NHL to Atlanta odds just increased significantly

[hangman005]

But why wouldn't the new potential owners build their own arena there?

Isn't that what happened in Vegas? They built the arena to host an NHL team.

Andlauer bought the sens and is in plans to build a new arena.

Just play at a smaller arena until the new one is ready like a university arena in the area or junior team or minor league team, etc. Arizona is doing it.

Couldn't tell you honestly. I'll admit I don't know what the rink situation in Atlanta was like at time, I imagine it being much less viable pre Covid, just due to the current trend of the NHL trying to not be as reliant on gate sales.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

I mean it's highly irresponsible but I'd rather the state and county pay money to build the A's a stadium anywhere but Vegas.

I'd be better with it the team name changed to the Trops

 

[Yukon Joe]

But why didn't someone else buy them and build an arena? They could have played at a university like Arizona for a year or two while they build?

Like, what has changed that didn't make it an option then but is an option now?

Couldn't an owner have bought them and built an arena and kept them there? That's what happens when expansion teams come around. Someone buys them and builds and arena. What's different?

Arizona playing at Mullett is pretty much unprecedented. Only by understanding the 15+ years of turmoil surrounding that franchise can you understand why it was allowed.

It's hard to say exactly why it wasn't considered in Atlanta. I think the Gwinett arena would have been the most likely (and I remember it being thrown around a little bit in discussions around that era). Google suggests it seats 13,000 and hosts an ECHL team.

Perhaps there was just no interested and serious owner who wanted to play out of Gwinnett (and lose money), while simultaneously trying to build a new arena? Remember this was before the era of massive increases in franchise value.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

This is so stupid. Another money pit funded by successful teams gate revenues.

Quebec would be a better market for two reasons.

1) bigger hockey market. Atlanta could be 10M for all I care, still would be a smaller hockey market. Quebec is a bit larger then the Peg if you account for nearby regions outside the metro who’ll be ticket buyers for sure.

2) TV deal. The Canadian TV deal is far, far larger then the US one on a per team basis. Last time around, Quebecor overpaid massively in the hope that a team was coming. The French part of the Canadian deal will be smaller then it would have.been next time around. I guarantee you it’s a bigger impact then whatever impact teams like Phoenix, Atlanta, other have on US tv deal.

Overall Bettman was right about betting on the YS, but he’s overdone it with teams like Phoenix and Florida

Except that nobody in QC is stepping forward with an application accompanied by a $1 billion check like Atlanta and Salt Lake City. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Essenege]

Except that nobody in QC is stepping forward with an application accompanied by a $1 billion check like Atlanta and Salt Lake City. Why is this so hard to understand?

Yeah. I understand sports teams valuations aren’t based on their economic viability but on whatever the local billionaire is willing to pay for it. It sucks.

At Vegas pricing back a few years ago it would have been done. Remember they paid hundreds of millions for a NHL sized arena for junior hockey…at 500M or even Seattle’s 650M it was a done deal. Now I think the group of prospective buyers led by PKP is all but priced out but I’m not even convinced about that.

 

[dj4aces]

They fought a whole lot harder for Phoenix than they ever did for Atlanta. Its almost as if Winnipeg was the obvious place to move a struggling team and wanted to avoid the embarrassment of moving the coyotes back where they came from.

Honestly, there's a few reasons for that.

First, if I'm not mistaken, the owner of the Coyotes wasn't the owner of the arena. I believe that was, and still is, the City of Glendale. However, the owner of the Thrashers also owned Philips. Being the only NHL-sized arena in the area, that was already one strike against the Thrashers. There's a possibility they could've played out of Gas South Arena for a few seasons (~11k seats for hockey) while the league sought potential owners in Atlanta willing to build an arena, but this is no guarantee.

Second, there was the vote in Glendale in, if I recall, March 2011. Had the Glendale vote gone the other way, there's a possibility the Thrashers story would've had a better ending. Given my first point though, it's no guarantee. Since the City of Glendale moved to make concessions and support the Coyotes, Atlanta was firmly in the crosshairs, particularly because there was very little the City of Atlanta or Fulton County could do.

Last? The NHL hated Atlanta Spirit, and wanted to be rid of them. One doesn't need to have "insider info" to know that, just listen to the tone used when the league talked about them and the Thrashers. They were a cancer on the league. I kinda feel bad for the NBA, because they had to deal with those clowns for a few more years before the Hawks were finally sold to someone else.

Many Atlanta hockey fans felt immense disdain for Bettman as a result of all this, because their view as well was that he just let it happen, and didn't even fight for the market like he did/does Arizona. Some still do feel that way. But at the time, the league really didn't have much of a choice. They couldn't own and operate two teams at the same time, seek owners for two teams, and try to arrange a place for the Thrashers to play while also trying to find a way to have a building constructed for the team. One team had to go, and Atlanta was that team, unfortunately.

Like I said before, it wasn't Bettman's fault the Thrashers moved, just like it wasn't his fault that Jets 1.0 and the Nordiques moved, just like it wasn't the fans' fault they moved.

 

[jbeck5]

Arizona playing at Mullett is pretty much unprecedented. Only by understanding the 15+ years of turmoil surrounding that franchise can you understand why it was allowed.

It's hard to say exactly why it wasn't considered in Atlanta. I think the Gwinett arena would have been the most likely (and I remember it being thrown around a little bit in discussions around that era). Google suggests it seats 13,000 and hosts an ECHL team.

Perhaps there was just no interested and serious owner who wanted to play out of Gwinnett (and lose money), while simultaneously trying to build a new arena? Remember this was before the era of massive increases in franchise value.

Interesting.

As for the last line, that goes both ways. It was also much cheaper to buy a team back then, and much cheaper to build an arena, and the economy was much stronger.

 

[Essenege]

1) As far as timing goes, not sure if comparing the city's attendance to Winnipeg right now to prove a point is the best idea.
2) I'm going to guess that adding any city with less than a million people vs. adding the 7th largest TV market in the country would not make more money on the next TV contract.

Florida has been top-10 in attendance the last couple seasons. Again...you need to check up on attendance stats.

There’s more people watching a Habs hockey game on French RDS on a Tuesday night (600k +), then there was fan who watched the season openers on ESPN in 2023 (in the 500k).

I guarantee you, Quebec is a larger hockey tv market then Atlanta. There’s a reason the Canadian tv deal is roughly the same as the US one, for one tenth the population.

This tells you in clear term that the average Canadian watch hockey 10x more then average American. If you compare Quebec City to Atlanta it’s probably more. The population is 15x more in Atlanta.

 

[AintLifeGrand]

Interesting.

As for the last line, that goes both ways. It was also much cheaper to buy a team back then, and much cheaper to build an arena, and the economy was much stronger.

No it wasn’t.

Atlanta was hit disproportionately hard during the Great Recession and the US economy was in a very rough place in 2011.

 

[jbeck5]

No it wasn’t.

Atlanta was hit disproportionately hard during the Great Recession and the US economy was in a very rough place in 2011.

Though you are right, my bad, the difference in cost of team or arenas are huge.

Forbes values the Thrashers at $135 million in 2011. (They sold for 170 million I believe?)

Now you can't buy a team for less than 750-a billion.

So the cost of a franchise has gone up like 700% or more.

Back then, there were plenty of arenas being built for a few hundred million.

Now it costs twice as much, if not 3 times as much. World class arenas are costing a billion or more.

I guess I'm asking if no one was stepping up to buy the trashers and keep them around for 500 million for team plus arena a little over a decade ago, why is there suddenly so much interest at a cost of almost 2 billion?

 

[dj4aces]

I guess I'm asking if no one was stepping up to buy the trashers and keep them around for 500 million for team plus arena a little over a decade ago, why is there suddenly so much interest at a cost of almost 2 billion?

Being that Philips was the only place to play, Atlanta Spirit could demand a king's ransom for the lease. From what I heard at the time, that's exactly what they were doing, ensuring that any parties that were interested in buying and keeping them in town wouldn't.

Atlanta Spirit wasn't interested in selling the arena or the Hawks, making the above the only option. They really didn't want hockey in Atlanta.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

There’s more people watching a Habs hockey game on French RDS on a Tuesday night (600k +), then there was fan who watched the season openers on ESPN in 2023 (in the 500k).

I guarantee you, Quebec is a larger hockey tv market then Atlanta. There’s a reason the Canadian tv deal is roughly the same as the US one, for one tenth the population.

This tells you in clear term that the average Canadian watch hockey 10x more then average American. If you compare Quebec City to Atlanta it’s probably more. The population is 15x more in Atlanta.

When the NHL negotiates their next TV deal (which I believe is coming up soon), existing ratings is just one factor they'll look at. Here's why the Atlanta market is wanted from a TV perspective:

1) Corporate presence = more advertising options. Atlanta is the 3rd largest home of Fortune 500 headquarters in the U$.

2) Growth (two types): Atlanta's population has grown an average of 2% annually since the mid-90's. It's even added a million people since the Thrashers left. There's also growth of the sport/viewership. Put it this way...even though QC has good hockey ratings, why would NBC or Amazon pay a big increase for a new TV deal if QC gets a new team? They're already watching hockey. There's minimal growth. An untapped (7th largest) market would add new viewership that wasn't there before.

 

[jbeck5]

Being that Philips was the only place to play, Atlanta Spirit could demand a king's ransom for the lease. From what I heard at the time, that's exactly what they were doing, ensuring that any parties that were interested in buying and keeping them in town wouldn't.

Atlanta Spirit wasn't interested in selling the arena or the Hawks, making the above the only option. They really didn't want hockey in Atlanta.

Hmm. I wonder if they could have played out of another neighbouring city for a year while they build the arena?

Wonder if that's ever an option.

Anyways, I find all this very interesting. I'm not opposed to them getting a team. I just like the idea of every division having the same amount of teams.

 

[biturbo19]

They fought a whole lot harder for Phoenix than they ever did for Atlanta. Its almost as if Winnipeg was the obvious place to move a struggling team and wanted to avoid the embarrassment of moving the coyotes back where they came from.

Maybe its an ignorant take, but Atlanta has failed twice. The NHL will be leery of trying again. It only takes a 2/3 majority of teams to approve an expansion team but The NHL likes to announce unanimous votes. I am not so sure all teams would be willing to vote for a 3rd attempt.

I don't think its as assured as you think it is. They are at 32 which is a pretty balanced number. If they expand its likely 2 teams- one east and one west to maintain balance. Utah being the obvious choice. But there is still the matter of Phoenix, if they ultimately have to move it needs to be in the west, is there a 2nd option in the west?

I think The NHL will address the issue of a team playing in a 5000 seat arena before they consider expansion.

I think you're missing a few key mechanics in this situation.

1) In the same sense that Winnipeg became the "obvious place" to move a struggling team" in a hurry when Chipman emerged, the NHL currently knows that it has Quebec City in it's back pocket. If it becomes as dire as the Atlanta mess again with some franchise, QC are the "quick fix" to move a team. They'll step up in a heartbeat with an offer, a building, and everything pretty much ready to rock with minimal interruption. But it's a "fallback option". "Plan B" if things become completely untenable. It's not a desirable and profitable option for the NHL overall...but it's going to be there, waiting and ready...if something ever completely implodes again the way ownership torpedoed their own team in Atlanta.


2) You're looking at the Expansion Approval process all wrong. Yes, you're going to have other voting members who will be extremely wary of going back to Atlanta again...but at the end of the day, a $1Billion Dollar cheque is what talks. That's free money directly deposited into those "voters" pockets instantly, for doing nothing.

If Atlanta fails again that's going to be seen as a "you problem" by those voters. If Gary has to put a second franchise on life support like Arizona, you're going to have a coup. That wouldn't be an option. Per the above Point#1, the real "worst case" scenario for other owners if Atlanta flames out again is basically, "ahhh screw it, move the Atlanta team to Canada again". Quebec steps in, gleefully accepts the team and it really doesn't affect anyone else's bottom-line at all. Plus they got that big cash infusion from the original expansion fee.


3) Re-alignment is a big non-issue. The NHL can tinker around and find ways to make that work, whatever situations unfold. They've already shown that they're fine with weird imbalances and also plenty willing to redraw everything to make it work, as necessary. You've also got Austin/Houston as massive growth centers that are both in the CST, which would put them plenty well within the Western Conference. If it were to come to that.

But at the same time, the NHL have shown absolutely no indication that they're likely to buckle on this whole Arizona experiment. It's just too big of a market for them to give up on. The whole thing is embarrassing and pathetic and reflects poorly on the league as a whole...but i think their tolerance of it speaks to the lengths they'll go to find a way to make hockey work there. I don't know where the actual breaking point is...but the fact we haven't found it yet, suggests that threshold simply might not exist. Existing in that TV market might just be more important to them than anything else.

There’s more people watching a Habs hockey game on French RDS on a Tuesday night (600k +), then there was fan who watched the season openers on ESPN in 2023 (in the 500k).

I guarantee you, Quebec is a larger hockey tv market then Atlanta. There’s a reason the Canadian tv deal is roughly the same as the US one, for one tenth the population.

This tells you in clear term that the average Canadian watch hockey 10x more then average American. If you compare Quebec City to Atlanta it’s probably more. The population is 15x more in Atlanta.

The thing you're missing in all this is that yes, Quebec has a huge contingent of "hockey viewers". But they're watching...even without a Quebec City team.

If you situate a team in Quebec City, how many NEW viewers are you creating for the NHL? The NHL and Broadcaster math sees it as a zero-sum game. You bring back the Nordiques...it's mostly just a loss from Habs broadcast, or Bruins or Leafs or whoever those fans are already regularly watching and cheering for.

That's why they talk about Atlanta as, "untapped". Hockey viewership is low. The theory is...you put a team there, and it's basically "pure gains" in terms of eyeballs on the sport and NHL specifically. That's what makes the profit $$$ lines go up. It's the implicit concept of "constant growth".

 

[dj4aces]

Hmm. I wonder if they could have played out of another neighbouring city for a year while they build the arena?

Wonder if that's ever an option.

Anyways, I find all this very interesting. I'm not opposed to them getting a team. I just like the idea of every division having the same amount of teams.

Well... like I said in another post, it's possible they could've played out of Gas South Arena, here in Duluth, but I don't know if the league would've even allowed that at the time. It seats roughly 11k for hockey, and is also the home of the Atlanta Gladiators (ECHL).

If that situation happened today, I think the league would be more amenable to allowing a team to play out of Gas South (assuming they could secure a lease) on a temporary basis. It's small for a NHL rink, but seats nearly 3x the people as Mullett. But it's also important to remember that's not the only reason the Thrashers were sold off and shipped out as quickly as they were.

 

[AKL]

if Atlanta flames

Nice

 

[Voight]

Atlanta has money and are willing to pay the cheddar, NHL goes where the money is.

Yea, the expansion fee is nonrefundable so even if hockey fails a third time in Atlanta the owners still got their payday.

I'll believe it when a rich person hands Bettman a billion dollar check. Until then, an arena development plan isn't a guarantee of a team coming in. When Kansas City got an arena, everyone knew that it was only a matter of time before they'd get an NHL and/or NBA team. And yet it never happened, as the owners are happy with it printing money as an event venue.

That being said, as for talent dillution, just a reminder that star players feast when opponents are weak. There's a reason why Gretzky thrived in an era when the NHL was adding a team practically every other year.

Couldn't agree more. As of now, it's entirely speculative that the NHL said they will get a team. A lot can change in the next few years. This is a simple handshake deal so its would be very easy for the NHL to walk away if they decide against it.

Regardless I think 33 or 34 teams is way too ambitious for the NHL.

 

[jbeck5]

Well... like I said in another post, it's possible they could've played out of Gas South Arena, here in Duluth, but I don't know if the league would've even allowed that at the time. It seats roughly 11k for hockey, and is also the home of the Atlanta Gladiators (ECHL).

If that situation happened today, I think the league would be more amenable to allowing a team to play out of Gas South (assuming they could secure a lease) on a temporary basis. It's small for a NHL rink, but seats nearly 3x the people as Mullett. But it's also important to remember that's not the only reason the Thrashers were sold off and shipped out as quickly as they were.

What were the other reasons?

 

[dj4aces]

What were the other reasons?

The biggest one? The owners simply didn't want a hockey team in this market. They were all basketball guys, and felt the Thrashers were competing against the Hawks.

When they bought the team, they were trying to move them as early as 2005, with rumored discussions having taken place with groups in Seattle, Kansas City, and even with Balsillie in Hamilton. However, all this took place during the six-year festival known as Lawsuitapalooza, so the team really couldn't be sold or moved during tha time, as the question of who actually owned the team was unresolved, and wouldn't be until the lawsuit was settled in 2010.

A lot of the finer details are covered in the thread on the business board, but this is only the biggest one. It's like peeling an onion, in that there's a lot of layers.

 

[Essenege]

When the NHL negotiates their next TV deal (which I believe is coming up soon), existing ratings is just one factor they'll look at. Here's why the Atlanta market is wanted from a TV perspective:

1) Corporate presence = more advertising options. Atlanta is the 3rd largest home of Fortune 500 headquarters in the U$.

2) Growth (two types): Atlanta's population has grown an average of 2% annually since the mid-90's. It's even added a million people since the Thrashers left. There's also growth of the sport/viewership. Put it this way...even though QC has good hockey ratings, why would NBC or Amazon pay a big increase for a new TV deal if QC gets a new team? They're already watching hockey. There's minimal growth. An untapped (7th largest) market would add new viewership that wasn't there before.

When the NHL negotiates their next TV deal (which I believe is coming up soon), existing ratings is just one factor they'll look at. Here's why the Atlanta market is wanted from a TV perspective:

1) Corporate presence = more advertising options. Atlanta is the 3rd largest home of Fortune 500 headquarters in the U$.

2) Growth (two types): Atlanta's population has grown an average of 2% annually since the mid-90's. It's even added a million people since the Thrashers left. There's also growth of the sport/viewership. Put it this way...even though QC has good hockey ratings, why would NBC or Amazon pay a big increase for a new TV deal if QC gets a new team? They're already watching hockey. There's minimal growth. An untapped (7th largest) market would add new viewership that wasn't there before.

The impact of the Nordiques on the next tv deal is on the supply side, not demand. The national TV deal would now contain 2 weekend games in the province of Quebec instead of one. A lot would watch both.

This additional game would generate more ad revenues in the foreseeable future then any ad revenue generated for a game in Atlanta. the local corporations have nothing to do, I mean Montreal / Toronto based companies that sell products in Quebec have to reach out to them somehow.

your growth argument is fine, I just think right now the league has enough of high population / low penetration market, it decreases the overall emotion/stakes in the games and decrease product quality.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

As of now, it's entirely speculative that the NHL said they will get a team. A lot can change in the next few years. This is a simple handshake deal so its would be very easy for the NHL to walk away if they decide against it.

Totally agree. It's going to be a long road still for the NHL to confirm a team in Atlanta. For me, I'm still nervous about this ownership group. I believe the main guy is just a car dealership guy. Sure he's rich, but there's a monster difference between millionaire and billionaire. I'm also nervous about a bunch of owners coming together. We all saw how great that worked out before...

 

[Ratsreign]

But why didn't someone else buy them and build an arena? They could have played at a university like Arizona for a year or two while they build?

Like, what has changed that didn't make it an option then but is an option now?

Probably a part of why they’re going to these lengths in AZ is the regret of not being able to keep the Thrashers in Atlanta. AZ was “lucky” that ASU had a brand new building available when Glendale fell apart before another arena was ready. I don’t think there were any viable alternative options for Thrashers after arena owners shut them out.

 

[AKL]

Probably a part of why they’re going to these lengths in AZ is the regret of not being able to keep the Thrashers in Atlanta. AZ was “lucky” that ASU had a brand new building available when Glendale fell apart before another arena was ready. I don’t think there were any viable alternative options for Thrashers after arena owners shut them out.

The other part of keeping the Coyotes in Arizona is that they've learned that expansion is much more profitable than relocation. Why would they relocate the Coyotes to SLC or Atlanta for not a billion dollars when they could offer an expansion team for a billion dollars?

Ultimately people here treat relocation like a desirable thing, in reality it's the NHL's last resort.

 

[AintLifeGrand]

Canadians finna be big mad

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

This additional game would generate more ad revenues in the foreseeable future then any ad revenue generated for a game in Atlanta. the local corporations have nothing to do, I mean Montreal / Toronto based companies that sell products in Quebec have to reach out to them somehow.

I totally disagree. Again...QC is watching hockey already and is a market of 800K. Exposing a new, 6.1 million person market to the game would add WAY more revenue.

your growth argument is fine, I just think right now the league has enough of high population / low penetration market, it decreases the overall emotion/stakes in the games and decrease product quality.

Again, I disagree. The NFL, which absolutely crushes the other big-3 in ratings and revenue, keeps looking for more ways to grow revenue. They've gotten all over streaming and within the next 5 years, there will be a team in London. There is never enough high population markets.

And I'm not understanding this "decrease product quality" stuff. How does a team in Atlanta decrease emotion (or whatever)?