Leopold seeking local investors for Preds

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070112/SPORTS02/701120433/1028

Some interesting points inside... Criag Leopold feels that a local ownership group would help open doors to corporate sales. Their season ticket holder base is apparently 65% "fan" and 35% business, a ratio he'd like to reverse.

Also of note - while their attendance is up this year, the article also reveals that paid attendance is about 1500 less than the actual attendance.

 

Does anyone really think that Corporate Nashville is boycotting the Preds because of who owns the team. If Hank Williams Jr. (may be a bad example) owned it they would line up for suites??
I smell a bad situation and Leopold just wants to capitilize his paper profit.

 

Actually, that may very well be the case. I just spoke with a Nashville sportswriter for the Tennessean. He said there was a front office person within the Predators organization who alienated dozens of prominent Nashville businessmen. And while that particular person has long been removed from the organization, a lot of the bad feelings remain. Maybe this is an attempt by Leopold to smooth things over with the business community?

 

100% correct.

 

From a Nashville paper. No clue how good the sportswriter is giving the opinion:

Boclair: Talk of Preds moving is not empty threat
By DAVID BOCLAIR
boclair@dnj.com

Craig Leipold is not the kind to make threats.

That's a negative approach to things, and the Nashville Predators' owner is a decidedly optimistic sort. He always believes things will work out for the best — and they usually do.

He was more than willing to endure the pain of a work stoppage two years ago because he was sure such a move would result in a better business environment for his franchise, which it did. He has been willing to stand by the first (and only) coach and general manager he ever hired because he unfailingly believed in their abilities even when competitive growing pains lasted longer than expected, and his faith has been rewarded with one of the best teams in the league.

That being said, there was something threatening about his public comments last week about the need for a local investor or investors to pony up as much as $50 million to purchase up to 40 percent of the team.

http://dnj.midsouthnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070115/SPORTS/701150306/1006

 

No clue on the quality of the writer for that article.

Here's another article along similar lines but a much, much more respected journalist in the Nashville area.

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070112/COLUMNIST0202/701120429/1108

 

Definitely a number of interesting points, although for reasons that I have outlined in another thread, it would be foolish to suggest that the 1500 number is an orchestrated giveaway or anything other than normal giveaways doen by every sports team (including, yes, every Canadian NHL team).

There is one thing that I had not observed before, though, and it relates to the Winnipeg issue. After re-reading this article, I decided to take a look at the actual CBA provisions relating to this topic (article 49), and sure enough Leopold has it essentially right.

That being said, given that MTS has a 15k capacity, it becomes absolutely imperative that Winnipeg would literally have to sell out the joint in order to secure what would be the lifeblood of its franchise - a full portion of revenue sharing.

I mention this only because one of the more recent pro-Winnipeg arguments (not from you) is that a team in winnipeg should/would only have to average about 12k, since that is what some other teams are already doing (ie NYI). Clearly, that would be a potential business catastrophe due to resulting revenue sharing program ineligibility.

 

I thought this was about Jordan Leopold for a second...

 

I knew about the revenue sharing aspect of attendance, but it is a point worth mentioning.

Since we're on the topic - the bigger problem with the NHL's revenue sharing plan (to me) is that teams are required to grow their local revenues at a rate greater than the league average in order to be eligible. I'm not sure on the details, but I believe that clause kicks in after CBA year 3.

I'm surprised that that hasn't received more discussion in general - and it's somewhat relevant here. It seems to me like that would be a tough thing to do when the team is struggling on the ice. In this case, Nashville is definitely improving year after year, so one would hope they'd be able to continue to grow revenues to match. But, all it takes is one bad year on the ice (and hence, at the gate), and you'd be ineligible - even if you get to the magic 14k number in attendance. If a team is dependant on that money to the degree that Nashville is that could prove disasterous.

 

It probably hasn't received a lot of discussion because (and maybe I'm speaking for myself here) it's not completely clear who gets the revenue sharing dollars, how much or any other details. I haven't heard of which teams got some besides the Preds and Canes. It seems to me that they keep this a bit under wraps, like a lot of the other financial stuff involving the league. Plus we haven't had a chance to see how this works long term yet.

The thing that stuck out to me in that article was that, like you say, it sounds like the Preds are really counting on that money. It also sounds like they're putting it to good use. It's a shame that they had someone causing early problems within the business community, it can take a while to re-build those relationships.

 

Haha, so did I.

 

Leipold isn't threating to move the team at all. He's been trying to get some local interest in ownership for a few years now. The Predators fans have been great, its our corporate business which has been failing.

Anyway, the reason this all came out is that Leipold wants to assure that he gets revenue sharing. Our attendance has grown the past two years (obviously not to where we want it to be, but it is growing). He's more concerned about next year or the following year where the required average attendance numbers go up. He's been putting the revenue sharing into the team so its essential that the team gets the sharing.

The problem is not with our fans but rather the corporate support. They aren't simply buying as many tickets as our first few seasons. So by selling part of the team to local owners, he hopes that it will increase corporate support.

I think part of this falls into the hands of the Predators themselves in terms of their marketing. Whatever they are doing in terms of business selling is not working. Instead of pointing more fingers, perhaps they should evaluate just how they are doing things.

 

To quote on the all-time great philosphers, the undeniable Yogi Berra:

"If fans are not going to games anymore, you can't stop them!"

 

A team will not move to Winnipeg with the current arena. If they did they would have to charge well over $130 (approx) canadian for the nose bleed seats. Ain't happening.

 

Are there any other details on this? What did this front-office person do?

 

I wish I could say more, but I honestly don't have any more information. It was mentioned in passing and wasn't elaborated upon. There are some Preds fans on this board like triggr that might have a lot more insight.

 

This team will move, everyone knows it Leipold can say what he wants, but he's a business man and if this isn't working with a winning team I dare imagine what it would be like with a crappy team.

If the NHL moves from Nashville, Tennessee will be considered a pro sports bust (except for the NFL). The Grizzlies have the same problem there attendance has been a huge bust winning and ever worse losing, and the Gaylord Center will be used for like College Basketball after the preds move.

 

The preds are gone, one of the best teams in the NHL and they can't do better than 12K? It's clear there just aren't enough people in Nashville that care. I don't know if Winnipeg is a viable NHL market but I sure as hell know they'd sellout with a team like preds.

 

read the article, we have plenty of fans we lack corporate support.

We'll get though, soon.

BTW, he still makes a ton of money off the arena, so it's not like it's a bad deal for Leipold, he still has the best agreement in all of sports.

 

Put the team in KC, Portland, seattle, hartford etc... All places with Corporate support.

 

A real hockey market would sellout with that team without corporate support.

 

KC has less corporate support than Nashville.

I'm not worried you guys have said we were moving for the last 8 years, what's different now?

 

No such market exists. Even Toronto and Montreal do not and would not sell out without corporate support.

Are you being facetious?

 

They DO "do better than 12k". Check the attendance averages.

I guess this is partly a function of the bloodthirsty pro-Jet ghouls who perform micro-reviews of night-by-night attendance figures, for whom anything short of a sell-out is an abject failure and "proof" of something or other. A standard which, as we all know, the old Jets would also have failed even more abjectly.

 

As opposed to you, who fights every mildly questioning statement about hockey in the south more than Captain Ahab fought Moby Dick?

Nashville draws sub-12K for teams like Anaheim and if this Nashville team isn't going to draw, it's hard to see a Nashville team EVER drawing. There's no way to lipstick up that pig, and pointing out that Toronto comps a handful of tickets sure as * isn't going to do it.