View Single Post
Old
12-13-2012, 11:25 AM
  #397
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
He's talking about the longterm marketability of the sport and league. Simply put, Atlanta was a major piece of the southern expansion push. Giving up on it and it's tremendous potential media market in favor of Winnipeg was clearly not what the NHL wanted for its longterm goals.

Winnipeg simply cannot offer to the NHL and it's longterm expansion the same exposure that Atlanta could have. It's really not a knock against Winnipeg to suggest that it isn't some massive media market. It can potentially be a small market niche city for the NHL akin to Edmonton, but doesn't possess the major marketing opportunities of Atlanta. It's not offensive to simply state a fact like that.
I agree. Of course the NHL wanted to keep a team in Atlanta, but IMO the NHL didn't give up on Atlanta, the people that could have bought the team and kept it there, gave up on Atlanta. The NHL doesn't "normally" buy and sell and own teams ( the Coyotes being the exception ), but when I look at Atlanta I see a very large city with some serious companies and individuals with money, yet none of them came forward to keep the Thrashers. Why? The people with money have spoken, and at this time they don't see it as a viable market. As much as the NHL may want to stay, they had no choice.

cbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote