Bruce G: Melynk Speaks

[BonkTastic]

The absence of him spending the extra revenue on the team is what then exactly? If its not him pocketing it then what is it? Tell me and I'll edit my post from "pocketing the rest" to whatever it is you say.

I'm connecting the dots using common sense and simple math. Citations!? Please.

You can't give a citation or proof that something isn't happening. If I try to Google that something, the fact it doesn't happen means I won't find anything.

Its easier for you to prove that he is spending extra money on the team then me to prove that there isn't any information of him spending extra on the team. Or Google it and find nothing like I did. There's your proof.

So... he ISN'T pocketing the extra revenue, then?



Look, you made an absolute claim:

We're directly or indirectly collectively giving melnyk millions more than he was in the past with hopes of him putting some of that extra revenue back into his product to improve it but instead he's pocketing it.

When you make a claim like that, the onus is on the claimant to prove it. That's a basic rule of an argument/debate.

I don't even really care about the argument itself, but you're claiming in no vague terms that he is going to pocket millions of dollars when they could instead be spent on the team's debt or the team itself, regardless of the language of the CBA. That is a massive, massive claim to make. In the business world, that would affect stock prices on a large scale. It's no little thing to say, and therefore there is a burden of proof on the accuser.


I'm not even trying to be a Melnyk defender here. I'm not happy with the guy at all at the moment, but I can't abide blind accusations without proof.

 

[PaGEEsBack]

Completely different situations.


17,000 paid attendance. 19,500 people to spend money on parking or stores in the CTC.

Imo The Sens could no doubt spend to the cap right now but Melnyk is milking out as much money as possible while making the team look poor on purpose.

The current fan support is more than enough for the Sens and Melnyk to be profitable.

Are we really going to work out the economics of a professional sports franchise with thumb measurements? You can see the situation however you want to but spreading misinformation doesn't help anyone in the end.

 

[Benjamin]

Are we really going to work out the economics of a professional sports franchise with thumb measurements? You can see the situation however you want to but spreading misinformation doesn't help anyone in the end.

Im just giving my opinion. Im not claiming that im right or an expert. I also didn't "spread misinformation".

 

[PaGEEsBack]

no one gives citations, least of all Melnyk. We can't provide citations for obvious reasons, and since Melnyk doesn't either yet he speaks anyways, it's hard to believe a single thing he says.

I totally agree - and Melnyk fully deserves the majority of **** he takes from the fanbase. The guy brings it on himself. That's still a ways away from what he's being accused of here.

 

[PaGEEsBack]

Im just giving my opinion. Im not claiming that im right or an expert. I also didn't "spread misinformation".

Not maliciously no, but simple math and statistics are a frighteningly easy way to convince people. I just don't think spreading the word that Euge has his hands in our pockets is the best thing for the team right now.

 

[DJB]

Sigh. That's all I can say.

 

[jbeck5]

So... he ISN'T pocketing the extra revenue, then?



Look, you made an absolute claim:



When you make a claim like that, the onus is on the claimant to prove it. That's a basic rule of an argument/debate.

I don't even really care about the argument itself, but you're claiming in no vague terms that he is going to pocket millions of dollars when they could instead be spent on the team's debt or the team itself, regardless of the language of the CBA. That is a massive, massive claim to make. In the business world, that would affect stock prices on a large scale. It's no little thing to say, and therefore there is a burden of proof on the accuser.


I'm not even trying to be a Melnyk defender here. I'm not happy with the guy at all at the moment, but I can't abide blind accusations without proof.

OK, you're getting to worked up on the term "pocketing the money". Pretend I said "he isn't spending it on the team" which means the same thing. This is semantics.

Can you provide evidence of him spending a good chunk of that money on the team? Me neither. Therefore I come to the conclusion that him not spending money on the team then he must be keeping it, or spending it somewhere else.

If he's not spending it on the team, where is he spending it?

I don't think its far fetched to say "not spending extra revenue on the team=pocketing the money".

What would you call it,honestly? (I want you to answer this)

 

[HavlatMach9]

^ well there's another possibility is there there isn't any money to pocket.

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

Look, here are some things we can say as they've been reported in James Bagnall's encyclopedic article:

-Melnyk bought he team with debt
-He's borrowed against the debt
-He says the team loses $9,000,000 a year
-He got divorced a while back
-Pursuant to the last article, that may have taken a chunk out of his fortunes
-He tried some pharmaceutical startups (documented by Citizen article, Yost reported as well) which haven't (or haven't publicly) turned around anything. His "nasal orgasm spray" or whatever, was mentioned years ago.
-He wanted a casino because the team allegedly loses money.
-Cyril Leeder said repeatedly that the team will be able to keep players
-Melnyk said there's a limit on spending, that he can't spend $5,000,000 on any player or whatever (said this during the Alfie fiasco)

So...if we put 2 + 2 together, the team should be able to keep players but there's going to be a hometown discount expected along the way, or team-friendly deals. They aren't going to get free agents unless they sign for lower than market value or so on.
Basically, we're becoming the Quebec Nordiques of hockey, except Melnyk isn't going to sell the team to American interests. We're just going to be a bubble team unless there is a miracle run that puts money in his pockets.

Hurrah.

 

[jbeck5]

^ well there's another possibility is there there isn't any money to pocket.

So why did he say we were losing 9 million and why did the article say we were getting at least 20 million from sportnet alone. I'm usually pretty good at math. That's not including ESPN money or tsn money.

Tsn is giving us more then Sportsnet did for regional.
Sportsnet is giving us more then tsn did for national.
ESPN is giving us money that we didn't get period.

The reported increase in revenue is 2-3 times that of melnyks reported losses.

When can we use math and common sense to fill the holes. I got blasted for coming to a conclusion that i thought everyone did the math and came to as well.

 

[Qward]

If the Ottawa Senators revenue increases by 25M a year, the rent at CTC will increase by 25M a year.

Can I prove this? No. Why not? Private companies do not have to disclose their books to anyone except the CRA.

 

[PaGEEsBack]

Look, here are some things we can say as they've been reported in James Bagnall's encyclopedic article:

-Melnyk bought he team with debt
-He's borrowed against the debt
-He says the team loses $9,000,000 a year
-He got divorced a while back
-Pursuant to the last article, that may have taken a chunk out of his fortunes
-He tried some pharmaceutical startups (documented by Citizen article, Yost reported as well) which haven't (or haven't publicly) turned around anything. His "nasal orgasm spray" or whatever, was mentioned years ago.
-He wanted a casino because the team allegedly loses money.
-Cyril Leeder said repeatedly that the team will be able to keep players
-Melnyk said there's a limit on spending, that he can't spend $5,000,000 on any player or whatever (said this during the Alfie fiasco)

So...if we put 2 + 2 together, the team should be able to keep players but there's going to be a hometown discount expected along the way, or team-friendly deals. They aren't going to get free agents unless they sign for lower than market value or so on.
Basically, we're becoming the Quebec Nordiques of hockey, except Melnyk isn't going to sell the team to American interests. We're just going to be a bubble team unless there is a miracle run that puts money in his pockets.

Hurrah.

And faced with that reality one must ask themselves "will l continue giving full support to my favorite team or will I simply leech off the product and label myself an advocate of the moral right?"

Edit: And Nordiques fans are still around. Makes ya think.

 

[Othello*]

This sucks.

 

[jbeck5]

Look, here are some things we can say as they've been reported in James Bagnall's encyclopedic article:

-Melnyk bought he team with debt
-He's borrowed against the debt
-He says the team loses $9,000,000 a year
-He got divorced a while back
-Pursuant to the last article, that may have taken a chunk out of his fortunes
-He tried some pharmaceutical startups (documented by Citizen article, Yost reported as well) which haven't (or haven't publicly) turned around anything. His "nasal orgasm spray" or whatever, was mentioned years ago.
-He wanted a casino because the team allegedly loses money.
-Cyril Leeder said repeatedly that the team will be able to keep players
-Melnyk said there's a limit on spending, that he can't spend $5,000,000 on any player or whatever (said this during the Alfie fiasco)

So...if we put 2 + 2 together, the team should be able to keep players but there's going to be a hometown discount expected along the way, or team-friendly deals. They aren't going to get free agents unless they sign for lower than market value or so on.
Basically, we're becoming the Quebec Nordiques of hockey, except Melnyk isn't going to sell the team to American interests. We're just going to be a bubble team unless there is a miracle run that puts money in his pockets.

Hurrah.

so we can all agree they lost 9 million a year, right?

http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/01/28...ll-tsn?token=f678b822806ec8c60730704b8156cb37

That article says that the old regional broadcaster, sportsnet, paid ottawa roughly 7 million a year.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1592037

This link shows tsn signing a deal that pays on average 33 million a year for regional rights.

Whats 33 million minus 7 million? i get 26 million. 26 million minus the 9 million they were losing is 17 million

Thats 17 million more revenue without counting the extra money from espn nor the extra money from sportsnet taking over tsns national rights.

We're looking at over 20 million in extra revenue. Unless he's spending 20 million more on ottawa, then why am i wrong to assume hes pocketing the rest?

 

[PaGEEsBack]

If that kind of math worked I'd know where my tax money is going.

 

[Caeldan]

So why did he say we were losing 9 million and why did the article say we were getting at least 20 million from sportnet alone. I'm usually pretty good at math. That's not including ESPN money or tsn money.

Tsn is giving us more then Sportsnet did for regional.
Sportsnet is giving us more then tsn did for national.
ESPN is giving us money that we didn't get period.

The reported increase in revenue is 2-3 times that of melnyks reported losses.

When can we use math and common sense to fill the holes. I got blasted for coming to a conclusion that i thought everyone did the math and came to as well.

The dollar also just dropped in value about 10 percent in the time these deals were done with no expectations of it rising any time soon.

So that will hurt all Canadian teams a bit, though it might slow down the cap rise.

 

[jbeck5]

If that kind of math worked I'd know where my tax money is going.

And thats my point. As a fan who constantly pumps money into the team and am considering pumping more into the team, i should be concerned with where my money is going.

I have a big list of sens jersey and memorabilia. I have spent almost 20,000 of the roughly 100,000 ive ever made on the sens. Im a university student and have recently started making more money. ive always wanted to be a full time season ticket holder.

What i'm worried about, is if me, and say 500 fellow sens fans decide to get season tickets, does this mean we will spend more money on retaining/adding talent, or is it going to go into melnyks other business ventures that are losing money? or to pay for some lawsuit? or some divorce settlement? I'm just saying the lack of evidence of him spending this extra roughly 20 million on ottawa seems to point in the direction that any increased revenue doesnt come close to helping ottawas budget.

I want my money to go to helping the ottawa senators be a better product.

Its like charities. People always wonder what percentage of their donations actually go to the people/animals/whatever in need? Same thing here. If i spend an extra 2,000 this year on the senators, what percentage of that actually goes into the ottawa senators?

As for your comment, thats why id like a smaller transparent government...but hey, thats neither here nor there.

 

[jbeck5]

The dollar also just dropped in value about 10 percent in the time these deals were done with no expectations of it rising any time soon.

So that will hurt all Canadian teams a bit, though it might slow down the cap rise.

so of the 20 million, drop 10 percent and you're left with 18 million. Where is that going?

 

[HavlatMach9]

so of the 20 million, drop 10 percent and you're left with 18 million. Where is that going?

well it should be 10% of all the revenue generated, so weak dollar does take away a lot.

it doesn't matter, we have an owner who is not willing to spend. i wish he would stop shaming us, like we need to make round x, or we lose x much, but either way, we have an owner who won't spend.

 

[PaGEEsBack]

And thats my point. As a fan who constantly pumps money into the team and am considering pumping more into the team, i should be concerned with where my money is going.
....
As for your comment, thats why id like a smaller transparent government...but hey, thats neither here nor there.

You absolutely should be concerned where your money is going and as someone who has obviously invested in the team you have full right to express your opinions towards the organization and other fans but in that investment you also need to extend some form of trust to the other party. I some-what trust my government do right with my money just as I trust the Ottawa Senators to operate within the law. If you cannot find that trust you have the full right not to not invest in that product, not live in that country, not donate to that charity etc.

And I say all of this as someone on the verge of moving into the deepest wooded area he can find - so I feel your pain.

 

[jbeck5]

You absolutely should be concerned where your money is going and as someone who has obviously invested in the team you have full right to express your opinions towards the organization and other fans but in that investment you also need to extend some form of trust to the other party. I some-what trust my government do right with my money just as I trust the Ottawa Senators to operate within the law. If you cannot find that trust you have the full right not to not invest in that product, not live in that country, not donate to that charity etc.

Its not that I don't trust that they operate with the law. I'm wondering how much of my money goes to the team.

I have the right to not give money, but I WANT to help the team get better with my money. But if I give him my money is he putting it towards the team? Looks like no.

 

[PaGEEsBack]

I'm praying the NHL is legitimate enough to keep tabs on these things - if not I'm as lost as their millions of other fans.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Spending to the cap doesn't mean you'll win a cup.

Regards,

The Leafs
The Hurricanes
The Capitals
The Flyers
The Rangers

Etc etc

http://www.capgeek.com

 

[jbeck5]

Spending to the cap doesn't mean you'll win a cup.

Regards,

The Leafs
The Hurricanes
The Capitals
The Flyers
The Rangers

Etc etc

http://www.capgeek.com

People keep saying that. No one is saying sign clarkson to 80 million a year. But they're saying when we need a top 4 d or top 6 d, take on the extra cap hit along with the better player.

Remember all the excitement of being able to land good players from other teams that were over the cap? Let's do that.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Well said. Spend smarter not bigger. Clarkson was an awful signing.