It's fair to say that everyone is making some assumptions and offering opinions.
It surely is but I don't have an issue with that until someone starts touting off their opinions as facts.
It's fair to say that everyone is making some assumptions and offering opinions.
Atlanta failed twice for different reasons, none of which should apply if they get competent ownership to run it the next time. The Flames were in a vastly different landscape that it's not relevant to now. If that Atlanta Flames team had started in this era, they would still be there. And the only reason the Thrashers failed was because they were sabotaged by the ASG group. There is plenty reason to believe Atlanta can work as a hockey market if they get an ownership group that is competent and wants to be there. However, with ASG still owning Philips Arena, that is the real reason why Atlanta is not an option at this point.
As for 10 teams in Canada, that's laughable. The Canadian teams don't even want 10 teams in Canada. They will be lucky if they get Quebec City but other than that, it isn't going to happen. I would bet easily on Sacramento getting an NHL team before there is a 9th team in Canada.
It surely is but I don't have an issue with that until someone starts touting off their opinions as facts.
Forward-looking statements, which of course, are assumptions.
It makes perfect sense not to go there. Atlanta failed twice. The Flames were decent enough on the ice and still didn't draw.
It doesn't do any good to look up average fan support with no context and since you're unwilling to hear anything about context, it's a pointless discussion with you. And I can say the same thing about 10 teams in Canada that you said about Sacramento. It's a fantasy that will never happen.
It's not about unwillingness to listen; it's about historical facts. And you are pretty stubborn in your willingness to accept those facts. And for those reasons, it's pointless to discuss things with you as well.
Historical facts have reasons behind them...context. In every discussion that this has come up, you have dismissed those reasons as excuses. I don't deny that the attendance was what it was or that the events that occurred happened. I simply attempt to explain why it happened and what could have been done differently for a different result. You seem to only want to blame the people as if they have no reason not to support the team in certain situations.
Regardless of the excuses for lack of fans, facts are facts. Overall, the fan support for NHL hockey in Atlanta was poor. Some southern markets work (see Nashville and LA) and others don't (see Phoenix, Atlanta and Florida). There is nothing wrong with that either. It's like trying to make Cricket popular in Mongolia; it ain't ever gonna happen because there will never be a large enough fanbase to provide that support. That is just life, and some people need to accept that.
Yes there may be context, but ultimately that context/excuse (sorry, same meaning different pile to me) is what helped boot the Thrashers out of Atlanta. It all resulted in the same thing.
Forward-looking statements, which of course, are assumptions.
By this thought process though - how is it possible that WIN is successful now when that market failed in the past? Or how are the Sharks successful when the Seals failed?
I don't see how it's a "reach" to say that without a committed ownership group a NHL franchise is severely challenged to succeed. IMO it's VERY simple to look at the train wreck in ATL or PHO under the ASG/Moyes and say that the incompetence that started at the top negatively impacted the franchises ability to grow the fanbase which would have allowed the team to be successful over the long term (and hopefully will allow a team like the Yotes).
I think that it's much less of an assumption to state that it's possible that a franchise could succeed with good ownership in a big market like ATL than stating that any franchise there is doomed because it's a non-traditional market.
The NHL has grown some successful organizations in non-traditional markets (SJ, NASH, TB as examples) so it is possible for happen.
Regardless of the excuses for lack of fans, facts are facts. Overall, the fan support for NHL hockey in Atlanta was poor. Some southern markets work (see Nashville and LA) and others don't (see Phoenix, Atlanta and Florida). There is nothing wrong with that either. It's like trying to make Cricket popular in Mongolia; it ain't ever gonna happen because there will never be a large enough fanbase to provide that support. That is just life, and some people need to accept that.
Go look up average fan support for both NHL Atlanta teams. That will bring you back into reality, unlike believing an NHL team in Sacramento will ever occur.
I think one of the elements to which we don't have access is some measure of market potential and demand during periods of success on the ice (or periods when that is missing).
Assuming a scenario where the ownership is committed, and the arena is profitable, how much money is it possible to draw in in terms of revenue? The teams you cite aren't successful in that they can realistically compete with the top echelon of the NHL, and some need subsidies from their cities and of course, the NHL's revenue transfer program.
There are ways to make teams viable, assuming they have some of the other pieces in place, but several existing NHL teams wouldn't be viable at all without the various forms of assistance. The economic model morphed at some point, hence the lockouts and increases in revenue sharing, etc. This also happened to coincide with the period when the NHL underwent its second largest expansion.
If the "measuring bar" is that a team must generate equivalent revenues to the Maple Leafs or Rangers, teams that have had 80+ years to develop their fan-bases, then the number of successful franchises will be really small.
The SJ organization currently might be operating at a loss (at least that is what their owners state), but they have been able to consistently field a competitive team for 10 years and have had very strong attendance for the entire period of time. That is a successful organization IMO. Same thing to a lesser extent with a team like the Predators that once they were able to straighten our their ownership situation have been able to ice a competitive team and had a consistent period of good attendance.
IMO, a team needing subsidy from the NHL doesn't necessarily make them unsuccessful. There are huge variances in the potential and penetration of each market, and the NHL's revenue sharing program will hopefully enable the smaller markets to be competitive with the larger ones so they have the ability to grow over the long term.
As the fan of a large market team, I'd much rather have an effective salary cap and revenue sharing program which theoritically allows for all of the teams to be competitive. That is much preferable to having the situation where the Rangers have 2.5 times the salary of the Canucks in 1994, or as another example the similar disparity between the "have's" (DET, COL, DAL, STL) and "have-nots" in the WC before the lock-out which identified the real contenders at the start of the season.
(Note - I'm not saying that just spending $'s was enough, because there were some bad teams with big payrolls. I am saying that the combination of good market + good ownership/management kept the small markets from being able to be consistently competitive.)
Or to segway into what the Atlanta Braves have done...Maybe its correct that the return of the NHL is along time away for Atlanta. No matter what, two 'desertions' will scare potential investors away. BUT.......
Atlanta metro has 5.5M people - eighth largest in US. Its growing at a rate of about 160,000 a year. Even in the club's last terrible, grim reaper-in-the-rearview- mirror-year, it averaged 13,500. And that was playing in the middle of downtown. Put in hockey motivated ownership, a new northern location and only capture 0.0006 more of the population and you would be at 17,000 each night.
... worse even than the absolutely horrid Ned Harkness in Detroit early 70's.
I don't understand what Bettman and the league were supposed to do in this situation - the Thrashers had no place to play. What would have been a satisfactory way to handle that situation?
The League set a horrible precedent by letting ASG say "We don't want a hockey team anymore and there's nothing you can do about it." I don't have a BBA but I know a bad business decision when I see one. This made the NHL look pretty weak. Talk about scaring off investors.
As for the other haters, we learned when all this happened that there is a large segment of the hockey world that feels the sport shouldn't be enjoyed anywhere south of St. Louis. They can all kiss my dying ass.