Buccigross Teases an NHL Team Is Coming to Atlanta Again ... Because That Went Well Before

[LindG1000]

6 minutes ago, Pete said:

The cities make sense, however expansion makes zero sense.

 

Move the Coyotes, and frankly I don't see the point of a forever terrible team in Columbus either.

 

The league just doubles down on poor decisions. 

 

It makes sense when we recognize that HRR doesn't include expansion fees, and these two markets are both huge and have people ready to buy in.

 

Owners gonna own. What's that...figure 1.5B split 32 ways? 47M a head?

[LindG1000]

41 minutes ago, Blue Heaven said:

b/c the NHL worked out in Atlanta the first 2 times?  

 

NHL doesnt need to expand.  What they need to do is a better job at marketing the game, players, and better scheduling system.  

 

Unstable/bad ownership both times. Those teams didn't fail to draw fans when they were successful.

 

I think Atlanta makes a ton of sense if they can find stable ownership. And they've gotten pretty damn good at that in the past 15 years or so.

[Morphinity 2.0]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

You guys really have got to let this go. If any Canadian city is ever getting another team, it's a second team in Toronto, not Quebec City, which has a population density even smaller than Winnipeg, and an infantile corporate footprint. The NHL is a business. If you want to see Nordiques jerseys that bad, beg the Avalanche to wear them as a throwback. That's about as close as you'll ever get to that franchise returning.

 

If the NHL is set on expansion, the cities they're looking at in Atlanta and Houston make infinitely more sense, especially given the fact that expansion fees are likely to hit $750 million per franchise. Houston has the fourth-highest population in the entire U.S. and Atlanta is the corporate home of Coca-Cola, Delta, and CNN.

I just want another Toronto team to come into the league and win a Cup before the Leafs. The city might spontaneously combust ( @Dunny's ears just perked up).

[LindG1000]

3 minutes ago, Morphinity 2.0 said:

I just want another Toronto team to come into the league and win a Cup before the Leafs. The city might spontaneously combust ( @Dunny's ears just perked up).

 

That's a painful proposition for the league, though.

 

Another team doing business in CAD, expansion fee, two territories being infringed by the franchise (Buffalo's in range here) - the market's ripe, but the logistics make it really tough.

 

[Phil]

8 minutes ago, Morphinity 2.0 said:

I just want another Toronto team to come into the league and win a Cup before the Leafs. The city might spontaneously combust ( @Dunny's ears just perked up).

 

In year one. Imagine the fucking meltdown?

[Pete]

19 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

It makes sense when we recognize that HRR doesn't include expansion fees, and these two markets are both huge and have people ready to buy in.

 

Owners gonna own. What's that...figure 1.5B split 32 ways? 47M a head?

Yes, so half of next year's salary cap is covered. What a win!

 

[Phil]

18 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

Unstable/bad ownership both times. Those teams didn't fail to draw fans when they were successful.

 

I think Atlanta makes a ton of sense if they can find stable ownership. And they've gotten pretty damn good at that in the past 15 years or so.

 

Unstable ownership isn't actually a huge issue. No ownership is. That's what sank Atlanta. It's why they pretty rapid fire moved to Winnipeg when they did. For all their faults — and there are many — the League hasn't struggled nearly as much finding ownership for other "bad" markets like Ottawa, Arizona, etc.

 

The 32 Thoughts guys were talking about this on the latest episode, specific to the Houston/Atlanta rumor/report, and Jeff echoed the same sentiment. It's never a problem until no one wants to own the team.

 

They also brought up something that went right over my head earlier — there's another three-letter acronym based in Atlanta that is probably hugely influential here: TNT.

[LindG1000]

20 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Unstable ownership isn't actually a huge issue. No ownership is. That's what sank Atlanta. It's why they pretty rapid fire moved to Winnipeg when they did. For all their faults — and there are many — the League hasn't struggled nearly as much finding ownership for other "bad" markets like Ottawa, Arizona, etc.

 

The 32 Thoughts guys were talking about this on the latest episode, specific to the Houston/Atlanta rumor/report, and Jeff echoed the same sentiment. It's never a problem until no one wants to own the team.

 

They also brought up something that went right over my head earlier — there's another three-letter acronym based in Atlanta that is probably hugely influential here: TNT.

 

To be fair to the league, they haven't actually tried to find ownership in Ottawa in 20 years. Melnyk just became a miser. They're doing it now - and by all accounts doing it right. The issue there has always been the asinine dependence on Kanata - and even that seems poised to fall off in favor of LeBreton soon.

 

The NHL seems to finally fundamentally understand what it takes to put a successful team in place. They crushed it with Vegas and Seattle, they figured out Nashville and Tampa and Carolina....I think this makes some sense. Atlanta and Houston are ripe markets.

 

I honestly think their patience with Arizona has gotten fucking annoying, but it's always been the same arena question. That's settled well enough for the NHL to literally play in college for a few years, I guess. And bet dollars to donuts - once that's settled, they're going to laser-glare at the Panthers to get Miami to do the same thing, and start pressuring Calgary to move.

[LindG1000]

25 minutes ago, Pete said:

Yes, so half of next year's salary cap is covered. What a win!

 

 

That, and in theory, these are two teams that shouldn't have issues with revenue sharing. Huge media markets, tons of corporate sponsorship, new expansion rules make it likely they'll be competitive fast, relatively new arenas - potentially bespoke ones. So that's even less money out of their pockets on a regular basis.

[Phil]

42 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

To be fair to the league, they haven't actually tried to find ownership in Ottawa in 20 years. Melnyk just became a miser. They're doing it now - and by all accounts doing it right. The issue there has always been the asinine dependence on Kanata - and even that seems poised to fall off in favor of LeBreton soon.

 

The NHL seems to finally fundamentally understand what it takes to put a successful team in place. They crushed it with Vegas and Seattle, they figured out Nashville and Tampa and Carolina....I think this makes some sense. Atlanta and Houston are ripe markets.

 

I honestly think their patience with Arizona has gotten fucking annoying, but it's always been the same arena question. That's settled well enough for the NHL to literally play in college for a few years, I guess. And bet dollars to donuts - once that's settled, they're going to laser-glare at the Panthers to get Miami to do the same thing, and start pressuring Calgary to move.

 

Sorry, I'm conflating issues/points. The Ottawa inclusion was specific to them being labeled a "small market" team and the fact they're about to be sold with no issue whatsoever. Arizona, similarly, is a "small market" team (no market, really, but I digress) who also have had little issue finding ownership. Yes, they've had unsteady ownership, but there's never been an issue finding someone, or some group, to pony up to the table.

 

That is what did Atlanta in. When the League ultimately ended up moving them to Winnipeg, it was because they couldn't find anyone willing to do so. That's probably not the case this time around, even though on its face, on paper, I can completely understand fans' gut reactions about how it's failed twice.

 

Agree with everything else. Largely, I think the league has this figured out, it's just taken an astounding amount of time to correct and get right.

[Sod16]

Looking at the attendance figures at hockeydb. com, Atlanta was no worse than NYI or NJD, especially given their record and lack of tradition.  You can't stick a team in a non-traditional market, have them make the playoffs once in 13 years (or whatever it was) and expect them to be drawing more than the 13k per game that they were at the end.

 

To me, the team to move is FLA.  Even when they have a good team, their support is pretty weak.

[Blue Heaven]

https://twitter.com/KevinWeekes/status/1647685394220056582?s=20

[Phil]

From the article:

 

Quote

In conversations with people closely associated with Atlanta hockey, two standard positions emerged: That the Thrashers failed because of bad rosters, poor ownership and a misplaced arena rather than a fundamental rejection of the sport. The team won exactly zero playoff games in 11 seasons. Arenas in Chicago, Detroit and Pittsburgh have emptied over much less.

 

Through it all, a majority of the fans lived at least 45 minutes away.

 

If those issues are addressed and accounted for, team-seekers believe Chapter 3 in the story of Atlanta hockey could be completely different.

 

“I think the game has changed,” deputy commissioner Bill Daly told The Athletic. “I think demographics of the various markets have changed over time. So the fact that they tried and failed twice wouldn’t necessarily preclude a third time.”

 

[Pete]

21 minutes ago, Phil said:

From the article:

 

 

Glad Daly thinks so, because they NHL always does a crack job placing teams in good locations...

[jsm7302]

I really wanted Charlotte to get a team.