

 

[yotesreign]

Yes, I agree.
Why is the NHL fighting tooth and nail for Phoenix, running them for 2+ years, yet out of left field offering up Atlanta?


All this season, all we heard about when it came to franchise problems was Phoenix, Phoenix, and more Phoenix.
We rarely heard about Atlanta, it was not publizcized much at all, until after Phoenix got a 2nd leave of stay.

This is a fact, Atlanta may have been mentioned in passing, but just casually.

So yes, I don't feel like re-reading the thread and attempting to piece it together.
Can somebody please encapsulate, and provide a comprehensive summary as to why Phoenix has been in the news for over two years, being run by the NHL, and gotten everything possible to keep them around, but Atlanta pops up out of left field and is all but laid out for Winnipeg when Atlanta is a much more important big eastern market?

And don't give me this "well atlanta has been for sale for a 5 years" please, we rarely ever heard any news about the Thrashers, it never was publicized nor given the attention of Phoenix, to me it seems shady and totally underground.

So please...why did Phoenix get CPR and life support while Atlanta remained out of the news, only to suddenly take off?

Short answer - 50 million reasons, all dollars. Glendale budgeted $50 million - $25 last year, $25 this year - to keep the Coyotes in their Arena while they try to work out an agreement with a new ownership group to keep the team locked in for another 30 (28 now?) years.

The City of Atlanta has offered the NHL...

*nothing, not even the sound of crickets*

as Gallagher used to say, "It's just that easy."

 

[chipper]

Problem is- Atlanta's been looking "seriously" for owners for about 6 months or so, if that. Heck, there's talk that as soon as the Belkin thing was finalized, that True North came to them behind closed doors and said "Hey, we'll give you this much, etc. etc." Atlanta never stood a chance, and all the prospective ownership groups that wanted to keep them here have said as much.

Phoenix has been looking for years.

Something doesn't seem right here...

 

[KzooShark]

I think the only way anyone would want to own the Thrashers and keep them in Atlanta is if ASG sells off the Hawks and the Arena first, and the new owner would be willing to work with the hypothetical local owner.

Otherwise, you're dealing with morons in charge of your arena if they're only selling the Thrashers and keeping the other two.

Hell, if I have a few hundred million sitting around, I'd rather buy the Stars in that case since at least I can get rights to half the arena and deal with Mark Cuban for the rest. At least he's a sports fan instead of whatever the hell ASG is supposed to be.

 

[dronald]

NorthPolar, to summarise the thread:

Coyotes: The City of Glendale is willing to cover losses while a buyer is found. This allows the NHL to tread water, with the team in limbo & the NHL not losing money. Glendale's folly perhaps, but the NHL likes that arrangement. If Glendale stops throwing money into trying to keep the Coyotes then things change, but for now the City of Glendale has bought the NHL time in which they can continue their efforts.

Thrashers: The Owners want them gone. Out of the building unless a new owner will pay stupid amounts to use it. Which would mean the Thrashers would lose even more money per season. The City of Atlanta doesn't care. Given that the NHL isn't willing to buy the franchise (it's not bankrupt & the already own the Coyotes), they're left with little choice to but allow the ownership group to accept the only offer on the table - which happens to involve a relocation.

It's quite possible that the ownership of the Thrashers have (privately) told the NHL that they'd rather fold the franchise than lose money for another season (I'm speculating here!!!!). In which case the NHL would _much_ rather Winnipeg - otherwise they'd run into TV contract problems with the loss of a team, not to mention the 29 other teams losing revenue from the lost games (and a rescheduling nightmare). The ownership group would obviously also rather sell it that fold it

As to why Phoenix was in the new & Atlanta out of it: The owners of Atlanta have been quietly shopping the franchise in the background. Phoenix being in bankrupcy court meant that the details of the situation was in the public domain & the NHL has had limited ability to keep things out of the public domain. So the media had a LOT more info on the Phoenix situation that the Atlanta one.

I would also like to add that if the NHL did not fight so hard to keep the team in Phoenix by purchasing the Coyotes they would be in Hamilton right now. The NHL wants to avoid that at all costs, but Winnipeg is not a terrible idea in the NHL's eyes.

 

[rojac]

I would also like to add that if the NHL did not fight so hard to keep the team in Phoenix by purchasing the Coyotes they would be in Hamilton right now. The NHL wants to avoid that at all costs, but Winnipeg is not a terrible idea in the NHL's eyes.

To be more accurate, the NHL wanted to avoid Balsillie forcing his way into the NHL club by way of bankruptcy court and moving the Coyotes to Hamilton without league approval.

 

[DungeonK]

The problem is the majority of the populace will not care about this issue. If he gets voted out, it will be because he did not whether this financial crisis well.
And Re: The Hawks, Atlanta is a majority black city. Of course he would have done something, because that would have pissed off 55% of the population.

I guess that's why local news polls that asked "Would you care if the Thrashers were moved out of town?" consistently came up 85%+ "Yes"

 

[Melrose Munch]

I guess that's why local news polls that asked "Would you care if the Thrashers were moved out of town?" consistently came up 85%+ "Yes"

Because that adds to the perception that Atlanta is not a good sports city, something people from NY and Chicago will hammer Atlanta with again. This is more reputation then hockey.

 

[Melrose Munch]

I would also like to add that if the NHL did not fight so hard to keep the team in Phoenix by purchasing the Coyotes they would be in Hamilton right now. The NHL wants to avoid that at all costs, but Winnipeg is not a terrible idea in the NHL's eyes.

Winnipeg was the only choice because ASG followed the rules and were negotiating with them already. Basillie did not follow the rules man.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Because that adds to the perception that Atlanta is not a good sports city, something people from NY and Chicago will hammer Atlanta with again. This is more reputation then hockey.

Have you ever even been to Atlanta for an extended period of time?

 

[Killion]

Have you ever even been to Atlanta for an extended period of time?

Not directed at me, but ya, lots of times since the mid-70's, and well remember the buzz & fanaticism of the fans for the Flames. Anyone claiming Atlantas' "not a sports town" doesnt know _____ from shinola. I was always amazed at the depth of knowledge home grown fans had for the game of hockey & their natural affinity to a sport that was hardly "natural" to Georgias' climate. Indeed, throughout the south, theres a strong undercurrent, a sort of sub-rosa love for the game that would surprise anyone from a traditional market should they ever take in a game in a place like Nashville or Raleigh, wherever else, minor leagues included.

 

[wildthing202]

Have you ever even been to Atlanta for an extended period of time?

Yes Atlanta is a nice city but it's pretty much a losing battle, you can blame ownership all you want but there is evidence that people just aren't there to watch the games anymore.


NBA - Hawks are 22nd out of 30 in attendance and was as low as 29th back in 2005-06
MLB - Braves used to have Top 5 attendance in the NL with an over 40,000 average but after 2000 but now they've been hovering around 30,000 ever since which puts them in the lower half of the league.

So adding that with the Thrashers numbers it's not really hard to see why people would say that kind of stuff.

 

[Killion]

Yes Atlanta is a nice city but it's pretty much a losing battle, you can blame ownership all you want but there is evidence that people just aren't there to watch the games anymore.

Wrong. Its well known that MLB attendance is cyclical. Thats a non-starter. Again; look at who owns the Hawks?. Whose running the arena?. I dont think people quite understand to what depths ASG is despised by the sports populace in Atlanta.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Have you ever even been to Atlanta for an extended period of time?

Yes Atlanta is a nice city but it's pretty much a losing battle, you can blame ownership all you want but there is evidence that people just aren't there to watch the games anymore.


NBA - Hawks are 22nd out of 30 in attendance and was as low as 29th back in 2005-06
MLB - Braves used to have Top 5 attendance in the NL with an over 40,000 average but after 2000 but now they've been hovering around 30,000 ever since which puts them in the lower half of the league.

So adding that with the Thrashers numbers it's not really hard to see why people would say that kind of stuff.

Thank You. This is not a hockey problem. Falcons tickets were were very cheap before vick.

 

[atl thrasher344]

Thank You. This is not a hockey problem. Falcons tickets were were very cheap before vick.

Because the team was pretty bad except for one year.

 

[obsenssive*]

why do you need performance for attendance. it's childish and shallow to say that. you support your club good or bad your entire life, UNLESS the ownership/management is completely Pejorative Slured.

 

[atl thrasher344]

why do you need performance for attendance. it's childish and shallow to say that. you support your club good or bad your entire life, UNLESS the ownership/management is completely Pejorative Slured.

The team basically sucked for almost 30 years straight. Who would want to go see that?

 

[vipernsx]

Why fight so hard for Phoenix, but let Atlanta move so easily?...I'd like to hear theories.

Why does one player get a suspension while another gets nothing for the same infraction?

The only thing consistent about Gary Bettman's NHL is that it's consistently inconsistent.

 

[Confucius]

Because that adds to the perception that Atlanta is not a good sports city, something people from NY and Chicago will hammer Atlanta with again. This is more reputation then hockey.

If you really don't care, you wouldn't vote one way or the other. The number of people that voted would be interesting.

 

[mucker*]

Thanks for the recap, I understand why the NHL is able to fight for Phoenix.

So if Glendale wasn't covering the losses, then I suppose the Yotes would have been moved?

My other question, why doesn't the NHL just buy the Thrashers like they did in Phoenix and hold them until a local group comes aboard?
Also, how long has ASG been seriously looking to sell?
To me, it seems only the last month, otherwise we would have been talking about Atlanta possibly moving for a long while.

I just don't get why Bettman can't buy Atlanta one more year, to me, it seems that ASG at the 10th hour wanted out and Bettman obliged not trying to give one more season.

 

[bacon25]

Winnipeg was the only choice because ASG followed the rules and were negotiating with them already. Basillie did not follow the rules man.

And by not following the rules, you mean not fondling Bettman nether regions. Everyone hates on Basilile but he did what businessman do. Basillie had the money and the game-plan to make a unsuccessful team successful, was he a d-bag about it, sure, but most rich guys are.

 

[RECCE]

I don't believe it has one iota to do with the "TV" deal, I feel bad for the Thrasher fans that have to "pay the bill" for the coyotes.

 

[knorthern knight]

My other question, why doesn't the NHL just buy the Thrashers like they did in Phoenix and hold them until a local group comes aboard?

There isn't a sugar-daddy city council covering the first $25 million of annual losses

The arena owners in Glendale (i.e. City of Glendale) also offer a sweetheart arena lease deal to keep the Coyotes there. But the people running Philips Arena in Atlanta (i.e. ASG) DO NOT WANT THE THRASHERS PLAYING THERE. They can simply refuse to allow the Thrashers in, or charge an exorbitant rent.

Also, how long has ASG been seriously looking to sell?

Apparently they've wanted to sell since first acquiring the Arena and the NBA and NHL teams several years ago. They haven't been able to actually do so before December 2010. Before that, they were involved in a very ugly lawsuit amongst themselves.

To me, it seems only the last month, otherwise we would have been talking about Atlanta possibly moving for a long while.

Actually, there was talk about Atlanta last summer, but most people ignored it. People who had followed the situation knew the team was losing a bundle, and would have to move. Things got serious in February when one of the owners publically stated they were desparate to sell. Approximately a month ago, the City of Glendale voted to shell out $25 million to keep the team for another year. At that point, the Coyotes dropped out of the limelight (a bit) and media attention shifted to Atlanta. But the problem had been present for a while.

 

[Mantha Poodoo]

why do you need performance for attendance. it's childish and shallow to say that. you support your club good or bad your entire life, UNLESS the ownership/management is completely Pejorative Slured.

Because hockey is a consumer product (entertainment), not a relative.

Let's say there are 3 burger joints in town (say a sports town that has NFL, NHL, MLB), and I like burgers. We'll call them A, B, and C. Now, I like burgers, and they all burgers I find enjoyable. However, they all have different pricing and I enjoy some burgers more than others.

A: Has great burgers, but also expensive
B: Decent burgers at a decent price
C: Cheap, but their burgers aren't great compared to the other 2

Now, if I'm running high on my budget or just really want a good burger, I'll go to A as often as I can. If I'm running a tight budget I'll go for C if I really want a burger. However, B tends to be reasonably affordable and also gives me a pretty good burger for what I pay, so I tend to stick with B, drool over A's burgers when I see them on the TV, and maybe see the occasional reference to C in the paper (probably when they've done something notable) or in some coupon package.

But what happens if C suddenly starts making a much better burger, almost as good or equivalent to B? Well, I'm going to start eating their burgers a lot. Suppose they raise their prices a bit, close to Bs level, but now have a product that's approaching A's level this year? I'm going to eat all that I can get while the getting is good.

On the other hand, suppose C lowers their prices even more to make them a more attractive substitute to B, but their burger quality also drops to where it's utter crap? I'm going to avoid C like the plague, even if B's quality falls a little or their prices rise a little. Or I just won't eat burgers at all. Cheap is all good and well but noone wants a burger that tastes like ass even if it's given to them. And it could be their product is so nasty that it looks like crap even on the TV commercials. Why would I want to watch that and ruin my appetite for burgers when I'm trying to cook up some home-grilled burgers?

Such is how sports work in cities that have multiple major sports but none are a clearcut #1. The passion goes to the best perceived value, generally with product getting more weighting than pricing (so long as the pricing stays within the realm of reason).

Unfortunately for the Thrashers, the owners have invested barely enough even to get the burger joint operational, much less buy good ingredients or hire good burger cooks. As such, they put out a burger that tastes as lame as it looks, and only the most die-hard burger fans eat it (and they're either allergic to or don't have the budget for the other burgers).


By the way, the ownership and management for the Thrashers HAS been completely Pejorative Slured.