Will the NHL try Atlanta again?

New User Name

Registered User
Jan 2, 2008
12,863
1,696
Never liked using attendance as an indication of anything.
Well, except birthday parties, I get more presents.:laugh:
Too bad revenue generated per game isn't released.
 

aqib

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
5,133
1,147
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

Edmonton almost lost the team because Peter Pocklington was in financial problems for reasons that had nothing to do with hockey. ALL his business interests had suffered. Many markets have had temporary dips from time to time or ownership issues, however did you ever really doubt that Edmontonians like the sport of hockey? Here is the Thrashers attendance:

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=4682

After the novelty wore off they never drew very well. 13K in years 3 and 4, ASG didn't exist at the time so what was the problem? Just because there are a lot of people and a lot of corporate dollars in a an area doesn't mean they will embrace a hockey team there.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,545
2,006
:amazed: 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. :nod:

Edmonton almost lost the team because Peter Pocklington was in financial problems for reasons that had nothing to do with hockey. ALL his business interests had suffered. Many markets have had temporary dips from time to time or ownership issues, however did you ever really doubt that Edmontonians like the sport of hockey? Here is the Thrashers attendance:

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=4682

After the novelty wore off they never drew very well. 13K in years 3 and 4, ASG didn't exist at the time so what was the problem? Just because there are a lot of people and a lot of corporate dollars in a an area doesn't mean they will embrace a hockey team there.
But this is the thing. Whenever the people bring up bad attendance for Canadian Teams, you guys have the excuses of everything. The economy has been bad sine 2007 in the US. Even if we grant Edmonton the pocklington stuff, they had the team for 20 years at that point. Same with the Jets. Attendance should have been better period. Aqib, you're from Rich Hill, Harold Ballard was a worse owner then anything the Oilers have done. Let's give these teams a chance.
 

JetsFlyHigh

Registered User
Aug 5, 2012
683
0
Never liked using attendance as an indication of anything.
Well, except birthday parties, I get more presents.:laugh:
Too bad revenue generated per game isn't released.

:nod:

But this is the thing. Whenever the people bring up bad attendance for Canadian Teams, you guys have the excuses of everything. The economy has been bad sine 2007 in the US. Even if we grant Edmonton the pocklington stuff, they had the team for 20 years at that point. Same with the Jets. Attendance should have been better period. Aqib, you're from Rich Hill, Harold Ballard was a worse owner then anything the Oilers have done. Let's give these teams a chance.

But non traditional markets also have excuses, but LIKE I SAID compare those factors with the factors of what happened a DECADE ago. See where the league was, and where the league is now. :)

"Attendance should have been better" Tell that to every sports fans. :nod:
 

aqib

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
5,133
1,147
But this is the thing. Whenever the people bring up bad attendance for Canadian Teams, you guys have the excuses of everything. The economy has been bad sine 2007 in the US. Even if we grant Edmonton the pocklington stuff, they had the team for 20 years at that point. Same with the Jets. Attendance should have been better period. Aqib, you're from Rich Hill, Harold Ballard was a worse owner then anything the Oilers have done. Let's give these teams a chance.

What should Winnipeg's attendance should have been back then? Or Edmontons? Yes the Oilers had a 4 year attendance dip after several pillars of the franchise were dumped for pennies on the dollar. However it rebounded in 96-97 even though the team was being sold and relocation rumors abounded. Even when a deal was made with Houston they still showed up. Every season they were required to sell 13,500 season tickets. Some of the southern markets you mention don't averaged that for the season. How many chances do you want to give?

Also, take into account passion for the sport in general. Its not like the Gwinnett Gladiators have had any pick up in attendance since the Thrashers left. What argument is there for an NHL franchise there other than population numbers?

Here is the acid test for any market: Is the argument I am making for this market also be made for Mexico City. If thats the case than no its not a good market.
 

Grudy0

Registered User
Mar 16, 2011
1,878
122
Maryland
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.
Conflating what? Using your definition, Chicago isn't a good hockey, as prior to winning Cups twice in the past four years they were lucky to average 75 percent of arena capacity over the 10 years prior.

It seems the people of Chicago did boycott the Blackhawks.

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"?
Because if you limit the discussion to "hockey markets", you take out 80 percent of the League. Because if you believe that fans of that 80 percent should act as if they shouldn't be emotionally vested in the team and withhold their financial support because a handful of teams don't have that issue, I believe logic has failed.
 

Tackla

Registered User
Jul 2, 2013
413
0
Getting this thread back on track, I don't think there is any motivation for anyone to want to put a team in Atlanta. The only chance for Atlanta is if the NBA left. Then someone might want that arena market.
 

cujoflutie

Registered User
A question I've seen posed several times but had no definitive answer to;

For those blaming Bettman and the NHL for the Thrashers leaving, what were you expecting from them? They could have bought them like Phoenix but the Coyotes had a rink, the Trashers would have had no owner and no rink.


Also I know it's not the main topic but even with expansion, I couldn't imagine more than 2 teams added to canada within the next 10 years; Quebec and another one in southern ontario.

Any hope for maritimes, saskatchewan, an extra team in British Columbia and Alberta or two more ontario teams (between the obvious choices of toronto II, Hamilton and K-W) would ride on the potential success of Quebec and the next southern ontario team)
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
^^^ Havent really read anyone actually "blaming" Gary Bettman & the NHL leeaf. Pretty obvious they'd been boxed in, nothing they couldve done about it short of buying the franchise themselves along with the arena management contract, turning the tables completely on ASG, then working out a lease agreement with them in order for the NBA's Hawks to play out of it as a tenant. And that sure as shootin wasnt going to happen.

The NHL cant be Babysitting all 30 franchises & their owners. "Stuff" like this is just going to happen. Now, had they years ago implemented a co-op program (and obviously I mean beyond Revenue Sharing) whereby they'd actually assisted first Turner & later ASG in providing funding & intelligence in promoting the game, nurturing & fostering its growth, this sort of meltdown could possibly have been avoided though people being people, and these guys involved with ASG a pack of litigious Hyenas' if ever there was one, result mightve been the same anyway.

And ya, agree with your sentiments re adding two more teams to Canada with QC & S.O. franchises. Shore up their financial foundations in traditional markets affording themselves greater latitude in throwing money at newer markets, actually growing the game. Top up that new $60M Development Fund by about 5 fold. Work with the individual franchisee's & municipalities, local sports organizations, school boards, Hockey USA etc. Make it happen rather than hoping it all just takes through osmosis.
 

cujoflutie

Registered User
^^^ Havent really read anyone actually "blaming" Gary Bettman & the NHL leeaf. Pretty obvious they'd been boxed in, nothing they couldve done about it short of buying the franchise themselves along with the arena management contract, turning the tables completely on ASG, then working out a lease agreement with them in order for the NBA's Hawks to play out of it as a tenant. And that sure as shootin wasnt going to happen.

The NHL cant be Babysitting all 30 franchises & their owners. "Stuff" like this is just going to happen. Now, had they years ago implemented a co-op program (and obviously I mean beyond Revenue Sharing) whereby they'd actually assisted first Turner & later ASG in providing funding & intelligence in promoting the game, nurturing & fostering its growth, this sort of meltdown could possibly have been avoided though people being people, and these guys involved with ASG a pack of litigious Hyenas' if ever there was one, result mightve been the same anyway.

And ya, agree with your sentiments re adding two more teams to Canada with QC & S.O. franchises. Shore up their financial foundations in traditional markets affording themselves greater latitude in throwing money at newer markets, actually growing the game. Top up that new $60M Development Fund by about 5 fold. Work with the individual franchisee's & municipalities, local sports organizations, school boards, Hockey USA etc. Make it happen rather than hoping it all just takes through osmosis.


I'm purposely removing the poster's alias as I don't want to make it seems as though I'm calling out a specific individual as this person isn't the only one with the following thesis;

Atlanta will never get another NHL team and given the way the fans here were abandoned by Bettman and the League, that's fine with me. After over 35 years of solid support, the NHL will never see another dime of my money.

Like you said, the fact that they already are 'babysitting' one team makes the chances of them doing the same for a second low. But like you outlined there were far more obstacles to keep a team in Atlanta vs. keeping one in Phoenix.
 

AtlantaWhaler

Thrash/Preds/Sabres
Jul 3, 2009
19,578
2,748
I'm purposely removing the poster's alias as I don't want to make it seems as though I'm calling out a specific individual as this person isn't the only one with the following thesis;


Like you said, the fact that they already are 'babysitting' one team makes the chances of them doing the same for a second low. But like you outlined there were far more obstacles to keep a team in Atlanta vs. keeping one in Phoenix.

Overall, the feeling I personally get from almost all former Thrasher fans is that the ownership was to blame. Everyone knows that the team was up for sale the day the ink dried in 2005. I do think some are upset over the Phoenix issue, but most understand there was little the NHL could do.

However, many (myself included) are mad that the NHL was so quick to forget Atlanta even existed. Gary barely mentioned Atlanta in interviews and not once had any statement to the fans. As a matter of fact, the week that TN and A$G were talking, Gary was on a Tampa radio station talking about how the Lightning are a great example of good ownership turning a team around. It was quite infuriating.
 

cujoflutie

Registered User
Overall, the feeling I personally get from almost all former Thrasher fans is that the ownership was to blame. Everyone knows that the team was up for sale the day the ink dried in 2005. I do think some are upset over the Phoenix issue, but most understand there was little the NHL could do.

However, many (myself included) are mad that the NHL was so quick to forget Atlanta even existed. Gary barely mentioned Atlanta in interviews and not once had any statement to the fans. As a matter of fact, the week that TN and A$G were talking, Gary was on a Tampa radio station talking about how the Lightning are a great example of good ownership turning a team around. It was quite infuriating.

Is there anything Bettman could say? "oops sorry your team is gone"

The entire thing was an embarrassment for Bettman; he's been pushing for the southern success and hand picked Atlanta to get an expansion team which didn't exist for 15 years. I think we can assume if he could magically pick a team to win the cup, Atlanta would have been in his top 3 with Phoenix and Nashville. So if you're wondering why he barely talks about atlanta, my best guess is to save face for himself.
 

Tackla

Registered User
Jul 2, 2013
413
0
Bettman's skill set is negotiating with governments to fund and sustain NHL hockey. There was no interest on the part of the city of Atlanta nor the Atlanta Thrashers to work with Bettman for that goal.

Bettman never mentions the Quebec Nordiques or Hartford Whalers either, but those fans keep pushing for a new team and stay in the minds of NHL fans and media. Will Atlanta Thrashers fans do the same? I think probably not, too many entertainment options in metro Atlanta to bother. That's just my opinion, but it does seem the Thrashers were more forgotten than the Nordiques or Whalers.
 

Dumpster Flyers

Registered User
Jun 21, 2006
5,932
1,233
The relocation of the Braves will play a huge part in building a case for a future hockey team. Atlanta has historically been a pretty crappy sports town, but perhaps some of that could be due to the depression of Downtown around the sports arenas and the inconvenience for the richer, ticket-purchasing population to get to games. The northern suburbs (where the new Braves stadium is being built) are affluent and gentrified, and attending games could be an accessible activity for a large number of people. It's no slam dunk, but if the Braves respond well to the move and a new arena is built around Buckhead/Sandy Springs, maybe the NHL will give Atlanta another shot.

And some may say there's a racial undertone to this post, but that's just the way things are.
 

ATL Star

Registered User
Mar 25, 2006
218
0
Atlanta, GA
The NHL will return back to Atlanta, eventually. Why? Television.

In a world where 60" HDTV's are now under $1,000, the NHL will soon have to restructure its business model to make television it's main source of revenue. In doing so, it will try to encapsulate the biggest markets in North America, and Atlanta is in the top 10. While the small Canadian markets will soon scream bloody murder in 10 years, the major television networks that will be re-upping for the next "wave of television" will insist that all major markets are represented.

As far as the arena.... I think many are right. It won't be back at Philips Arena. With the Braves moving to the perimeter (near the suburbs, and near 90% of the hockey fans in ATL too), there is space carved out in the metro center designs to house not only the entertainment district and new Braves Stadium, but a full-scale arena. Whoever buys the Braves from Liberty Media, Inc. will probably get a package NHL franchise with it.

To people who think past failure will hurt it, don't understand future market structure of the league and sports. The days of "gate-attendance" being the driving force of revenue is evaporating, as it should. While I'm constantly impressed with Winnipegs ability to draw, I'll be interested to see how the team looks 10 years in of they continue to miss the playoffs.

Atlanta, like Dallas, is a major transient city where many northerners move to for jobs and better weather. It has the ability, population, and television market to support an NHL team. I'd be willing to bet the television execs are going to sit down after the past poll released on sports popularity in America (which listed hockey as less popular than MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL), how to get more eyes on the sport. The answer is, and will always be, television footprint.

Hopefully, the fine folks who get the team won't be a complete bunch of asshats like the Atlanta Spirit Group.
 

Duke749

Savannah Ghost Pirates
Apr 6, 2010
47,750
22,632
Canton, Georgia
The relocation of the Braves will play a huge part in building a case for a future hockey team. Atlanta has historically been a pretty crappy sports town, but perhaps some of that could be due to the depression of Downtown around the sports arenas and the inconvenience for the richer, ticket-purchasing population to get to games. The northern suburbs (where the new Braves stadium is being built) are affluent and gentrified, and attending games could be an accessible activity for a large number of people. It's no slam dunk, but if the Braves respond well to the move and a new arena is built around Buckhead/Sandy Springs, maybe the NHL will give Atlanta another shot.

And some may say there's a racial undertone to this post, but that's just the way things are.

Will certainly be interesting to see how things play out with the Braves. Could be a traffic nightmare waiting to happen. But could work. And like you said, it could open the door for a new arena that could potentially bring a hockey team back to the Atlanta area.
 

DowntownBooster

Registered User
Jun 21, 2011
3,202
2,414
Winnipeg
The NHL will return back to Atlanta, eventually. Why? Television.

In a world where 60" HDTV's are now under $1,000, the NHL will soon have to restructure its business model to make television it's main source of revenue. In doing so, it will try to encapsulate the biggest markets in North America, and Atlanta is in the top 10. While the small Canadian markets will soon scream bloody murder in 10 years, the major television networks that will be re-upping for the next "wave of television" will insist that all major markets are represented.

There will be no reason for the small Canadian markets to be upset by any new television deals in the future. Any additional money brought into the league coffers through television will benefit all teams.


To people who think past failure will hurt it, don't understand future market structure of the league and sports. The days of "gate-attendance" being the driving force of revenue is evaporating, as it should. While I'm constantly impressed with Winnipegs ability to draw, I'll be interested to see how the team looks 10 years in of they continue to miss the playoffs.

I think most Winnipeggers are confident in the management team in place for Jets. It may take a bit of time to re-tool the team but I have no doubt they will build a strong and consistant contender. BTW, I would welcome another team in Atlanta.
 

Bongo

Registered User
Feb 7, 2007
1,379
0
Atlanta
While I understand the TV argument, given hockey's abysmal ratings, I don't really see how relevant the TV pitch is today.

Also, I don't think people who didn't witness it firsthand can understand just how bad ASG killed the market for NHL hockey in Atlanta. It will take a generation or two for the curious or casual fan to be lured back to an arena. Anyone trying to create a hockey buzz in this town will have a harder time than the Flames did in 1972.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->