The push for a new Islanders arena needs more cowbell

That's not a bad point.

 

Houston is not a good sports town for several reasons:

1. The majority of the population is from somewhere else.

2. It's the definition of Urban Sprawl. The money lives a long way from downtown and it's a pain in the ass to drive anywhere.

3. While there is corporate money it's already being spent on the Longhorns, Aggies, Texans, Astros and Rockets in that order.

I would agree that the a hockey team would probably attract a small hardcore fan base that will follow it but I don't see it being big enough to support an NHL team. And because NHL revenues are tied to ticket sales more than any other sport, that would be the killer.

Whenever Houston comes up as an expansion or relocation site I'm reminded of Jack Kent Cooke's line about the Kings' first few years in the NHL:

"They told me there were 300,000 Canadians living in Los Angeles. Now I know why they left Canada. They hate hockey."

 

Messages left for former Aeros-Islanders winger John Tonelli were not returned.

 

Hell of a pull.

 

The NHL didn't work in Atlanta because of the ownership group and Waddell, period. A bad owner/GM combo can kill interest in even the most hockey-crazy market (see: Edmonton and Peter Pocklington - the Oilers came ridiculously close to moving to Houston and only Bettman's willingness to ignore existing ownership rules allowed them to stay). Trying to judge the quality of a market in the face of those conditions is ridiculous. We've seen over and over again that if you have terrible ownership or an unworkable arena situation, you're screwed no matter what the market. Atlanta's further proof of that, not something that only would have happened in a non-traditional market.

The Aeros are one of the better-attended AHL teams, IMO, and had strong attendance back in the WHA days as well. If hockey itself wasn't going to sell there, I think it would be evident at the AHL level. But hockey teams in general have always sold generally well at the gate in Texas regardless of the league. Heck, San Antonio has a longer history of solid attendance and is a huge city with only one pro sport team, though I don't know anything about the arena situation there and obviously the metro area size isn't comparable.

Personally, I don't see Houston as being nearly as bananas over CFB as Atlanta. It does have an issue with sprawl, but so do most cities other than your East Coast corridor ones.

Again, the biggest issue with Houston is Alexander. He would have to be on board because of the logistical issues.

 

Smash get your facts straight about Edmonton.

 

Good observations, Smash. Top to bottom. It's worth noting the Howes helped the WHA Aeros at the gate immensely.

 

NY Post "Don't Give Islanders Any Handouts."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/madness_in_nassau_9gB3C6E33rfjBZ2lgOwbPI

But this game always plays the taxpayers for suckers. Decades of independent studies have reviewed what's actually occurred in the building and subsidizing new pro-sports stadiums and arenas: Such projects always fail to make any economic difference to a region -- no help on incomes, jobs or overall economic activity.

After all, if there's no sports team around, people wind up spending their recreational dollars on other activities. And when it comes to replacing an existing arena with a new one, it's even tougher to honestly claim any kind of economic plus.



Its not as if LI will suddenly become a wasteland if the Islanders leave, people will take their discretionary income elsewhere.

 

Which ones? The fact that, after gutting the team through trades and letting FAs walk, Pocklington threatened to move them several times in the mid-90s unless ticket sales picked up? The fact that the local ownership group violated the NHL's clause about number of people who could be involved and Bettman had to essentially override that rule so they could stay? That the season ticket base in 1995 or so was around 6,000? That Alexander actually made a bid for the team that was $15 million higher than the eventual purchase price to move the team to Houston? That he made an offer $10 million above the eventual purchase price before that but wanted the lease terminated and a clause in his contract that attendance remain at acceptable levels or he would move the team?

You're right, there was never a chance Edmonton would "fail" as a market in a way eerily similar to the Thrashers. The facts just aren't similar at all.

 

The facts are there was and always will be interest in Edmonton, you are completely distorting what happened there. Bettman should fight for hockey markets. Edmonton is nowhere near comparible to Atlanta, not even close. The Canadian dollar was the biggest thing going aginast the OIlers, yes they were struggling but there was never a lack of intererst or apathy. Still on the front of the sports page, still the topic of conversation

Funny how you weren't complaining when Bettman accpeted much less for the Preds or Coyotes to keep them in town where those teams continue to lose money even though they have had a bit of success.

 

The interest was always there for the Oilers. There were numerous issues that threatened their existence in Edmonton.
1) the Canadian dollar, something that threatened every Canadian franchise, where the big worry after the Canadiens were sold to Gillett is that the country would eventually be left with just the Leafs.
2) Pocklington. Through many contributing factors (economy, the NEP, union strikes, bad business deals, bad loans, etc) he went bankrupt, and while he cannibalized some of his other businesses to keep the Oilers in town he was also forced to gut the team and sell off its stars to ice a much cheaper product, going with the policy bad hockey is better than no hockey.
3) Management. Glen Sather rightfully was inducted to the Hall for building the 80s dynasty but he lost his touch in the late 80s early 90s. They drafted terribly, among the worst in the league for two decades, and many of the deals Slats made, trading top players for prospects, did not pan out at all.
4) For Oilers fans who were spoiled by the dynasty, this was unacceptable and they became disillusioned and frustrated with the product on the ice and eventually quit spending money to watch an inferior product.
In 1998 when the ATB took control and forced the sale of the Oilers, they absolutely were mere hours away from ending up in Houston. As much as I don't like Bettman, he does deserve a lot of credit for keeping the Oilers in Edmonton. A grass roots movement throughout not just Edmonton but Northern Alberta kept the Oilers in Edmonton, with businessmen from 2 1/2 hours and more away plunking down $5-15 million to become owners. This also served to reinvigorate the fan base.
As JC said, the fans and the interest and the market was always there. You mismanage anything and it can fail, even if it is in a viable market. You mismanage something that is not in a strong market (Phoenix, Atlanta, etc) and it is guaranteed to fail, there is little to no room for error.

 

JC - I'm not complaining about what happened in Edmonton. Far from it. I think Bettman made a great decision to bend the existing rules to allow them to stay. I am almost never for relocation except in the cases where the arena itself is the problem, like Long Island or all four of the mid-90s moves.

But the interest was definitely down. Again, at one point around 1995 the season ticket base was around 6,000. A drive funded by the soon-to-be new owners doubled that, but there was absolute anger and apathy at the ownership/management that translated to people not buying tickets in near the number they once did.

My point is that any market can be mismanaged to the point of failure, and that mismanagement, not the market itself, was what happened to the Thrashers. You can draw pretty direct parallels from the mid-90s Oilers to the current Thrashers - disillusionment with the team, terrible ownership, terrible management and an economic crisis that hit the area hard (Canadian dollar vs. US recession).

I think if you put an expansion team with Atlanta's ownership and management in any town in Canada and it would fail just like it did in Atlanta. Like Beef said, you can mismanage a team in any market to the point of failure, so using Atlanta to criticize the market potential is missing the point - the real failure there was the management (just like it nearly was in Edmonton's case), not the market.