Will the NHL try Atlanta again?

[Killion]

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.

No I dont think so sandy.They never wanted the Thrashers, period. The club "came with" the building & Hawks. Like they'd bought an over-loaded vehicle & didnt want that accessory and were looking to chop it off and Id hazard to guess prior to even acquiring the whole shebang, not "6 months in" as they admitted in open court under oath. They had neither the inclination nor the will to make it work and werent about to spend money in nurturing the market. Parked it. Let it wither on the vine, die a slow, lingering death.

They had no love for hockey, the NHL. No interest whatsoever in developing the market. No thanks. And bottom line, that was in fact their right. Its a free country, their money, and if they didnt want that asset who are we or anyone else to tell them "too bad, your stuck with it in perpetuity, roll up your sleeves boys & start digging". Your absolutely correct that the NHL as beggars cant be choosers all the time with whatever incoming ownership group they find themselves saddled with. What disturbs/disturbed the fan base so much obviously was the deceit. The obvious lack of care & attention. Mindbending player moves. Loss after loss after loss.

Just the way it is. Utopian to think even now that any number of owners in this league are in the game based on some ideal of romantic altruism, public munificence or whatever. ASG couldnt publicly admit such obviously but it was pretty clear they didnt care. You'd have thought Don Waddell wouldve been given his walking papers early on. Beyond ludicrous how that team was managed. So they played along, end-game being they wanted them outta there. Important to put it into context as well. That was Ted Turner & his media conglomerate the NHL sold the Expansion franchise to and so sure, made perfect sense. Who knew he'd bail early & things would unravel as they did? Crying shame really. Atlanta if handled properly, carefully & creatively could easily support an NHL franchise. But hey, with 2 strikes & nowhere to play... good luck with that.

 

[Grudy0]

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"

Remember the December 2011 realignment plan? There were eight teams in the two westernmost conferences, and seven in the two easternmost conferences. In that scenario, Detroit and Columbus would play the same amount of games in the Mountain and Pacific Time Zones as every other Eastern Time Zone team, because the four-conference matrix dictated that any given team plays home-and-home against the other three conferences and the rest of the games were in-conference. Detroit and Columbus were moved into the two-conference Eastern Conference solely to keep them playing within the Eastern Time Zone more, as the matrix was changed to appease the NHLPA so that there were 3 games against non-division, in-conference foes.

If it's Seattle and Quebec as the expansion candidates as I suspect, Detroit will move back to the new Central Conference, with a strict top-four in-conference qualfication and home-and-homes against the other three conferences.

 

[Fugu]

Let me clarify some misconceptions: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.

I'm not sure I follow.

Secondly, if the ownership group thought they could do better overall by retaining both properties, why wouldn't they do it? In most cases, having two anchor tenants actually is desirable.

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.
...

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

An existing owner cannot sell a franchise to a territory he doesn't own. Davis, as an existing owner, however showed he could move his team to another market, by exploiting anti-trust law iirc.

ASG had no right to sell the Thrashers to any market outside Atlanta. Obviously they were not interested in moving with the team to another market as the owners. (Not sure why this point came up here, btw.)

 

[DowntownBooster]

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.

Actually, the capacity of the MTS Centre is not a concern. Mark Chipman has stated several times that the seating capacity works for the Winnipeg market. The number of seats available for games creates a demand which allows for higher ticket prices and has resulted in the building being sold out for every Jets game.

 

[hockeydude1]

I kind of hope it does in the future. For now, it's not gonna work.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

The problem with ASG was that they never INTENDED for the Thrashers to turn a profit. They wanted to dump it as quickly as possible, and they were quite intentional about eliminating any possibility that it could be purchased locally.

In that sense, yes, they were philosophically opposed to the team being in Atlanta. In the sense that their philosophy involved making money in other ways, and the Thrashers were an impediment to their plans.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Secondly, if the ownership group thought they could do better overall by retaining both properties, why wouldn't they do it? In most cases, having two anchor tenants actually is desirable.

Clearly they thought they could make more money in other ways.

Most NHL teams are owned by individuals or entities who see them as investments, or to some extent as institutions. They're willing to take short-term losses or make small profits, as long as they remain solvent in the larger scheme of things and enjoy the benefits that go along with being a major pro-sports owner.

My impression of ASG is that they were a different breed. They were in the game to make a profit in the short-term, and they were not interested in building up an organization for its own sake. And also a highly self-interested bunch, as evidenced by the lawsuits -- not interested in the clubbiness of NHL ownership or the civic prestige that goes along with it. If a part of their enterprise wasn't going to turn a large profit right now, they weren't going to wait around for it.

There are a whole lot of NHL teams that would fail under that kind of management philosophy.

 

[sandysan]

The problem with ASG was that they never INTENDED for the Thrashers to turn a profit. They wanted to dump it as quickly as possible, and they were quite intentional about eliminating any possibility that it could be purchased locally.

In that sense, yes, they were philosophically opposed to the team being in Atlanta. In the sense that their philosophy involved making money in other ways, and the Thrashers were an impediment to their plans.

So what happened to be this purported untapped market of fans? Businesses who refuse to make money because they don't like the source of revenue are not long for this world.

I can envision several scenarios including, but not limited to, 1) the market was an anchor no matter what they did 2) they could have made it work but were too stupid or too lazy. Between these two,the former is far more likely in my estimation.

I'm becoming wary of this predictable trend.1) find a highly populated city 2) throw a team there and see if it sticks 3). If after the honeymoon period things don't look so rosy get the fans to say " it takes time ( an indeterminate amount of course) to build a market, you no good Canadian vultures". If it keeps going south, blame the ownership ( too cheap too stupid) and when they move, blame everything BUT the market and insist that given another chance they would surely turn it around THIS time. Rinse, lather repeat. If this is the model go all in with mexico city.

The coyotes current ownership has, by my estimation, the shortest amount of time to turn around a team hemmorhaging money. Yet with the reprieve, when people said you have to raise revenues NOW people said you can't raise prices because fans will stay away, let's wait for year 2 or 3 of the available 5.

I understand the appeal of expansion, but if we are not even going to learn from recent mistakes and simply do the exact same thing in a different area code and hope that this time it works out, the league is screwed.

 

[tarheelhockey]

So what happened to be this purported untapped market of fans? Businesses who refuse to make money because they don't like the source of revenue are not long for this world.

Clearly ASG felt they could make larger profits in other ventures than they could with the NHL; that doesn't mean there weren't enough fans to sustain an NHL team.

 

[sandysan]

Clearly ASG felt they could make larger profits in other ventures than they could with the NHL; that doesn't mean there weren't enough fans to sustain an NHL team.

No it says there is more of a market for three doors down & Celine Dion concerts and toy story on ice than the collective of hockey fans. You might see it differently but to me this is no ringing endorsement for the strength of a city, any city, as a viable hockey market.

 

[Killion]

I understand the appeal of expansion, but if we are not even going to learn from recent mistakes and simply do the exact same thing in a different area code and hope that this time it works out, the league is screwed.

Well, not so much. Nearly 100yrs on and despite themselves the league itself extremely successful. Absolutely mind-blowing that ya, they do make the same mistakes over & over & over again yet they seemingly have more lives than a cat & always land on their feet. Their numbers never come up.... oh sure, the odd owners does, markets crash & burn, but they just move on, move along. Impervious to Einsteins Law of Insanity. They dont care if they get the same result of epic fail. Just move on. Leave town. Contract. Whatever.

 

[tarheelhockey]

No it says there is more of a market for three doors down & Celine Dion concerts and toy story on ice than the collective of hockey fans. You might see it differently but to me this is no ringing endorsement for the strength of a city, any city, as a viable hockey market.

You may have noticed that over half the owners in the league make minimal-to-no profit on their hockey operations. They are either willing to accept the losses, willing to work toward building a profitable club, or invested in some other scheme with the team as a loss-leader.

What distinguishes Atlanta is not that they didn't make money, but that they were owned by a consortium that had NO INTEREST in using them to make money.

 

[sandysan]

Well, not so much. Nearly 100yrs on and despite themselves the league itself extremely successful. Absolutely mind-blowing that ya, they do make the same mistakes over & over & over again yet they seemingly have more lives than a cat & always land on their feet. Their numbers never come up.... oh sure, the odd owners does, markets crash & burn, but they just move on, move along. Impervious to Einsteins Law of Insanity. They dont care if they get the same result of epic fail. Just move on. Leave town. Contract. Whatever.

They can do this because there are some markets that are unsinkable. But w.r.t ASG people say they want more hockey centric ownership. But when QC builds a tenantless arena with the SOLE intention of bringing back the diques, the same people say "market is already served". But when a guy kicks the tires on an NHL team to facilitate the building of an arena in order to get the NBA Tennant they REALLY want, this magically becomes some uber deserving untapped market for NHL hockey. We already have teams that are loss leaders for the arena management rights and or real estate/ Eco devo funds. The answer to this "problem" is not to double down and hope for the best, this time.

 

[Killion]

What distinguishes Atlanta is not that they didn't make money, but that they were owned by a consortium that had NO INTEREST in using them to make money.

Bingo. Was never the plan. Unique, unusual sure enough but they just werent working under the model of dual tenancy & ownership. In many other cases again, like Ellman in Phoenix, the team merely a prop, the hook used to extort maximum subsidies in grander schemes of real estate development, a more common ploy & model and certainly not unique to just the NHL.

 

[Fugu]

You may have noticed that over half the owners in the league make minimal-to-no profit on their hockey operations. They are either willing to accept the losses, willing to work toward building a profitable club, or invested in some other scheme with the team as a loss-leader.

What distinguishes Atlanta is not that they didn't make money, but that they were owned by a consortium that had NO INTEREST in using them to make money.

...because the other option was low lying fruit, and to get any kind of return with the NHL team, it was riskier and costlier?

Honestly, this just seems like a very basic business decision, not some great preference for Celine Dion or distaste for the NHL.

 

[Fugu]

Bingo. Was never the plan. Unique, unusual sure enough but they just werent working under the model of dual tenancy & ownership. In many other cases again, like Ellman in Phoenix, the team merely a prop, the hook used to extort maximum subsidies in grander schemes of real estate development, a more common ploy & model and certainly not unique to just the NHL.

Except that dual tenancy is supposed to be the better financial alternative. It's the main reason a guy like Allen was interested in the Coyotes-- at the right price.

This is also why Leonsis, a known hockey guy, purchased the Wizards after the majority owner passed. He now has control of the entire arena and both anchor tenants in DC.

 

[tarheelhockey]

...because the other option was low lying fruit, and to get any kind of return with the NHL team, it was riskier and costlier?

Honestly, this just seems like a very basic business decision, not some great preference for Celine Dion or distaste for the NHL.

I'm sure it was that simple for ASG. Again, they weren't in it for parades, or cigars with Bettman, or a legacy to pass on to their grandkids. They weren't even in it for money 10 years down the road. They were in it for the short-term windfall, plain and simple.

The problem with judging the Atlanta market by that experience, is that an ownership group like ASG is the worst possible fit for an expansion NHL team in its "post honeymoon" phase in a sunbelt city. I would think that everyone, regardless of their opinions on expansion, understands that patience and long-term building is just part of the process of building successful organizations. Nobody buys an NHL team to get rich, unless they are planning to flip it to someone else.

 

[Mayor Bee]

So what happened to be this purported untapped market of fans? Businesses who refuse to make money because they don't like the source of revenue are not long for this world.

I can envision several scenarios including, but not limited to, 1) the market was an anchor no matter what they did 2) they could have made it work but were too stupid or too lazy. Between these two,the former is far more likely in my estimation.

I'm becoming wary of this predictable trend.1) find a highly populated city 2) throw a team there and see if it sticks 3). If after the honeymoon period things don't look so rosy get the fans to say " it takes time ( an indeterminate amount of course) to build a market, you no good Canadian vultures". If it keeps going south, blame the ownership ( too cheap too stupid) and when they move, blame everything BUT the market and insist that given another chance they would surely turn it around THIS time. Rinse, lather repeat. If this is the model go all in with mexico city.

Back in college, I had a friend whose parents had divorced when he was around 12. His father was successful in whatever business he was involved in, but the marriage fell apart over time.

When he was 15, his father (who he lived with) married a woman who was clearly a gold digger. She wanted his money, and her brother was a sleazy lawyer to boot. Clearly, my friend was a threat because there'd be both active money and an eventual inheritance being split. She was great to her new stepson before the wedding, and no sooner was the ink on the marriage certificate dry before everything went to hell.

Within weeks, she became verbally and emotionally abusive. While this began, her brother was finding a way to intertwine herself into her new husband's finances pretty extensively. While my friend was going through high school, his new stepmother was trying to find ways to remove him from the picture entirely. She decided that he couldn't participate in sports any more, then that he couldn't do after-school clubs, then that he couldn't socialize with friends at all (6 PM curfew), then that he couldn't have a computer or TV in his room, then that he didn't need a door on his room...you get the idea. She also made sure that his friends were told that all of this was his fault; that he was the one who wanted to avoid them at all costs.

Finally, she started on one of her abusive tirades, he said something back, and was thrown out. This all took place within six months of the marriage.

What responsibility did my friend bear for what happened to him?

 

[Grudy0]

Regarding my "planned tricks" quote:

I'm not sure I follow.

We now only have the history of hindsight.

ASG, once rid of Steve Belkin, sued the lawyers that put together the ASG partnership document. Within those filings, ASG contended they would have rid themselves of the Thrashers one year after they purchased them (whether or not they could have is conjecture).

When ASG wanted to sell the Thrashers for relocation, it was finally found that ASG entered into an exclusve negotiating period for their other two properties. Why would anyone enter into an exclusive negotiating period with only two of the three properties when the other party is going through a divorce and it was entirely possible that the sale of all three properties would have multiple bidders?

A couple of years before, ASG renegotiated the naming rights to Philips Arena so only the Hawks must play in the building.

Systematically, ASG dismantled the Thrashers over the course of their seven-year ownership.

Secondly, if the ownership group thought they could do better overall by retaining both properties, why wouldn't they do it? In most cases, having two anchor tenants actually is desirable.

Which still leads me to question why ASG entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement with Moores for only the Hawks and the arena. It meant that ASG couldn't entertain a bid for all three properties. Is it because ASG had no real intent to sell the Hawks and the arena? After the Moores period, ASG did attempt to sell the Hawks and the arena lease, but had to put up so much of their money that the NBA squashed it.

Either ASG is some of the dumbest people on the planet, or smartest because when they purchased the sports units from Time Warner, they only wanted the Hawks and the arena lease, and tha's what they have now.

An existing owner cannot sell a franchise to a territory he doesn't own. Davis, as an existing owner, however showed he could move his team to another market, by exploiting anti-trust law iirc.

ASG had no right to sell the Thrashers to any market outside Atlanta. Obviously they were not interested in moving with the team to another market as the owners. (Not sure why this point came up here, btw.)

It was in relation to the question why the NHL allowed the Jets v1.0 to move to Phoenix. The NHL couldn't really stop it. And yes, I agree at that time, the League didn't want to.

 

[Fugu]

Back in college, I had a friend whose parents had divorced when he was around 12. His father was successful in whatever business he was involved in, but the marriage fell apart over time.

When he was 15, his father (who he lived with) married a woman who was clearly a gold digger. She wanted his money, and her brother was a sleazy lawyer to boot. Clearly, my friend was a threat because there'd be both active money and an eventual inheritance being split. She was great to her new stepson before the wedding, and no sooner was the ink on the marriage certificate dry before everything went to hell.

Within weeks, she became verbally and emotionally abusive. While this began, her brother was finding a way to intertwine herself into her new husband's finances pretty extensively. While my friend was going through high school, his new stepmother was trying to find ways to remove him from the picture entirely. She decided that he couldn't participate in sports any more, then that he couldn't do after-school clubs, then that he couldn't socialize with friends at all (6 PM curfew), then that he couldn't have a computer or TV in his room, then that he didn't need a door on his room...you get the idea. She also made sure that his friends were told that all of this was his fault; that he was the one who wanted to avoid them at all costs.

Finally, she started on one of her abusive tirades, he said something back, and was thrown out. This all took place within six months of the marriage.

What responsibility did my friend bear for what happened to him?

Having an idiot for a father. (Yes, that's not his fault either.)


However... I mean, if you buy a business enterprise, wouldn't --> you <-- want to make the most money out of it? This analogy doesn't really hold up. We shouldn't really hate the ASG guys if their dreams were to own an NBA team and not an NHL one. Hansen in Seattle is a basketball guy. So is Cuban in Dallas. Guys like Ilitch, Snider, Wirtz... hockey people.

 

[Fugu]

Regarding my "planned tricks" quote:We now only have the history of hindsight.

ASG, once rid of Steve Belkin, sued the lawyers that put together the ASG partnership document. Within those filings, ASG contended they would have rid themselves of the Thrashers one year after they purchased them (whether or not they could have is conjecture).

When ASG wanted to sell the Thrashers for relocation, it was finally found that ASG entered into an exclusve negotiating period for their other two properties. Why would anyone enter into an exclusive negotiating period with only two of the three properties when the other party is going through a divorce and it was entirely possible that the sale of all three properties would have multiple bidders?

A couple of years before, ASG renegotiated the naming rights to Philips Arena so only the Hawks must play in the building.

Systematically, ASG dismantled the Thrashers over the course of their seven-year ownership.

Which still leads me to question why ASG entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement with Moores for only the Hawks and the arena. It meant that ASG couldn't entertain a bid for all three properties. Is it because ASG had no real intent to sell the Hawks and the arena? After the Moores period, ASG did attempt to sell the Hawks and the arena lease, but had to put up so much of their money that the NBA squashed it.

Either ASG is some of the dumbest people on the planet, or smartest because when they purchased the sports units from Time Warner, they only wanted the Hawks and the arena lease, and tha's what they have now.It was in relation to the question why the NHL allowed the Jets v1.0 to move to Phoenix. The NHL couldn't really stop it. And yes, I agree at that time, the League didn't want to.

I think the legal mess between the owners was probably one of the bigger stumbling blocks. Maybe they did want to make some investments, but with a partner balking an cash infusions and disagreement over valuations to buy him out -- eventually settled by a court -- it may be easy to see why the partnership and ownership never could get its act together.

 

[sandysan]

Back in college, I had a friend whose parents had divorced when he was around 12. His father was successful in whatever business he was involved in, but the marriage fell apart over time.

When he was 15, his father (who he lived with) married a woman who was clearly a gold digger. She wanted his money, and her brother was a sleazy lawyer to boot. Clearly, my friend was a threat because there'd be both active money and an eventual inheritance being split. She was great to her new stepson before the wedding, and no sooner was the ink on the marriage certificate dry before everything went to hell.

Within weeks, she became verbally and emotionally abusive. While this began, her brother was finding a way to intertwine herself into her new husband's finances pretty extensively. While my friend was going through high school, his new stepmother was trying to find ways to remove him from the picture entirely. She decided that he couldn't participate in sports any more, then that he couldn't do after-school clubs, then that he couldn't socialize with friends at all (6 PM curfew), then that he couldn't have a computer or TV in his room, then that he didn't need a door on his room...you get the idea. She also made sure that his friends were told that all of this was his fault; that he was the one who wanted to avoid them at all costs.

Finally, she started on one of her abusive tirades, he said something back, and was thrown out. This all took place within six months of the marriage.

What responsibility did my friend bear for what happened to him?

MOD

I'm tired of NHL ownership being nothing more than a stepping stone to some higher aspiration. If these markets are as unserved and strong as is being suggested, one should be able to leverage this demand and nurture it, no? That the existence of many of these teams depends on non her says that the conspiracy to spare money from these masses of yearning fans, extends far beyond ASG.

 

[Killion]

They can do this because there are some markets that are unsinkable. But w.r.t ASG people say they want more hockey centric ownership. But when QC builds a tenantless arena with the SOLE intention of bringing back the diques, the same people say "market is already served". But when a guy kicks the tires on an NHL team to facilitate the building of an arena in order to get the NBA Tennant they REALLY want, this magically becomes some uber deserving untapped market for NHL hockey. We already have teams that are loss leaders for the arena management rights and or real estate/ Eco devo funds. The answer to this "problem" is not to double down and hope for the best, this time.

Indeed. The strong are propping up the weak with franchise values ever increasing hauling up the bottom rungs. A form of socialistic capitalism.

Im not quite following your QC line of thought though as their new building is absolutely NHL & hockey specific though it was at one time premised & alibi'd (public funding) as being a requirement for a Winter Olympic bid (since dropped).

Interesting point as well in alluding to the Seattle situation, whereby thus far Hansens overtures to the NBA have been spurned so instead, the option seems to be to change up the MOU with the city & county in order to secure public financing by putting the acquisition of an NHL club as foot forward. The entree of the NBA becoming the dessert, the NHL, formerly the dessert becoming the entree'.

Theres no question Seattles long been on the NHL's radar, conditionally awarded an Expansion Franchise in 1974, financing falling through, expressions of interest previously & ever since. But talk about complicated, as unless Hansen himself is at least a minority owner, what kind of a Lease would a Seattle team wind up with as without one thats favorable they could find themselves in trouble pretty quickly.

And would the facility itself be "hockey & basketball friendly" like the ACC in Toronto or Rogers Arena in Vancouver etc? And what if Hansen fails to land an NBA team in 3-5yrs? Would an NHL franchise alone along with concerts & events etc be enough to carry the building & costs? Yet double down Im pretty sure they will, roll the dice, take a chance & go for it.

 

[sandysan]

Indeed. The strong are propping up the weak with franchise values ever increasing hauling up the bottom rungs. A form of socialistic capitalism.

Im not quite following your QC line of thought though as their new building is absolutely NHL & hockey specific though it was at one time premised & alibi'd (public funding) as being a requirement for a Winter Olympic bid (since dropped).

Interesting point as well in alluding to the Seattle situation, whereby thus far Hansens overtures to the NBA have been spurned so instead, the option seems to be to change up the MOU with the city & county in order to secure public financing by putting the acquisition of an NHL club as foot forward. The entree of the NBA becoming the dessert, the NHL, formerly the dessert becoming the entree'.

Theres no question Seattles long been on the NHL's radar, conditionally awarded an Expansion Franchise in 1974, financing falling through, expressions of interest previously & ever since. But talk about complicated, as unless Hansen himself is at least a minority owner, what kind of a Lease would a Seattle team wind up with as without one thats favorable they could find themselves in trouble pretty quickly.

And would the facility itself be "hockey & basketball friendly" like the ACC in Toronto or Rogers Arena in Vancouver etc? And what if Hansen fails to land an NBA team in 3-5yrs? Would an NHL franchise alone along with concerts & events etc be enough to carry the building & costs? Yet double down Im pretty sure they will, roll the dice, take a chance & go for it.

Qc built the new collisee ( or whatever it will be called) as a sign of good faith to the NHL that their intentions to get the team back were not just pie in the sky hypotheticals but demonstrable. Yes Quebecor would have other revenues (TV etc) but these are directly linked to hockey. He didnt build the new arena in order to get land that he could build an adjoining casino as well.

So Atlanta, the ownership group wanted the thrashers for an incentive to build a new arena and have the hawks. Now Seattle, who CLEARLY wants an NBA team does the same thing and changes the MOU to allow a hockey tenant first, everyone says what a great idea this is and what a great market Seattle is.

My guess is that if the NBA came out and said, Seattle is not going to get an NBA team that the push to get an NHL team there dies that very second. If they only want an NHL team to facilitate getting what they really want ( an NBA team) and they get both who do you think gets the better deal going forward? Then there are people who say we should consider KC simply becuase they have an arena with no primary tennant and that the two little things, namely NO ownership group and zero current interest in hockey as minor little lings that can easily be ironed out.

I dont see how getting more teams that NEED to be propped up by other more lucrative business ventures is good for the NHL. But that might just be me.

I've stated my position on this more than enough times, if people want teams in their city and think they can make a go of hockey, that's what everyone wants in order to grow the game. Getting a team because it comes with a key for the arena, or lets you build a casino next to it or the worlds biggest waterpark does not help the league in the long or short term.

 

[tarheelhockey]

However... I mean, if you buy a business enterprise, wouldn't --> you <-- want to make the most money out of it? This analogy doesn't really hold up. We shouldn't really hate the ASG guys if their dreams were to own an NBA team and not an NHL one. Hansen in Seattle is a basketball guy. So is Cuban in Dallas. Guys like Ilitch, Snider, Wirtz... hockey people.

I think the friction comes from the fact that ASG promoted themselves early on as being excited to grow hockey in Atlanta, etc, etc, only for it to be revealed in hindsight that they were "planning the divorce" before the ring was even on their finger.

If they had come right out in the first place and said that their intention was to buy the arena/Hawks/Thrashers package and divest themselves of the hockey team, and nobody else stepped up with an alternative offer, then that would have been extremely unfortunate but not quite hate-worthy.

In the event, they pretty much shamelessly lied their way into owning the team, and only their own incompetence bought the Thrashers a few more years of lame-duck futility until the truth came out. That's pretty darn hate-worthy in my book, and typical of people who make their money acquiring and flipping civic assets, with no apparent concern for the human costs associated with that behavior.