Sometime the proof is in the pudding. Two weak, sagging markets where the owner is threatening to move the team unless the locals step up (for an arena in the Pens' case, and corporate support and co-ownership in the Preds' case).
Result: A new arena for the Pens with significant public funds. A new ownership group for the Preds, possibly a better arena deal, and $193 MM for Leipold.
Of course, the Pens were going to get that arena without Balsille. Balsille did more harm than good in the Pens quest for a new arena. In fact Balsille tried to sabatoge the Pens new arena when he went before the gaming board. He told the board they didn't need to vote for a casino promising an arena because he would keep the team in Pittsburgh no matter what. This almost caused the arena plan to fall through and if that happened, he would have moved the team.
Who was making generalizations? I was responding to the conversation currently in play about the Pens and Predators, and all the guessing about Balsillie's and Del Biaggio's motives. In all the back and forth there, I reminded people to simply look at what the end result was IN THOSE TWO CASES.
Far be it from me to make that grand of a generalization. I'm sure I know better.
Your Machiavellian viewpoint on Balsillie and the Pens/Preds shouldn't annoint him sainthood or give him a free pass on his actions with each of those clubs.
Egil basically states that Balsillie was intentionally "rallying" the Nashville market (and thus not de-stabilizing it) ---- for what reason I do not know.
But the failure for many of you to see the forest through the trees on Balsillie's (and Rodier's) actions are pretty jaw dropping, really.
Your Machiavellian viewpoint on Balsillie and the Pens/Preds shouldn't annoint him sainthood or give him a free pass on his actions with each of those clubs.
Egil basically states that Balsillie was intentionally "rallying" the Nashville market (and thus not de-stabilizing it) ---- for what reason I do not know.
But the failure for many of you to see the forest through the trees on Balsillie's (and Rodier's) actions are pretty jaw dropping, really.
There's nothing Machiavellian about it. Machiavelli may well be best known for real politic, how best to maintain control (somewhat devoid of certain ethical considerations some might suggest).
I like approaching an issue by considering all possible scenarios, not just the one to which I may be partial (and Balsillie and the Preds fate would not affect me personally in any way).
This conspiracy theory was not my brainchild, but it should get dissected like any other idea anyone here wants to throw under the scope. Absent any input from Balsillie himself, all we can do is churn up the bits and pieces some reporters chose to write about, and spin our yarns from there onwards.
Regarding sainthood? You really should keep this in context. We are talking about rich guys and their hobbies or arena ventures. If you really want to judge Balsillie as a man, or his character, perhaps his entire record needs to be reviewed. Does he participate in philanthropic activities? To what extent? Would the other BOG members pass the same litmus test applied to Balsillie? Would any of us be able to meet or exceed the same standards? I personally would not anoint any of them saints. I also would not judge them as people based solely on their relations with the NHL-- much of which isn't public knowledge in any case. You want to look at forests? You need to get above it all for starters....
Regarding Egil, I'll let him speak for himself (I know he can). I interpreted Egil's position to be saying... when there is an external threat, it can lead to a solidarity where none existed before. Without the threat, there can be no galvanization of resources and will. It's an idea that has come up in several places. What we're doing now is seeing if it can stand on two legs.
A fair comment. I myself have never attributed either sainthood or evilness to JB. Moving or running hockey teams is not very high in terms of either doing good works or deploying one's nefarious schemes. There are many WAY better methods for both, IMO (or so i am told, with respect to the nefarious schemes ). IMO people who think otherwise need to get some perspective. This IS only hockey.
My interest with JB has been primarily with respect to his deal tactics, since that is an area in which i have some knowledge. In that regard, I have found them to be wholly deficient.
On Egil's point, I agree with Fugu - that is sort of what he is saying. As i mentioned a few posts ago, that was a business risk of employing that tactic. I would have counselled any client to not do what was done under any circumstances, partly for legal risk reasons and even more so for the risk of exactly what has happened (the galvanized support and the local ownership popping up). Accordingly, i agree that it would have been a possibility that a right-thinking businessman would think of. However, if one makes an assumption that Nashville was on the way out as a market, and that it was teetering on the brink of oblivion and only needed a little push, and you are a Canadian zealot that thinks US fans are unworthy, you might make the assumption that the risk of galvanizing the market is non-existent and that a hamhanded approach is a good idea. One might also come to that conclusion if one is really a mediocre businessman with an ill-experienced team (Note: I am not saying this is JB; heck, he is a billionaire, and everyone knows that tech billionaires are all super-sharp, and it is never because they were buds with a guy who invented a gizmo that captured the marketplace at precisely the right time and place ).
That being said, based on all of the circuimstances - particularly the "ESPN email leak" adventure - there is no way, based on my experience, that this was anything but the bumbling clusterfreak of all time. Even if Hamilton somehow gets a franchise some years from now, it was not due to some conspiracy or complicated master scheme.
Freeman is claiming for the moment that if/when Boots can get an expansion team, he'd probably get bought out by the local group and move on. I'd think that was predicated on the Preds being able to turn things around.
Freeman said he will serve as chairman of the group and that Del Biaggio will also have an extensive role because "we want to tap into his contacts and his experience."
But Freeman said the group realizes that Del Biaggio would like to have his own team one day and that was considered in drafting the deal.
"If the opportunity ever presents itself in the future, where through NHL expansion he happens to get presented with an opportunity, then we will buy him out and shake hands and wish him the very best of luck wherever else he might go," Freeman said.
While I cannot state it with 100% certainty, I do feel very strongly that destabilization was what JB and his team intended with those actions.
Why would Balsillie and his team feel that they needed to destabilize a market that up to this point has been a failure? The opportunity to purchase the Preds presented itself because the Nashville market up to this point has been a failure.
The bottom line is that Balsille wasn't trying to "take" a team from Nashville, he was trying to "put" a team in Hamilton and the Preds were for sale. Did he go about it the wrong way? Yes, he certainly did, but all he was trying to do was demonstrate that there was a market for hockey in Hamilton.
Why would Balsillie and his team feel that they needed to destabilize a market that up to this point has been a failure? The opportunity to purchase the Preds presented itself because the Nashville market up to this point has been a failure.
The bottom line is that Balsille wasn't trying to "take" a team from Nashville, he was trying to "put" a team in Hamilton and the Preds were for sale. Did he go about it the wrong way? Yes, he certainly did, but all he was trying to do was demonstrate that there was a market for hockey in Hamilton.
Um, you should probably check up on some readily available statistics, such as the following:
1. In the past (pre lockout), Nashville had been a very financially successful franchise.
2. Nashville's paid attendance increased markedly last year, demonstrating that the market was turning around from a post-lockout bottoming out.
3. The paid attendance increased last year despite a 16% increase in average ticket prices.
4. Nashville's gate revenues increased just shy of 20% last year.
Now, do you still think that JB didn't need to head anything off at the pass?
Quote:
demonstrate that there was a market for hockey in Hamilton.
As a general statment not necessarily directed at this fine poster, I just find it so laughable that the same people who will spout that statement will, in the next breath, gush over how Hamilton needs to have a franchise because it is a "sure thing" and southern Ontario is the greatest hockey market in the universe. Well, which is it, folks?
(Note: I am not saying this is JB; heck, he is a billionaire, and everyone knows that tech billionaires are all super-sharp, and it is never because they were buds with a guy who invented a gizmo that captured the marketplace at precisely the right time and place ).
Gizmos don't always just sell themselves. While RIM may be a bit of a one-trick pony, it is no fly-by-night operation. It makes lots of real money and has been doing so for some time now.
Most tech billionaires are pretty darn sharp. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, Larry Page are all brilliant. There are probably very few tech billionaires who are not, and most such guys are probably people who made a quick buck off of nothing.com.
I don't know much about Jim Balsillie, but I do know that he has been in charge of an insanely successful company for some time now. He did an MBA at Harvard --- they don't just let any old carpenter come in and study there. However badly he may or may not have bungled the Nashville thing, he probably still has a not-terrible chance of landing an NHL team one day.
I don't know much about Jim Balsillie, but I do know that he has been in charge of an insanely successful company for some time now. He did an MBA at Harvard --- they don't just let any old carpenter come in and study there. However badly he may or may not have bungled the Nashville thing, he probably still has a not-terrible chance of landing an NHL team one day.
I will say this:
I cannot wait to see the future unfold. Balsillie is such an interesting business study. IF he does go for another team, which tactics will he use? Will he be as aggressive? Does he simply "play nice" to go for expansion.
Um, you should probably check up on some readily available statistics, such as the following:
1. In the past (pre lockout), Nashville had been a very financially successful franchise.
Great, instead of blaming their current situation on a weak market, we can blame it on the NEW NHL and current CBA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gscarpenter2002
2. Nashville's paid attendance increased markedly last year, demonstrating that the market was turning around from a post-lockout bottoming out.
3. The paid attendance increased last year despite a 16% increase in average ticket prices.
4. Nashville's gate revenues increased just shy of 20% last year.
The only stat that's relevant is that Leipold lost 70M and wanted out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gscarpenter2002
Now, do you still think that JB didn't need to head anything off at the pass?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gscarpenter2002
As a general statment not necessarily directed at this fine poster, I just find it so laughable that the same people who will spout that statement will, in the next breath, gush over how Hamilton needs to have a franchise because it is a "sure thing" and southern Ontario is the greatest hockey market in the universe. Well, which is it, folks?
I thank you for not necessarily directing your general statement at me because I have NO interest in debating where an NHL franchise should OR shouldn't be. All I was trying to say is that I believe there was NO malevolent intent on the part of Balsillie when he started to accept season ticket and luxury box deposits. He was simply trying to show that Hamilton would be a viable NHL market.
As a general statment not necessarily directed at this fine poster, I just find it so laughable that the same people who will spout that statement will, in the next breath, gush over how Hamilton needs to have a franchise because it is a "sure thing" and southern Ontario is the greatest hockey market in the universe. Well, which is it, folks?
I question how people can say Hamilton is a hockey town, the last 20+ years has shown Hamilton to have had less than stellar success with CHL and pro teams. In the 80's and early 90's both the OHL Steelhawks and Dukes left town. The AHL Canucks only lasted a few seasons in the early to mid 90's. The AHL Bulldogs have already had to go through one "Stay Dogs Stay" campaign because of low attendance. Even now the Bulldogs attendance is only at the halfway mark of the entire league. Not great numbers for this supposedly hockey mad market.
Perhaps when people say Hamilton is a hockey market, maybe they are actually suggesting that Hamilton would be a great NHL (not neccessarily all hockey) market. It's nice and easy to say that Hamilton would be a great NHL market because, since it hasn't happened, you don't need any stats to back it.
The ticket drive shows Hamilton would initially support a team but I have might doubts about the support two, three years down the road.
So Nashville will make money this season? How about the season after that?
Just delaying the inevitable.
Clearly teams that have lost money in the past will continue to lose money. This has been proven fact by Anaheim, Edmonton, Buffalo, and Ottawa. Just look at how those franchises are floundering these days.
Last edited by preddevil: 08-03-2007 at 11:19 PM.
Reason: grammar
So Nashville will make money this season? How about the season after that?
Just delaying the inevitable.
If the fans don't hold up their end and the conditions of the arena lease are not met then the local ownership group sells to Boots. With the arena lease conditions broken, Boots is free to move the team to KC.
If the fans return and the team does well financially I expect the NHL to come to Mr. Del Baggio with an opportunity to purchase an expansion team for KC.
Either way Mr. Del Baggio will be operating a NHL team in KC in the next 3 to 5 years. At least that's the way I see this smart business decision by Boots working out.
If the fans don't hold up their end and the conditions of the arena lease are not met then the local ownership group sells to Boots. With the arena lease conditions broken, Boots is free to move the team to KC.
If the fans return and the team does well financially I expect the NHL to come to Mr. Del Baggio with an opportunity to purchase an expansion team for KC.
Either way Mr. Del Baggio will be operating a NHL team in KC in the next 3 to 5 years. At least that's the way I see this smart business decision by Boots working out.
I question how people can say Hamilton is a hockey town, the last 20+ years has shown Hamilton to have had less than stellar success with CHL and pro teams. In the 80's and early 90's both the OHL Steelhawks and Dukes left town. The AHL Canucks only lasted a few seasons in the early to mid 90's. The AHL Bulldogs have already had to go through one "Stay Dogs Stay" campaign because of low attendance. Even now the Bulldogs attendance is only at the halfway mark of the entire league. Not great numbers for this supposedly hockey mad market.
Perhaps when people say Hamilton is a hockey market, maybe they are actually suggesting that Hamilton would be a great NHL (not neccessarily all hockey) market. It's nice and easy to say that Hamilton would be a great NHL market because, since it hasn't happened, you don't need any stats to back it.
The ticket drive shows Hamilton would initially support a team but I have might doubts about the support two, three years down the road.
The ticket drive may not provide indisputable evidence that Hamilton would be a good NHL town, but past failures of junior and minor pro teams certainly do not provide any evidence that Hamilton would be a failure as an NHL town.
One of the OHL teams that moved into Hamilton was previously known as the Toronto Marlboros. The Toronto Roadrunners of the AHL lasted for only one season. The current Toronto Marlies of the AHL can't draw flies. That is quite a number of hockey failures. And yet the Toronto Maple Leafs sell out every single game and are the most powerful member of the NHL by any number of metrics.
Toronto's failures in a number of hockey-related ventures do not have any bearing on its success as an NHL city. Why should similar failures in Hamilton be any indication of how well it would support the NHL?
The ticket drive may not provide indisputable evidence that Hamilton would be a good NHL town, but past failures of junior and minor pro teams certainly do not provide any evidence that Hamilton would be a failure as an NHL town.
One of the OHL teams that moved into Hamilton was previously known as the Toronto Marlboros. The Toronto Roadrunners of the AHL lasted for only one season. The current Toronto Marlies of the AHL can't draw flies. That is quite a number of hockey failures. And yet the Toronto Maple Leafs sell out every single game and are the most powerful member of the NHL by any number of metrics.
Toronto's failures in a number of hockey-related ventures do not have any bearing on its success as an NHL city. Why should similar failures in Hamilton be any indication of how well it would support the NHL?
Which is exactly what I'm saying, Hamilton isn't a hockey town. Hamilton might be a NHL town but we will most likely never know.
The same as Toronto isn't a hockey town. A Maple Leafs town? Absolutely, but a hockey town? No. The success or should I say lack of success of other forms of hockey proves that.
So you're saying a city with an NHL team has struggled with adding an additional AHL team is the same as a city with no NHL team struggling with keeping a AHL team?
Which is exactly what I'm saying, Hamilton isn't a hockey town. Hamilton might be a NHL town but we will most likely never know.
The same as Toronto isn't a hockey town. A Maple Leafs town? Absolutely, but a hockey town? No. The success or should I say lack of success of other forms of hockey proves that.
If your talking to me. I'm saying that all these people who are gushing about what an incredible hockey, I repeat hockey, market Hamilton is don't exactly have the stats to back it up.
People like Don Cherry who say that a NHL team in Hamilton would be sold out every night from now until the second coming just might be wrong, if past history of hockey teams in Hamilton are any indication.
So you're saying a city with an NHL team has struggled with adding an additional AHL team is the same as a city with no NHL team struggling with keeping a AHL team?
Of course they are not identical situations, but I think that they are comparable. People in Hamilton do not pay much attention to the local AHL team but pay lots of attention to the NHL. People in Toronto do not pay much attention to the local AHL team but pay lots of attention to the NHL.
If Toronto did not have an NHL team and the Marlies were the only game in town, I very much doubt that they would be drawing many more people than they do now.
Steve Simmons - Preds Sale Doesn't Pass Smell Test
Quote:
The odour oozing from the Preds' sale is rather pungent ...
By STEVE SIMMONS
The franchise sale that kept the Predators in Nashville -- for now -- doesn't pass the smell test.
Among the questions that linger in the obvious slighting of potential owner Jim Balsillie and his overt and clumsy attempts to move the team to Hamilton, are these:
). IMO people who think otherwise need to get some perspective. This IS only hockey.
). 
