Will Atlanta Get Another Team?

[edog37]

NOT ALWAYS, they haven't....care to explain why Atlanta was added to an existing franchise, whereas the arena is not in Atlanta.. edog, give you another example, Atlanta Motor Speedway is in what Georgia city/town Hampton, MUCH THE WAY the Braves moved south toward Gwinnett than Fulton County....

Phillips aka the Omni, the arena it replaced, is downtown, as was the Georgia Dome, before its implosion.

Not sure what your point is, Mercedes Benz Stadium is right next to where the Georgia Dome was located. Drove past it last year when I was in town. Phillips was built on the footprint of the Omni, but in no way, shape or form is AKA the Omni

 

[SunDancer]

Sure, Tampa is a great example. Or how about Nashville, the closest franchise? You passed over highlighting where the poster also mentioned Dallas.

As to your question regarding the ownership, they NEVER wanted the team. At all. The whole story has been discussed a ridiculous amount here, so just look it up.

You can use Nashville or Dallas or anyone want. My point is it's easy to point at a successful franchise and say if Atlanta had that situation they'd be successful too. The reality is there are very few consistently elite teams. Consider that at the end of this season there is a chance that the Penguins may be the only franchise to make the playoffs more than 5 years in a row. The fact is that the majority of teams struggle just to make the playoffs every year (if not worse) and it will become even more difficult with Seattle on the way. The question is how would Atlanta deal with this reality? You may disagree but in my opinion it would compare to Miami or Phoenix: an over-saturated market with a large population of transplants and a bad reputation as a sports town. It would also have to deal with the challenge of directly competing for exposure/dollars with the NBA in a city without traditional roots to hockey. The NHL could be successful in Atlanta but their margin for error would be razor thin.

And as far as the ASG sabotage story is concerned, I understand they never wanted the team. My question is WHY? Once they ended up with it, why did they not try to make it work? There are a number of arenas where the NHL and NBA have successfully negotiated mutually beneficial arrangements, surely there was a deal to made in Atlanta. Assuming the ownership was made up of people interested in making money, why did they not see a future for the team in any form and feel the need to have it completely eviscerated?

 

[zetajerk]

You can use Nashville or Dallas or anyone want. My point is it's easy to point at a successful franchise and say if Atlanta had that situation they'd be successful too. The reality is there are very few consistently elite teams. Consider that at the end of this season there is a chance that the Penguins may be the only franchise to make the playoffs more than 5 years in a row. The fact is that the majority of teams struggle just to make the playoffs every year (if not worse) and it will become even more difficult with Seattle on the way. The question is how would Atlanta deal with this reality? You may disagree but in my opinion it would compare to Miami or Phoenix: an over-saturated market with a large population of transplants and a bad reputation as a sports town. It would also have to deal with the challenge of directly competing for exposure/dollars with the NBA in a city without traditional roots to hockey. The NHL could be successful in Atlanta but their margin for error would be razor thin.

And as far as the ASG sabotage story is concerned, I understand they never wanted the team. My question is WHY? Once they ended up with it, why did they not try to make it work? There are a number of arenas where the NHL and NBA have successfully negotiated mutually beneficial arrangements, surely there was a deal to made in Atlanta. Assuming the ownership was made up of people interested in making money, why did they not see a future for the team in any form and feel the need to have it completely eviscerated?

ASG were basketball people who only wanted the Hawks. They saw the Thrashers as an obstacle to the Hawks success. There are emails leaked where they bemoaned that too many people were attending Thrashers games and they wanted them to go to the Hawks instead. Hockey was never in their plans.

 

[voyageur]

I think the thing is that Atlanta will never get a hockey only arena. They will be a shared tenant. And the Hawks as is are not an easy sell. So a hockey team will be second fiddle. But cut into the bottom line of the primary tenant.

I think the NHL is recognisant that its greatest inroads came where hockey was the primary tenant:

Pittsburgh, Bufalo, St. Louis, Tampa, Nashville, San Jose, Vegas, Columbus to some extent, and Seattle coming. NBA would eat in to all of those teams success. Other than the biggest markets in the U.S, Minnesota and Colorado are the only teams with both sports. The two markets that built hockey only, Arizona and Florida are bleeding money. Because they can't compete with the revenues of Toronto, NewYork, Boston or Chicago. Even Winnipeg.

I just don't see Atlanta having the demographics and the purchasing power to stay in the NHL. If Carolina can't get traction I think Atlanta would be the fall back market, as a Southern footprint, having more corporate potential.
But still not likely. AHL affiliation with Nashville should be the short term solution. Keep fans in the game.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

You can use Nashville or Dallas or anyone want. My point is it's easy to point at a successful franchise and say if Atlanta had that situation they'd be successful too. The reality is there are very few consistently elite teams. Consider that at the end of this season there is a chance that the Penguins may be the only franchise to make the playoffs more than 5 years in a row. The fact is that the majority of teams struggle just to make the playoffs every year (if not worse) and it will become even more difficult with Seattle on the way. The question is how would Atlanta deal with this reality? You may disagree but in my opinion it would compare to Miami or Phoenix: an over-saturated market with a large population of transplants and a bad reputation as a sports town. It would also have to deal with the challenge of directly competing for exposure/dollars with the NBA in a city without traditional roots to hockey. The NHL could be successful in Atlanta but their margin for error would be razor thin.

And as far as the ASG sabotage story is concerned, I understand they never wanted the team. My question is WHY? Once they ended up with it, why did they not try to make it work? There are a number of arenas where the NHL and NBA have successfully negotiated mutually beneficial arrangements, surely there was a deal to made in Atlanta. Assuming the ownership was made up of people interested in making money, why did they not see a future for the team in any form and feel the need to have it completely eviscerated?

So...your point is winning brings fans. Check.

You mention the Penguins. FYI, their attendance wasn't all that great in the late 90's and early 2000's. Neither was attendance in Chicago, Buffalo, Anaheim, NY Islanders, Boston, or Washington. Food for thought.

 

[SunDancer]

ASG were basketball people who only wanted the Hawks. They saw the Thrashers as an obstacle to the Hawks success. There are emails leaked where they bemoaned that too many people were attending Thrashers games and they wanted them to go to the Hawks instead. Hockey was never in their plans.

This is what doesn't make sense to me. If I'm a poultry guy but I see my shop is selling more fish, I reevaluate my priorities, maybe rent out the fish stand ... not burn it to the ground.

 

[SunDancer]

So...your point is winning brings fans. Check.

You mention the Penguins. FYI, their attendance wasn't all that great in the late 90's and early 2000's. Neither was attendance in Chicago, Buffalo, Anaheim, NY Islanders, Boston, or Washington. Food for thought.

No, my point is you can't rely on winning for survival and in today's NHL icing a consistently competitive team is becoming more difficult.

 

[ponder719]

This is what doesn't make sense to me. If I'm a poultry guy but I see my shop is selling more fish, I reevaluate my priorities, maybe rent out the fish stand ... not burn it to the ground.

I think the analogy would go a bit more like this: We have stands that sell chicken and fish. We do about 55% of our business in chicken, and 45% in fish. Operating both stands costs us roughly 2x as much as operating just the chicken stand would, and we expect to get about 2/3 of our fish customers buying chicken if we only offered that. Does it make financial sense to give up 15% of our total customer base (the people who want only fish), but spend half as much money on the operations side?

The Thrashers were doing well enough, all things considered, but only outdrew the Hawks on a per-game basis in 06-07. They were slightly behind in 07-08, then fell substantially further behind the Hawks, who were consistently pulling in 15-16K fans a game every year (the Thrashers fell off sharply in 08-09 to 14.6K, then down to about 13.5K for their last two years.) From that perspective, plus ASG's analysis that the market would be better for a basketball team alone than a two-sport arena, and the added cost of operating the hockey franchise (and, if I'm not mistaken, though I very well could be because my memory of this is hazy, there was a great deal of acrimony between the one member of their group who really loved the hockey team and the rest of them), it makes financial sense to get rid of the additional overhead and just convert your remaining fanbase over to the other product you offer.

As a hockey fan, I think it sucks, but from a business perspective, if you think you can move that fanbase over, then what are you spending that money for?

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

No, my point is you can't rely on winning for survival and in today's NHL icing a consistently competitive team is becoming more difficult.

So, this is true to every team in the league. Most people wouldn't think that with Chicago, Buffalo, Anaheim, NY Islanders, Boston, or Washington, yet it's certainly true with them as well.

Tough to gauge the Thrashers since they never won even one playoff game.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

This is what doesn't make sense to me. If I'm a poultry guy but I see my shop is selling more fish, I reevaluate my priorities, maybe rent out the fish stand ... not burn it to the ground.

They just weren't hockey guys. The sale was a package deal only. A$G tried to negotiate a deal without the Thrashers, but Time Warner wasn't budging. They had a deal in place with David McDavid, but A$G (with Ted Turner's son-in-law) came back at the 12th hour and accepted the Thrashers. There are court docs written where they admitted to trying to sell the team immediately after the sale, but then couldn't because they were busy suing each other.

 

[SunDancer]

I think the analogy would go a bit more like this: We have stands that sell chicken and fish. We do about 55% of our business in chicken, and 45% in fish. Operating both stands costs us roughly 2x as much as operating just the chicken stand would, and we expect to get about 2/3 of our fish customers buying chicken if we only offered that. Does it make financial sense to give up 15% of our total customer base (the people who want only fish), but spend half as much money on the operations side?

The Thrashers were doing well enough, all things considered, but only outdrew the Hawks on a per-game basis in 06-07. They were slightly behind in 07-08, then fell substantially further behind the Hawks, who were consistently pulling in 15-16K fans a game every year (the Thrashers fell off sharply in 08-09 to 14.6K, then down to about 13.5K for their last two years.) From that perspective, plus ASG's analysis that the market would be better for a basketball team alone than a two-sport arena, and the added cost of operating the hockey franchise (and, if I'm not mistaken, though I very well could be because my memory of this is hazy, there was a great deal of acrimony between the one member of their group who really loved the hockey team and the rest of them), it makes financial sense to get rid of the additional overhead and just convert your remaining fanbase over to the other product you offer.

As a hockey fan, I think it sucks, but from a business perspective, if you think you can move that fanbase over, then what are you spending that money for?

I think your analogy is closer to the reason the team was pushed out (particularly the bolded). "It wasn't worth it" makes more sense than "they didn't like hockey". The bottom line is if the Thrashers were a valuable asset to the owners, the outcome would've been different.

 

[nhlfan79]

I think your analogy is closer to the reason the team was pushed out (particularly the bolded). "It wasn't worth it" makes more sense than "they didn't like hockey". The bottom line is if the Thrashers were a valuable asset to the owners, the outcome would've been different.

Respectfully, from someone who lived the fiasco firsthand, that's just not the case. You're thinking about it from the perspective of a rational business owner, and ASG was far from rational in virtually every respect. They were bigoted/racist, spiteful, duplicitous, and antagonistic, not just with each other, but also the fans as well. At a team town hall meeting, Bruce Levenson famously called a Thrashers season ticket holder a "smartass" in front of a room of 1,000 fans (including kids) for daring to publicly question ASG about how it was running the team into the ground.

It is 100% factual truth to say that they bought the hockey team (along with the arena and Hawks) with the intent to immediately flip it. That's their own words in their court filings when they sued their own law firm for botching the buyout of their former partner, Steve Belkin. Google it. You're also forgetting that ASG was busy suing each other for years and years about who even owned the teams (Belkin alone vs. the seven non-Belkins), costing who knows how many extra millions of dollars in legal fees that otherwise might have been spent on running the team.

Without Belkin's deepest pockets, the rest of ASG didn't have sufficient assets to run both franchises properly, so the hockey team took the hit. The Hawks were $14 million over the salary cap (they paid Joe Johnson stupid money) while the Thrashers were $20 million under theirs (letting Marc Savard and Marian Hossa walk). Every non-essential expense was cut. Literally no advertising at all (except commercials during their own broadcasts), no community outreach efforts to promote or grow the game, insultingly paltry in-game promotions or prizes (contest *winners* got a $5 Home Depot gift card), an aging arena that was falling into basic disrepair, by a long mile the last team to adopt HD game broadcasts, and on and on.

It was never a question of them reading the market and making an informed decision that hockey couldn't work here. They stupidly thought that every hockey dollar was a lost basketball dollar. These people aren't geniuses. You give them too much credit, sadly.

 

[JMROWE]

I believe in 2nd chances but Atlanta had there 2nd chance & blew it so NO Atlanta dose not deserve another team plus you have to look at this from business point of view & face the facts hockey is one the least popular team sports in the United States & hockey down there often considered a sport for the 1% since it is so expensive to play that is one of many reasons why hockey in USA. especially in the south is so unpopular .

 

[Melrose Munch]

It can work if the owner is interested. Bettman should contact him.

 

[dkitson16]

So...your point is winning brings fans. Check.

You mention the Penguins. FYI, their attendance wasn't all that great in the late 90's and early 2000's. Neither was attendance in Chicago, Buffalo, Anaheim, NY Islanders, Boston, or Washington. Food for thought.

Here's some attendance averages I pulled from hockeydb

Atlanta Flames
NHL Average Attendance
72-80

Det 12,950
Atl 12,039
Mnn 11,915
LA 11,450
Chi 10,988
Ptt 10,867
Que 10,742 (1 year)
Wsh 10,438
Hrt 9,854 (1 year)
Col 8,335 (6 years)
KC 7,624 (2 years)
Clv 5,935 (2 years)
Oak 5,830 (4 years)

Atlanta Thrashers
NHL Average Attendance
99-11

Wsh 15,995
Bst 15,970
Ptt 15,963
Fla 15,579
Car 15,192
NJ 15,160
Ana 14,959
Nsh 14,933
Atl 14,914
Ari 14,138
NYI 12,814

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Here's some attendance averages I pulled from hockeydb

How *dare* you suggest that the NHL may actually be doing a lot better in the 21st century, even at the tail end of the attendance figures, than in the glory days of the 1970s! Harumph!

 

[MNNumbers]

Here's some attendance averages I pulled from hockeydb

Atlanta Flames
NHL Average Attendance
72-80
Det 12,950
Atl 12,039
Mnn 11,915
LA 11,450
Chi 10,988
Ptt 10,867
Que 10,742 (1 year)
Wsh 10,438
Hrt 9,854 (1 year)
Col 8,335 (6 years)
KC 7,624 (2 years)
Clv 5,935 (2 years)
Oak 5,830 (4 years)
Atlanta Thrashers
NHL Average Attendance
99-11
Wsh 15,995
Bst 15,970
Ptt 15,963
Fla 15,579
Car 15,192
NJ 15,160
Ana 14,959
Nsh 14,933
Atl 14,914
Ari 14,138
NYI 12,814

The best single piece of information I can get from this is that Minnesota supported the North Stars very well.

 

[nhlfan79]

Interesting local development on the Atlanta hockey scene. The ECHL today approved new ownership for the Atlanta Gladiators.

I'm not sure what the future implications are, but outgoing management did a pretty good job (far better than the Thrashers) at community outreach and being ambassadors for the sport.

The Official Website of the Atlanta Gladiators: News

 

[NSHPreds1835]

Interesting local development on the Atlanta hockey scene. The ECHL today approved new ownership for the Atlanta Gladiators.

I'm not sure what the future implications are, but outgoing management did a pretty good job (far better than the Thrashers) at community outreach and being ambassadors for the sport.

The Official Website of the Atlanta Gladiators: News

Well the team has 1 more year on their current lease with the arena so if something were to happen it would be after next season most likely.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

I believe in 2nd chances but Atlanta had there 2nd chance & blew it so NO Atlanta dose not deserve another team plus you have to look at this from business point of view & face the facts hockey is one the least popular team sports in the United States & hockey down there often considered a sport for the 1% since it is so expensive to play that is one of many reasons why hockey in USA. especially in the south is so unpopular .

Except its not that simple. Washington had 2 MLB teams before Nationals.

Yea. So Atlanta may get a third chance if circumstance is right.

 

[SunDancer]

Respectfully, from someone who lived the fiasco firsthand, that's just not the case. You're thinking about it from the perspective of a rational business owner, and ASG was far from rational in virtually every respect. They were bigoted/racist, spiteful, duplicitous, and antagonistic, not just with each other, but also the fans as well. At a team town hall meeting, Bruce Levenson famously called a Thrashers season ticket holder a "smartass" in front of a room of 1,000 fans (including kids) for daring to publicly question ASG about how it was running the team into the ground.

It is 100% factual truth to say that they bought the hockey team (along with the arena and Hawks) with the intent to immediately flip it. That's their own words in their court filings when they sued their own law firm for botching the buyout of their former partner, Steve Belkin. Google it. You're also forgetting that ASG was busy suing each other for years and years about who even owned the teams (Belkin alone vs. the seven non-Belkins), costing who knows how many extra millions of dollars in legal fees that otherwise might have been spent on running the team.

Without Belkin's deepest pockets, the rest of ASG didn't have sufficient assets to run both franchises properly, so the hockey team took the hit. The Hawks were $14 million over the salary cap (they paid Joe Johnson stupid money) while the Thrashers were $20 million under theirs (letting Marc Savard and Marian Hossa walk). Every non-essential expense was cut. Literally no advertising at all (except commercials during their own broadcasts), no community outreach efforts to promote or grow the game, insultingly paltry in-game promotions or prizes (contest *winners* got a $5 Home Depot gift card), an aging arena that was falling into basic disrepair, by a long mile the last team to adopt HD game broadcasts, and on and on.

It was never a question of them reading the market and making an informed decision that hockey couldn't work here. They stupidly thought that every hockey dollar was a lost basketball dollar. These people aren't geniuses. You give them too much credit, sadly.

The NHL is not exactly forthcoming about these sort of things, so I appreciate your post. It's usually difficult to know exactly how these things develop, especially for outsiders like me, and with a few years having passed many links to the sale are dead. I came across one article where this quote from one of the owners stood out:

Gearon disputed the suggestion that selling to the Winnipeg group was simply more lucrative than selling locally. The sale will spare the Spirit the Thrashers' losses, although the savings will be offset to some degree by making Philips Arena less profitable. It would be better financially, Gearon said, if the Thrashers had been sold at a much lower price to someone who would keep the team in the arena as a tenant

Gearon: Search for local investors failed

I don't know how much influence he had but maybe at least there was one rational voice at ASG.

 

[edog37]

So...your point is winning brings fans. Check.

You mention the Penguins. FYI, their attendance wasn't all that great in the late 90's and early 2000's. Neither was attendance in Chicago, Buffalo, Anaheim, NY Islanders, Boston, or Washington. Food for thought.

that was due to the lousy product on the ice & the economics of the game....

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

that was due to the lousy product on the ice & the economics of the game....

Yep. Imagine adding terrible ownership that didn't want the team to that mix.

 

[JMROWE]

Except its not that simple. Washington had 2 MLB teams before Nationals.

Yea. So Atlanta may get a third chance if circumstance is right.

The only 2 reasons Washington got a third chance was because Washington is good baseball market & victims of bad ownership & deserved that rare 3rd chance 2 there was nowhere else to move the Montreal Expos at the time but Washington DC. .

Atlanta failed twice because it was just plain bad market to put an NHL. team & within the next 10 - 15 years the we will see 2 maybe 3 relocations & a possible 2 more expansion teams pending how Vegas & Seattle will turn out & I would not put Atlanta on that list .

Quebec City
Houston
Portland
Southern Ontario

 

[Bookie21]

The only 2 reasons Washington got a third chance was because Washington is good baseball market & victims of bad ownership & deserved that rare 3rd chance 2 there was nowhere else to move the Montreal Expos at the time but Washington DC. .

Atlanta failed twice because it was just plain bad market to put an NHL. team & within the next 10 - 15 years the we will see 2 maybe 3 relocations & a possible 2 more expansion teams pending how Vegas & Seattle will turn out & I would not put Atlanta on that list .

Quebec City
Houston
Portland
Southern Ontario

Who in Southern Ontario would be able to afford a $650 million USD expansion + $600 million arena + I'm assuming another $500 million USD to the Sabres and Leafs