HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Why can't Goodenow just understand?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-08-2004, 12:46 PM
  #151
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
If you were an owner and paid $250 million USD. for the Colorado Avalanche, shouldn't you expect to generate more revenue than an owner that paid $150 million Cdn. for the Ottawa Senators ???
Naturally... I am not sure what you're problem is.

I am not talking about revenue generation, I am talking about spending.

Revenue generation isn't the problem... there is enough money for a healthy 30 team league...

The problem is spending. Alot of teams do practice smart business decisions for themselves (spending within their means), but it doesn't mean that it is good for the league on a whole, especially when other teams try and keep up by spending outside their means.

__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
10-08-2004, 01:21 PM
  #152
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
It's not about generating it's about spending... if you can generate twice as much as some other teams but were REGULATED to spend the same amount as everyone else, then isn't that a good thing in terms of your investment?
That depends on why you bought the team in the first place.

95% of owners in all sports bought the team for a reason other than "an investment to make money"

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
10-08-2004, 01:23 PM
  #153
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Naturally... I am not sure what you're problem is.

I am not talking about revenue generation, I am talking about spending.

Revenue generation isn't the problem... there is enough money for a healthy 30 team league...

The problem is spending. Alot of teams do practice smart business decisions for themselves (spending within their means), but it doesn't mean that it is good for the league on a whole, especially when other teams try and keep up by spending outside their means.
Revenue generation is a MAJOR problem for some teams.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
10-08-2004, 01:27 PM
  #154
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Revenue generation is a MAJOR problem for some teams.
Well, depends on what you mean...

If you mean that not every team eclipses $100mil in revenue, you are bang on.

If you mean that teams can't be financially viable with proper salary controls and a certain amount of revenue sharing (say from a salary cap), I would have to disagree.

I mean, you could have a stable franchise that only generates $40-50mil in revenues... which I am sure most teams are at least pulling in.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
10-08-2004, 01:41 PM
  #155
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Well, depends on what you mean...

If you mean that not every team eclipses $100mil in revenue, you are bang on.

If you mean that teams can't be financially viable with proper salary controls and a certain amount of revenue sharing (say from a salary cap), I would have to disagree.

I mean, you could have a stable franchise that only generates $40-50mil in revenues... which I am sure most teams are at least pulling in.
I disagree with you there.

IMO an average of about $40 million across the board is the best the NHL owners can realistically expect.

If $40 million is going to be the average, I think a team needs to generate close to $60 million to be considered financially stable.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
10-08-2004, 01:56 PM
  #156
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
That depends...

If your revenues are maxed out at $40mil, you are toast. That means if you sellout the building, and maximize every source of revenue you can muster, there is no saving you.

However, if you are pulling in $40mil, without maxing out your revenue streams and you cap your own payroll at $30mil, and say get a luxury tax payment of $3-4mil, your salary to revenue ratio is still a little high, but you still have the ability to increase your own revenues.

Sometimes it's by going out and really selling your team to the public. The Edmonton Oilers have been absolutely fantastic at maximizing their revenues by doing things like getting the corporate community as well as the general public involved in everything.

Will every teams maximum revenues be enough? I honestly don't know. There may be a couple of teams, who despite the fact they are making as much money as possible, can't compete.

But if they've survived this long, let's see how long they survive in a salary-controlled era.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
10-08-2004, 02:06 PM
  #157
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
That depends on why you bought the team in the first place.

95% of owners in all sports bought the team for a reason other than "an investment to make money"

That may be, in fact I largely agree with that sentiment.

My comment was just in response to you saying that, if feasible, owners should have the right to generate more money.

I thought it missed the mark on what Dawgbone was originally talking about ...which was spending.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
10-08-2004, 02:09 PM
  #158
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
That depends...

If your revenues are maxed out at $40mil, you are toast. That means if you sellout the building, and maximize every source of revenue you can muster, there is no saving you.

However, if you are pulling in $40mil, without maxing out your revenue streams and you cap your own payroll at $30mil, and say get a luxury tax payment of $3-4mil, your salary to revenue ratio is still a little high, but you still have the ability to increase your own revenues.

Sometimes it's by going out and really selling your team to the public. The Edmonton Oilers have been absolutely fantastic at maximizing their revenues by doing things like getting the corporate community as well as the general public involved in everything.

Will every teams maximum revenues be enough? I honestly don't know. There may be a couple of teams, who despite the fact they are making as much money as possible, can't compete.

But if they've survived this long, let's see how long they survive in a salary-controlled era.

The thing is it takes TIME to maximize revenues. Teams in Tampa, Nashville, Miami, Charlotte etc. should be focusing on growing their revenues.

Philadelphia wasn't a hockey town or market in 1967 or 1971, but the Flyers were smart a built a strong organization, therefore it's now one of the strongest franchises in the NHL.

IMO if Ed Snider owned the Penguins, Blues, North Stars or Kings they would be premiere franchises in the NHL.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
10-08-2004, 02:42 PM
  #159
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
IMO if Ed Snider owned the Penguins, Blues, North Stars or Kings they would be premiere franchises in the NHL.
That's debatable... and not out of disrespect for Snider. While it does take a lot of intelligence, it also takes a lot of luck both in terms of how your team does on the ice, as well as to how your populace responds to the team, and the market you are in.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
10-08-2004, 03:02 PM
  #160
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
That's debatable... and not out of disrespect for Snider. While it does take a lot of intelligence, it also takes a lot of luck both in terms of how your team does on the ice, as well as to how your populace responds to the team, and the market you are in.
I don't think very much is luck, but alot of it is all about winning, and building a winning team has almost nothing to do with luck. Cities for the most part support winning organizations.

Snider wasn't a hockey many, but he hired the right people and supported them in the right way.

If the Flyers switched records with the Kings or Penguins over the last 35 years, Philadelphia would be in a very similar situation that the Los Angeles or Pittsburgh is currently in.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
10-08-2004, 03:09 PM
  #161
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
I don't think very much is luck, but alot of it is all about winning, and building a winning team has almost nothing to do with luck. Cities for the most part support winning organizations.

Snider wasn't a hockey many, but he hired the right people and supported them in the right way.

If the Flyers switched records with the Kings or Penguins over the last 35 years, Philadelphia would be in a very similar situation that the Los Angeles or Pittsburgh is currently in.
True... but the Flyers have carved out their own identity. The Broad Street bullies were Philadelphia. Once you have that connection, it's hard to lose it.

It's the same in cities like Toronto, Montreal, New York... the fabric of the team is ingrained in the society.

Not every team gets that, even teams who have a history of winning... so while it is a lot of smart decisions, there is that intangible of connecting the team and the people together that is sometimes luck. The fans indentify themselves so strongly with the team that there is a permanant bond.

That does involve some luck, because as we've seen, it doesn't happen everywhere, no matter how successful the team has been in the past, or how long the team has been around.

Trust me, this isn't a shot at Snider at all, and I do beleive he is one of the better execs in the NHL... it's more of a compliment to the Flyer fans, who have completely sold their souls to the team... so to speak.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
10-08-2004, 05:59 PM
  #162
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
I don't think very much is luck, but alot of it is all about winning, and building a winning team has almost nothing to do with luck.
There are four things needed for success:

(1) competence
(2) hard work
(3) good support group
(4) luck

Without all 4 criteria in place, success cannot happen... The most successful of businessmen always say that luck played a role to get where they are... being in the right place, at the right time...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-08-2004, 06:35 PM
  #163
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
True... but the Flyers have carved out their own identity. The Broad Street bullies were Philadelphia. Once you have that connection, it's hard to lose it.

It's the same in cities like Toronto, Montreal, New York... the fabric of the team is ingrained in the society.

Not every team gets that, even teams who have a history of winning... so while it is a lot of smart decisions, there is that intangible of connecting the team and the people together that is sometimes luck. The fans indentify themselves so strongly with the team that there is a permanant bond.

That does involve some luck, because as we've seen, it doesn't happen everywhere, no matter how successful the team has been in the past, or how long the team has been around.

Trust me, this isn't a shot at Snider at all, and I do beleive he is one of the better execs in the NHL... it's more of a compliment to the Flyer fans, who have completely sold their souls to the team... so to speak.
Winning back-to-back Stanley Cups was huge, absolutely, but IMO the key is sustained winning and consistancy.

Other than a stretch during the early 90's the Flyers have been one of the NHL's top teams for 30 years. The fact that the organization has always showed that they're TRYING their best to win, even if they aren't winning.

Also they have been a great member of the Philadelphia community for 35 years.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
10-08-2004, 06:37 PM
  #164
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
There are four things needed for success:

(1) competence
(2) hard work
(3) good support group
(4) luck

Without all 4 criteria in place, success cannot happen... The most successful of businessmen always say that luck played a role to get where they are... being in the right place, at the right time...
Luck always plays a part, but IMO luck is so far behind the rest it's not even close.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
10-08-2004, 07:13 PM
  #165
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Luck always plays a part, but IMO luck is so far behind the rest it's not even close.
I believe that you make your own luck - you put yourself in positions to be 'lucky' through your own competence, hard work, and a good support group... Through the other 3, you put yourself in opportunities to be lucky... In this sense, I agree that luck is far behind the rest...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
10-10-2004, 07:33 PM
  #166
hunter1909*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 387
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
I disagree with you there.

IMO an average of about $40 million across the board is the best the NHL owners can realistically expect.

If $40 million is going to be the average, I think a team needs to generate close to $60 million to be considered financially stable.
the owners can pay any price they like...

you learn this kind of thing in business class

hunter1909* is offline  
Old
10-10-2004, 07:43 PM
  #167
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hunter1909
the owners can pay any price they like...

you learn this kind of thing in business class

Huh ???

John Flyers Fan 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 08:57 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.