Did I hear this right? (not a rant)

[GKJ]

I was watching videos on TSN and did Gord Miller say that the Calgary Flames was one of the highest profitable teams last season? The same Calgary Flames that Gary Bettman held a press conference for in December saying that they could not survive because they weren't making any money?

Click to read more...

 

[FlyersProspect2]

I'd assume the playoff run had something to do with the increase in revenue.

 

[MrMackey]

I'd assume the playoff run had something to do with the increase in revenue.

That is correct. It was their first profitable season in years & I believe their breakeven point wasn't until the second round.

 

[LaLaLaprise]

They played 4 rds in the playoffs and had 3 playoff games in each round.

3x4 = 12 extra games!! All sold-out, tonnes of drunk people, higher priced tickets = More Revneue lol

 

[zeke]

operating profit is relatively meaningless.

For example, the New York Rangers "lost" the most money last year, while the Penguins and Preds made a tidy profit.

It's all about franchise values.

 

[GKJ]

I'd assume the playoff run had something to do with the increase in revenue.

No, no, no. Bettman said in that press conference that the Flames still lost money. He also said "teams like Calgary" don't have a future.

 

[pacde]

No, no, no. Bettman said in that press conference that the Flames still lost money. He also said "teams like Calgary" don't have a future.

This isnt accurate - I cant remember the exact words but something to the effect of the Flames having lost money in the past several years.

 

[ryz]

No, no, no. Bettman said in that press conference that the Flames still lost money. He also said "teams like Calgary" don't have a future.

Last year the Flames made $$$ for the first time in 7-8 years and that was ALL due to playing every possible home playoff date. The $$$ they made last year hardly scratches the surface of the tens of millions they have lost in the last 7-8 years. If the Flames had been eliminated in the first round they would have lost millions again.

 

[Matt Foley*]

operating profit is relatively meaningless.

For example, the New York Rangers "lost" the most money last year, while the Penguins and Preds made a tidy profit.

It's all about franchise values.

Profit is not relatively meaningless when it comes to determining the financial value of a franchise. If a franchise can consistently make money, then it's value goes up over time. If it consistently loses money, then the value of the franchise goes down in the long haul.

Even the Rangers' franchise value would not hold up over time by posting loss after loss. In a given year, depending on the amount, a loss may not have a huge impact on their value. But to say that profits are relatively meaningless in the big picture is wrong, IMO.

 

[GKJ]

Last year the Flames made $$$ for the first time in 7-8 years and that was ALL due to playing every possible home playoff date. The $$$ they made last year hardly scratches the surface of the tens of millions they have lost in the last 7-8 years. If the Flames had been eliminated in the first round they would have lost millions again.

I beleive you, I am well aware the Flames made money, but someone either needs to tell that to Bettman or tell him to stop lying to the public.

 

[Hawker14]

someone either needs to tell that to Bettman or tell him to stop lying to the public.

bettman lies ? link.

lol

 

[Bruwinz37]

I was watching videos on TSN and did Gord Miller say that the Calgary Flames was one of the highest profitable teams last season? The same Calgary Flames that Gary Bettman held a press conference for in December saying that they could not survive because they weren't making any money?

Yea, every small market team should have to know going into a season that all they have to do is operate on a budget ~30m less than the top spenders and hope that they make the Stanley Cup Finals and they will be one of the more profitable teams. OR there could just be a financial environment that places teams on an equitable level. Which sounds more fair to you?

Wait, dont answer, I already know.

 

[Winger98]

Last year the Flames made $$$ for the first time in 7-8 years and that was ALL due to playing every possible home playoff date. The $$$ they made last year hardly scratches the surface of the tens of millions they have lost in the last 7-8 years. If the Flames had been eliminated in the first round they would have lost millions again.

And that was at roughly $36.4 million in salary and is part of my biggest gripe about this CBA mess. While it could lower salary costs a bit (though, I'm betting few teams will come in at the floor level and most will hit between $28-33 million) it still won't help the Canadian franchises flourish as they deserve because they will likely still be heavily hampered by the exchange rate.

Calgary pulled in around 16,500 fans per home game that season, while Edmonton pulled in over 17,000. Both teams had payrolls in the mid-$30 million range and both teams still have a difficult time making the playoffs. It's not like attendance is hurting in either place. Their payrolls are not exorbitantly high. Yet they still can't make a profit without going deep into the playoffs.

This CBA will not be of great help to them unless there are some added benefits for Canadian teams. As it stands, capping salaries is not going to help them generate more revenue or combat their exchange rate problem.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Huh? Heavily hampered by the exchange rate? 83% exchange rate hardly 'hampers' the Canadian teams.

Mlakar was on the radio this morning saying that Ottawa was 9th in the league in the 2004 in PAID ATTENDANCE, and that they were middle of the pack in regular season revenue generation. Just like Forbes said.

These small market myths are way overhyped, as per usual.

 

[Montrealer]

I beleive you, I am well aware the Flames made money, but someone either needs to tell that to Bettman or tell him to stop lying to the public.

Could you provide more proof than your memories that he lied and said the Flames lost money during their playoff-run year? If he said the Flames lost money during the last few years, he's still telling the truth.

That being said, aren't moderators usually the voice of reason on these boards?

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Huh? Heavily hampered by the exchange rate? 83% exchange rate hardly 'hampers' the Canadian teams.

Mlakar was on the radio this morning saying that Ottawa was 9th in the league in the 2004 in PAID ATTENDANCE, and that they were middle of the pack in regular season revenue generation. Just like Forbes said.

These small market myths are way overhyped, as per usual.

Are you thick? The Flames financial turnaround can be attributed directly to the difference in exchange rate. When the exchange rate was $.60 the Canadian teams got hammered. Now that the buck is at $.83 the field is much more level and costs aren't so high. To give you an idea of what that difference means, that $.23 exchange improvement saves the team $8.28 million in salary costs alone. Yeah, the currency issue is a non-factor.

 

[CarlRacki]

I was watching videos on TSN and did Gord Miller say that the Calgary Flames was one of the highest profitable teams last season? The same Calgary Flames that Gary Bettman held a press conference for in December saying that they could not survive because they weren't making any money?

FWIW, Forbes says the Flames lost $5.9 million between 1997 and 2004, despite making $2.3 million in '03-04. A $2.3 million profit with a low payroll team that made it to the finals is paltry. Take away those 12 home playoff games and you can bet the Flames would have been in the red (and I'm not talking about their sweaters).

On the positive side, however, Forbes estimates the Flames' franchise value grew from $78 million to $116 million between 1997 and 2004. Take that with a few thousand grains of salt, however. They also estimated the Ducks' worth at $108 million. That team just sold for $75 million.

 

[AM]

err?

And that was at roughly $36.4 million in salary and is part of my biggest gripe about this CBA mess. While it could lower salary costs a bit (though, I'm betting few teams will come in at the floor level and most will hit between $28-33 million) it still won't help the Canadian franchises flourish as they deserve because they will likely still be heavily hampered by the exchange rate.

Calgary pulled in around 16,500 fans per home game that season, while Edmonton pulled in over 17,000. Both teams had payrolls in the mid-$30 million range and both teams still have a difficult time making the playoffs. It's not like attendance is hurting in either place. Their payrolls are not exorbitantly high. Yet they still can't make a profit without going deep into the playoffs.

This CBA will not be of great help to them unless there are some added benefits for Canadian teams. As it stands, capping salaries is not going to help them generate more revenue or combat their exchange rate problem.

24% roll back plus less upward pressure on salaries.

Nope none of this stuff helps anyone!

 

[Winger98]

24% roll back plus less upward pressure on salaries.

Nope none of this stuff helps anyone!

A. I'm not talking about anyone, I'm referring specifically to the canadian franchises.

B. I never said it wouldn't help. You're arguing something I never contested.

The rollback and cap and everything will be nice and should help, but it won't help the canadian franchises either generate more revenue (because they are already filling their stadiums at more than acceptable levels) or equalize their spending abilities with American franchises because the exchange rate can vary from debilitating to merely hampering. If you don't like it coming from me, check out Iconoclast's post, I think he's been a fairly pro-owner poster so maybe it's easier for you to read it from him.

I would like to have seen some form of assistance or equalization plan for canadian franchises, anything so that the gap between the dollar values are bridged a bit for a few of these canadian teams.

 

[Orange]

Could you provide more proof than your memories that he lied and said the Flames lost money during their playoff-run year? If he said the Flames lost money during the last few years, he's still telling the truth.

That being said, aren't moderators usually the voice of reason on these boards?

Agreed. I remember no such declaration from Bettman. I expect a higher standard from the moderators on this board. Without proper source, this is hearsay.

 

[mackdogs*]

So how about that link to where Bettman said this about Calgary? You should probably find it or close this thread.

 

[NYIsles1*]

FWIW, Forbes says the Flames lost $5.9 million between 1997 and 2004, despite making $2.3 million in '03-04. A $2.3 million profit with a low payroll team that made it to the finals is paltry. Take away those 12 home playoff games and you can bet the Flames would have been in the red (and I'm not talking about their sweaters).

On the positive side, however, Forbes estimates the Flames' franchise value grew from $78 million to $116 million between 1997 and 2004. Take that with a few thousand grains of salt, however. They also estimated the Ducks' worth at $108 million. That team just sold for $75 million.

Forbes estimate of Ranger revenue in 2003-04 was 33m off. (118m vs 85.5m as true revenue)

 

[AM]

I guess I

A. I'm not talking about anyone, I'm referring specifically to the canadian franchises.

B. I never said it wouldn't help. You're arguing something I never contested.

The rollback and cap and everything will be nice and should help, but it won't help the canadian franchises either generate more revenue (because they are already filling their stadiums at more than acceptable levels) or equalize their spending abilities with American franchises because the exchange rate can vary from debilitating to merely hampering. If you don't like it coming from me, check out Iconoclast's post, I think he's been a fairly pro-owner poster so maybe it's easier for you to read it from him.

I would like to have seen some form of assistance or equalization plan for canadian franchises, anything so that the gap between the dollar values are bridged a bit for a few of these canadian teams.

should have been more explicit.

I believe the drop in payroll along with the cap will help all the teams, even the Canadian teams.

Anything else goes beyond what should be in a agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA.

Nothing is stopping the NHL from changing the deal between teams.

 

[Matt Foley*]

I was watching videos on TSN and did Gord Miller say that the Calgary Flames was one of the highest profitable teams last season? The same Calgary Flames that Gary Bettman held a press conference for in December saying that they could not survive because they weren't making any money?

I could be wrong, but wasn't that press conference you're alluding to one that Bettman held with the Edmonton owner? I remember Oilers fans here catching a lot of flak from some people here about it. I don't remember a press conference that focused on Calgary's situation.

 

[Phanuthier*]

No, no, no. Bettman said in that press conference that the Flames still lost money. He also said "teams like Calgary" don't have a future.

Up until last season, I believe the Flames were losing about $10 million a year.

The Flames were profitable last year, because of the playoff run (as said). Think of it this way... $1 million per game in ticket sales. Likely upwards of $0.5 million in food and beverage sales. They said $7 million were made on car flags alone. Jersey sales, I'll take a wild guess at $10 million. Various other money makers and you do the math.