Larry Brooks Rumors Nashville Problems

[triggrman]

It is up to the market to decide. Brooks is suggesting the market has, indeed, decided.

Not that I trust Brooks in anything. His entire schtick is to invent reasons to whine about the salary cap because it harms the Rangers ability to spend a billion dollars.

So what does that mean for Chicago, , St. Louis, Jersey, NYI, Boston or Washington? Let me guess they get a pass because they're up North?

 

[Resolute]

So what does that mean for Chicago, , St. Louis, Jersey, NYI, Boston or Washington? Let me guess they get a pass because they're up North?

You could guess that, but you would be a fool.

Chicago makes money. Boston probably does too. If not on the team itself, then on its related investments (TV, etc).

Or did you think fan support mattered more than money?

Fan support often dictates how much money a team makes in the NHL, but pulling out a bunch of random teams with low attendance figures with the typical, and sad north vs south hysterics was really quite pathetic as you miss the most important factor: large markets have greater revenue generating potential than small markets. Even when attendance is low.

This all notwithstanding, if you get over yourself long enough to actually read what I typed, you will see that I am not exactly supportive of Brooks' assertion.

 

[Brad*]

It is up to the market to decide

I don't understand why you quoted me. I didn't say otherwise. Rather, I said it wasn't up to presumptuous, ill-informed "fans" to decide which cities deserve franchises, and which don't, based on their geographic location.

 

[triggrman]

You could guess that, but you would be a fool.

Chicago makes money. Boston probably does too. If not on the team itself, then on its related investments (TV, etc).

Or did you think fan support mattered more than money?

Fan support often dictates how much money a team makes in the NHL, but pulling out a bunch of random teams with low attendance figures with the typical, and sad north vs south hysterics was really quite pathetic as you miss the most important factor: large markets have greater revenue generating potential than small markets. Even when attendance is low.

This all notwithstanding, if you get over yourself long enough to actually read what I typed, you will see that I am not exactly supportive of Brooks' assertion.

I wasn't saying you said other wise, I was disputing you just the general idea.

The Nashville Predators don't make much money if any, however Powers management makes a ton.... Leipold owns Powers and although they're seperate companies, they're tied to the team. Powers gets all the money from the area and teh city is responsible for all the expenses, Powers also gets all the revenue from the suite sales which are actually prettty solid due to the concerts, AFL and other events in the arena. Powers also gets all signage, concessions, parking revenue and rent from the Titans AFL team, and they only have to pay a small fee (I think it's like 50k a year or some joke like that) while the city picks up the tab on all arena expenses (lights, hvac, everything) and all capital improvements (scoreboards, LCD lights, etc).

So yeah, the Leipold gets the revenue sharing from hockey and all the revenue from the arena through Powers Management.

 

[Greschner4]

With no slight intended at all, I can't begin to see the logic behind expanding the NHL to Nashville. Then you add in ridiculous uniforms, a really dark arena on TV, low attendance, and anybody over 30 does nothing but cringe at the loss of hockey towns like Quebec, Winnipeg, and Hartford and the gain of non-hockey towns like Nashville.

 

[Sotnos]

With no slight intended at all, I can't begin to see the logic behind expanding the NHL to Nashville. Then you add in ridiculous uniforms, a really dark arena on TV, low attendance, and anybody over 30 does nothing but cringe at the loss of hockey towns like Quebec, Winnipeg, and Hartford and the gain of non-hockey towns like Nashville.

Not open minded people over 30.

What makes me cringe are all the elitist "traditionalists" around here who aren't even old enough to remember a 21 team League but think they know where NHL teams should be. (not directed at you obviously, more a general comment)

 

[hipcheck85]

With no slight intended at all, I can't begin to see the logic behind expanding the NHL to Nashville. Then you add in ridiculous uniforms, a really dark arena on TV, low attendance, and anybody over 30 does nothing but cringe at the loss of hockey towns like Quebec, Winnipeg, and Hartford and the gain of non-hockey towns like Nashville.

Here are some of the things the NHL looked at when making the Nashville decision.

1) New arena with a sweet deal for the ownership group ( see triggs post above)
2) The NHL was going to be the only major sports team in town ( Bud Adams decision to move the oilers to Tn came after the NHL's decision.
3) The TV market area was one of the largest without a Pro sports team.
4) The Corporate community in Nashville showed alot of support during the expansion process.

Now when the Titans came to town a ton of that corporate support went to them.
Most of the fans that show up to Preds games are your Joe Average FAN not corporations.

 

[triggrman]

Here are some of the things the NHL looked at when making the Nashville decision.

1) New arena with a sweet deal for the ownership group ( see triggs post above)
2) The NHL was going to be the only major sports team in town ( Bud Adams decision to move the oilers to Tn came after the NHL's decision.
3) The TV market area was one of the largest without a Pro sports team.
4) The Corporate community in Nashville showed alot of support during the expansion process.

Now when the Titans came to town a ton of that corporate support went to them.
Most of the fans that show up to Preds games are your Joe Average FAN not corporations.

But what do you know, you live in Nashville so yo probably just started watching hockey in 1998.

I mean I really doubt you would understand as much as lets say someone from New York that grew up with the NHL right........

 

[hipcheck85]

But what do you know, you live in Nashville so yo probably just started watching hockey in 1998.

I mean I really doubt you would understand as much as lets say someone from New York that grew up with the NHL right........

Just trying to provide the facts man.

signed

Tranplanted New Yorker

 

[shakes]

As a general statement: please don't just make some half-informed, "(insert city here) doesn't need/deserve a hockey team" comment unless you're going to support that statement with an argument and hopefully a few facts.

Otherwise, someone could say "Montreal, Toronto don't deserve a hockey team" remark and it be just as accurate. Believe me, an argument can be made for any current NHL hockey market to have its team yanked away - it's a matter of digging out the facts and forming an argument accordingly; it's easier for some than for others, but you're more likely to gain credibility if you at least have a couple facts to back your position.

Actually, I would be interested to see someone try to say that the two above teams don't deserve a hockey team and the "reasons" for such an argument, keeping in mind that they would have to be "just as accurate".

 

[Greschner4]

Number (1) on the list is short-term thinking and now the short-term is over and NSH is in trouble financially.

I'm not sure (2) is even historically accurate; the Oilers were in TEN by '95 and had been talking about imoving there for years before that. The NHL had to anticipate not having the market to itself, but it's never wise to underestimate the NHL's stupidity. The NHL would have Quebec and Winnipeg to themselves also, and Hartford to a degree.

If corporations aren't behind the team, as they clearly aren't, that simply proves the point about the lack of quality of the NSH market.

The broader point -- that it was high folly to abandon 30 years of history, brand management, and brand loyalty in Quebec, Winnipeg, and Hartford for a market like Nashville -- is hardly even arguable.

 

[Sotnos]

Actually, I would be interested to see someone try to say that the two above teams don't deserve a hockey team and the "reasons" for such an argument, keeping in mind that they would have to be "just as accurate".

I think you missed the point there entirely.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Actually, I would be interested to see someone try to say that the two above teams don't deserve a hockey team and the "reasons" for such an argument, keeping in mind that they would have to be "just as accurate".

Since you asked...

Here was the original "argument" against Nashville having a team: http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=7461753&postcount=13

I could throw a turd against my monitor and would still be "just as accurate".

 

[triggrman]

Number (1) on the list is short-term thinking and now the short-term is over and NSH is in trouble financially.

I'm not sure (2) is even historically accurate; the Oilers were in TEN by '95 and had been talking about imoving there for years before that. The NHL had to anticipate not having the market to itself, but it's never wise to underestimate the NHL's stupidity. The NHL would have Quebec and Winnipeg to themselves also, and Hartford to a degree.

If corporations aren't behind the team, as they clearly aren't, that simply proves the point about the lack of quality of the NSH market.

The broader point -- that it was high folly to abandon 30 years of history, brand management, and brand loyalty in Quebec, Winnipeg, and Hartford for a market like Nashville -- is hardly even arguable.

Prove to me Nashville is in trouble financially as a whole, including Powers Management.

The Oilers played in Houston until 1997, the announcement and vote were passed in 1996. The Oilers weren't let out of their lease until 1996 so no official announcement could happen until then.


Please tell me the average attendance in Quebec, Winnipeg and Hartford.

Funny you talk about branding after 30 years but you don't want Nashville to have more than 8....

 

[hipcheck85]

Number (1) on the list is short-term thinking and now the short-term is over and NSH is in trouble financially.

I'm not sure (2) is even historically accurate; the Oilers were in TEN by '95 and had been talking about imoving there for years before that. The NHL had to anticipate not having the market to itself, but it's never wise to underestimate the NHL's stupidity. The NHL would have Quebec and Winnipeg to themselves also, and Hartford to a degree.

If corporations aren't behind the team, as they clearly aren't, that simply proves the point about the lack of quality of the NSH market.

The broader point -- that it was high folly to abandon 30 years of history, brand management, and brand loyalty in Quebec, Winnipeg, and Hartford for a market like Nashville -- is hardly even arguable.

1)How is having the deal the Leipold has for the Arena short sighted?
2)Bud Adams announced he was going to move his NFL franchise hear in 1995 but It wasn't until late 97 that the stadium deal was approved.
The City of Nashville was trying to secure a NHL franchise in early 1995.

Why did the NHL leave the cities of Quebec, Winnipeg and Hartford??

 

[GSC2k2*]

1)How is having the deal the Leipold has for the Arena short sighted?
2)Bud Adams announced he was going to move his NFL franchise hear in 1995 but It wasn't until late 97 that the stadium deal was approved.
The City of Nashville was trying to secure a NHL franchise in early 1995.

Why did the NHL leave the cities of Quebec, Winnipeg and Hartford??

... because they were lousy markets that do not draw as well as Nashville is currently drawing.

 

[Whalerfan11]

... because they were lousy markets that do not draw as well as Nashville is currently drawing.

No no and no. ARENA was the reason in all three cities. Hartford sold 11,000 season tickets in 30 days and the team still left. We met all of Karmonos' demands besides the new arena, which wasn't the fans decision. The Whalers leaving had nothing to do with attendance or being a lousy market.

 

[triggrman]

No no and no. ARENA was the reason in all three cities. Hartford sold 11,000 season tickets in 30 days and the team still left. We met all of Karmonos' demands besides the new arena, which wasn't the fans decision. The Whalers leaving had nothing to do with attendance or being a lousy market.

So you're saying the had better attendance than Nashville?

 

[GSC2k2*]

So you're saying the had better attendance than Nashville?

In fact, the attendance stats that I have seen indicate that in only two years was the best year in Hartford better than the worst attendance year in Nashville.

 

[Greschner4]

Hartford's arena only seated a little over 15K, so for the (many) games that fans would have bought 18, 19, 20K tickets, they couldn't. The attendance figures are meaningless -- apples to orange juice. It's the same for Quebec and Winnipeg -- small arenas that would have packed in a lot more fans for a lot more games than they could actually hold, thus depressing the average.

If Hartford had a team as good as the Preds with a nice, new building that seated 20,000 fans, in 2006-07, their attendance would be 17,500+, easy. If they had Carolina's team (which plainly should still be theirs), coming off a Cup win, they'd be sold out almost every game and any player on the team could be elected mayor.

And their TV ratings would be a lot higher, and their general appeal would be greater, since it would be a team in hockey country, not NASCAR and fiddlin' country.

You can understand why Preds fans would try, but comparing Hartford, which would now be in its 35th year as a well-supported hockey market, to Nashville, limping badly in its 8th year, is pointless and silly.

 

[hipcheck85]

And their TV ratings would be a lot higher, and their general appeal would be greater, since it would be a team in hockey country, not NASCAR and fiddlin' country.

You can understand why Preds fans would try, but comparing Hartford, which would now be in its 35th year as a well-supported hockey market, to Nashville, limping badly in its 8th year, is pointless and silly.

gresch, have you ever been to Nashville or are you just sterotyping the way most people do who have never been to here??? I lived in NYC for 15 years and Nashville for 25. Because Larry Brooks says Nashville is having trouble you assume that Nashville is a bad hockey market??? You assume that if the Whalers had a larger arena and a better team they would draw more than Nashville is now? That's a lot of speculating.

 

[Sotnos]

gresch, have you ever been to Nashville or are you just sterotyping the way most people do who have never been to here??? I lived in NYC for 15 years and Nashville for 25. Because Larry Brooks says Nashville is having trouble you assume that Nashville is a bad hockey market??? You assume that if the Whalers had a larger arena and a better team they would draw more than Nashville is now? That's a lot of speculating.

Did you miss the part where he assumes you play a fiddle?
------
What difference would a bigger building have made if the average attendance was well under capacity? I'm not understanding that argument.

 

[Greschner4]

Building size can obviously bring down an average and it's hard to believe this could even be questioned.

If Quebec draws 12K for a dog team and sells out Montreal, their arch-rival, their average is still only 13,750.

If they had a building that seated 20K, they would have drawn 20K for Montreal and when averaged with the 12, would show an average of 16.

 

[hipcheck85]

Building size can obviously bring down an average and it's hard to believe this could even be questioned.

If Quebec draws 12K for a dog team and sells out Montreal, their arch-rival, their average is still only 13,750.

If they had a building that seated 20K, they would have drawn 20K for Montreal and when averaged with the 12, would show an average of 16.

So if Nashville had a 20k building they would draw that for the Red Wing games and our average attendance would be higher.

back to fiddle practice

 

[Greschner4]

So if Nashville had a 20k building they would draw that for the Red Wing games and our average attendance would be higher.

back to fiddle practice

Well, other than the fact that the Preds haven't sold out their 17K building two of the last three times they've hosted Detroit, you're right.

A market with a 100-point team, young and exciting, in the playoffs for the first time ... and doesn't even sell out the playoff games ... and we're supposed to believe this is a good market? You're kidding ... right?