Thrashers lawsuit holds fans hostage

by James Mirtle on Feb 14, 2009 9:00 AM CST Comment 26 comments

642372774_ee5e9447f5_medium

In case you missed it, The Falconer had a terrific post yesterday about the Thrashers' ownership dispute finally winding down:

Ten years from now, when people look back at the history of this franchise, they will likely consider the outcome of this trial the most important Thrashers-related event between the 2008 NHL draft and the 2009 NHL draft.

Why is this so important? Because it will end the prison sentence for NHL fans in Atlanta. The harsh reality is that the entire 2008-09 Thrashers season amounts to a marking time in a holding cell.This franchise is dead in the water.

The current group will not replace GM Don Waddell. They are not spending money on upkeep for the building. Philips Arena which is only ten years old has many un-repaired lights and broken toilet seats in the restrooms. The organization is offering every discount imaginable this season to scrap up every loose dollar bill. All that matters right now is reducing the owners operating losses — even if heavily discounted seats creates long term damage to season ticket sales. Stemming the tide of red ink has been the highest organizational priority until the ownership question is resolved.

It's a horrible situation, one that has even the diehards like Matt turning away in disgust. The team's on pace for just 63 points, their worst total in seven years, and frankly would be a lock to finish dead last in the NHL if not for the Islanders' transparent attempts to ice one of the worst teams in the 30-team era.

Waddell has outlasted most of the NHL's other GMs and is closing in on his 11th year in the role. The vast majority of his prior managerial experience in hockey was in the IHL, and some of his less than savvy decisions the past few years have reflected that.

Deals like the one that sent Braydon Coburn to the Flyers for Alexei Zhitnik less than two years ago have done irreparable damage to the organization's future, and it's likely going to take five or six years of good management to turn things around. The team has just one forward (Todd White) signed beyond next season, and only four players total under contract in 2010-11.

Zhitnik's $1.17-million buyout penalty ranks as the 10th-highest salary commitment the team has this season.

No wonder they can't fix the toilet seats.

The franchise has drafted just four players in its 10-year history that have gone on to play 300 games, and one of those is puncher Darcy Hordichuk.

Tom Benjamin and I had a bit of a back and forth last week on cheering for the Canucks given their miserable history, but what chance does a Thrashers fan have given the train wreck on and off the ice? Where's the hope that wins will come when Waddell is your knight in shining armour?

I'm shocked we at SBN were able to find a blogger in Atlanta to cover the team, never mind one as good as Matt. It's a miracle the farce in the front office and winding its way through the courts hasn't killed off every fan they had.

It will be a long road up.

0 recs | Comment 26 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: don waddell, Atlanta Thrashers

Comments

Spot On

Life as a Thrashers fan, expecially one out of market, is not so fun these days. I watch more of other teams on my Center Ice than I watch the Thrash. The disrespect with which the owners have treated the fans, especially season ticket holders in deplorable.

After STHs complained last year about the heavy discounting that essentially left STHs paying more per game than almost anybody else, the ownership promised that there would be no discounting of that sort this season. It’s now February and we see plans like the one you highlighted earlier this week where you can essentially get a lower level seat for 16 dollars per game for the rest of the season. When I had season tickets 3 years ago, my upper level seat behind the goal cost more per game than that.

The ownership also promised STHs that they would have more “town-hall meetings” where season ticket holders can ask questions of Waddell and the ownership. They have yet to have one. Keep in mind that at the last town hall meeting, last season, owner Bruce Levenson called a fan stupid, or something to that effect.

It seems that the owners in Atlanta have resorted to some hockey version of Survivor where they have no problem lying to attempt to convince people to purchase season tickets. The problem with this strategy is that the fanbase doesn’t react well to this, and will not continue to renew under these conditions. I am steadfastly convinced that Atlanta could support an NHL team. Maybe if we get one some day we’ll find out.

by NorthGARep on Feb 14, 2009 9:44 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Lawsuit Settlement just the end of the beginning

As The Falconer has said, whoever wins the lawsuit between the partners is going to need to find new investors or sell his share. In this respect, whether buyers or investors for the Phoenix Coyotes emerge may be a canary in the coal mine for Thrashers fans. There are differences in the two franchises marketability to be sure but consider this: the Federal Reserve has just reported that median US household net worth declined 17.7% in 2008 but mean (average) net worth declined 22per cent. This means that declines among the wealthliest households were far more severe than the median would suggest. And that doesn’t factor in the Madoff scandal which by and large touched only the wealthiest. I may be wrong but I don’t see people who have lost 30% or more of their net worth and whose core businesses may be shaky having much interest in an investment as dubious as the Thrashers. So on this point I disagree with The Falconer: settlement of the lawsuit won’t be the beginning of the end of the team’s tribulations, it will merely be the end of the beginning.

by Big Picture Guy on Feb 14, 2009 10:41 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I agree that either new partners or new ownership will be sought after the lawsuit. I’m hopeful that given their current fiscal crisis whoever “losses” the lawsuit (and therefore gets paid) will choose not to appeal the verdict and we can get on to the business of soliciting new owners. In fact, there have been rumors for sometime that one party has been actively courting new partners/owners.

by The Falconer on Feb 14, 2009 3:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the Federal Reserve has just reported that median US household net worth declined 17.7% in 2008 but mean (average) net worth declined 22per cent. This means that declines among the wealthliest households were far more severe than the median would suggest.

No, it doesn’t. It means there were a handful of households that lost a whole lot, which moved the mean higher than the median.

by David M. Getz on Feb 15, 2009 9:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Are we still pretending...

…that the Thrashers won’t be folding this summer along with 3-4 other fatally under-funded franchises?

The NHL Pyramid Scheme, whereby highly leveraged carpet-baggers “purchase” a franchise, jawbone the locals into building them a new arena, ahem, entertainment complex, and then flip the team to a guy who got rich on insider trading or selling junk bonds and now needs to launder high dollar volumes, IS OVER.

Forget Don Waddell and what he traded for Alex Zhitnik. Bankers will be hammering in the final nails in the coffins of more than a few franchises. Where will the operating lines of credit come from when your team is basically giving tickets away for free?

These next few weeks are merely the Farewell Tour for those teams.

by Dr Van Nostrum on Feb 14, 2009 1:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

No teams are going to fold...

…not this summer, anyway. That’s the worst case scenario, and despite the Thrashers’ ownership troubles and the toll its taken on the fanbase, it isn’t at that point yet. Especially given the troubles that Phoenix has and how nobody’s talking about folding them. The Coyotes have issues that deter new owners that the Thrashers do not, as Falconer pointed out.

Teams will be relocated before they fold; the NHL governors and Bettman are committed to keeping a 30-team league.

by Forsch31 on Feb 14, 2009 2:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Philips Arena is one of the top grossing building in the USA. Hawks might be profitable now that they’re making the playoffs + they get their big cut of NBA TV money. Frankly the Philips/Hawks/Thrashers combo package is much more attractive to a potential buyer than Coyotes who are saddled with eyebrow raising real estate charges that are not integral to the hockey operations side of things.

by The Falconer on Feb 14, 2009 3:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

folding

So, what are the procedures for a team folding? Does the NHL board of directors have to approve it? Are players drafted by other teams, or are their contracts dissolved and they become free agents?

by Doc Nagel on Feb 14, 2009 1:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Don’t worry about it – nobody’s folding. Teams that absolutely can’t make it where they are will relocate. There are still several cities that would love to have an NHL team – in the US and Canada.

There's no use being pessimistic, it won't work anyway.

by Mike in MN on Feb 14, 2009 3:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly. The NHL will do everything it can to have 30 teams, regardless of where they’re located. All this instability just might mean a few new homes (or old ones if they go back to places like Hartford and Winnipeg).

by James Mirtle on Feb 14, 2009 3:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s shocking to me that Hartford is even getting mentioned at all. That city is an absolute nightmare. I’ve always had a soft spot in my heart for the Whale but after visiting Hartford recently… It’s bad.

Exit716 hits on what the answer will turn out to be if a move has to be made. As much as we hate it, Kansas City would probably end up being the answer if that’s the road the ownership/new ownership/league decides to make.

Gross Misconduct with yours truly

by HockeyJoe on Feb 14, 2009 4:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Except you can’t relocate 3-4 teams in Kansas City…

by Habs on Feb 16, 2009 10:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good point Mike

Except for Bettman’s long held belief that the league doesn’t need any more Canadian teams.
He’ll relocate teams to venues that are connected to Anschutz, like Kansas City.
Bettman has nothing but contempt for Canadian teams, fans and in particular the pesky media that publish nasty articles about the state of some of these franchises.

by Exit716 on Feb 14, 2009 3:20 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

He doesn’t have contempt for Canadian teams, he looks at the suggested markets and fails to see their viability. There are a lot of people out there who assume, “Hey, that’s a Canadian city I’ve heard of! I bet they could support a hockey team!” but if you look at the actual demographics most of the suggested ones simply aren’t big enough.

by David M. Getz on Feb 15, 2009 9:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, anything in Southern Ontario could support at least one more team and likely two, so unless you’re talking about Winnipeg or Quebec City, I disagree.

by James Mirtle on Feb 15, 2009 12:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I was actually thinking specifically of Quebec City and Winnipeg.

A second team in Toronto would, in my opinion, be a great idea. Big, wealthy, hockey-mad city, so I don’t see how that’s not a viable option. It’s a shame, in my opinion, that there isn’t a second team there.

I’m not completely sold on Hamilton but I do think it would be a better option than some of the current U.S. markets and I’d generally defer to people more familiar with the region, such as yourself.

by David M. Getz on Feb 15, 2009 1:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No, he hates Canada. That’s why Ottawa was so brilliant in 1992 for fooling Bettman into thinking they were a U.S. city. Too bad Hartford and Minneapolis couldn’t disabuse him of the mistaken notion they were Canadian cities until it was too late. :-)

Seriously, the “Bettman hates Canada” thing is so overdone. Bettman and Co. like their friends — wherever they operate. Existing NHL owners take care of their buddies. The NHL may make the mistake of preventing a second franchise in southern Ontario, and take the risk of entering Kansas City, not because of national identity but because of the interests of those already in the club.

If Anschutz’s open building were in Quebec or Hamilton or any other Canadian city and not K.C., we’d be hearing the same speculation. And if Balsillie had an open building in Seattle, he’d still get the cold shoulder until whatever hazing rite of passage has been concluded and he’s mastered the secret handshake.

Lighthouse Hockey: SBN's New York Islanders blog with hip issues.

by Dominik on Feb 15, 2009 9:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

As an Islanders fan – we feel your pain, but your definately seems a bit more difficult to swallow at times.

It’s amazing that professional sports organizations are run just as poorly as major corporations. Greed and corruption just screw up everything sometimes.

Things will get better for our two franchises, it just takes time sometimes.

At least that’s what I keep telling myself anyway.

Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey: SBN's New York Islanders blog who's lost the most man games to injury.

by Michael Schuerlein on Feb 15, 2009 1:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I agree that if you’re looking at a 2nd team in Canada, the Toronto area is the optimal location for an additional CAN franchise. In terms of hockey ticket sales, putting a 2nd team in ACC makes the most sense for transportation and corporate sponsorship reasons. Of course, working out a peace treaty with the Leafs might be impossible.

by The Falconer on Feb 15, 2009 1:53 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Logistically speaking, can the ACC really support a second hockey team? What with the other sports, concerts and whatnot activities?
And the the issue of identity. If there’s a second hockey team in TO, I think it should have its own arena.

by Habs on Feb 16, 2009 10:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No, of course it could not.

by Gerald on Feb 16, 2009 12:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There are way too many events at the ACC for another team to move in. It’s one of the busiest buildings in North America.

by James Mirtle on Feb 16, 2009 12:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s what I thought. I don’t think you could even fit a second team in the Bell Centre in Montreal, schedule-wise, and it’s not half-busy as the ACC must be.

That might be one of the reasons why a second TO team is still not a realistic proposal at this point. Is there a second NHL ready arena anywhere in the GTA? If not, is there someone willing to pony up the money for a team AND the 250-300M needed to build an arena (if not more these days)? Even though the team is pretty much guaranteed to turn in profits, that’s A LOT of money invested…

by Habs on Feb 16, 2009 1:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

They could put one in Hamilton for now and sell out Copps. But, yes, they definitely need a new rink at some point. I think a team becomes available before you build an NHL-ready rink (unless you’re in Kansas City).

by James Mirtle on Feb 16, 2009 1:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

James, we have gone around the block before on this, I think, but I seriously doubt they would sell out Copps at NHL level prices.

People don’t come to Hamilton for anything, James.

They could sell upper bowl seats, but the $150+ seats would go unsold except by scalpers for the first little while (until they wised up).

That is to say nothing of the fact that they don’t have any suites.

by Gerald on Feb 17, 2009 11:40 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Please ... not again!!

I appreciate the Islanders fan feeling our pain. We feel yours too and hopefully it’ll get better for both teams soon.

Funny fact … in the expansion draft the New York Islanders franchise joined the NHL in 1972 along with the Atlanta Flames. My dad was a STH and I remember vividly going to the OMNI to watch Atlanta Flames games and remember my disappointment when it was explained to me that the Flames were moving to Calgary in 1980. I was just a little girl then but it still warms my heart even now to see that old Atlanta Flames logo as the “A” on the alternate captains jerseys. In fact, I still cheer them on when they’re not playing the Thrashers!

As you can imagine, I was ecstatic when hockey came back to Atlanta almost 20 years later. I love having the Thrashers here.

This article is spot on. The lawsuit and the feeling of being held hostage as a diehard hockey fan is just demoralizing. The “freeze” prevents us from getting any defensive players (which we desperately need) and we continue to struggle to win games. There’s no “marketing” being done and people aren’t buying tickets (surprise, surprise) so the Atlanta Spirit really discounts the tickets which makes us STHs upset. I think the Thrashers have so much potential but the current owners and this lawsuit is absolutely twisting the dagger stuck in the heart of it’s fans … remember us? Those people who LOVE this team and want to see the team remain here. Their actions just confirm the Atlanta Spirit and Belkin couldn’t care less.

I’m ready for this to be over so someone who cares about the team and the fans can turn this around and make Atlanta proud. Too bad Arthur Blank isn’t looking for a hockey team!

That being said, I’m proud of my Thrashers for winning the last four games (almost 5 as I just finished watched us lose a 9 round shootout with the Phoenix Coyotes) and for still playing their hearts out. The fans love ’em for it.

I remain optimistic and I hope to cheer them on next year from my seats under much better circumstances.

by atl_hockeyfan on Feb 19, 2009 11:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs