Nashville Predators Being Sold?

[philly97flyer]

In all fairness, its pretty hard to judge the success of hockey in Denver. I mean, Im not saying its not a good hockey city, but they have had it much easier than other cities when it comes to "new" franchises. This is a city that celebrated a cup in its first year of having a team, another cup 5 years later, and has been good ever since arriving in town.

[leedsunited]

Is Vegas a real contender here? Can't see it myself.

Pigs will fly out of Bettman's rear-end before a team ends up in Las Vegas. Esp. an NHL franchise.

[CJR]

Saying that Kansas City isn't a viable hockey city because the Scouts left town is just as absurd as saying Denver isn't a viable hockey city because the Rockies left town.

Veering way off topic...

Chris and I were talking about an alternate history scenario the other day that had us looking into the circumstances of the Rockies' demise. One place had the opinion that if Don Cherry had stayed on as coach, it would have been enough to save the team. I don't know whether it's a good thing or a bad thing but that says something about the market.

Completely unrelated... The scenario was "What if Wayne Gretzky was available in the 1979-80 NHL Entry Draft?" Maybe he doesn't play in the WHA, maybe Indy never trades him, maybe the NHL says Edmonton can't protect him, whatever. The Rockies had the first pick in that draft and would have gotten him.

[Gothamite]

I don't understand the article you posted, Ez Street. He seems to be all over the place:

"So, as Leipold prepares to leave with his $70 million bag of money, Predators season-ticket holders are out tens of thousands of dollars in tickets, parking, bad beer and hideous uniforms. It's the same old story."

Leipold isn't the bad guy here. Nobody can say that he didn't give the market a shot, or that he lined his own pockets at the expense of the team, or that he didn't give the club what they needed to be competitive in the standings.

Yes, he may reap a $70M payout when he sells. But until he does sell, he's out $70M in operating costs. Should he be forced to continue losing money?

But go ahead, blame the rich guy for being rich - that is the same old story.

"If paid attendance in Nashville does not average at least 14,000 next season, and the city can buy all of those tickets, the Preds can pay an exit fee of $18 million to get out of their arena lease and leave Music City USA. Balsillie has $18 million in his glove compartment. Also, the Preds had fewer than 9,000 season-ticket subscribers despite the success of the team, which amassed 110 points this season (tied with Anaheim for third best in the NHL)."

An excellent point. The market obviously doesn't care, even after a decade and after putting an outstanding team on the ice. Why shouldn't they be moved?

"Listen, I don't care what Balsillie does with the team. Nashville has shown it probably isn't an NHL city. Fewer than 9,000 season tickets for a 110-point team might be good for arena football or indoor lacrosse or the WNBA, but the NHL isn't like any of those leagues."

Agreed. So what's his problem, exactly? He seems to be arguing both points, or he just wants to make a cheap shot at Leipold.

Better to direct the ill will where it really belongs - with the market that has shown it doesn't care a whit about having a playoff-caliber big league hockey team.

[CC97]

Saying that Kansas City isn't a viable hockey city because the Scouts left town is just as absurd as saying Denver isn't a viable hockey city because the Rockies left town.

Veering way off topic...

Chris and I were talking about an alternate history scenario the other day that had us looking into the circumstances of the Rockies' demise. One place had the opinion that if Don Cherry had stayed on as coach, it would have been enough to save the team. I don't know whether it's a good thing or a bad thing but that says something about the market.

Completely unrelated... The scenario was "What if Wayne Gretzky was available in the 1979-80 NHL Entry Draft?" Maybe he doesn't play in the WHA, maybe Indy never trades him, maybe the NHL says Edmonton can't protect him, whatever. The Rockies had the first pick in that draft and would have gotten him.

And you gotta figure Gretzky with the Rockies in the 80s and that team survives... if you really want to simplify the Alt Time Line you end up with one fewer market to relocate to in the mid 90s, but of course who wants to simplify something like that

[jkrdevil]

Saying that Kansas City isn't a viable hockey city because the Scouts left town is just as absurd as saying Denver isn't a viable hockey city because the Rockies left town.

Veering way off topic...

Chris and I were talking about an alternate history scenario the other day that had us looking into the circumstances of the Rockies' demise. One place had the opinion that if Don Cherry had stayed on as coach, it would have been enough to save the team. I don't know whether it's a good thing or a bad thing but that says something about the market.

Completely unrelated... The scenario was "What if Wayne Gretzky was available in the 1979-80 NHL Entry Draft?" Maybe he doesn't play in the WHA, maybe Indy never trades him, maybe the NHL says Edmonton can't protect him, whatever. The Rockies had the first pick in that draft and would have gotten him.

Wasn't the Rockies ownership a mess? I remember hearing from Chico Resch, on Devils telecast, who was traded to the Rockies that last year in Denver that ownership was mess and there was no stability there. One story he also tells is how the Rockies locker room for practices was a trailer outside the rink. Shortly after the team was sold to McMullen they put the wheels back on and that is how the team knew they were about to move.

[DDR]

I don't see why there needs to be debate on this. Ontario seems like the logical choice. I'm all for Winnipeg and Hartford nostalgia, but I believe both of those are wishful thinking. Ontario would seem to satisfy most everybody not in Manitoba. It satisfies the league by moving to an untapped and growing market with a lot of interest a high chance of success. It satisfies the purist fans who will only accept a team in a Canadian market or a city that lost a team. And it keeps the league from considering another Southern US market (Houston), a scandal waiting to happen (Vegas), a city that couldn't hold onto its team before (Kansas City), or keeping it in a failing market with casual interest at best (Nashville). All jokes about Chicago deserving an NHL team aside, I believe it will be Ontario, and I'm all for it.

Saying that Kansas City isn't a viable hockey city because the Scouts left town is just as absurd as saying Denver isn't a viable hockey city because the Rockies left town.

Not once in that post did I say that any of the potential markets weren't viable. Check the post. Not once. I said Kansas City was a city that lost its team before. They did. Their on-ice product was sub-par, but they moved because they couldn't sell enough season tickets to alleviate their debt. Consider the following from sportsecyclopedia.com:

Not surprisingly the Scouts struggled to draw fans forcing their 37 inventors who were almost a million dollars in debt to initiate a ticket drive. However, when the Scouts sold only 2,000 of their 8,000 season tickets sold goal they were forced to conclude that hockey would not work in Kansas City so the team was moved to Denver after just 2 seasons in Kansas City.

So, yeah, given the choice, I'll take Kitchener-Waterloo or Hamilton.

[jkrdevil]

I don't see why there needs to be debate on this. Ontario seems like the logical choice. I'm all for Winnipeg and Hartford nostalgia, but I believe both of those are wishful thinking. Ontario would seem to satisfy most everybody not in Manitoba. It satisfies the league by moving to an untapped and growing market with a lot of interest a high chance of success. It satisfies the purist fans who will only accept a team in a Canadian market or a city that lost a team. And it keeps the league from considering another Southern US market (Houston), a scandal waiting to happen (Vegas), a city that couldn't hold onto its team before (Kansas City), or keeping it in a failing market with casual interest at best (Nashville). All jokes about Chicago deserving an NHL team aside, I believe it will be Ontario, and I'm all for it.

Saying that Kansas City isn't a viable hockey city because the Scouts left town is just as absurd as saying Denver isn't a viable hockey city because the Rockies left town.

Not once in that post did I say that any of the potential markets weren't viable. Check the post. Not once. I said Kansas City was a city that lost its team before. They did. Their on-ice product was sub-par, but they moved because they couldn't sell enough season tickets to alleviate their debt. Consider the following from sportsecyclopedia.com:

Not surprisingly the Scouts struggled to draw fans forcing their 37 inventors who were almost a million dollars in debt to initiate a ticket drive. However, when the Scouts sold only 2,000 of their 8,000 season tickets sold goal they were forced to conclude that hockey would not work in Kansas City so the team was moved to Denver after just 2 seasons in Kansas City.

So, yeah, given the choice, I'll take Kitchener-Waterloo or Hamilton.

That was over 30 years ago. That's like saying Philadelphia shouldn't have gotten a team in the 60's because their team in the 30's failed.

[Sir Donald]

Is Vegas a real contender here? Can't see it myself.

Pigs will fly out of Bettman's rear-end before a team ends up in Las Vegas. Esp. an NHL franchise.

Now theres a lovely image!! Thanks for clarifying my doubts on a LV hockey team.

I mean really? Hockey in Sin City? What next Nashville?

oh wait...

[leedsunited]

Is Vegas a real contender here? Can't see it myself.

Pigs will fly out of Bettman's rear-end before a team ends up in Las Vegas. Esp. an NHL franchise.

Now theres a lovely image!! Thanks for clarifying my doubts on a LV hockey team.

I mean really? Hockey in Sin City? What next Nashville?

oh wait...

Hate to be so graphic, but I can't see it happening in the foreseeable future for Las Vegas. No arena available (you think Keyarena is bad for hockey, you've never seen an old Las Vegas Thunder game at the Thomas & Mack), no arena on the books, lukewarm to nonexistant corporate support (you think Nashville has some apathetic corporate support, wait till you see the casinos give the franchise a cold shoulder - why support anything that takes away from customers in the casino, buffet, et al.), transient populace, sketchy support for hockey, the list goes on and on.

Let's put it this way - Nashville was, and is, an infinitely better choice for a franchise than Las Vegas ever was, or will be.

[Sir Donald]

That makes sense.

I wonder why the city keeps getting mentioned all the time. Guess its just for the attention..?

Oh well, thats one less competitor for Southern Ontario!

[rams80]

I don't see why there needs to be debate on this. Ontario seems like the logical choice. I'm all for Winnipeg and Hartford nostalgia, but I believe both of those are wishful thinking. Ontario would seem to satisfy most everybody not in Manitoba. It satisfies the league by moving to an untapped and growing market with a lot of interest a high chance of success. It satisfies the purist fans who will only accept a team in a Canadian market or a city that lost a team. And it keeps the league from considering another Southern US market (Houston), a scandal waiting to happen (Vegas), a city that couldn't hold onto its team before (Kansas City), or keeping it in a failing market with casual interest at best (Nashville). All jokes about Chicago deserving an NHL team aside, I believe it will be Ontario, and I'm all for it.

Saying that Kansas City isn't a viable hockey city because the Scouts left town is just as absurd as saying Denver isn't a viable hockey city because the Rockies left town.

Not once in that post did I say that any of the potential markets weren't viable. Check the post. Not once. I said Kansas City was a city that lost its team before. They did. Their on-ice product was sub-par, but they moved because they couldn't sell enough season tickets to alleviate their debt. Consider the following from sportsecyclopedia.com:

Not surprisingly the Scouts struggled to draw fans forcing their 37 inventors who were almost a million dollars in debt to initiate a ticket drive. However, when the Scouts sold only 2,000 of their 8,000 season tickets sold goal they were forced to conclude that hockey would not work in Kansas City so the team was moved to Denver after just 2 seasons in Kansas City.

So, yeah, given the choice, I'll take Kitchener-Waterloo or Hamilton.

That was over 30 years ago. That's like saying Philadelphia shouldn't have gotten a team in the 60's because their team in the 30's failed.

Stop making sense! Also add Pittsburgh and St. Louis to that list...

You should also add, though, that since this was also during the NHL-WHA "war", the financial environment was even more hostile for an expansion team.

Anyway, I think Kansas City represents more potential growth than Southern Ontario, but that's just MHO.

[cleckie]

This just in... Jim Balsillie Strikes deal with City of Hamilton

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=209447&hubname=

[otherwilds]

hamilton arena deal confirmed....

Prospective Preds owner reactivates arena agreement with Hamilton

Predators prospective new owner Jim Balsillie has re-activated an agreement with the city of Hamilton, Ontario, that would give him exclusive rights to bring an NHL team to Hamilton?s Copps Coliseum, according to a published report.

The Hamilton Spectator reported that Hamilton?s city council on Wednesday night supported going forward with a two-step agreement and negotiating process that would also give Balsillie the right to run Hamilton Place and the Convention Center ? if he brings an NHL team to town.

[Davey]

Can you say Hamilton Predators ? lol

[leedsunited]

This just in... Jim Balsillie Strikes deal with City of Hamilton

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=209447&hubname=

With all due respect to Nashville fans, this is great news for the NHL.

[Ez Street]

Gonzo.

[EvelethMN]

Can you say Hamilton Predators ? lol

I hope this move does get done, and if so, I really, really hope they change the uniforms/colors/logos, if not scrap the whole "Predators" identity altogether. Never was fond of the stupid chrome cat-skull imagery.

[STL FANATIC]

So now we know Balsillie wants to move them to Canada...so not much has changed.

We've got a location and we know that a the 1% chance he wanted to keep them in Nashville isn't true.

It still doesn't mean they're moving though.

[IceCap]

Can you say Hamilton Predators ? lol

I hope this move does get done, and if so, I really, really hope they change the uniforms/colors/logos, if not scrap the whole "Predators" identity altogether. Never was fond of the stupid chrome cat-skull imagery.

Bring back the Hamilton Tigers.