There is a saying. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
That's probably how the NHL feels about Atlanta.
That's probably how the NHL feels about Atlanta.
Will Atlanta Get Another Team?
- Thread starter Hockeyholic
- Start date
- Status
Baseball is far more popular than hockey, which factored into Washington receiving the Nationals.
Furthermore, the beginning of the end for the Thrashers was when Time Warner sold them in 2003, which was a result of financial issues related to the AOL merger, and was the death knell for TBS potentially getting NHL rights to replace the loss of the NBA to ESPN.
Maybe if Time Warner told AOL "screw you" 20 some years ago the Thrashers might still be in Atlanta. To this day NHL games have never aired on networks currently owned by what is now WarnerMedia, the company's latest bid in 2011 being rejected.
The allowing of Packers-like ownership structures might have also kept the Thrashers in Atlanta (it certainly kept the Packers from going to Milwaukee full-time).
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Anywhere there is enough corporate support and an arena? Sure.
Djp
Registered User
different time, different economics.
Atlanta had their two chances in the last 40 yrs
it isn’t happening unless a team order would move there which can’t be controlled like expansion.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Why is "different times, different economics" not applicable to Atlanta? Who knows what economic landscape will look like in 20 or heck, 10 years?
No one is saying Atlanta will get a team tomorrow.
Overall an incredibly lazy argument.
Bettman cannot unilaterally decide what cities get a team and what cities get to keep teams. If the BoG wanted the Yotes, or Panthers, or whoever else moved they would have already moved regardless of how Bettman feels.
From a fans perspective would it be great to see every stadium full every single night? Yes
Would a team in QC, Toronto 2, (insert other northern city) be more profitable than some of the teams currently in existence? Absolutely
Since this is the Business section of the forum, lets look at why its good for the NHL to have under performing/weak teams. Lets imagine a world were teams that struggle financially are replaced by teams that will instantly be very successful...
1. Ticket sales, jersey sales, etc all drastically increase
2. HRR drastically increases
3. The salary cap drastically increases.
4. Middle market teams cannot raise prices enough to be competitive
5. Teams that have been in the league for decades (STL, COL, PIT, etc.) can no longer compete
6. Half the league begins to look like what the Coyotes and Panthers currently look like
7. You are left with a handful of teams spending to the cap and the rest of the league at the floor
Obviously that is not an overnight change, but its exactly what will happen if you continuously move teams from under performing markets to stronger markets. The league needs some teams to not generate much revenue to keep the salary cap stable. You cannot have nothing but "strong" markets or some of those strong markets will quickly become weak markets.
Just like in society there will always be poor people, in sports there will always be poor teams. The only way to have a league of teams on a similar footing is to have a very small league with teams only in the largest of cities and only the wealthy are able to afford tickets.
Look at a team like STL that has been in the league since 1967, has strong youth programs, several current NHL players, a huge local alumni base, etc. Most people would consider STL a stable market with good fan supports. Reports are the team had never generated a "profit" until a few years ago. I use the term profit loosely because of how accounting works (profit on paper vs actual profit in dollars). If the salary cap were to quickly increase teams like the Blues will never be competitive again.
Atlanta has a two Teams in past. Unfortunatetly they have not a team. Houston and Atlanta should have NHL redar, but Atlanta maybe wont get a team in near future..
Jokerit 16
Registered User
Its a shame that Atlanta has not a team anymore. For US TV markets those two are big caps for the league.
Perhaps league should look other opportunityes for US markets. There are cityes like Austin or Kansas city which could be potential markets for the league.
Is tough to compete NBA and thats why new markets which has not have NBA team are potential for the leagua
No to Atlanta. Two previous NHL franchises have failed there. So, what has since changed in the Atlanta market that would now ensure the success of a third franchise?
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
I see you've been completely ignoring everything that has been discussed on this thread so far.
CanadianCoyote
Registered User
Maybe finding owners who give a damn and have deep pockets would help? The former was the death of the Thrashers and the latter ended up being the death of the Flames.
Atlanta drew well when not fed a team that was perennially out of the playoffs by November or December, which is the same thing that's murdered Arizona or the Isle's attendance numbers in years past. Winning breeds success at the gate, and one playoff appearance in 10 years ain't that.
Hell, Year One they were eleventh overall in attendance despite having the worst inaugural season points record of the modern era.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
It 100% comes down to ownership. I'm not going to rehash the Thrashers / Flames history, but if the right person with the right money came along Atlanta would have a team almost instantly.
It's what happened in Seattle - NHL wanted to be there for a long time, but there was no ownership. But when Bonderman and Bruckheimer were on the scene it happened quite quickly.
That being said, I can't think of a billionaire who can write a $650 million dollar cheque who would be interested in owning an Atlanta-based NHL team.
Mightygoose
Registered User
The building was the other issue that evaded Seattle so many years. Bonderman and co. is sinking about a billion dollars into the building in addition to the 650 mil. At least they will be only major arena in the region.
An Atlanta based team independent of their NBA counterpart will need a separate arena which will compete with State Farm. I don't think numbers pencil out in this case. Atlanta has very similar issues as Houston with the later not having any prior history.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
voyageur
Hockey fanatic
- Jul 10, 2011
- 10,535
- 9,970
\
Atlanta keeps growing as a TV market
With the right owners, it can work
The size of the market is not a good indication of fan support. Because Miami is the 18th biggest market, yet there is an entire demographic that is barely interested in hockey, the kind of demographics that networks use to determine elections, but might have racial undertones when talking about sports. It's why the market consistently ranks at or near the bottom in TV ratings. It was certainly a challenge for a hockey team in Atlanta to attract city wide interest. I'd say that a team in Milwaukee would probably have better attendance and TV ratings (Milwaukee is one of the cities that represents a high number of NHL viewers for a non NHL city, sometimes near the top of the country, when Chicago is at their heights). But it suffers from being under the shadow of Chicago, and also an NBA market. Can't be overstated that successes in Tampa, Nashville, and Carolina were largely based on not just success but having no NBA competition that could eat at attendance and viewership when the team wasn't as competitive. It's a big part of building a professional brand in non traditional markets. Atlanta may be too crowded to get the right investment, as the growing wealth of the Original Six + other strong markets, at higher ticket price capacity, makes it a likely loss leader for any investor. This has been a concern with several potential and actual owners (ASG, Paul Allen, Fertitta) certainly heightened by the financial insecurities Covid has created for some of the wealthiest investors.
Austin is one that gets kicked around a lot and would be the kind of niche market, competing mainly with college sports, that the NHL might look at, instead of trying to go back to Atlanta. I'm not sure the NHL wants to go head to head with the NBA in the South. Houston seems to be a preferred market at this stage, if the NHL is seeking out a metropolitan footprint.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
The new Bucks arena is not designed for hockey so Milwaukee is out.
The demographics of South Florida don't favor hockey - Atlanta and Houston are better
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
I don’t think Milwaukee will ever get a team, but Bucks arena is absolutely designed for hockey.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
WHO OWNS Fiserv. forum.... the MILWAUKEE Bucks.... no hockey is allowed at that arena....
- Status
