Skip to content

PHT Morning Skate: Where Nashville will pay Predators even if there’s no season

Sep 20, 2012, 9:00 AM EDT

Kimmo Timonen AP

PHT’s Morning Skate takes a look around the world of hockey to see what’s happening and what we’ll be talking about around the NHL world and beyond.

Count the Columbus Blue Jackets staffers among those who will be forced to endure pay cuts as a result of the lockout. (Columbus Dispatch)

For that matter, some of those who work at the Flames’ headquarters have also seen their salaries slashed. However, Flames president Ken King gave himself the biggest pay cut and those making the least with the Flames “won’t be hit at all.” (Calgary Herald)

Canadiens head coach Michel Therrien and his staff are “ready to go” with a new structure for the team that he thinks the players will like. In the meantime, he’s “frustrated and disappointed” by the lockout. (Montreal Gazette)

Speaking of the Canadiens, team owner Geoff Molson is still “optimistic” that the 2012-13 season won’t be canceled. (Ottawa Sun)

The city of Nashville stands to lose revenue during lockout, but still has to pay the Predators. The Tennessean)

Kimmo Timonen, who will turn 38 in March, hasn’t ruled out the possibility of an extended lockout ending his NHL career. (Philadelphia Inquirer)

  1. jersey77girl - Sep 20, 2012 at 8:51 PM

    Why would cities leave themselves on the hook for these types of situations. Nashville and any other city that provides or provided public funding to an NHL team baed on that teams’ justification that it would help raise revenue for the local governemnt should sue the NHL [and/or their individual teams] for lost revenue to the city. At the very least they should be able to receive back public funding on arenas no longer generating revenue for the city because of the NHL’s inability properly manage money.

    I don’t understand why the local governments would be so irresponsible when it comes to the taxpayers money when not ensuring that public funding agreements for arenas are protecting from owner’s making decisions to intentionally NOT provide the entertainment promised when they petitioned the town for the money inthe first place.

    In the article referenced above the mayor called the dispute a ‘private’ one and stated he is not interferring. It’s no longer a private dispute if taxpayer’s money is financing the owners during the lockout [re: Nashville needing to give the Predators MORE money in order for them to sign ALTERNATE entertainment during the lockout]. He’s supposed to be representing the people that elected him. Those people are the taxpayers that elected him. By ‘staying out of it’ he’s shunning his responsibility to the people of Nashville to ensure public funding invested isn’t being lost.

    Every local government which provided public funding to their local arenas and is now losing money via taxes, increased unemployment, parking revenues or that is DIRECTLY paying an NHL team for ‘arena management’, leases etc should be sticking up for the tax payers instead of playing politics and avoiding the situation. [Hockey fans or not] people in these cities need to speak up and demand that their government official step in and ensure tax payer investments are protected from the owner’s whims.

    The lockout should be considered violations of contracts/agreements to receive public funding and if there’s clauses specifically to adress continued payment to the NHL teams in the event of a lockout, then the politicians writing those agreements aren’t looking out for their taxpayer’s best interests.

    I could certainly understand if the situation were the other way around and player were striking, as this would [theoretically] be beyond the control of the NHL team, but locking out players because they refuse to take arbitrary pay-cuts when the league is having record breaking high revenue and not cutting back on other non-player-salary related expenses is certainly something the onwers have control over.

    As it’s obviously in Nashville’s best interest for the lokout to end as soon as possible, why are they supporting the owners by giving them public funding to find OTHER entertainment to generate government revebue? At this point, between the NBC deal which pays out $200 million to the owners even if there is no hockey season and the local governements continuing to provide taxpayer money to the owners, the owners will make more money staying closed for the entire season. Laying off their staff and keeping the arena closed will earn them more money the opening up for business.

    Has anyone considered the possibility that this is the NHL’s plan all along? Allow the small market teams a chance at financial recovery by shutting down for an entire season all while collecting TV revenue and public funding? Perhaps the outrageous salary cut proposed to the players are the NHL’s way of legitimizing the shutdown for the season.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kessel (1772)
  2. P. Kane (1393)
  3. M. Richards (1277)
  4. P. Datsyuk (1262)
  5. N. Backstrom (1120)