Thanks. Your support is very much appreciated by Nashville Predators fans. (Contrary to some people's beliefs, we do exist
).Balsille Signs Arena Deal with Hamitlon....
- Thread starter Kitsune
- Start date
Thanks. Your support is very much appreciated by Nashville Predators fans. (Contrary to some people's beliefs, we do exist
).
mouser
Business of Hockey
It's pretty clear that short team (~5 years) the 'league' could make more money by moving, if only from the new policto handouts. At worst case a new location might do as badly as Nashville has from a money standpoint. The important question then becomes long term value of "increasing the footprint" while running in the red. And more to the point finding an owner willing to absorb losses to increase the NHL's "footprint".
It may not be that big of a deal to the 'league', but it's a pretty big deal to that owner that is making or losing money, or would be making more money if they weren't shipping dollars to teams that lose money.
Revenue sharing is a very recent addition to the NHL, driven with Bettman's grand vision and the lockout. Without any significant new league-wide revenue streams like the NFL and NBA have I think we'll see a big backlash when the new CBA is negotiated from some big market teams.
Yes, technically you are correct. The principle of my post remains valid, however. I do not believe that Balsillie has entered into this agreement without having a damn good idea what the league will let him do. If he believes in the Nashville market, and believes he can make it work, more power to him. But if he wants to move the team, I believe that he has a very good idea of what conditions the NHL will impose on such a move, and has accepted them.
Yup. So much a secret that even if the Preds fail, there will still be 23 American NHL teams, with virtually the entire minor league landscape based in the US. When you accuse others of not letting facts get in the way, be sure you do not convict yourself of hypocricy in the process.
I find it personally comical that your defenses all rely on creating false dilemmas. Moving the Preds to Canada does not "make hockey Canada's secret", nor does it cancel the objective of "growing the game in the United States." The game didn't suddenly stop growing when the Atlanta Flames moved to Calgary, and it won't should the Nashville Predators move to Hamilton or K-W.
Ultimately, this is a business deal. bkl's comments about wanting to fight for the Preds is a quite refreshing in contrast to many defeatist comments by Nashville fans when this news first broke, and even in this thread. I have no doubt that Balsillie is buying this team with the intention of moving it. My very first comment on this entire affair was that the fans could prevent it. More fans like bkl will help achieve that goal.
Sotnos
Registered User
Do you blame Winnipeg, Quebec, etc. fans for their teams moving? (I think you have before, just checking!)
There's really nothing wrong with what Jazz said. He summed up some people's attitudes quite nicely.
I think people are anthropomorphizing "The NHL"... I'll address that in my next post, but I doubt that the large market teams would approve adding 2 more teams when there are franchises right now that are receiving significant revenue sharing, and whose future in the current locations may be questionable.
There is a line between the savings the large market teams achieved [in spite of revenue sharing] vs losses/profit in the old economy. As long as they show a net profit that is greater in the new system, they'll support it. If that line is crossed and it costs them more to support teams through revenue sharing today, there is little incentive for them to support the system. The league just endured a lockout in the hope of gaining some type of economic stability which it claims was needed for a majority of its small market teams. I don't think expansion is something that is done before economic stability is achieved.
If the Preds do relocate to Hamilton or the K/W area does balsillie rename the team??
Here are some suggestions:
Hamilton Make Beliefs
Hamilton 67's (1967, 1967, 1967.....)
Kitchener Utensils
Waterloo Napoleons
K/W Black Bears
K/W RIM Shots
Apparently RIM has bought a large parcel of land in Cambridge, Ontario so:
Cambridge Blues (hmmm could be a little problem with that one).
Here are some suggestions:
Hamilton Make Beliefs
Hamilton 67's (1967, 1967, 1967.....)
Kitchener Utensils
Waterloo Napoleons
K/W Black Bears
K/W RIM Shots
Apparently RIM has bought a large parcel of land in Cambridge, Ontario so:
Cambridge Blues (hmmm could be a little problem with that one).
Finally someone said it...................
It's almost like saying Southern Ontario doesn't deserve a team because there are already TOO MANY hockey fans in that area......
But if these same people lived in Portland they would be deserving of a team.
Jazz
Registered User
Do you really need me to quote all the posts were people here are saying to move all teams south of the Mason-Dixon line back up north? Look it up, there are everywhere.
Comical? I am discussing people's attitudes here of not wanting teams in the southern US (which Santos confirmed above) and about certain cities "not deserving" a team, I think that part is comical.
Also, Bettman has a mandate from the Board of Governors to expand the reach of the game in the US. It is arguable that one team moving itself might not change that, but it will propagate the perception (rightly or wrongly) that hockey cannot work in the south, which will be a blow to the NHL's image as it works to secure a US network deal.
Corban
.
This is something that most of the Canadian fan base will never accept. And this is where the "canadian glasses" come into effect.
mouser
Business of Hockey
Here's a real conspiracy theory, got a good chuckle out of this one.
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=7835
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=7835
Gnashville
HFBoards Hall of Famer
Meh, works in the AHL with the Admirals.
=====
I hope everyone who makes a comment like this is flogged. Or, at the very least has the post deleted.
Jazz
Registered User
It's so easy to say something based on assumption rather than fact, isn't it? Have you ever been to Nashville? Clearly not, or you wouldn't have made such an asinine statement.
The Nashville Predators have been here for nine years and have only truly been competitive for three. The franchise was only six years old when the lockout occurred and effectively killed our corporate support. The corporations that supported the team before the lockout didn't return. The fanbase has had to try to fill the void left by businesses-not an easy task in a "non-traditional" market with a population of only 600,000 and virtually no media coverage.
Nashville's season ticket holder base is, I believe, 65% fans to 35% corporations. There are a lot of Predators fans in Nashville, diehard fans who have done so much to try to support the Predators and still are. Predators fans are taking their hard-earned money and buying extra tickets to give to family and friends, or to donate to charity. The fans have stepped up in a big way, and the corporations and city government have dropped the ball.
Nine years is not long enough to gage the success of a "non-traditional" market. Hockey is growing here. Before another disappointing first round exit in the playoffs, corporate support was coming back. People who might not have given hockey a chance in the past were starting to pay attention to the Predators and were excited about the team we had. Every playoff game sold out quickly-something that didn't happen in some "traditional" NHL markets.
If we do the lose the team, the saddest part to me will be knowing what could have been. Nashville is a prosperous, fast-growing city. Many people are moving here from other NHL markets and would likely support the Predators. Youth hockey is huge here and could provide a very large, home-grown season ticket base in the future. It's unfortunate that Leipold is more concerned with covering up his own mistakes-like his marketing department-than seeing the potential that exists here.
I hate to disappoint you, but I wouldn't get too excited about the possibility of Basillie moving the team to Canada just yet. Nashville fans still have something to say about that. We're not going to let anyone steal our team without a fight.
The Columbus Blue Jackets were dealt the exact same hand when they got an expansion franchise. Theyve had a much worse team and arent in the same boat as Nashville yet.
Tampa Bay, the abysmal Panthers, the Thrashers, Ducks, Canes, Coyotes; These are all non-traditional markets that are better off than the Preds.
Many people are moving to Nashville and supporting the team?
1) That isnt a fact.
2) Banking a franchises future success on the prospect that fans will move to the city is insanity.
And nobody is 'stealing' your team. Your owner (and the NHL) are basically willing to give it away to anyone who will keep the team there. Jim Balsillie is buying your team because evidently nobody in Nashville is willing to step up.
The Edomton Oilers were completely ****ed over by Peter Pocklinton. He sold Wayne ****ing Gretzky, and stole money from the franchise. The Oilers fans made it work all one their own.
Edmonton Investors Group
It is rather simplistic to blame the relocation of a team on "the fans". The issues are far too complex. FWIW, however, I have generally maintained that the fans of Nashville have been good. It's the business community that is the primary failure in this situation. Ultimately, Nashville is not able to generate enough revenue to cover expenses. I tend to blame the market as a whole for not being able to support hockey at this level.
The markets in Winnipeg and Quebec City fell for the same reasons. They could not generate the revenue necessary to allow the team to remain in operation.
Where there certantly are a lot of people who do blame Nashville fans, and who do want them to move to Canada, his reasons are, simply put, absurd. That is why I question the nature of his post.
Sweeping generalizations are rarely accurate. As I just mentioned in my reply to Sotnos, there certantly is that element. Whining about it to another user won't help your cause.
I don't want teams where they will fail. I have argued against Winnipeg for the same reason why I question Nashville's viability. Simply put, any market that cannot generate enough revenue to be sustainable does not deserve a team. In this case, your anti-south people are right, if for dubious reasons.
Bettman's original mandate was to grow the game in the US. That is now twelve years ago. What his current priorities are are generally unknown. Given the current CBA, growing revenues may well be of greater importance, and a move from Nashville to the golden horseshoe may well do that.
Also, as is often the case, Bettman has little to do with this. The BOG itself will vote on both the sale and move.
I may come off as very ignorant with this question I am about to ask, so I'll warn you upfront that I am very unaware...But are there enough fans to have 3 NHL franchises so close in proximity to eachother? Buffalo, Toronto and Hamilton are all pretty close, is the population up there enough?
Like I said, I have no clue on this, that's why I'm asking...so don't flame me.
Like I said, I have no clue on this, that's why I'm asking...so don't flame me.
Timmy
Registered User
- Feb 2, 2005
- 10,691
- 26
It's a good question, and it depends on the demographic.
As many have pointed out, the Ducks seem to be the poor sisters of the LA area, like the Clippers.
The Islanders and Devils, despite their much more impressive history, continue to be treated like autistic kids on saucer-spinning day.
They're taken for granted.
I think this is the working hypothesis, that indeed there are enough "fans" to support another team. That was the thinking for the metro NY and LA markets as well. That said, the other assumption people tend to make - and there may be some indicators like attendance, viewership, and corporate support on some per capita basis - is that the Canadian markets achieve a greater market penetration. Expressed strictly as a percentage of the total population, the working hypothesis is that more Canadians in Market X will tune in than in most US markets. The US teams may make up for the lower market penetration rates with sheer population size being much greater.
So it may not be as straightforward an answer as you'd like, since you do have to consider the specific attributes of the markets in question.
With that said, Bettman has offered he believes having multiple teams in the same market may not be a good idea for "a variety of reasons" (paraphrased but that's what he implied).
Gumby
Registered User
I really love how you can keep shoving proven facts in peoples faces and they just keep going like its not there. The FACT that the bottom line of attendance (which is what drives revenue at this point) being incredibly weak in these supposed "hockey cities" of Winnipeg and QC with very little chance of growth due to the population of those cities doesn't seem to make any difference to these guys. At least Nashville has a chance to grow.
These attendance #'s also need to be remembered that they were when the prices were still reasonable. I'd like to see what they could manage at the current sky-high prices.
These are hard proven facts....these people need to stop living in some diluted past and face reality.
http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/NHL-Business/NHL-attendance.htm
Kimota
ROY DU NORD!!!
As much as I hate Nashville losing their team, Balsille moving a team to Canada would make him a national hero over here.
