Predators could leave nashville?

[RTWAP*]

I just watched some old footage of Bettman speaking in Hartford back in 1996 (I work at ESPN and had some free time). It was then he said that the Whalers had no plans to speak with other cities and the league wants to Whalers to stay. You all know what happened next...so don't think Bettman is this all-powering man. He doesn't have much say in whether or not a team moves. Either that or he is a double-talker.

Bettman has a lot more power now than he did then.

 

[Whalerfan11]

Did he gain some super powers at the turn of the millenium or something?

Just kidding but seriously Bettman doesn't keep teams in their locations. The owners do. If a team wants to leave there is not much Bettman can do besides damage control.

 

[nomorekids]

Did he gain some super powers at the turn of the millenium or something?

Just kidding but seriously Bettman doesn't keep teams in their locations. The owners do. If a team wants to leave there is not much Bettman can do besides damage control.

While this is true...it's important to remember that Leipold is a member of the NHL Board of Governors and was a lynchpin in the CBA negotiations. It'd be pretty surprising to see him fight so hard for so long for an ideal...only to jump out when things are looking up for his investment? and all because of a "you're worth this much--no, we're worth this much!" dispute? it's just..hunting for something that isn't there.

 

[NHLFanSince2020]

contraction is needed buddy

Someone's out of touch

 

[Kesler Kills Kommies]

Just fold the team and have an open draft for the players
Canucks take number 1 overall and draft Vokoun

 

[Timmy]

Just fold the team and have an open draft for the players
Canucks take number 1 overall and draft Vokoun

We'd be bought immediately and relocated to Memphis.

 

[Buffaloed]

Just kidding but seriously Bettman doesn't keep teams in their locations. The owners do. If a team wants to leave there is not much Bettman can do besides damage control.

Unfortunately you're 100% correct. The NFL found out about that the hard way.
I'm sure Peter Karmanos cited it to Bettman chapter and verse. Professional sports leagues are all bark and no bite as far as controlling relocation is concerned.

http://www.thesportjournal.org/2005Journal/Vol8-No1/SCJ_04_antitrust.asp
Because the NFL has a 75-mile radius home territory restriction on franchise teams as well as a requirement for unanimous voting by team owners on franchise relocation, the league has suffered continuous antitrust litigation by NFL team owners attempting to relocate their teams. For instance, in 1978 the Los Angeles Rams decided to relocate from the Coliseum to a new stadium, the "Big A," in Anaheim, California. The NFL and its members did not approve the relocation and the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission filed suit against the NFL for unlawful restraint of trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. After a first mistrial the jury in the second trial ruled in favor of the Coliseum and awarded the plaintiffs $50 million dollars in damages ("Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League, 1984). Furthermore, Oram (2000) suggested that the subsequent relocation of the Baltimore Colts to Indianapolis in 1985 and the Jets relocation from New York to New Jersey in 1986 without NFL opposition would not have been possible if not for the favorable Los Angeles Coliseum ruling (Oram, 2000). For the past few years the NFL has repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to gain exemption from antitrust violations on relocation restrictions by asking Congress for exemption (Cozzillio & Levinstein, 1997).

 

[kdb209]

Also, wouldn't the NHL step in and veto any plan to move the Predators since Bettman and co have made a vested interest in keeping every franchise put for the new few years at the least?

They could try and they would likely lose and end up with hefty legal bills - just look at the NFL & Al Davis.

 

[OG6ix]

No franchise is safe unless an owner with big pockets has ties with the city. Paul Allen used to always speak highly of the blazers in portland, but now since the team is losing money and the city officials aren't giving him what he wants he has pretty much turned the cheek on those prior comments and the franchise. There are no garuntees in sports franchising unless your team's owner has strong ties to the city and the team is doing decent or if you live in a big city such as New York, Boston, Chicago, Philly, Toronto etc etc.

 

[RTWAP*]

I don't know the details of the Davis case, but in general, franchise location agreements are enforceable. I'm pretty sure McDonalds has this all figured out.

The NFL situation may have had more to do with the specifics of the NFL structure and the details of the dispute than some underlying universal legal principle.

As an example, in baseball the owner of the Montreal Expos wanted to move the team but the league prevented him from doing so. Instead, he was allowed to purchase another team and sell the Expos to MLB. Then MLB moved the Expos, and then sold it to a new owner.

Does anyone doubt that if the NHL couldn't enforce a team location veto then a team in trouble would just move to Toronto? They would be almost guaranteed to be successful.

 

[Buffaloed]

As an example, in baseball the owner of the Montreal Expos wanted to move the team but the league prevented him from doing so. Instead, he was allowed to purchase another team and sell the Expos to MLB. Then MLB moved the Expos, and then sold it to a new owner.

MLB has an antitrust exemption. It's the only sport that has one. The example you picked doesn't apply.
Baseball's Antitrust Exemption: Q&A

 

[RTWAP*]

MLB has an antitrust exemption. It's the only sport that has one. The example you picked doesn't apply.
Baseball's Antitrust Exemption: Q&A

So remove the baseball example. Can anyone explain why sports franchises would have more rights than McDonalds franchises?

 

[Sens Rule]

So remove the baseball example. Can anyone explain why sports franchises would have more rights than McDonalds franchises?

McDonalds franchise owners are worth $1-5 million.
NHL and other sports owners are worth $100 million- $10 billion?

 

[RTWAP*]

McDonalds franchise owners are worth $1-5 million.
NHL and other sports owners are worth $100 million- $10 billion?

Better lawyers?

 

[Mr BLUEandWHITE]

Good idea, lets contract the Leafs first.

If you aren't willing to contract your own team for the good of the league, then don't bring it up.

LOL

if you want to compare contracting the Leafs vs. the Panthers i think it would be in the best interest of everyone to contract the panthers.

 

[Sens Rule]

LOL

if you want to compare contracting the Leafs vs. the Panthers i think it would be in the best interest of everyone to contract the panthers.

The Leafs have been unable to win a cup for what, 40 years or so. Why not consider it kind of like euthanasia. Putting down a sick old great-grandfather. The Leafs had a good run but they are sick and tired and old and need to go on to a better world. Where you can golf in January and not wait until early April or May.

Just let go...... you will feel better in time. Better to have a dignified death rather than continue to suffer so much.

 

[Buffaloed]

So remove the baseball example. Can anyone explain why sports franchises would have more rights than McDonalds franchises?

McDonald's has a very restrictive franchise agreement. They don't have any problem getting middle class folks to sign those contracts, knowing they're guaranteed a 6 figure income. The rich people and corporations that own professional sports franchises won't sign a contract that gives another entity that kind of control over significant investments.

 

[RTWAP*]

McDonald's has a very restrictive franchise agreement. They don't have any problem getting middle class folks to sign those contracts, knowing they're guaranteed a 6 figure income. The rich people and corporations that own professional sports franchises won't sign a contract that gives another entity that kind of control over significant investments.

So it would depend on the specifics of the league's constitution and francise agreements? That's what I was trying to say in the first place.

I don't know anything about the Davis situation, but it could be based on a different balance of power between the league and the teams. You can either define what rights the league has, and leave everything else to the teams, or define what rights the teams have and leave everything else to the league. I wouldn't even know where to look to find this level of detail on the major NA sports leagues.

 

[kdb209]

So remove the baseball example. Can anyone explain why sports franchises would have more rights than McDonalds franchises?

Because McDonalds is not a monopoly and less subject to antitrust suits - the NFL is and is.

Buffaloed already posted a nice summary of the LA Coliseum/Al Davis v NFL issue:

http://www.thesportjournal.org/2005Journal/Vol8-No1/SCJ_04_antitrust.asp

Because the NFL has a 75-mile radius home territory restriction on franchise teams as well as a requirement for unanimous voting by team owners on franchise relocation, the league has suffered continuous antitrust litigation by NFL team owners attempting to relocate their teams. For instance, in 1978 the Los Angeles Rams decided to relocate from the Coliseum to a new stadium, the "Big A," in Anaheim, California. The NFL and its members did not approve the relocation and the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission filed suit against the NFL for unlawful restraint of trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. After a first mistrial the jury in the second trial ruled in favor of the Coliseum and awarded the plaintiffs $50 million dollars in damages ("Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League, 1984). Furthermore, Oram (2000) suggested that the subsequent relocation of the Baltimore Colts to Indianapolis in 1985 and the Jets relocation from New York to New Jersey in 1986 without NFL opposition would not have been possible if not for the favorable Los Angeles Coliseum ruling (Oram, 2000). For the past few years the NFL has repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to gain exemption from antitrust violations on relocation restrictions by asking Congress for exemption (Cozzillio & Levinstein, 1997).

The Chronology of Al Davis v NFL:

1980
• On March 1st, Al Davis announced he will move the Raiders to Los Angeles.
• On March 6th, a judge grants a temporary restraining order barring the Raiders from moving.
• On March 10th, NFL Comissioner Pete Rozelle announced that the NFL will not schedule any games in Los Angeles for the Raiders.

1982
• Raiders play their first preseason game in Los Angeles Coliseum on August 29th.

1983
• On April 13th, a Federal court awarded the Raiders $35 million in compensatory damages from the NFL for anti-trust and bad faith violations.

1984
• On November 5th, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Raiders' victory in their antitrust case against NFL.

If you care - the 9th Circuit Decision upholding the trial court decsion in LOS ANGELES MEMORIAL COLISEUM COMMISSION v NFL:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...nal+Football+League&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=17

I haven't found a copy of the final Supreme Court decsion re-affirming the 9th Circuit and upholding the Raiders win over the NFL.

 

[Jazz]

If anything happens i hope they dont move but contract instead. The league needs to get rid of some teams...also nobody would have to look at those hideous uniforms anymore.

Someone needs to stop living in fantasy land....

Contraction is NOT going to happen.

 

[vopatsrash]

While this is true...it's important to remember that Leipold is a member of the NHL Board of Governors and was a lynchpin in the CBA negotiations. It'd be pretty surprising to see him fight so hard for so long for an ideal...only to jump out when things are looking up for his investment? and all because of a "you're worth this much--no, we're worth this much!" dispute? it's just..hunting for something that isn't there.

this is the key point. Leipold put in way too much to just leave the NHL. I think he is too into the competition and the day to day ups and downs of being an NHL owner to sell the team. If the team moves or stays, I think Craig Leipold will be the owner.

However, despite Leipold's numerous public declarations to the contrary, I don't think it's impossible for him to leave Nashville with the team if they could cut ties cleanly and cheaply with the city. Especially if another city like KC or Houston would come around and give him the same or better arena deal in a more stable corporate market than Nashville.

As much as he loves Nashville, he has to be frustrated with Nashville's corporate climate and there are a lot of pesky sports-hating politicians in Nashville who are eager to distance themselves from the Titans/Sounds/Preds deals of the past decade with their tax-conscious constituencies. People like David Briley seem to enjoy publicly needling the sports franchsies whenever they can. We can't underestimate a city with a lot of corporate money/stability and smiles on their politicians' faces.

IF Leipold has any private trepidation about the city of Nashville, he could be staring at an out that would be better than any he could see in the future if it ever goes downhill in Nashville. He's passionate about Nashville and he's passionate about the Preds, but he's also a bottom line guy. His idiot moment of allowing "intangible" into the language of the contract could end up giving him options, if he wants options. Nothing would surprise me at this point.

With that said, I think it's just posturing and this will end with a resolution that sees the Preds remain in Nashville with their sweetheart arena deal intact. I think it's just two entities that are annoyed by each other letting their frustrations out.

 

[HughJass*]

Good idea, lets contract the Leafs first.

If you aren't willing to contract your own team for the good of the league, then don't bring it up.

That's new. Best retort I've seen on the matter.

 

[Transported Upstater]

LOL

if you want to compare contracting the Leafs vs. the Panthers i think it would be in the best interest of everyone to contract the panthers.

Will you please stop embarassing us?

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

For a quick fix sure, long term it will just be one less team for more americans to forget that the league exists. Say what you want about hockey's strength in canadian markets that are mostly one horse towns, but if the NHL wants to make money, it's in the US. The ratings are great in canada right? Obviously they aren't making money in canada from the media that's why they want a big tv deal in the US. When you people want more teams in Canada be prepared for the NHL to enter "CFL hell" because in this day in age of information at our fingertips one can no longer say "ignorance is bliss."

Just by listening to a few Canadian Radio station streams I hear them complaining about the ratings in the US and how they can sell the game here. If the NHL moves teams back to Canada they will just be proving how much of a failure they are in the US, and that will even hurt the traditional markets, who are already having troubles in their own media markets, since their media will be able to justify why they wont talk hockey.

"Who cares about hockey? look team so and so left, no one even knows they are gone"

I don't care if the NHL takes a step or two back in the US.
You can't force a sport on people who don't want it, don't like it, and don't get it.
You can't.
Glowing pucks. ESPN. OLN. FOX. ABC. NBC.
People don't watch.

Regionally, they'll turn out for a winner in some of the southern markets. But check out the Carolina 'parade.'
They don't care.
And I don't really care if they care.
There are plenty of markets that do care. In Canada. And in the US.
I'd rather see hockey in some of the smaller cities in the Northern US and Winnipeg and MAYBE Quebec City.

Or, long term, maybe a World NHL, with teams in Stockholm, Helsinki, Moscow, etc.
Like I said ... I don't really care if the NHL continues to lose ground in the overall national televsion ratings.
The areas that have cared about hockey in the US will continue to care about hockey.
The NHL should consider teams in Madison or Milwaukee. Maybe Washington State. Maybe even Grand Rapids ...
But I really don't see why it's important to have two teams in florida, one in tenessee, one in carolina.
I mean, I'm happy there are fans of the sport in those states, And I'd feel for them if they lost their franchise.
But again, if the community, as a whole, doesn't care about hockey. Why should I lose sleep over them moving?

 

[nomorekids]

I see your point...but living in NYC, I can tell you that no one in NJ cares about the devils "on the whole," and Rangers fans\news are even low priority. Yankees-Mets-Jets-Giants-KNICKS(dreadful though they are)---------Rangers. It's true in most USA markets.