Will Atlanta Get Another Team?

[voyageur]

Comments in blue. Honestly, if this is where the discussion has devolved to and it's a sign of things yet to come, I think we've pretty much exhausted avenues for having reasonable conversations.

We're not even arguing the same thing anymore. Maybe my comments come off as off handed. But you can't dispute what I said. That Winnipeg has fans are there for the highs and the lows. They made a profit their first year, in spite of having the smallest market, and the smallest arena. That's without playoffs. Guaranteed they made money last year.

Atlanta was averaging losses of around $8 million per year. Carolina was getting credit financing from the NHL to pay the bills. Florida is relying on non hockey revenues to maintain its team.

So you can't argue that hockey isn't an easier sell in Winnipeg than the Sunbelt. There is absolutely no logic in it.

You can take offense to everything that is said, argue that the team was sabotaged. Why did Turner dump hockey and pump money into the NBA? Why did the new
owners after Atlanta Spirit only want to buy the basketball team and the arena? Why did the government not care that the team was leaving?

Every account I have heard about Atlanta and hockey is that it had one of the nicest arenas and one of the emptiest rinks. That's unfortunate. If David Poile had managed the team that may not have been the case, but you are still ignoring that hockey is a tough sell, in the region, and that Winnipeg has boosted league revenues, and brought a passion to the game. That it came at the Thrashers expense is not my fault, I can tell you that much.

The size of the city, and its importance economically may give it a 3rd life, but I don't see that in the imminent future.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

But you can't dispute what I said. That Winnipeg has fans are there for the highs and the lows. In this incarnation? Sure, the shine is still on, interest is high, and the team is on the upswing. Pre-2011? Yeah, Winnipeg was just like every other market: ~13,500 fans, not selling out, fortunes kind of moving with the on-ice success of the team. Will it be different this time around? Neither one of us knows, and that won't be answered for a number of years to come. They made a profit their first year, in spite of having the smallest market, and the smallest arena. That's without playoffs. See prior comment. They also got revenue sharing that year, IIRC. They were also on the lower end of the salary cap scale, I believe - which increased the chances of making a profit. Guaranteed they made money last year. Also see prior comment. When you get to play 9 home games in the postseason, your chances of making a profit go way, way up.

Atlanta was averaging losses of around $8 million per year. For the 200,007th time, go back and read what's been said about the situation in Atlanta. Plus, Rocky Wirtz would have you believe that the Chicago Blackhawks didn't make money when it won the Cup in 2010 and actually needed cash calls from other Wirtz-owned entities to keep the Blackhawks going. Go do some research about pro sports franchise accounting, then tell me how accurate you think "losses of $8 million per year" might be and why it can be misleading. Carolina was getting credit financing from the NHL to pay the bills. Please show your work here. Florida is relying on non hockey revenues to maintain its team. See prior comment regarding Chicago, 2010.

So you can't argue that hockey isn't an easier sell in Winnipeg than the Sunbelt. There is absolutely no logic in it. The question has never been where hockey is or isn't an easier sell. It's been (A) a question of how elastic that demand is relative to on-ice success and ownership support of the fan base, and (B) how elastic that demand is relative to longevity of the franchise in a location. Again, I would explain how this relates to Atlanta, but that requires you to be willing to understand and accept it; your comments indicate that you're not willing to do so.

You can take offense to everything that is said, argue that the team was sabotaged. Why did Turner dump hockey and pump money into the NBA? Please do some research on how Turner's assets came to be part of another organization, and the decisions that organization decided to make regarding ownership of pro sports franchises. I also leave it to you to understand the distinction between "owning a pro sports franchise" and "holding broadcasting rights to a pro sports league" and why those two might be in conflict with each other. Why did the new
owners after Atlanta Spirit only want to buy the basketball team and the arena? That's been answered about a dozen times in this thread alone. Why did the government not care that the team was leaving? Because it's not the duty of the government to get involved in the ownership of pro sports franchises when private entities control all the involved assets, including ownership of the arena. That is, unless you believe that government should get involved in such decisions and dictate results according to some "desired societal outcome" that's subject to interpretation by those in power at the time. I don't. Others' beliefs may vary.

Every account I have heard about Atlanta and hockey is that it had one of the nicest arenas and one of the emptiest rinks. That's unfortunate. Every account of what happened with the Thrashers in the "Atlanta Spirit" era here has told you why, too - and you keep ignoring it. That's ... also unfortunate. If David Poile had managed the team that may not have been the case, but you are still ignoring that hockey is a tough sell, in the region and you're intentionally ignoring the "why" behind it was a tough sell under Atlanta Spirit, and that Winnipeg has boosted league revenues which presumes that the league's goal is to maximize revenues - a point that I and a few others have repeatedly and pointedly shot down, and brought a passion to the game which is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand, much less any discussion about where teams should be located. That it came at the Thrashers expense is not my fault, I can tell you that much. And yet, you continue to make up claims that fit the story you want to tell, which ignore the actual facts at hand.

The size of the city, and its importance economically may give it a 3rd life, but I don't see that in the imminent future.

Comments in blue.

 

[voyageur]

Comments in blue.

You have your own narrative as do I. Which is factual?

Curiously though, wasn't Ed Snider the owner of Comcast, which owns NBC ", and the rights to hockey?

And Turner and Disney abandoned hockey, to invest in basketball?

Does that mean anything?

This argument is completely pointless.

You refuse to accept the truth. Ray Charles is singing in his grave for hockey team. Or was the for a different plight?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

You have your own narrative as do I. Which is factual?

The one actually supported by facts and reasonable logic, not the one supported by blind assertions which ignore reality.

Curiously though, wasn't Ed Snider the owner of Comcast, which owns NBC ", and the rights to hockey?

He had a small share via his 34% stake in Spectacor, which was (A) a small part of Comcast, and (B) slowly whittled down over the years. However, what his stake was in Comcast is irrelevant to the points you've been trying to advance.

And Turner and Disney abandoned hockey, to invest in basketball?

Ted Turner owned the NBA Hawks and MLB Braves along with all of his holdings in Turner Broadcasting. Turner merged his holdings with Time Warner in 1996 but Turner remained in control of his assets; it was shortly after this that he launched the expansion bid that became the Thrashers, which was part of the assets of Time Warner but again under Turner's control. Time Warner merged with AOL in 2001, and Turner would lose control of his share of assets in there somewhere. [When exactly that happened isn't particularly important, it's the fact that Turner no longer had control of the franchise.] Time Warner/AOL would then decide it didn't want to own any pro sports franchises, and put the Thrashers and Hawks [and Phillips Arena] on the market in 2003 and the Braves in 2005; the Thrashers, Hawks, and the arena were purchased by Atlanta Spirit, LLC in 2004, the Braves went to Liberty Media in 2006. [The entire Atlanta Spirit saga has been recounted many times, so I won't go into yet another explanation of what happened there.]

The move to sell the Hawks and Thrashers coincided with Time Warner's move to have TNT expand into NBA broadcast coverage. TNT had limited coverage previously via TBS covering Hawks games initially and later select other NBA games, but the move in 2004 diversified NBA broadcasts to all teams around the league not just focusing on Hawks games. In other words, TW "abandoned" running pro sports teams in favor of broadcasting games and collecting revenues from advertisers; it focused on the business aspects that made up its core function and discarded items that didn't fit that - like say, running pro sports teams. To the extent that they "abandoned hockey to invest in basketball" it also "abandoned local basketball to invest in national basketball."

If you don't understand the distinction further, I can't explain it any better.

Discussing Walt Disney's motives for selling the Ducks are off-topic wrt this thread. Find a thread asking about operating a pro sports franchise v. carrying broadcast rights, and I or someone else can cover it there.

You refuse to accept the truth.

Yeah, I know. I'm wrong. Everyone else is wrong, no one else gets it. Insert every conspiracy-justifying cliche here.

Ray Charles is singing in his grave for hockey team. Or was the for a different plight?

This is beyond not making any sense.

 

[LordNeverLose]

I've said this before but since we seem to be rehashing arguments over and over, I'll say it again. People talking about past success in Atlanta or number of current NHL fans in Atlanta are 100% missing the point. If the NHL just wanted to give cities that watch hockey teams, they wouldn't have have put 23/26 expansion teams since the O6 era in the US. The point of expansion is to grow the NHL. Adding teams in relatively small Canadian markets does nothing to help that. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But if you need proof of why the NHL keeps doing it, look at the MLS expansion in Atlanta, which may have been one of the most impactful decisions that league has ever made.

It's a 2 sport town mostly.

Best market in the MLS and best market in College Football. No one cares about the Hawks. Not exactly sure why but it's true. Give Atlanta a team they like and they'll support it through thick and thin. Give it a team they don't care about and they won't care about it. (source: lived in Atlanta for 10 years)

Ownership and on-field/ice product matters, particularly in non-traditional expansion markets.

 

[voyageur]

The one actually supported by facts and reasonable logic, not the one supported by blind assertions which ignore reality..

What did you prove bud?

Tell me what you proved?

You keep spinning a different angle every time you are proven wrong.

Hard facts: Atlanta in 2010-11 had $71 million revenue, it's highest total in its existence.

Winnipeg in 2011-12 had $105 million, and a $13 million profit. No revenue sharing received, that year. And led the league in merchandising sales.

I still remember the idiots from the ATL laughing at us, saying we wouldn't be able to keep our players. But we re-signed all the core players from the Thrashers, only one wanted out, because he was kicked out of the locker room for being a douche. We have brought in free agents. And after we finally got some talent drafted, didn't go scraping the waiver barrel for players.

I stated that ATL, Carolina, Fla have financial troubles. Forbes states it if you want to do the proper research. Including the financing Karmonos got from the NHL. Face it when a large metropolis like Raleigh earns half of the gate revenues of a small market like Winnipeg, there will be financial repercussions.

The 2012 edition of Forbes in particular highlights Sunbelt problems.

I stated that both Turner and Disney sold out of hockey and bought into basketball, which is entirely true, but you go on ranting about whatever it is you are trying to prove. Or ignoring that Snider was the reason for the NBC deal, when the proof is in the pudding.

I said NBC doesn't care about Atlanta. Heya, so you say nor Winnipeg. But Winnipeg is one of the teams that Rogers paid record amounts to broadcast, a deal that basically keeps the NHL afloat. And it is garbage for Canadian hockey fans forced to watch American teams, instead of Canadian ones, who get blacked out. But the NHL needs our money. Make no mistake.
No Toronto, no Montreal, no Canadian TV, no NHL. Period (Forbes 2012). Luckily we have our own deal with Bell, for the Jets.

Logically you have proved nothing. Except make excuses for the failure of hockey in Atlanta. And then try to say well Winnipeg gets revenue sharing, which it does. As do other small market US teams, with a considerably higher dollar to work with, and the revenues from Canadian hockey fans (TV and merch).

I know the truth hurts, but Atlanta is a tough hockey market. It could succeed under winning conditions I have no doubt. Ownership is the key, if they had a Hicks, Laurie, Eisner, Vinik pumping money into them then they would have turned out different. But they didn't. And no one at any point made the imvestment. The government did not either, because it did not care, whereas governments north of the border do. That goes back to 30 000 fans vs 300, and selling out in 30 minutes. Hockey is quasi-religious in Canada. No one is going to apologize for that.

It's unfortunate Atlanta lost their team. Could have been Arizona, but that was politics. Houston getting the Yotes is kind of a reconciliatory gesture, for the South, as Bettman barred Houston from getting the Oilers in the fallout of the 90s.
Atlanta just got an MLS franchise and a championship with outstanding attendance, so I don't think losing a hockey team hurt the city, like losing the Jets did, for our morale as a city. Because only in hockey is Winnipeg a big league city. Otherwise we're small potatoes.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

What did you prove bud?

Tell me what you proved?

You keep spinning a different angle every time you are proven wrong.

Hard facts: Atlanta in 2010-11 had $71 million revenue, it's highest total in its existence.

Winnipeg in 2011-12 had $105 million, and a $13 million profit. No revenue sharing received, that year. And led the league in merchandising sales.

I still remember the idiots from the ATL laughing at us, saying we wouldn't be able to keep our players. But we re-signed all the core players from the Thrashers, only one wanted out, because he was kicked out of the locker room for being a *****e. We have brought in free agents. And after we finally got some talent drafted, didn't go scraping the waiver barrel for players.

I stated that ATL, Carolina, Fla have financial troubles. Forbes states it if you want to do the proper research. Including the financing Karmonos got from the NHL. Face it when a large metropolis like Raleigh earns half of the gate revenues of a small market like Winnipeg, there will be financial repercussions.

The 2012 edition of Forbes in particular highlights Sunbelt problems.

I stated that both Turner and Disney sold out of hockey and bought into basketball, which is entirely true, but you go on ranting about whatever it is you are trying to prove. Or ignoring that Snider was the reason for the NBC deal, when the proof is in the pudding.

I said NBC doesn't care about Atlanta. Heya, so you say nor Winnipeg. But Winnipeg is one of the teams that Rogers paid record amounts to broadcast, a deal that basically keeps the NHL afloat. And it is garbage for Canadian hockey fans forced to watch American teams, instead of Canadian ones, who get blacked out. But the NHL needs our money. Make no mistake.
No Toronto, no Montreal, no Canadian TV, no NHL. Period (Forbes 2012). Luckily we have our own deal with Bell, for the Jets.

Logically you have proved nothing. Except make excuses for the failure of hockey in Atlanta. And then try to say well Winnipeg gets revenue sharing, which it does. As do other small market US teams, with a considerably higher dollar to work with, and the revenues from Canadian hockey fans (TV and merch).

I know the truth hurts, but Atlanta is a tough hockey market. It could succeed under winning conditions I have no doubt. Ownership is the key, if they had a Hicks, Laurie, Eisner, Vinik pumping money into them then they would have turned out different. But they didn't. And no one at any point made the imvestment. The government did not either, because it did not care, whereas governments north of the border do. That goes back to 30 000 fans vs 300, and selling out in 30 minutes. Hockey is quasi-religious in Canada. No one is going to apologize for that.

It's unfortunate Atlanta lost their team. Could have been Arizona, but that was politics. Houston getting the Yotes is kind of a reconciliatory gesture, for the South, as Bettman barred Houston from getting the Oilers in the fallout of the 90s.
Atlanta just got an MLS franchise and a championship with outstanding attendance, so I don't think losing a hockey team hurt the city, like losing the Jets did, for our morale as a city. Because only in hockey is Winnipeg a big league city. Otherwise we're small potatoes.

ever researched Spectacor, @voyageur

now known as Spectra, they are like AEG, remember them, also are in the business of arena management, not just PRISM (NBC Sports Philadelphia

 

[voyageur]

ever researched Spectacor, @voyageur

now known as Spectra, they are like AEG, remember them, also are in the business of arena management, not just PRISM (NBC Sports Philadelphia

Snider had everything to do with the TV deal.

Kukla's Korner Hockey - Kukla's Korner

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Snider had everything to do with the TV deal.

Kukla's Korner Hockey - Kukla's Korner

and Snider is not relevant going forward since the Flyers lost him....

 

[voyageur]

and Snider is not relevant going forward since the Flyers lost him....

It's fair to say that Snider, Jacobs and Anschultz were the bosses of the BoG, as they had their hands in the pot. Comcast still owns the Flyers. But without Snider, there is talk about a multi-partner TV deal now, which benefits more than one party, and increases TV revenues. I think bringing Chipman into the inner circle, as a moderate, and someone who understands the economics of hockey from the small market side, will ironically help the NHL grow.

 

[MNNumbers]

I might risk getting my head chopped off here, because it looks like a Hatfields v McCoys feud in here, but....

Forbes currently lists Winnipeg in the #20 range for value of franchises, and also for revenue. Obviously, that number goes up and down depending on playoff hosting, but that's the number Forbes uses. I DO NOT say that to thrash the Winnipeg market. It's simply the truth. Obviously, Forbes is not gospel. But it is, perhaps, worth considering, when the realities are that the TNSE is a private company and thus we don't have enough real figures to do a proper analysis. Along with the above, it is true that TNSE as an organization receives tax breaks from the government. Perhaps a measure of this is because of their OTHER holdings...not the Jets. Nevertheless, the whole thing is profitable at least in part because of such tax breaks, which have been rumored to run in the range of 12M/yr (CDN, of course).

Contrasting with, for example, Florida....Florida has real attendance number approximating those of Winnipeg (although with many more empty seats - we are considering that the Jets play in the smallest arena in the league here). It would beggar belief to think that the Panthers make as much on seat sales as the Jets do. That would defy logic (and I am using the Panthers here as a sort of proxy for Atlanta, because there is no team in Atlanta right now). However, Florida is close to being viable in a way because Broward County is cutting them a subsidy, one that decreases through the next decade. And, the Panthers have operating rights to the arena. The supposition is that the Panthers whole organization is near or slightly below break even, all things considered, and that status will be challenged as the subsidy diminishes in the next years.

For Atlanta to get a new team would seem to require a lot of things. One is a place to play. Philips right now could still be configured to hockey (at least some say so), but the problem with both teams in the same arena is that, even if the same owners own both teams, the economy of scale is not great enough to offset what are likely the losses of the hockey team essentially having to pull its own weight. What I mean is this: Since the Hawks presumably already have operating rights, then all the monies from the arena are in their pockets already. What is added by an NHL team? Nothing except full dates. There is no extra money there because the hockey team is there which is not present already (except perhaps a slight increase in Naming Rights and arena sponsorships). That means that adding the NHL team would be a loser in toto, unless the hockey team itself runs in the black. This is not likely to happen. (See Houston right now). So, NHL would need another arena somewhere, with a sweet lease deal, and a situation where they didn't pay for the arena (or you start too far behind). I believe these are the main obstacles to Atlanta.

As for where the NHL wants franchises....The question is not "Can this place support a franchise?" The question is "What's in it for the BOG as individuals if they grant such a place a franchise?" On that question, any reasonable metro in the US is worth far more than Quebec City or Winnipeg. QC and Winnipeg don't add enough to the shared revenue to make it a high priority place. Adding to that, the league itself would probably feel that they would do better nationally in the US if they had the appearance of being a big-time organization. Putting teams in smaller, remote Canadian locations doesn't contribute to that. (No offence to Winnipeg or Quebec here. I was in QC once and loved it and I hope a team goes there soon.)

Now, take my head off. Sorry.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

What did you prove bud?

Tell me what you proved?

I'm proving that you're hell bent on going out of your way to trash Atlanta as a hockey market while going to great lengths to espouse the virtues of Winnipeg as a hockey market, in some misguided everyone else hates us for having a team - well, we're going to show them! angry screeds that as well be "old man yells at sky." I'm proving that you're making up allegations about Winnipeg that no one has made here, which you then use as justification to attack Atlanta for its failed franchise while you go to great lengths to lord over Winnipeg's current hockey support in some show of hockey moral superiority - as if that and $2.25 gets you a cup of coffee and your favorite city a hockey franchise. I'm also proving that you've got no interest in reading anything that's being written about why hockey failed in Atlanta this time around, and you're much more interested in innuendo and false allegations and distractions about non-items or unrelated items than you are actually understanding and putting things into proper perspective.

Maybe others are different, but I have no patience for that kind of intentional ignorance.

I stated that both Turner and Disney sold out of hockey and bought into basketball, which is entirely true

No, you keep spinning it as an anti-hockey thing. I pointed out that it was a "we don't want to be in the business of running pro sports franchises" decision seeing as how two other pro sports franchises - one in the NBA, one in MLB - were also divested. You're also the one that keeps throwing out Comcast and Disney as if either one [or both] is somehow relevant to Atlanta. I'm the one that keeps pointing out that neither one is, which you also continue to ignore.

But Winnipeg is one of the teams that Rogers paid record amounts to broadcast, a deal that basically keeps the NHL afloat.

1. Keeps the NHL afloat. Here's a spoiler: without that contract [and even if the Rogers contract was "just" the same amount as the prior one], the NHL would ... gasp! - still exist. The salary cap would be lower, players would be making less money, and that sweet TV revenue would largely come out of the coffers of Canadian teams, but that would be to the benefit of every low-revenue, non-Canadian team and to the express detriment of every Canadian team regardless of revenue.
2. Please show your work that says Rogers wouldn't have paid the same amount [or more] had a team been located in Quebec City or Halifax. Or Toronto 2 [wherever in the GTA a team might have gone]. Or Saskatoon, for that matter.

Could have been Arizona, but that was politics. Houston getting the Yotes is kind of a reconciliatory gesture, for the South, as Bettman barred Houston from getting the Oilers in the fallout of the 90s.

I'm going to [yet again] put an end to this bullshit notion once and for all.

Bettman getting involved in the Phoenix situation had NOTHING to do with politics, or make-up calls for Houston not getting the Oilers, or "preserving his dream of having teams in the Sun Belt" or any of that other shit that's been alleged over the years. It had everything to do with preserving the NHL's right to decide who could own a team and where that team could operate. Nothing more, nothing less. That's why the MLB, NFL and NBA all repeatedly filed briefs on behalf of the NHL backing the NHL's positions in court; they all understood the ramifications if the NHL lost that court case.

Had Balsillie been allowed to take control of the Coyotes and move the team to Canada, it would have set in place an avenue for any individual who any pro sports league didn't want owning a franchise to simply circumvent league procedures by colluding with the owner of the target franchise and getting the team dragged into bankruptcy, where the undesirable prospective owner could simply drop a bid on the team, acquire it, and move it to wherever the hell he, she, or it wanted. That decision would have utterly destroyed a league's ability to control of the operation of teams, and it would have destroyed the local territorial rights of teams and the franchise value derived from being an exclusive team in that territory. [Hint: that goes beyond all the "non-traditional, not-worthy" markets.] It would have also crushed the willingness of state and local governments to work with pro sports teams [when deemed desirable] to put together infrastructure and arena projects to support those teams, knowing that any terms agreed to in exchange for building that infrastructure and arena project that binded the team to the area could simply be undone by a court order that might well be a result of actions that were a sham effort to circumvent league procedures.

Quite arguably, it would have also allowed Basillie to pick up his team in Hamilton on a whim and move it elsewhere because he didn't acquire it under the league's terms and conditions [and so he wouldn't have been bound to follow them] - and potentially he could have later sold the team to anyone else who wanted it, and that person wouldn't have been bound by the T&C either because Balsillie could [would] have made the argument that getting permission from the NHL wasn't required because he wasn't bound by their T&C. The list of implications that fall out of this are enormous, and no one wanted to be the guinea pig for trying to sort it all out or dealing with the resulting mess from one renegade, unwanted owner flinging poo at everyone else out of spite and for his own amusement.

[And, citing the now-preciously loved Rogers broadcast contract: no network puts up nearly that kind of money for any sport with uncertainty about where and when teams will be located and the resulting instability it potentially creates.]

Let me put this another way: Do you really think that the NHL's owners would have let Bettman drag them down that road if they didn't know themselves the potential costs of staying out of the Phoenix situation and letting Balsillie get his way? Every one of them knew the risk, and that's why they all backed Bettman in that fight. Losing some money short-term was totally worth preserving who got into the Owners' Club. If Balsillie gets to just drop a team in Hamilton via an end-run around the league's procedures, the Blackhawks could find itself with a competing team in Hoffman Estates or Naperville, dropped there by someone with enough money and a "I hate the Wirtz family" mentality to want to damage the Blackhawks brand and franchise value, no matter the personal cost to that owner. Some mobster could have cajoled the Vikings owner into selling "via bankruptcy", bought the team, looked at Minneapolis and decided "eh, I hate Minnesota - too cold, I got a better place for my team" and dropped the Vikings in Dallas next to Jerry Jones Land, stiffing Minnesota state and local governments for hundreds of millions of dollars in investments in the just-completed U.S. Bank Stadium and surrounding area while going after the football fans in football-crazy Texas who can't afford to go to Cowboys games and want to be close to the team and have a likable owner who's not an arrogant ass [all in public, of course; we don't discuss what goes on in private]. The list of not-far-fetched examples goes on and on.

Way too many people continue to naively think Bettman was "saving his pet project" when he got involved in Phoenix, including people in the media. His motivations and the motivations of the [at the time] other 29 owners went so much deeper, and people refuse to think about or acknowledge any of that because of the location of the team involved and its perceived "acceptability" for having that team by other "true" fans.

 

[Burke the Legend]

I don't know much about Atlanta but it's such a giant city maybe there is demand for a new arena out in the burbs? Everyone was kind of skeptical about what the Braves did but that worked out well so far.

 

[voyageur]

I'm proving that you're hell bent on going out of your way to trash Atlanta as a hockey market while going to great lengths to espouse the virtues of Winnipeg as a hockey market, in some misguided everyone else hates us for having a team - well, we're going to show them! angry screeds that as well be "old man yells at sky." I'm proving that you're making up allegations about Winnipeg that no one has made here, which you then use as justification to attack Atlanta for its failed franchise while you go to great lengths to lord over Winnipeg's current hockey support in some show of hockey moral superiority - as if that and $2.25 gets you a cup of coffee and your favorite city a hockey franchise. I'm also proving that you've got no interest in reading anything that's being written about why hockey failed in Atlanta this time around, and you're much more interested in innuendo and false allegations and distractions about non-items or unrelated items than you are actually understanding and putting things into proper perspective.

Maybe others are different, but I have no patience for that kind of intentional ignorance.


No, you keep spinning it as an anti-hockey thing. I pointed out that it was a "we don't want to be in the business of running pro sports franchises" decision seeing as how two other pro sports franchises - one in the NBA, one in MLB - were also divested. You're also the one that keeps throwing out Comcast and Disney as if either one [or both] is somehow relevant to Atlanta. I'm the one that keeps pointing out that neither one is, which you also continue to ignore.


1. Keeps the NHL afloat. Here's a spoiler: without that contract [and even if the Rogers contract was "just" the same amount as the prior one], the NHL would ... gasp! - still exist. The salary cap would be lower, players would be making less money, and that sweet TV revenue would largely come out of the coffers of Canadian teams, but that would be to the benefit of every low-revenue, non-Canadian team and to the express detriment of every Canadian team regardless of revenue.
2. Please show your work that says Rogers wouldn't have paid the same amount [or more] had a team been located in Quebec City or Halifax. Or Toronto 2 [wherever in the GTA a team might have gone]. Or Saskatoon, for that matter.



I'm going to [yet again] put an end to this bull**** notion once and for all.

Bettman getting involved in the Phoenix situation had NOTHING to do with politics, or make-up calls for Houston not getting the Oilers, or "preserving his dream of having teams in the Sun Belt" or any of that other **** that's been alleged over the years. It had everything to do with preserving the NHL's right to decide who could own a team and where that team could operate. Nothing more, nothing less. That's why the MLB, NFL and NBA all repeatedly filed briefs on behalf of the NHL backing the NHL's positions in court; they all understood the ramifications if the NHL lost that court case.

Had Balsillie been allowed to take control of the Coyotes and move the team to Canada, it would have set in place an avenue for any individual who any pro sports league didn't want owning a franchise to simply circumvent league procedures by colluding with the owner of the target franchise and getting the team dragged into bankruptcy, where the undesirable prospective owner could simply drop a bid on the team, acquire it, and move it to wherever the hell he, she, or it wanted. That decision would have utterly destroyed a league's ability to control of the operation of teams, and it would have destroyed the local territorial rights of teams and the franchise value derived from being an exclusive team in that territory. [Hint: that goes beyond all the "non-traditional, not-worthy" markets.] It would have also crushed the willingness of state and local governments to work with pro sports teams [when deemed desirable] to put together infrastructure and arena projects to support those teams, knowing that any terms agreed to in exchange for building that infrastructure and arena project that binded the team to the area could simply be undone by a court order that might well be a result of actions that were a sham effort to circumvent league procedures.

Quite arguably, it would have also allowed Basillie to pick up his team in Hamilton on a whim and move it elsewhere because he didn't acquire it under the league's terms and conditions [and so he wouldn't have been bound to follow them] - and potentially he could have later sold the team to anyone else who wanted it, and that person wouldn't have been bound by the T&C either because Balsillie could [would] have made the argument that getting permission from the NHL wasn't required because he wasn't bound by their T&C. The list of implications that fall out of this are enormous, and no one wanted to be the guinea pig for trying to sort it all out or dealing with the resulting mess from one renegade, unwanted owner flinging poo at everyone else out of spite and for his own amusement.

[And, citing the now-preciously loved Rogers broadcast contract: no network puts up nearly that kind of money for any sport with uncertainty about where and when teams will be located and the resulting instability it potentially creates.]

Let me put this another way: Do you really think that the NHL's owners would have let Bettman drag them down that road if they didn't know themselves the potential costs of staying out of the Phoenix situation and letting Balsillie get his way? Every one of them knew the risk, and that's why they all backed Bettman in that fight. Losing some money short-term was totally worth preserving who got into the Owners' Club. If Balsillie gets to just drop a team in Hamilton via an end-run around the league's procedures, the Blackhawks could find itself with a competing team in Hoffman Estates or Naperville, dropped there by someone with enough money and a "I hate the Wirtz family" mentality to want to damage the Blackhawks brand and franchise value, no matter the personal cost to that owner. Some mobster could have cajoled the Vikings owner into selling "via bankruptcy", bought the team, looked at Minneapolis and decided "eh, I hate Minnesota - too cold, I got a better place for my team" and dropped the Vikings in Dallas next to Jerry Jones Land, stiffing Minnesota state and local governments for hundreds of millions of dollars in investments in the just-completed U.S. Bank Stadium and surrounding area while going after the football fans in football-crazy Texas who can't afford to go to Cowboys games and want to be close to the team and have a likable owner who's not an arrogant ass [all in public, of course; we don't discuss what goes on in private]. The list of not-far-fetched examples goes on and on.

Way too many people continue to naively think Bettman was "saving his pet project" when he got involved in Phoenix, including people in the media. His motivations and the motivations of the [at the time] other 29 owners went so much deeper, and people refuse to think about or acknowledge any of that because of the location of the team involved and its perceived "acceptability" for having that team by other "true" fans.

That's a whole lot of hot air. Goodbye.

 

[sexydonut]

I don't know much about Atlanta but it's such a giant city maybe there is demand for a new arena out in the burbs? Everyone was kind of skeptical about what the Braves did but that worked out well so far.

I don't know much about Atlanta but it's such a giant city maybe there is demand for a new arena out in the burbs? Everyone was kind of skeptical about what the Braves did but that worked out well so far.

Could be demand, could be gerrymandering, but Atlanta probably could build another arena.

Atlanta has a large population and is geographically huge and has atrocious traffic.

If Atlanta Spirit weren't intent on gutting its assets, the former Philips Arena, the Hawks and the Thrashers would have been skld to a hometown group.

It's akin to Orca Bay selling off the Grizzlies to pay for debt service. And just like the Grizzlies, the new owner of the Thrashers suddenly bolted to a "traditional" small market which offered up huge subsidies.

Back to your point, a hypothetical second GTA arena in Sauga or Downsview or Markham would be on the level of a suburban arena in northern Atlanta.

 

[Burke the Legend]

Could be demand, could be gerrymandering, but Atlanta probably could build another arena.

Atlanta has a large population and is geographically huge and has atrocious traffic.

If Atlanta Spirit weren't intent on gutting its assets, the former Philips Arena, the Hawks and the Thrashers would have been skld to a hometown group.

It's akin to Orca Bay selling off the Grizzlies to pay for debt service. And just like the Grizzlies, the new owner of the Thrashers suddenly bolted to a "traditional" small market which offered up huge subsidies.

Back to your point, a hypothetical second GTA arena in Sauga or Downsview or Markham would be on the level of a suburban arena in northern Atlanta.

Well I notice the new ballpark is built beside a massive highway interchange between the interstate and the outer ringroad which again, not knowing much about the city, perhaps is helpful for a lot of fans in dealing with the traffic as opposed to trying to get downtown where I assume the crunch is the worst. Might be one of the exceptions to the general rule that downtown venue = preferred.

 

[sexydonut]

Atlanta's a strange city. It is heavily divided on race and now wealth, and the developer-friendly LOL and fractured municipal governments favored the most short term low density urban sprawl and lax investment in infrastrucure. Public transit is especially bad.

DT has been gentrifying for a while (cause bad traffic matters less when you don't have to drive), but the wealth is disproportionately in the northern burbs. Think of Orange County vs DT LA, or Richmond Hill/Markham/Woodbridge vs. DT Toronto.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

So, returning to the actual discussion now that hopefully can take place, ...

I think Atlanta is kind of in the same spot Phoenix is in. There can be a demand for hockey, there can be enough demand that it supports a team, but the taste of what's happened previously has to get washed out first. It's going to take an owner that really invests in the community and the fan base, cultivates support and encourages people to come out, and has patience with it. It's not a 3-year or 5-year project, it might well take 10-15 years to get roots set like with a Nashville or even a Tampa, but it can succeed if fans are given reasons to bond to the team and there's some hope that it won't just linger around near the bottom of the standings forever. [And no, one (1) successful season every 10-12 counts doesn't count as "sufficiently successful for fans to stay engaged." We're not talking St. Kilda and the AFL down under, where a 146-year history exists built on decades of stability in franchise location in the league as a whole.]

 

[sexydonut]

Eh, if hockey could be resurrected in the Bay area, it can happen in Atlanta too.

Imagine if Harold Ballard had lived for a few more years. He could have run up personal debts and have sold old Maple Leaf Gardens for redevelopment into condos. Could have sold the team to any bidder, including someone from outside Toronto.

Has happened before. The Houston Oilers moved to small market Tennessee and LA lost both football teams in the same year.

 

[sexydonut]

On the subject of AFL, Australia differs because it has more teams than markets, and the lower salaries allow even minnows like St. Kilda to thrive.

At least this results in fewer relocation threats like we see in North America.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Atlanta simply may not be wanting higher levels of pro hockey than what they have now with the Gladiators, because, that is where they are and you have to deal with realistic franchises.....

Arthur Blank has enough to do between the Stadium, the Falcons and Atlanta United FC

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Atlanta simply may not be wanting higher levels of pro hockey than what they have now with the Gladiators, because, that is where they are and you have to deal with realistic franchises.....

Arthur Blank has enough to do between the Stadium, the Falcons and Atlanta United FC

That was one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.

 

[cbcwpg]

From Bettman.. 3 things you must have to have a team or as he calls them " show stoppers ".

1 -You want to understand the market and can it support NHL hockey," Bettman said. "Would it be a good addition to the league?

2- An arena

3- Most importantly.. an owner

***

So let's assume #1 was never an issue for Atlanta. That leaves #2 and #3. So when Atlanta can fulfill those two requirements they can call Gary up and let them know they are interested. Until then, it's not happening.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

From Bettman.. 3 things you must have to have a team or as he calls them " show stoppers ".

1 -You want to understand the market and can it support NHL hockey," Bettman said. "Would it be a good addition to the league?

2- An arena

3- Most importantly.. an owner

***

So let's assume #1 was never an issue for Atlanta. That leaves #2 and #3. So when Atlanta can fulfill those two requirements they can call Gary up and let them know they are interested. Until then, it's not happening.

Literally nobody is saying it’s happening right now so this is a pointless post.

 

[cbcwpg]

Literally nobody is saying it’s happening right now so this is a pointless post.

How so. The thread is "Will Atlanta Get Another team?" . The answer from the NHL is NO. Because they can't meet the basic criteria and it doesn't appear like they will anytime soon. So, again.... no!