Potential Atlanta NHL Expansion Team Thread

[Salsero1]

Lol…Where would that be?

A Mystical Frigid city with a tiny population but unlimited money apparently.

 

[LPHabsFan]

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

Well considering that out of all the metrics you would use to determine market viability, you chose to specify only one of them, yeah, and on top of that outright say that you don't even care about metrics, which is tantamount to saying you don't care about facts, yeah, I'd say there wasn't really much else to say.

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?

Again, I understand the history of the Thrashers so we don't need to rehash it. My point was that when there is uncertainty with the viability of the market, that leads to uncertainty with the viability of legitimate owners. While you may feel it's illogical, a lot of what I brought up is because it does have ties to what happened in the past in part because, in my opinion, they weren't using proper metrics to determine market viability.

I'd have to look up the Islanders situation before I'd be able to comment.

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

For you look at that as part of your due diligence but it seems as if those are pretty much the only metrics, aside from ability to pay the insane expansion fee, that is being used here.

The NHL is a niche sport in a lot of the country. Almost the entire country (at the least in the US). Even within the southern cities that are considered "successful", you could point to some of the data (revenue, tv viewership, tv money, market penetration) and say that they are treading water so to speak and are more financially stagnant rather than financially stalwarts.

So for me, as I said, yes you do need to look at the things you mentioned, but that's not the only reasons to put a team there. It's hard to identify specifically what you need but I think you do need to look at various population metrics, existing hockey culture, peoples interest in other sports teams, how the sport would fit in with the culture of the city, the likelihood of peoples interest in niche things and I'm sure a lot of more teams.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

A Mystical Frigid city with a tiny population but unlimited money apparently.

Apparently.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

What makes Atlanta so different from any other market? Previous outcomes do not determine future results.

I'm starting to think all you Canadian naysayers are afraid of Atlanta coming back. When it's run well and perfectly viable, you won't have a high horse to sit on.

Yup, having conceded Dallas, Tampa, Nashville, Vegas and now likely Raleigh...if Arizona and Miami ever get their acts together, they'll have no one left to crap on. Well, except each other, of course.

 

[Tawnos]

Yup, having conceded Dallas, Tampa, Nashville, Vegas and now likely Raleigh...if Arizona and Miami ever get their acts together, they'll have no one left to crap on. Well, except each other, of course.

And find other things to be a "stain on the NHL" as if somehow previous relocations have caused the NHL such bad PR problems that those PR problems affect... well, anything at all.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

Well considering that out of all the metrics you would use to determine market viability, you chose to specify only one of them, yeah, and on top of that outright say that you don't even care about metrics, which is tantamount to saying you don't care about facts, yeah, I'd say there wasn't really much else to say.

Again, I understand the history of the Thrashers so we don't need to rehash it. My point was that when there is uncertainty with the viability of the market, that leads to uncertainty with the viability of legitimate owners. While you may feel it's illogical, a lot of what I brought up is because it does have ties to what happened in the past in part because, in my opinion, they weren't using proper metrics to determine market viability.

I'd have to look up the Islanders situation before I'd be able to comment.


For you look at that as part of your due diligence but it seems as if those are pretty much the only metrics, aside from ability to pay the insane expansion fee, that is being used here.

The NHL is a niche sport in a lot of the country. Almost the entire country (at the least in the US). Even within the southern cities that are considered "successful", you could point to some of the data (revenue, tv viewership, tv money, market penetration) and say that they are treading water so to speak and are more financially stagnant rather than financially stalwarts.

So for me, as I said, yes you do need to look at the things you mentioned, but that's not the only reasons to put a team there. It's hard to identify specifically what you need but I think you do need to look at various population metrics, existing hockey culture, peoples interest in other sports teams, how the sport would fit in with the culture of the city, the likelihood of peoples interest in niche things and I'm sure a lot of more teams.

On the expansion fee point… I totally agree and that’s the only reason I’m skeptical. Until I see an ultra-rich potential owner, I’ll hold off on my excitement.

For proof of attendance for "niche things", I guess you can look at the MLS team which as averaged about 40-50K since their start, best in the league every year.

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.

100% attendance would be a disappointment? What? And if typically averaging about 16,500 is considered bad, then there are a lot of NHL teams over the last 20 years+ that are in trouble.

Dude. As pointed out, your opinion about poor attendance is wrong using facts.

 

[nhlfan79]

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.

Now you're clearly just pulling stuff out of your butt. Do you even know anything about ASG's eleventh-hour sweetheart purchase of the assets, after there already was an agreement in principle with someone else, David McDavid? David McDavid ultimately sued AOL-TW and won $316 million in damages for breach of contract (later reduced to $281 million).

AOL-TW reneged on the McDavid deal because ASG had included multiple literal relatives of Ted Turner, so there was an awful stench of nepotism at play, not to mention the allegations that AOL-TW leaked McDavid's confidential financials to ASG so that ASG could craft its own last-minute competing purchase offer.

David McDavid Wins Breach of Contract Suit

Jury rules TBS should pay $316 million to Texas businessman David McDavid in breached of contract lawsuit.

www.nbcdfw.com

 

[GKJ]

Well considering that out of all the metrics you would use to determine market viability, you chose to specify only one of them, yeah, and on top of that outright say that you don't even care about metrics, which is tantamount to saying you don't care about facts, yeah, I'd say there wasn't really much else to say.

Which is to say you had nothing to say because you could not dispute it. And it’s not the fly in your face with it, but to the degree that the variables exist, you’re choosing to eschew because they don’t align with what you had predetermined was truth. Which is a strange hill to die in in the name of ‘facts.’

Sports business 101 tells everyone that the most important thing is the ownership and its viability. I don’t have all the facts, but I also don’t need them. The person writing the $2B expansion fee check will. As long as it ain’t Elon, I’ll take my chances that they did all that work.

This is not the same as the Thrashers and Flames, nor were the Thrashers and Flames the same unto themselves. Show me a good owner committed to their market (preferably a growing one, which this is) with an effective marketing strategy, give them some much friendlier expansion rules that everyone besides Vegas and Seattle endured. And then execute it

 

[TheLegend]

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

Ask a 1000 people what a “real fan” is and you’ll get hundreds of different definitions.

 

[TheLegend]

On the expansion fee point… I totally agree and that’s the only reason I’m skeptical. Until I see an ultra-rich potential owner, I’ll hold off on my excitement.

For proof of attendance for "niche things", I guess you can look at the MLS team which as averaged about 40-50K since their start, best in the league every year.

100% attendance would be a disappointment? What? And if typically averaging about 16,500 is considered bad, then there are a lot of NHL teams over the last 20 years+ that are in trouble.

Dude. As pointed out, your opinion about poor attendance is wrong using facts.

Some people are just dead stuck on the NHL being a gate-only driven league forever.

 

[aqib]

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.

So the Arizona was the only one that had a lockout and recession?

 

[aqib]

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?


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

What good is having 5,000,000 people if 4,990,000 of them don't care about hockey?

Also, you realize that mathematically speaking half the league is below average every year.

 

[William Satterwhite]

And I totally agree about the BOG voting in ASG. That's one of my biggest questions behind the Thrashers. Why on earth were they voted in after they publicly were against owning the team. Like, they literally said that they didn't want the team.

I don't see that this ever got addressed- it should be clarified the when they **first** purchased the team ASG never gave any indication of not wanting the Thrashers, my understanding (and I freely admit I may be mistaken) is that selling the Thrashers only become a priority when the Joe Johnson sign and trade caused the group to split as Steve Belkin was the largest individual stakeholder and primary money man and without him the other owners quite simply couldn't afford two teams. Michael Gearon was a basketball/Hawks guy all along and took on a more prominent role within the ownership group sans Belkin (he replaced Belkin as the Hawks Governor while Levenson became the Thrashers') so that pretty much sealed the deal on the Hawks becoming priority #1 to the ownership group- for the very short time Belkin was the singular main guy I genuinely think there was interest in having the Thrashers succeed.

 

[TheLegend]

So the Arizona was the only one that had a lockout and recession?

No.. but Arizona and Nevada were hit the hardest and Vegas wasn’t in the league yet.

 

[nhlfan79]

I don't see that this ever got addressed- it should be clarified the when they **first** purchased the team ASG never gave any indication of not wanting the Thrashers, my understanding (and I freely admit I may be mistaken) is that selling the Thrashers only become a priority when the Joe Johnson sign and trade caused the group to split as Steve Belkin was the largest individual stakeholder and primary money man and without him the other owners quite simply couldn't afford two teams. Michael Gearon was a basketball/Hawks guy all along and took on a more prominent role within the ownership group sans Belkin (he replaced Belkin as the Hawks Governor while Levenson became the Thrashers') so that pretty much sealed the deal on the Hawks becoming priority #1 to the ownership group- for the very short time Belkin was the singular main guy I genuinely think there was interest in having the Thrashers succeed.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Once Belkin wanted out (triggering an avalanche of litigation among the entire ownership group concerning the value of his buyout), the group's deepest pockets were gone, and the remaining seven wannabes were 100% basketball people.

The remaining seven didn't have the financial capital to run both teams to prevailing standards in each league (even assuming that they'd wanted to, which they didn't), so the Thrashers became the hated stepchild in every possible way while the Hawks got all of the money and attention.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

I don't see that this ever got addressed- it should be clarified the when they **first** purchased the team ASG never gave any indication of not wanting the Thrashers, my understanding (and I freely admit I may be mistaken) is that selling the Thrashers only become a priority when the Joe Johnson sign and trade caused the group to split as Steve Belkin was the largest individual stakeholder and primary money man and without him the other owners quite simply couldn't afford two teams. Michael Gearon was a basketball/Hawks guy all along and took on a more prominent role within the ownership group sans Belkin (he replaced Belkin as the Hawks Governor while Levenson became the Thrashers') so that pretty much sealed the deal on the Hawks becoming priority #1 to the ownership group- for the very short time Belkin was the singular main guy I genuinely think there was interest in having the Thrashers succeed.

During the original sale process, the group was desperately trying to break up the package so that they could only buy the arena and Hawks. That's when McDavid had a handshake deal with Time Warner for the entire package. Then, at the 12th hour, ASG then agreed to buy the entire package. Now, what was not totally known was that their plan was to then immediately sell the team (rumors had them speaking with Seattle, but nothing confirmed).

 

[ponder719]

Also, you realize that mathematically speaking half the league is below average every year.

Median. If there are outliers who underperform enough, it’s entirely possible for more than half the league to be above average.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

What good is having 5,000,000 people if 4,990,000 of them don't care about hockey?

Based on what? I'm a huge hockey fan, went to a ton of games until Spirit Group bought the team. Once it was clear the team was owned by a team that didn't want or care about hockey/Thrashers, I stopped buying tickets.

How about the example of the Islanders. Thrashers were outdrawing them for a number of years. Now they're doing great (attendance). Where did all those new fans come from?

 

[BKIslandersFan]

What good is having 5,000,000 people if 4,990,000 of them don't care about hockey?

Also, you realize that mathematically speaking half the league is below average every year.

Thats the point. Put a team there so you can get at least good chunk of them to care.

How many cities in the so called traditional US markets do you think will care about NHL if they did not have a team?


Build a good product. Win over fans. And good chunk of them will remain loyal fans for the lean times. Flyers drew shit until they started winning, And look where they are now? Anyone saying Philadelphia should not have a team?

 

[joelef]

Some people are just dead stuck on the NHL being a gate-only driven league forever.

The nhl marketing department sure is.

 

[TheLegend]

The nhl marketing department sure is.

Explain all the partnerships and TV contracts with TNT and ESPN then.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The Flames weren't poorly run they made the playoffs 6 out of 8 years and were 500 or better most of the time there.

That’s fair, and “run poorly” is maybe not the right phrase to describe the Flames. Lots of 1970s teams were run incredibly poorly, real amateur hour stuff, and the Flames were not among the worst of those.

It’s maybe more accurate to say they had “poor ownership”. Cousins was bankrupt and would likely have sold the team even if it were highly profitable, but he definitely didn’t have the ability to hang in there with a team that perpetually won 35 games a season.

The late 70s/early 80 was an era when pro hockey shrank, and a bunch of teams relocated. Within a few years of the Flames relo, several other NHL markets failed — San Francisco, Denver, Cleveland, Kansas City. Houston was right there begging for an NHL team and was turned down. In that context, Atlanta was made very vulnerable by its ownership situation. And the Calgary ownership group was quite strategic about pulling the franchise out of Atlanta, not unlike Winnipeg a couple of decades later.

 

[BMN]

@LPHabsFan: you do need to look at the things you mentioned, but that's not the only reasons to put a team there. It's hard to identify specifically what you need but I think you do need to look at various population metrics, existing hockey culture, peoples interest in other sports teams, how the sport would fit in with the culture of the city, the likelihood of peoples interest in niche things and I'm sure a lot of more teams.

There's nothing unreasonable to what you're saying but you are basing your skepticism on the idea that a prospective ownership group in Forsyth County wouldn't do those things. And maybe they wouldn't, I dunno. But that's more skepticism about the bid than the market. Even the most rabid pro Atlanta people on this board have conceded the market isn't a license to print money but rather a tremendous opportunity for the league if done correctly.

The one thing that always worries me a bit about any southern market is the underlying premise that the cart has to come before the horse: "we must have a NHL team in this town or else the game won't grow." Honestly, it's kind of a miracle *anyone* came to Flames games because I'm no aware of much of *any* grassroots hockey culture in the city prior to their arrival (Phoenix had the Roadrunners, Nashville had the Dixie Flyers, etc.). But balancing that worry is also a belief that if a prospective owner did some homework on who already wants an Atlanta team to root for, how those fans could be brought to the building and how the team could be promoted as a cool brand.......the upside is tremendous.

Also I think at its core, the NHL is a major league sport that isn't willing to concede any major league cities. And Atlanta is the center of the southeast with one of the top five growing populations in North America, the busiest airport and a crucial media hub. If you think it won't work, you probably have sound reasons for believing it. But if you think it can't work under any circumstance, I think you're selling both hockey as a sport and the NHL as a league short as major league. Sure Atlanta is southern but it's also not Tuscaloosa.

 

[DuklaNation]

On the expansion fee point… I totally agree and that’s the only reason I’m skeptical. Until I see an ultra-rich potential owner, I’ll hold off on my excitement.

For proof of attendance for "niche things", I guess you can look at the MLS team which as averaged about 40-50K since their start, best in the league every year.

100% attendance would be a disappointment? What? And if typically averaging about 16,500 is considered bad, then there are a lot of NHL teams over the last 20 years+ that are in trouble.

Dude. As pointed out, your opinion about poor attendance is wrong using facts.

Not sure why online forums are prone to have posters who act like they know more than they think constantly. On a cursory glance, I would determine their attendance numbers to be more in line with teams that are near the top of standings. so when the team is around .500 or below, attendance tanks. This really isn't an ideal business environment. I like the fact you ignore the other metrics which are just as important such as season ticket $, box $, overall ticket rates, arena ownership/revenue models, advertising during broadcasts, etc, etc.

This isn't worth discussing because the bias is clear.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

Not sure why online forums are prone to have posters who act like they know more than they think constantly. On a cursory glance, I would determine their attendance numbers to be more in line with teams that are near the top of standings. so when the team is around .500 or below, attendance tanks. This really isn't an ideal business environment. I like the fact you ignore the other metrics which are just as important such as season ticket $, box $, overall ticket rates, arena ownership/revenue models, advertising during broadcasts, etc, etc.

How is it bias to present facts? Like this one proving what you just said wrong… The Atlanta United are close to a .500 team at 9-8 yet they have the league’s best attendance (again). Nice try (again).

You haven’t provided any other metrics, just the ones you’re getting wrong.