Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Nashville decision will say a lot about Bettman's legacy


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#41 ElCapitan

ElCapitan

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Location:Colorado - 7400'

Posted 17 July 2007 - 10:12 AM

QUOTE(eva unit zero @ July 17, 2007 - 07:52AM) View Post

I I am sick of this racist BS that bad Canadian markets like Quebec, Hamilton, or Winnipeg deserve to have a team but equal or better American markes don't.


Racist? How do you figure? There's nothing about race in this at all so can we please keep the unnecessary inflammatory terms out of it?

#42 Legionnaire11

Legionnaire11

    Simpsonized!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,633 posts
  • Location:SMASHVILLE!!!

Posted 17 July 2007 - 10:37 AM

QUOTE(ElCapitan @ July 17, 2007 - 10:12AM) View Post

Racist? How do you figure? There's nothing about race in this at all so can we please keep the unnecessary inflammatory terms out of it?


not "race" technically. But people from Canada have a bias against americans. and notherners have a bias against southerners.

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.
IPB Image
"The people at first were saying, 'Why is there a team in Nashville?' But when you come here and you see the fans and the excitement, my question would be, "Why would there not be a team in Nashville?" - Yanic Perreault, January 18, 2006

#43 Opie

Opie

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,419 posts
  • Location:The only Henniker on Earth!

Posted 17 July 2007 - 10:42 AM

In this day and age the sport will not grow unless it is available to everyone on TV.
Look at what happened to poker. One world series of poker is aired on ESPN the next thing you know poker is the next big thing. I don't give a rats ass if the NHL is on the travel channel just as long as it is on a channel that everyone gets and is on with some god damned regularity!!!!

"The more I know about people - the better I like my dog." - Mark Twain

"A wise man once told me, ‘Don’t argue with fools. Cause people from a distance can’t tell who is who'." Jay Z, Takeover

"When I was looking for a captain, I wanted a guy with the Red Wings crest tattooed on his chest," said former Detroit coach Jacques Demers, who named Yzerman captain in 1986. "Steve Yzerman was that guy."

“Told him if he wasn't ultra-competitive he couldn't come here. If he didn't bring it every day he couldn't come here, because he was going to hate it if he didn't, dislike the coach and dislike playing here.
“It's real straightforward. If you don't do it right, you're not happy here." Babcock

#44 WingsZR2

WingsZR2

    Play for this and nothing else

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Location:600 miles south of Hockeytown

Posted 17 July 2007 - 10:45 AM

QUOTE(Legionnaire11 @ July 16, 2007 - 04:13PM) View Post

Well, in years past you've got a bunch of kids fresh out of college in sales and marketing, being led by Leipold from Racine, Wisconsin, and Steve Violetta who I believe came to us from Ottawa.

The big difference is that they're not pushing tickets this year. This time around it's "Our Team Nashville" which is a group of successful Nashville businessmen. They know how to get their foot in the door and rally the corporate community for a local cause in ways that Leipold never could.

Just wait and see. Friday morning we should have an updated season ticket number. It will surprise a lot of people.


As a fellow resident of TN I believe this effort is a day late and several dollars short. As I posted earlier in this thread this move to attract more corporate support is 10 years behind. From a business standpoint it makes no sense to get behind a product that may not be on the market in 12 months. Think of the Preds as if they were openly traded on the NYSE, their stock would be low with a predicted 6th month increase of less than 1%. Not a good chance to buy low and sell high.


Youth and enthusiasm will only take you so far. I'd rather be old and smart than young and dumb any day.

Except for Darren Helm, he's a badass.

#45 CdnWingsFanEh

CdnWingsFanEh

    GO WINGS GO!!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,330 posts
  • Location:Stoney Creek, Ontario

Posted 17 July 2007 - 11:05 AM

QUOTE(Legionnaire11 @ July 17, 2007 - 11:37AM) View Post

not "race" technically. But people from Canada have a bias against americans. and notherners have a bias against southerners.

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.


Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but... If we're specifically talking about hockey, I don't think that Canadians are quite so much biased against Americans as much as they are starved for NHL level hockey in what we believe is "our" sport. Part of the problem is that we look at the fact that there are 6 Canadian teams in the NHL, and 24 American ones. We see a team with a lot of problems, and feel that it only makes sense to bring a team to a market that will be a sure fire success. It also has a bit to do with the fact that the league seems to be so determined NOT to allow Canada to have another team that upsets everyone. My 2 cents.

QUOTE(eva unit zero @ July 17, 2007 - 09:52AM) View Post

And move Ottawa because they had many years near the top of the league where their attendance was just as terrible. Wait, they're Canadian, so their team isn't allowed to be moved even if they don't support it. I am sick of this racist BS that bad Canadian markets like Quebec, Hamilton, or Winnipeg deserve to have a team but equal or better American markes don't.


For the record, I don't think Winnipeg or Quebec deserve another team. Ottawa is doing well now, regardless of how they were doing, and Hamilton absolutely does deserve a team. They have the fan support, and corporate support to do well. Much better, imho than many of these other cities that can't support their team.

Edited by CdnWingsFanEh, 17 July 2007 - 11:07 AM.

Some people are like Slinkies... Not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

Facts. Who needs facts? You can prove anything with facts... 10% of all people know that...

"That's it. My groin, it cannot handle it," --Hasek (after his last skate at Joe Louis Arena)

#46 akustyk

akustyk

    how painful is painful?

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,170 posts
  • Location:Voorburg, Dutchland

Posted 17 July 2007 - 11:48 AM

QUOTE(eva unit zero @ July 17, 2007 - 03:52PM) View Post

I cannot say this enough: NASHVILLE WAS NEVER HAVING A FIRESALE.

Timonen and Hartnell signed for crazy amounts, and Nashville said they were traded because of their contract demands and the fact they were about to be UFA. Better to get something than nothing. Vokoun was traded because he costs several million dollars more than Mason, who outperformed him last season and has been healthier. Kariya left because of uncertainty about the sale, and because St. Louis offered him way more than he is worth.

If Nashville were having a firesale, don't you think guys like Arnott and Sullivan would have been dealt?


no. but I think guys like TImonen, Hartnell, etc. would be replaced with proven NHL players not some minor-pickups. they haven't been.

so, yes, technically the team got free of guys who'd demand big bucks. that's what the market dictated. unfortunately, guys like Timonen and Hartnell don't grow on trees and the void left will most likely be visible when the Preds hit the ice in October.

now speaking of Mason and Vokoun - yes, indeed, Preds cut some $7M of bigmouth salary which is a big chunk of money. albeit, they did it only to give Mason $3M a year. Mason who is very likely to be a legit starter (a Legace-like no.1 goalie, but a bit better IMHO) but has yet to be proven if he's capable of playing real hockey when it counts. playoffs that is.


call it firesale or not, this team is by far not resembling the package it had last season. they may as well not stay competitive and fall short of a playoff spot with such watered talent. I hope not, because they were good to measure Wings but the reality doesn't leave much hope

Edited by akustyk, 17 July 2007 - 11:50 AM.


#47 Legionnaire11

Legionnaire11

    Simpsonized!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,633 posts
  • Location:SMASHVILLE!!!

Posted 17 July 2007 - 11:53 AM

QUOTE(WingsZR2 @ July 17, 2007 - 10:45AM) View Post

As a fellow resident of TN I believe this effort is a day late and several dollars short.


not exactly. We were 200 shy of making the 14k mark last season.

as has been stated, and proven to be true. Get people to games and they'll be hooked. If the Our Team efforts and ticket-rally add another 2,000 season tickets for this coming season, that obviously takes care of the 14k thing. if there's even a 50% retention rate from those tickets next season, we're still doing well.

It also buys time to allow the natural growth to continue. attendance in nashville has gone up each of the last 3 seasons, even though ticket prices also went up. If that's not a sign of growth, then what is? But it's not like we're going to go from 14k to 17k over night.

as long as they average 14k, then it doesn't matter if the rest of the entire world population doesn't think that Nashville doesn't deserve a team because they can't move no matter what. In fact, the 14k clause is the only reason that there's all this talk anyway. If there wasn't the chance for the team to move, then Balsillie and Del Biaggio wouldn't ever have been interested in the first place. It's the reason they went after the Pens, and then the Preds. It's the reason they don't go after other teams in worse situations like the Panthers, because they have a stronger lease. In fact, if this whole sale situation had never come up, people would be saying "Hey, things aren't great in Nashville, but they're getting better, look at how their attendance went up the last few seasons" instead of the doom and gloom stuff about how we're the worst market in the history of hockey dry.gif

------------------------

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.

as for ticket prices. last season they were $3 below the NHL average. the lease states that the 14k clause can NOT be envoked if the average ticket price is above the NHL average. So there really isn't any way for a new owner to raise ticket prices in order to lower attendance and break the lease.
IPB Image
"The people at first were saying, 'Why is there a team in Nashville?' But when you come here and you see the fans and the excitement, my question would be, "Why would there not be a team in Nashville?" - Yanic Perreault, January 18, 2006

#48 WingsZR2

WingsZR2

    Play for this and nothing else

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Location:600 miles south of Hockeytown

Posted 17 July 2007 - 12:23 PM

QUOTE(Legionnaire11 @ July 17, 2007 - 11:53AM) View Post

not exactly.


I want to make sure we are on the same page here. I am saying that they waited too long to form a plan for bringing in corporate support. You believe ( if I understand you correctly) that now is the perfect time to do so.

Working in corporate America I firmly believe that a business venture should only be created when there is a limited potential for failure. With so much speculation surrounding the future of this franchise in this state this bid for corporate support seems to be behind the times.

I'm not heading the "Move The Preds North Movement" in their own backyard, for that matter. They waited to long for a viable plan. The Nashville Predators are business but their business model lacks any real direction.
Youth and enthusiasm will only take you so far. I'd rather be old and smart than young and dumb any day.

Except for Darren Helm, he's a badass.

#49 drsingle

drsingle

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts

Posted 17 July 2007 - 12:36 PM

QUOTE(akustyk @ July 17, 2007 - 09:48AM) View Post

no. but I think guys like TImonen, Hartnell, etc. would be replaced with proven NHL players not some minor-pickups. they haven't been.

so, yes, technically the team got free of guys who'd demand big bucks. that's what the market dictated. unfortunately, guys like Timonen and Hartnell don't grow on trees and the void left will most likely be visible when the Preds hit the ice in October.

now speaking of Mason and Vokoun - yes, indeed, Preds cut some $7M of bigmouth salary which is a big chunk of money. albeit, they did it only to give Mason $3M a year. Mason who is very likely to be a legit starter (a Legace-like no.1 goalie, but a bit better IMHO) but has yet to be proven if he's capable of playing real hockey when it counts. playoffs that is.
call it firesale or not, this team is by far not resembling the package it had last season. they may as well not stay competitive and fall short of a playoff spot with such watered talent. I hope not, because they were good to measure Wings but the reality doesn't leave much hope


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

QUOTE(WingsZR2 @ July 17, 2007 - 10:23AM) View Post

The Nashville Predators are business but their business model lacks any real direction.


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

Edited by drsingle, 17 July 2007 - 12:37 PM.

Visit PredNation.com for Predators and Hockey Analysis

#50 Legionnaire11

Legionnaire11

    Simpsonized!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,633 posts
  • Location:SMASHVILLE!!!

Posted 17 July 2007 - 01:46 PM

QUOTE(WingsZR2 @ July 17, 2007 - 12:23PM) View Post

I want to make sure we are on the same page here. I am saying that they waited too long to form a plan for bringing in corporate support. You believe ( if I understand you correctly) that now is the perfect time to do so.


oh now, i don't think it's the perfect time to start this. so I agree with you that something should have been done sooner. But leipold and the sales team did try, I don't know how they tried, but they supposedly spent the most marketing money in the entire league. So either they had the most expensive and ineffective marketing plan ever, or the business community of Nashville just didn't want to deal with Leipold. Now they're dealing with their peers in the business world, so hopefully there are real results this time around.

i took the "day late and dollar short" as saying that the effort wasn't enough to keep the franchise here. I was just pointing out that even if a lot of these businesses are signing up for a one time shot, you've got to think that enough of them, even something so small as 10% will renew in subsequent seasons and become hooked. It would at least be enough to ensure 14k each season.
IPB Image
"The people at first were saying, 'Why is there a team in Nashville?' But when you come here and you see the fans and the excitement, my question would be, "Why would there not be a team in Nashville?" - Yanic Perreault, January 18, 2006

#51 vangvace

vangvace

    no such thing as overkill

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,453 posts
  • Location:Αρώνη Κρήτη Ελλάδα

Posted 17 July 2007 - 02:16 PM

QUOTE(Legionnaire11 @ July 17, 2007 - 12:53PM) View Post


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.gif
I make 1 or 2 posts a week tops. Sometimes they're gold, sometimes they're crap, but the end weight is the same.

http://www.letsgowin...tion=boardrules

#52 drsingle

drsingle

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts

Posted 17 July 2007 - 02:25 PM

QUOTE(vangvace @ July 17, 2007 - 12:16PM) View Post

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.gif


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, 17 July 2007 - 02:28 PM.

Visit PredNation.com for Predators and Hockey Analysis

#53 Legionnaire11

Legionnaire11

    Simpsonized!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,633 posts
  • Location:SMASHVILLE!!!

Posted 17 July 2007 - 02:39 PM

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, 17 July 2007 - 02:43 PM.

IPB Image
"The people at first were saying, 'Why is there a team in Nashville?' But when you come here and you see the fans and the excitement, my question would be, "Why would there not be a team in Nashville?" - Yanic Perreault, January 18, 2006

#54 GordieSid&Ted

GordieSid&Ted

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 17 July 2007 - 02:52 PM

QUOTE(Legionnaire11 @ July 17, 2007 - 03:39PM) View Post

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.

QUOTE(Legionnaire11 @ July 17, 2007 - 03:39PM) View Post

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.
Being a mod doesn't make you special.

#55 vangvace

vangvace

    no such thing as overkill

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,453 posts
  • Location:Αρώνη Κρήτη Ελλάδα

Posted 17 July 2007 - 02:55 PM

QUOTE(drsingle @ July 17, 2007 - 03:25PM) View Post

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 tongue.gif

Real reason for Preds problems IMO
I make 1 or 2 posts a week tops. Sometimes they're gold, sometimes they're crap, but the end weight is the same.

http://www.letsgowin...tion=boardrules

#56 drsingle

drsingle

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts

Posted 17 July 2007 - 03:24 PM

QUOTE(GordieSid&Ted @ July 17, 2007 - 12:52PM) View Post

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
Visit PredNation.com for Predators and Hockey Analysis

#57 Legionnaire11

Legionnaire11

    Simpsonized!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,633 posts
  • Location:SMASHVILLE!!!

Posted 17 July 2007 - 05:05 PM

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.
IPB Image
"The people at first were saying, 'Why is there a team in Nashville?' But when you come here and you see the fans and the excitement, my question would be, "Why would there not be a team in Nashville?" - Yanic Perreault, January 18, 2006

#58 GordieSid&Ted

GordieSid&Ted

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 17 July 2007 - 05:21 PM

QUOTE(drsingle @ July 17, 2007 - 04:24PM) View Post

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.

QUOTE(Legionnaire11 @ July 17, 2007 - 06:05PM) View Post

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.
Being a mod doesn't make you special.

#59 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,870 posts

Posted 17 July 2007 - 06:12 PM

QUOTE(vangvace @ July 17, 2007 - 12:55PM) View Post

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 tongue.gif

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. wink.gif


#60 drsingle

drsingle

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts

Posted 17 July 2007 - 07:22 PM

QUOTE(haroldsnepsts @ July 17, 2007 - 04:12PM) View Post

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. wink.gif


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
Visit PredNation.com for Predators and Hockey Analysis





Similar Topics Collapse

  Topic Forum Started By Stats Last Post Info

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users