Did I hear this right? (not a rant)

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by GKJ, Jul 14, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    139,827
    Likes Received:
    2,291
    Trophy Points:
    232
    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? :biglaugh:
     
  2. FlyersProspect2

    FlyersProspect2 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    812
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    64
    Occupation:
    Playmaker
    Location:
    Chicopee, Ma
    I'd assume the playoff run had something to do with the increase in revenue.
     
  3. MrMackey

    MrMackey Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    cgy
    Home Page:
    That is correct. It was their first profitable season in years & I believe their breakeven point wasn't until the second round.
     
  4. LaLaLaprise

    LaLaLaprise lalalaprise -twitter

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    8,716
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    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
     
  5. zeke

    zeke #freeVladdy

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    45,774
    Likes Received:
    4,147
    Trophy Points:
    196
    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.
     
  6. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    139,827
    Likes Received:
    2,291
    Trophy Points:
    232

    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.
     
  7. pacde

    pacde Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  8. ryz

    ryz Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    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.
     
  9. Matt Foley*

    Matt Foley* Guest

    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.
     
  10. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    139,827
    Likes Received:
    2,291
    Trophy Points:
    232

    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.
     
  11. Hawker14

    Hawker14 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,084
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    bettman lies ? link.

    lol
     
  12. Bruwinz37

    Bruwinz37 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    27,430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Sales
    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.
     
  13. Winger98

    Winger98 powers combined

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    18,258
    Likes Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Location:
    Cleveland
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  14. MarkZackKarl

    MarkZackKarl Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,977
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  15. Montrealer

    Montrealer What, me worry?

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    3,797
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    147
    Occupation:
    IT
    Location:
    Chambly QC
    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?
     
  16. 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.
     
  17. CarlRacki

    CarlRacki Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  18. AM

    AM Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    96
    err?

    24% roll back plus less upward pressure on salaries.

    Nope none of this stuff helps anyone!
     
  19. Winger98

    Winger98 powers combined

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    18,258
    Likes Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Location:
    Cleveland
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  20. Orange

    Orange Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  21. mackdogs*

    mackdogs* Guest

    So how about that link to where Bettman said this about Calgary? You should probably find it or close this thread.
     
  22. NYIsles1*

    NYIsles1* Guest

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

    AM Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    96
    I guess I

    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.
     
  24. Matt Foley*

    Matt Foley* Guest

    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.

    :dunno:
     
  25. Phanuthier*

    Phanuthier* Guest

    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"