Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Informative article on Nashville's finances


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Jersey Wing

Jersey Wing

    Watching Eastern Conference hockey before it was cool...

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,076 posts
  • Location:Jersey City, NJ

Posted 30 April 2012 - 12:44 AM

I'm sorry, teams taking money from the revenue sharing fund should be forced to say how much they receive. Other teams fans should know they are subsidizing other franchises and for how much. Reading the article is sure seems like the Preds get a LOT of money from everyone (NHL money, state money, local money) yet refuse to disclose how much they get. I mean why should the Wings have to help subsidize Nashville over a salary like Suter's when we'd ultimately like to sign him here? In essence the Wings are being forced to act against their best interests.

*The Predators acknowledged that they benefit from revenue sharing but would not disclose how much.
*The Predators would not disclose what percentage of the remaining $45 million was from operating losses.
*Cogen would not disclose the number of sponsors or how much revenue they generate.

But yet they take and take and take and a lot of people in and around Nashville don't see this as sustainable for much longer and next time they want money they WILL make them open their books it sure sounds like. Bad for the NHL.

http://www.tennessea...|text|FRONTPAGE

Edited by Jersey Wing, 30 April 2012 - 12:49 AM.

14767451334_8f0d14d8cb_o.jpg


#2 GoalieManPat

GoalieManPat

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,363 posts
  • Location:Swartz Creek, MI

Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:00 AM

What do you expect. Have to milk the system as long as possible when your in a bad hockey market.

#3 LidstromIsASuperhero

LidstromIsASuperhero

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 464 posts

Posted 30 April 2012 - 09:01 AM

Welcome to communism... er i mean the current cba.

#4 rrasco

rrasco

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,007 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 30 April 2012 - 01:01 PM

Why should I have to pay for medical care and housing for people who make less than I do or don't work at all? Because that's just the way it is.

Kronwalled.net - Keep Yer Head up Kid

 

MONEY ON THE BOARD: $10/Kronwalling (1), $1/goal by: Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco, Sheahan, disney.com (1), Andersson, Dekeyser, Pulkinnen, Ouellet, or Sproul.  2X MULTIPLIER: disney.com.  CONSOLATION PRIZE: $5/goal by: Datsyuk (3), $3/goal by: Z (1). MOTB TOTAL: $30


#5 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,605 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 30 April 2012 - 01:08 PM

They're in the "Bottom Ten Club", aren't they?

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#6 Shoreline

Shoreline

    Panzerfaust

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,817 posts
  • Location:Brampton, ON

Posted 30 April 2012 - 02:43 PM

The worst part about this is in the article it's admitted by the Nashville government the Preds aren't profitable, and they're concerned about that, but funnel public money to continue running an unprofitable franchise anyways? The f***? Where is Nashville getting the money to throw at the Predators franchise? And how can they afford to keep paying this sum of money? I'm not worried about the NHL's profit sharing concept because it's within the same network of business, but when taxpayers get involved I've long been fed up with failing business (entertainment no less) getting bailed out and subsidized by taxpayers, especially when these local governments know they shouldn't be spending this money and can't afford it.

Anyhow, the NHL will have to do something drastic sometime in the near future (to avoid an inevitable financial meltdown) unless the league can sustain their own teams without taxpayer help, eventually the local governments issuing bonds to borrow money will find no buyer since once the local governments are predictably in over their heads in debt, and there's no confidence they have the means to pay back. The first thing that comes to mind is something that should have been done years ago -- contraction.

Edited by Shoreline, 30 April 2012 - 02:44 PM.


#7 Doc Holliday

Doc Holliday

    LGW's impromptu Photoshopper

  • Silver Booster
  • 4,337 posts

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:31 PM

The worst part about this is in the article it's admitted by the Nashville government the Preds aren't profitable, and they're concerned about that, but funnel public money to continue running an unprofitable franchise anyways? The f***? Where is Nashville getting the money to throw at the Predators franchise? And how can they afford to keep paying this sum of money? I'm not worried about the NHL's profit sharing concept because it's within the same network of business, but when taxpayers get involved I've long been fed up with failing business (entertainment no less) getting bailed out and subsidized by taxpayers, especially when these local governments know they shouldn't be spending this money and can't afford it.

Anyhow, the NHL will have to do something drastic sometime in the near future (to avoid an inevitable financial meltdown) unless the league can sustain their own teams without taxpayer help, eventually the local governments issuing bonds to borrow money will find no buyer since once the local governments are predictably in over their heads in debt, and there's no confidence they have the means to pay back. The first thing that comes to mind is something that should have been done years ago -- contraction.


Ripple effect for the surrounding economy, is what I read from that.

Same reason big cities enjoy having sporting events there.

Posted Image


#8 ami

ami

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 760 posts
  • Location:San Diego, CA

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:38 PM

why it comes as a surprise? anyone who works subsidize a few who don't.
that's what's become to what once was a capitalism.

#9 Cali-Wing-Nut

Cali-Wing-Nut

    Guppie Hunter

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Location:Sacramento

Posted 01 May 2012 - 01:52 AM

I guess the "GET THE RED OUT" campaign had nothing to do with Detroit and everything to do with getting out of the negative...

I also hope that the liberals out there that think that taking money from the rich and "spreading the wealth" is a good thing, think of that in the hockey sense. All it does is penalize the successful to reward the less than .... Why should the Red Wings support the Preds, Stars, Coyotes, Columbus ect.

All it does is make a successful organization worse by subsidizing a rival team. Its no different than a phone company having to provide infrastructure to competitors at a loss (see SBC having to rent physical phone lines to Sprint and many others at an operating loss in order to make them competitive).

In the end it doesnt make for better hockey. It makes for closer hockey.

The bad thing is that the closer hockey is all mediocre because the best that is available in this type of system is spread out to 30 teams,

Parity looks to make the league average and they are doing a wonderful job at it.
I'M WRECKING SHOP!!!

#10 mmamolo

mmamolo

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 01 May 2012 - 08:03 AM

Why should I have to pay for medical care and housing for people who make less than I do or don't work at all? Because that's just the way it is.

That's not really the point - I dont think. Most people are fine with subsidizing others but the question is to what extent? Each person has a line to where they believe that a reason amount has been surpassed.

Personally, I'm not surprised that a team like NSH is receiving that amount of money from league, city and state sources. To some people though, that might be way too much.
Posted Imagewww.unsportsmanlike.ca

#11 VM1138

VM1138

    Legend

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,516 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 01 May 2012 - 08:27 AM

That's not really the point - I dont think. Most people are fine with subsidizing others but the question is to what extent? Each person has a line to where they believe that a reason amount has been surpassed.

Personally, I'm not surprised that a team like NSH is receiving that amount of money from league, city and state sources. To some people though, that might be way too much.


There's nothing wrong with subsidizing another team as an emergency measure. In order to ensure stability the league needs to protect teams. It gets out of hand with teams like Phoenix who seem to be operating in the red for the last 10 years. That's when people get pissed, when it seems like the very existence of a team depends on their teams spending money on the failing team through revenue sharing.
Check out my short e-book on the Red Wings' 1937 Stanley Cup championship entitled: "Nothing Could Keep 'Em Down." Please download it from my profile at Smashwords: https://www.smashwor...ile/view/victor

New e-book: The Spanish-American War: A Brief History. Relatively short, introductory read for casual history buffs and people who want to learn more about a forgotten war that changed America. Available at BN.com, Smashwords, Kobo, and Diesel E-Books right now. Same link as above.

#12 Hatethedrake!

Hatethedrake!

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,496 posts
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 01 May 2012 - 08:42 AM

I have mixed feelings on this. I like to see teams like Nashville and Phoenix and Florida doing well. However if you can't afford to pay then you shouldn't be able to play. I mean if the Preds are in the 2nd round of the playoffs and are STILL losing money then to me, that says it all right there. This is a franchise which sells out its building and has gone to the playoffs more than just a few times and they still lose money? How are they able to make a profit? Where is this extra revenue going to come from? They can't win the Cup each year and get 4 rounds of home playoff gates. You have a team like Winnipeg who doesn't even make the playoffs and they made a profit in their first year. When Phoenix moves to Quebec, they will make a huge profit in their first year as well. So here teams are like the Rangers, Wings and Leafs keeping these teams afloat and they have no ability to sustain any kind of profit. Why are these teams in the league? Should Bettman change the NHL to the WHL? The Welfare Hockey League? I recall Kevin Lowe and the Oilers cried poor in the mid 90s and whined his ass off every day how teams like the Red Wings were ruining the league with their 80 million dollar payrolls and how the little Oilers could not compete. Then comes 2006 post lockout and a 39 million dollar Salary Cap, and Lowe starts spending money like a drunken sailor. The Flames too. I think the league is run by a bunch of hypocrites.
Jordan Tootoo will wreck shop.

We need someone like Parise that can penetrate the box.-blueadams

#13 Jersey Wing

Jersey Wing

    Watching Eastern Conference hockey before it was cool...

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,076 posts
  • Location:Jersey City, NJ

Posted 01 May 2012 - 02:05 PM

When I posted this I had ZERO intention of it being any kind of liberal ideals vs conservative ideals. Those play out in a VERY DIFFERENT arena than pro sports. I'd like very much to keep the two separate.

My main point is how is it allowed that Nashville refuses to give out numbers of millions of dollars they are taking from at least three fronts and still not being required to own up to how much. That's the problem. If you want the money the league for now says take the money, that's how this franchise handles things it seems. BUT, when other teams are set to bid on your free-agents those free-agents should be able to have a look at the books as should the team trying to outbid you for your guy. In Nashville's case they could be using Detroit's own money to try and sign Suter.

There should be strings attached when you take league revenue/taxpayer money to stay afloat. This is one of them.

14767451334_8f0d14d8cb_o.jpg


#14 rrasco

rrasco

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,007 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 01 May 2012 - 03:19 PM

That's not really the point - I dont think. Most people are fine with subsidizing others but the question is to what extent? Each person has a line to where they believe that a reason amount has been surpassed.

Personally, I'm not surprised that a team like NSH is receiving that amount of money from league, city and state sources. To some people though, that might be way too much.


I'm not. I'm $50K in debt because of student loans, I work 40+ hours a week and pay all my bills, but where is my subsidization? Who's gonna help me? No one. Yet I still contribute to help others in 'need'? I don't really want to say much more without taking this thread off topic, although it's pretty much the same thing.

Edited by rrasco, 01 May 2012 - 03:19 PM.

Kronwalled.net - Keep Yer Head up Kid

 

MONEY ON THE BOARD: $10/Kronwalling (1), $1/goal by: Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco, Sheahan, disney.com (1), Andersson, Dekeyser, Pulkinnen, Ouellet, or Sproul.  2X MULTIPLIER: disney.com.  CONSOLATION PRIZE: $5/goal by: Datsyuk (3), $3/goal by: Z (1). MOTB TOTAL: $30


#15 Hiei

Hiei

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Location:Centerton, AR via Mt. Carroll, IL

Posted 01 May 2012 - 04:12 PM

And with that, in a few years time, we will be seeing Nashville to Hamilton threads popping up again.

"Hit em with your purse, ya *****!" - Random Wings fans shouting at Franziska


#16 Shoreline

Shoreline

    Panzerfaust

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,817 posts
  • Location:Brampton, ON

Posted 01 May 2012 - 04:17 PM

I don't think the problem is inherently subsidization of private enterprise so much as it is unwarranted subsidization. If it were to merely help a franchise get on their feet to help them be self-sustaining, that's one thing. However, what the article in the OP is suggesting is that without this help the franchise is not sustainable.. at all. If I could epitomize something wrong with the US in how it deals with private enterprise and government this would certainly be one huge example.

Look at things in the bigger picture, you have a sports league that's raking in profits, players and owners are fighting at CBA's about who gets what share of profits, but in the end with the subsidization of certain franchises taxpayers are the ones taking it in the ass. Make the friggen league pay for it's own unprofitable teams, especially since it wants to have that slice-of-pie revenue sharing mentality about it. I have a feeling though revenue sharing is more symbolic for keeping unsustainable teams in the league and then the league doing their best to make taxpayers be their franchises' collateral in one hand while reaping profits in the other. This is one thing that really needs to stop. If a franchise cannot be sustained without perpetual help, especially when a government has no money to spend and is forced into reckless bond issuance to come up with money to subsidize it, it needs to do what every other business should do and simply fail. The Nashville issue pales in comparison to the Phoenix Coyotes one, but nonetheless, it's still just yet another one, and the ones are adding up to an insurmountable debt.

Edited by Shoreline, 01 May 2012 - 04:22 PM.


#17 wingfanatic4alltime

wingfanatic4alltime

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,129 posts
  • Location:Macomb, Michigan

Posted 01 May 2012 - 10:51 PM

Reading this makes me angry, Nashville,Phoenix,Columbus,Colorado,Dallas,Minnesota,Florida,Tampa,New Jersey, Ny Islanders, and who knows how many more teams have lost money or still are losing money since the lockout. The NHL may need to really start looking into contracting some of these teams. A league cannot be successful with half your damn teams losing money. The NHL needs to really take a look at some of these teams and cut out the "lost causes" and only try to help the teams that can eventually be saved.
IN KENNY WE TRUST!!





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users