Will Atlanta Get Another Team?
- Thread starter Hockeyholic
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
zetajerk
Registered User
- Jan 1, 2015
- 738
- 589
HisIceness
This is Hurricanes Hockey
The Flames and Jets need to wear their original Atlanta uniforms one day. The Flames actually kept the nickname and much of their identity. The Jets' ownership is in denial of its roots.
Back on topic, Atlanta was royally screwed over by carpet bagging, corporate looting white collar criminals. How do you screw up two sports franchises in a city with that population, that corporate base, and that huge number of northern transplants? As bad as the Rams and Raiders fleeing LA in the same year, or the Houston Oilers or Cleveland Browns being bad corporate citizens.
Back on topic, Atlanta was royally screwed over by carpet bagging, corporate looting white collar criminals. How do you screw up two sports franchises in a city with that population, that corporate base, and that huge number of northern transplants? As bad as the Rams and Raiders fleeing LA in the same year, or the Houston Oilers or Cleveland Browns being bad corporate citizens.
DowntownBooster
Registered User
Calgary has won both games against Winnipeg this year: 6-3 on Nov 21 and 4-1 on Dec 27. The Flames also sit atop the Western conference. Since they've been better this year, they can move back to Georgia and become the reborn Atlanta Flames.
DowntownBooster
Registered User
Calgary didn't have a better option for a name so they kept the Flames moniker. Alberta has oil and refineries which have flames so that's the main reason why the name was deemed appropriate even though the meaning behind the name in Atlanta was different altogether.
It should come as no surprise the Jets ownership does not embrace the history of the Thrashers. It belongs to the people of Atlanta as they were the ones that witnessed the events that transpired there. It's difficult for people outside of Winnipeg to understand why we embrace the history of the original Jets along with that of our new Jets. The continuous thread is that they all play(ed) for us and represent(ed) our city wherever they travel(ed). TNSE simply acknowledges that it's the fans that make the franchise not the other way around.
I do agree with you about the ownership of the Thrashers and believe the fans in Atlanta deserve another opportunity in the NHL with good ownership.
WingsFan95
Registered User
I don't see how Atlanta gets a team ahead of Quebec.
The Hawks of the NBA struggle some lean years. It's a 2 sport town mostly.
The Hawks of the NBA struggle some lean years. It's a 2 sport town mostly.
voyageur
Grizzled vet
- Jul 10, 2011
- 11,350
- 11,807
Population is not necessarily the demographic of success. For Winnipeg, which is represented by many ethnicities that aren't hockey traditionalists, the fact that hockey is the big ticket, of entertainment, makes it easier to sell.
Last edited by a moderator:
HFBoards' resident NHL snobs just like to bag on Phoenix. Atlanta is a dead horse, but it's still worthy of their condescension.
If Atlanta is such a lousy sports town, why is the Atlanta MLS team so successful? They're the Golden Knights of the soccer realm. Little history of the sport, nontraditional market, subject of ridicule up until their actual success.
You guys bag on these places, yet you fail to realize many of the NHL's current success stories were once considered marginal, or even failing--Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles. The Bruins were a trainwreck in the 1960s, and if your attitudes were retroactively applied to them, they'd be up for relocation. Even the Canadian market Canucks were subject to endless rumors of relocation in the 1990s.
If Atlanta is such a lousy sports town, why is the Atlanta MLS team so successful? They're the Golden Knights of the soccer realm. Little history of the sport, nontraditional market, subject of ridicule up until their actual success.
You guys bag on these places, yet you fail to realize many of the NHL's current success stories were once considered marginal, or even failing--Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles. The Bruins were a trainwreck in the 1960s, and if your attitudes were retroactively applied to them, they'd be up for relocation. Even the Canadian market Canucks were subject to endless rumors of relocation in the 1990s.
Why are a disproportionate number of the condescending posts from Winnipeggers? You do realize the loss of the original Jets don't have much to do with the actual Winnipeg sports fans, just like Phoenix/Atlanta fans shouldn't be blamed for the decisions of their carpetbagging, corporate welfare grubbing, financial loophole manipulating owners?
As much as I loathe the ever-evolving low roller leveraged buyout owners of the Coyotes and the white collar strategic bankruptcy artists of the former Thrashers; True North for all their billions are extracting millions in tax concessions from the local Winnipeg and provincial Manitoba governments.
voyageur
Grizzled vet
- Jul 10, 2011
- 11,350
- 11,807
I think you're reading your own narrative into mine. If anything I am saying that there is a lot more to spend your money on entertainment wise in Atlanta than in Winnipeg.
It does bother me though that people fail to recognize the value of grassroots hockey in building a successful market. The ideal now seems to be build it and they will come, however if it is not built properly they will not come. There a few exceptions, but the strength of grassroots builds a foundation, that goes beyond building a winner.
More like you'd want a lot of rich corporations able/willing to use the 1/2 entertainment tax deduction to purchase overpriced corporate suites in any NHL/NBA arena. At least that is the case for high end, overpriced sports leagues.
All this talk about "grassroots" is just a code word for condescension against nontraditional markets. The nontraditional = condemned to failure accusation is used against the Coyotes/Thrashers, but somehow isn't used against the similar sunbelt franchises like the Kings/Ducks/Sharks. Why were the Red Wings and Blackhawks sad sack loser franchises a generation ago, despite being large, O6 markets with frigid winters?
Hell, even the Canucks were seen as failing in the 90s because Vancouver does not get cold enough for ponds to freeze over, and because hockey arenas are in short supply, and because a plurality of the population is descended from non hockey cultures.
All this talk about "grassroots" is just a code word for condescension against nontraditional markets. The nontraditional = condemned to failure accusation is used against the Coyotes/Thrashers, but somehow isn't used against the similar sunbelt franchises like the Kings/Ducks/Sharks. Why were the Red Wings and Blackhawks sad sack loser franchises a generation ago, despite being large, O6 markets with frigid winters?
Hell, even the Canucks were seen as failing in the 90s because Vancouver does not get cold enough for ponds to freeze over, and because hockey arenas are in short supply, and because a plurality of the population is descended from non hockey cultures.
Not to bag on your post, but you do realize Auston Matthews is a byproduct of the Coyotes' (mostly pathetic) existence in Arizona?
If the Coyotes were actually decent, and weren't continually run into the ground by an unending series of carpetbagging owners, the team would have more fans and potentially more of these young fans would develop into talents like Matthews.
When you (and the others) rag on Arizona or Atlanta or (random pathetic sunbelt franchise) as being condemned to failure, you overlook several facts:
-Outside of a few traditional franchises, just about every market has had issues
-Nontraditional markets end up being traditional after a generation or so
If the Coyotes were actually decent, and weren't continually run into the ground by an unending series of carpetbagging owners, the team would have more fans and potentially more of these young fans would develop into talents like Matthews.
When you (and the others) rag on Arizona or Atlanta or (random pathetic sunbelt franchise) as being condemned to failure, you overlook several facts:
-Outside of a few traditional franchises, just about every market has had issues
-Nontraditional markets end up being traditional after a generation or so
voyageur
Grizzled vet
- Jul 10, 2011
- 11,350
- 11,807
If Boston, Detroit or Chicago have struggled it wasn't because of a lack of hockey fans...Boston still had interest in hockey, college and NHL, but Jacobs alienated his fans. Highest attendance for an outdoor hockey game is still in Michigan. Chicago had the Wolves drawing parallel to the Hawks, in a market again alienated by a greedy owner.
Minnesota lost a team, but hockey carried on in the state of 10 000 lakes (that freeze).
I'd be curious the viewership numbers on TV, while these markets floundered, supposedly, in comparison to the early successes of Raleigh, Atlanta, Phoenix. Do you honestly believe that any of the aforementioned could reach Pittsburgh or Buffalo like fan interest in good and mediocre times?
I'm curious if you don't think college hockey, minor hockey, etc. don't matter in a market's long term success. Sure L.A. with Hollywood on their side don't need that traction, but most places do.
Atlanta was unprofitable, and couldn't attract an owner to sink cash into them. Why? Phoenix has been bankrupted so many times, there is no chance at getting people to pay big money for a fringe sport, without a winner. They were lucky to have a face like Roenick to get them off the ground. Just like Dallas with Modano. Made in the USA, as the storyline goes.
And Auston Matthews means f-all to me. One player. Winnipeg endured 16 seasons of watching Winnipegers from Mike Keane, Darren Helm (St. Andrews), Jonathan Toews win the Cup. There is no hockey without hockey players, and those still come from the rinks of Canada, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts for the most part. And Northern Europe. So we're sorry for producing hockey players, that keep the sport alive, for your entertainment, and not wanting to be a recognized part of the National Hockey League.
I'm not anti-American or anti-Sunbelt. I was really moved by the underdog mentality that Karmonos spoke of with pride in building grassroots hockey in the state of Carolina. It's happening in California, Texas, and Florida too.
But don't call me elitist because I grew up playing the game on frozen ice. If I am elitist than I would say you are entitled. And you are welcome for all the hockey players, that make the game possible, for fans to enjoy.
I think there will always be a divide between traditional hockey, and manufactured hockey, and it's good to have rivalries. Nashville is probably the most hated team among Jets fans, and I hope we become the same to them.
As for Atlanta, well I would support Florida moving there, because I can't see Miami surviving without subsidies, and at least the corporate players would make up the difference. But you also have to see that saturation and competition make it a harder sell.
Last edited:
You keep writing this stuff, and you justify it based on some (potentially willful) ignorance of how big business works. The Atlanta Thrashers were losing money--Mostly because the team's owners were directing team cash flow into their own pockets. Same thing with just about every "loser" franchise and a whole lot of leveraged buyouts. Hell, Toys R Us ultimately died because of its inability to service their debtload. Yet the useful idiots and sellouts which comprise most of the business media did not mention that the debtload was the result of companies borrowing money to buy the company at a steep markup, then paying interest to creditors and paying themselves outsize salaries and expenses. And using your logic, the original Jets should have moved cause they were in a small market and were *supposedly* losing money.
Ironic cause Winnipeg NOW is the beneficiary of subsidies. Not that I am making a judgment one way or the other, but it's really just a transfer of taxpayer money into the hands of a few billionaires who don't need the help.
Detroit were known as the Dead Wings for a reason. They could not draw flies to their arena for more than a decade. Their record breaking outdoor game attendance only occurred AFTER their renaissance. What about the Penguins? They sucked and were only rewarded after drafting Lemieux and then Jagr. Then they sucked again and were the constant subject of relocation rumors. They were rewarded for their incompetence by getting Crosby then Malkin.
Then come the Canucks. A market more than 3X the size and wealth of Winnipeg. Include southern Vancouver Island and the Fraser Valley, it is 4X the size of the Peg. Yet they *almost* moved. I can attest to the difficulty of playing ice hockey in Vancouver. Soggy but not cold climate, expensive arena time, a lot of other things to do. Should the Canucks move? On a per capita basis, the fans are probably less rabid than those of the Jets. What about Manhattan? Outside of MSG and seasonal rinks in Bryant/Central Park, it's just about impossible to find ice skating there.
Then you go on about "grassroots." LOL. Auston Matthews. If the Coyotes weren't around, he'd be playing baseball or some other sport.
Ironic cause Winnipeg NOW is the beneficiary of subsidies. Not that I am making a judgment one way or the other, but it's really just a transfer of taxpayer money into the hands of a few billionaires who don't need the help.
Detroit were known as the Dead Wings for a reason. They could not draw flies to their arena for more than a decade. Their record breaking outdoor game attendance only occurred AFTER their renaissance. What about the Penguins? They sucked and were only rewarded after drafting Lemieux and then Jagr. Then they sucked again and were the constant subject of relocation rumors. They were rewarded for their incompetence by getting Crosby then Malkin.
Then come the Canucks. A market more than 3X the size and wealth of Winnipeg. Include southern Vancouver Island and the Fraser Valley, it is 4X the size of the Peg. Yet they *almost* moved. I can attest to the difficulty of playing ice hockey in Vancouver. Soggy but not cold climate, expensive arena time, a lot of other things to do. Should the Canucks move? On a per capita basis, the fans are probably less rabid than those of the Jets. What about Manhattan? Outside of MSG and seasonal rinks in Bryant/Central Park, it's just about impossible to find ice skating there.
Then you go on about "grassroots." LOL. Auston Matthews. If the Coyotes weren't around, he'd be playing baseball or some other sport.
Ted Hoffman
Done
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,289
- 8,728
I'm going to pick off this statement. You're talking about one (1) special event here, and that involved another major NHL team that saw fans from that team come over to Michigan to watch their team along with countless other fans that weren't allied to either participating team but wanted to come be part of that event.
Using that logic, I might as well argue that the NHL would absolutely thrive in Wisconsin because 40,000 people packed Lambeau Field and 55,000 people dropped in on Camp Randall Stadium to see outdoor games, and both venues could have easily sold more tickets if more seats had been made available.
I'm also going to pick off this statement. We've covered how the Thrashers started in Atlanta and why the fans wouldn't turn out in later seasons so many times in this thread, explaining it one more time is honestly exhausting. Go find any of the posts where this situation has been detailed.
Tom ServoMST3K
In search of a Steinbach Hero
Centrum Hockey
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2018
- 2,093
- 729
voyageur
Grizzled vet
- Jul 10, 2011
- 11,350
- 11,807
Subsidies are the case for any business. That's how business works. Hell that's how so many arenas in the U.S. got built, on the taxpayers back, if you want to nitpick. Federal infrastructure monies.
I know about the subsidies here, because my landlord was the policy analyst for the prevailing government that brought the Jets back. He didn't understand, at the time, but I explained that there was only one way to unify our city, which is 2/3 of our province's population. That was to bring back a hockey team. Because people love hockey here. And guess what? They were re-elected after the team came back. Money in everyone's pockets.
We are a hockey market. That's why 30 000 came out to save the Jets in our last year, and 300 came out to save the Thrashers, want to break that down into percentages?
We were screwed in 96. Bettman had a plan. Dollar was at its lowest. No funding for an arena was coming. The scheme was for a casino. But too contentious. There was no salary cap, Canadian teams had to start paying salaries in American $ under Bettman, increasing the disadvantage. Chicago screwed us by forcing us to pay Keith Tkachuk I believe a top 5 salary at the time. The playing field is level now. Winnipeg earns higher revenues than a third of the teams. We got a 2nd chance thanks to a great owner, a good business plan, and subsidies. Because hockey is our winter pasttime. Our city is filled with community centres producing a non stop stream of hockey players. We paid our dues.
I don't dispute the ownership and management flaws of Atlanta 2.0.
Winning makes all the difference, especially when competition for the sporting and entertainment dollar are increased 10 fold.
The rest, well in history there are winners and losers. Vanvouver could have moved. St. Louis too. Pittsburgh. Nashville. Washington, Buffalo, Ottawa all went bankrupt. Illitch saved the Wings. Hicks built the Dallas Stars up. Mc Nall was a crook, but Anaheim and Florida wouldn't be in the NHL without him. Lemieux got rich off the Baldwins, won the lottery after the lockout, and now have the best TV ratings south of the border. History is never predictable, only subject to revision.
Centrum Hockey
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2018
- 2,093
- 729
Ted Hoffman
Done
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,289
- 8,728
Yet again, this shows a gross ignorance [which I might even argue is intentionally stated] of the alleged lack of desire for hockey in Atlanta.
Of course it is. This is almost straight out of Pravda. For example:
Forbes has them rightfully listed at 20th, but that's no comfort to the "hockey fans" of Ottawa, Buffalo and Calgary.
Acting like the Jets are a "success story" while also receiving revenue sharing, like 2/3rds of the league, is quite disingenuous.
Which also means that "hockey markets" are in the bottom third of revenues as well, but they aren't being called out for being a revenue drag, too.
voyageur
Grizzled vet
- Jul 10, 2011
- 11,350
- 11,807
Hey they receive revenue sharing. Oh my lord. A Canadian team. Imagine how much revenue the NHL takes from each fan that wears Jets gear, owns Jets merchandise. That money goes back to teams with 6 000 empty seats, towards their bottom line. Isn't that the reasons why the Thrashers were sold in the first place? The NHL was going to have declining revenues...But dammit those fans. They're not good for hockey...Let's face the truth, the honest to God truth, sir, the NHL is not unhealthy without Atlanta. Or Phoenix. As NBC does not even care two bits about them. And that's who Bettman bends over backwards for. Their fans come and go, when times are tough. Winnipeg is a hockey city, will always be. We thank Atlanta and the NHL for our team. To be on the world stage.
I should go for a skate instead of argue on the Internet, which solves nothing.
Ted Hoffman
Done
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,289
- 8,728
Comments in blue. Honestly, if this is where the discussion has devolved to and it's a sign of things yet to come, I think we've pretty much exhausted avenues for having reasonable conversations.
Last edited:
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Whatever money the owners choose to use to subsidize teams with low attendances, moving those teams or contracting them will not make Canadian teams' ticket prices lower.
It. Is. Not. Your. Money.
It. Is. Not. Your. Money.
- Status
