HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Nashville Predators
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Nashville Predators need...?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-04-2009, 11:48 AM
  #26
OpenWheel
Registered User
 
OpenWheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Keweenaw Peninsula
Country: United States
Posts: 1,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok View Post
If we insist on being one of the lowest payroll teams year after year, hockey won't succeed in Nashville, because we won't have a sustained chance at being playoff competitive. If we are never playoff competitive, the game won't grow in Nashville, period.
We've been playoff competitive for six years now. Yeah, we've either just missed getting in, or got trounced when in. But at least a couple of those teams had big years and high hopes going into the playoffs.

So, just how many years are required to be a "sustained chance"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok View Post
Look at Washington. They start having playoff success, now all the sudden the sell out every game, but they pay for their on-ice talent. Look at Chicago. Had terrible attendance, now they are in the black. Look at Pittsburgh, etc.
And these teams show that your premise is wrong. What playoff success did Chicago have that changed their attendance almost overnight? It was new blood (son of the old blood) who understood marketing who got the butts in the seats. At least that's what a couple Chicago people I know have said to me. That the new general manager (son of the owner or something?) marketed and put games on tv and season tickets went from 4k to 12k in one year! Please show me their great playoff run that made that happen?

Also... Pittsburgh? It's not money spent so much as being in the right place and right time to draft Crosby. If we had Crosby he'd be highly paid here also. And their increased success hit at the right time. Right about when the city was wringing their hands over losing the club. If we had been lousy, and then "hit" with say, Kariya and company, two seasons ago after the big push to keep the preds, we may be in even better shape. But instead, due to Craig Leave-us-cold having a fire sale, we were going down a bit. So we didn't get the huge surge in interest.

Still. The teams here, and with revenue sharing, made a profit. That's great!

I think we have a good fan BASE. Now, draft well, spend judiciously, and we could win.

OpenWheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 12:17 PM
  #27
Gorgeous George
Registered User
 
Gorgeous George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Temple Bar
Country: Ireland
Posts: 1,798
vCash: 500
...someone entertaining like Ovechkin to start creating buzz in Nashville and selling out the seats.

Winning would be nice, but a marketable and charasmatic player would be even better.

Gorgeous George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 07:58 PM
  #28
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger View Post
From what I remember reading, our slight profit was after revenue sharing.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would like to see the link.

It's not public information. I watched the interview a few weeks back where Freeman say something like "Last year we made a million a two; this year we're probably going to lose a million or two." I'm sure he's fudging the numbers in his favor (to justify the lowest payroll in the league), and I think he's talking pre-revenue sharing.

Considered that we essentially sold out every game (when you factor in 10 million in revenue sharing), I'd be surprised if you can't turn a profit wit the lowest payroll in the league. Add to that concessions, sponsors, merch sales, city concessions, and money from other arena events.

If we are essentially selling out every game (with rev sharing), why must we be happy with the lowest payroll in the league year after year?

There are plenty of teams in similar or worse position that us (attendance wise), and they don't insist on being the lowest payroll team. Not to mention, the teams that are selling more tickets, are having to give $10 million to the Predators!

I have little doubt the Predators owners made money with their investment this year. Sure, they will likely find a higher ROI in other investments, but they knew that before they got in.


Last edited by dulzhok: 06-04-2009 at 08:37 PM.
dulzhok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 08:25 PM
  #29
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenWheel View Post
We've been playoff competitive for six years now. Yeah, we've either just missed getting in, or got trounced when in. But at least a couple of those teams had big years and high hopes going into the playoffs.
We haven't won a playoff round. That means we've had ZERO playoff success.

RE: Chicago

When they sucked, their attendance sucked. What happened? Yes, an ownership change happened. But more importantly, they started winning games.

It's easier to increase attendance in Chicago. They've had a team for 100+ years. They had a base of fans that were waiting to be energized. When they got good again, it re-energized that base of fans. As they have playoff success (WINNING A PLAYOFF ROUND), it will likely bring in new Blackhawk fans.

In Nashville, the fan base has been built from having a poor-to-mediocre team, and never having playoff success. We had very little existing hockey fan base. By now, most everyone in Nashville has been to hockey game. So no matter what a "marketing department" does, people already have made their impressions about going to game. They've got to be ENERGIZED about the Predators. And that's not going to truly happen until we have playoff success.

And having sustained playoff success isn't going to happen with the lowest payroll in the league. If you have a good team, you'll eventually have to pay up.

And if the owners want to have sustained financial success, they've got to have sustained playoff success. NO WAY AROUND IT! Unless you are a market like Toronto or Montreal.

Long way of explaining my original point... If our owners insist on having the lowest payroll in the league, the game of hockey will never truly succeed in Nashville.


Last edited by dulzhok: 06-04-2009 at 08:33 PM.
dulzhok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 10:26 PM
  #30
predfan24
Registered User
 
predfan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok View Post
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would like to see the link.

It's not public information. I watched the interview a few weeks back where Freeman say something like "Last year we made a million a two; this year we're probably going to lose a million or two." I'm sure he's fudging the numbers in his favor (to justify the lowest payroll in the league), and I think he's talking pre-revenue sharing.

Considered that we essentially sold out every game (when you factor in 10 million in revenue sharing), I'd be surprised if you can't turn a profit wit the lowest payroll in the league. Add to that concessions, sponsors, merch sales, city concessions, and money from other arena events.

If we are essentially selling out every game (with rev sharing), why must we be happy with the lowest payroll in the league year after year?

There are plenty of teams in similar or worse position that us (attendance wise), and they don't insist on being the lowest payroll team. Not to mention, the teams that are selling more tickets, are having to give $10 million to the Predators!

I have little doubt the Predators owners made money with their investment this year. Sure, they will likely find a higher ROI in other investments, but they knew that before they got in.

This team could sell out every game but because the cap floor is so high they would still lose massive amounts of money without revenue sharing. Of course the only reason the cap floor is so high is because of revenue sharing. The way you are coming off in your posts you are making it sound like the owners are holding back and are being frugal. I think it's fair to say that just isn't true. The owners were very up front about their expectations. They weren't in this to make money but they weren't in it to lose money either.

You say there are team's worst than us in attendance that spend much more money than we do? Where are they at? I certainly don't see them.

I think the new owners have made a blueprint on how to survive with a small market team that still struggles with attendance a bit. I can't see how anyone can say that haven't done a fabulous job. I understand it is frustrating when you are never a player for big name free agents or you have to let players go that you have groomed because they are due a big payday but that is our reality. I'll take a responsible franchise any day than messes like Tampa bay or Phoenix.

predfan24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2009, 12:10 AM
  #31
Jarnberg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 5,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok View Post
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would like to see the link.

It's not public information. I watched the interview a few weeks back where Freeman say something like "Last year we made a million a two; this year we're probably going to lose a million or two." I'm sure he's fudging the numbers in his favor (to justify the lowest payroll in the league), and I think he's talking pre-revenue sharing.
http://boards.nashvillepredators.com...evenue+sharing

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=602627

Tennessean article is down.

Quote:
There are plenty of teams in similar or worse position that us (attendance wise), and they don't insist on being the lowest payroll team. Not to mention, the teams that are selling more tickets, are having to give $10 million to the Predators!
But do they turn a profit? If they don't, how rich our their owners?

Let us not forget that our guys aren't the richest bunch.

Jarnberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2009, 04:45 AM
  #32
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
The article didn't mention if the $175,000 was pre-revenue sharing or not. It maybe, but that article doesn't say. Also,

Also, this $175,000 number holds little validity. That's how much money Freeman forecasted the Predators to make.

The numbers aren't public record. Freeman has zero reason to give inflated numbers, and every reason to give low numbers (to justify having the lowest payroll team in the league). So I won't believe any number I hear from him.

As another note, this article [http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/61684] written after Freeman project the $175K number, says NHL clubs will receive another $4m to their bottom line from the player escrow account.

I don't think the owners are making a ton of money from the Predators. But I do think there could easily be several million dollars associated with their ownership of the Predators that aren't tied to this $175,000 figure (i.e. management company of the Sommett Center, etc).

I know the NHL has regulations on how they audit the numbers for each team. But Freeman to the media? He can say anything he wants, and has a lot of incentive to keep the numbers as low as possible.

My point is not to bash Freeman. My point is that if the ownership group insists on having the lowest payroll, 1) we will never have sustained success. If you are good, you eventually have to pay for it. #2) If we don't have sustained success, we have no chance of growing the game in Nashville [higher attendance] #3) If the game of hockey doesn't grow in Nashville, the ownership group will scrape by each year, and constantly face the question of relocation.

Lack of money should not be an excuse for not fielding a winning team. Fielding a winning team (a.k.a. playoff success) will reap the money.


Last edited by dulzhok: 06-05-2009 at 04:55 AM.
dulzhok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2009, 12:15 PM
  #33
OpenWheel
Registered User
 
OpenWheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Keweenaw Peninsula
Country: United States
Posts: 1,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by predfan24 View Post
I think the new owners have made a blueprint on how to survive with a small market team that still struggles with attendance a bit. I can't see how anyone can say that haven't done a fabulous job. I understand it is frustrating when you are never a player for big name free agents or you have to let players go that you have groomed because they are due a big payday but that is our reality. I'll take a responsible franchise any day than messes like Tampa bay or Phoenix.
Right on.

OpenWheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2009, 03:57 PM
  #34
predfan24
Registered User
 
predfan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok View Post
The article didn't mention if the $175,000 was pre-revenue sharing or not. It maybe, but that article doesn't say. Also,

Also, this $175,000 number holds little validity. That's how much money Freeman forecasted the Predators to make.

The numbers aren't public record. Freeman has zero reason to give inflated numbers, and every reason to give low numbers (to justify having the lowest payroll team in the league). So I won't believe any number I hear from him.

As another note, this article [http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/61684] written after Freeman project the $175K number, says NHL clubs will receive another $4m to their bottom line from the player escrow account.

I don't think the owners are making a ton of money from the Predators. But I do think there could easily be several million dollars associated with their ownership of the Predators that aren't tied to this $175,000 figure (i.e. management company of the Sommett Center, etc).

I know the NHL has regulations on how they audit the numbers for each team. But Freeman to the media? He can say anything he wants, and has a lot of incentive to keep the numbers as low as possible.

My point is not to bash Freeman. My point is that if the ownership group insists on having the lowest payroll, 1) we will never have sustained success. If you are good, you eventually have to pay for it. #2) If we don't have sustained success, we have no chance of growing the game in Nashville [higher attendance] #3) If the game of hockey doesn't grow in Nashville, the ownership group will scrape by each year, and constantly face the question of relocation.

Lack of money should not be an excuse for not fielding a winning team. Fielding a winning team (a.k.a. playoff success) will reap the money.
No one knows exactly how much the Preds got in revenue sharing this year but it has been speculated it could be between 12-16 million. Are you saying the Preds wouldn't add that to their forecast and they would try to hide a 12-16 million dollar profit from the general public? C'mon now. Sometimes you have to think with logic and not with your heart.

The rest of your post is just wild speculation that really has no backbone to it. We have seen NO evidence that any of what you are saying is happening. The owners have given us no reason to believe they are lying. Is what you are saying impossible? Of course not. However it sounds like a Conspiracy theory and this isn't a Mel gibson movie.


Also let's not forget that in 06-07 we had one of the elite teams in the NHL and we we still had attendance issues. if we had a 50 million dollar payroll for the next 4 years and we weren't able to dramatically increase attendance very quickly (not likely) or make multiple long runs in the playoffs this franchise would likely be a goner.
We need to do what we did after the lockout. Build through the draft, and when the team is on the cusp of taking it to the next level sprinkle in a couple of smart well thought out free agent signings and go for it.

predfan24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2009, 04:51 PM
  #35
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
I'm not saying their lying. I'm saying they will deflate the numbers as much as possible, for PR reasons.

Is it lying to say the Predators made $175K, but not mention that Sommett Management Group (whatever it's called) made 6 million? No.

Is it lying to say the Predators made $175K, but leave out that they also gave management salaries of 6 million to the various owners? No.

I'm not saying the above is true, but it's certainly a possible scenario. These "numbers" can be manipulated any way you want them.

What reason does Freeman have to tell the media how much money they made? Simple, PR. He's saying "We are in decent shape, but we will still be spending on the low-end."

Nobody knows how much money they're making. What we do know, is that with over 14K paid attendance, and 10-15 million in rev sharing, we are essential selling out every game.

Back to the orginal post. I don't think MONEY is the thing holding us back. Right now, I think it's lack of offense, and a GM who is too complacent to try to address it.

dulzhok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2009, 05:05 PM
  #36
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by predfan24 View Post
if we had a 50 million dollar payroll for the next 4 years and we weren't able to dramatically increase attendance very quickly (not likely) or make multiple long runs in the playoffs this franchise would likely be a goner.
If we don't have playoff success in the next 4 years, I think there is a strong possibility that we will be facing the relocation issue again.

The new owners certainly have pumped up some new life in the business side of things, especially with corporate sales. But it's my belief that Nashville, like many markets, won't support a loser. It's very realistic that this team "as is" could easily miss the playoffs for the next several years. And we have yet to win a playoff round in 12 years.

We can talk about marketing, and good owners, etc. But, I feel the only way to truly create excitement and bring in new fans in this non-traditional hockey city is to make noise in the playoffs. This is evident from Getzky in LA, Tampa Bay, Dallas, etc.

dulzhok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2009, 04:41 PM
  #37
Jarnberg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 5,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok View Post
I'm not saying their lying. I'm saying they will deflate the numbers as much as possible, for PR reasons.

Is it lying to say the Predators made $175K, but not mention that Sommett Management Group (whatever it's called) made 6 million? No.

Is it lying to say the Predators made $175K, but leave out that they also gave management salaries of 6 million to the various owners? No.

I'm not saying the above is true, but it's certainly a possible scenario. These "numbers" can be manipulated any way you want them.

What reason does Freeman have to tell the media how much money they made? Simple, PR. He's saying "We are in decent shape, but we will still be spending on the low-end."

Nobody knows how much money they're making. What we do know, is that with over 14K paid attendance, and 10-15 million in rev sharing, we are essential selling out every game.

Back to the orginal post. I don't think MONEY is the thing holding us back. Right now, I think it's lack of offense, and a GM who is too complacent to try to address it.
What does Freeman gain by lying about making money? He's been out to prove that our market can be successful. Barely breaking even or losing money isn't successful. I'm sure he'd love to come out and tell everyone we're making +$10 million.

And I'm not saying there is no way that they are lying, but I just don't see a reason for them to. Leipold had a reason to lie, he wanted to look good for leaving after he wanted a franchise where he could do nothing and rake in the cash.

But you're right, its a scheme to keep us with a low payroll so they can rake in the money. From what I've heard from the local group, and of course this could be PR, they didn't do this to make money. They did this for the city. These guys are smart enough to realize how hard it is to make money with a NHL team, especially with an absolutely terrible hockey market.

I'm extremely doubtful that a long playoff run does anything for our market. Of course, it would be better than missing the playoffs, but I don't think anything can make this market work.


Last edited by Jarnberg: 06-06-2009 at 04:47 PM.
Jarnberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2009, 05:35 PM
  #38
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger View Post
I'm extremely doubtful that a long playoff run does anything for our market. Of course, it would be better than missing the playoffs, but I don't think anything can make this market work.
Let's hope other people in Nashville share your optimism

dulzhok is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:51 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.