Will the NHL try Atlanta again?

[Fugu]

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.

I guess that's harder for some people than others to do, be forthright about their intentions. I think in the final tally they lost a lot of money, not only from the ongoing operational costs and divestiture of the Thrashers ultimately, but on the infighting side of things. Could they have gotten their ducks in a row and planned for a healthier/better transition by involving all the parties with a stake in the issue? I think Bettman has shown over the past decade or so that he can be creative and find people willing to work with even distressed assets.

 

[Killion]

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.

Ya, thats pretty much my take & many others on it. Just the deceit. That they essentially mouthed hollow platitudes in acquiring the building, Hawks & Thrashers as a package deal and promised much (keeping up the pretense for years), only to then break those covenants with all parties concerned including the NHL itself. Backed them right into a corner really. Mind you so did Cousins 20 odd years earlier. Either allow him to sell to Skalbania & Relo at nearly double the local offer or he might be going public with the then simmering NHL Pension Plan Ripoff to wit he'd become privy & wanted no part of. What goes around comes around. I sympathize with the fans in Atlanta. If it wasnt for bad luck with owners & the NHL they wouldnt have had any luck at all. No reason on earth why the NHL couldnt/cant succeed in that market. Just appallingly handled in 1979, again leading up to the sale of the Thrashers in 2011.

 

[Grudy0]

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?

Hence the reason to get an NHL team in Seattle first. The assumption is that the NHL team would have some modicum of control of the arena, moreso than if the NHL were the second tenant.

Besides, the NBA has the records of the Sonics, to be returned once the NBA has team in Seattle. However, just like the last round of NHL expansion: no arena, no team.

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.

Why single out the Penguins or the Jets?

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.

Almost every team either has or shares control over the operations of the arena, now that the Isles will be based out of Barclays and the Oilers look to be on track getting a new arena, where the keys to it will also be handled by Katz.

It's additional revenue streams that make the entire venture more profitable.

Name me a market that would immediately crack the top ten NHL franchises with respect to revenue. What you are asking for is pie-in-the-sky; it's close to the opposite of reality.

 

[Killion]

Name me a market that would immediately crack the top ten NHL franchises with respect to revenue. What you are asking for is pie-in-the-sky; it's close to the opposite of reality.

Hamilton or a Toronto2, possibly Quebec City (despite its small size, high end boutique). Would like to know as well exactly where Winnipeg's sitting on that Totem Pole though its still early and just one full season under its belt. Admittedly though, QC, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary & Edmonton, any smaller market team & a number of the US franchises are susceptible to vagaries, be it economic fluctuations, bad management or what have you. Even at that however you have 06'rs in large markets like Chicago, the newer & more successful franchises like San Jose' claiming millions in losses. When considering a Seattle franchise the mind naturally draws comparisons to San Jose' in contemplating what might be though Seattle would enjoy a bit of an advantage in its close proximity & rivalry to some degree with Vancouver. Also begs the question that if Paul Allen in Portland was on standby with a potential relo of the Penguins & more recently the Coyotes, was it price? The numbers didnt/dont add up? As in the cost to purchase being artificially inflated as theyve always been?

 

[Mayor Bee]

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.

You're trying to project common sense and logic onto a group that defied it to the very core.

Of course I'd want to make the most money and have the biggest positive impact. And if I didn't know how to do that, I'd find people who could do that. I like being able to look at myself in the mirror and say "Although I may have an ego and a compelling need to be right all the time, I'm honest and try my hardest to do things the right way".

If I were in the position of buying both an NHL team and an NBA team and my real goal was the NHL team, I'd never be able to sabotage the NBA team and call it collateral damage. I regard that attitude as being absolutely reprehensible. And I sure as hell wouldn't be willing to compromise my own personal integrity even if it meant achieving my goal. And I absolutely under no conditions would be lying in public about my intentions over the span of years.

But that's just me.

 

[mouser]

Hamilton or a Toronto2, possibly Quebec City (despite its small size, high end boutique). Would like to know as well exactly where Winnipeg's sitting on that Totem Pole though its still early and just one full season under its belt. Admittedly though, QC, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary & Edmonton, any smaller market team & a number of the US franchises are susceptible to vagaries, be it economic fluctuations, bad management or what have you. Even at that however you have 06'rs in large markets like Chicago, the newer & more successful franchises like San Jose' claiming millions in losses. When considering a Seattle franchise the mind naturally draws comparisons to San Jose' in contemplating what might be though Seattle would enjoy a bit of an advantage in its close proximity & rivalry to some degree with Vancouver. Also begs the question that if Paul Allen in Portland was on standby with a potential relo of the Penguins & more recently the Coyotes, was it price? The numbers didnt/dont add up? As in the cost to purchase being artificially inflated as theyve always been?

Most likely Winnipeg was 11th to 18th in HRR rankings their initial season. I base that on public statements that they didn't qualify for revenue sharing which would imply they're at least 15th-18th (only the bottom 15 are eligible, though it's likely some of the 16th+ place teams still don't receive revenue sharing); and the lack of public statements that they paid into the revenue sharing collection that would imply a top 10 spot.

 

[Fugu]

Also begs the question that if Paul Allen in Portland was on standby with a potential relo of the Penguins & more recently the Coyotes, was it price? The numbers didnt/dont add up? As in the cost to purchase being artificially inflated as theyve always been?

That's probably pretty accurate. The NHL bent over five thousand different ways to support their asking price in Phoenix. I still believe Reinsdorf's package was probably fairly representative of the true valuation of that particular franchise in Phoenix-- given the COG contribution, reasonable operating costs and expected return in 3+ years, and conditions under the last CBA.

The current CBA has lowered the share and increased revenue transfer/aid, but revenues are nevertheless going to go through the roof, ultimately being cold comfort to the struggling franchises.

Most likely Winnipeg was 11th to 18th in HRR rankings their initial season. I base that on public statements that they didn't qualify for revenue sharing which would imply they're at least 15th-18th (only the bottom 15 are eligible, though it's likely some of the 16th+ place teams still don't receive revenue sharing); and the lack of public statements that they paid into the revenue sharing collection that would imply a top 10 spot.

Do you have a figure in mind to translate to that number 10 spot? ~$100 MM seems to ring a bell.

 

[Fugu]

You're trying to project common sense and logic onto a group that defied it to the very core.

Of course I'd want to make the most money and have the biggest positive impact. And if I didn't know how to do that, I'd find people who could do that. I like being able to look at myself in the mirror and say "Although I may have an ego and a compelling need to be right all the time, I'm honest and try my hardest to do things the right way".

If I were in the position of buying both an NHL team and an NBA team and my real goal was the NHL team, I'd never be able to sabotage the NBA team and call it collateral damage. I regard that attitude as being absolutely reprehensible. And I sure as hell wouldn't be willing to compromise my own personal integrity even if it meant achieving my goal. And I absolutely under no conditions would be lying in public about my intentions over the span of years.

But that's just me.

That's fair, MB, but maybe I've forgotten that portion of the revelations that came out after the fact. How did we conclude that sabotage was what ASG was doing? I could put forth the argument that they mainly sabotaged themselves-- by playing with valuations in order to buy Belkin out, they probably cut their noses off to spite their faces. I can go THAT far at least with the sabotage scenario.

I just have a hard time imagining why anyone would pay hundreds of millions of dollars for assets, then go about dismantling one that ostensibly could, under decent conditions, fetch $150-200 MM. Furthermore, given the metro size, is there any reason to believe that an NHL franchise properly run there shouldn't be over $200 MM, along the lines of the Panthers and Devils operations (except that these guys ALSO have an NBA team to help out the bottom line).

 

[xxsciroccoxx]

The NHL would be better off putting a team in Tijuana, Mexico instead of going back to Atlanta.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

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

You're assuming the boardroom of Owners cares about Canadian expansion or Quebec City, which seems to be a disconnect with what a lot of people get at. With some of their previous intentions and some of the areas we can can guess will have detractors when it comes time to vote. It might be very popular with the fans, but how does it sell to the 30 Owners?


I can see Toronto2 being a Western Franchise as part of getting in. Sold to the Leafs as you will rarely play at the same time, have different divisions, but I am still not sure they would bite. They can also build a little group of people that vote in a block exchanging their promise to vote against what the other people don't like or in favor of the project they endorse.

Have said this before but Detroit, Toronto, Montreal, Buffalo, Dallas, Colorado, and Columbus should form a sort of voting block. They don't want to see certain things happen, you can kind of believe that some will argue that a couple shouldn't be listed, but it will be interesting to see which franchises align with each other to push the league in the direction they want. Now all they need to do is help sell it and gain enough votes.

I think Quebec will remain an Eastern Relocation area. Also if they have paid any attention whatsoever to the NFL and how they have used LA for basically a decade the NHL might be more than happy to to keep Quebec as this option. They warned them building an arena/stadium would not insure them a team. They can continue down that model of using them as a threat for every team that wants more favorable lease or a new building. Quite frankly almost every serious league has this threat, I wouldn't blame the NHL for using Quebec this way, in many ways it is good business.

The Canadian options do likely carry some enemies within the boardroom, people that will want to make a case against them for reasons of their franchise. That is a big problem, so when the bidding takes place they will evaluate and vote, but if some of the Western located franchises come with aggressive bids and sell themselves the right way they are going to have a leg up. They don't rock the boat, they spread hockey that way, plus I really believe the league wants to push the AHL (I think they are okay with this too if they can figure it out having both leagues on the same page and the NHL's assistance would be huge) into Western expansion as well, which will be a part of this over the next 20 years.

Atlanta would be an interesting market to get the AHL back into, not sure that it would work, but the trail period there would be a lot more interesting and it could be done with a much more manageable arena and partners to begin with.

 

[Mayor Bee]

That's fair, MB, but maybe I've forgotten that portion of the revelations that came out after the fact. How did we conclude that sabotage was what ASG was doing? I could put forth the argument that they mainly sabotaged themselves-- by playing with valuations in order to buy Belkin out, they probably cut their noses off to spite their faces. I can go THAT far at least with the sabotage scenario.

I just have a hard time imagining why anyone would pay hundreds of millions of dollars for assets, then go about dismantling one that ostensibly could, under decent conditions, fetch $150-200 MM. Furthermore, given the metro size, is there any reason to believe that an NHL franchise properly run there shouldn't be over $200 MM, along the lines of the Panthers and Devils operations (except that these guys ALSO have an NBA team to help out the bottom line).

I think I win the keyboard race among present company.

Goes off to merge some posts....

It's clear, however, that ASG had no interest in selling locally. Several local groups that had money came forward, and all reported the same issues:
- ASG did not negotiate in anything resembling good faith
- ASG was asking for a massively overinflated package price for arena rights plus both the Thrashers and Hawks, with the package price being in excess of $500 million
- ASG was willing to part with just the Thrashers for a price said to be over $200 million, but with the caveat that a new lease would have to be drawn up (which would result in absolutely gouging the new ownership)
- ASG was willing to sell just the Thrashers and let them go elsewhere, meaning that new ownership would be playing out of Gwinnett Coliseum temporarily while needing to foot the bill to either dramatically expand it or build a new arena outright

These weren't exactly tire-kickers who were exploring options. They were groups with a lot of money and a lot of clout.

 

[Fugu]

It's clear, however, that ASG had no interest in selling locally. Several local groups that had money came forward, and all reported the same issues:
- ASG did not negotiate in anything resembling good faith
- ASG was asking for a massively overinflated package price for arena rights plus both the Thrashers and Hawks, with the package price being in excess of $500 million
- ASG was willing to part with just the Thrashers for a price said to be over $200 million, but with the caveat that a new lease would have to be drawn up (which would result in absolutely gouging the new ownership)
- ASG was willing to sell just the Thrashers and let them go elsewhere, meaning that new ownership would be playing out of Gwinnett Coliseum temporarily while needing to foot the bill to either dramatically expand it or build a new arena outright

These weren't exactly tire-kickers who were exploring options. They were groups with a lot of money and a lot of clout.

Actually I thought the issue was that no one buyer could afford the entire package. An NBA team goes for what, ~$350-400MM+? The arena rights have to be worth a decent chunk. And then the NHL team, even at the $110 MM announced value. A potential buyer would need to be approved by both leagues, meet both their financial, personal guarantee and cash:debt requirements.... basically a billionaire with very deep pockets.

 

[Killion]

You're trying to project common sense and logic onto a group that defied it to the very core.... I regard that attitude as being absolutely reprehensible.... And I absolutely under no conditions would be lying in public about my intentions over the span of years.... But that's just me.

That's fair, MB, but maybe I've forgotten that portion of the revelations that came out after the fact. How did we conclude that sabotage was what ASG was doing?

I just have a hard time imagining why anyone would pay hundreds of millions of dollars for assets, then go about dismantling one that ostensibly could, under decent conditions, fetch $150-200 MM.

They admitted under oath that 6 mnths in they wanted to divest themselves of the Thrashers, as in right out of town divestiture as their business model did not include dual tenancy, absolutely no interest in nor love for the game of hockey, the NHL. Not even after they'd bought it.

Now, Im no Basketball fan, but if Id ever acquired an NHL & NBA Team, theres no way Id deliberately tank the NBA team. Price gunning it with a tag out of all reasonable proportion to its actual value. Or maybe offer it at market value or a bit less but then go to town on whoever did want to buy it with a crippling lease, like say Harold Ballard did in hosting the Toronto Toro's of the WHA at Maple Leaf Gardens. $25,000 to turn on the lights please. See, that wasnt included in the $50,000 per game rental fee & so on. Id probably fall in love with Basketball and absolutely want to do my best in making sure it was successful. A matter of pride, personal integrity.

Who knows what ASG actually valued the Thrashers at? Probably nothing locally as to them the club was worthless, a drag, wanted those dates opened, nothing whatsoever to do with the NHL & as the new Roosters in the yard, off the property & out of the county & state altogether. Yet they couldnt just come out and say that, had to play it all out by the NHL's book while maintaining the facade that they actually gave a Tinkers. Somehow get people to buy into their vision, trade their Hero's for Ghosts, hot ashes for tree's. Fires still smouldering under ground and eventually, you operate like that your going to be consumed. Karma.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I guess that's harder for some people than others to do, be forthright about their intentions.

In this case my suspicion is that if they had been forthright, they would never have owned the team in the first place. It's not like the Thrashers were in such desperate straits that the city, league and Time Warner would have been looking for a relocation partner. So ASG played the part of excited new owners while apparently already having set the wheels of the flip-sale in motion.

Fast forward a couple of years, they're all suing each other and they have revenue goals to meet. Not to mention the economy is in freefall. No sense in starting to be honest at that point.

Fast forward another couple of years. Bettman is in the process of paddling Moyes and Balsillie because they tried to skirt the rules requiring an effort to sell to local owners. At that point, what's another lie going to hurt? So they do their little dance with Moores, feign disappointment that their "efforts" failed, and finally rid themselves of the unwanted stepchild.

I think in the final tally they lost a lot of money, not only from the ongoing operational costs and divestiture of the Thrashers ultimately, but on the infighting side of things. Could they have gotten their ducks in a row and planned for a healthier/better transition by involving all the parties with a stake in the issue?

I don't honestly think it was in ASG's nature to collaborate with all parties, or to seek a healthy transition. They're the sort of people who buy corporations with the intention of selling them for a quick profit; that kind of personality involves a certain amount of malignant selfishness. Add the fact that they were a bloated and litigious group in the first place, and the outcome (infighting, lawyers, failed investment, massive financial losses, harm to the community) is the sort of thing that is unfortunately quite common when an economic bubble bursts.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Actually I thought the issue was that no one buyer could afford the entire package. An NBA team goes for what, ~$350-400MM+? The arena rights have to be worth a decent chunk. And then the NHL team, even at the $110 MM announced value. A potential buyer would need to be approved by both leagues, meet both their financial, personal guarantee and cash:debt requirements.... basically a billionaire with very deep pockets.

If I remember right famous Braves pitcher and former hockey stud Tom Glavine got a group of investors going. Basically he ran into the problems Major Bee is talking about, they made it virtually impossible for that group to buy the team. Now they weren't some giant cash cow, but Glavine seemed to indicate ASG wasn't a willing participant at all in saving hockey in Atlanta. Even with a very famous local sports hero trying to save the team, he was basically stonewalled after trying to put together investors and found the mission hopeless.

 

[Fugu]

If I remember right famous Braves pitcher and former hockey stud Tom Glavine got a group of investors going. Basically he ran into the problems Major Bee is talking about, they made it virtually impossible for that group to buy the team. Now they weren't some giant cash cow, but Glavine seemed to indicate ASG wasn't a willing participant at all in saving hockey in Atlanta. Even with a very famous local sports hero trying to save the team, he was basically stonewalled after trying to put together investors and found the mission hopeless.

The due diligence process could have stalled the plans ASG had for a potential sale of other assets. I know these things happen all the time, but these are highly complex transactions. In this case, ASG had to clean their own house with the help of a court; and then get approval and due diligence with two separate leagues. Finally, as I said above, trying to find ONE buyer for the entire enchilada was probably not going to happen, so from a business perspective the package that they should have focused on to maximize was the NBA+ arena rights (noting that the arena lease was linked to the NBA team).

In this case my suspicion is that if they had been forthright, they would never have owned the team in the first place. It's not like the Thrashers were in such desperate straits that the city, league and Time Warner would have been looking for a relocation partner. So ASG played the part of excited new owners while apparently already having set the wheels of the flip-sale in motion.

Fast forward a couple of years, they're all suing each other and they have revenue goals to meet. Not to mention the economy is in freefall. No sense in starting to be honest at that point.

Fast forward another couple of years. Bettman is in the process of paddling Moyes and Balsillie because they tried to skirt the rules requiring an effort to sell to local owners. At that point, what's another lie going to hurt? So they do their little dance with Moores, feign disappointment that their "efforts" failed, and finally rid themselves of the unwanted stepchild.

I'd have to review the entire timeline, but I thought they got into the internal divorce issue almost from the Get Go?

 

[Fugu]

They admitted under oath that 6 mnths in they wanted to divest themselves of the Thrashers, as in right out of town divestiture as their business model did not include dual tenancy, absolutely no interest in nor love for the game of hockey, the NHL. Not even after they'd bought it.

Honestly, I don't recall when their internal problems started. What I do remember is that they raced to their fax machines at some point to beat a valuation or filing deadline. Maybe you have a better memory and can remind me.

Now, Im no Basketball fan, but if Id ever acquired an NHL & NBA Team, theres no way Id deliberately tank the NBA team. Price gunning it with a tag out of all reasonable proportion to its actual value. Or maybe offer it at market value or a bit less but then go to town on whoever did want to buy it with a crippling lease, like say Harold Ballard did in hosting the Toronto Toro's of the WHA at Maple Leaf Gardens. $25,000 to turn on the lights please. See, that wasnt included in the $50,000 per game rental fee & so on. Id probably fall in love with Basketball and absolutely want to do my best in making sure it was successful. A matter of pride, personal integrity.

Who knows what ASG actually valued the Thrashers at? Probably nothing locally as to them the club was worthless, a drag, wanted those dates opened, nothing whatsoever to do with the NHL & as the new Roosters in the yard, off the property & out of the county & state altogether. Yet they couldnt just come out and say that, had to play it all out by the NHL's book while maintaining the facade that they actually gave a Tinkers. Somehow get people to buy into their vision, trade their Hero's for Ghosts, hot ashes for tree's. Fires still smouldering under ground and eventually, you operate like that your going to be consumed. Karma.

I understand that aspect of it. However, let's play a game, and assume ASG did not want the NHL team at all, but they went ahead and bought it.

What did they think was the end game? The price they paid overall had some portion that was the NHL team's value, correct?

Were they thinking they'd fold it? Sell it to someone to operate in Phillips with a lease of sorts-- but they know the numbers game too. No one was going to pay them a price that wouldn't support that buyer's ability to run the team without losing a ton of money.

Did they want to have their cake and eat it too-- make money on flipping the NHL team (badly miscalculated on their part then), and make money on the lease-- grab that cash with both hands and make a stash?

 

[sandysan]

Hence the reason to get an NHL team in Seattle first. The assumption is that the NHL team would have some modicum of control of the arena, moreso than if the NHL were the second tenant.

Besides, the NBA has the records of the Sonics, to be returned once the NBA has team in Seattle. However, just like the last round of NHL expansion: no arena, no team.Why single out the Penguins or the Jets?Almost every team either has or shares control over the operations of the arena, now that the Isles will be based out of Barclays and the Oilers look to be on track getting a new arena, where the keys to it will also be handled by Katz.

It's additional revenue streams that make the entire venture more profitable.

Name me a market that would immediately crack the top ten NHL franchises with respect to revenue. What you are asking for is pie-in-the-sky; it's close to the opposite of reality.

Both Qc and GTA2 would easily crack the top 10, GTA2 would be at worst third.

Qc wants a team to be the primary driver of revenue. Yes pelladeau and quebecor will make ancillary money off of TV/print but least some of that still is HRR. In non traditional markets, not so much and in many cases where these alternate revenue sources greatly exceed the losses of the team, where's the incentive to put any money into the team if you are using it as nothing more than a placeholder to hang the keys for the arena ?

In Qc "growing the game" means more revenue. In markets where getting the team facilitates the arena ( or the NBA) once that's done no one gives a crap about the teams fortunes or stewardship of the market, the have already done the only thing expected of them.

 

[kdb209]

I'd have to review the entire timeline, but I thought they got into the internal divorce issue almost from the Get Go?

Close. ASG & AOL/TW agreed to the deal in Sept '03, the deal closed in March '04, and the ASG divorce proceedings started with Belkin's objections to the Joe Johnson trade in July '05.

 

[Fugu]

Close. ASG & AOL/TW agreed to the deal in Sept '03, the deal closed in March '04, and the ASG divorce proceedings started with Belkin's objections to the Joe Johnson trade in July '05.

The reference to wanting to sell the NHL team-- 2003-04, or 2006 or 2007 (which is a date seems to stick out in my mind).

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Both Qc and GTA2 would easily crack the top 10, GTA2 would be at worst third.

Qc wants a team to be the primary driver of revenue. Yes pelladeau and quebecor will make ancillary money off of TV/print but least some of that still is HRR. In non traditional markets, not so much and in many cases where these alternate revenue sources greatly exceed the losses of the team, where's the incentive to put any money into the team if you are using it as nothing more than a placeholder to hang the keys for the arena ?

In Qc "growing the game" means more revenue. In markets where getting the team facilitates the arena ( or the NBA) once that's done no one gives a crap about the teams fortunes or stewardship of the market, the have already done the only thing expected of them.

How many of the lower revenue teams do you really think want them skyrocketing the cap or floor like that? Also a part I think is often overlooked in this case, the NHL gets money off those areas, there are teams that worry about what going into those areas means for their bottom line or alignment within the league. Lastly there are teams that don't necessarily want that influx of cash without better revenue sharing as strange as that might sound. Even if their buy-ins are prodigious how quickly do the Nashville, Carolina and Phoenix types burn through that cash because of what they did to the cap floor? There are several franchises that would probably endorse a slower growth curve in terms of revenue.

 

[mouser]

Do you have a figure in mind to translate to that number 10 spot? ~$100 MM seems to ring a bell.

Given that league-wide HRR was $3.3B the most recent full season, yeah it's probably somewhere between $110m and $95m.

 

[kdb209]

The reference to wanting to sell the NHL team-- 2003-04, or 2006 or 2007 (which is a date seems to stick out in my mind).

ASG wanted to sell the team after the '05 Lockout - but was blocked by the Belkin ownership debacle.

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/lawsuit-thrashers-owners-have-been-trying-to-sell-/nQpwh/

A lawsuit filed by the owners of the Atlanta Thrashers claims a "flawed" contract written by an esteemed Atlanta law firm has prevented the sale of the NHL franchise for six years.

Meanwhile the hockey team has lost more than $130 million in operating losses since 2005 – the year Boston-based partner Steve Belkin agreed to sell his 30 percent stake – and the franchise value has dropped by more than $50 million, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Fulton County Superior Court.

None of this would have happened had the Thrashers been sold just after the 2004-05 NHL lockout was over, but the now seven-man ownership group, known as the Atlanta Spirit, says a “fatally flawed†and “botched†contract written by high-profile Atlanta law firm King & Spalding prevented that from happening.

The group also owns the Hawks and operating rights to Philips Arena, but they are not mentioned in the lawsuit.

The Spirit filed a $200 million malpractice lawsuit against King & Spalding Friday, saying the law firm’s negligence cost them millions of dollars and made them “unable to sell or otherwise dispose of the Atlanta Thrashers.†King & Spalding’s contract caused the buyout process to “quickly break down into chaos,†costing seven of the partners $14.5 million in legal fees and forcing them to shovel more than $130 million into the Thrashers to keep the franchise afloat, the lawsuit says.

 

[sandysan]

How many of the lower revenue teams do you really think want them skyrocketing the cap or floor like that? Also a part I think is often overlooked in this case, the NHL gets money off those areas, there are teams that worry about what going into those areas means for their bottom line or alignment within the league. Lastly there are teams that don't necessarily want that influx of cash without better revenue sharing as strange as that might sound. Even if their buy-ins are prodigious how quickly do the Nashville, Carolina and Phoenix types burn through that cash because of what they did to the cap floor? There are several franchises that would probably endorse a slower growth curve in terms of revenue.

Again is the NHL the only professional sports league that will not go into YEARNING profitable markets because their success simply re-inforces how poorly other markets are being run ?

If the idea is to put teams into places where they are not expected to succeed by to fail and fail miserably in order keep a limit on the rate of expansion of HRR so that poorly run teams can say " well at least we are not as bad as team "X"", that's a very low hurdle to have to clear.

I've always been told that the purpose of going into non traditional markets was to " grow the game" so that with the right support from the haves ( via the league) that ultimately these teams will develop their markets sufficiently to start contributing to RS and in doing so expose large new swaths of people to the game. If the new model is to simply have teams stink it up financially so that their ownership groups can use the teams as leverage for what they really want and that they get to artificially decrease the rate of cap growth, I guess you can see my reticence for supporting such lunacy.

 

[Grudy0]

Both Qc and GTA2 would easily crack the top 10, GTA2 would be at worst third.

Easily? It would need to be defined where GTA2 would play. Stick them in Copps and hand over the keys to the arena and it's plausible. And it's also one of the few sites in North America that would have the ability to generate that kind of revenue. However, there's already one team there that's been claiming a veto, and according to the NHL's own constitution that is in fact the case, so there'd have to be a large outlay of money not only to quell the Leafs, but then to join the NHL ownership club.

Quebec? Sure, I want them back in the League. But to believe they'd be top 10 is pretty interesting, since the market is smaller than every other Canadian team except Winnipeg. Heck, the top-8 revenue generating teams according to Forbes are the O6, Philly and Vancouver, and I wouldn't at all suspect a NHL Quebec franchise could beat out Ottawa, Edmonton and Calgary in terms of revenues.

Qc wants a team to be the primary driver of revenue. Yes pelladeau and quebecor will make ancillary money off of TV/print but least some of that still is HRR. In non traditional markets, not so much and in many cases where these alternate revenue sources greatly exceed the losses of the team, where's the incentive to put any money into the team if you are using it as nothing more than a placeholder to hang the keys for the arena ?

Yet the city is building an arena and will be handing over the keys to the prospective NHL owner, so to generate money from other endeavors at the arena...

In Qc "growing the game" means more revenue. In markets where getting the team facilitates the arena ( or the NBA) once that's done no one gives a crap about the teams fortunes or stewardship of the market, the have already done the only thing expected of them.

Although I admit it is somewhat of a fair statement, I disagree about the NHL in Seattle. The place has been into hockey for years, and this is truthfully the best chance Seattle has ever had.

How many of the lower revenue teams do you really think want them skyrocketing the cap or floor like that? Also a part I think is often overlooked in this case, the NHL gets money off those areas, there are teams that worry about what going into those areas means for their bottom line or alignment within the league. Lastly there are teams that don't necessarily want that influx of cash without better revenue sharing as strange as that might sound. Even if their buy-ins are prodigious how quickly do the Nashville, Carolina and Phoenix types burn through that cash because of what they did to the cap floor? There are several franchises that would probably endorse a slower growth curve in terms of revenue.

The yearly revenue growth of each of the League's members needs to balance out. Truthfully, one would think a way to slow that curve would be to put teams near those places that already have them, so that their growth would slow. For example, put a team in Hamilton to help slow the Leafs' growth. However, with the Rangers at top-3 in revenues, one would think the Devils and the Islanders didn't take away much revenue from the Rangers. The same applies to the Kings; according to Forbes' estimates, they're tenth, with the Ducks just down the road.

And you'd also have to worry about the bottom rungs. Supposedly after the Coyotes, the next-worst revenue generating team is the Blues. At some point, that bottom market is going to be one that people decry as a hockey market.