Pred's Owner Craig Leipold Talks

Status
Not open for further replies.

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,348
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
I'm sorry but 6.25% and 8.75% is pretty close to the max and both are less then 10%. So if this held true with the NHL it would mean that all teams would be over $40M if the cap was set at $45M.
 

i am dave

Registered User
Mar 9, 2004
2,182
1
Corner of 1st & 1st
nomorekids said:
I work with no less than 5 Philadelphia Eagles fans. I heard at least 5 accounts of why the Eagles lost the Super Bowl, and at least 4 contained "and they won't even spend up to the cap."

Ask those four guys how they would feel if they were Tennessee Titans fans. The Eagles are the model franchise for operating under a salary cap.

Anyway, the cap only acts as a magnet if the arbitration system remains as it is.
 

Dr Love

Registered User
Mar 22, 2002
20,360
0
Location, Location!
triggrman said:
I'm sorry but 6.25% and 8.75% is pretty close to the max and both are less then 10%. So if this held true with the NHL it would mean that all teams would be over $40M if the cap was set at $45M.
What's your point? Someone said that all of the NFL was right up against the cap. They aren't. I don't know what your argument against me is.
 

MLH

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
5,328
0
Dr Love said:
What's your point? Someone said that all of the NFL was right up against the cap. They aren't. I don't know what your argument against me is.

Within 10% is close to the cap.
 

Dr Love

Registered User
Mar 22, 2002
20,360
0
Location, Location!
MLH said:
Within 10% is close to the cap.
Well, the Browns and Eagles (and one other IIRC) were more than 10% under the cap, so no, not every team was right against the cap. John Clayton has a list on ESPN, but my comp's on the fritz and it won't let me access the page.
 

MLH

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
5,328
0
Dr Love said:
Well, the Browns and Eagles (and one other IIRC) were more than 10% under the cap, so no, not every team was right against the cap. John Clayton has a list on ESPN, but my comp's on the fritz and it won't let me access the page.

Are you going by salary cap figure or money paid out for payroll?
 

Dr Love

Registered User
Mar 22, 2002
20,360
0
Location, Location!
MLH said:
Are you going by salary cap figure or money paid out for payroll?
The difference? To a number of people that is the same thing. If by total payroll you mean only the money paid to players on the roster, no, I am going by salary cap, because that is what counts.

It doesn't matter anyway. NFL teams get roughly 95% of their cap figure from TV contracts alone, then they also have merchandising, tickets, local radio revenue, local sponsorships, etc... all of which are much much more than what the average NHL team gets. The NFL salary cap has never been a good example for comparision to the NHL, the NBA is a better--not necessarily good, but better--fit.
 

MLH

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
5,328
0
Dr Love said:
The difference? To a number of people that is the same thing. If by total payroll you mean only the money paid to players on the roster, no, I am going by salary cap, because that is what counts.

It doesn't matter anyway. NFL teams get roughly 95% of their cap figure from TV contracts alone, then they also have merchandising, tickets, local radio revenue, local sponsorships, etc... all of which are much much more than what the average NHL team gets. The NFL salary cap has never been a good example for comparision to the NHL, the NBA is a better--not necessarily good, but better--fit.

I agree and acknowledged that in my original post. There really is no good comparison to the NHL, but I think based on public pressure and arbitration that teams will close is on whatever the cap figure is.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Dr Love said:
Since when are 11 and 15 years "recent"? Perhaps you mean just the Cup Finals in regards to the Caps, which was 7 years ago. And do share how the Caps are "an oft-cited example of just how competitive the league is."

When your my age, 10 years *is* recent. Years pass now like months used to pass. Sorry, but 1994 is not that long ago.

As for the Caps, the common refrain used practically daily around here is "look how many different teams have made the Conference Finals!! 12 different teams in 3 years!!"

The Caps, Ducks, and Hurricanes are the "Big Three" of the "competition is just fine" crowd. They repeatedly say that a run to the finals like these teams managed once every 10 years is proof that everything is just fine.
 

Dr Love

Registered User
Mar 22, 2002
20,360
0
Location, Location!
PecaFan said:
When your my age, 10 years *is* recent. Years pass now like months used to pass. Sorry, but 1994 is not that long ago.
It's over a decade ago, that is not recent.

As for the Caps, the common refrain used practically daily around here is "look how many different teams have made the Conference Finals!! 12 different teams in 3 years!!"

The Caps, Ducks, and Hurricanes are the "Big Three" of the "competition is just fine" crowd. They repeatedly say that a run to the finals like these teams managed once every 10 years is proof that everything is just fine.
I have no idea what you are talking about, I haven't seen that 'common refrain.' The Caps took Jagr because Pitt couldn't afford him, and were terrible last year and drop salary left and right. If anything, they are an example of how things are NOT fine.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
go kim johnsson said:
Yes. And where are the Caps and Rangers now?

Irrelevant. No one here is arguing whether spending big money is a guarantee of big success. It isn't, though, historically speaking, it's better to spend than not.
The issues, though, are whether that spending a) was a result of fan expectation and b) affected salaries across the league. The answer on both counts is yes.
 
Last edited:

broman

Registered User
Mar 9, 2003
1,508
41
HEL's antechamber
A cap of $xx is no more a "magnet" than Wings blowing away $77M annually. No team is under any kind of obligation or unbearable pressure, from fans or otherwise, to try and meet Detroit's budget, or that of any other big spender. It's just nonsense. Having a cap in place wouldn't change that the least bit.

Sure fans will whine and wish their team would spend spend spend, but at the end of the day that's not going to change anything. Besides or whole lot of so-called "knowledgeable" fans take great pride (and make a lot of noise) in calling on their team to invest in budding youth, not another aging underperformer with a highly debatable price-to-performance ratio. They see through the bluff of Holiks and Jagrs of this world. Why can't the owners?
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Dr Love said:
It's over a decade ago, that is not recent.

The Rangers have won the Cup more recently than *twenty four* other teams.

I have no idea what you are talking about, I haven't seen that 'common refrain.'

Geezus, do you even read the boards at all? This comes up all the time, even the NHLPA loves to trot out these kinds of quotes. Just a few from browsing for a couple of minutes:

http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2423216&postcount=23
http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2510875&postcount=1
http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2504239&postcount=56
 

Kestrel

Registered User
Jan 30, 2005
5,814
129
broman said:
A cap of $xx is no more a "magnet" than Wings blowing away $77M annually. No team is under any kind of obligation or unbearable pressure, from fans or otherwise, to try and meet Detroit's budget, or that of any other big spender. It's just nonsense. Having a cap in place wouldn't change that the least bit.

Sure fans will whine and wish their team would spend spend spend, but at the end of the day that's not going to change anything. Besides or whole lot of so-called "knowledgeable" fans take great pride (and make a lot of noise) in calling on their team to invest in budding youth, not another aging underperformer with a highly debatable price-to-performance ratio. They see through the bluff of Holiks and Jagrs of this world. Why can't the owners?

Sure it's a magnet. Why do you think salaries have been climbing buddy? No, not every team is going to climb to as high a payroll as the Wings - but to think it doesn't draw payrolls up is rather simplistic and naive. If a team can possibly conceivably imagine stretching their payroll to $30 million a year, there's no way in hell that the fans are going to settle for a team fielded on $11 million. If that weren't so, then you would still see teams with payrolls that low. There are 30 teams - it's pretty ludicrous to claim that all 30 owners/partnerships are that incredibly irresponsible with their money.

Fact is, a handful of teams increasing their payrolls means other teams have to increase their payrolls to compete, on the ice, but also off the ice as both are inseparably intertwined. Once again, if this wasn't so, you'd be seeing teams fielded on budgets that barely hit 8 figures. Won't ever happen though, because to do so would be financially disastrous. You might want to rethink your position on the magnet.
 

Dr Love

Registered User
Mar 22, 2002
20,360
0
Location, Location!
PecaFan said:
The Rangers have won the Cup more recently than *twenty four* other teams.



Geezus, do you even read the boards at all? This comes up all the time, even the NHLPA loves to trot out these kinds of quotes. Just a few from browsing for a couple of minutes:

http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2423216&postcount=23
http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2510875&postcount=1
[url="http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2504239&postcount=56"]http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2504239&postcount=56[/url]
So "recent" is 10 years ago and "common" is 3 times. Gotcha. And only 1 of those links mentioned the Capitals by name.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
go kim johnsson said:
Since we're talking about the Preds.



http://www.nashvillepredators.com/pressbox/news/default.asp?item_id=5313



Gaylord Entertainment is getting out of their deal with the Predators.


Leipold makes some money, loses a sponsor (although they say they will "support" the team).



Thanks to the Nashville board, where I found that.

Maybe there's some politics involved that those outside of Nashville don't know about but it says here that when a key partner and big backer of hockey -- and the very name on the building where you play -- bails out, you're in big, big trouble.

It's pretty clear that Gaylord wanted to get in on the ground floor and that the high hopes and expectations for hockey in Nashville that the company had at the beginning are now long, long gone.

This could be the beginning of the end of the failed experiment of NHL hockey in Nashville.
 

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,348
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
Greschner4 said:
Maybe there's some politics involved that those outside of Nashville don't know about but it says here that when a key partner and big backer of hockey -- and the very name on the building where you play -- bails out, you're in big, big trouble.

It's pretty clear that Gaylord wanted to get in on the ground floor and that the high hopes and expectations for hockey in Nashville that the company had at the beginning are now long, long gone.

This could be the beginning of the end of the failed experiment of NHL hockey in Nashville.
No, this has been going on for 3 years it's has nothing to do with hockey and Leipold said yesterday in the long run he'll benefit greatly from this.

Gaylord restructured a few years ago and decided to shift more to just strictly hotel ownership/management. They sold most of their record labels and radio stations (except 650 WSM). They wanted out of the naming rights of the arena too (remember it's not just a house for hockey, it's also the main concert venue for fan fair and it sits right next to the Country Music Hall of Fame). They also sold Opry Mills Mall. Gaylord has been slowly pulling out of Nashville and the country music scene since the backlash they took from closing Opryland Park. It has nothing to do with hockey.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
triggrman said:
No, this has been going on for 3 years it's has nothing to do with hockey and Leipold said yesterday in the long run he'll benefit greatly from this.

Gaylord restructured a few years ago and decided to shift more to just strictly hotel ownership/management. They sold most of their record labels and radio stations (except 650 WSM). They wanted out of the naming rights of the arena too (remember it's not just a house for hockey, it's also the main concert venue for fan fair and it sits right next to the Country Music Hall of Fame). They also sold Opry Mills Mall. Gaylord has been slowly pulling out of Nashville and the country music scene since the backlash they took from closing Opryland Park. It has nothing to do with hockey.

Whatever ... As I said, I'm sure someone will cite local factors. All those factors are merely cover for the fact that a major corporate sponsor in Nashville -- perhaps the biggest -- and a partner in the Preds has bailed out of the hockey business. You can hope all you want that it doesn't mean anything, but it obviously does.
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
Greschner4 said:
Whatever ... As I said, I'm sure someone will cite local factors. All those factors are merely cover for the fact that a major corporate sponsor in Nashville -- perhaps the biggest -- and a partner in the Preds has bailed out of the hockey business. You can hope all you want that it doesn't mean anything, but it obviously does.


You realize that in the face of facts, you're refusing to do anything but draw your own conclusions, right?

Gaylord, as a company, over the past 5 or so years, has been slowly pulling out of everything not related to the hotel business...and putting their focus on opening their new facilities in Dallas. The team hasn't been getting the money owed to them for naming rights in over three years, and this now frees the team to find a new suitor for the Arena, which should be remarkably easy.
 

vopatsrash

Registered User
Dec 9, 2004
578
0
Greschner4 said:
Whatever ... As I said, I'm sure someone will cite local factors. All those factors are merely cover for the fact that a major corporate sponsor in Nashville -- perhaps the biggest -- and a partner in the Preds has bailed out of the hockey business. You can hope all you want that it doesn't mean anything, but it obviously does.

In other words "Someone who lives in Nashville with more knowledge of this than I will explain the actual situation, but I will choose to not believe it because it doesn't fit what I want to believe." :dunce:
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
vopatsrash said:
In other words "Someone who lives in Nashville with more knowledge of this than I will explain the actual situation, but I will choose to not believe it because it doesn't fit what I want to believe." :dunce:

I have just as much knowledge of the big picture and the big picture is that Gaylord was in on the ground floor of hockey in Nashville and it's only a few years later and they want out.

Those aren't the actions of a company happy with its investment and the future, no matter how you want to try to dismiss it.

The Preds' situation could be every bit as much a cause of Gaylord wanting to shed non-core businesses as an effect. Maybe if hockey in Nashville were a bigger success, Gaylord would see hockey as a core business.
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
Greschner4 said:
I have just as much knowledge of the big picture and the big picture is that Gaylord was in on the ground floor of hockey in Nashville and it's only a few years later and they want out.

Those aren't the actions of a company happy with its investment and the future, no matter how you want to try to dismiss it.

The Preds' situation could be every bit as much a cause of Gaylord wanting to shed non-core businesses as an effect. Maybe if hockey in Nashville were a bigger success, Gaylord would see hockey as a core business.

But you're missing the big picture. Hockey isn't the only thing at the GEC. Leipold just served as the proprieter. Gaylords naming rights went beyond just hockey...it went to every concert(it's the primary big concert venue in an entertainment-based city) arena football and so on. You're grasping at straws here, but as vopatsrash pointed out, there are people that have been following this story for almost four years now that are bound to know much more about it than someone on the outside who is simply speculating. Gaylord's pulling-out of all their interests has been widely publicized and often criticized. In my opinion, they're doing their part to keep their luxury boxes and season ticket options, and the Preds are free to find a new suitor to the naming rights. This is seen as a VERY good thing, whether you recognize that or it fits your argument or not.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
nomorekids said:
But you're missing the big picture. Hockey isn't the only thing at the GEC. Leipold just served as the proprieter. Gaylords naming rights went beyond just hockey...it went to every concert(it's the primary big concert venue in an entertainment-based city) arena football and so on. You're grasping at straws here, but as vopatsrash pointed out, there are people that have been following this story for almost four years now that are bound to know much more about it than someone on the outside who is simply speculating. Gaylord's pulling-out of all their interests has been widely publicized and often criticized. In my opinion, they're doing their part to keep their luxury boxes and season ticket options, and the Preds are free to find a new suitor to the naming rights. This is seen as a VERY good thing, whether you recognize that or it fits your argument or not.

Find me a company that's bought out a naming rights deal within 6 years that didn't either go bankrupt or get bought out/merged in any sport in the past 20 years and I might start to reconsider.
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
Greschner4 said:
Find me a company that's bought out a naming rights deal within 6 years that didn't either go bankrupt or get bought out/merged in any sport in the past 20 years and I might start to reconsider.


This wasn't the first or last part of a HUGE pull-out on the part of Gaylord. Do you think all of the other things they pulled their stakes out of..were just a big smokescreen to hide the fact that they were disappointed with the success of the Predators?

I understand your hatred of non-traditional hockey markets and your need to try to denigrate them, but you're way off here. You'll need to find something else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->