Potential Atlanta NHL Expansion Team Thread

[TheLegend]

Not to distract since this is an Atlanta thread, but attendance faded when they were still downtown and still making the playoffs (I am guessing the novelty wore off), rebounded when they got the new arena then it faded again before falling off the floor when they filed bankruptcy. That's despite how cheap tickets are.

Inbetween the new arena and bankruptcy you forgot this little thing called a lockout happened.

Followed not to long after that by a recession when the mortgage bubble burst.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

I mean, did anyone else really believe if given opportunity NHL wouldn’t have a go at a team in a market with over 5 million people?

Not to distract since this is an Atlanta thread, but attendance faded when they were still downtown and still making the playoffs (I am guessing the novelty wore off), rebounded when they got the new arena then it faded again before falling off the floor when they filed bankruptcy. That's despite how cheap tickets are.

Be consistently good and people will show up. Be terrible for a while and people don’t. It’s not that hard dude.

 

[GKJ]

This thread is just a preview of what the main boards will look like when this inevitably happens. I get why it will happen, and why people will hate that it does with zero understanding of why it failed twice to begin with. The NHL just very obviously needs to know that whatever ownership is involved is committed. If I were a prospective owner, I’d be looking at investing in grassroots now and engage in the market.

 

[StreetHawk]

This thread is just a preview of what the main boards will look like when this inevitably happens. I get why it will happen, and why people will hate that it does with zero understanding of why it failed twice to begin with. The NHL just very obviously needs to know that whatever ownership is involved is committed. If I were a prospective owner, I’d be looking at investing in grassroots now and engage in the market.

Dreger Reporting that the nhl would be eying a $2 billion expansion fee. So this group that is looking to build this complex needs to take that price tag into consideration as well.
And they also need to look into grassroots hockey.

 

[GKJ]

Dreger Reporting that the nhl would be eying a $2 billion expansion fee. So this group that is looking to build this complex needs to take that price tag into consideration as well.
And they also need to look into grassroots hockey.

New expansion rules will help a lot too.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

This thread is just a preview of what the main boards will look like when this inevitably happens. I get why it will happen, and why people will hate that it does with zero understanding of why it failed twice to begin with. The NHL just very obviously needs to know that whatever ownership is involved is committed. If I were a prospective owner, I’d be looking at investing in grassroots now and engage in the market.

Yeah, I agree. You just have to have thick skin when you're a fan of certain (potential and existing) teams. And I do understand that not all hockey fans know the history other than Atlanta has had two teams.

Though, I may fly off if I see another "Only a matter of time before QC gets this team" "joke". It has now entered into "Eklund said it, then the opposite will happen" and "Halak, Rider, and a 2nd" territory

 

[GKJ]

Yeah, I agree. You just have to have thick skin when you're a fan of certain (potential and existing) teams. And I do understand that not all hockey fans don't know the history other than Atlanta has had two teams.

Though, I may fly off if I see another "Only a matter of time before QC gets this team" "joke". It has now entered into "Eklund said it, then the opposite will happen" and "Halak, Rider, and a 2nd" territory

I do believe it’s a matter of time, but time exists only to betray us.

 

[LPHabsFan]

This thread is just a preview of what the main boards will look like when this inevitably happens. I get why it will happen, and why people will hate that it does with zero understanding of why it failed twice to begin with. The NHL just very obviously needs to know that whatever ownership is involved is committed. If I were a prospective owner, I’d be looking at investing in grassroots now and engage in the market.

What makes you, or anyone else, think that this time will be any different than the last two? The reasons that led to the demise of the previous two iterations, what is the likelihood of them potentially happening again? What were the metrics that they used to justify the last two expansions/relocation to the market? If the metrics and justifications are the same, why should people believe that the outcome will be any different than the previous two times?

 

[ponder719]

What makes you, or anyone else, think that this time will be any different than the last two? The reasons that led to the demise of the previous two iterations, what is the likelihood of them potentially happening again? What were the metrics that they used to justify the last two expansions/relocation to the market? If the metrics and justifications are the same, why should people believe that the outcome will be any different than the previous two times?

I can't answer all of these, but the odds of Atlanta 3 moving into a building that was built without luxury suites, as the Flames did, is nil, and the odds of them being purchased, along with the Hawks and a building, by an ownership group that didn't want them and refused to permit them to play in the only suitable building in the city, as the Thrashers did, is also nil.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

What makes you, or anyone else, think that this time will be any different than the last two? The reasons that led to the demise of the previous two iterations, what is the likelihood of them potentially happening again? What were the metrics that they used to justify the last two expansions/relocation to the market? If the metrics and justifications are the same, why should people believe that the outcome will be any different than the previous two times?

Since ownership was responsible for the demise of the first two teams, it will be crucial to find a devoted owner. I'm sure you know the history of the Thrashers, so no need to rehash, but I'm sure you agree that, when ASG bought the team and immediately tried to get rid of the team, that was the beginning of the end.

As far as what's changed in the last 12 years, the metro has added another 1.5 million people (mostly from the north). Corporate money has also followed. Google, Microsoft, Mercedes, and StateFarm (among others) have planted huge offices/campuses here.

Atlanta is one of the fastest growing metros in NA. Many large companies now have "hubs" rather than just HQ's so they can spread operations across the south.

 

[GKJ]

What makes you, or anyone else, think that this time will be any different than the last two? The reasons that led to the demise of the previous two iterations, what is the likelihood of them potentially happening again? What were the metrics that they used to justify the last two expansions/relocation to the market? If the metrics and justifications are the same, why should people believe that the outcome will be any different than the previous two times?

I don’t need a metric to tell me that building an arena basically specifically to house the team, with no NBA tenant, and at least a decent chance that owner owns the building as well, is going to make things different by a lot.

 

[BMN]

If the metrics and justifications are the same, why should people believe that the outcome will be any different than the previous two times?

Here's the thing: it's not an unfair question to ask. And it's not unfair to predict it wouldn't work. Because we have only conjecture to prove it will.

But it is unfair to judge the likelihood of success based solely on the idea "the metrics and justifications are the same." Because the metrics and justifications aren't the same (well, OK, some of the justifications are but not even unanimoulsy that either). Nothing about this bid resembles the previous two other than "Atlanta metro area" (and a different part of that metro by a good bit to boot).

 

[DuklaNation]

Atlanta isn't a hardcore sports town unless its football. Just another franchise that other teams will need to subsidize because of their poor operating cash flow.

 

[Takuto Maruki]

Atlanta isn't a hardcore sports town unless its football. Just another franchise that other teams will need to subsidize because of their poor operating cash flow.

Gee, I wonder what the Braves are doing.

 

[Last Rat Standing]

What makes you, or anyone else, think that this time will be any different than the last two? The reasons that led to the demise of the previous two iterations, what is the likelihood of them potentially happening again? What were the metrics that they used to justify the last two expansions/relocation to the market? If the metrics and justifications are the same, why should people believe that the outcome will be any different than the previous two times?

12 years with only two home playoff games to show for it doesn't help either. As well as having ownership take over a team that they didn't want and basically gutted and sold because they were only interested in the Hawks. Nashville, Dallas, Tampa and a more recent extent, Carolina are all markets close to Atlanta and shows that good ownership plus a successful team equals that a team can be successful. The Thrashers never received that opportunity. It took them years to have one successful season that was over in a flash and then back to less than mediocrity. ASG took that and sold it to whoever wanted it. Heck it even took the Jets with the Thrasher core four seasons to make the playoffs.

 

[DuklaNation]

Gee, I wonder what the Braves are doing.

Their attendance tanks when they're not good. Fortunately for them, they've had good rosters most of the time. Ideally, you want franchises that are self sufficient and have fanbases that are solid throughout the ups and downs.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

Atlanta isn't a hardcore sports town unless its football. Just another franchise that other teams will need to subsidize because of their poor operating cash flow.

Ha… Braves have been one of the top teams in attendance since moving to their new stadium. Hawks averaged a sellout. The MLS team is tops in the league and has broken records for attendance. Not sure what you’re basing that on.

 

[DuklaNation]

Ha… Braves have been one of the top teams in attendance since moving to their new stadium. Hawks averaged a sellout. The MLS team is tops in the league and has broken records for attendance. Not sure what you’re basing that on.

Hawks 100% attendance would be a disappointment in most other locations. Let alone whatever the aggregate revenue per game was.

Aside from last season they typically averaged 15,500-16,500, with some low points mixed. Last season was 17,500+ which indicates they had seat promotions of some kind.

 

[LPHabsFan]

I can't answer all of these, but the odds of Atlanta 3 moving into a building that was built without luxury suites, as the Flames did, is nil, and the odds of them being purchased, along with the Hawks and a building, by an ownership group that didn't want them and refused to permit them to play in the only suitable building in the city, as the Thrashers did, is also nil.

The only thing that you can predict with certainty in your examples is the building without luxury suites. I'm sure when the Thrashers came about, nobody thought they'd end up in a situation like they did, but they did. Could something similar happen? Absolutely? Could it be a different situation too? Yes. But ultimately, they were sold to ASG in part because at the time I'm sure the interest level wasn't there. You can't for certain that won't happen again and there aren't any other metrics in this situation that can't be shot down that make it a desirable asset unless a perfect situation exists.

I don’t need a metric to tell me that building an arena basically specifically to house the team, with no NBA tenant, and at least a decent chance that owner owns the building as well, is going to make things different by a lot.

Ooof.

Here's the thing: it's not an unfair question to ask. And it's not unfair to predict it wouldn't work. Because we have only conjecture to prove it will.

But it is unfair to judge the likelihood of success based solely on the idea "the metrics and justifications are the same." Because the metrics and justifications aren't the same (well, OK, some of the justifications are but not even unanimoulsy that either). Nothing about this bid resembles the previous two other than "Atlanta metro area" (and a different part of that metro by a good bit to boot).

I made a lengthy and kind of rambly post in the main board thread but again, how is it different?

Population size, population growth, migrating population, different location for the arena and where the majority of the fans will be, increased corporate presence, and non crappy owner.

The first bunch of justifications are the same as the late 90's and I'm sure back when the Flames were brought to Atlanta as well. Suburb locations for NHL arena's has never been successful, and a non crappy owner is just a hope rather than a certainty.

So yeah, I think it is pretty fair since as I said, almost nothing has really changed.

 

[GKJ]

The only thing that you can predict with certainty in your examples is the building without luxury suites. I'm sure when the Thrashers came about, nobody thought they'd end up in a situation like they did, but they did. Could something similar happen? Absolutely? Could it be a different situation too? Yes. But ultimately, they were sold to ASG in part because at the time I'm sure the interest level wasn't there. You can't for certain that won't happen again and there aren't any other metrics in this situation that can't be shot down that make it a desirable asset unless a perfect situation exists.

Ooof.

I made a lengthy and kind of rambly post in the main board thread but again, how is it different?

Population size, population growth, migrating population, different location for the arena and where the majority of the fans will be, increased corporate presence, and non crappy owner.

The first bunch of justifications are the same as the late 90's and I'm sure back when the Flames were brought to Atlanta as well. Suburb locations for NHL arena's has never been successful, and a non crappy owner is just a hope rather than a certainty.

So yeah, I think it is pretty fair since as I said, almost nothing has really changed.

“Ooof,” eh? Good indication that you’re unable to dispute it.

 

[ponder719]

The only thing that you can predict with certainty in your examples is the building without luxury suites. I'm sure when the Thrashers came about, nobody thought they'd end up in a situation like they did, but they did. Could something similar happen? Absolutely? Could it be a different situation too? Yes. But ultimately, they were sold to ASG in part because at the time I'm sure the interest level wasn't there. You can't for certain that won't happen again and there aren't any other metrics in this situation that can't be shot down that make it a desirable asset unless a perfect situation exists.

Well, let's start from the position that the presumptive ownership of Atlanta 3 wouldn't own the Hawks and State Farm Arena, they'd only own the new team and their new arena. I'll step back from saying the odds are nil to merely absurdly remote, but to get to the position that resulted in the death of the Thrashers, you'd need to either a) have the owners of Atlanta 3 buy the Hawks from Tony Ressler, then sell the whole group to someone who wanted to force the hockey team out of Atlanta entirely, or b) have a new owner buy both, then decide after making that purchase that they didn't want to buy the hockey team after all and had no interest in recouping their money unless they could, as part of that, force the team out of the metro area.

Do you see how illogical it is to use these hypotheticals as an argument why a franchise in Atlanta won't work? You might as well say that they shouldn't have granted an expansion franchise to the Islanders because a second team in New York had already failed, and what if there was another World War?

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

The only thing that you can predict with certainty in your examples is the building without luxury suites. I'm sure when the Thrashers came about, nobody thought they'd end up in a situation like they did, but they did. Could something similar happen? Absolutely? Could it be a different situation too? Yes. But ultimately, they were sold to ASG in part because at the time I'm sure the interest level wasn't there. You can't for certain that won't happen again and there aren't any other metrics in this situation that can't be shot down that make it a desirable asset unless a perfect situation exists.

Ooof.

I made a lengthy and kind of rambly post in the main board thread but again, how is it different?

Population size, population growth, migrating population, different location for the arena and where the majority of the fans will be, increased corporate presence, and non crappy owner.

The first bunch of justifications are the same as the late 90's and I'm sure back when the Flames were brought to Atlanta as well. Suburb locations for NHL arena's has never been successful, and a non crappy owner is just a hope rather than a certainty.

So yeah, I think it is pretty fair since as I said, almost nothing has really changed.

So, if you were a billionaire potential business owner, what are you looking for. It’s not increasing population or increasing corporate profits?

 

[Salsero1]

So, if you were a billionaire potential business owner, what are you looking for. It’s not increasing population or increasing corporate profits?

You're looking to serve THE REAL FANS!!!!!!

 

[Tawnos]

I think the big problem a lot of people have when they look at the two failures is that they can’t or won’t mentally divorce those failures from the market itself. But a close look at the failures of the Flames and Thrashers reveals that they actually had nothing to do with Atlanta. And those failures also happened for two completely different reasons (as complex as each team’s reasons may or may not have been).

So, when a poster asks “why would it be different this time” it reflects not divorcing those facts from the market itself. There was nothing flawed about the metrics and justification the last two times that led to relocations. There was plenty flawed about the execution though.

Granted, this is coming from a person who believes that any market with enough people and industry represents a viable market. What makes Dallas work? What makes Tampa work? What makes Nashville and Raleigh work? And what exactly makes Atlanta, Phoenix, Houston, or the Gold Coast any different? The distinguishing factor between success and failure isn’t the market. It’s the investment the ownership puts in. I’m not just talking about money. I’m talking about the way they approach the market. Are these places more challenging than some others have been or could be? Sure. But when you have ownership up to that challenge, hockey works everywhere.

Is there a risk that, once again, the ownership won't be up to it in Atlanta? Of course there is. It's not a good enough reason to not try, IMO.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

You're looking to serve THE REAL FANS!!!!!!

Lol…Where would that be?