BMN
Registered User
- Jun 2, 2021
- 367
- 498
That would be a bad year for some teams. If it was mathematically possible for more fans to be in the building and also mathematically possible for those that attended to have paid more, then it was a non-zero factor. (I'm bolding this again because I feel like people are making more out of what I'm trying to say than what it is).The team was "good," and fans were optimistic. Attendance climbed to 16,400 and 15,800.
1-- Assuming that the building would have been jammed if it had been run right is 100% speculative because the sample size of that is exceptionally tiny and even then only places the Thrashers in the middle of the pack attendance/revenue wise. So who's being "pie in the sky" here?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's like "imagining a world where the Thrashers made money eight years straight because it was being run right" = a totally realistic thing you should be allowed to say despite absolutely zero evidence to back it up and "Maybe the market was a little tougher than others and that was a contributing factor" = a big meanie poo-poo thing to say and it shouldn't be allowed.
2-- I lived ITP from '03 to the team leaving and well well beyond that. I'm not ill informed. I know what happened. The market writ large didn't just consist of you and your friends (or me and mine, for that matter). I lived what it was when the Thrashers were a non-entity. I lived through what passed for their "good years." And trust me, I know the "deal with it" story. I've heard it only one billion times already.
I do completely agree that ASG is an unprecedented ownership group; there are entire cavalcades of bad ownership groups but few so hellbent on not just getting rid of but flat out poisoning, selling and relocating an asset no matter what short-term losses needed to be taken. (Although it's solipsistic to say other sports owners haven't been hellbent on moving a team no matter what, just without selling it. If the Los Angeles Chargers aren't a testament to this, I don't know what is. Hell, Al Davis once went to court to say "I don't care what my league says, I'm moving this thing.").
Once again, I feel like I've strayed off from my original point. But for the last time: a relocation seldom if ever happens 100% because of any one thing. It's usually a confluence of factors and I'd argue in the Thrashers case, attendance played a non-zero role. So it's disingenuous to hand wave people away who bring it up because it makes one look like a homer with their head in the sand. It's a lot like what Chuck Klosterman once said about fandom (EDIT: I looked it up to quote it more exactly): "If you're trying to get a reasonable understanding of what something is, the 'over-the-top fan' has the most information but they have no distance from it."
So my argument is that it's much more realistic and levelheaded to say "Yeah, the attendance wasn't great and the corresponding lack of appeal to the outside business world to come negotiate a rescue even against the octocluster's wishes was probably a contributing factor. But such an infinitesimally small one that it just needs to be noted and acknowledged should someone else give it a shot, and not repeat any mistakes based on what was learned from the last time." I feel like I'm with a group of people who all agree "the Titanic wasn't built right and was bound to sink" but because I'm the only one who's willing to casually mention "oh, and the iceberg didn't help either," I'm the bad guy.
2nd Edit: Also, saying attendance was a non-zero factor is *NOT* "blaming the fans" or "saying the fans could have done more." It's just saying it was a non-zero factor. No more. No less. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Last edited: