DevsMan84 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 The Jets had 17 years to recover from that dispersal draft and werent brand new to a community that pumped in lots of money for a new arena. What new arena? Not getting a new arena was part of the reason they left and the arena they had was already at least a couple of decades old when they started using it in the WHA days with a couple of renovations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devlman Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 What new arena? Not getting a new arena was part of the reason they left and the arena they had was already at least a couple of decades old when they started using it in the WHA days with a couple of renovations. Exactly. I was speaking about Atlanta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Thats not necessarily true about Atlanta, Daniel. Many investments (not just with sports) take persuasion. There are alot of wealthy groups down there, but people dont really know enough about hockey to invest in it. Investing in sports is tricky enough, especially when you dont know that sport that well. Doesnt mean theres no money to be made. Thats where the NHL comes in and tries to get a group together that either knows the game, or can be persuaded into investing. Perhaps, but how long is the current owner required to hold onto a team that's a consistent and dramatic money loser in the hopes that someone local wisens up and decides to try to be persuaded? I would say not long at all when there is a ready, willing and able, albeit nonlocal, buyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mac760 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 The real problem in Atlanta is the owners want out of the hockey team. They just seem to want the Hawks and to manage the arena. Any potential Thrashers owner will end up being second fiddle in the arena with potentially bad lease terms and lousy dates. As long as the owners want this, Atlanta is not likely to be a viable market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam85491 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Yeah 7, everyone knows the south will rise again! Typical Canadian who gives little to no sh!ts about the culture of other places and the fans of southern hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Typical Canadian who gives little to no sh!ts about the culture of other places and the fans of southern hockey. It has little to do with the culture of other places and southern hockey fans, and a whole lot to do with a team that never really caught on, owners that don't want that team, and the fact that no other billionaires are stepping up to keep the team in Atlanta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarpathianForest Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Yeah! You Canadians with your modesty and general sense of hospitality! How hubristic!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv4Life Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 ^^^Don't forget sense of entitlement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagknife Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 TG posted a link to this article from the Atlanta Journal Constitution: http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/2011/05/24/cowardly-bettman-ignoring-evidence-of-thrashers-fans/ solid arguments Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam85491 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 TG posted a link to this article from the Atlanta Journal Constitution: http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/2011/05/24/cowardly-bettman-ignoring-evidence-of-thrashers-fans/ solid arguments Terrific read. Thanks for the link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 TG posted a link to this article from the Atlanta Journal Constitution: http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/2011/05/24/cowardly-bettman-ignoring-evidence-of-thrashers-fans/ solid arguments Yes, it has been bad ownership. But the NHL can't tell owners how to run a team. And an owner doesn't have to keep a team he doesn't want. The NHL can't afford to run another team that loses money. If no one wants to buy the team and keep it in Atlanta, and True North wants to buy it and move it, what do the fans in Atlanta want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyFan42 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 One of the first people to comment on that article mentioned how he didn't believe the perception that Atlanta was a fairweather sports town and that he preferred to think of it as Atlantans (or whatever they call themselves) being "better sports consumers" than fans in other cities. I hate to break it to him, but perception goes a long way. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, people are going to think it's a duck. Another comment jumped off the page at me so I'll simply copy and paste: I think Bettman’s comments are less about Atlanta and more of a word of warning to fans in Miami, Columbus and elsewhere. He knows there’s nothing he can really do in Atlanta so it’s all about sending a message to those other markets- support your crummy teams with owners who do at least care a little bit or else as soon as an arena gets built in Quebec you’ll suffer the same fate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devlman Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Yes, it has been bad ownership. But the NHL can't tell owners how to run a team. And an owner doesn't have to keep a team he doesn't want. The NHL can't afford to run another team that loses money. If no one wants to buy the team and keep it in Atlanta, and True North wants to buy it and move it, what do the fans in Atlanta want? They want the commish to do more i finding an ownership group-to put in the same at bat he did for phoenix. Bettman can also block a prospective owner from buying the team. If I wanted to buy the blue jackets and move them to seaside heights the commish has every right to veto that. I hope he would. There's a comment from that article that's spot on....moving from an emerging market of 5.3 mill to a disaster of a town w 725k that couldn't support a team in recent history. Bettman should be fighting against this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 They want the commish to do more i finding an ownership group-to put in the same at bat he did for phoenix. Bettman can also block a prospective owner from buying the team. If I wanted to buy the blue jackets and move them to seaside heights the commish has every right to veto that. I hope he would. There's a comment from that article that's spot on....moving from an emerging market of 5.3 mill to a disaster of a town w 725k that couldn't support a team in recent history. Bettman should be fighting against this. So Denver and Minnesota should have never been given another chance since they lost a team before? Plus this was the second NHL team in Atlanta and the second time it failed. So right now, the score is 2-1 Atlanta where the higher score is the loser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) They want the commish to do more i finding an ownership group-to put in the same at bat he did for phoenix. Bettman can also block a prospective owner from buying the team. If I wanted to buy the blue jackets and move them to seaside heights the commish has every right to veto that. I hope he would. He has more say in the Phoenix situation because the NHL is now running that team and Glendale is putting up a fight in trying to keep the team. Winnipeg has been trying to get a team for a while. They have someone who wants to spend the money, and they have a new arena. There's a comment from that article that's spot on....moving from an emerging market of 5.3 mill to a disaster of a town w 725k that couldn't support a team in recent history. Bettman should be fighting against this. Using this logic, since Atlanta couldn't support a team in 1980, they shouldn't have gotten a second team in 1999. Also, the Jets move involved more than just attendance. There was the old arena, the weak Canadian dollar, and the lack of a salary cap to consider. I'm not saying Winnipeg will be a resounding success but if Minnesota, Denver, the Bay Area, and Atlanta got second chances, why can't Winnipeg if the timing is right? Edited May 25, 2011 by Devil Dan 56 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devlman Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) So Denver and Minnesota should have never been given another chance since they lost a team before? Plus this was the second NHL team in Atlanta and the second time it failed. So right now, the score is 2-1 Atlanta where the higher score is the loser. Having a second chance is not the point. The point is whether or not you should have a chance to begin with. Let me ask you this: If SJ had the management ATL had the past decade, would you be hoping for them to be eliminated? How about Dallas? NJ even? Edited May 25, 2011 by devlman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devlman Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 He has more say in the Phoenix situation because the NHL is now running that team and Glendale is putting up a fight in trying to keep the team. Winnipeg has been trying to get a team for a while. They have someone who wants to spend the money, and they have a new arena. Youre right in that he does have more say in Phoenix. Will Winnipeg have a brand new arena? Using this logic, since Atlanta couldn't support a team in 1980, they shouldn't have gotten a second team in 1999. Also, the Jets move involved more than just attendance. There was the old arena, the weak Canadian dollar, and the lack of a salary cap to consider. I'm not saying Winnipeg will be a resounding success but if Minnesota, Denver, the Bay Area, and Atlanta got second chances, why can't Winnipeg if the timing is right? Atlanta got a team because of their very strong economic relevance and rapidly-growing population. Can the Jets say they've got these two critical components? What has changed since the Jets last left, economically? Yeah, at least theres a cap (which continues to go up), but thats about it. The fan support will be great, but it'll be a very small group, regardless of their record. And who knows how long the CN dollar will be able to prop up the Winninpeg before you see even further depression in that village. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Having a second chance is not the point. The point is whether or not you should have a chance to begin with. Let me ask you this: If SJ had the management ATL had the past decade, would you be hoping for them to be eliminated? How about Dallas? NJ even? How did San Jose do for the first 5 or 6 years? Even in those times the fans still went to games. Same with NJ pre 1988. Atlantans are very fair-weather fans and I have a co-worker of mine who lived there for a little under 15 years and said the same about the braves and hawks. When they win, a ton of fans are there and when they lose it is a ghost town. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyFan42 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Using this logic, since Atlanta couldn't support a team in 1980, they shouldn't have gotten a second team in 1999. Also, the Jets move involved more than just attendance. There was the old arena, the weak Canadian dollar, and the lack of a salary cap to consider. I'm not saying Winnipeg will be a resounding success but if Minnesota, Denver, the Bay Area, and Atlanta got second chances, why can't Winnipeg if the timing is right? Because USA roolz and Canada droolz. Duh! America fvck yeah! Youre right in that he does have more say in Phoenix. Will Winnipeg have a brand new arena? It's fairly new. It's not the same arena the Jets had; it was built in 2003-2004 and seats just over 15,000 for hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devlman Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) How did San Jose do for the first 5 or 6 years? Even in those times the fans still went to games. Same with NJ pre 1988. Atlantans are very fair-weather fans and I have a co-worker of mine who lived there for a little under 15 years and said the same about the braves and hawks. When they win, a ton of fans are there and when they lose it is a ghost town. Yeah, i mean you can argue that Atlanta would be a crappy sports town no matter what the sport, team, economy and there'd probably be some truth to that. But its those winning years that makes it worth while. The Thrashers never had a chance to at least prove it one way or the other. They boycotted games like any fan base would with the crap management and teams they had. It's fairly new. It's not the same arena the Jets had; it was built in 2003-2004 and seats just over 15,000 for hockey. Just 15k? Where's the cringe smiley lol Edited May 25, 2011 by devlman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) Just 15k? Where's the cringe smiley lol I heard someplace that they would renovate the arena to expand the seating to about 17k. If I remember right they would raise the roof and add seats up top but not exactly sure as I read this some time ago. Plus, from what I see the Thrashers last season averaged about 13,400 per game. Therefore they too would fit in the 15k arena in Winnipeg as-is and still have room to fill in the empties:) Edited May 25, 2011 by DevsMan84 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam85491 Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 I heard someplace that they would renovate the arena to expand the seating to about 17k. If I remember right they would raise the roof and add seats up top but not exactly sure as I read this some time ago. Plus, from what I see the Thrashers last season averaged about 13,400 per game. Therefore they too would fit in the 15k arena in Winnipeg as-is and still have room to fill in the empties:) I'd be shocked if Whineypeg (who still as this moment in time does not have a team) expands the capacity by another 2,000. Don't want the crowd to get overshadowed by all the empty seats LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangers suck69 Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 I'd be shocked if Whineypeg (who still as this moment in time does not have a team) expands the capacity by another 2,000. Don't want the crowd to get overshadowed by all the empty seats LOL I dont think Devils fans are in any position to talk about empty seats in an arena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrthemike Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 I'd be shocked if Whineypeg (who still as this moment in time does not have a team) expands the capacity by another 2,000. Don't want the crowd to get overshadowed by all the empty seats LOL Why the hatred towards Winnipeg? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 I dont think Devils fans are in any position to talk about empty seats in an arena Exactly. Also, where does this huge hate come for a team moving to Winnipeg? Looks like the fans up there are really pumped and want a team, while Atlanta seems to be going just "meh" at the idea of them leaving. Even the mayor is throwing in the towel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.