HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Total gate revenues - You'd be surprised

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-29-2004, 03:54 PM
  #26
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownFromNJ
Yes they are converted (by THN, not by me). The Canadian Dollar is a huge part of the reason why Calgary and Edmonton can't make much money, Montreal too.
Then why is Ottawa, a market the same size as Edmonton or Calgary and significantly smaller then Montreal, up near the top for revenues?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 03:59 PM
  #27
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
I've read that Detroit lost 13M last season, which would be 3M more than Nashville.
They also generated more than double Nashville's revenue. If they choose to spend more than they make, that's their problem. They shouldn't be punished because other teams can't carry their weight.


Last edited by hockeytown9321: 09-29-2004 at 04:02 PM.
hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 04:10 PM
  #28
triggrman
Registered User
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 22,254
vCash: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
They also generated more than double Nashville's revenue. If they choose to spend more than they make, that's their problem. They shouldn't be punished because other teams can't carry their weight.
How is a salary cap punishing them? They can still by the best coaches, GM, and scouts, but now they won't be killing the rest of the league with insane salaries.

Do you fear the level playing field?

Nashville didn't generate much, but they kept their salaries low enough that it wouldn't kill them. Remember only Pittsburg had a lower salary.

triggrman is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 04:24 PM
  #29
name
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
Have any of you seen Forbes' NHL team valuations?

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1208/nhl.html

name is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 04:27 PM
  #30
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
How is a salary cap punishing them? They can still by the best coaches, GM, and scouts, but now they won't be killing the rest of the league with insane salaries.

Do you fear the level playing field?

Nashville didn't generate much, but they kept their salaries low enough that it wouldn't kill them. Remember only Pittsburg had a lower salary.
Thats all well and good, but a cap doesn't level the playing field. You can't equalize talent and thosw with more talent are going to suffer more under a cap than those with less. Its fact.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 04:41 PM
  #31
triggrman
Registered User
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 22,254
vCash: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by name
Have any of you seen Forbes' NHL team valuations?

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1208/nhl.html
It has Nashville only losing 2.8M, Detroit losing 13.7M

triggrman is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 04:42 PM
  #32
triggrman
Registered User
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 22,254
vCash: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Thats all well and good, but a cap doesn't level the playing field. You can't equalize talent and thosw with more talent are going to suffer more under a cap than those with less. Its fact.
No you canít equate talent with payroll. It does level the playing field.

triggrman is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 04:49 PM
  #33
name
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
It has Nashville only losing 2.8M, Detroit losing 13.7M
What point are you trying to make by pointing that out?

name is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 05:02 PM
  #34
chriss_co
Registered User
 
chriss_co's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: CALGARY
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
I know Calgary cut off it's upper deck until they made the playoffs this season, which takes out a sizeable chunk of their revenue when you don't sell that many tickets because you choose not to.
The dome cut off its upper deck (close to 1000 seats i think... a little lower) for the regular season because not enough people were buying them... they would have lost less money buy shutting down the upper deck than operating the upper deck..

hmm.. that sounds oddly familiar to this lockout

chriss_co is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 06:26 PM
  #35
Boomhower
Registered User
 
Boomhower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
You made over $20M last season, you should be in the top 5
Sure they made 20 million last year, afterall the books had to be opened to impress potential buyers. The cynic in me says the Canucks would have claimed losses just like alot of other teams last year, had the owner/s not been looking to sell....

Boomhower is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 06:43 PM
  #36
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,924
vCash: 500
Tickets are more expensive in Ottawa and Phoenix, than Montreal and New York?

That goes against everything I've ever heard.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 06:50 PM
  #37
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
No you canít equate talent with payroll. It does level the playing field.
So teams will be able to build a dynasty under a cap?

Its impossible, and I'm not going to go through the laundry list of reasons why again, if you want them go through my old posts. If not, go ahead and continue to be uninformed, I don't care.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 06:57 PM
  #38
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
It has Nashville only losing 2.8M, Detroit losing 13.7M
So you've said. It doesn't change the fact that Detroit produces well over double the revenue of Nashville. It also doesn't change the fact that the Red Wings chose to pay what they did, knowing the risks that went along with it.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 07:06 PM
  #39
triggrman
Registered User
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 22,254
vCash: 557
Funny last I check the Redwings were locking there players out too.

If my company makes more than yours but I spend more than I make what does it matter?

I'm not going to convence a Detroit fan of this though, he's used to just going out and buying bandaids.

triggrman is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 07:09 PM
  #40
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
Funny last I check the Redwings were locking there players out too.

If my company makes more than yours but I spend more than I make what does it matter?

I'm not going to convence a Detroit fan of this though, he's used to just going out and buying bandaids.
See, this is what I mean about being uninformed. Go look at GoCoyote's CBA solution and find out where the Red Wings rank in terms of players they didn't develop. You'll be quite surprised.

And if you did a little more research, you'd know that Ilitch is among the group of 7-8 owners not in favor of a cap.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 11:22 PM
  #41
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,977
vCash: 2000
Someone should do this for luxury suites too. I think the Sabres have something like 80 suites that go for $80,000 per year. It's probably much higher at other arenas.

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 11:41 PM
  #42
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by name
Have any of you seen Forbes' NHL team valuations?

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1208/nhl.html
great link -

mr gib is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 11:46 PM
  #43
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
See, this is what I mean about being uninformed. Go look at GoCoyote's CBA solution and find out where the Red Wings rank in terms of players they didn't develop. You'll be quite surprised.

And if you did a little more research, you'd know that Ilitch is among the group of 7-8 owners not in favor of a cap.
Detroit hasn't been innocent by a long shot, although anyone who has been a contender the past few years (NJ, DET, COL) has managed their team better than most.

I hate the Wings, but they get a worse rap for signing guys, and they actually get much the same benefit that Colorado got last year with Kariya. By being a winner, they attract talent that signs at a lesser than market value in some cases. Even at that, Detroit is the sixth worst team in terms of developing from within, and it's not surprising that other spenders like TOR, PHI, DAL, STL, and NYR are the others.

Guest is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 02:25 AM
  #44
One Less Louise
Dale Weise it !
 
One Less Louise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 23,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Then why is Ottawa, a market the same size as Edmonton or Calgary and significantly smaller then Montreal, up near the top for revenues?
Ottawa's average ticket price 52.36 $
Montreal's average ticket price 40.84 $

Georgie we love ya !

One Less Louise is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 04:05 AM
  #45
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 12,190
vCash: 50
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
So teams will be able to build a dynasty under a cap?

Its impossible, and I'm not going to go through the laundry list of reasons why again, if you want them go through my old posts. If not, go ahead and continue to be uninformed, I don't care.
Past dynasties were built from sound talent evaluation, good coaching and smart hockey. Or in the Habs case, they had first pick of the litter on any French player in Quebec.

It would seem that having cost certainty in the league isn't meant to guarantee that teams won't move or fold if there is not enough interest (Panthers or Hurricanes perhaps), rather to insure that hockey can eventually generate enough interest around the league that it can begin to make money on things like TV deals. I can understand in theory why a player might not want to ever limit his eventual salary... but looking at the choices, it seems short sighted to say no to extremely good money and a chance to set the players mark on things like games played, new UFA rules and the actual earnings of NHL teams being released to the public.

It is greed not to agree at some point to define a ceiling on what one may rightfully earn from playing hockey. It's not like they are being limited from ever earning more money should they wish it... kind of like the rest of us.

Would anyone here decline to sign a contract limiting their annual income to 5 million dollars a year?

Hmm

quat is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 09:17 AM
  #46
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 1,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quat

It is greed not to agree at some point to define a ceiling on what one may rightfully earn.
"As a wage earner it's my right to prostitute myself for as much as I can get - no ceiling."

Ted Lindsay

rafal majka is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 10:12 AM
  #47
triggrman
Registered User
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 22,254
vCash: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
See, this is what I mean about being uninformed. Go look at GoCoyote's CBA solution and find out where the Red Wings rank in terms of players they didn't develop. You'll be quite surprised.

And if you did a little more research, you'd know that Ilitch is among the group of 7-8 owners not in favor of a cap.
Please show me a quote from Ilitch saying he doesn't want a cap, or that he doesn't mind loosing this much money annually. If he does he's an idiot, and shouldn't own a team. Fact, one team does heavily influence the salaries around the rest of the league. So Detroit not caring about their salaries and losing money hurts the rest of the league. The NHL needs fiscally responsible owners to survive. It doesn't kill Craig to loose a few, they have plenty of money (as much as Ilitch) but that's not why he got into the NHL. I understand Ilitch isn't much liked by Tiger fans See Groin why is that? Why was he in favor of the salary cap in baseball but not in hockey (GS was the only voter to vote against tax) Was it because in baseball he can't keep up with GS, so it's at his disadvantage?

triggrman is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 02:02 PM
  #48
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
Please show me a quote from Ilitch saying he doesn't want a cap, or that he doesn't mind loosing this much money annually. If he does he's an idiot, and shouldn't own a team. Fact, one team does heavily influence the salaries around the rest of the league. So Detroit not caring about their salaries and losing money hurts the rest of the league. The NHL needs fiscally responsible owners to survive. It doesn't kill Craig to loose a few, they have plenty of money (as much as Ilitch) but that's not why he got into the NHL. I understand Ilitch isn't much liked by Tiger fans See Groin why is that? Why was he in favor of the salary cap in baseball but not in hockey (GS was the only voter to vote against tax) Was it because in baseball he can't keep up with GS, so it's at his disadvantage?
Ilitch can't quote directly becuase of the threat of a $1 million fine, but here's a couple articles for you to read:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/s...9684144.htm?1c

http://www.detnews.com/2004/wings/04...d06-284751.htm

Ilitch wasn't popular with Tiger fans because the team was horrid. Its a big misconception he didn't spend money on them. Until about 2 years ago, their payroll was roughly the same as the Red Wings. He had bad management in place, and that management spent his money unwisely. They were paying Damion Easley $12 million a year. A couple years ago they hired Dave Dombroski, who is competent, and they've improved. Its not George Steinbrenner's fault the Tiger's were paying Damion Easley $12 million a year.

You're also not realizing that while Detroit may have lost money the last two years, they made alot in 2002. And again, they know the possible consequences of having a high payroll.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 03:34 PM
  #49
Coffey77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
How is a salary cap punishing them? They can still by the best coaches, GM, and scouts, but now they won't be killing the rest of the league with insane salaries.

Do you fear the level playing field?

Nashville didn't generate much, but they kept their salaries low enough that it wouldn't kill them. Remember only Pittsburg had a lower salary.
If there is a salary cap (big if), I would find it interesting how much more teams may spend on GM's, coaches and scouts. I'm pretty sure that right now coaches in the NHL make far less than their counterparts in the NFL, MLB and NBA. Bowman only got a little more than a million a year.

If say Detroit couldn't spend as much on players, I could see Illitch spending just as much money. But on other things like a better coach, scouting staff etc.

Coffey77 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 03:46 PM
  #50
bleedgreen
Registered User
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 12,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
How is a salary cap punishing them? They can still by the best coaches, GM, and scouts, but now they won't be killing the rest of the league with insane salaries.

Do you fear the level playing field?

Nashville didn't generate much, but they kept their salaries low enough that it wouldn't kill them. Remember only Pittsburg had a lower salary.
im a canes fan, and im against a hard cap. its not about a level playing field - its about the canes making 15 million a season. how is that number going to go up to cover the players costs? a cap isnt going help them in my opinion - a luxury tax would at least give them money to even out the disparity. if a team cant make enough money to cover 31 mill, why are they arguing they want a hard cap of 31mill? im not with the players but there is no way the owners are giving out all the numbers - cuz carolina wouldnt be such hard line cap people if the team wasnt able to cover the cost of the cap.

bleedgreen 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 07:18 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.