Comments on: Happy Hour: Christmas Tree, Take Two http://nashvillest.com/2009/12/11/happy-hour-christmas-tree-take-two/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=happy-hour-christmas-tree-take-two All you ever wanted to know about the Music City. Wed, 23 May 2012 11:48:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: David Cintron http://nashvillest.com/2009/12/11/happy-hour-christmas-tree-take-two/comment-page-1/#comment-8220 David Cintron Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:49:38 +0000 http://nashvillest.com/?p=3485#comment-8220 Ya, what Paul said. Ya, what Paul said.

]]> By: Paul Nicholson http://nashvillest.com/2009/12/11/happy-hour-christmas-tree-take-two/comment-page-1/#comment-8178 Paul Nicholson Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:46:31 +0000 http://nashvillest.com/?p=3485#comment-8178 Just to set the record straight, that article in the Tennessean about the Preds is pretty much bunk. There's apparently a very confused member of the Sports Council "who wants to know if" and the Tennessean gladly quoted them and added some outright fiction.<br><br>The false statement is "because a provision of their lease agreement could give them the ability to leave Nashville next year".<br><br>Not true. The current lease agreement would only allow them to move if BOTH<br>1) The Predators average under 14,000 in paid attendance for TWO years in a row<br>AND<br>2) The Predators lose a cumulative $20million over the time when the lease was put in place (2007).<br><br>How are they doing against those points:<br>1) They averaged over 14,000 in paid attendance last year - so right there that would put the soonest "move out" date at 2011<br>2) They made a small profit in 2007 (didn't publish what that was) and took a loss of "about $1million" last season.<br><br>So a nightmare scenario would put the soonest move out date as 2011 (avg less than 14k this year and next and somehow manage to lose $19million in 2 years) and would not allow them to move in 2010 as stated in the article.<br><br>Lots of us have pointed this out to the Tennessean, but they have yet to post a retraction of the statement. None of us are surprised by the fact. Just to set the record straight, that article in the Tennessean about the Preds is pretty much bunk. There's apparently a very confused member of the Sports Council “who wants to know if” and the Tennessean gladly quoted them and added some outright fiction.

The false statement is “because a provision of their lease agreement could give them the ability to leave Nashville next year”.

Not true. The current lease agreement would only allow them to move if BOTH
1) The Predators average under 14,000 in paid attendance for TWO years in a row
AND
2) The Predators lose a cumulative $20million over the time when the lease was put in place (2007).

How are they doing against those points:
1) They averaged over 14,000 in paid attendance last year – so right there that would put the soonest “move out” date at 2011
2) They made a small profit in 2007 (didn't publish what that was) and took a loss of “about $1million” last season.

So a nightmare scenario would put the soonest move out date as 2011 (avg less than 14k this year and next and somehow manage to lose $19million in 2 years) and would not allow them to move in 2010 as stated in the article.

Lots of us have pointed this out to the Tennessean, but they have yet to post a retraction of the statement. None of us are surprised by the fact.

]]>