• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Salviaman

Nashville decision will say a lot about Bettman's legacy

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

another note. there's talk about how the figure is actually 16k. not true. it's still 14k.

the 16k number was thrown out by the local group bidding for the team, they said that if they bought the team, then there would need to be 16k for them to ice more than a cap minimum team. 14k is still and always will be, the number for the lease. and truthfully, the team can make a profit at 14k this season anyway.

that doesn't make any sense to me though unless I did my math wrong.

$40.78 average ticket price * 41 reg season home games * attendance * .54 capped revenue

figuring for 14k and 16k there's less than $2mil difference for the year for players.

Either they're figuring on alot more foam claws being sold or I'm missing something :crazy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that doesn't make any sense to me though unless I did my math wrong.

$40.78 average ticket price * 41 reg season home games * attendance * .54 capped revenue

figuring for 14k and 16k there's less than $2mil difference for the year for players.

Either they're figuring on alot more foam claws being sold or I'm missing something :crazy:

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

Edited by drsingle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't forget that we have a new naming rights partner for the arena (rumored to be $2.5M per season), and our revenue sharing check should be pretty hefty since we'll be at the cap minimum. What was it last year $10-12M?

and the city pays all of the operating expenses for the arena. But that's just dealing with making a profit at 14k.

as far as saying that 16k will get us a decent team. I agree, i'm not getting that either since it wouldn't generate that much more revenue but to buy one or two more players.

Edited by Legionnaire11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GordieSid&Ted   
Guest GordieSid&Ted

don't forget that we have a new naming rights partner for the arena (rumored to be $2.5M per season), and our revenue sharing check should be pretty hefty since we'll be at the cap minimum. What was it last year $10-12M?

and the city pays all of the operating expenses for the arena. But that's just dealing with making a profit at 14k.

as far as saying that 16k will get us a decent team. I agree, i'm not getting that either since it wouldn't generate that much more revenue but to buy one or two more players.

It's all well and good that people are trying to save the Predators. However the fact remains that you're trying to save them. If this were a great market you wouldn't be in this position to begin with. Best of luck getting to your ticket goals but frankly I find it embarassing for the NHL. Here you have a team that was great on the ice, had a fantastic season, had been getting better year after year record-wise and now you're trying to sell enough tickets just to meet the minimum number so the no move clause can be enacted. Of course people should get behind the team and fight to keep them but like I said, if this were a truly viable city it would've proven that already. You've had a strong team that's seen the playoffs a couple times now and they're in danger of moving. Is there another team in the league in as bad a position as Nashville? I don't live there nor do I think I need to to know that this is not a viable city. Maybe i'm wrong but its not my ship that's sinking.

don't forget that we have a new naming rights partner for the arena (rumored to be $2.5M per season), and our revenue sharing check should be pretty hefty since we'll be at the cap minimum. What was it last year $10-12M?

and the city pays all of the operating expenses for the arena. But that's just dealing with making a profit at 14k.

as far as saying that 16k will get us a decent team. I agree, i'm not getting that either since it wouldn't generate that much more revenue but to buy one or two more players.

Legion, don't take this the wrong way, its an honest question. But does it bother you at all or embarrass you at all that the Preds have to bank on revenue sharing cash because they're at the league minimum or that they need 2.5 mil from naming rights and whatever other money numbers that are out there? Sort of like you need the table scraps from the strong teams to survive. Doesn't seem to speak very highly of the organization or its strength of location/fan base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

yeah, I couldn't find any figures to do fuzzy math on the concessions. I mean how do you balance beer and a hotdog to jerseys and game worn stuff? Plus I purposely left off the pre and post seasons since those are IMO gravy.

Something I found during my searching. Personally I think that once the ownership changes many of the other off ice negatives will disappear. But you'll still be stuck with Tootoo :P

Real reason for Preds problems IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legion, don't take this the wrong way, its an honest question. But does it bother you at all or embarrass you at all that the Preds have to bank on revenue sharing cash because they're at the league minimum or that they need 2.5 mil from naming rights and whatever other money numbers that are out there? Sort of like you need the table scraps from the strong teams to survive. Doesn't seem to speak very highly of the organization or its strength of location/fan base.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why should I be ashamed of it? one day we could be paying into revenue sharing instead of taking out of it.

I'd prefer to look at the health of the league as a whole. too many people have a "here and now" mentality when they look at the league's problems and offer suggestions on how to fix them, rather than looking for the best possible long term solutions.

Would moving a team from Nashville, Florida, Atlanta, etc, to a place like Hamilton be good for that particular franchise in the immediate future? yes. But it would do absolutely nothing for the long term success of the league.

But if keeping the teams spread out across the country as they currently are, and bolstering them in their current markets, it only adds to the chance that the big TV deal will come in one day. Once that happens, nearly all of the league's problems go away (the NFL TV deal is enough to pay for every team's player payroll). So while some teams may be sacrificing right now, it's vital to the long term success of the league as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GordieSid&Ted   
Guest GordieSid&Ted

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

I'm not against revenue sharing at all. I just don't like the teams that are run by folks who shoot for that as a goal to be profitable. If you can't spend enough to ice a good enough team and you can't get the support you need from your own base to be financially viable a part of me sort of thinks boo hoo for you. I don't think that's been Nashville's MO. But it sure looks like it right now and Legion seems to use it as a crutch in his argument that the team can be viable. Sort of like living on life support if you ask me.

If Nashville can be viable and stand on their own they should've done it by now. It's a shame that this happened. I guess as you say its the corporate folks who've let the team down. No matter whose fault it is its a s***ty situation and personally, I never thought it'd work there and I find it difficult for somebody to convince me (especially now) that it was a good city to choose.

I've told Legion before i'd feel bad for anybody who lost their team. But if this is gonna be a franchise that can only survive, and by that I mean cling by the skin of their teeth and always be a revenue sharing taker and not a giver, I could care less about them sticking around. They were given a chance and there's no reason why somebody else shouldn't be given a chance. The NHL has a long history of failed cities and Nashville wouldn't surprise me if it were added to that list.

why should I be ashamed of it? one day we could be paying into revenue sharing instead of taking out of it.

I'd prefer to look at the health of the league as a whole. too many people have a "here and now" mentality when they look at the league's problems and offer suggestions on how to fix them, rather than looking for the best possible long term solutions.

Would moving a team from Nashville, Florida, Atlanta, etc, to a place like Hamilton be good for that particular franchise in the immediate future? yes. But it would do absolutely nothing for the long term success of the league.

But if keeping the teams spread out across the country as they currently are, and bolstering them in their current markets, it only adds to the chance that the big TV deal will come in one day. Once that happens, nearly all of the league's problems go away (the NFL TV deal is enough to pay for every team's player payroll). So while some teams may be sacrificing right now, it's vital to the long term success of the league as a whole.

"But it would do absolutely nothing for the long term success of the league"

That's a pretty bold statement with no factual leg to stand on.

That's the statement of somebody who appears will say anything to keep their team and keep anyone else from getting a team.

As for the long term success of the league as a whole.......how many years are you supposed to get before they pull you off life support. Where I come from you eventually gotta pull the plug. You may not like it but reality is what it is.

I hope Nashville can get through this though. But if they do I want to see improvement. I don't want to have to listen to their woes year after year after year. How many years do we give you until you start paying into the revenue sharing stream instead of only taking from it? I don't think a team on life support should get to stay that way forever. And yes, there have been some teams recently in serious trouble financially but let's be honest.. The Predators, mustard colored uni's or not are no Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Boston or Chicago. Nor will they ever be. If they dissappeared tomorrow they'd wouldn't even be a speed bump in the annals of hockey history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, I couldn't find any figures to do fuzzy math on the concessions. I mean how do you balance beer and a hotdog to jerseys and game worn stuff? Plus I purposely left off the pre and post seasons since those are IMO gravy.

Something I found during my searching. Personally I think that once the ownership changes many of the other off ice negatives will disappear. But you'll still be stuck with Tootoo :P

Real reason for Preds problems IMO

The author of that article goes a little overboard, even for me, but touches upon a lot of points why it's hard for me to care or root for a franchise succeeding in Nashville.

The Predators got a free arena (thanks to the taxpayers paying the $145 million cost)

A free renovation on that arena to add luxury boxes (local taxpayers once again).

A free practice arena.

The city of Nashville kicked in at least $20 mill of the team's $80 mill expansion-franchise fee. (some sources say it was $25 mill)

The city of Nashville absorbs all operating deficits.

The Predators get 100% of ticket revenues, board advertising revenues, scoreboard reveue, luxury box revenue, parking revenue, all the team merchandise revenue, revenue from the sale of the arena's name, and 40% of concessions.

PLUS they got the largest revenue sharing payment in the NHL of at least $10,000.

Combine that with Leipold's incessant whining about not being able to compete pre-lockout. And his whining about how he is tired of losing money. They've got the sweetest of all sweet deals a franchise could possibly have. how much more help do you need?

So if I'm understanding this correctly, he bought the franchise for $80 million. er, scratch that. He bought it for under $60 million (when you include what the city chipped in) in 1997. Sure the franchise is losing money, except the city absorbs those losses. And Balsille put in a bid to buy them at $238 million a mere ten years later? Must be nice.

Leipold is a leech on the NHL and the city of Nashville and I'm sick of him. That's why it's hard to root for the Preds staying there.

Getting rid of Tootoo would make it a little easier too. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The author of that article goes a little overboard, even for me, but touches upon a lot of points why it's hard for me to care or root for a franchise succeeding in Nashville.

The Predators got a free arena (thanks to the taxpayers paying the $145 million cost)

A free renovation on that arena to add luxury boxes (local taxpayers once again).

A free practice arena.

The city of Nashville kicked in at least $20 mill of the team's $80 mill expansion-franchise fee. (some sources say it was $25 mill)

The city of Nashville absorbs all operating deficits.

The Predators get 100% of ticket revenues, board advertising revenues, scoreboard reveue, luxury box revenue, parking revenue, all the team merchandise revenue, revenue from the sale of the arena's name, and 40% of concessions.

PLUS they got the largest revenue sharing payment in the NHL of at least $10,000.

Combine that with Leipold's incessant whining about not being able to compete pre-lockout. And his whining about how he is tired of losing money. They've got the sweetest of all sweet deals a franchise could possibly have. how much more help do you need?

So if I'm understanding this correctly, he bought the franchise for $80 million. er, scratch that. He bought it for under $60 million (when you include what the city chipped in) in 1997. Sure the franchise is losing money, except the city absorbs those losses. And Balsille put in a bid to buy them at $238 million a mere ten years later? Must be nice.

Leipold is a leech on the NHL and the city of Nashville and I'm sick of him. That's why it's hard to root for the Preds staying there.

Getting rid of Tootoo would make it a little easier too. ;)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

The preds were an exciting team to watch. As for not getting featured on television you could definitely expand that argument to the entire NHL.

the league's marketing is so piss poor it's infuriating.

As for Leipold, part of it is that he's got just about the sweetest deal anyone could ever hope for, AND he got virtually everything he possibly could've wanted out of the CBA (except perhaps a greater portion of welfare for the Preds).

So when I hear him complaining about anything or making veiled threats, my immediate thought is STFU already! If you can't run a profitable franchise with all the help you're getting, it's your own damn fault and maybe that's just not a viable market for a team.

Edited by haroldsnepsts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you can see how foolish people look for just laughing off the Preds and Nashville. It's plain as day to see how easy it is for the ship to be righted as soon as the corporate support gets on board. But they choose to ignore the facts, these are probably the same people who think Nashville is full of barefoot, toothless, overall wearing rednecks who would rather bang their sister than brush their 3 remaining teeth. It's pretty much a hopeless cause to convince them otherwise, but still I continually bang my head on the wall with my constant efforts.

Thanks for that. I actually enjoy your posts 40x more then the average "blah blah blah I totally agree with the last 46 people" posts!

Instead of having the best interest of the game (growing the sport in new markets), "traditional" fans would rather rip apart the new fans and wish that hockey were only in canada and a select few norhern american markets. They fail to see that the game doesn't grow that way, and only becomes more obscure.

Not all of us. Infact, I'd wager that teams like Dallas and the Ducks have helped to soften the image of "warm climate"="struggling franchise".

I think most of it actually comes from Canadians watching the few remaining teams move to desolate markets in the US (the 'Yotes), or conversely, to awesome success in the states (the Aves).

It's embittering for some of us, especially the people with old Jets and Nords jerseys. (not me- although I do have a Lemieux era Pens jersey :thumbup:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you can see how foolish people look for just laughing off the Preds and Nashville. It's plain as day to see how easy it is for the ship to be righted as soon as the corporate support gets on board. But they choose to ignore the facts, these are probably the same people who think Nashville is full of barefoot, toothless, overall wearing rednecks who would rather bang their sister than brush their 3 remaining teeth. It's pretty much a hopeless cause to convince them otherwise, but still I continually bang my head on the wall with my constant efforts.

I only laugh during playoffs, but then we go to the next round and I feel shame. Then it is September, and I am free.

Seriously though, there is one element you are overlooking... and that is the surrounding market. San Jose for example has little issues with corporate sponsorship being in the SIlicon Valley. So...and this is more a question, since I am ignorant on the state of real estate/job wages etc in Nashville, but how far does the money go? How much is donated, how much is spent on gear/merchandise etc, and how much money does Nashville have to sink back into advertising to get hockey noticed in a typically non-hockey state? I'd be curious to know about those figures for any team.

One disturbing thing about the NHL is the number of fans in Canada and how it is marketed, as compared to the U.S.. Crap, there's hockey stuff/giveaways at every gas station, McDonalds and store in Canada, which kicks ass in my book. Of course I don't have to get into the mom, apple pie, football mentality we have, but hey... if a team can make it in Texas, then there's hope for everyone. But aside from very very little local advertising and the odd Center Ice Package ad, you really don't see any mention of hockey in any place I've been. That being Texas, California, Carolina, Ohio, and a few eastern states. THe inherent problem with everything is how the NHL is marketed.

During the lockout, we (San Diego Gulls) were lucky to have Curtis Brown come play. I had a few discussions with him about the lockout, and after all was said and done, he was upset (even in Buffalo) at the amount of advertising and marketing that was done, and he said that "if you follow the snowball backwards uphill, you'll see that Bettman and the NHLPA started it. The involvement with non-profits, the awareness of youth hockey outside that circle, and the complete lack of public advertising from billboards to cereal boxes and especially beer is shameful."

I totally agree, as I was working at a local news station at the time as well as doing production and graphics (ads too) for the Gulls after a short stint in the ECHL. The Gulls folded last year BTW, and it was disgraceful. There was almost no advertising. No banners on the sides of buses, no billboards, nothing... it was almost word of mouth.

And not to pick on the Preds, as a lot of markets have this problem, but the graphic and design work for these teams are horrible. It's comparable to those indoor soccer ads that come on at 2am. It just seems (around the league) that it's just not taken too seriously. If football got this treatment, there would be an uproar. It's not hard to get decent looking graphic/ad packages, it just seems that nobody is doing it. It then becomes difficult for fans/corporations to drop the needed money when they see how they would be represented, or in the fans case, drop the money unless they are already knowledgeable hockey fans that know what to expect.

I'm hoping the new arena and new outfits in San Jose are met with better advertising, as this is all steps in the right direction to make up the $5 million we lost last year.

Edited by Defenseman13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's a ton of money in Nashville, we've got so much of the medical and music industry here. it's just a matter of convincing that money to spend it on the Predators, you get the feeling that they don't see a pro sports team as a good value for their money when they could be putting it into education, research and charities.

Honestly, even the Titans probably wouldn't survive without the huge amount of money from the TV deal. Which is why a TV deal is so important for the NHL. If the league could sign a deal that would support the payroll of all 30 teams (as the NFL's does) then we'd never have to bring up the business side of things for any team and it could just be all hockey, all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not against revenue sharing at all. I just don't like the teams that are run by folks who shoot for that as a goal to be profitable. If you can't spend enough to ice a good enough team and you can't get the support you need from your own base to be financially viable a part of me sort of thinks boo hoo for you. I don't think that's been Nashville's MO. But it sure looks like it right now and Legion seems to use it as a crutch in his argument that the team can be viable. Sort of like living on life support if you ask me.

If Nashville can be viable and stand on their own they should've done it by now.

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.

It's a shame that this happened. I guess as you say its the corporate folks who've let the team down. No matter whose fault it is its a s***ty situation and personally, I never thought it'd work there and I find it difficult for somebody to convince me (especially now) that it was a good city to choose.

I've told Legion before i'd feel bad for anybody who lost their team. But if this is gonna be a franchise that can only survive, and by that I mean cling by the skin of their teeth and always be a revenue sharing taker and not a giver, I could care less about them sticking around. They were given a chance and there's no reason why somebody else shouldn't be given a chance. The NHL has a long history of failed cities and Nashville wouldn't surprise me if it were added to that list.

"But it would do absolutely nothing for the long term success of the league"

That's a pretty bold statement with no factual leg to stand on.

That's the statement of somebody who appears will say anything to keep their team and keep anyone else from getting a team.

As for the long term success of the league as a whole.......how many years are you supposed to get before they pull you off life support. Where I come from you eventually gotta pull the plug. You may not like it but reality is what it is.

I hope Nashville can get through this though. But if they do I want to see improvement. I don't want to have to listen to their woes year after year after year. How many years do we give you until you start paying into the revenue sharing stream instead of only taking from it? I don't think a team on life support should get to stay that way forever. And yes, there have been some teams recently in serious trouble financially but let's be honest.. The Predators, mustard colored uni's or not are no Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Boston or Chicago. Nor will they ever be. If they dissappeared tomorrow they'd wouldn't even be a speed bump in the annals of hockey history.

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

Edited by drsingle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GordieSid&Ted   
Guest GordieSid&Ted

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

David, i'm not sure we're on the same page as far as bringing up other team's woes. What I meant by saying that Nashville is no Pittsburgh...or New Jersey for that matter is that those teams have far more history and yes, they would be missed. Nashville has practically no history nor would they be missed by anyone outside Nashville. You said it yourself, they don't draw on the road. Frankly, they aren't ever going to draw on the road. You take a team like Detroit, they draw everwhere. Nashville will never get there. Even if they won 2 cups in a row people still wouldn't go to see them outside of Nashville. They will never be a team that gets embraced across the country. You may disagree but it ain't Detroit, it ain't New York, it ain't going to ever happen. Sorry for my usage of ain't, I just like to say it.

My whole point was that you take a struggling team like Pittsburgh with their history and I give them alot more slack than I give Nashville, a team with very little history that nobody outside Nashville will miss if they left tomorrow. I exaggerate of course. IMO, Nashville doesn't get another 10-15 years of struggling to make that history. I for one don't want them to be a drain on the rest of the league for the next 10-15 years in the HOPES that they'll become a viable, stable franchise that can do more than just take from the till.

IMO, they had a shot. They aren't dead yet and i'm not a huge proponent of relocating teams anyway but how much longer do we have to give Nashville? Must the rest of the league suffer the woes of Nashville for another decade? When do you pull the plug? Or do we allow Nashville to cling by the skin of their teeth indefinitely???

Let's pose a simple question: What if we're in this same boat 3 years from now? Will the story then be that Nashville is a young 12 years old and all they need is a little more time? I know its hard to answer hypotheticals but I'm curious to know if a fan would be brave enough to admit their city failed to support its team and that it should go. Do you think you would be able to say that if the situation were to play out as such?

Edited by GordieSid&Ted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us discuss about other teams who have relocated to different cities and why they had to move. Not only NHL teams but other leagues like NBA, NFL, and MLB. If I left out any teams please feel free to list them an ddiscuss them.

MLB- Brooklyn Dodgers moved to LA on the 50's, I never understood this but it worked out for LA and now the Bronx cheers for the Yanks.

NBA- Vancouver Grizzlies moved to Memphis. Why? Becasue they had very poor success in Vancouver due to piss poor management and a terrible fan base, because Basketball is not a Tier1 sport in Canada.

NFL- Houston Oilers moved to Memphis and then to Nashville to become the Titans. I did not understand this move at all, but the only thing I did understand was that Bud Adams is a old, greedy bastard. How could he take away a NFL team in a huge city like Houston, with a great fan base in Football? GREED. I lived in Houston when this move happened and everyone in the city went nuts and protested for years untill they finally got the Houston Texans(who suck just as bad as the Oilers ahahah :lol: ).

Cleveland Browns to the city of Baltimore to become the Ravens. Pretty much the same reason why the Oilers moved to Nashville.

Oh and Oakland or LA Raiders? They are from California so they dont count.... :P

NHL- Quebec? The Jets? and Colorado to New Jersey. Please discuss these moves I do not know much about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, i'm not sure we're on the same page as far as bringing up other team's woes. What I meant by saying that Nashville is no Pittsburgh...or New Jersey for that matter is that those teams have far more history and yes, they would be missed. Nashville has practically no history nor would they be missed by anyone outside Nashville. You said it yourself, they don't draw on the road. Frankly, they aren't ever going to draw on the road. You take a team like Detroit, they draw everwhere. Nashville will never get there. Even if they won 2 cups in a row people still wouldn't go to see them outside of Nashville. They will never be a team that gets embraced across the country. You may disagree but it ain't Detroit, it ain't New York, it ain't going to ever happen. Sorry for my usage of ain't, I just like to say it.

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.

My whole point was that you take a struggling team like Pittsburgh with their history and I give them alot more slack than I give Nashville, a team with very little history that nobody outside Nashville will miss if they left tomorrow. I exaggerate of course. IMO, Nashville doesn't get another 10-15 years of struggling to make that history. I for one don't want them to be a drain on the rest of the league for the next 10-15 years in the HOPES that they'll become a viable, stable franchise that can do more than just take from the till.

IMO, they had a shot. They aren't dead yet and i'm not a huge proponent of relocating teams anyway but how much longer do we have to give Nashville? Must the rest of the league suffer the woes of Nashville for another decade? When do you pull the plug? Or do we allow Nashville to cling by the skin of their teeth indefinitely???

Let's pose a simple question: What if we're in this same boat 3 years from now? Will the story then be that Nashville is a young 12 years old and all they need is a little more time? I know its hard to answer hypotheticals but I'm curious to know if a fan would be brave enough to admit their city failed to support its team and that it should go. Do you think you would be able to say that if the situation were to play out as such?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me play devil's adovacate here...

I know the Stars winning a Cup in Dallas in the 1999-2000 season has helped their cause, but don't consider that just yet.

Wasn't Dallas in the same boat as Nashville is right now? Not monetary/selling wise I mean, but back in the late 90s, they were still fairly "new" in Dallas. Same thing with the LA Kings in the 70s.

I attended college in the Dallas-Fort Worth area from 1999-2004, and I actually went to a small amount of Stars games before that from family trips and stuff, well before they won the Cup. Pretty much every time I went then, and the few Stars games I went to while I was in college, they always drew well there, whether it was in old Reunion Arena or current AA Center.

I know I am generalizing, but the point is, the Stars had to have time to establish themselves as a "Southern" market and were/are doing well. Nashville, assuming they stay, hopefully has that chance too to get bigger crowds and more corporate support in the next 5 - 7 years as well.

And both Dallas and Nashville are pretty strong economically, so I don't see why there wouldn't be support eventually from the business/corporate side in Nashville.

I hope the Preds get their chance to continue to find success in Nashville down South. And no, I perfectly realize that hockey will never, ever be the main dish down in my neck of the woods, and I'm perfectly content with that. I like watching hockey and that's what matters most even if I get a weird look from people down here if I watch a game at a bar or restaurant. It's not picture perfect, but franchises have shown they can work in the South (i.e. Dallas, Tampa Bay, Los Angeles).

I'm not singling out anybody in particular but I really hate the negative biased towards Southern franchises in here at times. It's like people want hockey to grow, but they don't want it anywhere south of Oregon or Illinois. You can't have it both ways.

Anyways, I don't want to go too far off on a tangent so I will end my small rant here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GordieSid&Ted   
Guest GordieSid&Ted

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

I guess I probably am a little biased about the whole thing. Not because I don't like Nashville the city or the team or anything to do with that. Just that in my opinion, after living hockey for about 95% of my 30 years on this planet I feel I have enough knowledge to declare that they'll never be a big draw outside Nashville no matter what they do. Now of course should something screwy happen and they form a 5 year cup-winning dynasty that's another story. But there won't be such a dynasty again so I'm ruling that out. . It may sustain locally, but it'll never have a big following. It isn't in the North, it isn't traditional, it's in one of the States you'd think of last when thinking about hockey. And frankly, it's no Dallas. I dunno, I hate to rag on your team because really, who am I to say. I just feel like they're more of a burden and an example of a weak choice the NHL has made as far as expansion. Maybe they'll prove me wrong. Heck, if they had strong support and the owner wasn't trying to jump ship as fast as possible and they were vying for top-tier free agents and giving the Wings another great and lasting rivalry, I'd hate for them to move. Last year was a great step on the ice. Although I scoff at anyone who thinks they'll be even 80% of what they were last season. By the way, I picked the Hawks to finish above you (shows what I know, huh?), bottom line is its been a rough offseason, alot of confusion with the deals and then the non-deals, the sad state of affairs altogether just makes me want it to go away already. Maybe when they drop the puck i'll give a rat's ass and i'll just be happy that games are being played.

Edited by GordieSid&Ted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now