NHL Expansion: Back to Atlanta?

[RichieNextel305]

 

[Sharpshooter]

Probably happening, although I'd rather they move a team then add even more. Ugh. I'm sure it will be a new team, though.

[Ozzy]

15 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Probably happening, although I'd rather they move a team then add even more. Ugh. I'm sure it will be a new team, though.

 

I'd guess Arizona

[siddious]

It will be a new team for sure. 

 

Everyone around the NHL seems to think a team in atlanta should be a big win so long as the location is good this time around and the team is semi decent from the hop a-la seattle/vegas.

 

 

[Sharpshooter]

Atlanta is a hot market, good economy, budding population, a new building now and hopefully a better ownership situation. The third time may indeed be the charm.

[siddious]

8 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Atlanta is a hot market, good economy, budding population, a new building now and hopefully a better ownership situation. The third time may indeed be the charm.

oh yea AND good ownership

[Keirik]

29 minutes ago, siddious said:

It will be a new team for sure. 

 

Everyone around the NHL seems to think a team in atlanta should be a big win so long as the location is good this time around and the team is semi decent from the hop a-la seattle/vegas.

 

 

I've heard exacly this. New team rather than relocation of another team.  There's a lot of talk that the Yotes are close to a new arena deal

 

[Sod16]

There's no reason that done right a team in Atlanta shouldn't succeed.  But how many teams is enough already?  More than half the teams are going to have 54 year cup famines going.  What the league has tolerated in Arizona demonstrates that they are just not going to move teams again, ever.

[fletch]

As someone who has lived in Atlanta, the fans cared more about the NFL, college football, MLB, NBA, NASCAR, minor league baseball, and high school sports more than the NHL when the Thrashers were the local team.  Sure the location wasn’t great and the ownership was bad.  The community was exposed to hockey with two different teams and didn’t care that they lost either team.  It was page six type news, not page one.  I couldn’t think of many locations with a harder uphill fight to build a successful franchise.  Pure hubris to try and willl success there.

[jsm7302]

It isn't news that North Carolina is NJ/NY South. Putting a team in Charlotte makes more sense than anywhere else; not sure why Atlanta is the choice again. The relocated northeast population is the pure hockey crowd and it will be easier to build a team and fanbase there more than anywhere imo.

 

Two teams in NC will be fire for rivalries.

[Sod16]

Houston, of course, by far the largest metro without a team, makes the most sense.  I question NC.  The Canes only draw when they are very good.  Within a few years of winning the cup they had crowds of 8K.

[jsm7302]

58 minutes ago, Sod16 said:

Houston, of course, by far the largest metro without a team, makes the most sense.  I question NC.  The Canes only draw when they are very good.  Within a few years of winning the cup they had crowds of 8K.

If NY can have 3 teams and California, 3 as well, there is no reason Texas can't have 2. The Houston Rattlers.

[RangersIn7]

Let’s not try Atlanta for a 3rd time.

 There’s so little interest there, despite the size of the market.

[Long live the King]

One's gonna be in Utah.  Been trying to tell you.  I'd imagine the other is in the east to keep the conferences equal so the puts Atlanta over Houston. 

[Scott]

As for NC there's no comparison between Raleigh and Charlotte, two entirely different markets/worlds by far. But even having a house about 35 mins from downtown Charlotte I don't see a team thriving there once the shine wears off, if there's even a shine period.  The AHL team in Charlotte has only drawn 6300-6500 the past 3 seasons and that's very very generous, like not even close and I usually catch more games late in the season and in the playoffs.

 

What I can also say is they are building/have built  thousands of townhouses/condos/homes outside the city in the Mooresville, Denver, Huntersville, Cornelius, Davidson especially on the west side of Lake Norman over the last 5+ years and there's no sign of them slowing down. That's about 30-45 outside downtown Charlotte so maybe that would be enough new blood to help but only initially at best imo. 

[jsm7302]

On 12/28/2023 at 5:04 PM, jsrangers said:

As for NC there's no comparison between Raleigh and Charlotte, two entirely different markets/worlds by far. But even having a house about 35 mins from downtown Charlotte I don't see a team thriving there once the shine wears off, if there's even a shine period.  The AHL team in Charlotte has only drawn 6300-6500 the past 3 seasons and that's very very generous, like not even close and I usually catch more games late in the season and in the playoffs.

 

What I can also say is they are building/have built  thousands of townhouses/condos/homes outside the city in the Mooresville, Denver, Huntersville, Cornelius, Davidson especially on the west side of Lake Norman over the last 5+ years and there's no sign of them slowing down. That's about 30-45 outside downtown Charlotte so maybe that would be enough new blood to help but only initially at best imo. 

I will say I just checked the Wolfpack #'s and they have not broken 5k in average attendance in the past decade. I don't think minor level is equivalent to a pro team. If the Hornets can survive, I gotta believe the influx of northeasterners would support a pro.hockey franchise. I'm still in for Charlotte over Atlanta.....again.

[RichieNextel305]

 

[Pete]

"Let's try more things that already failed."

[RangersIn7]

This has been tried 2x’s… and ended in relocation 2x’s.

 

They don’t care about hockey there and there’s no interest or appetite for it there.

 

They like NASCAR.

Basketball.

Football.

The Braves.

And college sports.

And…. That’s it. 

 

Put a team in Milwaukee.

Put a team in QC.

Put another team in the GTA.

 

Atlanta is a huge market but has no consumer base for the product you’re selling.

 

And also… this is what people forget.

Atlanta emerged as this great Southern Cosmopolitan city within a 15 year span from the very late 70’s to the early-90’s due to one thing… Turner Broadcasting and the money and influence behind it.

 

Guess what? 
That’s long gone. 
 

Ted Turner is 85 and out of the game.

TBS is no longer “The Superstation.”

CNN is a joke. 
 

Go somewhere else please.

 

 

Edited January 31 by RangersIn7

[Br4d]

32 teams is already a lot of teams.  If it's clear a market has real promise then ok but Atlanta has lost two teams now.  What would be different third time around?

 

Utah is already a stretch but it is an untested stretch.

 

The NHL should probably look into regional teams with smaller arenas.  Make two or three arenas in an area where the population and interest are there and have the team based between them and playing home games in rotation at them.  This would cut down travel time and expenses for fans and would make "home" games scarcer leading to a rise in the value of each game.

 

Smaller arenas have much reduced operating costs and they can host other events more easily since the cost of operating the venue is less.  It's easier to split the cost of a smaller arena with local authorities including event staffing.

 

Instead of building a big hockey arena in Phoenix build 3 smaller multi-purpose ones in Phoenix, Tucson and Albuquerque NM.  The communities win with new venues for events and 10-15 NHL home games a year.  The NHL also salts a wider area in terms of raising fan interest in NHL hockey.  The team HQ and main training facilities could be a corporate park somewhere in between, maybe closer to the venue that is going to have the most dates.

 

Edit: just to make it clear I'm not suggesting 3 18,000 seat arenas in the locations.  The team isn't going to draw 18,000 people ever except in a playoff setting and probably not even then.  I'd suggest like a 10,000 seat maximum capacity for the arenas.  Right now the Coyotes are drawing less than half that number.

 

That 10k capacity would work really well for concerts, conventions and circuses.  The big 3 of off-season draws.

Edited January 31 by Br4d

[Valriera]

9 minutes ago, Br4d said:

32 teams is already a lot of teams.  If it's clear a market has real promise then ok but Atlanta has lost two teams now.  What would be different third time around?

 

Utah is already a stretch but it is an untested stretch.

 

The NHL should probably look into regional teams with smaller arenas.  Make two or three arenas in an area where the population and interest are there and have the team based between them and playing home games in rotation at them.  This would cut down travel time and expenses for fans and would make "home" games scarcer leading to a rise in the value of each game.

 

Smaller arenas have much reduced operating costs and they can host other events more easily since the cost of operating the venue is less.  It's easier to split the cost of a smaller arena with local authorities including event staffing.

 

Instead of building a big hockey arena in Phoenix build 3 smaller multi-purpose ones in Phoenix, Tucson and Albuquerque NM.  The communities win with new venues for events and 10-15 NHL home games a year.  The NHL also salts a wider area in terms of raising fan interest in NHL hockey.  The team HQ and main training facilities could be a corporate park somewhere in between, maybe closer to the venue that is going to have the most dates.

 

Edit: just to make it clear I'm not suggesting 3 18,000 seat arenas in the locations.  The team isn't going to draw 18,000 people ever except in a playoff setting and probably not even then.  I'd suggest like a 10,000 seat maximum capacity for the arenas.  Right now the Coyotes are drawing less than half that number.

 

That 10k capacity would work really well for concerts, conventions and circuses.  The big 3 of off-season draws.

Not a bad idea 

[Pete]

14 minutes ago, Br4d said:

32 teams is already a lot of teams.  If it's clear a market has real promise then ok but Atlanta has lost two teams now.  What would be different third time around?

 

Utah is already a stretch but it is an untested stretch.

 

The NHL should probably look into regional teams with smaller arenas.  Make two or three arenas in an area where the population and interest are there and have the team based between them and playing home games in rotation at them.  This would cut down travel time and expenses for fans and would make "home" games scarcer leading to a rise in the value of each game.

 

Smaller arenas have much reduced operating costs and they can host other events more easily since the cost of operating the venue is less.  It's easier to split the cost of a smaller arena with local authorities including event staffing.

 

Instead of building a big hockey arena in Phoenix build 3 smaller multi-purpose ones in Phoenix, Tucson and Albuquerque NM.  The communities win with new venues for events and 10-15 NHL home games a year.  The NHL also salts a wider area in terms of raising fan interest in NHL hockey.  The team HQ and main training facilities could be a corporate park somewhere in between, maybe closer to the venue that is going to have the most dates.

 

Edit: just to make it clear I'm not suggesting 3 18,000 seat arenas in the locations.  The team isn't going to draw 18,000 people ever except in a playoff setting and probably not even then.  I'd suggest like a 10,000 seat maximum capacity for the arenas.  Right now the Coyotes are drawing less than half that number.

 

That 10k capacity would work really well for concerts, conventions and circuses.  The big 3 of off-season draws.

This would never work.

 

What are those arenas doing when there's no hockey there? Each arena would get what one game a week? You would have to staff those three arenas. You'd have to pay property taxes on those three arenas. You have to pay utilities and you have to keep the ice cold in three arenas. 

 

How can you sell season packages and get corporate sponsorship?

 

10,000 people just isn't enough. 

 

The revenue just isn't there for it to be impactful for an NHL team. 

Edited January 31 by Pete

[siddious]

Imagine showing up to the wrong arena for a game

[RangersIn7]

It’s a tough proposition to put hockey anywhere but a true hockey market, a market super hungry for a franchise, or just a giant market where you can’t possibly be anything but successful over a reasonable amount of time. Plus, you need a billionaire who truly loves the sport, loves the city he’s in, and has the desire and the ability to bring a franchise to that place. And the league has to like that individual and place too. 
 

Also… you can’t add just 2 teams.

You have to have a plan in place to add 2 more, not too long after. 
So you’re adding 4 over probably 5 seasons, and therefore going up to 36. 

 

Financially, It’s not the NFL. Or the NBA. Or even MLB at this point.

And don’t even mention soccer, cause there’s still not much money there here in North America, even 30 years later.

TV deal, merchandising, and revenue sharing aren’t close to the other sports. So to get someone to spend $1 billion plus all the political and municipal hassles to go through is a big ask and not always an easy find. 

 

The viable markets for NHL expansion are, in truly practical terms and in no particular order:

 

Quebec City 

The GTA

Houston

Portland

SLC

Milwaukee

 

And if you need to go as high as 8 places to consider, add:

 

Kansas City

 

Then, finally…

Atlanta.

 

Ive said too much already….

But they need at least 1 more, and ideally 2 more teams in Canada.

Im not Canadian, but I think it’s crazy there aren’t 2 teams in the GTA… that’s insane. And there should be 2 teams in Quebec too. 

 

And I’d love to see a team in Milwaukee as it’s a truly in a great hockey state, and it’s a pretty cool city. 

 

Edited February 1 by RangersIn7

[LindG1000]

17 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

It’s a tough proposition to put hockey anywhere but a true hockey market, a market super hungry for a franchise, or just a giant market where you can’t possibly be successful over a few reasonable amount of time. Plus, you need a billionaire who truly loves the sport, loves the city he’s in, and has the desire and the ability to bring a franchise to that place. And the league has to like that individual and place too. 
 

Also… you can’t add just 2 teams.

You have to have a plan in place to add 2 more, not too long after. 
So you’re adding 4 over probably 5 seasons, and therefore going up to 36. 

 

Financially, It’s not the NFL. Or the NBA. Or even MLB at this point.

And don’t even mention soccer, cause there’s still not much money there here in North America, even 30 years later.

TV deal, merchandising, and revenue sharing aren’t close to the other sports. So to get someone to spend $1 billion plus all the political and municipal hassles to go through is a big ask and not always an easy find. 

 

The viable markets for NHL expansion are, in truly practical terms and in no particular order:

 

Quebec City 

The GTA

Houston

Portland

SLC

Milwaukee

 

And if you need to go as high as 8 places to consider, add:

 

Kansas City

 

Then, finally…

Atlanta.

 

Ive said too much already….

But they need at least 1 more, and ideally 2 more teams in Canada.

Im not Canadian, but I think it’s crazy there aren’t 2 teams in the GTA… that’s insane. And there should be 2 teams in Quebec too. 

 

And I’d love to see a team in Milwaukee as it’s a truly in a great hockey state, and it’s a pretty cool city. 

 

 

Why on earth would they put two more teams in Canada, especially one in a city like Quebec? Every dollar a US team makes, a Canadian team needs to make 1.33 to keep up. That, and the reason they left Quebec and Winnipeg in the first place was the weakness of the CAD. Why risk it again?

 

Quebec City is a small city and it is also the biggest city in Canada that doesn't have a pro hockey team. It's metro area population is 800k, or roughly the size of the Boise, ID metro area. Want to put a pro team in Boise? How about Knoxville, TN? Or Albuquerque, NM? Or Rochester, NY? All of those cities have metro areas between 10 and 20% LARGER than QC. This is a long way of saying that QC is never going to be big enough to support an NHL team. Hell, even Salt Lake City has 500K people on QC. I think every time we talk about QC as an expansion city, we forget that they're big for Canada, but not big for the NHL.

 

It's just not happening. 

 

That said, Atlanta? Get them good owners this time, please. They're holding 2 million more potential fans this time around (or 2.5 Quebec Cities more fans). They'll be fine. 

 

Adding this: the markets most ripe for an NHL team are, most likely, as follows:

Houston

Atlanta

San Diego (lord knows that the Padres as the only major team in the city isn't enough for a city of almost 3.5 million)

Orlando

Charlotte

San Antonio

 

All of these cities have three things in common: they're already big (over 2.5 million people), they're growing, and they have enough of a corporate presence to make it work.