MMC
Global Moderator
Last edited:
Potential Atlanta NHL Expansion Team Thread
- Thread starter MMC
- Start date
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 193,409
- 43,694
I wouldn’t do this unless the owner owned both the team and building.
MMC
Global Moderator
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 193,409
- 43,694
Google says Alpharetta is 35 minute drive from Mercedes-Benz. It’s very oddly shaped, Alpharetta is still in Fulton County.
Also, Alpharetta is fun to say.
Perfect landing spot for the struggling Winnipeg Jets.
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
Remember when KC built the Sprint Center like 15 years ago? No NHL or NBA teams have come, and no hint of any on the way.
I wouldn't read too much into this based on an arena project on it's own.
I wouldn't read too much into this based on an arena project on it's own.
Voight
#winning
Agreed. At least T Mobile Arena was going to be booked consistently with or without the Golden Knights.
IMO NHL expanding to 33 teams isn't a good idea but they love those expansion fee cheques.
Mightygoose
Registered User
With this and talks on going with Smith out of SLC perhaps this is the pairing for 33 & 34?
Granted still a few existing arena issues to work out
Granted still a few existing arena issues to work out
nhlfan79
Registered User
No, it's not. Truist Park and The Battery is basically just a hair east of where Smyrna is on that map, at the junction of 285 (the Perimeter highway) and I-75. Alpharetta is at most a 10-15 minute drive north up 400 (the thinner red line that runs north from the middle of the top end of 285). Traffic outside of 285 is not as bad as inside that ring, or getting across the top end of that ring during rush hour.
Because it it didn't work twice already in the heart of Atlanta, let's try it again a third time but this time, let's put it far outside the city in the suburbs where there's a long list of other successful times of something similar succeeding. When will this whole idea of assuming that just because there's a big city, that automatically makes it so that there will be enough people to make it profitable.
If you're not going to bother to read what the Atlanta residents here have to say on the matter, then idk why you post here other than to voice your displeasure. Go check out the Winnipeg threads to get some insight as to why QC is not an easy layup either.
If arena owners really want to make money on their facility they should really avoid having an NHL franchise as a tenant.
Here in Calgary, the revenue demands are insane. A former arena tenant told me he had to shut down because he wasn't making any money - even off concessions for his own events. He told me that everything went to the Flames so he stopped wasting his time and moved on.
If the NHL wants a team in Atlanta they should build their own arena there and the same goes for places like Calgary here.
Here in Calgary, the revenue demands are insane. A former arena tenant told me he had to shut down because he wasn't making any money - even off concessions for his own events. He told me that everything went to the Flames so he stopped wasting his time and moved on.
If the NHL wants a team in Atlanta they should build their own arena there and the same goes for places like Calgary here.
AtlantaWhaler
Thrash/Preds/Sabres
- Jul 3, 2009
- 20,248
- 3,519
Completely agree and that was actually part of the Thrashers history. When A$G put the team up for sale, a number of potential local ownership groups came forward. But then they saw the cost of leasing the arena and quickly backed away. Team owners really do need to own the arena as well.
Economists have been saying this as well and cities like Calgary have been ignoring them. There's no way taxpayer funded arenas can recover the city's investment. Even if there's development around it the tax revenue simply doesn't add up - especially when developers start demanding their share of the tax breaks. I think the privately owned arena in Kansas City even said no to the NHL.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
IIRC, the amount ASG wanted for the lease was so high that it obviously wasn't a good faith number. It was designed for any potential local owners to back away from.
But I agree. It either needs to be the team owning the building or at worst, a publicly owned building where the arena operations contract is held by the ownership of the team (that's the situation in Nashville).
The only way a publicly funded arena works is if the city receives enough revenue from the facility to recover its investment and here in Calgary that has never been a part of the negotiations. Public articles in news outlets like the Globe and Mail indicate that there is no chance we would recover our investment given the demands of the NHL tenant. In earlier versions of the arena deal we would only recover half of our investment after 30 years or so. Pennies on the dollar.
So yeah - if the NHL wants an arena in a given city they should pay for it themselves. And they should pay taxes on that facility when it's done.
Last edited:
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Well look... I've always been of the opinion that simply looking at public investment vs tax revenue doesn't cover the entire topic of value to a city. In a lot of ways, it misses the entire point of public investment. I'm not saying that it shouldn't even be brought up, but it's only one part of the discussion and not the end of it.
What I was saying was more from the point of view of financial viability of the team.
It's also about revenue from the arena and that is, again, the main problem with the negotiations here in Calgary. It should also be a cautionary tale to people building arenas in places like Atlanta. If you want to make money you simply cannot have an NHL franchise as a tenant - at least not until they drastically reduce their insane demands.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Lump regular revenue into the conversation, my point is the same. Making money isn't the sole purpose of public investment. I would argue it's not even the most important purpose.
It's funny how you make an accusation of me reading or not reading something when all you did was basically look at my username and make inaccurate assumptions on my feelings towards a potential QC return.
Regardless of my actual feelings towards it, which are very complicated, any QC return would 100% significantly outperform any Atlanta return and it's not even close.
Yes it is. Our tax dollars should go towards public services and not into the pockets of NHL owners. Here in Calgary we have higher priorities (even though our council and management have yet to realize it) than making billionaires even richer. If we can't recover our investment from an arena project we shouldn't participate. The people of Atlanta should be telling their leaders the same thing. If the NHL wants an arena they should build it and pay taxes on it themselves.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
I agree that tax dollars should be going towards public services, but I think that concept is largely incompatible with making back the investment in those services. It really depends on how you view arenas and sports teams as being part of that conversation. I do. You might not. It's a difference of opinion.
To be clear, it's a balance. It's like the conversation about the US postal service. Politicians sometimes talk about how the USPS is always losing money and would be better off if it was privatized, but the service provided by the USPS is something where it's really okay with me if it's a money loser. There should be a goal to have it lose as little money as possible, like in any government endeavor, but the public benefits outweigh almost any monetary loss. I don't think public benefits of arenas/sports teams outweighs as much monetary loss as something like the USPS, but I think some level of monetary loss can be acceptable.
Last edited:
