Will Atlanta Get Another Team?

Status
Not open for further replies.

aqib

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
5,538
1,581
I'm saying the concept of "Good market" and "bad market" is just silly, wrong and dumb.

A market might be WAY TOO SMALL to support a team... like Houma, Louisiana is not a place any sane person puts an NHL franchise. But once you get into the top 50 markets in the US, there's no such thing as a bad market or good market.

Minnesota and Winnipeg couldn't financially compete and lost the North Stars and Jets; But with new arenas, owners their fans don't actively hate; both markets are great.

Tampa Bay and Long Island have basically spent about equal time in their histories being some of the best run teams in hockey, and the biggest cluster Effs in hockey. (both have been owned by criminals!)

Dallas spent like 12 years around the top 10 in revenue, sold 98% of tickets.... and then Hicks bought Liverpool and they became a trainwreck for a while.

The Bay Area was like the prime example of expansion screwup with the Seals having multiple owners, moving to an hour from Cleveland and folding; and the Sharks became a rock solid stable franchise for the last 20 years or so.

Nashville was on the cusp of disaster, and then got it together.
Pittsburgh? That franchise was doomed TWICE and saved both times by Mario Lemieux (and Sidney Crosby).


A market being "Good" or "Bad" is determined by the combination of "Do they have a good, modern arena and a lease that enables them to make revenues to compete with the rest of the league?" and "Do they an owner who cares about the team and lets the fans see that they're working toward progress?"

That's how the New York market can be great, average and terrible all at the same time; how MIN/WIN can lose teams and flourish with teams; how DAL, SJ, NASH, PIT, TB, NYI can all be excellent and trainwrecks at some point over the last 30 years; And also why the Coyotes are still around in Glendale after 18 freaking years of everyone calling Time of Death on the franchise.

Minnesota was an issue with the owners while Winnipeg was an arena problem. No one ever doubts whether people in those cities actually like hockey. Long Island also was mostly an arena thing and a bit of the economy as Long Island did lose a few corporate HQs in 90s when the defense industry consolidated. I honestly don't know what major companies are still headquartered out there after CA left.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,665
2,546
Minnesota was an issue with the owners while Winnipeg was an arena problem. No one ever doubts whether people in those cities actually like hockey. Long Island also was mostly an arena thing and a bit of the economy as Long Island did lose a few corporate HQs in 90s when the defense industry consolidated. I honestly don't know what major companies are still headquartered out there after CA left.

Minnesota would have been an arena issue very soon anyway. The old Met Center had a capacity of about 14,400. And no premium seats much.
 

CanadianCoyote

Registered User
Oct 11, 2020
466
781
Ontario, Canada
The Flames made the playoffs a lot and that still didn't save them. Care to explain that one?
The same Flames that only ever won two playoff games four years apart in their entire tenure in Atlanta? Making the playoffs means jack shit if you keep getting swept in the first round.

Besides, economic depression in the housing market at the time forced Tom Cousins, a real estate developer, to sell the team; and Skalbania offered him the most money ever paid for an NHL team at that point in exchange for letting them move to Calgary.
If either Chicago or Detroit was put up for sale you would have buyers lined up within days. The Thrashers were on the market for years and no one tried to buy them in Atlanta
The problem wasn't selling the team, there were people interested. The issue was that ASG poisoned the well with a godawful lease agreement that was practically made to drive off local buyers.

Part of the reason the Coyotes stuck around is because Glendale gave them a really quite favorable lease. Atlanta didn't have that, it had owners actively trying to give the team's new owner a bad lease. You can't expect to attract bees with feces.
 
Last edited:

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,428
3,608
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Minnesota was an issue with the owners while Winnipeg was an arena problem. No one ever doubts whether people in those cities actually like hockey. Long Island also was mostly an arena thing and a bit of the economy as Long Island did lose a few corporate HQs in 90s when the defense industry consolidated. I honestly don't know what major companies are still headquartered out there after CA left.

That's my point exactly though. People tend to look at circumstance when it is a market they think should have a hockey team; and if it's a market they don't think should have a hockey team, they ignore circumstance and say the market sucks.

My opinion is that an NHL team will work anywhere the ownership is committed and gets a good arena deal/lease and can sell the population on hockey. Because hockey is just too awesome to fail.

Like, Nashville... they literally gave fans headsets to explain hockey and hockey rules at first because the locals really didn't know a damned thing about the sport. And they have $121 million worth of revenue from fans loving it.

Everyone I've ever met who doesn't like hockey has never been to an NHL game. Selling people on hockey when they are in the building is really easy. So to say a "market" sucks or is a failure, is to say that hockey was a failure. And I just don't view the sport that way.
 

nhlfan79

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
620
1,009
Atlanta, GA
Attendance dropped the year after they won the division. So if winning was the key you would think after the fist playoff season there would be an uptick. They even dropped from by 2K fans a game after year 1 once the novelty wore off. The Flames made the playoffs a lot and that still didn't save them. Care to explain that one?

If either Chicago or Detroit was put up for sale you would have buyers lined up within days. The Thrashers were on the market for years and no one tried to buy them in Atlanta

The year after they won the division was the first full year with ASG as owners. Their first big move that year was to let Marc Savard walk and sign Steve Ruccin in his place. The dismantling had begun. Hossa would be gone shortly thereafter. Lehtonen and Kovalchuk then followed. The fan base wasn't stupid. We could clearly see what was happening, especially once ASG's lawsuits against each other immediately began.
 

Major4Boarding

Unfamiliar Moderator
Jan 30, 2009
5,518
2,542
South of Heaven
We’re over the limit folks. Plus I think we can pretty much say that Atlanta will get a shot with the right landscape (ownership, partnership, shared or separate arena).

We can start a new thread when interest goes to next level
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bostonzamboni
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad