View Single Post
04-19-2007, 05:44 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
I remember a certain football team in Cleveland and an owner named Art Modell who said the same things. I don't want the Preds to move by any means but I don't trust what owners say, especially a guy like Leipold who IMO is of questionable ethics.

Oh, do tell.

Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
Something else to possibly consider: I was reading the CBA last night (no honestly, I was) and apparently starting next season there certain requirements that must be met to be eligible for full revenue sharing. There's a minimum attendance figure (which goes up in 2008-09 to the final level) and something along the lines of having to grow revenues each year by a certain percentage. Each year a team doesn't meet both terms they lose something like 10-20% of the revenue sharing cut, cumulative up to 3 or 4 years. I'll have to dig it out tomorrow and find it. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, but something certainly notable moving ahead. I think the 2008-09 average paid attendance had to be 14,000 but can't remember the 2007-08 figure. It's possible that the attendance clause the Preds wrote into the lease with Nashville is specifically because of this part of the CBA because the timing of it seems awfully coincidental. If that's the case, it means that Leipold has been positioning the franchise to be able to move since the beginning if the revenue sharing values were going to be jeapordized. That doesn't mean it WILL move, just that he's made that option available to him since Day 1, meaning he was at one time at least willing to pursue it under certain circumstances.
Something else to consider? This is stuff we've all known about for a while now. Every single person in this thread who doesn't think Leipold will move the team has heard what you've just mentioned at least a dozen times.

Question for you. When was the CBA penned? And when was the Predators lease ammended to include the attendance clause? You make this wonderful conclusion that it's no coincidence. What if the lease was written years before the new CBA? Would it still be fishy?

Last edited by SmokeyClause: 04-19-2007 at 12:25 PM.
SmokeyClause is offline   Reply With Quote