Nashville Drama Continues

[Echolalia 2,961]

Seriously, Nashville, its just not meant to be. At least not now.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_dadd...F?urn=nhl,93565

But at least Del Biagglio went bankrupt.

edit to fix link.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Echolalia

[55fan 5,133]

Psst...check your link.

[Echolalia 2,961]

thanks. at least its the offseason so nobody will actually see my goof.

[RedFX 48]

I don't think anyone down here with brains was suprised to hear this. Anyone that read between the lines knew what Boot's plan was all along.

As for the ownership situation, the other owners have paid off Boot's immediate debt to Leipold and the city. Although the search is still on for a minority owner, there is no immediate danger to the team.

[vangvace 12]

at least he played by league rules... even if was a scummy thing to do

[Guest Shoreline]

I don't blame the guy. I mean, lying, cheating, stealing, whatever, is bad, but if retarded Bettman wants to keep a franchise in a city that clearly shouldn't have one, I'd go this route too. There are plenty of other hockey loving areas (Saskatchewan, for example, maybe Saskatoon as a midpoint between populated areas) that would do well with a hockey franchise.

There really doesn't need to be loyalty to a city that has had it's franchise for a whopping 8 years. Especially when Winnipeg lost it's franchise after 17, Hartford 18, and so on.

There's plenty of other teams in the area, like Atlanta, St. Louis, Carolina, and Columbus for people in Tennessee. Before someone says that's too far, try being in Arcata going to a Sharks game. Twice the distance for the closest team, and in the same state, no less.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Shoreline

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

I don't blame the guy. I mean, lying, cheating, stealing, whatever, is bad, but if retarded Bettman wants to keep a franchise in a city that clearly shouldn't have one, I'd go this route too. There are plenty of other hockey loving areas (Saskatchewan, for example, maybe Saskatoon as a midpoint between populated areas) that would do well with a hockey franchise.

There really doesn't need to be loyalty to a city that has had it's franchise for a whopping 8 years. Especially when Winnipeg lost it's franchise after 17, Hartford 18, and so on.

There's plenty of other teams in the area, like Atlanta, St. Louis, Carolina, and Columbus for people in Tennessee. Before someone says that's too far, try being in Arcata going to a Sharks game. Twice the distance for the closest team, and in the same state, no less.

Your part in the first blurb is nice in theory, but places like Winnipeg have plenty of people who like hockey and that's just it. Quebec City probably had/has plenty of people who love hockey. The same as Hartford.

It can't just be that alone. You need a population base, you need corporate support from businesses with dollars. Plenty of people like hockey. However a lot of these people are probably just the average Joe like you and me not getting rich off our rears. They can't afford season tickets, or much less consistently going to 20 games with $70 tickets a piece, spending $10 on parking, $20 on food/drinks, and so forth.

I'm not all that familiar with Saskatchewan and Saskatoon in terms of how densely populated it is or if it is realistic to get to etc., but if Winnipeg where people love hockey moved to Phoenix, Quebec Nordiques move to Denver, Hartford moves its franchise to Raleigh, what does that tell you? Not all places that "love" hockey have the dollars to support an NHL franchise.

[Dawgs 0]

Contraction in the NHL is needed badly. Two teams in Florida? Nashville? I mean cmon.

[auxlepli 17]

Nashville finished 21st in attendance by percentage.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?s...t&year=2008

Five spots behind Detroit and ahead of Atlanta, Phoenix, St. Louis, NY Islanders, Washington, Boston, Chicago, Columbus and Florida.

The Predators are fine where they are. Besides Gary Bettman will do anything to keep them where they are.

Contraction won't happen either. The NHLPA will fight it, and the salary cap would drop.

[msm2000 0]

Nashville finished 21st in attendance by percentage.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?s...t&year=2008

Five spots behind Detroit and ahead of Atlanta, Phoenix, St. Louis, NY Islanders, Washington, Boston, Chicago, Columbus and Florida.

The Predators are fine where they are. Besides Gary Bettman will do anything to keep them where they are.

Contraction won't happen either. The NHLPA will fight it, and the salary cap would drop.

This reflects total numbers, not percentage

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?s...g&year=2008

[Louisville 112]

Wow I never realized how well Ottawa does in attendance.

[auxlepli 17]

This reflects total numbers, not percentage

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?s...g&year=2008

And your point is what?

Percentage reflects better what teams can fill given arena limitations.

http://www.sportsline.com/nhl/teams/page/NSH

Arena: Sommet Center (17,113)

[Hank 0]

Your part in the first blurb is nice in theory, but places like Winnipeg have plenty of people who like hockey and that's just it. Quebec City probably had/has plenty of people who love hockey. The same as Hartford.

It can't just be that alone. You need a population base, you need corporate support from businesses with dollars. Plenty of people like hockey. However a lot of these people are probably just the average Joe like you and me not getting rich off our rears. They can't afford season tickets, or much less consistently going to 20 games with $70 tickets a piece, spending $10 on parking, $20 on food/drinks, and so forth.

I'm not all that familiar with Saskatchewan and Saskatoon in terms of how densely populated it is or if it is realistic to get to etc., but if Winnipeg where people love hockey moved to Phoenix, Quebec Nordiques move to Denver, Hartford moves its franchise to Raleigh, what does that tell you? Not all places that "love" hockey have the dollars to support an NHL franchise.

It's true that Winnipeg could not keep a team because they never got the corporate backing required - or had the desired amount of luxery boxes to sell to them.

But since their move to the desert both Winnipeg and Saskatoon have boomed in terms of corporate dollars.

Saskathewan is rivaling Alberta in terms of oil production while Winnipeg has seen a large influx of corporatations taking advantage of their low taxes and cost of living.

I wouldn't doubt in the least if either Winnipeg or Saskatoon had the corporate backing to support a hockey team. No more than Edmonton or Calgary have.

The main issue is the value of the US $. If it continues to ride on-par with the Loonie, I think most large Canadian cities could support a team.

Every buidling would be sold out and as long as the corporations bought up the luxery boxes, they could thrive under the current CBA.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Hank

[jim3033 1]

It's too bad Radulov left. Nashville was a good team last year and it's always nice to see good teams in the central division. The playoff series with them was really exciting.

Edited July 14, 2008 by jim3033

[chrisdetroit 189]

And your point is what?

Percentage reflects better what teams can fill given arena limitations.

http://www.sportsline.com/nhl/teams/page/NSH

Arena: Sommet Center (17,113)

But as a business, the important thing is the number of tickets you sell regardless of the size of your arena. The NHL IS a business and all the "feel good" stuff about seling out means nothing. It's all about the $$$. I'd rather have a 80% full 20,000 seta arena than a 100% full 15,000 seat areana.

[chrisdetroit 189]

It's true that Winnipeg could not keep a team because they never got the corporate backing required - or had the desired amount of luxery boxes to sell to them.

But since their move to the desert both Winnipeg and Saskatoon have boomed in terms of corporate dollars.

Saskathewan is rivaling Alberta in terms of oil production while Winnipeg has seen a large influx of corporatations taking advantage of their low taxes and cost of living.

I wouldn't doubt in the least if either Winnipeg or Saskatoon had the corporate backing to support a hockey team. No more than Edmonton or Calgary have.

The main issue is the value of the US $. If it continues to ride on-par with the Loonie, I think most large Canadian cities could support a team.

Every buidling would be sold out and as long as the corporations bought up the luxery boxes, they could thrive under the current CBA.

Huh? Edmonton doesn't sell out all their games now (see previous posts) so how can you make such a statement?

[Guest Shoreline]

Your part in the first blurb is nice in theory, but places like Winnipeg have plenty of people who like hockey and that's just it. Quebec City probably had/has plenty of people who love hockey. The same as Hartford.

It can't just be that alone. You need a population base, you need corporate support from businesses with dollars. Plenty of people like hockey. However a lot of these people are probably just the average Joe like you and me not getting rich off our rears. They can't afford season tickets, or much less consistently going to 20 games with $70 tickets a piece, spending $10 on parking, $20 on food/drinks, and so forth.

I'm not all that familiar with Saskatchewan and Saskatoon in terms of how densely populated it is or if it is realistic to get to etc., but if Winnipeg where people love hockey moved to Phoenix, Quebec Nordiques move to Denver, Hartford moves its franchise to Raleigh, what does that tell you? Not all places that "love" hockey have the dollars to support an NHL franchise.

Winnipeg is not in Saskatchewan. It may draw some fans from there, but mostly its for Saskatoon, Regina, PA, MJ, etc.

Also, their economy is not in the state the rest of the U.S. is. They are doing fine. If things work out here with fiancee, that is where we would be moving. I'd like a hockey team there. Kthx.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Shoreline

[ladypredsfan 0]

The Nashville Boards are more upset about Radulov than Del Baggio.

What is your opinion of Radulov leaving before his contract is up? And what do you think that other young Russian players in the NHL might do if they get a big offer like his? And will teams draft young Russian players knowing that at any time they can just pack up and go home?

I realize there is a new agreement in the works about not making offers to either side for anyone who has a contract in effect - but do you think this will really work?

[RedFX 48]

The Nashville Boards are more upset about Radulov than Del Baggio.

What is your opinion of Radulov leaving before his contract is up? And what do you think that other young Russian players in the NHL might do if they get a big offer like his? And will teams draft young Russian players knowing that at any time they can just pack up and go home?

I realize there is a new agreement in the works about not making offers to either side for anyone who has a contract in effect - but do you think this will really work?

From the sound of what Rads was saying, he seemed a little miffed at Poile and the Nashville management. I don't know if there was some ongoing friction going on between him and the rest of the organization, but that could have a big part in it. As for the other Russian players, its going to be on an individual basis-depending on the player's situation and the team's situation. We've already seen Malkin turn down a huge offer to stay in Pittsburgh, but this new league has certainly made it clear that they are trying to lock up their homegrown talent.

I think the agreement will be honored, but what concerns me is what role this will play in free agency. If Rads got 12 million a year, imagine what these guys would be willing to offer some other big name free agents in the market. My concern is that the GM's might start having to compete with the new league as well as each other during the offseason.

[lfd250 1]

People need to start looking at the big picture. The NHL seems to think this league means business, that's why they want the agreement. I think players are watching what happens. If the league can make it a year and make the payments to the players, not only should some be worried about players leaving, more importantly I think it will be used as a contract thing. Pay me or I'll leave.

[Hank 0]

Huh? Edmonton doesn't sell out all their games now (see previous posts) so how can you make such a statement?

You're going to argue technicality's over 1.6% from capacity? Get a life.

[Echolalia 2,961]

I can see a lot of drama coming up from this Russian League vs NHL thing, although, if it gets to that, it would be totally badass to have an NHL vs RLK (or whatever its called) game with all the potential tension between the leagues and the players that belong to them.

[auxlepli 17]

But as a business, the important thing is the number of tickets you sell regardless of the size of your arena. The NHL IS a business and all the "feel good" stuff about seling out means nothing. It's all about the $$$. I'd rather have a 80% full 20,000 seta arena than a 100% full 15,000 seat areana.

Understand and agree, but teams have to work with what they got.

Discrediting the Predators because their home arena is smaller is wrong.

[lfd250 1]

I don't think the owners really care about the people in the seats. That's why Mike will raise prices this year. Regaurdless of how many tickets are sold, if the people don't buy the food then it won't matter. 10,000 people spending $10 each is a lot better then 20,000 people not spending anything.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

True - however there are a # of franchises in the NHL that do have the population/local businesses, but they won't support their team

True as well, but again, if Winnipeg re-located south to Phoenix, Quebec located south to Denver, and Hartford located south to Raleigh, three former NHL-franchise cities which I think is a safe bet that hockey is more popular overall than the latter three that they relocated to, what does that tell you?

It isn't just a case that a city automatically deserves an NHL franchise because it's more north/cold and people "like" hockey. Nor it is a case of teams south of the Mason Dixon line perhaps making the NHL look "silly" (no I don't think the NHL is silly).

You need a decent population base as well as economic support from big businesses. If the owners of those franchises didn't re-locate to more southern cities because they though they wouldn't get enough of both corporate support and public/fan support, they wouldn't have moved to more southern locations where ZOMG HOCKEY IS LESS POPULAR THAN NASCAR (*end sarcasm*) to begin with.