The Hawks have a fine arena in Atlanta. A move couldn't be pegged to a lack of local financial...

The Hawks have a fine arena in Atlanta. A move couldn't be pegged to a lack of local financial support ... although I imagine the argument would be tied to Atlanta's lack of fan support. It'd be a trickier argument from an economic standpoint, though.

Could the Hawks be sold?
After reading the article I posted yesterday about the Hawks looking for investors and being willing to sell their assets, Ziller goes a different route than me and asks if it is the Hawks and not the Thrashers who might be on the "only if it is a really good offer" block. I don't see them selling the Hawks, and I certainly don't see the Hawks moving from Atlanta. But more because it would give me nightmares than anything else.

over 2 years ago hawksdawgs 15 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: atlanta hawks, atlanta spirit

Comments

Moved where?

Atlanta is a great city for a team and outside of Vegas i can’t think of a better city for a team that doesn’t already have one.

by Co Co on Aug 25, 2009 10:51 AM EDT reply actions

the arguement would be the nba moved a team from seatle to ok. city

and that makes no sense.
but the issue there was the arena, and as ziller points out, that is not an issue in atlanta.

all that is to say, i agree, i cannot see the nba moving from atlanta. it is a great nba town. the ratings for national games proves that. just because the atlanta has not turned that enthusiasm into sell outs when the clippers come to town is not a reason to move.

by hawksdawgs on Aug 25, 2009 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions

It's weird that Seattle doesn't have a team

oh, wait.

by Bronn on Aug 25, 2009 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions

people also tend to think of the spirit as an out of town venture

because belkin is from boston, but gearon is actually an atlanta native.

by hawksdawgs on Aug 25, 2009 10:59 AM EDT reply actions

I don't want the Hawks to move.

There, that’s reason enough! :)

by Co Co on Aug 25, 2009 11:22 AM EDT reply actions

book it.

by hawksdawgs on Aug 25, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions

hmmmm

1. i though spirits’ naming rights deal with phillips required them to have two anchor teams. wouldn’t the cost of buying out phillips’s deal have to be factored into the purchase of either team?

2. there are a lot better hockey towns without teams (quebec and winnipeg who both lost there teams in the nhl’s silly us expansion drive come to mind) than there are basketball towns without teams.

by jeherv on Aug 25, 2009 1:01 PM EDT reply actions

i totally agree on the hockey thing

which is why i have thought that would be an easier sell.

i just heard about this lease with phillips but didn’’t know the details. so thanks for bringing it up.

by hawksdawgs on Aug 25, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Would the dream count? Do they even play in phillips?

by The Beard on Aug 25, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, they play there

But, I’m not sure if they would count.

"This is America, if we can’t self-righteously look down on others and blame them for our faults, the commies win."-----Cormican on Bleeding Green Nation w/r/t fans overreacting to the Eagles signing of Michael Vick

by Jesse28 on Aug 25, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't think it's the Hawks

The Gearon’s have said many times that they are more interested in keeping the Hawks and selling the Thrashers. This is the second NHL team that has done horribly in Atlanta (the Flames being the other before they moved them to Calgary), so it would only seem obvious that the Thrashers should be the team to move if any. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but the ASG have also stated how both teams are costing them millions, so who knows.

If something happens to where the Hawks are moved, I am officially done with the NBA. What happened in Seatlle was a travesty and I don’t think I could ever forgive anyone associated with the NBA if that happened to the Hawks. Ugh, the simple thought of it alone is making me angry.

by Jesse28 on Aug 25, 2009 1:25 PM EDT reply actions

The Flames didn’t perform terribly in Atlanta. The bottom of the real estate market fell out and the owner was forced to sell.

by SilverRubicon on Aug 25, 2009 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Finacially, not on the ice

I personally like the Thrashers and thought we have had multiple chances to make a run recently. But, like you have stated, as with the Flames, finacial downturns have taken there toll on both teams’ ownerships.

by Jesse28 on Aug 26, 2009 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions

The good news is

I don’t think is a serious concern. There’s no serious talk right now about moving the Hawks, and there’s a lot of “if” articles blocking it (the lease with Phillips, the lack of a suitable destination, the ownership issue). What happened in Seattle was seen coming from miles away-“If we don’t get this amount of money for a new arena, we can break the lease and move the team.” In that case, there were serious discussions two years in advance.

Right now, the Hawks have a good product in a good basketball town. They’re finally getting some national TV exposure, and ticket sales should almost certainly be up for next season.

At any rate, there’s always whispers about teams potentially being moved that doesn’t go anywhere. The New Orleans Hornets, for example, didn’t leave New Orleans, despite all the talk there.

by Bronn on Aug 25, 2009 4:37 PM EDT reply actions