HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Habs are profitable?!?!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-30-2004, 09:18 PM
  #1
Habsaku
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,554
vCash: 500
Habs are profitable?!?!

Just heard it on TSN. According to Glen Healy(yeah i know...), league documents showed five of the six most profitable teams last year were Canadian, the only one out being Ottawa.

Basically that means weve been grotesquely lied to with these 15 million dollar losses.

In fact, if the dollar keeps getting stronger and both the Leafs and Habs get tax exemptions(8 million bucks), I believe these two teams can become the two most stable franchises in the league.

Habsaku is offline  
Old
11-30-2004, 09:24 PM
  #2
not quite yoda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Qatar
Posts: 3,502
vCash: 500
yeah the Habs can become one of the most profitable teams in the League... except Gillett already said that the team can not continue to survive without radical changes in the economics, and that one of the reasons he agreed to buy the team was because Bettman promised him that there would be a new economic order after the new CBA.

not quite yoda is offline  
Old
11-30-2004, 09:25 PM
  #3
Ape Clutch
Registered User
 
Ape Clutch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Country: Haiti
Posts: 3,070
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Ape Clutch Send a message via Yahoo to Ape Clutch
THatz BS!! That means that Calgary should have easily signed Iginla, and that there was no reason for Edmonton to lose Niinima, Comrie, Weight... they WOULD be a much better team right now...

Ape Clutch is online now  
Old
11-30-2004, 09:29 PM
  #4
E = CH²
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 15,641
vCash: 500
All depends on how you count it..

E = CH² is online now  
Old
11-30-2004, 09:30 PM
  #5
EaGLE1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,442
vCash: 500
I don't think we make money but i don't think we lose money either.

EaGLE1 is offline  
Old
11-30-2004, 09:49 PM
  #6
tritone
Registered User
 
tritone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Laval
Posts: 4,978
vCash: 500
If Healy said it then it must be true

Great Financial analyst Healy has spoken. Oh yeah and Mccabe is the 4th best D-man in the world.

tritone is offline  
Old
11-30-2004, 10:04 PM
  #7
Brisson11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the rink
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,264
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Brisson11
That statement does not justify how Edmonton and Calgary struggle to keep players and how those GM's keep talking about how they aren't making money...

Brisson11 is offline  
Old
11-30-2004, 10:38 PM
  #8
Hackett
HF Needs Feeny
 
Hackett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,307
vCash: 500
Vancouver and toronto are doing very well for themselves....

Heck, Vancouver is doing so well that they got a new 50% owner even with the lockout going on.

But I don't know where healy gets the idea that there are 5 very profitable franchises in canada.

Hackett is offline  
Old
11-30-2004, 10:44 PM
  #9
not quite yoda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Qatar
Posts: 3,502
vCash: 500
If 5 of the 6 most profitable teams in the NHL are Canadian, then the American teams must be making **** profit.

not quite yoda is offline  
Old
11-30-2004, 10:54 PM
  #10
HabsoluteFate
Registered User
 
HabsoluteFate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,870
vCash: 500
Maybe Montreal's "Losses" factor in the cost of the building or interest on the loan Gilett might have gotten to buy the team...?

HabsoluteFate is offline  
Old
11-30-2004, 11:34 PM
  #11
Anthony P
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 621
vCash: 500
Generally speaking profit is defined as revenue minus all expenses including accruals for expenses that exist now but wont be paid till the future.... if we're strictly talking accounting profits then the number can easily be manipulated to show earnings by decreasing discretionary accruals such as depreciation on equipment and building, or O/H rates (which can be manipulated) applied to expenses.... also owners have incentive to show profit because they may have loans that will be triggered if certain bank imposed ratios are not met.... all this to say that accounting profit does not equal cash profit.... to determine the actual amount of cash a company made in the year you'd have to look at the cash flow statement and determine if there was an increase or decrease in cash flow and whether or not it's positive in the first place (factoring out the money coming from loans because that has to be repaid).... profit is very vague and simply by looking at the income statement figure you wont really know if the company is cash profitable..... having said that accruals may or may not be very prevalent in hockey ( I don't know the financial side of the industry too well so I can't comment on that)....

Anthony P is offline  
Old
12-01-2004, 01:00 AM
  #12
Squeaky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,195
vCash: 500
I'm entirely guessing here, but I bet you they've played with the numbers to get this. By "most profitable" I would guess (guess mind you, guess) that they mean that 5 of the 6 Canadian teams did better than the average NHL franchise last year. That doesn't mean they made money, it means they lost less than the average NHL club. That isn't too surprising, we all know Vancouver and Toronto are doing fine, Calgary and Edmonton are pretty cheap teams with pretty good followings, so they probably didn't hurt too bad, and most of us would know that the habs probably did loose money, but not too much last season. If you look at it this way, I don't find this report that surprising at all.

Squeaky is offline  
Old
12-01-2004, 08:11 AM
  #13
saskhab
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 994
vCash: 500
I could see the Habs being profitable last season, when the dollar jumped nearly 12 cents from the season before. However, that would only be with the Canadian stabilization fund. Do you count that money in your profit?

The fact is, Edmonton and Calgary didn't lose money last year. However, with Calgary, they can't expect to make the Finals every year in order to make a profit. The key is to make a profit every year whether the team makes the playoffs or not. Or, at the very least, break even every year the team doesn't make the playoffs, and have profit every time the team does make it. With the dollar at 84 cents, this could've been a very profitable year for all Canadian teams, likely including Ottawa for once. But it's not sustainable when you're relying solely on an exchange rate and a stabalization fund that might not be there the next time around.

However, Bettman still hasn't convinced me that a luxury tax system can't work. He claims some teams would spend above and beyond the fixed value... well, then tax them really hard! Make them pay big time for overspending! Then use that money for revenue sharing! It's not hard!

saskhab is offline  
Old
12-01-2004, 09:22 AM
  #14
Habsaku
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tritone
If Healy said it then it must be true

Great Financial analyst Healy has spoken. Oh yeah and Mccabe is the 4th best D-man in the world.
Dont be an ass, he didnt say he calculated it, he said League documents showed it and no one seemed to refute it(not even Bob McKenzie). 5 of the 6 most profitable teams being canadian isnt something I wouldve believed because it means were being lied to.

Habsaku is offline  
Old
12-01-2004, 09:48 AM
  #15
Hab-a-maniac
Registered User
 
Hab-a-maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto via Calgary!
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,150
vCash: 500
Look, the whole CBA issue with the owners demanding a cap and Bettman spearheading it, etc. Really, all he needs is 8 teams if he wants to push some kind of policy. And he's definitely got the weaker teams (Carolina, Nashville, Atlanta, Florida, Anaheim, Columbus, Pittsburgh) plus some middle teams (all the Canadian teams except Toronto, , Los Angeles) and some rich jerks (Chicago, Boston). I'd say about half the teams are onside, but that number could drop if the next offer by the NHLPA could likely save a season, yet has no cap. This is all about Bettman fighting for owners he promised stability when they bought into a "profitable" league just as recently as 5 years ago (according to Bettman at the time). And it's also about a-holes like Jacobs and Wirtz fighting the players who k!cked their @ss in the last CBA. They're sick of Goodenow and they're making it a revenge thing and if you don't think so, you got another thing coming.

Hab-a-maniac is offline  
Old
12-01-2004, 02:29 PM
  #16
Joey
Registered User
 
Joey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,073
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Joey
If we are one of the most profitable, that doesn't mean we couldn't of lost money this year. If we lost, say, 15 million this year, and 23 other teams lost more than 25 million, that would still make us one of the most profitable teams in the league, by definition.

Joey is offline  
Old
12-01-2004, 02:40 PM
  #17
Raider917
Registered User
 
Raider917's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,560
vCash: 179
is he including the higher tax rate the canadiens for being in quebec or is that an "after-effect"?

Raider917 is offline  
Old
12-01-2004, 02:49 PM
  #18
bopeep
Registered User
 
bopeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: habcouver
Posts: 613
vCash: 500
The more posturing, propaganda / lack of substantive bargaining that is out there from both sides just makes me shake my head. Title of this thread says it all - professional hockey is now on par with charities where profit is an ugly word.

bopeep is offline  
Old
12-01-2004, 09:45 PM
  #19
Habbadasher
Registered User
 
Habbadasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My couch
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,642
vCash: 500
Didn't Gilette "cash-in" the long-term contract dollars (for the naming of the keg) for an immediate pay-off last year?

That could be the reason why.

Habbadasher is offline  
Closed Thread

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 11:04 PM.

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.