X. Benedict Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 Have to say I feel bad for the fans in Atlanta, especially the Sabres fans that won't be able to see their team. It really is lousy for fans of the Thrashers. I've lived in places were hockey wasn't the first sport...hockey fans anywhere on the planet seem to find each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 It's too bad. I live in Atlanta, and I enjoy catching the Sabres when they're in town. This is an epic failure of monumental proportions of Don Waddell. Nobody else is to blame for this. The Thrashers had a lot of good will in the community for a long time, but they never built a team that was anywhere close to playoff calibre until this year and they just missed the playoffs. They also got rid of all of their stars in Kovalchuk, Hossa, Lehtonen, etc. If you get rid of your stars, no one will come to games. If you put a lousy product on the ice, no one will come to games. It's that simple. Where were the Buffalo Sabres fans from 2001-2003? They were at home not putting up with the crap and not going to games to see a horrible team that consequently went into bankruptcy. This is not a North/South thing. Nobody will pay money to go see a bad team that has no commitment to winning. It's that simple, and it does not matter what city you're in. It's a shame they couldn't make it work in Atlanta as there are people here who would go to the games and who actually like hockey. I guess I'll have to come to Buffalo more frequently to catch live Sabres games. That's not a bad thing, either. The Sabres went into bankruptcy because they had a horrible team over that stretch? You may want to rethink that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresFan526 Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 The Sabres went into bankruptcy because they had a horrible team over that stretch? You may want to rethink that one. You realize the Sabres were ranked 27th in average attendance during the 2002-2003 season and 20th during 2003-2004. My point being, nobody will pay money to see bad hockey. The bankruptcy as I understand it took place in January of 2003. The bankruptcy was caused by fraudulent ownership and probably getting caught and not being able to field a hockey team, but my original point was, where were the fans when the team was bad? Nobody pays money to see a bad team. It's true in Buffalo, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 You realize the Sabres were ranked 27th in average attendance during the 2002-2003 season and 20th during 2003-2004. My point being, nobody will pay money to see bad hockey. The bankruptcy as I understand it took place in January of 2003. The bankruptcy was caused by fraudulent ownership and probably getting caught and not being able to field a hockey team, but my original point was, where were the fans when the team was bad? Nobody pays money to see a bad team. It's true in Buffalo, too. But it was never about viability....the Bankruptcy judge in the Adelphia case ordered the Sabres sold because of Adelphia's book-keeping. The Sabres owed 157 million to Adelphia from that decision....not the league or the players, it was about splitting up Adelphia assets, not fan support...although 2002 to the lockout was a below average product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 But it was never about viability....the Bankruptcy judge in the Adelphia case ordered the Sabres sold because of Adelphia's book-keeping. The Sabres owed 157 million to Adelphia from that decision....not the league or the players, it was about splitting up Adelphia assets, not fan support...although 2002 to the lockout was a below average product. A below average product that was a direct result of that adelphia fiasco. To say that the fans didn't show up strictly because of the bad product is an oversimplification. We can put together a good list that contradicts the idea that fans won't show up and pay for a bad product. All we have to do is look a bit north to Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 A below average product that was a direct result of that adelphia fiasco. To say that the fans didn't show up strictly because of the bad product is an oversimplification. We can put together a good list that contradicts the idea that fans won't show up and pay for a bad product. All we have to do is look a bit north to Toronto. Still waiting to get the tools to finish the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 A below average product that was a direct result of that adelphia fiasco. To say that the fans didn't show up strictly because of the bad product is an oversimplification. We can put together a good list that contradicts the idea that fans won't show up and pay for a bad product. All we have to do is look a bit north to Toronto. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 Dude, dude, DUDE, relax! Holy cow. The NHL story clearly says "REPORT: Atlanta sold to Winnipeg group". Second of all, i doubt GARY BETTMAN gets phone calls all day to approve what goes on the web site. They've hired people to do that, and i'd guess Bettman doesn't even go on nhl.com. ikikik.... i still hate bettmans guts though. I'll take every opportunnity i get to take a swipe at the sonofabitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 A below average product that was a direct result of that adelphia fiasco. To say that the fans didn't show up strictly because of the bad product is an oversimplification. We can put together a good list that contradicts the idea that fans won't show up and pay for a bad product. All we have to do is look a bit north to Toronto. Right, which was one of torontos problems is that they have so many fans that they can suck and ppl including the coorporate boxes buy tickets. I think that the bad product of the early 2000's was definately partly to blame though for the bad attendance. You cant say that if we were a cup contender ppl would have stayed away. The two things go hand in hand, good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted May 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 Right, which was one of torontos problems is that they have so many fans that they can suck and ppl including the coorporate boxes buy tickets. I think that the bad product of the early 2000's was definately partly to blame though for the bad attendance. You cant say that if we were a cup contender ppl would have stayed away. The two things go hand in hand, good point. Maybe in Buffalo, not Carolina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 Anything on Vancouver needing a new affiliate? If Great North doesn't sell the Moose, they're obviously going to want them as their affiliate, just like if the Sabres-Amerks purchase goes through. How about the Moose in Regina or Saskatoon? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 How about the Moose in Regina or Saskatoon? PTR I saw something earlier today about potentially moving the Moose to western Ontario. I forget where I saw it though. It would definitely make for easier travel. I don't know how Calgary does it with their team in Abbotsford. They're nowhere near anyone in the league. Then again, they'll probably move that franchise again for the 75th time in the last 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresFan526 Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 Maybe in Buffalo, not Carolina. I don't know if that's true. The example I always love to use is the Dallas Stars. They have been in the top half in terms of attendance for the better part of the last 10 years. In fact, they were in the top 10 in attendance for 2 years. The last two years, they have moved into the bottom half of attendance and I find it no coincidence that they haven't been in the playoffs the last two years. This is a great example of how hockey can be successful in a Southern market when you put a good team on the ice and that people will show up to games. I don't believe ownership turmoil had anything to do with people not showing up. The Colorado Avalanche are another very good example as well. For the first half of the decade, they were consistently in the top 10 in attendance figures. They have gradually ranked lower and lower as the team has performed worse and worse on the ice. I would consider Colorado a legitimate hockey market as they have College Hockey and it is a winter weather location, so hockey should be successful there, but again, people show up when the team is good and don't show up when the team is bad. The Capitals are another team that has been in a hockey market for around 30 years or more. They have been in the bottom half of the league in attendance for much of the last decade. Their attendance figures really started to shoot up over the last 3 years and have put them in the top 10. It's also the case that they have been one of the best hockey teams in the regular season during those three years. I am not a stastician, and I know there are quite a few on this board who are, but it would appear that correlation between attendance and on-ice winning percentage would be statistically significant. The theory being that when a team has a good on ice product (regardless of location) people will pay to go see their games. If a team has a bad on ice product, people will not pay to go see their games. Perhaps there are some outliers like Toronto and others, but it would appear that good teams draw well and bad teams don't regardless of what city the hockey team is in. edit: Of course I forgot to mention the Blackhawks which is an original 6 team with a rich hockey history. They've been in the bottom half in terms of attendance and almost very bottom of the league for 7 of the last 10 years. Their attendance is now #1 in rankings for the last three years, and interestingly, they've made it to the playoffs the last three years. There is no better example of the fact that people go to see good teams and don't pay to see bad teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braedon Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 Still waiting to get the tools to finish the job. Oh man. i just had a wicked cold sweat flashback of Dickerson playing that on his radio show over....and over...and over....and over again. I grew to despise them, that comment, and Chuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresFan526 Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 But it was never about viability....the Bankruptcy judge in the Adelphia case ordered the Sabres sold because of Adelphia's book-keeping. The Sabres owed 157 million to Adelphia from that decision....not the league or the players, it was about splitting up Adelphia assets, not fan support...although 2002 to the lockout was a below average product. Accumulation of a bad product over a number of years can put viability into question. There's a good argument that supports that when Pittsburgh was almost sold to Balsillie. If you look at their attendance leading up to that, they were in the bottom of the league. In the case of Buffalo, the Rigases were a bunch of frauds forcing them to put the team in bankruptcy and forcing them to field an uncompetitive team. When the Sabres iced a below average product, people did not go to games as per the attendance records. There are some cities where hockey will always sell no matter how bad the product is like Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa. For most cities across the NHL, a bad team just isn't going to draw at the gate. When you don't draw at the gate (for almost all teams, except for a few), you are likely going to lose money from the operation. With enough years of poor hockey and bad attendance, viability of the team does come into question at some point because how can any ownership group sustain those losses for so long until they want to get out of the business of losing money? At the end of the day for almost every team in the NHL except for a very distinct few, you need to have a good product on the ice to get people to come to the games. If people come to the games (and you don't have a horrible lease with the city), you're likely going to do okay financially at which point viability isn't really a question. I think for most cities across the NHL, winning percentage and attendance usually go hand-in-hand and that's the main reason hockey failed in Atlanta. Not because it's a bad market, it's just a bad team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverPowerYou Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 You realize the Sabres were ranked 27th in average attendance during the 2002-2003 season and 20th during 2003-2004. My point being, nobody will pay money to see bad hockey. The bankruptcy as I understand it took place in January of 2003. The bankruptcy was caused by fraudulent ownership and probably getting caught and not being able to field a hockey team, but my original point was, where were the fans when the team was bad? Nobody pays money to see a bad team. It's true in Buffalo, too. False. People like me will always go to multiple Sabres games a year no matter how bad they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 Back on topic, three thoughts: 1) It's nice to see Winnipeg get their a team back. I hope the new ownership group is sincerely willing to do what it takes to compete in the NHL. Atlanta never seemed to have the organizational capability to pull off anything big aside from the no-brainer drafting of Kovalchuk 1st overall. In ten years, Atlanta only went to the playoffs once (2007), being swept by the Rangers in the first round. 2) It'll be fun to watch Winnipeg and their fans grow, develop, and compete. Winnipeg hockey carries some playoff heritage: the old Jets qualified for the playoffs 11 out of their 17 years in the NHL (and five of their six years in the old WHA). It'll be fun to see them put the win back in Winnipeg and refire the old rivalries. It should be great hockey to watch, something I can't ever remember saying about a Thrashers game. 3) This move is a sharp stick in Bettman's right eyeball. Bettman has been the architect of the forced migration of NHL teams to large American TV markets. This reversal, combined with the financial failures of both Phoenix and Nashville and the laughable attendance figures in Sunrise and Columbus, demonstrates clearly that Bettman can't force hockey on indifferent fans while denying rabid, hertiage-rich hockey communities the pro teams they deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 Back off topic. False. People like me will always go to multiple Sabres games a year no matter how bad they are. Agreed. I know I'm not the only Sabres fan that will support the team through wins, losses, or ties. And in writing that last sentence, I just concluded the blindingly obvious about myself: my hockey heart is truly married to the Sabres organization. I have vowed to love and cherish this team, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, till death do us part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmac8 Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 I think Atlanta embraces hockey fairly well. They just don't want to support the failure of ownership and management over the years. I think it's a case of the Atlanta organization failing the fans not the fans failing the team this time. Long time Sabres fan here. Lived in Atlanta for 15 years.. I was at the first Thrashers preseason game, and was a season ticket holder thru 2005-06. It was great when expansion came to Atlanta cuz I didn't have to travel to FLA or WAS to see my Sabres play... But this is really a shame. Atlanta has 5 million people in the metro area, many of whom are transplants like myself. The city was actually excited about the team for a while..But winning is an attitude that starts at the top (see Tpegs). Neither Waddell nor the Spirit Group have given this franchise a chance to succeed. Granted, the Heatley crash fiasco didn't help, but most fans in most cities will support a winner, or at least something competitive. (except maybe Toronto...they seem to support perennial incomptetence) I recently left Atlanta for greener pastures, but feel for the city on this one. If they do move back to Winnepeg, I at least hope they name the team the Jets.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR HOLLIDAY Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 ikikik.... i still hate bettmans guts though. I'll take every opportunnity i get to take a swipe at the sonofabitch Awesome post, I would like to break Bettman's rat nose............. :beer: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacollin Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 As much as some harbor disdain for Bettman he's done a pretty good job recently on these deals. Getting money from Phoenix to keep the Coyotes. Not just this year but that money is there for the taking for another 10 years. Bettman wants and everyone has approved the move, its the $ split they're hashing out. Atlanta Spirit is pretty much having a fire sale. They want out, have for a few years now. The league knows this, the attorneys know this (which AYK, Bettman is one) and will take all they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacollin Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 That afterall is what layers do. Take all they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 Oh man. i just had a wicked cold sweat flashback of Dickerson playing that on his radio show over....and over...and over....and over again. I grew to despise them, that comment, and Chuck. IIRC, wasn't he the guy where Marv Levy took a swipe at him by saying, "Coach has been fired more times than a civil war cannon?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 Given where I live, I guess my wife and I may have to make a trip to Nashville whenever the Sabres come to town. Straight up the 65. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braedon Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 IIRC, wasn't he the guy where Marv Levy took a swipe at him by saying, "Coach has been fired more times than a civil war cannon?" Marv was the Nobel Laureate of coaching. Loved his quips. As for Chuck, I couldn't stand him. However a friend of mine ran the board at GR for a stint and said that he's actually a great guy, and that a lot of his antics were to provoke listeners into reacting. Much like what we have now. I couldn't be happier for Muddy Water. They may never be at the top of league revenue, but they will support their team. I want Quebec City to get their team back as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.