Nashville sale thread--Leipold PULLS OUT of sale, Balsillie's bid OUT

[nomorekids]

Even if you're kidding, an NHL team in the maritimes is a ridiculous idea. The people there can barely afford QMJHL tickets.

NMK, I'm curious about the bid from the local group, the local guys are putting up over $100M up front, but what is their total bid going to be? Has there been any word?

No, I think they're likely not going to allow it to surface, for obvious implications it could have on other parties. Obviously JB will eventually catch wind of it, but I think they'd rather keep it under wraps for now.

And..Vanek...the number they have to hit this season is 14K on the dot. Not the 14,185 some of the media is talking about. The lease was quite clear on that, it's not a collective average.

And if you want to look at the PAID attendance for a lot of teams in the league, you'll find that their attendance dips well beyond what people brag it to be. There were plenty of teams that gave more tickets away than Nashville...because it's not like they walk around on the street handing out tickets that they just can't sell. Included in those numbers are the free tickets season ticket holders get, promotional tickets, charity, and so on.

 

[sluggo*]

Great! Then provide a valid link showing that Nashville's paid attendance in '06-07 was less than their paid attendance in '05-06. You asserted that Nashville's attendance was higher in 2005-06, and on a total basis that's been proven to be wrong ... meaning your only hope is to (somehow) show the paid attendance was in fact greater.

Considering Nashville's average paid attendance for '06-07 was reported as about 13,815 and their total average attendance for '05-06 was 14,428 ........ well, good luck finding that link!

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/news_story/?ID=210932&hubname=nhl-predators

Nashville authorities say Leipold can't use attendance from the first season after the NHL lockout in counting two seasons of attendance under 14,000. But Leipold said in a statement late Friday he had no choice but to tap the clause after five seasons of sub-14,000 attendance.

You want to say it went up in 06-07, fine. It went up. The paid attendence (the ones that really count) still didn't break the 14,000 mark, if the only way to get that attendence up and move from spot 25 to 23 is give away more tickets......not saying much about hockey in Nashville. I know the people on here are the hardcore fans, but when the Canadian media says stuff like that they are talking about Nashville as a whole, and if the ywere wrong and the city as a whole DID care about hockey, the team wouldn't be in this position to begin with.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Let us review:

In 05-06 the Predators (one of the best teams in the NHL) were 25th in attendence. I believe they dropped in 06-07. You can say "Yada, yada, yada, thats just Canadian media crap" but, the numbers support it.

If you have facts that show I'm wrong, by all means present them I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong. They averaged 14,428 in 05-06. I BELIEVE they were under 14,000 last year, which is why they need more then 14,000 this year to close that lease escape.

They averaged 14,428 TOTAL(paid\unpaid) in 05-06. The 13,815 number you keep seeing is their paid attendance. Their actual attendance, total, was in the mid-high 15's(I can't remember off-hand, but if you poke around, that number is in a few different places)

To me, for the argument I was making, the numbers don't really matter.

According to THN, in 05-06, the Predators were 25th in attendence (Blackhawks, Devils, Islanders, Blues, and Capitals were worse) . I'm 99% sure that their atttendence didn't spike up in 06-07.

Thank you for so eloquently (and unintentionally) summing up the viewpoint of the "Typical Canadian media crap".

You would be 99% wrong:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2006

25 Nashville 41 591,556 14,428 84.3%

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2007

23 Nashville 41 625,649 15,259 89.2%

But why let a pesky things like facts get in the way of a perfectly good anti non-traditional market rant.

As nomorekids pointed out, there is paid an unpaid attendence. I know they had less then 14,000 paid attendence because EVERY media outlet (Canadian and American) has said they need to 14,1....something to get the 14,000 average over two season.

Great! Then provide a valid link showing that Nashville's paid attendance in '06-07 was less than their paid attendance in '05-06. You asserted that Nashville's attendance was higher in 2005-06, and on a total basis that's been proven to be wrong ... meaning your only hope is to (somehow) show the paid attendance was in fact greater.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/news_story/?ID=210932&hubname=nhl-predators

Nashville authorities say Leipold can't use attendance from the first season after the NHL lockout in counting two seasons of attendance under 14,000. But Leipold said in a statement late Friday he had no choice but to tap the clause after five seasons of sub-14,000 attendance.

You want to say it went up in 06-07, fine. It went up. The paid attendence (the ones that really count) still didn't break the 14,000 mark, if the only way to get that attendence up and move from spot 25 to 23 is give away more tickets......not saying much about hockey in Nashville. I know the people on here are the hardcore fans, but when the Canadian media says stuff like that they are talking about Nashville as a whole, and if the ywere wrong and the city as a whole DID care about hockey, the team wouldn't be in this position to begin with.

And so ... after making a bold statement and then stating that, "I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong," Vanek-26 has refused to admit that he was in fact wrong despite three (3) posts underscoring the fact that he was indeed wrong. He has also been unable to show that paid attendance did indeed decline from '05-06 to '06-07 (because that link clearly doesn't indicate any such thing).

 

[sluggo*]

And if you want to look at the PAID attendance for a lot of teams in the league, you'll find that their attendance dips well beyond what people brag it to be. There were plenty of teams that gave more tickets away than Nashville

Most Canadians would tell you that the NHL is to big and in a lot of markets it shouldn't be in.

 

[nomorekids]

Most Canadians would tell you that the NHL is to big and in a lot of markets it shouldn't be in.

Which is probably why those same pundits have such a crummy reputation around here.

 

[sluggo*]

And so ... after making a bold statement and then stating that, "I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong," Vanek-26 has refused to admit that he was in fact wrong despite three (3) posts underscoring the fact that he was indeed wrong

I was using two sets of numbers, my mistake.

Fact still remains that Nashville doesn't sell tickets, which just supports the attitude thats its not a good hockey market. I know it hurts but......

I also believe I said - You want to say it went up in 06-07, fine. It went up.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I was using two sets of numbers, my mistake.

Fact still remains that Nashville doesn't sell tickets, which just supports the attitude thats its not a good hockey market. I know it hurts but......

I also believe I said - You want to say it went up in 06-07, fine. It went up.

I and everyone here would actually like to see, "Hey - I thought it went down, it didn't ... I was wrong" instead of a backhanded, "well ... whatever, I'm still right" attitude.

Unfortunately, seeing those three words from most people here happens about as often as a total eclipse passes over their house.

 

[sluggo*]

Which is probably why those same pundits have such a crummy reputation around here.

Doesn't make them wrong. The fans of those teams on here are the few hardcore fans in those areas. One of the sayings that popular in Toronto sports talk radio is - 80% of the teams are in the US while 80% of the fans are in Canada. WHile those few hardcore fans don't like it, its completely correct to question the wisdom of expanding a league (many believe, beyond what it should be given the talent pool) into areas that have proven through ticket sales and t.v ratings that they aren't that interested.

 

[sluggo*]

I and everyone here would actually like to see, "Hey - I thought it went down, it didn't ... I was wrong" instead of a backhanded, "well ... whatever, I'm still right" attitude.

Unfortunately, seeing those three words from most people here happens about as often as a total eclipse passes over their house.

I was wrong in the specific's, not in my general point, the numbers still support that.

 

[Free Edler]

Doesn't make them wrong. The fans of those teams on here are the few hardcore fans in those areas. One of the sayings that popular in Toronto sports talk radio is - 80% of the teams are in the US while 80% of the fans are in Canada. WHile those few hardcore fans don't like it, its completely correct to question the wisdom of expanding a league (many believe, beyond what it should be given the talent pool) into areas that have proven through ticket sales and t.v ratings that they aren't that interested.

The league was expanded because those Canadian teams were struggling to stay afloat because of our dollar taking a crap throughout the '90's. Combine that with rapidly escalating player salaries and it's concievable that Calgary or Edmonton could be in US markets today if not for the expansion money to line the owner's pockets with security for those few years.

Maybe Nashville wasn't the best market to go into, but there is a team there, and if this Balsillie business is any indication, there's going to be one there for a while longer.

 

[nomorekids]

I was wrong in the specific's, not in my general point, the numbers still support that.

The assertion that "Nashville doesn't sell tickets" is a pretty heavy one, given what you're implying.

You've been around in these threads enough to know what the situation is. Implying that it doesn't have enough fans is pretty ridiculous, when even the media in the markets of those "fans that matter," your aforementioned Canadian fans, admit that it's a matter of corporate support, something that a sports economics professor just wrote an op-ed piece centered on--in which he said that he feels that it's largely due to Leipold's personal failure rather than a statement on the corporate community, and furthmore...that it could and probalby would get considerably better with a new owner.

Attendance has gone up EVERY SINGLE year since 02-03. Paid attendance. You can say that it's still not high enough, but isnt' that what growing the game is about? If you want to say that Nashville shouldn't have had a team, that Atlanta, Carolina, Phoenix, Florida..whomever...shouldn't have had teams...fine. That's your opinion. A lot of people felt that women shouldn't be able to vote and that blacks should use different bathrooms than whites...but those were just opinions, too. Oddly, both stem from silly insecurity, but I digress. But the fact, yes, FACT...a concept that's been eluding you for weeks...is that Nashville was showing steady improvement. Maybe it wasn't at the pace that you or those other "hardcore Canadian fans" would like, but it's hard to call a market that's steadily improving in both fan interest, and seemingly corporate interest as well a "failure" when things have been getting BETTER, not WORSE. What's so hard to understand about that?

You shouldn't be taken seriously until you do what you said you would...admit you're wrong, and not with any caveat, without any qualifier. You were wrong, and you got called on it. Be a man and lump up to it.

 

[sluggo*]

The league was expanded because those Canadian teams were struggling to stay afloat because of our dollar taking a crap throughout the '90's. Combine that with rapidly escalating player salaries and it's concievable that Calgary or Edmonton could be in US markets today if not for the expansion money to line the owner's pockets with security for those few years.

Maybe Nashville wasn't the best market to go into, but there is a team there, and if this Balsillie business is any indication, there's going to be one there for a while longer.

I agree, in the 90's those teams took poundings, and the NHL had to step in to help the remaining 6 with that. But with strong Canadian dollar, the protection in place for when/if he falls again and the salary cap, those are viable markets again. And not every market int he US is bad, not every expansion market in the US is bad, but a lot are.

And if Balsillie gets that team, its getting moved, and quickly. FOr those who don't think so, wait and see. I have zero doubt that Balsillie would not even be considering buying the team if he didn't have 2-3-4 ways out of that lease.

 

[nomorekids]

I agree, in the 90's those teams took poundings, and the NHL had to step in to help the remaining 6 with that. But with strong Canadian dollar, the protection in place for when/if he falls again and the salary cap, those are viable markets again. And not every market int he US is bad, not every expansion market in the US is bad, but a lot are.

And if Balsillie gets that team, its getting moved, and quickly. FOr those who don't think so, wait and see. I have zero doubt that Balsillie would not even be considering buying the team if he didn't have 2-3-4 ways out of that lease.

More "facts" courtesy of Vanek-26. Lawyers say there's only one way out of the lease, the city of Nashville says there's only one way out of the lease, even Balsillie's lawyer, the ever-verbose Richard Rodier says there's only one way out of the lease...

But...ya got-ta have FAITH, peo-plee! Jim Balsillie's tender, swollen genius head will generate some lightning and he'll throw some money from the interminable snakepit that is his VA$T WEALTH and make the lease go away. That's just one way, mind you. There are 2 or 3 more, remember.

 

[sluggo*]

your aforementioned Canadian fans, admit that it's a matter of corporate support, something that a sports economics professor just wrote an op-ed piece centered on--in which he said that he feels that it's largely due to Leipold's personal failure rather than a statement on the corporate community, and furthmore...that it could and probalby would get considerably better with a new owner

Very nice taht you can blame it all on Leipold. But Nashvilles season ticket base started at 12,000. In 03-04 is 6,532. Thats not all coroporate drop off. If you know the number in 06-07 I'd like to see it.

Attendance has gone up EVERY SINGLE year since 02-03. Paid attendance. You can say that it's still not high enough, but isnt' that what growing the game is about?

Marginally growing interest in a team in a market that generally doesn't care, no. Thats one of the problems with the NHL right, they arein to many markets that just don't care.

That's your opinion. A lot of people felt that women shouldn't be able to vote and that blacks should use different bathrooms than whites...but those were just opinions, too

Yes, Nashville having a hockey team is excatly the same as equel women's and racial rights.

is that Nashville was showing steady improvement

For a team thats been one of the best in teh NHL for the last 2-3 seasons, not very good. Do they have to win a cup get even close to being a middle of the road team? ANd what happens if they don't win the cup the next year, it falls off again?

You shouldn't be taken seriously until you do what you said you would...admit you're wrong, and not with any caveat, without any qualifier. You were wrong, and you got called on it. Be a man and lump up to it.

About the numbers, I said 3 times in 3 ways. About the general idea, that Nashville isn't a very good hockey market, the numbers prove it isn't. ANd if it was, it wouldn't be in the situation its in now. Maybe you need be a man and lump up to that.

 

[sluggo*]

More "facts" courtesy of Vanek-26. Lawyers say there's only one way out of the lease, the city of Nashville says there's only one way out of the lease, even Balsillie's lawyer, the ever-verbose Richard Rodier says there's only one way out of the lease...

But...ya got-ta have FAITH, peo-plee! Jim Balsillie's tender, swollen genius head will generate some lightning and he'll throw some money from the interminable snakepit that is his VA$T WEALTH and make the lease go away. That's just one way, mind you. There are 2 or 3 more, remember.

Yes the "lawyers" have seem to have nothing better to do but post on Hockeysfuture.

If there was one way out of the lease (and theres at least 2 with this one) Balsillie wouldn't be going after it, he has ZERO interest in running a team in Nashville.

 

[nomorekids]

Yes the "lawyers" have seem to have nothing better to do but post on Hockeysfuture.

If there was one way out of the lease (and theres at least 2 with this one) Balsillie wouldn't be going after it, he has ZERO interest in running a team in Nashville.

If Balsillie was so confident that he could move the team, this deal would be going forward and Leipold would have the binding agreement he's requested. Balsillie isn't GOING to go forward with this if he's not PRE-APPROVED for relocation next season, which simply won't happen. If it were the end of next season, and Nashville was sitting with an average of 13,500 and the city had declined to make up the difference...and THEN he applied again, then likely he'd have a chance.

He's the one dragging his feet here, and meanwhile, other people are coming forward with bids.

 

[sluggo*]

I and everyone here would actually like to see, "Hey - I thought it went down, it didn't ... I was wrong" instead of a backhanded, "well ... whatever, I'm still right" attitude.

Unfortunately, seeing those three words from most people here happens about as often as a total eclipse passes over their house.

Ya, I remember talking to someone about how property values go up and down based on the market. He never admitted he was wrong about that...

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Ya, I remember talking to someone about how property values go up and down based on the market. He never admitted he was wrong about that...

Actually, your assertion was that Balsille offering $236 million for the Predators made all 29 other teams instantly worth tens of millions of dollars more once the BoG approved the sale - something that I, gscarpenter, and a few others steadfastly refuted. I stated that the effect of the bid on the Predators was largely negligible AFA affecting the values of the other 29 NHL teams, much like how the Ducks being bought for $75 million didn't drive the value of the other 29 franchises down by tens of millions of dollars.

The fact that you've convinced yourself that you're right does not automatically make everyone else wrong.

For a team thats been one of the best in teh NHL for the last 2-3 seasons, not very good. Do they have to win a cup get even close to being a middle of the road team? ANd what happens if they don't win the cup the next year, it falls off again?

I realized something - I've posed a question three (3) previous times, and to the best of my knowledge, you've never offered a response. So ... I'll give you a 4th chance.

How many years should a market be given to grow support and show it can support an NHL team before we throw in the towel? If I have the numbers right (I've posted them 3 times, if any of these are off go find where I asked this question previously) Florida's had a team for 13 years (and sucked the last 6), Anaheim's had one for 13, Ottawa's had one for 14, and Tampa's had one for 15. The Coyotes have been in Phoenix for 10 years, Carolina's had a team for 9, Minnesota and Columbus for 6, Atlanta for 7, and Nashville for 8 - and keep in mind that Nashville went to the playoffs for the first time in '04 and then had the lockout.

How many years is enough?

 

[sluggo*]

If Balsillie was so confident that he could move the team, this deal would be going forward and Leipold would have the binding agreement he's requested. Balsillie isn't GOING to go forward with this if he's not PRE-APPROVED for relocation next season, which simply won't happen. If it were the end of next season, and Nashville was sitting with an average of 13,500 and the city had declined to make up the difference...and THEN he applied again, then likely he'd have a chance.

He's the one dragging his feet here, and meanwhile, other people are coming forward with bids.

Hes dealing with the league, not the lease, making sure he fits the criteria for moving the team, making sure it goes it a hockey market etc....

As whos come foward with a new offer? So far all thats hapepned is someone has pulled out. There might be an onwership group from Nashville coming foward, more cash less money. Leipold wants his pay day, and that deal will most likely be used (if it comes) to get more money and/or cash out of Balsillie and speed him up. The only way Leipold takes that deal is Balsillie walks away or is unwilling to match.

 

[sluggo*]

I realized something - I've posed a question three (3) previous times, and to the best of my knowledge, you've never offered a response. So ... I'll give you a 4th chance.

How many years should a market be given to grow support and show it can support an NHL team before we throw in the towel? If I have the numbers right (I've posted them 3 times, if any of these are off go find where I asked this question previously) Florida's had a team for 13 years (and sucked the last 6), Anaheim's had one for 13, Ottawa's had one for 14, and Tampa's had one for 15. The Coyotes have been in Phoenix for 10 years, Carolina's had a team for 9, Minnesota and Columbus for 6, Atlanta for 7, and Nashville for 8 - and keep in mind that Nashville went to the playoffs for the first time in '04 and then had the lockout.

How many years is enough?

As long as there is an owner willing to lose money on the team. And, apparently, that time is up for Nashville. As I said before when you asked that question, its easy to say when you're not the one losing millions on a team.

 

[nomorekids]

As long as there is an owner willing to lose money on the team. And, apparently, that time is up for Nashville. As I said before when you asked that question, its easy to say when you're not the one losing millions on a team.

There's no guarantee that Nashville will continue to lose money. In fact, there's every sign that they won't.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

As long as there is an owner willing to lose money on the team. And, apparently, that time is up for Nashville. As I said before when you asked that question, its easy to say when you're not the one losing millions on a team.

(deleted - the reason will be apparent shortly.)

 

[sluggo*]

There's no guarantee that Nashville will continue to lose money. In fact, there's every sign that they won't.

Theres no owner willing to keep it in Nashville. Leipold wants out. Balsillie and Del...whatever both wanted to move it.

Irish Blues - Since you like asking that question, how many years does it take?

 

[nomorekids]

Theres no owner willing to keep it in Nashville. Leipold wants out. Balsillie and Del...whatever both wanted to move it.

There certainly is an owner\group of owners. Did you miss my link, mentioning the forthcoming bid?

 

[Fugu]

There's no guarantee that Nashville will continue to lose money. In fact, there's every sign that they won't.

Now you're stretching it. I suppose you have link that says exactly how it is that Nashville will make money? And you guarantee that how?

If we're going to haul one guy down on the carpet for stating his rather unpopular opinion, please let's not substitute our own opinions as facts in the very next moment....