Balsille Signs Arena Deal with Hamitlon....

Fugu

Guest
Don't worry "anti-American" "anti-Bettman" "anti-growth of the sport" fans, you'll soon have your way when the Predators leave. And then you can rejoice as the NHL has been saved from extinction.

Further proves that Balsillie is a real threat and Bettman will likely still say "he told me he didn't want to move them".


I know the Preds fans here are devastated by the news that the team is being sold, however....

The current owner who believed he could make hockey work in Nashville is bailing. He's the one giving up, or cashing in... however you want to word it. For a sale to happen, you have to find a seller and a buyer. I don't understand why anyone would direct their anger at the guy who wants to buy an NHL team - for whatever reasons he may have - and has found a willing seller. Leipold then gave his reasons for being willing to sell, seemingly the biggest two being (1) lack of corporate support, and (2) continued losses in spite of the new CBA. These aren't emotional decision nor ones that are made lightly. If Leipold was raking in the cash, do you still think he'd be willing to sell, or to hang on to the team if he felt the franchise value would be even higher within 3-5 years?
 

eSabre

Registered User
Dec 14, 2002
6,460
0
Nashville, TN
3rdmanin.wordpress.com
Yes. I do not believe Nashville has done anything to grow the sport. Neither have Cloumbus or Phoenix. Hamilton/Winnipeg would produce instant sell outs. Canada realizes they need to support their teams and not take them for granted. US hockey fans, for the most part, do not realize that ... except in Hartford.
Having been to a game in Columbus, I beg to differ. They're just a competitive season away from being a great market.
 

Ruzicka38

Oh man
Jan 19, 2006
1,771
0
Hopedale
sorry, you are factually wrong.

QC attendance 1989-90 - 15,080 (their high water mark in the history of the team)

Nashville attendance 2006-07 - 15,259.

It speaks for itself whose "following" was bigger. You can argue all you want about QC being a smaller arena and a smaller town, and "freebies", etc. The fact remains that more people went to Nashville games last year than ever went to a Nordiques game.

Are you kidding? If the building is full, it's full. The Nordiques filled their building. You can't say Nashville has more fans because they fit more people into their building. Read almost any hockey columnist and he/she will agree with me. I'm making one point the fans lost with bad team moves cancel out any "growth" in non-hockey markets. Canadians are far more into the NHL than the US. They deserve a team in a major Canadian city more than Bo and Luke Duke deserve a team next to the NASCAR track.
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
I have not missed the point. I would rather see the NHL in Portland, Maine, than Nashville. It's not a hockey area period. The NHL hasn't thought out any expansion since Ottawa and TB came on board.
Wow, I hope you're not saying those two were planned. They were cash grabs like all the rest, though I'm certainly not complaining.

How is Columbus, with all their sell outs, a "joke"? If anything, they're a big success.
 

Jarnberg

Registered User
Jul 10, 2002
5,689
34
Nashville
Visit site
I know the Preds fans here are devastated by the news that the team is being sold, however....

The current owner who believed he could make hockey work in Nashville is bailing. He's the one giving up, or cashing in... however you want to word it. For a sale to happen, you have to find a seller and a buyer. I don't understand why anyone would direct their anger at the guy who wants to buy an NHL team - for whatever reasons he may have - and has found a willing seller. Leipold then gave his reasons for being willing to sell, seemingly the biggest two being (1) lack of corporate support, and (2) continued losses in spite of the new CBA. These aren't emotional decision nor ones that are made lightly. If Leipold was raking in the cash, do you still think he'd be willing to sell, or to hang on to the team if he felt the franchise value would be even higher within 3-5 years?

Right.

I'm pointing out that Balsillie is a real threat to us losing our team.
 

AdmiralPred

Registered User
Jun 9, 2005
1,923
0
I stand corrected on that ONE point. BUT, Minnesota should never have left in the first place. Columbus is a joke. I know people in Ohio who laughed at me (as an NHL fan) when that team was announced. Columbus is a minor league city. It is no more (probably less) deserving of a NHL team than Hartford.
Fine, I can play that game also. I know people in Ohio who have embraced the BJs, have sat next to Section 303 at Nashville Arena, and had one of the "coveted" obstructed seats at the old American West (whatever it was called) Arena in Phoenix. To say to sport is not growing is a rather naive statement.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Fine, I can play that game also. I know people in Ohio who have embraced the BJs, have sat next to Section 303 at Nashville Arena, and had one of the "coveted" obstructed seats at the old American West (whatever it was called) Arena in Phoenix. To say to sport is not growing is a rather naive statement.
Pred, this guy is a troll. I am not sure he is worth typing a response.
 

Fugu

Guest
Right.

I'm pointing out that Balsillie is a real threat to us losing our team.


As would be any buyer in this case. Leipold was the only thing keeping the Preds in Nashville. The minute he entertained talk of selling, it was a signal that perhaps he was giving up on the market. Before anyone points out anything to the contrary, please consider Leipold's statements earlier this year about the lack of corporate support and the arena lease option to exit if an attendance benchmark wasn't achieved. I do believe anyone considering buying the Preds at that stage would be looking to move them. The only other buyer - as far as is known - was the Anschutz group that would look to moving the team to Kansas City. Two potential buyers, seemingly no interest in keeping the team in Nashville (if Balsillie's intentions indeed are to move the team).
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
I wonder what this means for Montreal and the Bulldogs?

nothing because the Bulldogs have exclusive rights to play in Hamilton which precludes this agreement if it ever happens, because after the way Edmonton treated the franchise and Montreal in fact saved Hamilton from being a footnote in hockey the way some claim Hartford, Winnipeg and Quebec City keep being brought up ad nauseum despite the Rangers being in Hartford the last decade; Winnipeg building the MTS Centre along w/ Chipman & True North to keep/give the Manitoba Moose their identity long after the Jets left town and Quebec preferred their junior team over pro hockey that in fact kept hockey in Hamilton as I described earlier, copperandblue.

It's like Toronto, where if it's not MLSE owned or the Blue Jays, how many pay attention to what goes on there.
 

Buffaloed

webmaster
Feb 27, 2002
43,324
23,584
Niagara Falls
Has the board of governors agreed on the sale yet?

No, and I think this severely damages Balsillie's chances of getting approval or the NHL may attach conditions to the sale that Balsillie will find too hard to swallow. The league expects whoever buys the Nashville franchise to make a good faith effort to succeed in Nashville. I'm sure the arena lease and other associated contracts also require this. Prepositioning things in Ontario to facilitate moving the team before the sale is consummated reeks of bad faith.

Balsillie approached the city late last week through Toronto lawyer Richard Rodier. That led to a flurry of behind-the-scenes discussions, including a telephone call between Mayor Fred Eisenberger and Balsillie.

"He has assured me that he wants to secure a team and he is interested in bringing it to Hamilton," Eisenberger said Wednesday night. "Certainly he has the resources to do it and we will leave it up to him to pull it together."

This is compelling evidence of negotiating in bad faith should the NHL approve the sale and Balsillie move the team. The NHL will have to consider whether it's better to expose itself to a lawsuit by Nashville for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages or let Liepold lose a few million dollars a year until he finds a buyer who will act in good faith.
 

copperandblue

Registered User
Sep 15, 2003
10,719
0
Visit site
nothing because the Bulldogs have exclusive rights to play in Hamilton which precludes this agreement if it ever happens, because after the way Edmonton treated the franchise and Montreal in fact saved Hamilton from being a footnote in hockey the way some claim Hartford, Winnipeg and Quebec City keep being brought up ad nauseum despite the Rangers being in Hartford the last decade; Winnipeg building the MTS Centre along w/ Chipman & True North to keep/give the Manitoba Moose their identity long after the Jets left town and Quebec preferred their junior team over pro hockey that in fact kept hockey in Hamilton as I described earlier, copperandblue.

It's like Toronto, where if it's not MLSE owned or the Blue Jays, how many pay attention to what goes on there.

Which still doesn't answer my question. And I disagree with your version on how Montreal saved hockey in Hamilton.

Wether the Bulldogs can remain there and play is only part of the equation. The other part is if this effectively pushes Montreal out the door due to the fan base getting pilfered by the big league product. Would Montreal stand to lose money for two or three years while the BlackBerry guy builds his new home in KW?
 

PuckNut

Registered User
Oct 31, 2005
3,881
110
Edmonton
No, and I think this severely damages Balsillie's chances of getting approval or the NHL may attach conditions to the sale that Balsillie will find too hard to swallow. The league expects whoever buys the Nashville franchise to make a good faith effort to succeed in Nashville. I'm sure the arena lease and other associated contracts also require this. Prepositioning things in Ontario to facilitate moving the team before the sale is consummated reeks of bad faith.



This is compelling evidence of negotiating in bad faith should the NHL approve the sale and Balsillie move the team. The NHL will have to consider whether it's better to expose itself to a lawsuit by Nashville for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages or let Liepold lose a few million dollars a year until he finds a buyer who will act in good faith.

It won't really be bad faith negotiations unless the NHL says that he can't move the team as a condition of approval. All Bettman has said so far is that Balsillie has to abide by the existing lease.
 

OG6ix

Registered User
Apr 11, 2006
4,453
1,350
Toronto
Bettman doesn't want another team in Ontario. Heck I don't think bettman likes the fact that there are more than 2 teams in NY, but that happend before he became commish...
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Which still doesn't answer my question. And I disagree with your version on how Montreal saved hockey in Hamilton.

Wether the Bulldogs can remain there and play is only part of the equation. The other part is if this effectively pushes Montreal out the door due to the fan base getting pilfered by the big league product. Would Montreal stand to lose money for two or three years while the BlackBerry guy builds his new home in KW?
Does Montreal have much of an ownership stake or at all in the Bulldogs?
 

copperandblue

Registered User
Sep 15, 2003
10,719
0
Visit site
Does Montreal have much of an ownership stake or at all in the Bulldogs?

Well from what I recall when the Oilers operated the Bulldogs, they were on the hook for the losses, they may have even been the outright owners originally. I assume this extends to Montreal's situation but in reality a Canadiens fan would be better suited to clarify.
 

AdmiralPred

Registered User
Jun 9, 2005
1,923
0
Pred, this guy is a troll. I am not sure he is worth typing a response.
Yes, I know "Don't feed the trolls", "Keep off the grass", "Beware of...". I couldn't help it. In four assinine posts prior, said poster became the poster-child for all that is wrong with a Canadian hockey fan's perception of a "non-traditional" market.
 

Fozz

Registered User
Aug 1, 2002
7,730
210
Ottawa
Visit site
I wonder how having a team in Hamilton or Quebec can help to grow the game when everybody in those markets already are hockey fans? This will only result is some people switching from the Leafs or the Habs to cheer for this new team but it doesn't create new hockey fans at all.

If an American market fails to keep an NHL team afloat, this team will simply move to another American market, such as KC, Seattle, Houston, etc. The game really can't grow in Canada in terms of popularity.
 
Last edited:

AdmiralPred

Registered User
Jun 9, 2005
1,923
0
Well from what I recall when the Oilers operated the Bulldogs, they were on the hook for the losses, they may have even been the outright owners originally. I assume this extends to Montreal's situation but in reality a Canadiens fan would be better suited to clarify.
The current Bulldogs franchise is not the same franchise that was previoously in Hamilton.
 

cc

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
9,570
1,449
the best thing to do for Nashville fans is to not give Balsille an excuse to move. fill the seats and I think it would be extremely difficult for him to move.

That being said, I don't think he has plans on moving the team, but it may be in the back of his mind if the fan support isn't there.
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
sorry, you are factually wrong.

QC attendance 1989-90 - 15,080 (their high water mark in the history of the team)

Nashville attendance 2006-07 - 15,259.

It speaks for itself whose "following" was bigger. You can argue all you want about QC being a smaller arena and a smaller town, and "freebies", etc. The fact remains that more people went to Nashville games last year than ever went to a Nordiques game.

I think that amongst all of the arguments about numbers and facts, a key point is being lost:

Nashville, as a market, is not performing much better than failed NHL markets did. And that is on base attendance numbers. When you consider revenues/expenses/losses, the lack of corporate support, etc, Nashville simply is not doing well.

Really, Nashville defenders are stuck in the same mode as Winnipeg defenders: "We'll we're better than the worst!" I don't believe Winnipeg is viable today, and such defenses of Nashville only serves to argue that Nashville is not viable either.

Thus, we are at this point.

Does moving to Hamilton or K-W "grow the game"? Nope. However, at some point, the NHL needs to remember its strongholds too. In this case, there is an excellent chance that moving into Southern Ontario will grow the buisness.

The NHL has been trying to grow the game for 40 years, with indifferent success. Frankly, I find the "growing the game" defense for saving Nashville to be utterly worthless. Unless Nashville can grow its revenues, it will, and should, join the Jets and Nordiques in the NHL's graveyard.
 

Richer

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
295
0
Toronto
I wonder how having a team in Hamilton or Quebec can help to grow the game when everybody in those markets already are hockey fans? This will only result is some people switching from the Leafs or the Habs to cheer for this new team but it doesn't create new hockey fans at all.

If an American market fails to keep an NHL team afloat, this team will simply move to another American market, such as KC, Seattle, Houston, etc. The game really can't grow in Canada in terms of popularity.

It might not grow the game and land that billion dollar TV deal in the States. But I am just going to go out on a limb here and say that is not going to happen in the near to medium term anyway. It will in theory help grow revunes. I know people pay to watch in Nashville but it seems not nearly enough to keep the team out of the bottom of league when it comes to reveune generation.

I think if an owner wants to spend $220 million on a franchise and move it to a location because he thinks it is the best market and not a bad market with a free arena they he should be allowed.

1/3 of NHL revunes come from the six teams in Canada, If I was a business owner I would want to tap that resource.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Well from what I recall when the Oilers operated the Bulldogs, they were on the hook for the losses, they may have even been the outright owners originally. I assume this extends to Montreal's situation but in reality a Canadiens fan would be better suited to clarify.

According to Wikipedia:

"In the summer of 2004, Burlington businessman Michael Andlauer became majority owner, governor and chairman of the Hamilton Bulldogs. Andlauer was part of the initial group of local business people, who purchased the club from the Edmonton Oilers in 2002."

So I would assume that they would probably hold some rights to the area and be paid off to open it up for an NHL franchise and relocate the AHL team elsewhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TruGr1t

Proper Villain
Jun 26, 2003
22,894
6,484
As would be any buyer in this case. Leipold was the only thing keeping the Preds in Nashville. The minute he entertained talk of selling, it was a signal that perhaps he was giving up on the market. Before anyone points out anything to the contrary, please consider Leipold's statements earlier this year about the lack of corporate support and the arena lease option to exit if an attendance benchmark wasn't achieved. I do believe anyone considering buying the Preds at that stage would be looking to move them. The only other buyer - as far as is known - was the Anschutz group that would look to moving the team to Kansas City. Two potential buyers, seemingly no interest in keeping the team in Nashville (if Balsillie's intentions indeed are to move the team).

This man speaks to the truth.

I find it absolutely hilarious that people are referring to Balsille as some sort of 'snake in the grass' or something. The guy is paying $220 million for the freaking team. That's a pretty substantial overpayment in my eyes. If he's willing to fork over that much money for an asset he should pretty much be able to do what he wants with it. Additionally, I believe you're correct in stating the only other interested group was most likely looking to move the team to KC. If I'm ever in a position to spend $220 million on something, I sure as heck better be allowed to manage it the way I want. I really have no issue with southern US teams at all, I think it's great to see the sport in new places, but the reason we are in this position is because the owner wants the heck out, which really only happens when someone is bleeding money.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->