Will the NHL try Atlanta again?

[sandysan]

you dont need to be in hamilton, markam works just fine if they keep doing the " build a home tax" ( yes I know markam is an on again off again kind of deal). And I'm not alone in thinking that the two media giants co-ownership of the leafs is going to last in perpetuity. Normally I think that MLSE has enough clout to stop interlopers but if the two sides decide to split with each company becoming majority owner in the two teams ( with some concessions to the team not getting the leafs) then I can see it going forward. If they do GTA2 is at worst ahead of the habs ( which pains me to say) if not in from of the rags. If they end up in the west and end up meeting the leafs for the cup I think the planet explodes.

As for Qc they would be like the uber jets, equally passionate fans with a bigger arena. I know that ottawa has some problems, I dont see them having a problem drawing more than the sens. The dique fans passion is not hypothetical, they put shovel to ground before getting a team ( and if they get an nhl team its gonna be a boondoggle) and traveled to NY and other places simply to remind everyone else that their passion for the game has not waned.

Perhaps I'm a cynic and I'm not saying that the ownership in seattle is the same as ASG, but it seems that at least some of their motivations are the same ( i.e valuing NBA >>>>> NHL). If the NHL goes into seattle without some sort of assurance that they wont be ASG, or without money tied to specific growth metrics, the league will deservedly be protrayed like a drunk at last call looking to go anywhere and do anything so long as someone pretends to be marginally interested, at least for a little while. I dont see how this is any good for the game.

 

[SashaSemin28]

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.

This one phrase describes Clay Bennett and what happened with the Supersonics

 

[Fugu]

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/

Thanks, kdb.

I don't think this supports the idea that they were trying to sabotage the franchise in some way then.

With nearly a third of NHL team ownership turning over right after the lockout, because there was a substantial bump in franchise values immediately following (and prior to the economic downturn starting in late 2008), they knew that was the best possible time to sell.

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

I meant if you'd actually seen something specifically about Winnipeg. I thought there might have been something on the Jets board perhaps.

 

[mouser]

I meant if you'd actually seen something specifically about Winnipeg. I thought there might have been something on the Jets board perhaps.

Even if there had been it wouldn't be terribly meaningful in this context as any owners/organizations are going to use a different definition of revenue then the CBA's HRR definition.

 

[Tackla]

Let's just say the NHL made good decisions. The first two teams that would come back are Quebec and Hartford. The problem with Atlanta, Seattle (maybe soon) and Portland is that they have NBA teams and you're competing against them, not other hockey teams, believe it or not. That battle only works in a handful of places.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Let's just say the NHL made good decisions. The first two teams that would come back are Quebec and Hartford. The problem with Atlanta, Seattle (maybe soon) and Portland is that they have NBA teams and you're competing against them, not other hockey teams, believe it or not. That battle only works in a handful of places.

It works more than you think. It works in New York, Boston, Chicago, Toronto, Detroit, Denver, LA, Bay Area, Dallas, Miami, Minnesota, Philly, and DC.

 

[Tackla]

It works more than you think. It works in New York, Boston, Chicago, Toronto, Detroit, Denver, LA, Bay Area, Dallas, Miami, Minnesota, Philly, and DC.

Some of those are very questionable that it "works". Not to name them (to take the thread off-topic) but you know which ones I'm talking about.

 

[Doan Jidion*]

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.

Quebec City was an appealing relocation candidate because it didn't have to be a top 10 team. It just had to be a league-average team. When you consider just how worthless the Coyotes and Panthers were for HRR, subbing one of those out for a decently performing Nordiques would almost be addition by subtraction more than anything else.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

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.

Listen I am pretty anti-Quebec (in terms of them getting an expansion team in the push to 32 teams). It is a fine market but one I don't jump up and down for. I don't see why the league should be obsessed with it. So I will say that up front.

Likewise you have chalked up anything that wasn't Canadian expansion as failure and I find that completely unfair.

These things sell in a boardroom, ergo what does this do for me in terms of 30 owners? What makes Quebec a no-brainer situation to many Canadian fans and certainly most Quebec City area natives might not truly exist for many owners. Just as I don't see the need to go crazy for it.

I didn't say the idea is to place them in outright failure. The idea is to get the right ownership group in place and the right ideology in terms of the league. Which goes with a part of this thread, surely Atlanta might succeed if it is handled appropriately, but it has not been. Quebec City is already partially in the leagues pocket, what do they offer? Right now with the setup depending on the bids, I use them as a threat to other markets, it is really that simple. Build that building dance up and down, it isn't enough but to be a safety net for Eastern relocation for me if I am the league.

Others feel differently, but I personally don't think Quebec City is a slam dunk especially once the boardroom doors close, Toronto2 or Hamilton can be tweaked in certain ways. Quebec cannot, so I back-pocket it for a while depending on what is going on around the league. We will see what they do, but most of these guys didn't become billionaires by just being popular or whatever else. They will come in with an agenda and it is much different than Joe fan.

As a Detroit fan, I expect Ilitch and his group to bitterly oppose anything expansion wise with Quebec City in the push towards 32 teams without some form of promises to stay East and what it will do to league wide revenues. They should listen to all proposals and if they like what they hear in terms of Western expansion try to find partners to see that come to fruition.

These will be detailed bids, parts could be grow the game, but they will explain lots. Part of the reason in terms of this plan Atlanta has a chance at a third team at some point down the road is the vision they can sell and the fact it sounds good in a boardroom when they do it. There is not a single better boardroom option right now in my opinion than Seattle, despite the hand-ringing that statement would mean in Toronto2/Hamilton or Quebec City.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Some of those are very questionable that it "works". Not to name them (to take the thread off-topic) but you know which ones I'm talking about.

The only one that is even remotely questionable is Miami and whether people like it or not, it will be working for quite a while. Everywhere else, it isn't really questionable unless you're grasping at straws.

 

[canadiancreed]

Normaly I'd say that Atlanta is a market non grata after losing two teams in a little over a generation...but then I look at the Washington market in baseball, and remember that logic and sport leagues don't always match.

 

[Major4Boarding]

Kinda a recap/rehash - June 2, 2010

Recommended - Whole interview

Relation to thread topic (League M.O.)? - 6:20 mark

 

[Grudy0]

you dont need to be in hamilton, markam works just fine if they keep doing the " build a home tax" ( yes I know markam is an on again off again kind of deal). And I'm not alone in thinking that the two media giants co-ownership of the leafs is going to last in perpetuity. Normally I think that MLSE has enough clout to stop interlopers but if the two sides decide to split with each company becoming majority owner in the two teams ( with some concessions to the team not getting the leafs) then I can see it going forward. If they do GTA2 is at worst ahead of the habs ( which pains me to say) if not in from of the rags. If they end up in the west and end up meeting the leafs for the cup I think the planet explodes.

There's a lot more that would have to be done to split Rogers and Bell so that one owns one team and one owns another:

MLSE ownership breakdown:
Kilmer Sports - Tannenbaum - 25%
Rogers Communications - 37.5%
BCE - Bell - 28%
Bell Pension - 9.5%

Bell also has an 18 percent stake in the Montreal Canadiens. If Bell (the corporation) ends up with more than a 30 percent stake in a team, they must divest themselves of the any holdings in other teams.

Yes, the whole ownership structure is very complicated.

As for Qc they would be like the uber jets, equally passionate fans with a bigger arena. I know that ottawa has some problems, I dont see them having a problem drawing more than the sens. The dique fans passion is not hypothetical, they put shovel to ground before getting a team ( and if they get an nhl team its gonna be a boondoggle) and traveled to NY and other places simply to remind everyone else that their passion for the game has not waned.

I realize this is all about the fans, and technically gate receipts and marketing eyeballs, but I'm having a hard time understanding how a market that size will simply be better financially that the other Canadian teams. Sure, if Peladeau is the one that gets the team and he can divert more TV dollars than usual to the Nordiques, then yes, it's possible to have the Nordiques with better revenue than a Canadian team other than Winnipeg. But that only puts them just over middle of the pack if Forbes valuation numbers are to be believed.

Perhaps I'm a cynic and I'm not saying that the ownership in seattle is the same as ASG, but it seems that at least some of their motivations are the same ( i.e valuing NBA >>>>> NHL). If the NHL goes into seattle without some sort of assurance that they wont be ASG, or without money tied to specific growth metrics, the league will deservedly be protrayed like a drunk at last call looking to go anywhere and do anything so long as someone pretends to be marginally interested, at least for a little while. I dont see how this is any good for the game.

The NHL has wanted Seattle for years. They've never had a combination of a good ownership group and a real place to play since the expansion that brought Ottawa and Tampa Bay into the League.

Hansen's the money guy behind Seattle's SoDo arena. He's a basketball guy. At some point Seattle will get an NBA team. The NHL wants to be in Seattle, and if the guys that own the team have a share in arena profits instead of being a tenant, why wouldn't you go there? Because you're scared the Sonics make an NHL Seattle team a second-rate tenant? In some places the NHL works better than the NBA:

It works more than you think. It works in New York, Boston, Chicago, Toronto, Detroit, Denver, LA, Bay Area, Dallas, Miami, Minnesota, Philly, and DC.

And in some of those markets the NHL regularly beat out their NBA counterparts.

Thanks, kdb.

I don't think this supports the idea that they were trying to sabotage the franchise in some way then.

With nearly a third of NHL team ownership turning over right after the lockout, because there was a substantial bump in franchise values immediately following (and prior to the economic downturn starting in late 2008), they knew that was the best possible time to sell.

Because this never went to trial, we don't know how accurate the statement was that ASG wanted to sell in 2005. We do know that even with the bump in franchise values after the lockout was finished, ASG claims that the franchise value of the team dropped $50 million, which may also be bogus. Since when do sports teams lose that much valuation? I'd like to say ASG bumbled and stumbled along the way, but it appears to me that at the time of the Thrashers endgame, they did everything they could to keep the Hawks and arena together, and send the Thrashers packing. One would think it was in ASG's interest to sell to a group interested in all three properties, and there was a bidding war starting but impossible to consumate as the exclusive negotating period to John Moores trumped any possible bid for all three.

Quebec City was an appealing relocation candidate because it didn't have to be a top 10 team. It just had to be a league-average team. When you consider just how worthless the Coyotes and Panthers were for HRR, subbing one of those out for a decently performing Nordiques would almost be addition by subtraction more than anything else.

True, but think about this in terms of downstream revenue:

If there was a $30 million year-over-year bump in HRR by moving the Coyotes to Quebec, that means $15 million goes to the players, or $500K to each team for cap increase. That bump only happens once; HRR won't increase another $30 million after the team plays in Quebec for one year.

Relocate a team to Quebec and and the League will only pick up the "relocation fee", just like how TNSE paid $60 million to the NHL to put the team in Winnipeg.

If the NHL implements an expansion franchise, it's more likely that the NHL can charge Peladeau $250 million that goes straight to the League, and doesn't involve a nasty relocation scenario. Yes, the rubber will have to meet the road sometime for the Coyotes in five years, but that's after countless times trying to save a market where the city built a palace especially for that team. The NHL can't have teams going through bankruptcy to break leases on hundreds of million dollar mansions for teams.

 

[mrinsane]

USA are not an hockey market except 5-6 teams. NHL needs 3 more Canadian teams

 

[Grudy0]

As a Detroit fan, I expect Ilitch and his group to bitterly oppose anything expansion wise with Quebec City in the push towards 32 teams without some form of promises to stay East and what it will do to league wide revenues. They should listen to all proposals and if they like what they hear in terms of Western expansion try to find partners to see that come to fruition.

Let's go down the history route:

The preferred realignment proposal from the NHL in December 2011 was a four-conference setup, where the Mountain and Pacific Time Zone teams were in one conference, the Central Time Zone teams along with Detroit and Columbus where in another conference, and the remaining Eastern Time Zone teams were in the last two conferences. The schedule matrix was setup so that teams played two games against teams out of their conference and the remainder within their conference. The playoff qualification was a strict top-four setup within each conference.

That plan was tweaked beacuse the NHLPA rejected it.

In an expansion scenario with Seattle and Quebec, why would it matter if the Wings go to a new Central Conference, based on the December 2011 realignment proposal that was approved by the NHL's Board of Governors? The Wings would get their 41 home games, play 16 games at Eastern Time Zone opponents, play 8 games at Mountain and Pacific Time Zone teams, and the remaining 17 away games against the likes of Chicago, Minnesota, Dallas, Colorado, Nashville, St. Louis and Winnipeg.

I can't remember if Devellano or Illitch made the statement, but it was that they only wanted to travel to western Canada and the southwestern US for one game a year. The scenario in the preceding paragraph makes that work just fine.

 

[Fugu]

<snip>

Hansen's the money guy behind Seattle's SoDo arena. He's a basketball guy. At some point Seattle will get an NBA team. The NHL wants to be in Seattle, and if the guys that own the team have a share in arena profits instead of being a tenant, why wouldn't you go there? Because you're scared the Sonics make an NHL Seattle team a second-rate tenant? In some places the NHL works better than the NBA:And in some of those markets the NHL regularly beat out their NBA counterparts.

Hansen et al have always been upfront that the arena finances would be better off with an NHL partner, and they would be willing to consider more than just leasing to a team, but sharing the ownership. Seattle is a growing, vibrant and exceedingly wealthy city. These leagues should be falling all over themselves to get something set up, but obviously very careful to get the right location and conditions.

Because this never went to trial, we don't know how accurate the statement was that ASG wanted to sell in 2005. We do know that even with the bump in franchise values after the lockout was finished, ASG claims that the franchise value of the team dropped $50 million, which may also be bogus. Since when do sports teams lose that much valuation? I'd like to say ASG bumbled and stumbled along the way, but it appears to me that at the time of the Thrashers endgame, they did everything they could to keep the Hawks and arena together, and send the Thrashers packing. One would think it was in ASG's interest to sell to a group interested in all three properties, and there was a bidding war starting but impossible to consumate as the exclusive negotating period to John Moores trumped any possible bid for all three.

St. Louis sold for $150 MM during the lockout, then roughly $130 MM (inclusive of some other assets) a few years later. Tampa sold for $204 MM following the lockout, and than maybe half of that to Vinik.

As for keeping all three together? I think I mentioned that above, but it takes very, very deep pockets to buy an NHL and NBA franchise, plus arena rights. (Along with meeting both leagues financial requirements.)

If there was a $30 million year-over-year bump in HRR by moving the Coyotes to Quebec, that means $15 million goes to the players, or $500K to each team for cap increase. That bump only happens once; HRR won't increase another $30 million after the team plays in Quebec for one year.

Relocate a team to Quebec and and the League will only pick up the "relocation fee", just like how TNSE paid $60 million to the NHL to put the team in Winnipeg.

If the NHL implements an expansion franchise, it's more likely that the NHL can charge Peladeau $250 million that goes straight to the League, and doesn't involve a nasty relocation scenario. Yes, the rubber will have to meet the road sometime for the Coyotes in five years, but that's after countless times trying to save a market where the city built a palace especially for that team. The NHL can't have teams going through bankruptcy to break leases on hundreds of million dollar mansions for teams.

The numbers work even better with a T2 expansion.

I can't remember if Devellano or Illitch made the statement, but it was that they only wanted to travel to western Canada and the southwestern US for one game a year. The scenario in the preceding paragraph makes that work just fine.

I believe what you may be missing is the boost in STH renewals the Wings experienced when the new alignment was implemented. Their fan base is a traditional one, and many of those lifelong fans remember their rivalry with the Leafs and predisposition for the Eastern teams like Boston, NYR, Montreal, and Philadelphia. Also don't overlook their desire to have most of their games in the Eastern time zone. They may have been willing to compromise initially, but given their druthers, I think they really prefer being the NE/Atlantic.

 

[MNNumbers]

I believe what you may be missing is the boost in STH renewals the Wings experienced when the new alignment was implemented. Their fan base is a traditional one, and many of those lifelong fans remember their rivalry with the Leafs and predisposition for the Eastern teams like Boston, NYR, Montreal, and Philadelphia. Also don't overlook their desire to have most of their games in the Eastern time zone. They may have been willing to compromise initially, but given their druthers, I think they really prefer being the NE/Atlantic.

Fugu,

In regard to Detroit. I was surprised, because I my interest in the business side of things is new, to note that the STH were very happy about the new alignment. So, I agree with your conclusion here, that the Wings are going to be very very strong in their desire to stay in the NE/FL division.

Personally, I think the expansion talk is premature. I still see major roadblocks in every place:

Quebec - Don't know why, but the League must not be excited to be there. If they were, PHX would have moved there.

Seattle - IES for the new arena is postponed. MOU has to change to hockey first if no NBA team comes available. Changing that MOU is not trivial, because the law is that the city can't gift anything, so there have to be revenues to the city to make it even, and I am not sure anyone can assume that NHL-1st revenues are as dependable as NBA-1st revenues in Seattle. And, I am still not sure about an owner for a team there

Portland - Like others have commented here, Allen seems interested, but only if it's a good deal for him and expansion is not.

KC - No city interest. Without a favorable lease, it won't happen and the city isn't desperate to give a favorable lease.

Houston - This is the only place where such talk exists.

Etc....

 

[Grudy0]

Hansen et al have always been upfront that the arena finances would be better off with an NHL partner, and they would be willing to consider more than just leasing to a team, but sharing the ownership. Seattle is a growing, vibrant and exceedingly wealthy city. These leagues should be falling all over themselves to get something set up, but obviously very careful to get the right location and conditions.

And the truth of the matter is we don't know what's going on, other than the rumors of the NHL's interest in Seattle.

Because this never went to trial, we don't know how accurate the statement was that ASG wanted to sell in 2005. We do know that even with the bump in franchise values after the lockout was finished, ASG claims that the franchise value of the team dropped $50 million, which may also be bogus. Since when do sports teams lose that much valuation?

St. Louis sold for $150 MM during the lockout, then roughly $130 MM (inclusive of some other assets) a few years later. Tampa sold for $204 MM following the lockout, and than maybe half of that to Vinik.

Sure, but then let's add this to the scenario:

The Thrashers were sold to TNSE for $110 million in 2011. Assuming the numbers from the filed lawsuit that the Thrashers lost $50 million in franchise valuation since 2005, that means they were valued at $160 million in 2005, when ASG purchased the Thrashers, Hawks and Philips lease one year earlier at $250 million...

Think something doesn't add up?

As for keeping all three together? I think I mentioned that above, but it takes very, very deep pockets to buy an NHL and NBA franchise, plus arena rights. (Along with meeting both leagues financial requirements.)

But ASG did it in 2004. As a matter of fact, David McDavid was in the process of purchasing the set in 2003 when Time Warner balked on their exclusive negotiating agreement with McDavid.

I'm not saying it's the norm, but there are parties that have been interested to purchase all of it.

Regarding expansion fees:

The numbers work even better with a T2 expansion.

Certainly. But not without hostage indemnification fees to the Leafs.

I believe what you may be missing is the boost in STH renewals the Wings experienced when the new alignment was implemented. Their fan base is a traditional one, and many of those lifelong fans remember their rivalry with the Leafs and predisposition for the Eastern teams like Boston, NYR, Montreal, and Philadelphia. Also don't overlook their desire to have most of their games in the Eastern time zone. They may have been willing to compromise initially, but given their druthers, I think they really prefer being the NE/Atlantic.

I'd be interested to see what the boost was to the STH base. I know the realignment helped with their TV deal; all but eight of their away games are in the Eastern or Central Time zones. In 2011-12, sixteen of their away games were in the Mountain and Pacific. That's a signficant shift, and more likely would help in the ratings game, which should in turn help their TV contract value grow faster than it otherwise would have sitting in the Western Conference.

 

[frozenpondscum]

I agree with those who've said Atlanta has zero chance for another team at Philips until after ASG is out of the picture. And I'll add that the whole metro area has no chance until post-Bettman. Gary's not going to go out on a limb with a twice-abandoned market.

Long long term, the NHL returns, because the market is too big to ignore, and at some point there will be a deep-pocketed prospective owner who cares about hockey. But the wait will be longer than the 19 years between Flames and Thrashers. 25-35 years IMO.

If the Braves' move to Cobb County materializes, there is a sliver of hope the NHL returns sooner. The Braves and Cobb have declared the area immediately surrounding the stadium will be full of entertainment options 365 days/year. What better way to fill the opposite half of the calendar than with hockey? Parking and other infrastructure will be in place already. Funding an arena will be child's play compared to funding the Braves stadium. And the location is closer and more attractive to the hockey fanbase than Philips is. The Braves themselves could be a principal owner. I believe they have 13 years left on a terrible TV rights deal that is already way below baseball norms, so in 13 years, they'll be in for a substantial revenue boost.

During the TV coverage of the Braves move, one sportscaster brought up the fact that Stan Kasten (former Braves/Thrashers/Hawks President) wanted the Hawks/Thrashers arena built on the northern perimeter and Ted Turner overruled him. If Ted had agreed with Stan, we probably still have the Thrashers.

 

[Major4Boarding]

Because this never went to trial, we don't know how accurate the statement was that ASG wanted to sell in 2005. We do know that even with the bump in franchise values after the lockout was finished, ASG claims that the franchise value of the team dropped $50 million, which may also be bogus.

According to the malpractice complaint that was filed against King & Spaulding, accurate enough to list the following in the complaint?

* Unable to sell the Thrashers in 2005 due to "the cloud on the franchise's title".

* Explicitly claimed $50M in franchise value loss.

* $130M in operating losses while in limbo from 2005 (obviously not being able to sell the franchise) till the suit was brought forth

* $14.5M in legal expenses going after Belkin in Maryland

(Link to complaint --- > http://www.atlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/0121_kingspaldingcomplaint.pdf)

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2011/01/kandsthrasherssuit.html

and full story on the settlement

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2011/09/king-spalding-spirit-settlement.html

 

[Grudy0]

According to the malpractice complaint that was filed against King & Spaulding, accurate enough to list the following in the complaint?

* Unable to sell the Thrashers in 2005 due to "the cloud on the franchise's title".

* Explicitly claimed $50M in franchise value loss.

* $130M in operating losses while in limbo from 2005 (obviously not being able to sell the franchise) till the suit was brought forth

* $14.5M in legal expenses going after Belkin in Maryland

(Link to complaint --- > http://www.atlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/0121_kingspaldingcomplaint.pdf)

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2011/01/kandsthrasherssuit.html

and full story on the settlement

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2011/09/king-spalding-spirit-settlement.html

No, I get that, but of course it's a legal claim. How many times have people seen a party sue in court for $100 million just so they could get $10 million?

Remember the history timeline according to both this lawsuit and ASG's ownership. Combining both of them works like this:

2003 - Agreement in principal to purchase Hawks, Thrashers and lease rights to Philips for $250 million
2004 - Ownership transfer approved from NBA and NHL
2011 - Thrashers sold for $110 million

ASG claims that $50 million of valuation was lost, meaning at some point in 2005, the Thrashers were worth $160 million, when they paid $250 million for the Thrashers, Hawks and lease around a year earlier? Something doesn't add up. How are the Hawks and the lease worth the other $90 million-plus in 2005?

 

[Melrose Munch]

I agree with those who've said Atlanta has zero chance for another team at Philips until after ASG is out of the picture. And I'll add that the whole metro area has no chance until post-Bettman. Gary's not going to go out on a limb with a twice-abandoned market.

Long long term, the NHL returns, because the market is too big to ignore, and at some point there will be a deep-pocketed prospective owner who cares about hockey. But the wait will be longer than the 19 years between Flames and Thrashers. 25-35 years IMO.

If the Braves' move to Cobb County materializes, there is a sliver of hope the NHL returns sooner. The Braves and Cobb have declared the area immediately surrounding the stadium will be full of entertainment options 365 days/year. What better way to fill the opposite half of the calendar than with hockey? Parking and other infrastructure will be in place already. Funding an arena will be child's play compared to funding the Braves stadium. And the location is closer and more attractive to the hockey fanbase than Philips is. The Braves themselves could be a principal owner. I believe they have 13 years left on a terrible TV rights deal that is already way below baseball norms, so in 13 years, they'll be in for a substantial revenue boost.

During the TV coverage of the Braves move, one sportscaster brought up the fact that Stan Kasten (former Braves/Thrashers/Hawks President) wanted the Hawks/Thrashers arena built on the northern perimeter and Ted Turner overruled him. If Ted had agreed with Stan, we probably still have the Thrashers.

I was going to say, won't the braves want another tenant in a new, seperate indoor stadium?

 

[Tackla]

I agree with those who've said Atlanta has zero chance for another team at Philips until after ASG is out of the picture. And I'll add that the whole metro area has no chance until post-Bettman. Gary's not going to go out on a limb with a twice-abandoned market.

Long long term, the NHL returns, because the market is too big to ignore, and at some point there will be a deep-pocketed prospective owner who cares about hockey. But the wait will be longer than the 19 years between Flames and Thrashers. 25-35 years IMO.

If the Braves' move to Cobb County materializes, there is a sliver of hope the NHL returns sooner. The Braves and Cobb have declared the area immediately surrounding the stadium will be full of entertainment options 365 days/year. What better way to fill the opposite half of the calendar than with hockey? Parking and other infrastructure will be in place already. Funding an arena will be child's play compared to funding the Braves stadium. And the location is closer and more attractive to the hockey fanbase than Philips is. The Braves themselves could be a principal owner. I believe they have 13 years left on a terrible TV rights deal that is already way below baseball norms, so in 13 years, they'll be in for a substantial revenue boost.

During the TV coverage of the Braves move, one sportscaster brought up the fact that Stan Kasten (former Braves/Thrashers/Hawks President) wanted the Hawks/Thrashers arena built on the northern perimeter and Ted Turner overruled him. If Ted had agreed with Stan, we probably still have the Thrashers.

Another person who thinks Gary Bettman decides where franchises go.

 

[Fugu]

Another person who thinks Gary Bettman decides where franchises go.

If not Gary, who then?

 

[Tackla]

If not Gary, who then?

The owners. Gary was ready to fight tooth and nail for Atlanta but realized he had no weapons.