Larry Brooks is clueless

[Wetcoaster]

The only way you are hearing that Vancouver made money is because they actually had to sell the team. You can't actually claim you lost money and then sell the team for a good price. Now that it is sold they claim they lost money.

So the owners are lying about their financial situation????????

 

[mooseOAK*]

Forbes lists the profit (aka operating income) at 1.3 million for the Canucks for the 2003-04 season.
http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists...ssListType=Misc&uniqueId=315423&datatype=Misc

It is Nonis, Burke and Mcammon who pegged the Canucks actual profit at $25 million for that season.

Obviously Forbes was not able to credit all the revenues received by the team as they were unable to confirm them through third party sources - that is my point in this whole exercise. I have said all along that Forbes has been extremely conservative in its forecasts and therefore the losses are likely much less that even Forbes is showing.

Thank you for so graphically illustrating my point that revenues are much higher than claimed in the URO's.

Okay, what would be the source of all the hockey related revenues that the Canucks get?

Forbes lists gate receipts at $39 million and if there was a profit of $25 million then the $74 million must be way low, probably by another $20 million to make up the difference between $20-25 million and $1.3 million. This would mean that it is in the $90 million range. Therefore the Canucks, a mid market team, have about $50 milion in revenue that is not ticket sales related. Do they have that generous of a TV contract? Very expensive hot dogs? $100 per game for parking?

Let me know.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Hardly. Westcoaster is claiming that Bettman claimed that cost certainty was NOT a cap. That's a blatant lie.

Other than Bettman and few beknighted supporters everyone else knew he was talking about a salary cap. Just look at the proposals from the NHL.

 

[WC Handy*]

Other than Bettman and few beknighted supporters everyone else knew he was talking about a salary cap. Just look at the proposals from the NHL.

What are you talking about? Bettman never once hid the fact that a salary cap would qualify as cost certainty!

 

[Wetcoaster]

Okay, what would be the source of all the hockey related revenues that the Canucks get?

Forbes lists gate receipts at $39 million and if there was a profit of $25 million then the $74 million must be way low, probably by another $20 million to make up the difference between $20-25 million and $1.3 million. This would mean that it is in the $90 million range. Therefore the Canucks, a mid market team, have about $50 milion in revenue that is not ticket sales related. Do they have that generous of a TV contract? Very expensive hot dogs? $100 per game for parking?

Let me know.

You need to ask the owners - the same as the NHLPA has done. They have the information.

All I can report is what the owners and management have pegged their own profit for the Canucks.

 

[Wetcoaster]

What are you talking about? Bettman never once hid the fact that a salary cap would qualify as cost certainty!

Did you actually follow the NHL PR over the last 18 months????

 

[mr gib]

You need to ask the owners - the same as the NHLPA has done. They have the information.

All I can report is what the owners and management have pegged their own profit for the Canucks.

everyone here in vancouver knows what they made - it was all over the media - burkey's been commenting on it at tsn for a year - we watched the press conference's with our own eye's -

 

[AXN]

So the owners are lying about their financial situation????????

I am pretty sure they made the case a lot worse than it really is. I am pretty sure they had time to break this agreement but waited to give bad financial news to everybody. I think the salaries have risen and a cap will help but they really proposing a cap that is unrealistic and very low. If you look at the 2000-2001 salaries 50 mil cap will actually remove top 4 spending teams at that time and cover the rest of the teams. Thats not bad considering that's the year they had 30 teams. You are telling me they wanted to strike and where losing money? Give me a break. 45 mil would remove 5 teams at that time and they did not even propose that. They went with a 42.5 mil final offer. I don't think anybody wanted to start the season. They both prepared for this.

 

[WC Handy*]

Did you actually follow the NHL PR over the last 18 months????

Does using 4 question marks make you any less wrong?

 

[Wetcoaster]

I am pretty sure they made the case a lot worse than it really is. I am pretty sure they had time to break this agreement but waited to give bad financial news to everybody. I think the salaries have risen and a cap will help but they really proposing a cap that is unrealistic and very low. If you look at the 2000-2001 salaries 50 mil cap will actually remove top 4 spending teams at that time and cover the rest of the teams. Thats not bad considering that's the year they had 30 teams. You are telling me they wanted to strike and where losing money? Give me a break. 45 mil would remove 6 teams at that time and they did not even propose that. They went with a 42.5 mil final offer. I don't think anybody wanted to start the season. They both prepared for this.

The Canucks are one of the teams that never wanted to lose the season as they were making money along with the other Canadian teams.

 

[Mess]

Okay, what would be the source of all the hockey related revenues that the Canucks get?

Forbes lists gate receipts at $39 million and if there was a profit of $25 million then the $74 million must be way low, probably by another $20 million to make up the difference between $20-25 million and $1.3 million. This would mean that it is in the $90 million range. Therefore the Canucks, a mid market team, have about $50 milion in revenue that is not ticket sales related. Do they have that generous of a TV contract? Very expensive hot dogs? $100 per game for parking?

Let me know.

I guess the best way to explain your concern is that Owners are lying and not presenting the real revenue facts otherwise as you pointed out things just don't add up very well do they ??.

I guess now you are seeiung why the NHLPA is having trouble figuring the Levitt report numbers

 

[mooseOAK*]

You need to ask the owners - the same as the NHLPA has done. They have the information.

All I can report is what the owners and management have pegged their own profit for the Canucks.

You are either confused about the difference between Orca Bay and the Canucks or ignoring it for your own agenda.

While the price of entry into the local sports marketplace did not come cheap, Orca Bay has become a proven money-maker. After years of underwriting losses to the tune of about $90 million, the hockey club and arena has been firing on all cylinders. Over the past two years Orca Bay generated an estimated $50 million profit – clearly putting Vancouver in the "have" category among NHL teams.

http://www.thetyee.ca/Sports/2004/11/18/Canucks_Deal_Deciphered/

 

[Crazy_Ike]

The Canucks are one of the teams that never wanted to lose the season as they were making money along with the other Canadian teams.

Pity several of the other Canadian teams only managed to do it by shedding as much salary as they could since they were being forced to compete in salary ranges with teams paying out far more...

 

[AXN]

The Canucks are one of the teams that never wanted to lose the season as they were making money along with the other Canadian teams.

So how come I am hearing they lost money here? When I herd in other articles they gain money before. Which teams did not want the season? They all voted not to have one.

 

[Wetcoaster]

You are either confused about the difference between Orca Bay and the Canucks or ignoring it for your own agenda.

While the price of entry into the local sports marketplace did not come cheap, Orca Bay has become a proven money-maker. After years of underwriting losses to the tune of about $90 million, the hockey club and arena has been firing on all cylinders. Over the past two years Orca Bay generated an estimated $50 million profit – clearly putting Vancouver in the "have" category among NHL teams.

http://www.thetyee.ca/Sports/2004/11/18/Canucks_Deal_Deciphered/

Burke, Nonis and McCammon have said clearly that the hockey team has made a profit of $20 million and $25 million over the past two seasons.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Burke, Nonis and McCammon have said clearly that the hockey team has made a profit of $20 million and $25 million over the past two seasons.

Okay, let's see it. It would be a big news story were it true, I doubt that the Leafs could even come close to that type or profit number.

 

[mooseOAK*]

I guess the best way to explain your concern is that Owners are lying and not presenting the real revenue facts otherwise as you pointed out things just don't add up very well do they ??.

Not when someone tells me that the team made a $25 million profit when payroll outstrips gate receipts by $14 million in a sport that relies mainly on ticket sales for revenue.

 

[mr gib]

Okay, let's see it. It would be a big news story were it true, I doubt that the Leafs could even come close to that type or profit number.

you're living under a rock - the leaf's make way more than that - and if you don't believe us - go to the canuck board and ask - google it - 87 straight sellouts - 17 season tix sold and 5 k waiting - max revenues on ads -

 

[Weary]

Not when someone tells me that the team made a $25 million profit when payroll outstrips gate receipts by $14 million in a sport that relies mainly on ticket sales for revenue.

According to the Levitt report, gate receipts don't even account for 50% of the league's revenue.

 

[mackdogs*]

everyone here in vancouver knows what they made - it was all over the media - burkey's been commenting on it at tsn for a year - we watched the press conference's with our own eye's -

I live in Vancouver and I sure don't know this. It's never been officially reported... just bandied about on some talk shows. You guys are talking about this like it is a fact. Is definitely isn't. That's what posters keep pointing out, and that's what you keep missing. It is not a fact, merely a rumor. Until it is you should take this number with a grain of salt and not base your arguments on it.

But please, don't let me interrupt you from your generalizations....

 

[Wetcoaster]

Okay, let's see it. It would be a big news story were it true, I doubt that the Leafs could even come close to that type or profit number.

If you lived in Vancouver you would have heard it - it has been reported on various ocassions.

I am certain that the Leafs revenues (and profits) are much higher than the Canucks.

 

[Wetcoaster]

I live in Vancouver and I sure don't know this. It's never been officially reported... just bandied about on some talk shows. You guys are talking about this like it is a fact. Is definitely isn't. That's what posters keep pointing out, and that's what you keep missing. It is not a fact, merely a rumor. Until it is you should take this number with a grain of salt and not base your arguments on it.

But please, don't let me interrupt you from your generalizations....

Burke, Nonis and Mccammon have all said this directly on various occasions.

 

[mr gib]

If you lived in Vancouver you would have heard it - it has been reported on various ocassions.

I am certain that the Leafs revenues (and profits) are much higher than the Canucks.

i just googled it - by stan fischler -

Burke has several solid selling points. One is the fact that the Canucks, under his stewardship, made a $25 million profit in 2003-2004 and $20 mil the previous season.

jeez

 

[Wetcoaster]

i just googled it - by stan fischler -

Burke has several solid selling points. One is the fact that the Canucks, under his stewardship, made a $25 million profit in 2003-2004 and $20 mil the previous season.

jeez

Thank you.

Here is a similar report by Ben Kuzma of the Vancouver Province with the same profit figures:
http://www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory4.aspx?id=1010f4df-4387-4401-bee7-ee60a3b47005

And:

McCaw has been trying to sell all or part of the Canucks for several years.

The Canucks are reported to have made a profit of about $25 million last season and $20 million the season before.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl_network/teams/news_story.asp?ID=98673&hubName=nhl-canucks

And:

November 16, 2004
The Vancouver Canucks have called a news conference for Wednesday morning at GM Place to announce the sale of a percentage of the National Hockey League club.

The deal is expected to include a sale of 49% of the team with current owner John McCaw of Orca Bay Sports & Entertainment retaining majority ownership. McCaw has reportedly been trying to sell all or part of the club for several years.

The Canucks are reported to have made a profit of $25 million last season and $20 million in the 2002-2003 campaign.

http://www.brianburke.com/news/story.php?id=116

 

[mr gib]

Thank you.

keep at them westcoaster - i'm going for beer -