drsingle

Gordie, I don't disagree with you that Nashville would hardly be missed outside of Nashville if they ceased to exist today. Setting aside the issue of being financially successful enough to last another 15 years, you believe that a Nashville team that consistently made the playoffs and won a couple of Cups in that time period would not be a good road draw or be considered a team with history? That makes no sense. I never said that they would be "embraced" across the country, but fans of opposing teams should want to see a team like that. I love a good debate, but to unilaterally declare that any team that sustained a 25 year history of consistently good teams along with a couple of Cup wins would never have any place in history, or be a draw, indicates a bias and a position not based on any prior historical facts or any supporting information. Let's also be honest here concerning Detroit. They draw today because they are a consistent, high quality team. The Detroit during the "Dead Wing Era" didn't draw. There are some teams that can draw during good and (extended) bad times, but Detroit does not qualify. In the NHL, only Toronto, Montreal, and the Rangers can claim that. If Nashville finds themselves in the same position in another three years, I would have no problem declaring that there was just not enough support to make Nashville work without the assistance of the league and the franchise should be relocated. I have written this several times. This was Nashville's wake-up call. If they respond, great, if not- then shame on Nashville and the corporate community. I have consistently said that this bed was made by the City of Nashville and the corporate community. The lack of marketing by the NHL and the team itself certainly made the job harder, but everyone knew the reality of the situation. You took my reference of 10 - 15 years out of context. It was not about the financial situation of the team, but about the success of the team on the ice and their place in history after that time period. I assumed the financial side was already stable. Thanks. David

Leipold and Balsillie signed a letter of intent giving Balsillie exclusive rights to reach a binding agreement with Leipold. It never happened. Officially, the BOG will not review any application until a binding agreement is in place. When an application was presented to the league, it was returned due to the lack of a binding agreement. The matter of relocation can not be considered, by league bylaws (established by the BOG, not singularly Bettman), until the application for purchase has been approved (again requiring a binding agreement for consideration). Balsillie openly requested that the BOG consider the application and relocation question at the same time without a binding agreement in place. To do so would have broken several league bylaws and set a very bad precedent as well as open the league to potentlially damning litigation. I know your wanting links to articles, but those can be easily found via a search. What I have presented is an unbiased account regarding how these types of issues are handled by the league. You will also find many articles that are opinions (some I have written myself) regarding the back room politics involving all of the parties. Thanks. David

Very simply, if all things were equal, Leipold would accept the highest bid from the person/group ready to enter into a binding agreement for purchase of the team. That is required prior to the Board of Governors considering any application for purchase. Balsillie has not been willing to enter into that binding agreement. Boots appears to be wavering as well. When Leipold considers all bids, he has to consider all aspects that must be met- dollar figure as well as intent to sign a binding agreement. I can tell you that, even in state government (in which I work), the "low bid" is not just the lowest dollar figure. The "low bid" is the lowest dollar figure that meets all of the requirements set forth by the entity eliciting bids. Therefore, Leipold is not making a bad business decision. Thanks. David

First, I have to apologize for responding so late. I actually had a response I keyed last night, but it did not post it for me at that moment. Nashville's attendance (paid and unpaid) has grown repeatedly over the past several seasons. That growth continued through ticket price increases and a lockout. Has it reached a point to declare Nashville a success? No. Is it a sign of growth? Yes. As this team has finally started to experience success (after five seasons of futility), growth is starting to be evident. It's not as fast as I would like to see, but it is there and undeniable. It's also a fact that this exciting team that can't draw at home (as many sneeringly proclaim) couldn't draw on the road either. Why is that? The truth is that no matter how good, or bad, a product is, great marketing will still earn the sale. If you doubt that, look at how popular and successful a horribly overpriced speaker like Bose is. The NHL must realize that the CBA was the first step in the right direction. They must market their teams and stars however- not just in NHL markets, but across North America. Do that and they create demand from the people to see the teams and players on television. I agree with you that Hamilton actually would be good for the league. Adding another Canadian franchise in Southern Ontario would very likely sell out every game for a long time. If Buffalo would not suffer, I would like to see another franchise in Southern Ontario. It would also increase the dollars the NHL could obtain from Canadian networks. For the last bolded part, I disagree. Pittsburgh doesn't have the history of Detroit, but it does have roughly 40 years of history and their loss would be felt. New Jersey has only existed in New Jersey since 1982, but they've built a lot of successful history in that 25 years and their loss would be felt. If Nashville could consistently remain a competitive team for the next 10 - 15 years and win a Cup or two, they would certainly write themselves into hockey history. Dallas is well on the way to doing so themselves. The truth is that the City of Nashville is highly regarded by every player that has played here and some, like Jim McKenzie, have made it their permanent home after retirement. They enjoy the atmosphere at the arena (of which you've read the positive comments from some of your fellow Red Wing fans like BlakChamber) regardless of the empty seats in the lower bowl. History is yet to be written, but hockey history is full of memorable teams, players, and arenas. This city is a young nine years old (played eight seasons) as a hockey market, but has already earned a positive reputation among the players for their barn and their fans' energy. The team has finally started to become a successful team on the ice, and should be this year as well. Attendance has grown for the past several seasons in a row. It's been a slow process due to the lack of marketing support by the league (experienced by all teams) and lack of success on the ice, but the growth is present. There's no reason to believe that Nashville will not succeed- at least not yet. Thanks. David

You have to understand that while the sections I bolded are factual, it was available to any person that placed a NBA or NHL team in the arena. Nashville, much like KC, built an arena and then offered that sweetheart deal to lure a tenant. Nashville wanted to revitalize their downtown environment (which they have certainly done). Keep in mind that Nashville almost lured the New Jersey Devils south prior to being awarded the Predators (something I'm not proud of, by the way). As Kansas City is an example (as Las Vegas will be when they finish their arena), that is now the norm. Leipold certainly complained about the state of the league's CBA, but I believe that his complaints were generally on target. My opinion is that the CBA adopted by the league and its players is a step in the right direction, but the league still has a ways to go (marketing, television revenue, and other revenue streams). He might be despised by some, but he was a owner that put what revenue he did have, as well as that provided by revenue sharing, back into his team. Would you agree that the Predators were a skilled and exciting team to watch last season? How often were they featured on television? How much press did Radulov and Weber get on national broadcasts? How much recognition did Legwand get for his Selke-type year? What team had the lowest road attendance? The league does a poor job of marketing their teams and players. It wasn't just the Predators either. David

I'm not Legion, but I'll answer with my own opinions anyway. I am embarassed that the City of Nashville and the corporate community have allowed attendance to drop to the point that allowed this franchise to enter into this period of uncertainty. I hope that the eyes of the community have been opened to the razor's edge that this team rides each year. Your question reflects, in my perception anyway, a bias against revenue sharing as a concept. While the NFL has proven that a salary cap and revenue sharing (which they do much more of than the NHL), you still do not approve of revenue sharing. I feel you believe that a market should succeed or fail on its own merits regardless of any factors (with the possible exception of troubles experienced by an Original Six team like Chicago, Boston, or Detroit in the '80's). If the league loses teams due to the inability to find 30 markets somewhere across North America to succeed, then so be it. My final belief is that a representative cross section of North America (the United States particularly) is not required to achieve lucrative television contracts (both sides of the border), or that those contracts will never, ever, happen. Please correct me if my perceptions are wrong. If not, however, then I completely understand the question. That said, I believe that all markets are not created equal, nor will they ever be. I also believe that teams have to be placed across the States to lure that contract that must come (in my opinion) to solidify this league. To make that happen, revenue sharing (combined with a salary cap) must occur to provide for franchise stability and a healthy league. Generally any market can succeed given enough time and support (the latter of which has been really hard to obtain from the league prior to the current CBA). If the NHL could market their game better, they wouldn't have the number of issues that they have today. To answer your question directly, I'm not embarassed that the Predators rely on revenue sharing, nor any other revenue stream, to be financially viable. There are many teams in all of the major sports that rely on revenue sharing. I am embarrassed at the lack of corporate support as well as support from the City of Nashville that led to the situation deteriorating to this point. Hopefully, that can be rectified. I would hate to see 10 years of effort- effort that has shown signs of success for several seasons in a row- go down the drain. It has been hard work for the league and fans of the Predators. If it is to succeed, there's certainly more of that to follow. Thanks. David

You are missing the additional revenue created by 2000 additional fans buying concessions for 41+ games a year. To me, gate revenue is more than just the cost of the tickets. That said, the team did average better than 15,000 tickets if you include comped tickets, so some of that ancilliary revenue would already be included. David

The reality of the situation is that Craig Leipold does not want to own this team any longer. Until he sales the team, he must meet the minimum salary level necessary to operate a team as stipulated in the CBA. Those are essentially the conditions that David Poile must work within. Forget any aspect regarding the potential of a new owner and possible franchise relocation because they do not apply to the here and now beyond setting Poile's current environment like I have outlined. Now, given those stipulations, Poile still wants to construct the best team possible because it would make the most money- particularly if successful enough to advance into the playoffs. Timonen and Hartnell were not going to be re-signed. Poile got what he could for them to help this team in the future. He can't replace them with similar players in today's market and stay near the floor. The same holds true for Kariya and Forsberg, although less so for Foppa due to his short tenure with the franchise. All of the players that left played a bigger role in Nashville's move last season toward rolling three scoring lines and becoming an attacking team in the mold of Buffalo. With those players gone, it was easier for Poile financially to shift back to a team that had two very good scoring lines and bring in specialists for that shutdown third line and penalty kill (enter DeVries, Bonk and Ortmeyer). Trading Vokoun gave even more flexibility in that regard given Mason's play over the past two seasons (albeit in a limited capacity)- certainly a calculated risk. It was not a firesale in technical sense, but Poile was certainly open to offers. It was more of a style overhaul dictated by the financial situation of the franchise. Given that environment, I do like the results. If the team adapts to their new roles, they could certainly be successful on the ice, but they cannot succeed playing the same style as last season. Thanks. David I don't disagree, but I feel the same way regarding the NHL as a whole. I do not feel they are as healthy as they state. David

I did and he did respond. He just expressed his appreciation for those thoughts. While I wrote the article for Craig, I also wrote that article to calm some of my fellow Predator fans down in regards to their vitriol towards Leipold. Unless the next owner is the local group, we will probably have to say goodbye to accessibility of someone like owner. I hope not. David

First, I want to thank everyone for the kind words. Second, DetriotIan, you are probably right in that the majority of posters really don't care, or don't want to invest any time, into reading Predators material. My articles aren't always completely about the Predators, but all those on the new site are. Of course, pointing that out to me doesn't deter me from posting those links. See, I've been a poster here for a long time- well before I became a writer for PredNation.com (which occurred this past January). I've gotten enough positive feedback from my fellow posters on LGW for my posts in general as well as my articles, that I've provided updates as to when I write a new article. Cheers. David Singleton PredNation.com

Have you looked at the Preds' attendance numbers after Forsberg was brought in? Have you looked at the attendance numbers since January 1st? Of course not. The anonymity of the internet allows anyone to just shoot their mouth, er... keyboard, off while not knowing of what they speak. Being one of those people that bought tickets for next season, I don't feel misled at all. I understand completely the situation the team is in, as well as the knowledge that they will be a competitive team on the ice. I like that my money will support a franchise in which I believe, that has people (management and players alike) in which I believe and like. Do they have to "sell out"? No. Not immediately, anyway. Nor will they. If you read my response to Hank, you will realize that I'm pretty much a realist regarding the situation in Nashville. I fully understand what is required for this team to succeed in Nashville for more than just next year. Given your response, I suspect I understand better than you. Life, nor business, is as black and white as you seem to indicate. Thanks for your comments. David Singleton PredNation.com

I apologize for the misunderstanding. There is a misconception that Balsillie's $238 million bid was available for Leipold to accept. Since Balsillie would never enter into a binding contract, there was nothing for Leipold to accept. At that point, Leipold went to the next highest bidder- Boots. Why would Balsillie not enter into a binding contract? The BOG will only consider an application to purchase once a binding contract has been established. They will not consider a bid to relocate the franchise at the same time, because they are bound by their bylaws to show a "good faith" attempt in the current market. They will also honor an existing lease with a market and not allow a franchise to just break a lease. None of that is appealing to Balsillie if Nashville meets the attendance clause (and all indications point that it will be met rather easily) and he's forced to stay in Nashville for at least three years. If Boots enters into a binding agreement with Leipold, he has to be prepared to follow the same process. I don't know how desparate he is for a franchise in KC. He lives in California. He has a deal to KC to bring a franchise to their new arena, if possible. Other than that, I don't know if he has any loyalties. The arena deal in KC is not any better than the deal in Nashville (in fact, it's slightly worse). If the Nashville market turns around, then Boots may be perfectly happy with a good franchise in the Nashville market. David Singleton PredNation.com

You guys who believe that Bettman somehow orchestrated all of this are living in a fantasy world. Bob McKenzie has written a great article on this today. David Singleton PredNation.com

I don't disagree. The city can't just rally this year and say they've won. This is only step one. Win here, then you have to move on to step two. If not, the war is lost. David

I have not ever discounted the fact that the franchise has lost money. I don't agree that it was $15 million a year, but nobody with the exception of Leipold and present an open account. Fair enough. Today, the Predators are a franchise that has continued to grow in paid attendance since the '02-'03 season despite a steady increase in ticket price. Unfortunately, to this point, the city leadership and corporate community has not supported this franchise. This situation is squarely the fault of the City of Nashville. In short, up to this point, the City of Nashville has not shown itself as a good market. They have no one else to blame but themselves. Now, if the corporate community is truthfully stepping up, then the market should be successful. All evidence points to a franchise that continues to increase their individual fan base, despite ticket price increases. If the corporate community steps up, then Nashville is a viable long-term market, if not- then no. David Singleton PredNation.com

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your assessment. However, your assessment should be based upon all of the facts. The owner of the Predators receives 100% (not just a chunk) of revenues from the arena while the city is responsible for all maintenance and upgrades. On the surface, it appears the lease in Nashville is better. Thanks.

Round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows!!

I just want to confirm that you believe that the interest level in a team/sport for a particular area is not impacted by the length of time the team/sport is in that area. The interest level in Detroit for hockey is not influenced in any way from the several generations of people that have grown up watching the sport? As that goes against all common sense, what logic are you using for that assertion (assuming I read you correctly)? Thanks. David Singleton PredNation.com

It certainly appears that Leipold will be the owner for at least a little while longer. At this point, he wants to lose as little money as possible. If he could do that, while still contending for a playoff spot, then that makes the franchise even more attractive for purchsae- particularly if it's going to be relocated. Poile is doing what he can to make both of those goals happen: be near the salary floor and still be competitive (in that order). If Kariya is amenable to re-signing with Nashville, the movement of Vokoun (along with allowing Timonen and Hartnell to leave) certainly allows Nashville to re-sign him and still stay at the floor. If the team changes hands during the season, and the new owner(s) want to increase salary, they could certainly do so prior to the trade deadline. That is getting way ahead of ourselves though. Thanks. David Singleton PredNation.com

I'm not going to comment on the rivals aspect as that's been beat to death on this board by many, including myself. I am going to address this pretty stupid statement I've bolded. It was probably an exaggeration, but exaggerations tend to turn into a perception believed by many. How can anyone believe that a team that has Radulov-Legwand-Erat and Sullivan-Arnott-Dumont as their top two lines think that is an AHL-level franchise? If you throw Kariya into the mix, you just get stronger (and he's rumored to be signing a two year, $9 million contract very soon). Mason did very well last year. It's up to him to prove he can be the man, but I can tell you that the team in front of him loves him and has a lot of confidence in him. I hate losing Vokoun, but it appears that the team has the depth to handle that move. I hate losing Timonen and Hartnell as well, but we all (Predator fans) knew that we would be losing at least one, if not both, of those guys prior to last year even starting. I'm looking forward to Shea Weber being given an increased role on this team. I actually wouldn't be sad to see Marek Zidlicky traded as well. He was a liability to this team offensively and defensively last year. Did you all believe that the Red Wings were an AHL level franchise just because Shanny, and his 81 points, left prior to last season? What about the loss of Stevie? Of course not. It was obviously a challenge to be conquered, but you knew you still had the talent to be successful. Shanny's points were spread around as was the leadership void. Will the Predators have the same success? Who knows? It's a tall order, but they are still a very solid team. They will have depth issues if any major injuries occur. I love to talk hockey on the message boards, but uneducated opinions like these are a little annoying. Sorry for the rant, but like I said, exaggerations lead to ignorant perceptions. You all know that I have never just stated stuff that I didn't try to supprt with at least a somewhat logical supporting argument. Yes, I know this is Red Wings board, but this is also the general hockey discussion and the topic involved the Predators. Thanks for reading. David Singleton PredNation.com

Just want to point out that Pete Weber is reporting that Kariya is about to re-sign with the Predators for two years at a total of $9 million. Trading Vokoun was not what anyone- the organization and the fans- would like to have done in an ideal world. That being said, the Predators are not currently living in an ideal world. By trading Vokoun's $5.7 million per year cap hit, the Predators made room to fill out their roster and still be near, or at, the salary floor. If Weber's report regarding the Kariya signing is true, that helps as well. Will this team compete for the Central Division title- probably not. Will it struggle to make the playoffs- probably not. Of course, anyone can make a prediction. Fortunately, they do actually play the games. David

SportsNet Details: 2008 First Round Pick 2007 Second Round Pick 2007 OR 2008 Second Round Pick- TBA Tonight Can a mod update the title/subtitle? Thanks. David

...via PredNation.com... A Rebuttal... Thanks. David Singleton PredNation.com

I'll pass the kudos along as I only supply some of the articles. The older articles should be loaded in the next couple of days. Thanks. Thanks.

For those that are interested in the article's I've posted on PredNation.com, I wanted to let everyone know that the site is back online. A new design has been adopted over the past couple of a days to bring more of blog atmosphere to the site- including the ability to add comments. Older articles are still being added. I have certainly enjoyed all of the constructive criticisms as well as good discussions that have originated from the members at LetsGoWings.com. If there are any issues with the site, please let me know and I'll pass those along to the Administrator. Thank you. David