Hank 0 Report post Posted February 13, 2007 (edited) I just saw someone post an interesting fact on HFBoards. A professor of business did an independant study on the financial impact the Preds had on the city. Over the past 5 years, it has been estimated that the Preds have generated $470 million dollars to the city in form of services (restaurants, parking, shopping, etc.) the Predators had an estimated economic impact on Middle Tennessee of $82 million in 1999 and an estimated impact of $470 million over 5 years(per Dr Richard Oliver, Vanderbilt Owen School of business referenced in a Tennessean online article "Predators Timeline" 1/12/07). Strachan is a NHLPA groupie who thinks the MLB system is a perfect one. You'll notice that in almost every article he goes out of his way to slam Bettman and the NHL with pro-union rhetoric. It says a lot when Strachan gets canned by the CBC while Don Cherry can remain employed while bashing anyone and anything that wasn't born in Ontario. P.S. I'm not saying that the Preds deserve to be in Nashville. Their attendance has been atrocious. But there's a reason why the city continues to support the franchise. Reasons that Strachan conveniantly turned a blind eye to in a weakly veiled attempt to do what he does best - trash the NHL. P.S.S. It should also be noted that Al Strachan resides in an apartment complex owned by super-agent Don Meehan. Leipold might be a Bettman slappy but Strachan is a NHLPA slappy to the 10th degree. I wanted to add another point to Strachan's propoganda. I love how he makes it sound as if Leipold was the one that shotdown the reform to change the current schedule. 18 other owners shot it down as well. Hardly one mans crusade to destroy the game of hockey. Almost every owner in the East didn't want the change. Edited February 13, 2007 by Hank Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted February 13, 2007 I wanted to add another point to Strachan's propoganda. I love how he makes it sound as if Leipold was the one that shotdown the reform to change the current schedule. 18 other owners shot it down as well. Hardly one mans crusade to destroy the game of hockey. Almost every owner in the East didn't want the change. 10 other owners shot it down. The vote was to change the schedule to a new format, and it got 19 of 30 votes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest GordieSid&Ted Report post Posted February 13, 2007 (edited) oh boo, i wanted to disparage the team, the city and legionairre but I guess i can't. Edited February 13, 2007 by GordieSid&Ted Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladdy16 2,154 Report post Posted February 13, 2007 oh boo, i wanted to disparage the team, the city and legionairre but I guess i can't. Well, Legionnaire is fair game, but everything else is off limits. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest GordieSid&Ted Report post Posted February 13, 2007 FAIR WARNING: Do NOT, under any circumstances, use this thread as an opportunity to disparage the team, the city or the residents of the South in any way, shape or form. Seriously? If so, I wonder if we can get other hockey boards to do the same for us. Geez, I hope this place doesn't turn into redwingscentral.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladdy16 2,154 Report post Posted February 13, 2007 Seriously? If so, I wonder if we can get other hockey boards to do the same for us. Geez, I hope this place doesn't turn into redwingscentral.com Please take a moment to check the forum guidelines. You are welcome to express any opinion you may have - just no baiting or denigrating other board members. Nothing's changed around here. If you don't like it, take it up with Matt. *Edit* I should specify. I deleted an atrocious post - the usual South bashing. We all know how I feel about expansion, but this thread is no outlet for stereotypical baiting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest GordieSid&Ted Report post Posted February 13, 2007 Well, Legionnaire is fair game, but everything else is off limits. See Vladdy, you can't do stuff like that because it toys with my emotions. Next thing you know i'll get carried away and say stuff I shouldn't and get into trouble. Dang.....fighting the urge to not type nasty things about Nashvegas and that team....its just so darn difficult..........................................................................i'm fighting it.....fighting it.........'breathe'..............................can ' tttt do it..............must poke fun at must a r d, color........jerseys........................................ahhhhhhhHHHH! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladdy16 2,154 Report post Posted February 13, 2007 See Vladdy, you can't do stuff like that because it toys with my emotions. Next thing you know i'll get carried away and say stuff I shouldn't and get into trouble. Dang.....fighting the urge to not type nasty things about Nashvegas and that team....its just so darn difficult..........................................................................i'm fighting it.....fighting it.........'breathe'..............................can ' tttt do it..............must poke fun at must a r d, color........jerseys........................................ahhhhhhhHHHH! LMAO!!!!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
betterREDthandead 58 Report post Posted February 13, 2007 I think that all of this proves Bettman's expansion plan has completely backfired. Clearly, the NHL did not do their research before just putting NHL franchises in cities. Wrong. The NHL wanted four new franchises. They put out a request for proposals. They got a certain number, rejected the ones that were poorly put together or didn't offer solid enough financing. They didn't "just put an NHL franchise in a city". They picked Nashville because they put together one of the four best deals. Since the city appears to be bending over both ways to help the Predators, I'd say the NHL made a good choice. Anyway...."completely backfired"? Three of four teams are doing just fine. Don't taint legitimate criticism of Bettman with this nonsense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wings_Toledo 233 Report post Posted February 13, 2007 All I know is that Nashville's Star Trek fan demographic will be very disappointed at the withdrawal of the 3rd jerseys next season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SouthernWingsFan 854 Report post Posted February 14, 2007 I think that all of this proves Bettman's expansion plan has completely backfired. Clearly, the NHL did not do their research before just putting NHL franchises in cities. Nashville is currently the best team in the league, and still can't sell out. That's not good. You realize that Winnipeg moved to a southern city, Phoenix, b/c Winnipeg couldn't support a franchise, right? That was an onwer's decision. Putting a team in Anaheim only makes sense, given the ridiculous amounts of people that live there and around the L.A. area. Don't forget Atlanta was home of the Flames a while back. Hockey will always be more popular in the Northeast, no doubt about it, but don't come with this B.S. that the NHL didn't do any research whatsoever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Legionnaire11 0 Report post Posted February 14, 2007 Duck season... Rabbit season... Legionnaire season? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kp-Wings 3 Report post Posted February 14, 2007 (edited) I can't believe the city payed all that money for the team. It's rediculous. I agree with his thoughts. The fans show the team no support. How does last place Philly have a better attendance than first place Nashville? Makes you wonder... Edited February 14, 2007 by Kp-Wings Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204 Report post Posted February 14, 2007 Move Nashville to winnipeg , that way they get out of the wings division. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
betterREDthandead 58 Report post Posted February 14, 2007 Move Nashville to winnipeg , that way they get out of the wings division. Right. Move a team that's suffering from attendance troubles to a city that lost a team because of attendance troubles. That makes sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kp-Wings 3 Report post Posted February 14, 2007 Right. Move a team that's suffering from attendance troubles to a city that lost a team because of attendance troubles. That makes sense. How about Quebec City? jk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kass 7 Report post Posted February 14, 2007 I don't see the Preds heading anywhere better than where they are now if they're forced to leave. That said, I hope they do leave or Leipold tries to bail on the ownership. That can't be too far-fetched, I'm sure there are plenty of people who didn't enjoy their tax money being used for a franchise they cared nothing about. I never knew how bad the situation in Nashville was in and reading that Strachan article really shows that the Preds have done nothing but take money instead of improve the league, the city, or the game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Legionnaire11 0 Report post Posted February 14, 2007 The fans show the team no support? are you kidding? next time you come through nashville let me know and i'll buy you a ticket so you can see. It's the businesses of nashville who don't support. And Strachan... I think it's funny that when he writes a piece that rips on a southern market, suddenly everyone thinks it's decent writing and 100% factual. the guy is a piece of crap. For anyone interested, THIS is the thread on this article on the preds boards. the real meat of the discussion doesn't start until page 2. and our own paul mccann's response to strachan on hockeybuzz.com Here Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SouthernWingsFan 854 Report post Posted February 14, 2007 Move Nashville to winnipeg , that way they get out of the wings division. Do not post while drunk. Stuff makes a lot more sense when posting sober. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Legionnaire11 0 Report post Posted February 14, 2007 more news, and it probably won't be reported in any way having to do with the Preds. But there is bad news for nashville, good news for the preds. Starwood Amphitheater, which is one of the biggest music venues in Nashville has decided to shut down. This leaves only the GEC and the older war memorial auditorium as big concert venues in town. (kinda sad that we're the music city with no where to have concerts). This should add at least 15-20 addition summer concerts to the GEC's schedule. And of course, as part of the arena deal signed, the Predators get a % of all concert revenues. Won't help attendance, but it will help the bottom line. Maybe they can turn that extra money around to marketing and come up with some better ways to get people excited for hockey and translate that into ticket sales. I know it wouldn't be any huge boom, but every little bit helps. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bellarina 1 Report post Posted February 14, 2007 Right. Move a team that's suffering from attendance troubles to a city that lost a team because of attendance troubles. That makes sense. Sorry you don't have your facts straight. Winnipeg didn't have attendance troubles. They had financial troubles, but thats all better now with revenue sharing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
betterREDthandead 58 Report post Posted February 14, 2007 Sorry you don't have your facts straight. Winnipeg didn't have attendance troubles. They had financial troubles, but thats all better now with revenue sharing. Sorry you don't think the Jets drawing fewer fans in Winnipeg than the Coyotes draw in Phoenix is attendance troubles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted February 14, 2007 (edited) 10 other owners shot it down. The vote was to change the schedule to a new format, and it got 19 of 30 votes. Edited because I haven't had my morning coffee yet. I knew that Lou is GM, don't know why that equated to "owner" in my non-caffeinated state. So...we can be fairly certain that two of the eleven (see, I can't count either) owners are Leipold and Vanderbeek. Edited February 14, 2007 by edicius Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
betterREDthandead 58 Report post Posted February 14, 2007 And we can be relatively certain that two of the ten owners were Leipold and Lamiorello. Lamoriello doesn't own the Devils, he's the GM. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sibiriak 84 Report post Posted February 14, 2007 (edited) And we can be relatively certain that two of the ten owners were Leipold and Lamiorello. I didn't know Lou owned the Devils Oops, someone beat me to the punch. Edited February 14, 2007 by sibiriak Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
