Will the NHL try Atlanta again?

[Pinkfloyd]

It's fair to say that everyone is making some assumptions and offering opinions.

It surely is but I don't have an issue with that until someone starts touting off their opinions as facts.

 

[Fugu]

Atlanta failed twice for different reasons, none of which should apply if they get competent ownership to run it the next time. The Flames were in a vastly different landscape that it's not relevant to now. If that Atlanta Flames team had started in this era, they would still be there. And the only reason the Thrashers failed was because they were sabotaged by the ASG group. There is plenty reason to believe Atlanta can work as a hockey market if they get an ownership group that is competent and wants to be there. However, with ASG still owning Philips Arena, that is the real reason why Atlanta is not an option at this point.

As for 10 teams in Canada, that's laughable. The Canadian teams don't even want 10 teams in Canada. They will be lucky if they get Quebec City but other than that, it isn't going to happen. I would bet easily on Sacramento getting an NHL team before there is a 9th team in Canada.

Forward-looking statements, which of course, are assumptions.

 

[Fugu]

It surely is but I don't have an issue with that until someone starts touting off their opinions as facts.

Not to single you out, PF, but no one can prove that IF ownership had done a better job that their results would have been different. Honestly, I think the bigger problem in a lot of places is that people will only come to see winners-- and that includes traditional US markets to some extent as well.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Forward-looking statements, which of course, are assumptions.

None of which is being passed off as anything other than my opinion. I did not say that anything I said was explicitly a fact...like someone has said here but of course I don't see you going after that.

 

[Pilky01]

The NHL will absolutely try Atlanta again. It should be plainly obvious to everyone by now that the NHL is not averse to returning to old markets.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

It makes perfect sense not to go there. Atlanta failed twice. The Flames were decent enough on the ice and still didn't draw.

And if there's anything I've learned on HF, is that it's only cool to not go to games if the team stinks, to pressure the owners to get better

 

[Puckschmuck*]

It doesn't do any good to look up average fan support with no context and since you're unwilling to hear anything about context, it's a pointless discussion with you. And I can say the same thing about 10 teams in Canada that you said about Sacramento. It's a fantasy that will never happen.

It's not about unwillingness to listen; it's about historical facts. And you are pretty stubborn in your willingness to accept the overall lack of fan support in Atlanta. And for those reasons, it's pointless to discuss things with you as well.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

It's not about unwillingness to listen; it's about historical facts. And you are pretty stubborn in your willingness to accept those facts. And for those reasons, it's pointless to discuss things with you as well.

Historical facts have reasons behind them...context. In every discussion that this has come up, you have dismissed those reasons as excuses. I don't deny that the attendance was what it was or that the events that occurred happened. I simply attempt to explain why it happened and what could have been done differently for a different result. You seem to only want to blame the people as if they have no reason not to support the team in certain situations.

 

[Puckschmuck*]

Historical facts have reasons behind them...context. In every discussion that this has come up, you have dismissed those reasons as excuses. I don't deny that the attendance was what it was or that the events that occurred happened. I simply attempt to explain why it happened and what could have been done differently for a different result. You seem to only want to blame the people as if they have no reason not to support the team in certain situations.

Yes there may be context, but ultimately that context/excuse (sorry, same meaning different pile to me) is what helped boot the Thrashers out of Atlanta. It all resulted in the same thing.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Regardless of the excuses for lack of fans, facts are facts. Overall, the fan support for NHL hockey in Atlanta was poor. Some southern markets work (see Nashville and LA) and others don't (see Phoenix, Atlanta and Florida). There is nothing wrong with that either. It's like trying to make Cricket popular in Mongolia; it ain't ever gonna happen because there will never be a large enough fanbase to provide that support. That is just life, and some people need to accept that.

I think you are 100% incorrect. The area's you list that "don't work" all have been hampered by incredibly shoddy ownership groups. IMO, the real failure of the NHL over the last 20 years was allowing shoddy ownership groups which negatively impacted the expansion franchise's ability to grow in their market. It's tough to grow an expansion market in the first place, and those efforts are REALLY hampered by a "fly by night" ownership group.

Really easy to see how terrible ownership groups (PHO, ATL, TB, NYI) negatively impacted their ability to grow (or maintain) the fanbase. It's ironic that AFAIK you could very likely make the same exact case for franchises that moved (original MINN, WIN, QUE, HFD, etc) here over the last 20 years.

Look at even established organization who had terrible ownership groups over an extended period of time (NYI, CHI) and it really impacted the teams ability to maintain their fanbase. I think it's important to note that the organizations struggles were more structural than just the cyclical nature of a sports team over the long term.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Yes there may be context, but ultimately that context/excuse (sorry, same meaning different pile to me) is what helped boot the Thrashers out of Atlanta. It all resulted in the same thing.

Except the topic isn't about what it resulted in. It's about the prospect of returning to the market. So why it failed before is something that is a necessary thing to know to see if it's repairable for another group giving it a shot there. In Atlanta's case, I think it is because of the context of the last go-around. And yes, there is a difference between excuse and context that you simply don't get.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Forward-looking statements, which of course, are assumptions.

By this thought process though - how is it possible that WIN is successful now when that market failed in the past? Or how are the Sharks successful when the Seals failed?

I don't see how it's a "reach" to say that without a committed ownership group a NHL franchise is severely challenged to succeed. IMO it's VERY simple to look at the train wreck in ATL or PHO under the ASG/Moyes and say that the incompetence that started at the top negatively impacted the franchises ability to grow the fanbase which would have allowed the team to be successful over the long term (and hopefully will allow a team like the Yotes to be successful moving forward).

I think that it's much less of an assumption to state that it's possible that a franchise could succeed with good ownership in a big market like ATL than stating that any franchise there is doomed because it's a non-traditional market.

The NHL has grown some successful organizations in non-traditional markets (SJ, NASH, TB as examples) so it is possible for happen.

 

[Fugu]

By this thought process though - how is it possible that WIN is successful now when that market failed in the past? Or how are the Sharks successful when the Seals failed?

I don't see how it's a "reach" to say that without a committed ownership group a NHL franchise is severely challenged to succeed. IMO it's VERY simple to look at the train wreck in ATL or PHO under the ASG/Moyes and say that the incompetence that started at the top negatively impacted the franchises ability to grow the fanbase which would have allowed the team to be successful over the long term (and hopefully will allow a team like the Yotes).

I think that it's much less of an assumption to state that it's possible that a franchise could succeed with good ownership in a big market like ATL than stating that any franchise there is doomed because it's a non-traditional market.

The NHL has grown some successful organizations in non-traditional markets (SJ, NASH, TB as examples) so it is possible for happen.

I think one of the elements to which we don't have access is some measure of market potential and demand during periods of success on the ice (or periods when that is missing).

Assuming a scenario where the ownership is committed, and the arena is profitable, how much money is it possible to draw in in terms of revenue? The teams you cite aren't successful in that they can realistically compete with the top echelon of the NHL, and some need subsidies from their cities and of course, the NHL's revenue transfer program.

There are ways to make teams viable, assuming they have some of the other pieces in place, but several existing NHL teams wouldn't be viable at all without the various forms of assistance. The economic model morphed at some point, hence the lockouts and increases in revenue sharing, etc. This also happened to coincide with the period when the NHL underwent its second largest expansion.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Regardless of the excuses for lack of fans, facts are facts. Overall, the fan support for NHL hockey in Atlanta was poor. Some southern markets work (see Nashville and LA) and others don't (see Phoenix, Atlanta and Florida). There is nothing wrong with that either. It's like trying to make Cricket popular in Mongolia; it ain't ever gonna happen because there will never be a large enough fanbase to provide that support. That is just life, and some people need to accept that.

MINN: 92/93 - 13,910
MINN: 90/91 - 7,838

WIN: 92/93 - 13,550
WIN: 90/91 - 12,931

QUE: 92/93 - 14,981
QUE: 90/91 - 14,188

I think it's obvious that none of those markets will ever be able to support a NHL franchise because they either aren't large enough, or there isn't enough fanbase support to make it work. To bad for the fans in those markets, because those are indisputable facts (at least on hockeydb.com)! /sarcasm font off

I hope that you can see the sarcasm, but just in case not quite apparent enough - those markets all had issues that caused them to be unsuccessful for one reason or another, and I don't think that any of them was "lack of fanbase support".

The thought someone can write-off a market when the ownership was as dysfuncational as the ASG group shows either an incredible level of bias, or someone with a fundamental lack of understanding of what it takes for an organization to be successful. I am very happy that the fan in Winnepeg got a team back, but IMO that doesn't make it factual to conclude that ATL would not being able to support a well run NHL franchise. The ATL situation proved that if the arena owner didn't want to share their basketball facility, the NHL team is going to move. Nothing more, and nothing less, because the Thrashers were never a well run franchise.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

Go look up average fan support for both NHL Atlanta teams. That will bring you back into reality, unlike believing an NHL team in Sacramento will ever occur.

Did you happen to check the attendance before the Spirit bought the team like he/she posted? Maybe compare that to other good franchises like Washington, Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Boston in the early 2000's? Earlier...Jets 1.0 and my beloved Whale?

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

I think one of the elements to which we don't have access is some measure of market potential and demand during periods of success on the ice (or periods when that is missing).

Assuming a scenario where the ownership is committed, and the arena is profitable, how much money is it possible to draw in in terms of revenue? The teams you cite aren't successful in that they can realistically compete with the top echelon of the NHL, and some need subsidies from their cities and of course, the NHL's revenue transfer program.

There are ways to make teams viable, assuming they have some of the other pieces in place, but several existing NHL teams wouldn't be viable at all without the various forms of assistance. The economic model morphed at some point, hence the lockouts and increases in revenue sharing, etc. This also happened to coincide with the period when the NHL underwent its second largest expansion.

If the "measuring bar" is that a team must generate equivelant revenues to the Maple Leafs or Rangers, teams that have had 80+ years to develop their fan-bases, then the number of successful franchises will be really small.

The SJ organization currently might be operating at a loss (at least that is what their owners state), but they have been able to consistently field a competitive team for 10 years and have had very strong attendance for the entire period of time. That is a successful organization IMO. Same thing to a lesser extent with a team like the Predators that once they were able to straighten our their ownership situation have been able to ice a competitive team and had a consistent period of good attendance.

IMO, a team needing subsidy from the NHL doesn't necessarily make them unsuccessful. There are huge variances in the potential and penetration of each market, and the NHL's revenue sharing program will hopefully enable the smaller markets to be competitive with the larger ones so they have the ability to grow over the long term. As the fan of a large market team, I'd much rather have an effective salary cap and revenue sharing program which theoritically allows for all of the teams to be competitive. That is much preferable to having the situation where the Rangers have 2.5 times the salary of the Canucks in 1994, or as another example the similar disparity between the "have's" (DET, COL, DAL, STL) and "have-nots" in the WC before the lock-out which identified the real contenders at the start of the season.

(Note - I'm not saying that just spending $'s was enough, because there were some bad teams with big payrolls. I am saying that the combination of good market + good ownership/management kept the small markets from being able to be consistently competitive.)

 

[candyman82]

Maybe in a generation, but I don't see it happening anytime soon

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

To answer the OP, not sure if "ever", but definitely not as long as ASG owns the arena. Overall, I agree with candyman82...not in this generation anyway.

 

[Nothing Is New]

Maybe its correct that the return of the NHL is along time away for Atlanta. No matter what, two 'desertions' will scare potential investors away. BUT.......

Atlanta metro has 5.5M people - eighth largest in US. Its growing at a rate of about 160,000 a year. Even in the club's last terrible, grim reaper-in-the-rearview- mirror-year, it averaged 13,500. And that was playing in the middle of downtown. Put in hockey motivated ownership, a new northern location and only capture 0.0006 more of the population and you would be at 17,000 each night.

 

[Fugu]

If the "measuring bar" is that a team must generate equivalent revenues to the Maple Leafs or Rangers, teams that have had 80+ years to develop their fan-bases, then the number of successful franchises will be really small.

I personally believe the cap averaging method made it tougher on the smaller market teams than one would expect, mainly because:

1) The revenue gap is sizable/formidable
2) The top 6-7 teams account for a disproportionate total of HRR (or another way of saying HRR is locally derived to a great extent)
3) Following from point #2, there is insufficient revenue sharing because central revenues are relatively low and that means you're contemplating 'wealth transfer' in order to even things up further

The SJ organization currently might be operating at a loss (at least that is what their owners state), but they have been able to consistently field a competitive team for 10 years and have had very strong attendance for the entire period of time. That is a successful organization IMO. Same thing to a lesser extent with a team like the Predators that once they were able to straighten our their ownership situation have been able to ice a competitive team and had a consistent period of good attendance.

One key difference between SJ and Nashville is the amount of the subsidy Nashville receives from the city. I'm not decrying that the city has agreed to do this, but wishing to highlight what's necessary to keep some teams in this game.

IMO, a team needing subsidy from the NHL doesn't necessarily make them unsuccessful. There are huge variances in the potential and penetration of each market, and the NHL's revenue sharing program will hopefully enable the smaller markets to be competitive with the larger ones so they have the ability to grow over the long term.

This is a reasonable postulate. Unfortunately, and probably again due to the size of the revenue gap and that central revenues haven't really caught up to what the big pro leagues have, the gap doesn't appear to be shrinking. In other words, whatever the NHL adds in terms of things to stimulate national growth usually seems to confer a greater benefit to the strongest markets.

As the fan of a large market team, I'd much rather have an effective salary cap and revenue sharing program which theoritically allows for all of the teams to be competitive. That is much preferable to having the situation where the Rangers have 2.5 times the salary of the Canucks in 1994, or as another example the similar disparity between the "have's" (DET, COL, DAL, STL) and "have-nots" in the WC before the lock-out which identified the real contenders at the start of the season.

(Note - I'm not saying that just spending $'s was enough, because there were some bad teams with big payrolls. I am saying that the combination of good market + good ownership/management kept the small markets from being able to be consistently competitive.)

The four teams mentioned are all mid-size markets-- in terms of population and financial heft. NYR, of course, was a massive spender but failed utterly on the ice in spite of their spending. Toronto and Montreal were never the worst abusers of the wallet (Habs peak spending prior to the cap was ~$45 million).

I understand your point that a level playing field is desirable. However, I honestly think the system implemented failed because of the factors I listed above. The current spending is still far too high for a reasonable portion of NHL teams. Maybe all it will take is for the CAD to drop 20%.

 

[Grudy0]

Maybe its correct that the return of the NHL is along time away for Atlanta. No matter what, two 'desertions' will scare potential investors away. BUT.......

Atlanta metro has 5.5M people - eighth largest in US. Its growing at a rate of about 160,000 a year. Even in the club's last terrible, grim reaper-in-the-rearview- mirror-year, it averaged 13,500. And that was playing in the middle of downtown. Put in hockey motivated ownership, a new northern location and only capture 0.0006 more of the population and you would be at 17,000 each night.

Or to segway into what the Atlanta Braves have done...

Looking to leave downtown after only inhabiting Turner Field for 20 years, possibly into a new stadium in Cobb County. Stick an MTS Centre-like arena in Alpharetta or Norcross...

And you'd have a much better prospect of having people turn out to the games, especially since ASG wouldn't be involved.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

... worse even than the absolutely horrid Ned Harkness in Detroit early 70's.

That is quite the claim Killion, I know ASG was an unmitigated disaster, but Harkness drove an Original 6 franchise and fan-base into the ground. He picked fights with the pillars of the team that went into hiding until Ilitch bought the team back.

About 2,000 people a game and usually about a quarter of that audience being corporate tickets used by AMC employees. I know of two people that couldn't collect the free car giveaway promotion they were running. Harkness' darkness is one of the darker events in all of pro sports, my dad used to say when Millen was running the Lions, at least he isn't as bad as Ned Harkness.

 

[Bongo]

I don't understand what Bettman and the league were supposed to do in this situation - the Thrashers had no place to play. What would have been a satisfactory way to handle that situation?

The League set a horrible precedent by letting ASG say "We don't want a hockey team anymore and there's nothing you can do about it." I don't have a BBA but I know a bad business decision when I see one. This made the NHL look pretty weak. Talk about scaring off investors.

As for the other haters, we learned when all this happened that there is a large segment of the hockey world that feels the sport shouldn't be enjoyed anywhere south of St. Louis. They can all kiss my dying ass.

 

[Fugu]

The League set a horrible precedent by letting ASG say "We don't want a hockey team anymore and there's nothing you can do about it." I don't have a BBA but I know a bad business decision when I see one. This made the NHL look pretty weak. Talk about scaring off investors.

As for the other haters, we learned when all this happened that there is a large segment of the hockey world that feels the sport shouldn't be enjoyed anywhere south of St. Louis. They can all kiss my dying ass.

What were they supposed to do? ASG owns the arena operating rights and they owned the team.

 

[theicebox]

I say never.