I’m hoping and expecting, and I’m optimistic, that increased attendance, increased sponsorship involvement, increased business—that can be done with the enthusiastic support of the community…

Mr Delusional strikes again. He hopes. He’s optimistic. Hell, he doesn’t have a freaking clue!

Here’s the bottom line, Mr. Numbskull, the folks in NASCAR Land don’t give a rat’s patoot about hockey. They’ve never been on skates in their lives and they can’t stand to watch anything that doesn’t go around in circles for three hours.

On the plus side for small-market teams, the NHL’s revenue-sharing money increases as the league’s overall revenues rise.

On the “plus"side for whom? It’s sure not on the plus side for the teams (or the fans of the teams) where hockey is a celebrated part of the local culture. And it’s sure as hell not a plus for the game itself. It’s only a plus for the LOSER teams and for Lil’ Gary’s insufferable ego.

The fact that he gets booed every time he makes an appearnace should tell him what we all think of him. But, as with most egomaniacs, he could care less.

So you keep on spewing out the usual garbage, Lil’ Gary, and hopefully someday you’ll wake up buried underneath it.

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids on 02/06/08 at 12:08 AM ET

He’ll go until his last breath before he admits that it’s not working. I’m sure at some point that the other owners will get disgusted at the Preds getting all of that revenue sharing money and start pushing for a move to a venue that will be more hockey friendly.

Posted by yzerman19 from Nashville on 02/06/08 at 01:03 AM ET

On the plus side for small-market teams, the NHL’s revenue-sharing money increases as the league’s overall revenues rise.

Don’t all teams need to meet minimum attendance numbers to get the revenue-sharing dollars, though?  In that case it won’t matter how much the shared money goes up, because a team with low attendance won’t get as much anyway.

And if they are depending on the shared money to meet their budget, then how can they be successful at all?  They need money to increase payroll enough to be competitive to gain ticket and sponsor revenue, but without being competitive they can’t draw enough ticket and sponsor revenue to have a legitimate payroll - it seems as though the league has deliberately placed the small-market teams in a no-win position.

Either relocate teams or give them the support they need to succeed - don’t let them limp along bleeding money and give them just enough of a transfusion so they can keep limping.  But pick a lane instead of straddling the line in the middle.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 02/06/08 at 06:36 AM ET

Either relocate teams or give them the support they need to succeed - don’t let them limp along bleeding money and give them just enough of a transfusion so they can keep limping.  But pick a lane instead of straddling the line in the middle.

That would basically be along the lines of Gary owning up to the fact that putting a team in Nashville was a mistake, and while Bettman is small in stature, he’s got a king sized ego that won’t permit that admission.

Besides, Gary has already greased the wheels for the Preds to head down the road to Kansas City, where Boots and his AEG cronies will welcome them with open arms.  Remind me again how well NHL hockey went over the first time in Kansas City? 

By the way, Baroque, I certainly thought the “pick a lane” phrase was well played

Posted by dash_pinched on 02/06/08 at 10:06 AM ET

Don’t all teams need to meet minimum attendance numbers to get the revenue-sharing dollars, though?  In that case it won’t matter how much the shared money goes up, because a team with low attendance won’t get as much anyway.

True; if a team misses the attendance figure for one year, they only get 75% of their share.  If they miss it two years in a row, that goes down to 60%, and three+ they get 50% I believe.

And if they are depending on the shared money to meet their budget, then how can they be successful at all?  They need money to increase payroll enough to be competitive to gain ticket and sponsor revenue, but without being competitive they can’t draw enough ticket and sponsor revenue to have a legitimate payroll - it seems as though the league has deliberately placed the small-market teams in a no-win position.

Tell that to the NFL, where revenue sharing is a critical component of their structure.  And to his credit, Nashville GM David Poile has iced a very competitive team, despite having to dump talent on Craig Leipold’s orders last summer.

Posted by The Forechecker from Tennessee on 02/06/08 at 10:31 AM ET

Comparing the Predators situation to an actual money maker like the NFL is apples to oranges. Poile is having to overpay to keep some of his players there, aka Tootoo and Dumont.

Posted by yzerman19 from Nashville on 02/06/08 at 10:36 AM ET

That makes no sense, Y19.  Dumont could certainly have gotten $4 million on the market this summer, and Tootoo’s signed up for 2 more years at under $1 million per.

And the comparison isn’t between the Preds and the NFL, it’s between the NHL and the NFL.  Revenue sharing helps to build a stronger league overall, and the NHL’s greatest obstacle still remains the fact that it acts more like 30 different entities than one strong federation.

Posted by The Forechecker from Tennessee on 02/06/08 at 11:34 AM ET

@ Forechecker:  Thanks for the answer.

And to his credit, Nashville GM David Poile has iced a very competitive team, despite having to dump talent on Craig Leipold’s orders last summer.

That he has.  Certainly more competitive tham many higher-payroll teams (cough-Toronto-cough).

Tell that to the NFL, where revenue sharing is a critical component of their structure. 

It is, but I don’t know what kind of proportion of revenues are subject to revenue sharing.  Is a larger proportion of the money available to be shared in the NFL than the NHL?  If the amount of money is small and basically window dressing, then it would be enough to help the small market teams minimally and their budget would still be tight.

I seem to remember reading a couple years ago that with the television contract, an NFL team could fund their entire roster with only the television money, and therefore it was nearly impossible to lose money.  The example used was the Lions - why should ownership invest in anything more than a minimum roster since people would come anyway, even to see a non-competitive team, and all the ticket money would be gravy?

It just seems as though the revenue sharing is set up to hurt the high revenue teams without substantially helping some of the teams in more trouble.

@ dash_pinched:

My most common yell at other drivers on snow-covered roads.  Left, right, don’t care - just PICK ONE!) 

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 02/06/08 at 12:05 PM ET

The Preds posted an interview with Bettman…

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 02/06/08 at 12:14 PM ET

So a player thats NEVER scored 30 goals in a season is worth 4 million a season?  Im of course speaking of Dumont.  I like him as a player, but not at 4 mill per.  There are other players with comparible numbers who wont get that.  I will agree with the fact that the salary numbers are going up to the level they were at prior to the lockout.

Posted by yzerman19 from Nashville on 02/08/08 at 12:21 AM ET

Revenue sharing isn’t the only secret to the NFL’s success, try checking out the money they get from the television networks. NHL’s television contract as we all know is a joke.  Kansas City is not a hockey town, I have lived in the area for about a year; it would be a novelty for a couple of seasons, then if the team didn’t compete for the Cup it would just be another Blades. Not a hockey area at all.

Posted by yzerman19 from Nashville on 02/08/08 at 12:29 AM ET