Nashville Predators Being Sold?

[jkrdevil]

There is no way that the team is staying in Nashville. That pretty much looks like a forgone conclusion.

Why?

If they average 14,000 fans (and they averaged about 13,700 last year and have been growing the last few years), they're locked into Nashville for 7 years.

This is far from over.

14,000 tickets SOLD per game, they averaged 13,700 tickets DISTRIBUTED (I think )

No the 13,700 (about) number being floated is the sold number. The distributed number was about 15,000.

[CC97]

There is no way that the team is staying in Nashville. That pretty much looks like a forgone conclusion.

Why?

If they average 14,000 fans (and they averaged about 13,700 last year and have been growing the last few years), they're locked into Nashville for 7 years.

This is far from over.

14,000 tickets SOLD per game, they averaged 13,700 tickets DISTRIBUTED (I think )

No the 13,700 (about) number being floated is the sold number. The distributed number was about 15,000.

Thank you

[DDR]

I've read so many different pieces on this subject, so forgive me for not knowing the source off hand, but I seem to recall that if Nashville reaches 14,000 sold, Balsillie can still pay a fee to break the lease. And I don't remember the figure, but the article made some off-handed remark about it being "pocket change" or something for him.

[otherwilds]

I've read so many different pieces on this subject, so forgive me for not knowing the source off hand, but I seem to recall that if Nashville reaches 14,000 sold, Balsillie can still pay a fee to break the lease. And I don't remember the figure, but the article made some off-handed remark about it being "pocket change" or something for him.

There is no "out clause" where he can easily buy his way out of the lease if Nashville does not meet the tickets sold marks.

[IceCap]

I've read so many different pieces on this subject, so forgive me for not knowing the source off hand, but I seem to recall that if Nashville reaches 14,000 sold, Balsillie can still pay a fee to break the lease. And I don't remember the figure, but the article made some off-handed remark about it being "pocket change" or something for him.

There is no "out clause" where he can easily buy his way out of the lease if Nashville does not meet the tickets sold marks.

You can buy your way out of any contract. Balsille has more then enough to compensate the city of Nashville.

It's kind of funny, before this sale was announced Nashville as a whole didn't give the Preds a second thought. Now that they may move, however, they're acting like a vital part of the community is in danger of leaving. Is this how it's going to be? Every 5-10 years when the Preds management is sick of lukewarm support at best and begins to contemplate a future elsewhere the entire city's going to turn into rabid hockey fans just to keep the team around, only to go back to casual fans at best once the new honeymoon's over?

Look, when it was clear the Jets would be leaving Winnipeg the fans came out in droves, but the team still moved because, in the eyes of the owners at least, it was the right thing to do. Fan support may have peaked when the franchise was in danger of being moved, but if they had shown that enthusiasm all along they wouldn't be in that situation.

Same deal in Nashville. This "Save the Preds" stuff came out of nowhere. You guys didn't support the team when it seemed they were staying in Nashville, but once the owners decide there's a brighter future elsewhere you all cry bloody murder. Like the kid who has to many toys, and doesn't play with one, but cries when an other kid who actually wants to play with that toy goes to pick it up.

[STL FANATIC]

I've read so many different pieces on this subject, so forgive me for not knowing the source off hand, but I seem to recall that if Nashville reaches 14,000 sold, Balsillie can still pay a fee to break the lease. And I don't remember the figure, but the article made some off-handed remark about it being "pocket change" or something for him.

There is no "out clause" where he can easily buy his way out of the lease if Nashville does not meet the tickets sold marks.

You can buy your way out of any contract. Balsille has more then enough to compensate the city of Nashville.

There's no clause that allows him to buy it out. The original confusion is that he has to pay a penalty to break the lease even if the under 14,000 out clause is excersiced.

I know your point is that you can break any contract no matter what the clause if you have enough money, but the people you pay have to be willing to let you, and I'm not sure that's the case here.

If this really was a pattern, you'd have a point about the little kid that only yells when someone else picks the toy up to play.

But we don't know what the pattern is.

This is still a market growing, and rather than this being something that's going to spike support for just enough to save the team and then have it drop off again, this could very easily be something that simply boosts that growth, and that growth might just stay after they fight off the move.

This team hasn't been good for long enough or that good at any one time (great regular seasons are nice, but until you win a Championship, you're still just a playoff team) to definitely capture a large fanbase of new hockey fans. But the team is going on it's fourth year of good hockey, and now this city has a major wake up call with a threat to move. And you're yelling at them for responding to that wake up call?

[Sir Donald]

So could he (if he ticks all the right boxes) move the Preds into Copps for next season while they await the possible new arena?

[CC97]

So could he (if he ticks all the right boxes) move the Preds into Copps for next season while they await the possible new arena?

Earliest is 2008/09, I believe -- but he has to announce his intent to move by June 19, 2007.

[rams80]

I'm still of the opinion that folks in the GTA are more Leafs fans than hockey fans.

I'm also still going to voice my skepticism about the Waterloo area's long term viability.

[STL FANATIC]

So could he (if he ticks all the right boxes) move the Preds into Copps for next season while they await the possible new arena?

Earliest is 2008/09, I believe -- but he has to announce his intent to move by June 19, 2007.

I believe whoever is the current owner has to announce the intent to excercise the outclause by that date. Then that clause would still hind on attendance.

[IceCap]

I've read so many different pieces on this subject, so forgive me for not knowing the source off hand, but I seem to recall that if Nashville reaches 14,000 sold, Balsillie can still pay a fee to break the lease. And I don't remember the figure, but the article made some off-handed remark about it being "pocket change" or something for him.

There is no "out clause" where he can easily buy his way out of the lease if Nashville does not meet the tickets sold marks.

You can buy your way out of any contract. Balsille has more then enough to compensate the city of Nashville.

There's no clause that allows him to buy it out. The original confusion is that he has to pay a penalty to break the lease even if the under 14,000 out clause is excersiced.

I know your point is that you can break any contract no matter what the clause if you have enough money, but the people you pay have to be willing to let you, and I'm not sure that's the case here.

If this really was a pattern, you'd have a point about the little kid that only yells when someone else picks the toy up to play.

But we don't know what the pattern is.

This is still a market growing, and rather than this being something that's going to spike support for just enough to save the team and then have it drop off again, this could very easily be something that simply boosts that growth, and that growth might just stay after they fight off the move.

This team hasn't been good for long enough or that good at any one time (great regular seasons are nice, but until you win a Championship, you're still just a playoff team) to definitely capture a large fanbase of new hockey fans. But the team is going on it's fourth year of good hockey, and now this city has a major wake up call with a threat to move. And you're yelling at them for responding to that wake up call?

I'm "yelling" at them for acting selfish. If they truly support the Predators they wouldn't need a threat of a move to get them to show this kind of support. This is an expansion team who's made the playoffs the last three seasons. In a market that appreciates the game seeing an expansion team finally come into its own would be a huge deal. You say until they win something they'll "just be a playoff team."

Well for a late 90's expansion team making the playoffs three times in a row is just as good, and should have a championship-like affect on the team. Take the Sharks for example. They're an expansion team, and they've never won a title, but they're a solid team each year, they make the playoffs, and that's had a positive effect on the fan base. "A winning team will attract fans" is only as long as the market has an interest in the game.

Back to the selfish deal, you have a region that lives and breaths hockey. The pro team that represents the region has been around since 1917 and has 13 Stanley Cups. This success coupled with the popularity of the sport has made getting tickets to see that team play near impossible. There are far more fans in southern Ontario then there are available tickets for a Leafs game. Sure Detroit and Buffalo are just over the border, but have you ever waited in line to cross the border? It can easily add an other hour to your trip, and even longer still if you get a border guard who's in an ugly mood.

So an other team in southern Ontario would tap into a HUGE hockey-crazed market that is unable to see the "local" team play on a regular basis.

So it is selfish for some city that shows casual interest at best for a team that almost won the President's Trophy to want to keep the team in a market with casual interest when there's a market that would truly appreciate the team.

As for my proposed pattern, I'm very certain it will be the case, especially considering that the team that took the ice for the '06-'07 season will more then likely be disbanded due to salary cap room. So the team that takes the ice for the next few seasons won't be as dominant as this season's team, which means they'll have to win back the support of a town that already considers them a sideshow. Yeah, the move may push support through the roof at the start of next season, but what happens when they don't play as well as they did this year? What happens when they get knocked out of the playoffs in round 1 again (assuming they make the playoffs)? Support will drop, and 5-10 years later management will start looking for a new market. Then Nashville will do this "We support the Predators" act again. What then? Is this how you want a franchise in the premier hockey league of the world to exist? Always on the brink of relocation, only to be kept in town by selfish support that vanishes as quickly as it sprung up?

A team in Hamilton is a sure thing to stay put for a long, long time. The fan base is more or less built into the market.

A team in Nashville, well the future is very uncertain.

For the benefit of NHL security, respect for fans who live and breath the game, and out of a realization that NHL hockey will always be a quaint side show in Nashville at best, a move to Hamilton is the best option available.

Yes, I want an other team in Canada. It could be in Winnipeg, QC, Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo, I don't care. This nation, if it didn't invent hockey outright, nurtured it, modernized it, and made it its own. We love hockey, as much as Americans love baseball and the NFL, we love hockey. There are possible untapped NHL markets across this country that would support a team, under any circumstance. So why keep a team on life support in a market that doesn't care when you can tap into one of these markets?

Southern Ontario has the advantage over Winnipeg and QC because it has the population and local corporate support that's all to vital these days. So from both a business standpoint as well as a purely "hockey" standpoint, southern Ontario makes the most sense.

Look, I'm sorry a Predators move up north will rob the Blues of a rival, but with realignment the Blues have the possibility of keeping most of their existing rivalries as well as creating new ones, all the while the NHL has moved a team out of a city that doesn't care into a market that lives and breaths for the sport.

I'm still of the opinion that folks in the GTA are more Leafs fans than hockey fans.

I'm also still going to voice my skepticism about the Waterloo area's long term viability.

I'll assume you meant "southern Ontario" rather then "GTA" because both Kitchener-Waterloo/Cambridge and Hamilton are well outside the Greater Toronto Area.

So assuming you did mean that southern Ontario fans are more Leafs fans then hockey fans, I'll just say live here for 19 years and then we'll get back to you

[STL FANATIC]

You keep saying a market that doesn't care. The whole point has been getting to care. And slowly but surely, they've started to. And right now, they're being challenged to care, and if they step up and start showing they do, that's not being selfish, that's great!

Maybe as soon as their lease is locked in, the fans will stop paying so much attention and stop showing they care. And if that's the case, maybe they should lose their team. But the point of moving to Nashville was to grow the game, to expand the viable hockey markets. It didn't happen overnight in Nashville, but it IS happening. And this is probably gonna make it happen even faster.

And you can't just lump Nashville in with all the other expansion markets. They're all different. A couple are much bigger or having their second team or whatever. Some expansion teams were meant to tap a small burried interest in hockey. Some where meant to grow the game in a huge market. But Nashville was simply a small, small market that didn't have anything much to do with hockey, and the goal was simply to develop a fanbase essentially out of nothing. And they have, and it's still growing slowly.

While true that I'm concerned about my rivalry, this is as much about seeing a growing fan base not be stripped of its chance to continue growing. It's about not pulling the plug too soon on an experiment that is working, albeit slowly.

And I just don't see calling a fanbase selfish for stepping up and doing what it can to save it's team when it needs to.

A little frustrating that it hasn't been going on all along? Yes. But selfish? No, not at all.

[CC97]

I'm still of the opinion that folks in the GTA are more Leafs fans than hockey fans.

Therefore ratings for the Stanley Cup Finals in the GTA should be low, correct?

[IceCap]

You keep saying a market that doesn't care. The whole point has been getting to care. And slowly but surely, they've started to. And right now, they're being challenged to care, and if they step up and start showing they do, that's not being selfish, that's great!

Maybe as soon as their lease is locked in, the fans will stop paying so much attention and stop showing they care. And if that's the case, maybe they should lose their team. But the point of moving to Nashville was to grow the game, to expand the viable hockey markets. It didn't happen overnight in Nashville, but it IS happening. And this is probably gonna make it happen even faster.

And you can't just lump Nashville in with all the other expansion markets. They're all different. A couple are much bigger or having their second team or whatever. Some expansion teams were meant to tap a small burried interest in hockey. Some where meant to grow the game in a huge market. But Nashville was simply a small, small market that didn't have anything much to do with hockey, and the goal was simply to develop a fanbase essentially out of nothing. And they have, and it's still growing slowly.

While true that I'm concerned about my rivalry, this is as much about seeing a growing fan base not be stripped of its chance to continue growing. It's about not pulling the plug too soon on an experiment that is working, albeit slowly.

And I just don't see calling a fanbase selfish for stepping up and doing what it can to save it's team when it needs to.

A little frustrating that it hasn't been going on all along? Yes. But selfish? No, not at all.

Can we drop this "growing the game" crap? Please? The game has "grown" in six non-traditional markets with seven teams. For the most part the "growing the game" plan worked. Maybe it was done a little to quickly, but it worked for the most part. Did the plan have a 100% success rate? No. There are some dead weight franchises in locations that haven't accepted the game. So the NHL should pat itself on the back for a successful "lets grow the game" campaign, and start moving those franchises away from the dead weight markets.

You say there's nothing wrong with Nashville "faithful" stepping up to save their team. The same thing happened in Winnipeg before the Jets left. Would you have been in favour of keeping them in Winnipeg back then, using the mentality you're applying to the Nashville situation now? Lets take a look outside of hockey.

When it was clear the Expos would leaving Montréal there was a huge "Save the Expos" campaign. In both cases the fans of their teams "stepped up" to save their teams. While it's nice to see, in the end it doesn't change anything. When all is said and done these teams were only getting that support because it became public knowledge they were leaving. A team can't survive with that fickle a fan base. If the fans really cared about the team they wouldn't wait until it was threatening to move before they showed their support.

The kind of reaction we're seeing in Nashville sports fans has been shown by fans of every franchise on the brink of moving. It doesn't mean anything. Mark my words, if this "save the Preds" deal manages to keep the team in Nashville you'll see support fall away again.

Heck, the Columbus Blue Jackets, who have never even come close to making the playoffs, have more local support then a team that almost won the President's Trophy. You say we can't compare the Preds to other expansion teams. BS. How else are we suppose to determine the success or failure of the market? When compared to other 90's and early 2000's expansion teams in terms of longevity and on-ice success the Predators come up last in terms of local support by a wide margin.

Nashville simply doesn't care. They're going to do what they have to do to save the Predators. If it works they'll relegate them to side show status AGAIN after the novelty of "saving the team" wears off. Then they'll cry when the team starts to think that Nashville may not be the best place for NHL hockey. So essentially they want the team there so they can say they have a NHL team, but they don't actually care of the sport. That's selfish.

And excuse me if I want to see my country, a country that invented the modern sport of hockey, receive an other team in an untapped market that would support the team just for showing up to the rink come game time

[leedsunited]

I just don't see the NHL being afforded the luxury of "growing" nontraditional markets anymore.

The league is hurting. Time to retrench, and if that means putting another team in hotbed central (aka Canada), all for it.

[zer0dotcom]

When you grow your game too far, you get Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson at your halftime show

[DEAD!]

When you grow your game too far, you get Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson at your halftime show

.... which, of course, would NEVER happen in the NHL....

[broncoempire]

Bettman needs to stop whining and look past his own face for a few moments and do something that will really help the league. The Southern strategy was a mixed bag; some places worked while others did not. It's time to grow the game back to markets that will not only support the game, but appreciate it as well. If that means moving a few teams out of the clutches of the Nielsen ratings and American television broadcasters, so be it. And when he finally gets done with this piece of business, there's a nice team of underperforming young talent down here in South Florida that would look lovely in Winnipeg or Quebec City.

[Fred T. Jane]

And when he finally gets done with this piece of business, there's a nice team of underperforming young talent down here in South Florida that would look lovely in Winnipeg or Quebec City.

So they can be a group of slightly older underperforming young talent in an arena that matches their AHL-level of play?

[broncoempire]

And when he finally gets done with this piece of business, there's a nice team of underperforming young talent down here in South Florida that would look lovely in Winnipeg or Quebec City.

So they can be a group of slightly older underperforming young talent in an arena that matches their AHL-level of play?

Perhaps. But at least then they will be in front of a crowd more receptive to what they are doing. Not to mention there will actually be a crowd, compared to here where the majority come dressed as empty seats.