Potential Atlanta NHL Expansion Team Thread

[AtlantaWhaler]

Quick back of the napkin math:

18,500 seats * 41 games = 758,500 seats to sell.

Presuming (the facially ludicrous scenario where) you sell only one ticket per person, you end up with 758,500/6,100,000 = 12.44% of the population buying one ticket each sells out that stadium every year. Calculating season tickets, corporate/group sales, and multi-game attendants out of that, they probably hit a comfortable 88-92% capacity if they get about 3% of the MSA to become die-hard fans.

If we just want an over-simplified attendance just based on numbers, easiest case study is the Braves which made a similar choice to plant their home in the northern suburbs. During the most recent full season, they pulled in an average attendance of 38K over the 81 home games. Tons of other factors at play, but again, this is just a very simple look. Based on this, I don't think there would be an issue regularly pulling in 95% over the course of 40 home games.

 

[MMC]

 

[KevFu]

Upper bowl seats are for show anyway.

If the suites and premium seating are at 85% capacity or more, a team will be financially just fine in modern sports (Unless they have a sucker lease like the Islanders did).

This is why MLB sold no tickets in 2020 and pretty much no team slashed payroll drastically afterwards (except the broke team in the 60-year old dump stadium who's been acting like a poverty franchise for so long they made a movie about it 10 years ago, off a book that was written 20 years ago). The Jays didn't even play in their own country, spent tens of millions upgrading Buffalo's stadium... and then turned around and increased their payroll by like $70-$120 million over two years.

Selling 14,000 tickets per game is NOT an indicator of a problem.

 

[MMC]

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

Daly was asked about Atlanta striking out twice already with NHL teams and the idea of giving that market a third try. “Quite frankly, look, when we first expanded there, it was 1972,” Daly said. “So the world has changed a lot since 1972. Some might argue that the second time we expanded there with the Thrashers, the building was not built in the best part of Atlanta in terms of facilitating support for hockey.

So are there better options going forward? We’ve been told there are. I think the game has changed. I think demographics of the various markets have changed over time. So the fact that they tried and failed twice wouldn’t necessarily preclude a third time.”

Translation: It sure feels like the NHL is going back to Atlanta. And it feels like expansion, in general, is coming within the next couple of years.

 

[BMN]

You can't have an argument with absolutes because the truth is usually a matter of percentages.

It's disingenuous, for e.g., to say attendance had nothing to do with the Thrashers leaving. If 18K were paying $75 a piece to go to every game, they'd have been too irresistible a business prospect to dispose of, no matter how much ASG hated hockey (and being competent managerially).

But it's equally disingenuous to say "they moved because of bad attendance revenues, end of story" because if that were the only reason, there'd be a whole block of teams moving regularly. And it's a subjective exercise as to how much of the bad attendance can be owed to bad management because you could pull a swath from multiple teams' histories that resembled the Thrashers that went on to be manageable financially.

Re: the Coyotes, I once rather avidly called for their relocation until I became pretty agnostic on the whole thing upon Merulo buying it. At this point, the odds are long it can be made to work but miracles have happened before. But arguing the cause of the saltiness of the ground for the Yotes is a purely subjective assessment of percentages that doesn't much impact the likelihood of their staying or going in the here and now.

 

[Salsero1]

You can't have an argument with absolutes because the truth is usually a matter of percentages.

It's disingenuous, for e.g., to say attendance had nothing to do with the Thrashers leaving. If 18K were paying $75 a piece to go to every game, they'd have been too irresistible a business prospect to dispose of, no matter how much ASG hated hockey (and being competent managerially).

But it's equally disingenuous to say "they moved because of bad attendance revenues, end of story" because if that were the only reason, there'd be a whole block of teams moving regularly. And it's a subjective exercise as to how much of the bad attendance can be owed to bad management because you could pull a swath from multiple teams' histories that resembled the Thrashers that went on to be manageable financially.

Re: the Coyotes, I once rather avidly called for their relocation until I became pretty agnostic on the whole thing upon Merulo buying it. At this point, the odds are long it can be made to work but miracles have happened before. But arguing the cause of the saltiness of the ground for the Yotes is a purely subjective assessment of percentages that doesn't much impact the likelihood of their staying or going in the here and now.

One could also argue that the Thrashers attendance revenue would never have been great under ASG because of their intent to get rid of the team. The team was bad because ASG didn't want them to be good, didn't want to put money into it, didn't want people to go to their games instead of the Hawks. You can't draw a parallel between what happened to the Thrashers and any other team in NHL history. No other team had ownership that never wanted them and intentionally burned down the brand in order to kick them out of the market. This is all written in court documents and is not up for debate.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

You can't have an argument with absolutes because the truth is usually a matter of percentages.

Except when there are court docs stating they wanted to sell the team immediately after buying it.


Thrashers owners have been trying to sell team since 2005

 

[Salsero1]

Except when there are court docs stating they wanted to sell the team immediately after buying it.


Thrashers owners have been trying to sell team since 2005

The Thrashers were seen as a barrier to the Hawks' success. Any fan gained of the Thrashers was a fan lost of the Hawks. They wanted the "hockey demographic" to go to Hawks games instead. People assume a level of good faith in the Thrashers ownership group that just wasn't there. They were lucky that they could take advantage of the xenophobia that's baked into hockey fandom and get away with what they did.

 

[Skidooboy]

lol...they made so much more money that they sold the arena and Hawks just a couple years after selling off the Thrashers. Even after keeping the Thrashers on the cap floor for years. end of story

who cares about any of it. over and done.
the after affects are unimportant. the point is nobody could make money with the Thrashers, noone can make money with the 'Yotes.

potato tomato tomato potato. arguingh about who lost how much money where when and how is pointless.

the fact is NOONE HAS made a penny off the 'Yotes. EVER. in fact probably a Billion or more has been lost.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

who cares about any of it. over and done.
the after affects are unimportant. the point is nobody could make money with the Thrashers, noone can make money with the 'Yotes.

potato tomato tomato potato. arguingh about who lost how much money where when and how is pointless.

the fact is NOONE HAS made a penny off the 'Yotes. EVER. in fact probably a Billion or more has been lost.

You've been wrong about every post on the Thrashers history. As well as nobody making money with them as they had stronger attendance than the Pens, Blackhawks and Islanders among others some years. All the CAPS and bolded comments you write won't change that you're just making stuff up. You get proven wrong with every post and all you do is write crap like "over and done" and "LOLOLOL" like a 5-year old. Only thing you've gotten correct is that your posts are pointless.

 

[BMN]

One could also argue that the Thrashers attendance revenue would never have been great under ASG because of their intent to get rid of the team. The team was bad because ASG didn't want them to be good, didn't want to put money into it, didn't want people to go to their games instead of the Hawks.

That's exactly what I said. It's a completely plausible argument. Also a totally subjective one because we'll never know.

Except when there are court docs stating they wanted to sell the team immediately after buying it.

And if 18k showed up regularly in 2003-04 paying $75 a piece, they likely would have had different intentions, or someone else with deeper pockets would have lined up to buy them. So again, it's disingenuous to pretend attendance had nothing to do with it. But one could argue (and I have, pretty regularly) that the % of what attendance played into it is pretty doggone low compared to other factors, which are possibly too numerous to list.

The Thrashers were seen as a barrier to the Hawks' success. Any fan gained of the Thrashers was a fan lost of the Hawks. They wanted the "hockey demographic" to go to Hawks games instead. People assume a level of good faith in the Thrashers ownership group that just wasn't there. They were lucky that they could take advantage of the xenophobia that's baked into hockey fandom and get away with what they did.

They didn't know, want to know, nor cared about hockey. But I'd argue it goes further back in that it never should have been so easy to sell the team to such an iept disinterested group to begin with (which is doubly infuriating considering there was an arguably better offer at the time ASG bought them).

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

And if 18k showed up regularly in 2003-04 paying $75 a piece, they likely would have had different intentions, or someone else with deeper pockets would have lined up to buy them. So again, it's disingenuous to pretend attendance had nothing to do with it. But one could argue (and I have, pretty regularly) that the % of what attendance played into it is pretty doggone low compared to other factors, which are possibly too numerous to list.

They didn't know, want to know, nor cared about hockey. But I'd argue it goes further back in that it never should have been so easy to sell the team to such an iept disinterested group to begin with (which is doubly infuriating considering there was an arguably better offer at the time ASG bought them).

Eh...I'll disagree with "likely would have had different intentions". In '03, they had better attendance than a number of teams including the Pens, Hawks, Islanders, and Caps. It wasn't empty.

In the next part you say "They didn't know, want to know, nor cared about hockey". THAT is the ultimate reason they moved.

 

[Salsero1]

The Thrashers outdrew the NBA Hawks (the team that ASG actually wanted) for most of their 11 year co-existence.

If attendance was so important, ASG sabotaged the wrong franchise.

 

[BMN]

Eh...I'll disagree with "likely would have had different intentions". In '03, they had better attendance than a number of teams including the Pens, Hawks, Islanders, and Caps. It wasn't empty.

In the next part you say "They didn't know, want to know, nor cared about hockey". THAT is the ultimate reason they moved.

That's not the standard for attendance playing a role. What if they had been *1st* in attendance revenues? What if their phone lines were burning up for season ticket renewals? Would they have been so quick to dump it then?

It's not a 0.00% proposition. There's no one reason. If you're telling me that had the Atlanta Thrashers been making the same gate and TV revenue as the Toronto Maple Leafs, they still would have been relocated, you're lying to yourself. But, to my original point, it's not 100% either because most NHL owners wouldn't hold their franchise to a standard that high because they actually would have wanted to own the team in the first place.

 

[Salsero1]

That's not the standard for attendance playing a role. What if they had been *1st* in attendance revenues? What if their phone lines were burning up for season ticket renewals? Would they have been so quick to dump it then?

It's not a 0.00% proposition. There's no one reason. If you're telling me that had the Atlanta Thrashers been making the same gate and TV revenue as the Toronto Maple Leafs, they still would have been relocated, you're lying to yourself. But, to my original point, it's not 100% either because most NHL owners wouldn't hold their franchise to a standard that high because they actually would have wanted to own the team in the first place.

That's just not reality. A 5 year old franchise that came into the dead puck era league with the old expansion process and not a winning season yet is never going to be the top in revenue. That's not what you expect when entering a new market. I don't know what you're arguing but it's not based in this reality. Trying to argue "they would have kept the Thrashers if they were more popular than the leafs" is a nonsense idea.

 

[Skidooboy]

You've been wrong about every post on the Thrashers history. As well as nobody making money with them as they had stronger attendance than the Pens, Blackhawks and Islanders among others some years. All the CAPS and bolded comments you write won't change that you're just making stuff up. You get proven wrong with every post and all you do is write crap like "over and done" and "LOLOLOL" like a 5-year old. Only thing you've gotten correct is that your posts are pointless.

lol the teams LOSE money. and never made enough money for a legitimate owner to want to keep them.

you can spin the history all the ways you want. You cqan push BS narratives about bad owners and whatever otgher silliness you want..... I

It still wont end up with a profitable market for an NHL team. end of story.

If it was profitable? the team would be where it was.

you spinning word games and busslhit isn't going to change that.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

lol the teams LOSE money. and never made enough money for a legitimate owner to want to keep them.

you can spin the history all the ways you want. You cqan push BS narratives about bad owners and whatever otgher silliness you want..... I

It still wont end up with a profitable market for an NHL team. end of story.

If it was profitable? the team would be where it was.

you spinning word games and busslhit isn't going to change that.

Spinning? I've added links and proof to everything I've stated. You've just added "end of story".

Let me ask you this...Do you think QC would be profitable? Just gauging where your head is at.

 

[Skidooboy]

Spinning? I've added links and proof to everything I've stated. You've just added "end of story".

Let me ask you this...Do you think QC would be profitable? Just gauging where your head is at.

yes.
there is a big enough hockey mad market. people are already commuting to Montreal for Habs games......

A billionaire owner, with his own TV network & broadcast deal, and already busy pretty new arena. With revenue sharing, the cap, A zstrong French business community who would support the team at the corporate level....and the ownership groups resources I think the franchise would probably be able to make it.

However it like Ottawa could suffer from the "this is Habs fans country" effect where they struggle to gain fans already committed to the Habs.

another issue is that should a return happen(only happen if the NHL has no other option) the French vs English nature and history of QC could cause a problem with the long term fan base......

And the NHL BOG really don't like the idea of a "French" team in a league they are trying to sell to the USA.......

so while i have faith the franchise can and will survive... there are a few concerns I could see that could limit it's success...

 

[Skidooboy]

Spinning? I've added links and proof to everything I've stated. You've just added "end of story".

Let me ask you this...Do you think QC would be profitable? Just gauging where your head is at.

show me a link that shows either the Thrashers or the 'yotes posting a profit for thier owners/investors.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

yes.
there is a big enough hockey mad market. people are already commuting to Montreal for Habs games......

A billionaire owner, with his own TV network & broadcast deal, and already busy pretty new arena. With revenue sharing, the cap, A zstrong French business community who would support the team at the corporate level....and the ownership groups resources I think the franchise would probably be able to make it.

However it like Ottawa could suffer from the "this is Habs fans country" effect where they struggle to gain fans already committed to the Habs.

another issue is that should a return happen(only happen if the NHL has no other option) the French vs English nature and history of QC could cause a problem with the long term fan base......

And the NHL BOG really don't like the idea of a "French" team in a league they are trying to sell to the USA.......

so while i have faith the franchise can and will survive... there are a few concerns I could see that could limit it's success...

So you believe a market 1/7 the size of Atlanta, which has already had teams move, just like Atlanta, would be profitable but Atlanta not. Got it.

Why couldn't Atlanta, with a billionaire owner, broadcast deal, and all these stipulations you mentioned, work?

 

[KevFu]

show me a link that shows either the Thrashers or the 'yotes posting a profit for thier owners/investors.

Well, FORBES says the Coyotes made $5.8 million in 2022. So....

 

[KevFu]

You can't have an argument with absolutes because the truth is usually a matter of percentages.

It's disingenuous, for e.g., to say attendance had nothing to do with the Thrashers leaving. If 18K were paying $75 a piece to go to every game, they'd have been too irresistible a business prospect to dispose of, no matter how much ASG hated hockey (and being competent managerially).

But it's equally disingenuous to say "they moved because of bad attendance revenues, end of story" because if that were the only reason, there'd be a whole block of teams moving regularly. And it's a subjective exercise as to how much of the bad attendance can be owed to bad management because you could pull a swath from multiple teams' histories that resembled the Thrashers that went on to be manageable financially.

Re: the Coyotes, I once rather avidly called for their relocation until I became pretty agnostic on the whole thing upon Merulo buying it. At this point, the odds are long it can be made to work but miracles have happened before. But arguing the cause of the saltiness of the ground for the Yotes is a purely subjective assessment of percentages that doesn't much impact the likelihood of their staying or going in the here and now.

Fans aren't stupid. Fans don't want to give their money to ownership that is either bumbling idiots, or seen as a determent to team success. 28,000 Oakland Athletics fans just chanted "Sell the Team" for nine innings straight to prove that very point.

Ownership Chaos scares fans away. ASG bought the Hawks/Thrashers, and Thrashers attendance went up! The team was "good," and fans were optimistic. Attendance climbed to 16,400 and 15,800.

Then one member of ASG sued the rest of ASG, making headlines. And attendance plummeted down to 13,500.

Headlines about chaos make fans stay away. Period.

 

[nhlfan79]

That's exactly what I said. It's a completely plausible argument. Also a totally subjective one because we'll never know.

And if 18k showed up regularly in 2003-04 paying $75 a piece, they likely would have had different intentions, or someone else with deeper pockets would have lined up to buy them. So again, it's disingenuous to pretend attendance had nothing to do with it. But one could argue (and I have, pretty regularly) that the % of what attendance played into it is pretty doggone low compared to other factors, which are possibly too numerous to list.

They didn't know, want to know, nor cared about hockey. But I'd argue it goes further back in that it never should have been so easy to sell the team to such an iept disinterested group to begin with (which is doubly infuriating considering there was an arguably better offer at the time ASG bought them).

You keep creating pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals about how the fans could have done more in order to compel ASG to run the team in good faith, which is a deeply frustrating post hoc insult to the people on here who actually lived through this fiasco firsthand. It is objective fact that ASG intentionally killed the franchise in order to benefit the Hawks, and their own sworn court documents verify that.

An owner called us "smart asses" to our very face in a crowded season ticket holder town hall meeting, with many children present, too. When we dared to question exorbitant ticket price hikes at the same time they were trading our few All Stars (Kovalchuk, Hossa, Lehtonen, Savard) to cut the payroll to the cap floor, we were told flatly to "deal with it." These are actual quotes from Bruce Levenson. Google it. ASG openly resented, and were hostile to, ticket-buying hockey fans. Like someone else said above, there is no other comparison to ASG in the history of this league. There have been many examples of inept ownership, but only one well-documented instance of an ownership group that intended to evict the franchise from the very moment they acquired it.

"We'll never know"? Yes, those of us who were here already do know.

 

[GreenHornet]

ASG openly resented, and were hostile to, ticket-buying hockey fans. Like someone else said above, there is no other comparison to ASG in the history of this league. There have been many examples of inept ownership, but only one well-documented instance of an ownership group that intended to evict the franchise from the very moment they acquired it.

The only (sort of) comparison in any sport is Rachel Phelps, the fictional owner of the then-Cleveland Indians in the movie "Major League." Even then, there's a big difference. To wit: Phelps actually wanted to keep the team, but sabotaged it so she could move it, while the A$G Septocluster™ just wanted to dump the Thrashers out of their building (and consequently, out of town).