Will the NHL try Atlanta again?

[Fugu]

To be fair, if a non-traditional markets wouldn't be using arenas built in the 1950s.

You are talking about a team that left in the mid 90's, and started playing in that arena exactly when?


Furthermore, as a bit of an aside, the arena to which the Jets were relocated (downtown Phoenix) apparently had some obstruction issues as well.

 

[Mayor Bee]

You are talking about a team that left in the mid 90's, and started playing in that arena exactly when?


Furthermore, as a bit of an aside, the arena to which the Jets were relocated (downtown Phoenix) apparently had some obstruction issues as well.

Here's a graphic map of it. Anyone in the end depicted on the right (sections 222 to 231) couldn't see anything in the near zone between the top of the circles and the back boards; the overhang created a massive physical obstruction. That's in addition to losing a bunch of lower bowl seating in the same end just to make way for the actual ice surface.

 

[Doan Jidion*]

Maybe the league should have waited on Phoenix until they had an actual building.

 

[Bullwine85]

I think somewhere in the distant future they'll give it another shot, but only after ASG is long long gone, and even then, considering their history in Atlanta I think it will be an even longer time before the NHL convinces themselves that 3rd time's the charm. They'd need an ownership group that would be enthusiastic about the team, and is committed to putting a competitive team on the ice.

 

[JetsFlyHigh]

They need a HOCKEY centric ownership group, not just a sports ownership group. And an arena. And +13K season ticket drive.

 

[Killion]

Maybe the league should have waited on Phoenix until they had an actual building.

Well, the Jets werent supposed to wind up in Arizona at all. The buyers, Burke & Gluckstern, "thought" they had a deal with Minneapolis/St.Paul in Minnesota however, they started making demands & had to find an alternative landing spot & fast. Jerry Colangelo in Phoenix had just opened up the then named US Airways Arena to house his Suns of the NBA, could use the revenues a paying tenant in the form of an NHL team would provide, old Buddy of Gary Bettmans, next thing you know, the Jets become the Coyotes... totally one-sided lease in Colangelo's favor, no way the hockey team was going to make any money, 1000's of obstructed seats. The old Arizona Veterans Memorial Arena was still standing, had been used by the former WHA Roadrunners & then current IHL franchise Roadrunners. Personally, if I was moving a franchise to that market at that time, Id have moved the Jets/Coyotes into that building & retro-fitted it, brought it up to date, built a fan base & then built a new arena in Scottsdale. Unfortunately, the NHL probably wouldnt have permitted the use of the old Az Vets Memorial though, as they seemed to think then and apparently still do (Barclays in Brooklyn) that Basketball Specific facilities are just fine n' dandy for NHL hockey despite the tarped off obstructed seating, wonky angles & horseshoe shaped configurations with the center ice scoreboard hanging over a blue line. Yep. Perfectly acceptable. Good to go.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Here's a graphic map of it. Anyone in the end depicted on the right (sections 222 to 231) couldn't see anything in the near zone between the top of the circles and the back boards; the overhang created a massive physical obstruction. That's in addition to losing a bunch of lower bowl seating in the same end just to make way for the actual ice surface.

Seems kinda similar to what the Islanders are moving into with the Barclay's Center doesn't it??

 

[Jeffrey93]

The NHL won't go back to Atlanta like they went back to Minnesota. Atlanta has had two kicks at the can and blew both of them....royally.

If you think the NHL is destined for the magical number of 32 teams....it'll be Seattle and either Houston or Hamilton/Quebec.

I assume there will be an Ownership group available for Seattle and Houston. Quebec should be on the forefront because they were "wronged by the NHL" or whatever, but that entire Province is so deep in corruption I'm not sure if the NHL is any more interested in going there than they are in going to Las Vegas.

As to the original post....Atlanta won't be included in the NHL getting to 32 teams. The NHL is already East-heavy. So if a team relocates Atlanta would have to compete with a whole host of other eastern markets ready for the NHL. Geography (and everything else) is working against them. They are nowhere near the strongest potential market in the east. They have proven it, others haven't even had that chance to show their stuff and it is assumed they would do exponentially better than Atlanta did.

Atlanta is done for....I'd guess...20 years.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Maybe the league should have waited on Phoenix until they had an actual building.

They always say they want a building...but who has really had one?

Ottawa didn't.
San Jose didn't.
Tampa didn't.
Carolina didn't.
Phoenix didn't.
Miami didn't.
Colorado didn't.

Can't blame Carolina, Colorado & Phoenix....they weren't expansion teams and therefore supposedly "required" to have a suitable arena to be awarded a team. But the relocation was still permitted even though no suitable arena was available.

But, when you have teams playing in rinks like the MTS Centre and the Barclay's Center (soon)....I guess capacity and sightlines and TV image doesn't matter much anymore. I'm not sure what does matter.....

 

[Doan Jidion*]

In the case of the MTS Centre, only capacity is a concern. The building looks fine on TV, and the capacity means there's hardly a bad seat in the house.

 

[Mightygoose]

Even with the smaller capacity at MTS Ctr. It's not a big concern since they really have less in the upper bowl so it's the cheaper seats they're 'not selling'. Sitelines are fine since it's designed as a hockey venue first. Less so with Barclays.

 

[tarheelhockey]

They need a HOCKEY centric ownership group, not just a sports ownership group.

This would be critically important. Atlanta is a tough enough sports market anyway, but bad ownership has a multiplier effect. The owners would need to be focused and competent at running a successful hockey organization, and not just in it for a real estate swap or whatever.

That said, I don't expect the NHL to go back to Atlanta in the foreseeable future. At this point it's a branding problem; the Board of Governors would undoubtedly balk at putting a team in that city, and the city would undoubtedly balk at the idea of the NHL rolling up into town for the third time. It's probably going to be a couple of decades before anyone takes the idea seriously, and who knows what the landscape will look like by then.

 

[sandysan]

... no, its pretty well documented cheswick. They never did want the Thrashers nor to be part of the NHL. Their interest was in the Building, the NBA franchise. This isnt some tinfoil cap theory, they were looking for a way out before they'd even come through the door as cbc & others state. Sabotage.

I dont doubt that ASG washed their hands of the thrashers, but is this not a reflection of the market, by people who have probably the best access to the data in which to form this opinion ? Are you saying that ASG was philosophically opposed to hockey ?

They might be incompetent as an ownership group but I dont think they turn their nose up at the golden goose that is the atlanta market ( as some would have you believe). ASG is not obligated to lose money hand over fist if they can do better with only one primary tenant and concerts.

I don't see the NHL going back to atlanta unless the " arena fairy" decides to revisit atlanta. You can only rely on " we have a large population" for so long. As much as it sucks for fans in atlanta, is the league really any worse off with jets 2.0 ?

 

[Mayor Bee]

I dont doubt that ASG washed their hands of the thrashers, but is this not a reflection of the market, by people who have probably the best access to the data in which to form this opinion ? Are you saying that ASG was philosophically opposed to hockey ?

They might be incompetent as an ownership group but I dont think they turn their nose up at the golden goose that is the atlanta market ( as some would have you believe). ASG is not obligated to lose money hand over fist if they can do better with only one primary tenant and concerts.

I don't see the NHL going back to atlanta unless the " arena fairy" decides to revisit atlanta. You can only rely on " we have a large population" for so long. As much as it sucks for fans in atlanta, is the league really any worse off with jets 2.0 ?

During the span of everyone in ASG suing each other, they were forced to admit in open court that they were attempting to sell the Thrashers within six months of acquiring the team. Watching them with an NHL team was like Harold Ballard dealing with the WHA.

As if this wasn’t enough to turn Atlanta area hockey fans sour to their product, co-owner Bruce Levenson…the person the rest of the Spiriteers deemed the most qualified to represent the hockey portion of their little investment…employed such PR skills as calling a season ticket holder a “smart ass†during a town hall meeting. Later in that gathering when he was asked by another paying customer about rising ticket prices at the same time the on-ice talent level was being lowered, Levenson said we would have to just “deal with itâ€.

Source

 

[sandysan]

During the span of everyone in ASG suing each other, they were forced to admit in open court that they were attempting to sell the Thrashers within six months of acquiring the team. Watching them with an NHL team was like Harold Ballard dealing with the WHA.

So if atlanta were like say, Winnepeg, and ASG could make a hell of alot more money on the thrashers than concerts and disney on ice, that they say " thanks but no thanks" ?

The team might not have been well run but they had the best data to evaluate the market and decided they could not turn a profit. To me there are two explanations, they ARE incompetent and are unwilling or unable to leverage all of the " potential" that people claim existed or the market WAS not as strong as some suspect (or some combination of the two.)

Im sure that ASG looked at all of the " potential" of the market and decided that the likelihood of turning it around was simply not there. If you accept this ( you may not) do you think that ASG is under some obligation to pour money into a black hole ? I dont.

I think that ASG came to the realization that potential unrealised cant be deposited into their bank accounts to keep the lights on.

And all of this talk of getting a more " hockey centric" ownership group is a nice mirage. Beggars cant be choosers and I'd love it if the NHL did better due dilligence with potential ownership, but that ship has sailed ( repeatedly). If the NHL wanted back into atlanta ( for that elusive "big new TV market" that everyone seems to think they covet, they had to get in bed with ASG. its not like there was another venue in atlanta sitting empty looking for a tennant.

 

[blue425]

How many times does the league have to move a team before they realize it isn't a viable hockey market?

 

[Grudy0]

Let me clarify some misconceptions:

Let me quash a couple of oft-repeated lines:

1) Atlanta has 5.5 million and growing by whatever a year. Yeah so? Follow that logic and we should have 3 teams in Mexico City. As much as we love hockey its not mainstream

2) Atlanta had horrible ownership if they had good ownership it would be fine. Viable markets attract owners. When Time Warner put the Hawks/Thrashers/Arena Rights up for sale they got $270 million. If you look at other NBA deals around that time they basically got $0 for the team. ASG's legal issues were well documented. Their need for capital was also well known. No one came with the interest to buy both teams. Given that they almost sold 80% of the Hawks a few months later shows they weren't adamant about keeping the Hawks so someone could have bought both teams. If the market was good for hockey someone would have bought it.

Time Warner decided to off-load their sports properties in 2003. There was a tentative deal for Time Warner to sell to David McDavid, but for some reason it fell through. David McDavid sued Time Warner and in 2010 was awarded $281 million from Time Warner for the latter breaking the exclusive negotiation agreement.

There was interest from numerous parties that wanted to buy the Hawks, Thrashers and the operating lease to Philips. However, in May 2011, during the whole Thrashers relocation scenario and negotiations with True North, it was found that ASG entered into the same type of exclusive negotiation agreement for the Hawks and the lease to Philips Arena with San Diego Padres owner John Moores. By entering into that agreement, there was no one other than John Moores that could have bought all three properties. Suddenly, after a tentative deal was reached to sell the Thrashers to TNSE, the exclusive negotiation period with John Moores was expired, allowing ASG to sell the Hawks and Thrashers to anyone.

It looks almost like one of those planned tricks. Almost like a couple of years earlier, when the naming rights to Philips Arena was changed to allow Philips a discount if the Thrashers no longer played there.

Maybe the league should have waited on Phoenix until they had an actual building.

How? Truthfully, based on the precedents set in courts for the Al Davis' NFL Raiders, it was practically impossible for the NHL to stop Burke and Gluckstern from moving the team. As Killion points out, the original deal was for the two to move to Target Center in Minneapolis, but when asking for handouts, the city and state balked.

They always say they want a building...but who has really had one?

Ottawa didn't.
San Jose didn't.
Tampa didn't.
Carolina didn't.
Phoenix didn't.
Miami didn't.
Colorado didn't.

Can't blame Carolina, Colorado & Phoenix....they weren't expansion teams and therefore supposedly "required" to have a suitable arena to be awarded a team. But the relocation was still permitted even though no suitable arena was available.

Ottawa was going to get one, but had to play in the Civic Center while the "Palladium" was built.
San Jose was getting one as well, but had to play in San Francisco's Cow Palace until the Shark Tank was built.
Tampa was also getting one, but had played in both the Florida State Fairgrounds and the St. Petersburg Stadium until the current Tampa Bay Times Forum was built.
Miami had the Arena, and knew that a state-of-the-art arena had to be built for both the Heat and the Panthers.
Denver was already in the process of building a replacement for McNichols Arena when Comsat purchased the Nordiques from Aubut.
The Hurricanes were moved to Greensboro while the Raleigh Sports and Entertainment complex was being built.

It is funny how the four teams granted by the Bettman-led NHL had their state-of-the-art arenas before playing their first game.

And once again, the NHL cannot stop relocation, unless it violates a contract signed between the League and the owner.

 

[sandysan]

How many times does the league have to move a team before they realize it isn't a viable hockey market?

according to this thread, it appears the answer is > 2.

The problem, as I see it, is that all of the " potential" that new landing spots ( seattle, portland, las vegas, kc, cleveland etc) that people are convinced can support a team are objectively behind atlanta in most, if not every category. I despise this notion that
" population = market" but my dislike of it does not mean that a lot of people DO equate them and use it as a primary justification for what a team could support a team.

If the NHL had their choice, removed from all other considerations, I suspect that atlanta would be at the top of the list. But getting back there means dealing with ASG for the near future which seems unlikely.

 

[Nothing Is New]

I somewhat agree with the negative posters that Atlanta is not likely to get an NHL franchise for decades (investors are leery) - but will not concede the point that major league hockey won't work in metro Atlanta. Just pure demographics: 5.5M people, most transplants from other parts of the country. The nearest NHL franchise over 200 miles away. Area median household income about $70,000. And yes hockey-centric ownership and a fan friendly location nearer where the fans are (i.e., north) and I think it would work. If you weren't here, you have no idea how disinterested ASG was in hockey. They treated it like an exhibition sport (see! there are Russians, Finns, Swedes and Americans out there and they're skating on real ice - whooppee!) and turned it over 100% to Don Waddell - while they immersed themselves in basketball..

 

[Halifaxhab*]

I can see Atlanta getting another shot. But it will likely have to wait for cities like Quebec, Seattle, KW, Toronto, even KC to get serious looks and or teams before they begin to investigate it. Unless a hockey mad Billionaire swoops in and drops mucho coin on Buttman's desk

 

[TheLegend]

However, in May 2011, during the whole Thrashers relocation scenario and negotiations with True North, it was found that ASG entered into the same type of exclusive negotiation agreement for the Hawks and the lease to Philips Arena with San Diego Padres owner John Moores. By entering into that agreement, there was no one other than John Moores that could have bought all three properties. Suddenly, after a tentative deal was reached to sell the Thrashers to TNSE, the exclusive negotiation period with John Moores was expired, allowing ASG to sell the Hawks and Thrashers to anyone.

Not surprising the sale to Moores didn't happen. At that point in time John Moores was in the middle of a nasty divorce and was in the process of selling the Padres as part of the property settlement. He wasn't able to complete a sale (the first one failed) until well after his agreement with ASG expired.

 

[CBJx614]

The NHL won't go back to Atlanta like they went back to Minnesota. Atlanta has had two kicks at the can and blew both of them....royally.

If you think the NHL is destined for the magical number of 32 teams....it'll be Seattle and either Houston or Hamilton/Quebec.

I assume there will be an Ownership group available for Seattle and Houston. Quebec should be on the forefront because they were "wronged by the NHL" or whatever, but that entire Province is so deep in corruption I'm not sure if the NHL is any more interested in going there than they are in going to Las Vegas.

As to the original post....Atlanta won't be included in the NHL getting to 32 teams. The NHL is already East-heavy. So if a team relocates Atlanta would have to compete with a whole host of other eastern markets ready for the NHL. Geography (and everything else) is working against them. They are nowhere near the strongest potential market in the east. They have proven it, others haven't even had that chance to show their stuff and it is assumed they would do exponentially better than Atlanta did.

Atlanta is done for....I'd guess...20 years.

This. Anyone hoping for more teams out east needs to stop day dreaming. The league setup for western expansion. They wouldn't move CBJ and DET solely for "less travel"

according to this thread, it appears the answer is > 2.

The problem, as I see it, is that all of the " potential" that new landing spots ( seattle, portland, las vegas, kc, cleveland etc) that people are convinced can support a team are objectively behind atlanta in most, if not every category. I despise this notion that
" population = market" but my dislike of it does not mean that a lot of people DO equate them and use it as a primary justification for what a team could support a team.

If the NHL had their choice, removed from all other considerations, I suspect that atlanta would be at the top of the list. But getting back there means dealing with ASG for the near future which seems unlikely.

Uhmm Seattle has investors, an arena, and a deal to get a new arena in the works, and most importantly a huge hockey market.

Imo i can't see a team going anywhere but Seattle next. And then maybe another Canadian team to even the league up to 16/16. Wait another 10-15 years and then MAYBE. And that's a big ****ing maybe, you'll have hockey in ATL again.

/thread

 

[Halifaxhab*]

This. Anyone hoping for more teams out east needs to stop day dreaming. The league setup for western expansion. They wouldn't move CBJ and DET solely for "less travel"

Uhmm Seattle has investors, an arena, and a deal to get a new arena in the works, and most importantly a huge hockey market.

Imo i can't see a team going anywhere but Seattle next. And then maybe another Canadian team to even the league up to 16/16. Wait another 10-15 years and then MAYBE. And that's a big ****ing maybe, you'll have hockey in ATL again.

/thread

Seattle, yes, I see them as a shoo in for a franchise in about 3years.

As for another Canadian franchise. There really isn't alot of choice in the matter out west. Saskatchewan? a team there? Might work, but no big investeors are pushing their way to get in there. Quebec has PK Peladeau, a rink and a provincial govt that knows that hockey distracts from their corruption...so likely there 1st. so we still have an imbalance

 

[sandysan]

This. Anyone hoping for more teams out east needs to stop day dreaming. The league setup for western expansion. They wouldn't move CBJ and DET solely for "less travel"

Uhmm Seattle has investors, an arena, and a deal to get a new arena in the works, and most importantly a huge hockey market.

Imo i can't see a team going anywhere but Seattle next. And then maybe another Canadian team to even the league up to 16/16. Wait another 10-15 years and then MAYBE. And that's a big ****ing maybe, you'll have hockey in ATL again.

/thread

So an established hockey market is now a positive ? I thought that going into established markets was "bad" because the market is already serviced and that the NHL was on a plan to make wine out of water in markets where the sport is refereed to as " ice hockey".

I'm not against seattle, if they get a team great. But Quebec City HAS an arena ( not investors looking to kick tires on a NBA relocation)
and would pretty much be in the top 10 in revenues from the jump. Quebec wants the nordiques FOR the nordiques. They are not leveraging the diques as some sort of bargaining chip to get something they covet more.

They moved CLB and the peg to different conferences once they can do it again. Hell toronto was once in the west and since moving to the east I dont see anyone lamenting it. Symmetry while ideal is not necessary. The question is whether the NHL wants to again risk " potential" for a sure thing ( GTA2 and Qc). Seattle might be a surer bet than say phoenix or atlanta but they aint close to GTA2/Qc

 

[RangerBoy]

Twice wasn't enough?