nomorekids
The original, baby
http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2007/6/14/sources_competing_bid_for_predators_in_the_works
A little late, guys...but it's a glimmer of hope.
A little late, guys...but it's a glimmer of hope.
Bettman won't let them expand to Hamilton....relocation is the only way unfortunately
I for one believe that the use of "NHL" and the team name "Predators" when used for the purposes of collecting money for a future potential "NHL" event is trademark or copyright infringement. But I also believe that if it was, the NHL would have shut it down already. I don't know...but what I do know is that Balsillie doesn't own the Predators yet, so I don't understand how he can collect money using the franchise's identity yet.
I would like to address this from the other thread (would also like to highlight your name calling). First off, my post wasn't classless, but the person wishing Nashville would move because they didn't "honor" Modano was ridiculous. Second, who is "you guys", what makes you think I'm a Preds fan? Is it the Lecavalier avatar that gives it away? Big hockey fan like you should know who he is, no?Slavutych said:The classless act isn't helping you guys garner much sympathy, that's for sure.
Karma.
I am directing this question to gscarpenter2002 but others can chime in.
A lot of what is happening leaves me puzzled. However, I am hearing over and over that even if Balsillie moves to Hamilton he plans to build a new arena eventually.
Let's say for the sake of argument that he would be able to bring a team
to Southren Ontario. If a new arena is in the works anyway, would you have
chosen Hamilton over say the 401 at Cambridge?
I was including the GTA and the sourrounding Golden Horshoe Region + anywhere In Southern Ontario...reasonably close to Hammertown...So Ok might be an hour drive + for some folks...so sue me .Still many would certainly be willing to travel a fair distance to see NHL games in Hamilton, which is only about 40 miles away from the GTA ( population 5 million , if memory serves ) ...plus of course over 600K in Hamilton...and that still leaves out another who knows how many K population in places like London, K-W Markham etc etc etc...So Yeah 7 Million in the GTA + Golden Horseshoe + points N-E- S- W. ...all within reasonable commutting distance...Certainly sounds about right ...and only 20,000 can fit at any one time into the ACC...so How is my math flawed ...wanna run that one by me again ?
The population of the Greater Golden Horseshoe (which includes Kitchener-Waterloo, Barrie, Brantford and other outlying cities) is 6.7 million, or 59% of Canada's population. 5.1 million of these are in the Toronto census metropolitan area.
gsc2k2, I think part of the picture that both you and bleed_oil are missing is the fundamental difference between broadcast networks and cable ones - subscriber fees.gscarpenter2002 said:Bleed, that concept, while seemingly obvious, has never applied to sports programming. I do not disagree that logic would dictate a different result, but rights fees have increased for many sports, including the NHL (with one negotiation excepted), in spite of increasingly fragmented ratings.bleed_oil said:Carpenter, TV money is eventually predicated on ratings. Advertisers will not pay significant money to hold television rights for a team with weak ratings and small viewership. The concept shouldn't be open to too much doubt. Now the Islanders may have a rich local TV deal - I have no clue what their specific ratings are or what the circumstances surrounding that deals was- but I would wager that's not the case for the overwhelming majority of other franchises. When most US teams have viewerships that are many times smaller than those of Canadian teams - why would I have any reason to logically expect they have TV contracts that are appreciably larger?
The only other outlier may be local financial demographics: i.e. Advertisers may pay more for NFL rights in the US than cricket rights in India due to viewership per capita wealth... that would hardly be the case in comparing NHL teams. With the obscene amount of wealth in a place like Alberta (for example) I would expect our financial demographics and economic future are the most promising of any region in North America if not the world.
You touched lightly upon a major issue that escapes those on this board who do not really understand ratings - demographics. In truth, both networks and advertisers these days pay little to no mind to the overall number; it is all in the money-spending demos (18-49, I think). THAT is the number that drives ad rates, not the overall number.
Incidentally, i am led to believe that the ratings for teams in their local markets for the regional sports channels are often reasonably satisfactory and at times impressive. In that context, national ratings matter not at all. The regionals only care about regional ratings; if they are good, hockey is a very valuable property, as it is cheap programming.
PS - we have gone around regarding this before, but you are vastly overstating Alberta's prospects and financial standing in the world. I know you disagree, so let's leave it at that.
Replying to posts from the other (closed) thread, Part I.
gsc2k2, I think part of the picture that both you and bleed_oil are missing is the fundamental difference between broadcast networks and cable ones - subscriber fees.
Many US cable networks (including ESPN and the local RSNs) make the majority of their revenues not from ratings driven ad sales, but from per subscriber fees paid to the networks by the cable cos and satellite providers.
The mother of all subscriber fees is ESPN, which received an average of $2.91/mo from every single US cable subscriber in 2006 (~93 Million), whether they ever watched ESPN or not.
Thats why the Mouse could make more money by paying $1.1B/yr for Monday Night Football (which never garnered great ratings on ABC) on ESPN than it did when it paid $550M/yr on its previous ABC deal.
The same holds true (to a much lesser extent) with the RSNs. They get paid per-subscriber fees by the cable cos and need programming and 40+ nights of NHL games does a good job of doing just that.
So none of those additional 5.1 million from the GTA...can possibly get to Hamilton ( Toronto to Hamilton closest city limits to closest city limits =about 4o miles ? ) for a game...Is that what ur suggesting Mr GsCarpenter ???
So none of those additional 5.1 million from the GTA...can possibly get to Hamilton ( Toronto to Hamilton closest city limits to closest city limits =about 4o miles ? ) for a game...Is that what ur suggesting Mr GsCarpenter ???
So none of those additional 5.1 million from the GTA...can possibly get to Hamilton ( Toronto to Hamilton closest city limits to closest city limits =about 4o miles ? ) for a game...Is that what ur suggesting Mr GsCarpenter ???
Well Toronto's like forty miles from Hamilton...Thousands make that commute everyday ! Hell my father used to commute from Winona ( far far east of Hamilton/outskirts ) to Oshawa daily...Smthng like 90 miles if I recall correctly...
Toronto to Hamilton is no Biggee at all...IMO
No, what he's ( gscarpenter 's )saying is that people who live in the GTA aren't going to drive that far on a regular basis to go to games in Hamilton
There is no corporate base (by pro sports standards) in Hamilton itself. It is that simple. It is a paper thin layer of companies that are big enough to even consider dropping $100-300k on a box (which does not exist as of now).
Based on Leipold's statement yesterday that at no point did he discuss relocation of the franchise with Balsillie and that he was "unaware" and "shocked" by the news that Balsillie had submitted a relocation application to the NHL along with his sale paperwork...I would guess that Leipold did not grant him the right to use the team identity for purposes of collecting deposits for the "Hamilton Predators".SLake :
Hmmm...I guess if Nashville's still owner, Leipold who owns those rights ...expresses in writing that Basillie can use the Pred's name/ logo etc modified to read Hamilton if need be...for promotional/ sales / ticket deposit purposes ...since part of this useage is also related to their ( pending NHL approval ) $ 240 Million sale ...which has been entered into by both parties in good faith ...and if the NHL execs likewise dont complain about it...
Then there is no injured party here...No Harm= No Foul Eh ?