Will the NHL try Atlanta again?

[Killion]

All teams have down period(s), if you have to fear that the majority of your fan base will jump ship to some other team or pursuit when things are tough, you might wan to consider that your fan base was not really yours to begin with. Having fans of " winning" is not hard.

if your team sucks so long that it gets you to cut your nose to spite your face who comes out on top in this situation ? no one.

again its well within your perogative to spend money however you like, but I find this idea of taking teams that are struggling financially, to further cripple them in some sort of perverse enticement for them to spend more ( or more wisely) is just personally incomprehensible.

Yes all good points sandy, however, I think the premise of the point to which you responded needed a little tweaking. Most fans do understand that theres a drafting & building process involved, and all they really want to see is growth & development, that their owners & managers care, the team at least giving it every effort and giving the fans their monies worth. To be entertained. When instead they see what were supposedly building blocks kicked asunder, franchise players moved, listless performances at (particularily) home & on the road, the once bright light at the end of the tunnel ever dimming, in a newish market, thats fatal. The problem really isnt that places like Atlanta, Phoenix or Florida cant be successful (and some have been & still are) its that there doesnt seem to be enough really good owners & GM's to go around.

The Panthers & Lightning have finally addressed this with Yzerman & Tallon; Columbus with Davidson & so on, but when you get guys like Ellman/Moyes or ASG handing the keys to inexperienced and or just plain incompetent management, or owners like Barrie/Koules having financial meltdowns while simultaneously interfering with hockey operations, well, youve got yourselves a serious problem. It took Detroit over 15yrs to recover from the Darkness that was Ned Harkness and a dipsomaniac owner in Bruce Norris, and had Harold Ballard lived another 2 decades God only knows where the Leafs might be playing today. By the early to mid 80's you could walk right up to the Box Office at the Gardens and buy good seats at face value, or, wait until the game started & buy some tickets from a Scalper for less than face value.. Wirtz Sr. Lets say he was still walkin the planet. Would Chicago have won the Stanley Cup? Questionable. Highly debatable. Heck, even the Red Wings during their Salad Years in the 90's & 00's were offering "Student Packs" and beyond.... signing Amway as a "Presenting Sponsor", practically their very integrity in being associated with that company for lucre which apparently they desperately needed otherwise why do it? So the effort in putting together a winner isnt always enough but its absolutely critical, that your teams at least trying to win, breaking a sweat if you ever hope to win the hearts & minds of your market.

 

[sandysan]

This sounds like a play right out of the Leafs' hanbook, yet...

Almost every franchise in the NHL since 2000 has had their ups and downs with respect to attendance, save for Toronto, Detroit, Montreal, Rangers and Philadelphia. So if you're saying that all markets should support their teams, and should behave like one-sixth of the League, maybe it's that one-sixth of the league's fans that are bat-excrement crazy. After all, within that thirteen year time frame only one of those teams has won a cup, and it was Detroit that won two.

Success on the ice and success in the market are two fundamentally different things. Conflating them is simply not advisable unless your intention is to muddy the waters.

And its not about attendence per se, its about the motivation. I have seen fans of teams that are struggling essentially say " stay away" as a method to punish already struggling teams. Its the same nonsense where fans in non traditional markets advocated a fan boycott after the lockout. So a lockout which was based predominantly on the disparity between the haves and the have nots and your " solution" is to exacerbate this discrepancy ? It was lunacy then, its lunacy now.

And I'm not saying that overall "enthusiasm" for a team will remain constant, but if your fan base is composed predominantly of people who will jump ship when something more shiny catches their eyes, your team either 1) has to be insanely lucky or 2 ) is on borrowed time.

Yeah i DO think that all of the markets should support their teams, perhaps I'm crazy this way. And if they decide to punitively withold their support and the team ends up leaving for greener pastures, you'll have to excuse the fact that I don't consider their crocodile tears genuine.

Whether the O6 teams or other bat-crap crazy fans are the norm is a moot point, irrespective of this answer they are WAY preferable than having a team living under a sword of damocles held by fans whose primary concern is " what have you done for me lately"?

 

[aqib]

I agree 100 percent, but the corporate money left on the table in Atlanta is too much to pass up

Corporate money only exists if there is an inherent fan interest in the team. If people aren't interested in the team club seats and suite passes aren't going to be a good enticement for customers or employees. Also, corporations have been cutting back on perks. The Thrashers used to bundle their sponsorship and suite deals with the Hawks and when they took out the Thrashers how much did they lose?

 

[Killion]

Success on the ice and success in the market are two fundamentally different things. Conflating them is simply not advisable unless your intention is to muddy the waters.

Whether the O6 teams or other bat-crap crazy fans are the norm is a moot point, irrespective of this answer they are WAY preferable than having a team living under a sword of damocles held by fans whose primary concern is " what have you done for me lately"?

Well, I completely disagree with your first hypothesis and actually sympathize & agree with consumers who wont suffer through sub standard performances night in night out.... so I guess we can just agree to disagree sandy.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Well, I completely disagree with your first hypothesis and actually sympathize & agree with consumers who wont suffer through sub standard performances night in night out.... so I guess we can just agree to disagree sandy.

The difference is, of course - it's ok when "savvy" Edmontonians stay away to send a message to owners to improve, but not when "disinterested" Atlantans do the same thing for the same reason. The double standard is pretty transparent.

 

[Mayor Bee]

The difference is, of course - it's ok when "savvy" Edmontonians stay away to send a message to owners to improve, but not when "disinterested" Atlantans do the same thing for the same reason. The double standard is pretty transparent.

Bingo.

 

[Melrose Munch]

The difference is, of course - it's ok when "savvy" Edmontonians stay away to send a message to owners to improve, but not when "disinterested" Atlantans do the same thing for the same reason. The double standard is pretty transparent.

It's not ok for Edmonton. They almost lost their team 15 years ago remember? Many Canadian fans are arrogant, I agree


But when has Phoenix ever been a good sports market? The Cardinals and D-Backs have lots of empty seats in the recent past, so to pretend this is just a Canadian hockey thing is dishonest. Many southern sports fans don't seem to realize what Canadians say in hockey, people from New York City and Chicago say in every other sport

 

[Melrose Munch]

Corporate money only exists if there is an inherent fan interest in the team. If people aren't interested in the team club seats and suite passes aren't going to be a good enticement for customers or employees. Also, corporations have been cutting back on perks. The Thrashers used to bundle their sponsorship and suite deals with the Hawks and when they took out the Thrashers how much did they lose?

Well if we admit that Atlanta is not a good sports market to begin with then is that a hockey only problem? Seems like both franchises were run badly.

 

[New User Name]

It's not ok for Edmonton. They almost lost their team 15 years ago remember? Many Canadian fans are arrogant, I agree


But when has Phoenix ever been a good sports market? The Cardinals and D-Backs have lots of empty seats in the recent past, so to pretend this is just a Canadian hockey thing is dishonest. Many southern sports fans don't seem to realize what Canadians say in hockey, people from New York City and Chicago say in every other sport

You're right. Many Canadian fans are arrogant. BUT they are no more or less arrogant than Americans or Brits or the French, or the Germans or anyone else.

There's at best 3 locations in Canada that could support a NHL team, that's it and because some Canadians question the viability of teams in areas where the franchise needs millions in revenue sharing and the ticket prices are dirt cheap, those Canadians (and many Americans who wisely stay out of the conversation) can't figure why those 3 areas are frozen out.

Anyone saying that if roles were reversed, many on the other side would be caring, compassionate and willing to pay top dollar, all the while seeing teams receiving millions in RS for years, with dirt cheap tickets would be okay with it are friggin lying through their teeth.

When the Blue Jays won the world series 2 years in a row, there were many Americans upset. Whether Americans on here want to believe it or not, I don't give a ****...fact is it pissed many off.

When the Bills announced games in Toronto, many from the Buffalo area had ignorant and arrogant comments about Toronto and Canada.

Even the Raptors get their fair share of dislike from some and who can forget what Antino Davis said.

Let's forget about the border and think where the best places would be to have successful and profitable franchises.

Let's not move any team and concentrate on expanding, while helping those teams that need help.

With the improvement in players coming out of the USHL, there's plenty of talent to go around.

 

[Stephen]

I'm not saying split it 50/50 % the team that gets the non leafs gets the pot sweetened and this is the only way in which the indemnification fees could be kept reasonable, if someone other than one of the two parties tried to get into the GTA they would be held ransom. its hard to say " we need X millions" when the other side has access to your books.

People have mentioned that there are deals where if you propose something so outlandish that one party rejects it that the side that rejected it can send it back. the financial equivalent of " you cut I choose".

Toronto's market, specifically the leafs, are not in any imminent danger of not selling out. The market in the GTA would have no problems supporting two teams.

I'm not sure why people assume that Torontonians will blindly pay for the NHL. I know I'm not going going to just sign up for seasons tickets to some random expansion team just because I love the Leafs.

 

[Fugu]

Anyone saying that if roles were reversed, many on the other side would be caring, compassionate and willing to pay top dollar, all the while seeing teams receiving millions in RS for years, with dirt cheap tickets would be okay with it are friggin lying through their teeth.

Leonsis was quoted famously during the era of the Canadian Assistance Program for kvetching about having to send dollars up to save some small-time Canadian markets. I think it probably can go both ways.

The point MB made does stand however that fans will spin the significance of attendance to back their overall assessments of where hockey may or may not be viable.

 

[Killion]

The difference is, of course - it's ok when "savvy" Edmontonians stay away to send a message to owners to improve, but not when "disinterested" Atlantans do the same thing for the same reason. The double standard is pretty transparent.

Its an interesting phenomena, yes. You can go back through the history of any team, defunct or not, and you'll see the exact same pattern albeit in different eras' over the past 90 odd years of the NHL & its predecessor the NHA. So be it Toronto, Montreal, Chicago, Detroit, New York or Boston; St.Louis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Oakland/Cleveland, Atlanta X's 2, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg or wherever you can & will find periods of lousy box office resulting from the perfect storms of horrific ownership, management & coaching and or to external forces of a weak dollar or economic recessions, the Great Depression between WWI&II, major contributing factors in Arizona specifically of a new building opening and BAM, Lockout followed by an economic meltdown of major magnitude, Ellman & Moyes in deep deep trouble, the Great One not so great, the Coyotes absolute Dogs and so on & so forth. **** happens.

The NHL has stabilized at 30 teams under its current business model however with so many other entertainment options if your running a club & building you'd better have your act together on & off the ice because if you dont, in very serious trouble. There are maybe what, 3, 4 markets if that seemingly immune from such vagaries? And even at that nothing & no one is invincible nor indispensable. So ya, "what have you done for me lately"? Damn straight. Im laying out $80, $200 or more for tickets, youd best be exceeding my expectations & making every effort. Dont win every game I can accept but at least make an effort. Not mathematically eliminated from the Playoffs by Pancake Tuesdays in February or whenever that stupid day might be, and dont be taking me & my credit card number along with my loyalty for granted.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

But when has Phoenix ever been a good sports market?

Whenever the Suns aren't awful. In the US, where many markets have multiple teams, you can almost always point to one and say "see? they're not a good sports town". You can run right down the list: Clippers (cept lately), pre-lockout Blackhawks, Pistons, Pirates, Nuggets, Warriors, Panthers (or Marlins), Indians, Mariners, Astros, Wizards, Rays...

In 2013, it looks bad for the Suns and D-backs, but to demonstrate that it's all cyclical, look at 2008 - the Diamondbacks coming off a playoff year are in the middle (and face it, they're never gonna catch the Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs...), the Steve Nash Suns are at 97%, the Cardinals sold out every game. (and a golf tournament draws 170,000 people... for the third round)

And don't be fooled by the fact that no one outside of Arizona gives a crap about the Cardinals... they have very quietly become quite popular here, people running around wearing Larry Fitzgerald jerseys, I'm serious. I haven't gone myself, but I already drive across town to Glendale enough

 

[Lars65]

The only significant drop off in Jets 1.0 attendance occurred after the teams' departure was announced. All the data supports this view. You could argue the average attendance was inadequate, sure. The revenues it generated in the ancient Winnipeg Arena certainly weren't enough to make the team profitable enough to continue, of that there is no doubt. However, this myth of fading fan support continually comes up, despite any evidence to support it. I'm not saying this makes us a more deserving spot for an NHL franchise than other locales are. Such ideas are logical fallacies, but a little accuracy in people's defense of such markets would be desirable, and lend more credibility to their arguments.

On topic, I would say Atlanta will get another shot, but who knows when. As many who denigrated Winnipeg's chances discovered, never is indeed a long time.

 

[htpwn]

The difference is, of course - it's ok when "savvy" Edmontonians stay away to send a message to owners to improve, but not when "disinterested" Atlantans do the same thing for the same reason. The double standard is pretty transparent.

Bingo.

Except, you know, Edmonton has sold out for something like 6 straight years despite having one of the worst teams in the league during that stretch.

Did Atlanta have that record of support? No? Then there's where's the double standard?

 

[DyerMaker66*]

Except, you know, Edmonton has sold out for something like 6 straight years despite having one of the worst teams in the league during that stretch.

Did Atlanta have that record of support? No? Then there's where's the double standard?

Pfft, you just can't see the forest for the trees. Clearly Edmonton not showing up after 6 years of terribleness is the exact same as Atlanta never showing up.

 

[Mayor Bee]

The only significant drop off in Jets 1.0 attendance occurred after the teams' departure was announced. All the data supports this view. You could argue the average attendance was inadequate, sure. The revenues it generated in the ancient Winnipeg Arena certainly weren't enough to make the team profitable enough to continue, of that there is no doubt. However, this myth of fading fan support continually comes up, despite any evidence to support it. I'm not saying this makes us a more deserving spot for an NHL franchise than other locales are. Such ideas are logical fallacies, but a little accuracy in people's defense of such markets would be desirable, and lend more credibility to their arguments.

In 17 years in Winnipeg, the Jets exceeded 85% of capacity four times and never touched 90%. Yes, there was a huge dropoff in the last year (from 83.5% to 72.7%), but it's not like we're talking about going from great to awful.

Except, you know, Edmonton has sold out for something like 6 straight years despite having one of the worst teams in the league during that stretch.

Did Atlanta have that record of support? No? Then there's where's the double standard?

Edmonton did this during the 1990s.

1990-91 - 16843 (96.22921785)
1991-92 - 16179 (92.43558247)
1992-93 - 14797 (84.53979318)
1993-94 - 13413 (76.63257727)
1994-95 - 13123 (76.74269006)
1995-96 - 12335 (72.13450292)

Edmonton was used as an example, not as ironclad proof. You could have plugged nearly any "traditional market" in there and the point would remain. When "traditional market" fans stay away after sustained mediocrity, they're praised for "sending a message to ownership". When "non-traditional market" fans stay away after sustained mediocrity, they're slammed for "being fairweather fans" or "not being a hockey market".

Hell, I remember these days with Edmonton. Crocodile tears were being shed over the possibility that such a great hockey market as Edmonton might be without a team. Yet when Dallas went 17 years with over 90% attendance, including a sellout streak of over four consecutive years, them staying away the last couple years while significant ownership issues are addressed are "signs that Dallas is a non-hockey market". And I could replace Edmonton with Chicago, and Dallas with Nashville...or several other options to choose from.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

Who has questioned the viability of Dallas as a hockey market?

 

[JetsFlyHigh]

In 17 years in Winnipeg, the Jets exceeded 85% of capacity four times and never touched 90%. Yes, there was a huge dropoff in the last year (from 83.5% to 72.7%), but it's not like we're talking about going from great to awful.



Edmonton did this during the 1990s.

1990-91 - 16843 (96.22921785)
1991-92 - 16179 (92.43558247)
1992-93 - 14797 (84.53979318)
1993-94 - 13413 (76.63257727)
1994-95 - 13123 (76.74269006)
1995-96 - 12335 (72.13450292)

Edmonton was used as an example, not as ironclad proof. You could have plugged nearly any "traditional market" in there and the point would remain. When "traditional market" fans stay away after sustained mediocrity, they're praised for "sending a message to ownership". When "non-traditional market" fans stay away after sustained mediocrity, they're slammed for "being fairweather fans" or "not being a hockey market".

Hell, I remember these days with Edmonton. Crocodile tears were being shed over the possibility that such a great hockey market as Edmonton might be without a team. Yet when Dallas went 17 years with over 90% attendance, including a sellout streak of over four consecutive years, them staying away the last couple years while significant ownership issues are addressed are "signs that Dallas is a non-hockey market". And I could replace Edmonton with Chicago, and Dallas with Nashville...or several other options to choose from.

The funny thing is, this is a decade ago, are you saying you can compare attendance numbers from then and now because the economics of the game and of these places are still the same? Considering those days in Jets 1.0 was when the owners aren't sure when they are getting a new building, where there are absolutely no corporate boxes, where there are blocked views, no parking revenue, and uncommitted owners, no government support, plus the economic factor(both the league and the home country), if you put that situation today half of the league would go bankrupt easily. Whereas, events that happened in recent years in some markets, even with the FIXED NHL economics, fixed arenas, parking revenue, "potential" TV deals, corporate support, government support, good weather, good season ticket deals, discounts and all that jazz, some teams still struggle. While ownership can be a significant factor, a business like this still rely on revenue.

If everyone wants to be transparent here, then let's compare the same factors for both traditional and non traditional markets equally, not because of specific reasons. Ownership, arena, local economy, parking, perks and promos, corporate support, ticket sales.. etc.

 

[Killion]

Who has questioned the viability of Dallas as a hockey market?

No one here per se'. Merely used analogously. As an example. That when Hicks was having his meltdown & it came out that he had in fact been losing money hand over fist even during Stanley Cup seasons, many a pundit in the media & posters on this chatboard & elsewhere pointed to that as being demonstrative that the NHL had no business being in Dallas and by rote in general the Southwest, Florida, the South & so on. That if even a successful franchise like Dallas could bleed so much red ink, what chance did Phoenix or Atlanta etc have.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Except, you know, Edmonton has sold out for something like 6 straight years despite having one of the worst teams in the league during that stretch.

Did Atlanta have that record of support? No? Then there's where's the double standard?

Pfft, you just can't see the forest for the trees. Clearly Edmonton not showing up after 6 years of terribleness is the exact same as Atlanta never showing up.

The funny thing is, this is a decade ago, are you saying you can compare attendance numbers from then and now because the economics of the game and of these places are still the same? Considering those days in Jets 1.0 was when the owners aren't sure when they are getting a new building, where there are absolutely no corporate boxes, where there are blocked views, no parking revenue, and uncommitted owners, no government support, plus the economic factor(both the league and the home country), if you put that situation today half of the league would go bankrupt easily. Whereas, events that happened in recent years in some markets, even with the FIXED NHL economics, fixed arenas, parking revenue, "potential" TV deals, corporate support, government support, good weather, good season ticket deals, discounts and all that jazz, some teams still struggle. While ownership can be a significant factor, a business like this still rely on revenue.

If everyone wants to be transparent here, then let's compare the same factors for both traditional and non traditional markets equally, not because of specific reasons. Ownership, arena, local economy, parking, perks and promos, corporate support, ticket sales.. etc.

Or when Edmonton had an attendance drop in 1996, 6 years after they won the cup.

The only canadian teams without problems in the past are the Leafs and the Habs.

 

[JetsFlyHigh]

Or when Edmonton had an attendance drop in 1996, 6 years after they won the cup.

The only canadian teams without problems in the past are the Leafs and the Habs.

Yeah! Or in RECENT years when Atlanta wasn't really as bad as Edmonton was for the past four years, but just comparing both figures, Edmonton still have more figures than Atlanta's playoff years, EVEN when the Thrashers were a playoff team.

But you see, attendance doesn't speak of what happens beyond it. 1996, hmm maybe I should reREAD my previous post. Just maybe.

 

[Killion]

The only canadian teams without problems in the past are the Leafs and the Habs.

Not so much there MM. In the 1920's the fore-runners to the Leafs the St.Patricks werent selling out the old Mutual Street Arena, a lot of hockey options in & around Toronto including the the then very popular University of Toronto Blues, Junior, Intermediate & Senior Amateur as well. Smythe absolutely needed his own building, the rest and that story well known. But between 1928 & the opening of the Gardens, what followed, "iffy" that the Leafs caught on at all.

It was "dicey", Smythe buying the St.Pats. The name itself appealing to the one time majority of Irish Catholics in the city but demographics rapidly changing. Quickly changed their name by literally co-opting or "swiping" if you will the name, colors & logo of the very popular Toronto Maple Leaf Baseball Club (despite the fiction that he picked that name out of respect to soldiers in WW1 who had that logo on their uniforms, its a Mothers Milk fable that doesnt hold up to scrutiny when you dig into the past & discover the truth)... and though never really in deep trouble, early through mid-80's tickets readily available from the Box Office on Carlton Street, from Scalpers at less than face-value. Had Ballard lived another 10-20yrs? Who knows?

Montreal as well, verging on insolvency through the 1930's and a great concern to the league. So much so that after a winning run in Toronto as Head Coach, Conn Smythe becoming disenchanted with him, recommends Dick Irvin to Montreal who with yet another great one that got away in following Irvin to Montreal some years later, the legendary Frank Selke Sr combined with the arrival of Rocket Richard, Lach & Blake etc managed to turn it around. But ya, Montreal in really bad shape, anemic crowds, losers on the ice and at the gate.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

Or when Edmonton had an attendance drop in 1996, 6 years after they won the cup.

The only canadian teams without problems in the past are the Leafs and the Habs.

You mean 8 years after they traded Gretzky, 5 years after they traded Messier and Kurri, and 4 years after they traded away Grant Fuhr and Glenn Anderson.

 

[I am Canadian]

I think it's time to work out another team in the GTA.

The NHL needs to stop trying to convince themselves they are going to make money in non-hockey markets and put a team somewhere that will make them money (Hamilton, Quebec City, Seattle?).