HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Flames forecasting losses...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-03-2004, 09:51 AM
  #1
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 20,486
vCash: 500
Flames forecasting losses...

of $5-7 million if the entire 2004-2005 season is wiped out. Thought that was pretty interesting.

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 09:59 AM
  #2
Slewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Amboy NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
of $5-7 million if the entire 2004-2005 season is wiped out. Thought that was pretty interesting.
What were they claiming to have lost last season?

Slewfoot is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 10:03 AM
  #3
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 20,486
vCash: 500
I don't really know...

although the small market team, who just went to the finals, that desparately needs a cap, is going to lose money without a season. That's what I found interesting. It's an isolated case, but I thought it to be interesting nonetheless. So if there was a season, I'd assume they'd make $5-7 milion. With a 10% rollback in salaries, that pro formas to around $8-10 million. With a luxury tax and revenue sharing that number could reach the mid teens of millions. With that, they have more money to spend on players, while also retaining more money for a rainy day. A small example how the Players' proposal works, but Calgary is a team that Bettman pointed out as needing the cap.

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 10:07 AM
  #4
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewfoot
What were they claiming to have lost last season?
They didnt loose anything last season..they gained some.

Where did you read they will loose that much money if the season is lost? I have looked everywhere and didnt find it.


Last edited by FLYLine24*: 12-03-2004 at 11:40 AM.
FLYLine24* is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 11:36 AM
  #5
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewfoot
What were they claiming to have lost last season?
They made money last year.

"Where did you read they will loose that much money if the season is lost? I have looked everywhere and didnt not find it."

It's a snipet in one of the ESPN articles.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 11:45 AM
  #6
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 20,486
vCash: 500
Fly...

Her you go http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1936450

Near the bottom.

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 01:13 PM
  #7
Slewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Amboy NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
They made money last year.

"Where did you read they will loose that much money if the season is lost? I have looked everywhere and didnt not find it."

It's a snipet in one of the ESPN articles.
So why is Bettman's claiming that Calgary is one of the teams that needs a salary cap if they :
1) Don't have a high payroll
2) Made the finals last year
3) made a profit

It seems that what Calgary needs more than a salary cap is for the NHL to start playing games again !!

Slewfoot is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 01:16 PM
  #8
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
Thanks

FLYLine24* is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 01:25 PM
  #9
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewfoot
So why is Bettman's claiming that Calgary is one of the teams that needs a salary cap if they :
1) Don't have a high payroll
2) Made the finals last year
3) made a profit

It seems that what Calgary needs more than a salary cap is for the NHL to start playing games again !!
One would argue that the Flames won't be able to play at the same level because the current system will force them to trade away key players because of salary concerns. That's a fair point, but I don't see how a $31 mil cap will help the Flames keep their team together when their "cheap, successful" team had a $36 mil payroll last year.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 01:29 PM
  #10
Boondock Saint
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewfoot
So why is Bettman's claiming that Calgary is one of the teams that needs a salary cap if they :
1) Don't have a high payroll
2) Made the finals last year
3) made a profit

It seems that what Calgary needs more than a salary cap is for the NHL to start playing games again !!
The reason they made a profit is because they went to the finals.

That's a ton of extra playoff revenue that they wouldn't have otherwise had.

They can't count on that much playoff revenue every year.

Boondock Saint is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 01:43 PM
  #11
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 20,486
vCash: 500
On what basis Boondock...

are the Flames' owners estimating a $5-7 million loss this season if all is lost? In other words, do you think the owners are projecting another finals run? You're right, they cannot count on that cash every season, which is why I doubt they are when figuring how much they stand to lose if the season is canceled.

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 01:43 PM
  #12
Slewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Amboy NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boondock Saint
The reason they made a profit is because they went to the finals.

That's a ton of extra playoff revenue that they wouldn't have otherwise had.

They can't count on that much playoff revenue every year.

Wouldn't another possible reason they made a profit be that they didn't overpay for UFA's like many teams and inflate their payroll ? In other words , they spent their money wisely and built a successful team and made a profit.

Slewfoot is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 01:48 PM
  #13
Slewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Amboy NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
One would argue that the Flames won't be able to play at the same level because the current system will force them to trade away key players because of salary concerns. That's a fair point, but I don't see how a $31 mil cap will help the Flames keep their team together when their "cheap, successful" team had a $36 mil payroll last year.
Agreed.

Slewfoot is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 01:58 PM
  #14
looooob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewfoot
Wouldn't another possible reason they made a profit be that they didn't overpay for UFA's like many teams and inflate their payroll ? In other words , they spent their money wisely and built a successful team and made a profit.
in part. however

1. I think we all have to concede the chances of them making the finals again soon is slim. They made a profit based on a 'dream season'

2. the team has to , by and large, make the playoffs to make a profit...something they've done now once in 8 years. the margin of success is pretty slim. does anyone here think the Flames would even be a shoe-in for the playoffs this year if we were playing? I don't, and I'm a Flames homer. I think they would be in the mix, but that's not the same as making it

3. Even after making the finals they severed ties with Craig Conroy, who was offered--frankly--a ridiculous offer by LA. I'm glad the Flames didn't counter that offer, but it's frustrating to be operating in a situation where some teams can make ridiculous offers without much thought and others can't. To replace him they brought in Langkow. Great replacement. but it cost 2 decent 'assets' former first rounders Saprykin and Gauthier to get him...that' s tough way for a team to live, if they can't compete on the UFA market in the long run

looooob is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 01:59 PM
  #15
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
are the Flames' owners estimating a $5-7 million loss this season if all is lost? In other words, do you think the owners are projecting another finals run? You're right, they cannot count on that cash every season, which is why I doubt they are when figuring how much they stand to lose if the season is canceled.
I think you misunderstood, Fletch (or perhaps I did). The owners aren't projecting anything hockey-wise. Even without hockey actually being played, the owners lose money because there are still expenses (coaches' salaries, front office salaries, front office business expenses, scouts' salaries, minor league salaries, security personnel salaries, arena lease, if they have one). They're talking about actual operating losses from paying these expenses while not generating revenue.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 01:59 PM
  #16
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
but I don't see how a $31 mil cap will help the Flames keep their team together when their "cheap, successful" team had a $36 mil payroll last year.
All the $31m is, is a # that Bettman believes will allow ALL teams to be profitable. In one of the current ESPN articles, they talk about Bettman's "leadership". This stems from the NHLPA's comments that Bettman should not be leading the NHL. And ESPN is right. Why on Earth would the owners NOT like Bettman? He is clearly their lapdog. He has made no motion to fix the leagues problems. But he HAS taken every single step to try to ensure that ALL teams are profitable. As I have said before, there is a HUGE difference between having a healthy league and having all 30 teams profitable. Therein lies my major problem with Bettman. He is supposed to be the caretaker of the league, not the guardian of owner profits. He could care less about hockey as a whole. His job is given to him by the owners. Every single stance that he has taken, smacks of owner profitability.
And before someone talks about Goodenow, let's realize that it IS Goodenow's job to lookout for the players. It is Bettman's job to lookout for hockey, and not owner profitability. And he is failing miserably at his job.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 02:02 PM
  #17
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by looooob
1. I think we all have to concede the chances of them making the finals again soon is slim. They made a profit based on a 'dream season'
Why? They have just as good a team as Tampa. The Flames have one of the better young goalies in the league, one of the top 5 forwards, and some of the best young defenseman around. I'd say that playoffs are very much withing their reach.

"does anyone here think the Flames would even be a shoe-in for the playoffs this year if we were playing?"

Yes. Based on what I already said and add in solid coaching.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 02:17 PM
  #18
looooob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Why? They have just as good a team as Tampa. The Flames have one of the better young goalies in the league, one of the top 5 forwards, and some of the best young defenseman around. I'd say that playoffs are very much withing their reach.

"does anyone here think the Flames would even be a shoe-in for the playoffs this year if we were playing?"

Yes. Based on what I already said and add in solid coaching.
are the playoffs within their reach? you bet

however I'm sure the same was said of Anaheim in 03 and Carolina in 02

I agree with alot of your points on the Flames. I think they are going in the right direction (remember though Iginla is not yet signed, although I think at least under a new CBA this won't be a major stumbling block)

but in the West anyways you've got Detroit, Colorado, Dallas, St Louis. 4 wealthy, solid teams that rarely miss the playoffs (Dallas once in recent memory, the others?)

San Jose has a great team, ditto Vancouver

I see Calgary in the mix with Edmonton, Nashville, LA at minimum and possibly Phoenix (i don't undersand their direction frankly) and Minnesota for 2 playoff spots

that's fine by the way. no-one said the playoffs should be a sure thing, or easy to make....however if the only way to break even in a market is to make the playoffs, then it's a tough way to live...

looooob is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 03:10 PM
  #19
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 20,486
vCash: 500
That I did understand...

but to me, I don't think they make that point unless they expected to have income in the same period if there was hockey (sorry, I read into it too much).

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 03:34 PM
  #20
Slewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Amboy NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by looooob
are the playoffs within their reach? you bet

however I'm sure the same was said of Anaheim in 03 and Carolina in 02

I agree with alot of your points on the Flames. I think they are going in the right direction (remember though Iginla is not yet signed, although I think at least under a new CBA this won't be a major stumbling block)

but in the West anyways you've got Detroit, Colorado, Dallas, St Louis. 4 wealthy, solid teams that rarely miss the playoffs (Dallas once in recent memory, the others?)

San Jose has a great team, ditto Vancouver

I see Calgary in the mix with Edmonton, Nashville, LA at minimum and possibly Phoenix (i don't undersand their direction frankly) and Minnesota for 2 playoff spots

that's fine by the way. no-one said the playoffs should be a sure thing, or easy to make....however if the only way to break even in a market is to make the playoffs, then it's a tough way to live...
If the Flames require making the finals to make a profit with a $36M payroll , how much is the proposed $31M cap going to help ?

Slewfoot is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 03:37 PM
  #21
looooob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewfoot
If the Flames require making the finals to make a profit with a $36M payroll , how much is the proposed $31M cap going to help ?
well first off, I don't believe it's going to be a 31 M cap. I'm not even a proponent of a hard cap perse

but I think the theory is. IF there was a 31 M cap, then the Flames would have a 31 M payroll, their competitors would have a 31 M payroll and there would be an even playing field for making the playoffs

right now you've got at least 4 teams in the West who have, what? 50 or 60 or 70 M payrolls, and those 4 teams essentially lock down four of the playoff spots. The Flames with their 36 M payroll are in tough to break even in that scenario

again I think that's the theory, not necessarily my position

looooob is offline  
Old
12-03-2004, 04:10 PM
  #22
Slewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Amboy NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by looooob
well first off, I don't believe it's going to be a 31 M cap. I'm not even a proponent of a hard cap perse

but I think the theory is. IF there was a 31 M cap, then the Flames would have a 31 M payroll, their competitors would have a 31 M payroll and there would be an even playing field for making the playoffs

right now you've got at least 4 teams in the West who have, what? 50 or 60 or 70 M payrolls, and those 4 teams essentially lock down four of the playoff spots. The Flames with their 36 M payroll are in tough to break even in that scenario

again I think that's the theory, not necessarily my position
I understand your point. Maybe I have a harder time seeing a correlation between team success and a high payroll because I am a Ranger fan !!

Slewfoot 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 03:23 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.