Potential Atlanta NHL Expansion Team Thread

[KevFu]

Business practice is giving customers what they want. All that matters is what ATLANTA fans wants.

Yeah, I was arguing against the guy saying "the Thrashers name is cursed." If the fans want Thrashers, you go Thrashers. The post you quoted was me saying "you're not giving a business reason."

When new team names/logos/brands are announced, you're going to have a divided opinion in markets getting teams for the first time:

1. Exactly what I wanted.
2. Not exactly what I wanted, but I like it.
3. Not exactly what I wanted, but I don't like it.
4. Not exactly what I wanted, and I hate it.


When you're Winnipeg or Atlanta or maybe Phoenix next time and there's an old name to use, you're doubling the categories: Those same 1-4 as above, but "I wanted a new name/logo AND.." Or "I wanted the old name/logo AND.."

The number of people getting EXACTLY what they wanted is going to be ridiculously tiny with a new name/logo; but a lot higher reviving the old brand.

 

[Voight]

These amendments don't "poison" the deal, if you want to call it that, because they don't come into play until the NHL awards a franchise to Krause.

The likely purpose of these amendments is so that if the TAD vote fails in November (and I couldn't tell how how it's going to go though it will likely fail since that is a heavily conservative area and conservatives don't like taxes - I could be wrong though), it allows the Board to say they secured additional funding, thus helping their re-election chances.

I don't know how it is elsewhere but in Georgia public schools are largely funded through property taxes. These amendments ensure that schools still get big funding from this project without the TAD - likely in the order of $1.35 million or so a year (assuming 100 booked dates with the arena, with 75% occupancy). If the TAD passes, the Board will have secured substantial funding for the county.

My biggest takeaway from this is that Krause has big pockets/solid funding. He still has to sign off on the amendment but I am almost certain he was involved in this since this idea was broached at the initial MoU vote a few months back but not solidified after Krause's people said they weren't willing to negotiate on the fly (hence Krause's anger after the meeting).

From my standpoint, you don't potentially just give away all that money for 30 years, or whatever the term of the deal is, if you aren't confident you can make it work and not really mess with your bottom line.

I'm not 100% sure on that. While I'm sure hes worth a good chunk of change, in the context of sports ownership and whatnot, I don't think big pockets applies. Its a billionaires game and while he might be the face of a potential team, my guess is hell have many partners in the ownership group.