Potential Atlanta NHL Expansion Team Thread

[BMN]

The team was "good," and fans were optimistic. Attendance climbed to 16,400 and 15,800.

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).

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.

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?

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.

 

[nhlfan79]

In the end, we're not so far apart here. It boils down to the chicken-or-the-egg question. Yes, it's beyond debate that attendance was below average most of the time, but that said, there also never was a point in time where ASG fielded (or even tried to field) a compelling on-ice product but the fans still didn't show up. That's always been my greatest lament. People who write off Atlanta as a "twice-failed market" with no context have no idea what they're talking about.

If ownership is deliberately taking steps to discourage anyone from buying hockey tickets, what significance should subpar attendance numbers even have? One could just as easily make a plausible argument that the fact that they still drew as many fans as they did under these unprecedented circumstances is both remarkable and commendable.

 

[KevFu]

All the talk about attendance and market for cities that joined the league in the 1990s overlooks the absolute key flaw of the 1990s NHL: SUDDEN expansion, not southern.

The league added EIGHT TEAMS in TEN SEASONS. These teams were absolutely terrible because they came into existence together. They can't all build through the draft when there's eight of them competing for top three picks.

And because of how they did divisions, a lot of the point totals were actually kind of inflated from the division schedule against each other (where someone had to get points). (I.E. - Atlanta had a respectable 90 points in 2006. But they had a 95-point pace inside the division and a 80-point pace outside of it).


15,500 is a bad year for some teams. Yeah, but how's attendance when you're 49 points out of 8th place?



If you want to tell me that bad attendance for a bad team means a market is a failure, I'm calling BS. You've got to make apples to apples comparisons and adjust for circumstance.

 

[BMN]

15,500 is a bad year for some teams. Yeah, but how's attendance when you're 49 points out of 8th place?
For a handful of teams, that's still bad even if you suck. Yes, I know those markets are the rare unicorns (there's probably maybe 2-3, four tops, markets like this) but they do exist. WHICH MAKES ATTENDANCE A NON-ZERO FACTOR. Not a big one. Not the main one. Not even a terribly significant one. But a factor. Criminie, how many times must I bold this?

Sigh, OK, I already broke my own promise not to rant about it anymore...more saliently...

All the talk about attendance and market for cities that joined the league in the 1990s overlooks the absolute key flaw of the 1990s NHL: SUDDEN expansion, not southern.

The league got big fast and it's honestly a semi-miracle only one team relocated between 1998 to today. Quite frankly, if I'm the NHL, I boast that as an enormous success (Arizona circus notwithstanding).

Another underdiscussed challenge re: the influx of new southeast teams specifically is that they were placed in a division together despite very little in shared history. Ostensibly this is a good idea for obvious logical reasons (travel) and futuristic reasons (you want the history between said franchises to build into folklore). But it means that the bigger draw opponents don't come by town as often. No offense to the Washington Capitals and their fans but when they're the closest thing you have to a "frequent marquee opponent," that's an uphill climb.

 

[KevFu]

It sounds like you're arguing with me, but you're basically saying the same things I've been saying for decades now! Your second section is basically a shorter version of something I've said dozens of times!

Attendance is basically meaningless. The difference between 13k and 18k is upper-bowl seats, which are Joe Average fans, who go to a 0-4 games a year. Those seats are really just there for the playoffs.

Good attendance is a sign of things being good. If things are really bad for a franchise, they'll have bad attendance. But bad attendance isn't a sign of a franchise in imminent danger, doom, relocation talk, or anything of the sort.

Everyone really need to look at baseball. Tampa and Oakland are being talked about for relocation because their stadiums are old and crappy and their leases are nearing the end.

But MLB attendance ALSO SUCKS in Miami, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Arizona, Baltimore, Detroit... But no one talks about relocation for THEM because their stadiums are YOUNG (MIA), pretty young (CIN, DET), gorgeous/beloved (PIT/BAL) or there is time to get a new one (KC, ARZ).

 

[KevFu]

Another underdiscussed challenge re: the influx of new southeast teams specifically is that they were placed in a division together despite very little in shared history. Ostensibly this is a good idea for obvious logical reasons (travel) and futuristic reasons (you want the history between said franchises to build into folklore). But it means that the bigger draw opponents don't come by town as often. No offense to the Washington Capitals and their fans but when they're the closest thing you have to a "frequent marquee opponent," that's an uphill climb.

This is something I try to harp on every chance I get.

When the NHL went to six divisions, the LA Kings and Washington Capitals had won zero Cups.

Both cities are VERY transplant heavy. Whether it be entertainment or politics, you have people from other states flocking there for jobs, either in the direct industry itself, or the adjacent industries.

The other EIGHT TEAMS in the those two divisions were brand spanking new. 32 of 82 games were played in division.

Rivalries happen because of stakes: two teams fighting for something one can possess: Lakers/Celtics in the NBA Finals, Knicks vs Bulls/Pacers with MJ/Reggie Miller; Red Wings/Avalanche; Mets/Braves and Mets/Cardinals in the 80s. Half the NHL Eastern Conference now vs Tampa Bay. How many Blue Jays fans we got on here? How many of you hate the Texas Rangers more than Baltimore or Cleveland?


The NHL put 8 new markets into a division with no history at all, and expected bad teams to become rivals because of the map. THE DIVISION barely even mattered because the playoffs were seeded 1-8.

They weren't ASSIMILATED into the NHL, they were basically an ANNEX. And it was terrible for those markets.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Any actual updates on this proposal...you know rather than arguing about what is good and not so good attendance.

 

[nhlfan79]

This is something I try to harp on every chance I get.

When the NHL went to six divisions, the LA Kings and Washington Capitals had won zero Cups.

Both cities are VERY transplant heavy. Whether it be entertainment or politics, you have people from other states flocking there for jobs, either in the direct industry itself, or the adjacent industries.

The other EIGHT TEAMS in the those two divisions were brand spanking new. 32 of 82 games were played in division.

Rivalries happen because of stakes: two teams fighting for something one can possess: Lakers/Celtics in the NBA Finals, Knicks vs Bulls/Pacers with MJ/Reggie Miller; Red Wings/Avalanche; Mets/Braves and Mets/Cardinals in the 80s. Half the NHL Eastern Conference now vs Tampa Bay. How many Blue Jays fans we got on here? How many of you hate the Texas Rangers more than Baltimore or Cleveland?


The NHL put 8 new markets into a division with no history at all, and expected bad teams to become rivals because of the map. THE DIVISION barely even mattered because the playoffs were seeded 1-8.

They weren't ASSIMILATED into the NHL, they were basically an ANNEX. And it was terrible for those markets.

Excellent point. During that unbalanced schedule era, nearly a third of the home schedule was against Carolina, Washington, Tampa, or Florida. And we almost never saw our closest georgraphic rival, Nashville. It was tedious.

 

[nhlfan79]

Any actual updates on this proposal...you know rather than arguing about what is good and not so good attendance.

Not much, but a few weeks back, Sean Gentille of The Athletic did an interview with a local sports talk station about the topic. Most of it is stuff that's already known, but he did question whether The Gathering up in Forsyth County would be where any potential team would land. He said his money still remains on the closer-in North Point Mall area. When asked to give a percentage chance for whether any of this comes to pass, he said 50-50. Here's that interview. It's not that long.

https://www.audacy.com/podcast/dukes-bell-0fcb8/episodes/how-realistic-is-hockey-returning-to-atlanta-6eb1f

 

[Headshot77]

It sounds like you're arguing with me, but you're basically saying the same things I've been saying for decades now! Your second section is basically a shorter version of something I've said dozens of times!

Attendance is basically meaningless. The difference between 13k and 18k is upper-bowl seats, which are Joe Average fans, who go to a 0-4 games a year. Those seats are really just there for the playoffs.

Good attendance is a sign of things being good. If things are really bad for a franchise, they'll have bad attendance. But bad attendance isn't a sign of a franchise in imminent danger, doom, relocation talk, or anything of the sort.

Everyone really need to look at baseball. Tampa and Oakland are being talked about for relocation because their stadiums are old and crappy and their leases are nearing the end.

But MLB attendance ALSO SUCKS in Miami, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Arizona, Baltimore, Detroit... But no one talks about relocation for THEM because their stadiums are YOUNG (MIA), pretty young (CIN, DET), gorgeous/beloved (PIT/BAL) or there is time to get a new one (KC, ARZ).

Hockey is more gate-driven than baseball is however. Consistently poor attendance harms an NHL franchise more than an MLB one.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

Any actual updates on this proposal...you know rather than arguing about what is good and not so good attendance.

At this stage, news will be at a trickle. While the news of development plans is encouraging for us Atlanta hockey fans, that's all it is at this point...plans. Still a very long way to go to get a team here including the two biggest pieces of the puzzle: an owner with $$ and the league looking to expand (I don't see relo as an option as this project is years away).

 

[nhlfan79]

At this stage, news will be at a trickle. While the news of development plans is encouraging for us Atlanta hockey fans, that's all it is at this point...plans. Still a very long way to go to get a team here including the two biggest pieces of the puzzle: an owner with $$ and the league looking to expand (I don't see relo as an option as this project is years away).

That podcast I posted earlier at least mentioned in passing the option of having a relocated team play temporarily in Gwinnett. My assumption is that's a non-starter.

 

[GreenHornet]

At this stage, news will be at a trickle. While the news of development plans is encouraging for us Atlanta hockey fans, that's all it is at this point...plans. Still a very long way to go to get a team here including the two biggest pieces of the puzzle: an owner with $$ and the league looking to expand (I don't see relo as an option as this project is years away).

Agree. My (admittedly purely speculative based on no inside info) opinion is that once the plans and location for the arena become more concrete (pun intended), news will probably flow more.

I did find the audio link provided by nhlfan79 rather intriguing. The author of the article in The Athletic strongly hinted (and, in fact, predicted, albeit cautiously) that not only is the Alpharetta/North Point Mall location still in the picture for the arena site, but might actually be the favorite over The Gathering at South Forsyth.

This kind of reminds me a little bit of the situation when hockey first returned to Atlanta in the early 1990s a decade after the Flames left. Back then, there was a lot of noise being made by two groups of investors that wanted to start up a WHA-like competing league for the NHL. Both held press conferences announcing Atlanta franchises and introducing local owners (one of them even had Dan Bouchard as a GM or coach or some sort of hockey ops role). Both announced plans to play at the Omni, but neither one had a lease. A few months later, Richard Adler and Dave Berkman, who had been almost completely silent to that point, swooped in and signed a lease at the Omni for a team that would become the IHL's Atlanta Knights. Fast forward to present day and all the recent (rather loud) talk has centered around the Gathering and Forsyth County. Comparatively speaking, we've heard next to nothing about Alpharetta/North Point Mall for months. Now, the arena might end up in South Forsyth, but like I said, I'm just getting a vibe that we shouldn't write off Alpharetta/North Point Mall just yet.

What we also have heard next to nothing about, is exactly who (or group of whos) is involved with a potential ownership of the team. While Vernon Krause has been the face and voice of The Gathering, he's never specifically said he's the only one involved with a potential NHL ownership group (or that he's even part of it at all). While I strongly suspect there is already a would-be group looking to own an NHL franchise and has the means to do so, it has done a really good job of staying quiet about it.

All this is to say, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming weeks, months and perhaps years. And as I said, I suspect that when the arena plans become clearer, the information drip should turn into a trickle or even flow. If I had to guess (and it's only a guess), I'd say we should start to know a little bit more either late this year or early into 2024.

 

[KevFu]

Excellent point. During that unbalanced schedule era, nearly a third of the home schedule was against Carolina, Washington, Tampa, or Florida. And we almost never saw our closest georgraphic rival, Nashville. It was tedious.

But why is NASHVILLE a "rival"? If you're an Atlanta sports fan, what teams do you hate the most? You probably hate the Mets (900 miles away) more than the Marlins (660) or Nationals (600).
You probably hate the New Orleans Saints more than the Tennessee Titans.
You probably hate the Knicks and Heat more than the Charlotte Hornets/Bobcats.

Hockey is more gate-driven than baseball is however. Consistently poor attendance harms an NHL franchise more than an MLB one.

It's "more gate-driven" but both leagues are well past being gate-driven. The whole "We're a gate-driven league" thing is tired. Every league is a TV, SUITE and PREMIUM TICKET driven league.

When you're talking about average attendance, you're talking about "are you filling the LAST seats?" The Worst/cheapest seats.

Take Pittsburgh (via Seat Geek).
Penguins: low as $32, average $93
Pirates: low as $25, average $50.

If you're talking about the LAST 3,000 seats for the Penguins, it's about $185,000 more in revenue per game. Which for the Pirates is the last FIVE thousand seats.

So yeah, the Penguins are "more" gate driven. But that's like saying I'm less wordy than Mark Twain. Doesn't make me BRIEF, now does it?

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

That podcast I posted earlier at least mentioned in passing the option of having a relocated team play temporarily in Gwinnett. My assumption is that's a non-starter.

Yeah, in an emergency situation, Gwinnett can host (strictly on a temporary basis), but without a potential owner noted (like SLC), I don't see it happening.

 

[nhlfan79]

But why is NASHVILLE a "rival"? If you're an Atlanta sports fan, what teams do you hate the most? You probably hate the Mets (900 miles away) more than the Marlins (660) or Nationals (600).
You probably hate the New Orleans Saints more than the Tennessee Titans.
You probably hate the Knicks and Heat more than the Charlotte Hornets/Bobcats.

If I'm being brutally honest, the Braves don't really consider the Mets to be a real rival, as the Mets haven't won enough against them to make it a compelling matchup. From what I see online, the Mets fans view the Braves as a hated rival more than we do them. The Braves' only current big rival right now is the Dodgers, which is based on recent playoff series and a long history dating back to when both teams were in the NL West.

I say Nashville only because of the close geographic proximity (2.5 hour drive vs. 6.5 to Raleigh vs. 8 to Tampa). Given the whole "college football is everything" in the south, Georgia and Tennessee are big annual rivals, so Atlanta and Nashville could've leaned into that pretty well in the marketing, if they'd been given the chance. Both fanbases would've traveled well to the others' building.

The Falcons hate the Saints. The Hawks have no rivals, really. Atlanta United hates Orlando City SC. Now THAT is a good current rivalry with a lot of ugliness and spirit.

 

[BMN]

If I'm being brutally honest, the Braves don't really consider the Mets to be a real rival, as the Mets haven't won enough against them to make it a compelling matchup. From what I see online, the Mets fans view the Braves as a hated rival more than we do them. The Braves' only current big rival right now is the Dodgers, which is based on recent playoff series and a long history dating back to when both teams were in the NL West.

I say Nashville only because of the close geographic proximity (2.5 hour drive vs. 6.5 to Raleigh vs. 8 to Tampa). Given the whole "college football is everything" in the south, Georgia and Tennessee are big annual rivals, so Atlanta and Nashville could've leaned into that pretty well in the marketing, if they'd been given the chance. Both fanbases would've traveled well to the others' building.

The Falcons hate the Saints. The Hawks have no rivals, really. Atlanta United hates Orlando City SC. Now THAT is a good current rivalry with a lot of ugliness and spirit.

Lived in Atlanta from 2003-22 and it's obviously totally anecdotal but I think some rivalries fluctuated while others were more constant. There was no time in those two decades that the Saints were anything other than the Falcons top rival. Conversely, all the Braves fans I met when I first moved there did nothing but chirp on the Mets...but keep in mind, the 1999 and 2000 LCS' were only a few years in the rear view at that point. I agree that there's more enmity now for the Dodgers than any in-division rival.

It was also.....sad, I guess?...to watch the UGA-Tech rivalry devolve from "honest to goodness rivalry" to "well, I guess it's a rivalry on paper..." (or more like your aforementioned description with the Mets where Tech still sees it as a rivalry).

The ATLUTD-ORL SC rivalry is fierce. If the Thrashers could have evolved as a rival like that for either of the Florida teams, that would have been something.

 

[aqib]

It sounds like you're arguing with me, but you're basically saying the same things I've been saying for decades now! Your second section is basically a shorter version of something I've said dozens of times!

Attendance is basically meaningless. The difference between 13k and 18k is upper-bowl seats, which are Joe Average fans, who go to a 0-4 games a year. Those seats are really just there for the playoffs.

Good attendance is a sign of things being good. If things are really bad for a franchise, they'll have bad attendance. But bad attendance isn't a sign of a franchise in imminent danger, doom, relocation talk, or anything of the sort.

Everyone really need to look at baseball. Tampa and Oakland are being talked about for relocation because their stadiums are old and crappy and their leases are nearing the end.

But MLB attendance ALSO SUCKS in Miami, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Arizona, Baltimore, Detroit... But no one talks about relocation for THEM because their stadiums are YOUNG (MIA), pretty young (CIN, DET), gorgeous/beloved (PIT/BAL) or there is time to get a new one (KC, ARZ).

Other than Miami none of them have been serious relocation threats because all those market haves have shown at some point in the not distant past that they can and do support the team on a regular basis. Also, all of them except Cinci are owned by billionaires.

Attendance fluctuates especially in baseball. But if you're a market that after the initial novelty wears off consistently struggles to draw than its a market issue

Bettman always says that if there is someone willing to own a team in a market than the team stays. When Glendale cancelled the Coyotes lease he gave them permission to move if they could make a deal. I'm sure if ownership had asked once the Glendale told them they wouldn't renew the lease he would have let them go then too.

 

[TheLegend]

Man who oversaw the building of Mullett Arena at Arizona State heading to Atlanta.

 

[NextBigThing]

Wouldn’t it be something if Winnipeg relocated back to Atlanta? Financially, the Jets are in trouble up there in Winnipeg. It’s just not a major league market.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

Wouldn’t it be something if Winnipeg relocated back to Atlanta? Financially, the Jets are in trouble up there in Winnipeg. It’s just not a major league market.

Is Winnipeg a major league market? No.

Are the Jets in financial trouble? No. I would like to ask where I can get the drugs that makes this detached from reality to anyone who thinks they are in financial trouble.

Their owner is the richest man in Canada by a considerable margin and one of the richest in the world. He has made it clear to anyone who would listen that money is no object and one of his biggest passions is having the Winnipeg Jets. The team owns the arena so any of those costs are null, something which the Forbes valuations probably don't take into account. Losing the $7M or so they do whenever they don't make playoffs is nothing to the owners. That isn't losing much money, and it doesn't happen frequently. They own plenty of other enterprises that make money based on the +41 Jets home games. The arena itself makes plenty of money off Jets games. Look beyond whatever dumb Forbes valuations you see. It is the same thing as the Predators, who operate their arena. The team itself might not make money, but the owners are. There is a HUGE difference.

 

[cg98]

Wouldn’t it be something if Winnipeg relocated back to Atlanta? Financially, the Jets are in trouble up there in Winnipeg. It’s just not a major league market.

No they aren’t, even if the Jets themselves aren’t making enough NHL revenue or are at the bottom of the standings and have empty seats, True North has a wide and profitable real estate portfolio and monopoly on downtown Winnipeg that it doesn’t really matter. They’re buying that dump in Portage Place across the street for well over half a billion dollars and redeveloping it. They just raised True North Square behind the arena. Doesn’t sound like they’re leaving now if they’re spending money and building things downtown does it? Doesnt sound like you know what youre talking about either.

 

[GreenHornet]

Man who oversaw the building of Mullett Arena at Arizona State heading to Atlanta.

Nice to have some sort of news, since it's been rather quiet for a few months now. I was thinking that the next word we'd be hearing would be the economic impact study that was approved back in May, was it? But this is also interesting.

 

[Jets4Life]

Wouldn’t it be something if Winnipeg relocated back to Atlanta? Financially, the Jets are in trouble up there in Winnipeg. It’s just not a major league market.

How many times do you have to repeat the same ridiculous post?

 

[Jets4Life]

Man who oversaw the building of Mullett Arena at Arizona State heading to Atlanta.

Good for Atlanta.

I can see Atlanta being one of two teams to be granted NHL expansion franchise, whenever the NHL gets around to doing so, along with Houston or Salt Lake City. With the right ownership group, NHL hockey could be a resounding success.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Thrashers start to become irrelevant, once the ASG purchased them. If Ted Turner had not merged his companies with AOL, the Thrashers could have been as sucessful as any other team. If hockey can work in Nashville and Carolina, I see no reason that a team cannot succeed in the area.