Cap problems in Buffalo ?

[hockeytown9321]

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/sabresnhl/story/85035.html

Among the highlights:
Buffalo's owner feels they're in an unhealthy situation because spending to the cap would require a 2nd round appearance to not lose money.

Buffalo will not be able to afford both Drury and Briere, and maybe others.

Managing partner Larry Quinn expressed concern over the long term viability of the franchise if Tom Golisano took his 1.7B and went home.

Ticket prices will probably increase next year.

Perhaps this is a good time to revisit Gary Bettman's chat with fans on October 13, 2004:
"A partnership will ensure 30 healthy and competitive franchises with affordable ticket prices. This is a goal that we will not abandon."

http://www.nhl.com/fancentral/livechat/transcripts/bettman101304.html

Click to read more...

 

[Egil]

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/sabresnhl/story/85035.html

Among the highlights:
Buffalo's owner feels they're in an unhealthy situation because spending to the cap would require a 2nd round appearance to not lose money.

Buffalo will not be able to afford both Drury and Briere, and maybe others.

Managing partner Larry Quinn expressed concern over the long term viability of the franchise if Tom Golisano took his 1.7B and went home.

Ticket prices will probably increase next year.

Perhaps this is a good time to revisit Gary Bettman's chat with fans on October 13, 2004:
"A partnership will ensure 30 healthy and competitive franchises with affordable ticket prices. This is a goal that we will not abandon."

http://www.nhl.com/fancentral/livechat/transcripts/bettman101304.html

They are just whining about everything and seeing what sticks.

First, they whine about not getting enough revenue. They "sellout" every night. Well, raise ticket prices geniuses.

Then they whine about "not being able to spend to the cap". Well, I think its been shown that spending right up to the cap in the offseason is a terrible plan. You want to be below it by a couple million. If they spent $42 mil this year (and made money, and got revenue sharing), they should easily be able to afford to spend $46 mil next year.

Next is a complaint that they can't spend to the cap this year because they have alot of players to sign in coming seasons. Maybe if you had a plan in place (and I would look no further than Ottawa for this), you can see how with correct contract manipulation and length that this doesn't need to be a problem. Its called PLANNING, and its what you pay your GM to do.


Finally, they whine about not being able to simply "trade their mistakes (Specek) to the NYR because of the cap". So, first the cap is too high, and now the cap is to low. You made a mistake yet want someone else top pay for it. Otherwise, its just NOT FAIR to Buffalo. This franchise is a joke (a successful joke at this point, but a joke nonetheless).

 

[Magnus Fulgur]

My sympathy for Buffalo hovers just above zero.

 

[FissionFire]

They are just whining about everything and seeing what sticks.

First, they whine about not getting enough revenue. They "sellout" every night. Well, raise ticket prices geniuses.

Then they whine about "not being able to spend to the cap". Well, I think its been shown that spending right up to the cap in the offseason is a terrible plan. You want to be below it by a couple million. If they spent $42 mil this year (and made money, and got revenue sharing), they should easily be able to afford to spend $46 mil next year.

Next is a complaint that they can't spend to the cap this year because they have alot of players to sign in coming seasons. Maybe if you had a plan in place (and I would look no further than Ottawa for this), you can see how with correct contract manipulation and length that this doesn't need to be a problem. Its called PLANNING, and its what you pay your GM to do.


Finally, they whine about not being able to simply "trade their mistakes (Specek) to the NYR because of the cap". So, first the cap is too high, and now the cap is to low. You made a mistake yet want someone else top pay for it. Otherwise, its just NOT FAIR to Buffalo. This franchise is a joke (a successful joke at this point, but a joke nonetheless).

Pretty much said everything I would have. As much as the fans here love to crucify Ken Holland, I'm sure glad he's our GM. He just seems to know how to find great bargains (Hasek 750k, Cleary 662k, Lilja 1M, Samuelsson 1.2K) off other franchises scrapheaps and never gets caught with a bad longterm contract. He locks up players before they have that huge breakout season (Zetterberg, Kronwall) so that he doesn't get stuck with multiple core players up for contracts at the same time.

 

[PunjabiOil*]

Yeah, I don't understand what the Buffalo Owner is complaining about.

Raise the damn ticket prices. It'd be stupid not to.

http://punjabsoil.blogspot.com/2007/05/eig-richie-rich.html

The Sabres have the CHEAPEST average ticket in the league. Do something about it.

 

[Roger's Pancreas*]

How do you sell out fifty straight games and still qualify for revenue sharing?

 

[Wetcoaster]

How do you sell out fifty straight games and still qualify for revenue sharing?

Revenues?

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Haha. What a joke. The Sabres get ZERO sympathy from me.

Very laughable situation, AFAIC.

 

[Roger's Pancreas*]

Revenues?

So because the Sabres delibertely set their ticket prices unnecessarily low, they qualify for handouts. Is that correct?

 

[Wetcoaster]

So because the Sabres delibertely set their ticket prices unnecessarily low, they qualify for handouts. Is that correct?

Yes, as long as they meet the other qualifying criteria.

That is the point of revenue sharing to bring up small market/lower revenue generating teams so they can compete with the big boys.

 

[PunjabiOil*]

So because the Sabres delibertely set their ticket prices unnecessarily low, they qualify for handouts. Is that correct?

Yes, but there is a flip side to the coin.

It's possible if they raised ticket prices (and subsequently drop out of qualifying revenue sharing), they would still generate more revenue than they do with revenue sharing.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Yes, but there is a flip side to the coin.

It's possible if they raised ticket prices (and subsequently drop out of qualifying revenue sharing), they would still generate more revenue than they do with revenue sharing.

And you know this how?

 

[Slangston]

I've grown tired of the endless complaints of 'whining'. Some of you obviously have an issue with the Sabres' recent success. There's not a sentence in that article that could be considered 'whining'.

 

[PunjabiOil*]

And you know this how?

Hence, the "possible".

 

[misterchainsaw]

One thing that's never mentioned is in terms of actual salaries, the Sabres actually paid out well less than the cap number of 44 million, because just about every contract signed in the offseason was front loaded. They actually only paid about 41 million.....I believe this is the year that most of the contracts are in the middle, so not increasing salary will actually mean spending to about 41 mil.

To raise revenue, a "large" ticket price (they are increasing a bit this coming season) increase in Buffalo with it's slow economy isn't feasible, as they would likely price out a number of their fans. There's a reason Buffalo's ticket prices in both football and hockey are among their respective league's lowest.


And I don't see any whining, except from people whining about Buffalo's percieved whining that doesn't exist

 

[OG6ix]

The Buffalo bills are having the same sort of issues. Buffalo isn't the same city it was in the 70s and I believe eventually one of the two teams will move leaving Buffalo with one stable team.

 

[MLH]

Yes, but there is a flip side to the coin.

It's possible if they raised ticket prices (and subsequently drop out of qualifying revenue sharing), they would still generate more revenue than they do with revenue sharing.

So your plan for the smallest and poorest American NHL market that has almost zero corporate ticket sales is to just raise the prices of tickets when the team becomes good? I'm glad you're not running the Sabres.

Buffalo has the largest "average joe" fanbase in the NHL. A significant ticket price increase is nothing short of financial suicide.

 

[Egil]

So your plan for the smallest and poorest American NHL market that has almost zero corporate ticket sales is to just raise the prices of tickets when the team becomes good? I'm glad you're not running the Sabres.

Buffalo has the largest "average joe" fanbase in the NHL. A significant ticket price increase is nothing short of financial suicide.

Buffalo needs to increase payroll by 10%. Would a 10% ticket price increase take the team from a sold out rink to empty seats? I don't think so.

 

[MLH]

Buffalo needs to increase payroll by 10%. Would a 10% ticket price increase take the team from a sold out rink to empty seats? I don't think so.

There's an 8% increase scheduled and they have 99% renewal rate. Everyone thinks it's fair. That's not the point though. I wouldn't describe 8% as a significant increase and it certainly won't make ticket prices middle of the road. They'll still be among the lowest.

 

[joshjull]

Way to twist what is said in the article to fit your Bettman ranting.

[QUOTE=hockeytown9321;9383848]http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/sabresnhl/story/85035.html

Among the highlights:
Buffalo's owner feels they're in an unhealthy situation because spending to the cap would require a 2nd round appearance to not lose money.

“Would it be considered a success,” Sabres owner B. Thomas Golisano asked, “when you have a team that sells out every game and sells out all the suites but would lose money unless they were in the playoffs? That’s a thing an organization like the Buffalo Sabres must be aware of....
...If they move the salary cap up and we go with it, there’s a good possibility we would lose money unless we reached the second round of the playoffs. That’s an unhealthy situation.”

The team broke even or made a small profit during the regular season last year and this year. The playoffs have been all profit for the team. Golisano just lays out the idea that selling out all season and still needing the playoffs to break even is a foolish business practice or an unhealthy situation. So with that in mind the team will not spend to the cap ceiling. They will probably spend about 40-44mil on payroll. Not at all what your making it out to be. Considering they spent 33mil on payroll the year before the lockout and lost about 8mil. Then this past season spent 40mil in actual not cap hits on payroll and broke even/small profit. Thats a 15mil dollar swing to the positive from the last year before the lockout. Hardly a bad thing.

Buffalo will not be able to afford both Drury and Briere, and maybe others.

They wont be able to afford everyone they need to sign whether they spend to the cap or not so this is a non-issue

Managing partner Larry Quinn expressed concern over the long term viability of the franchise if Tom Golisano took his 1.7B and went home.

Thats a misrepresentation of what was said. He mention Golisano isn't always going to be here. As in he will pass away at some point. Long term the team has to be economically viable on its own. Thats the model Golisano uses anyway. The team isn't run as a hobby by him. It has to break even or make money under his watch.

Ticket prices will probably increase next year.

They already have. I renewed my season tickets for next year and they went up and so will single game tickets as well

Perhaps this is a good time to revisit Gary Bettman's chat with fans on October 13, 2004:
"A partnership will ensure 30 healthy and competitive franchises with affordable ticket prices. This is a goal that we will not abandon."

Considering all the damage done by the Rigas family that the current ownership group had to repair with the fans. They have done an amazing job rebuilding the season ticket base (14,800 with a waiting list of 3,000) The Sabre know and have said they could have raise the prices more. But still want to strengthen the fan base.

The Sabres are currently financially viable and will be for quite some time. The CBA doesn't say a team has to spend to the cap ceiling and make money. Thats why there is a salary range. There was no whining in the article. Its basically setting the table for the Sabre fans about the realities going forward. Most of us were quite surprised when they spent to the cap this past year. Mostly do to miscalculations by management in regards to contracts and arbitration. I among others had always expected them to spend to about the midpoint or maybe a little bit above.

This thread seems more like a pissed off big market fan doing some whining of his own. Twisting the info in this article to fit his arguement.

 

[Chainshot]

This thread seems more like a pissed off big market fan doing some whining of his own. Twisting the info in this article to fit his arguement.

Nah... that would never happen. Oh. Wait. Nevermind....

 

[steepler]

I don't really get what is there to complain about not being able to spend up to the cap, I don't see that as a problem in any way. If he was talking about the midpoint his concern would be more understandable. The CBA in not designed for every single team to spend to the limit and if they do the owners are going to get a lot of money back from escrow, the midpoint is where the 54%, or whatever the percentage that revenues stipulates, comes in play.

The concern comes in if teams are not able to spend to the floor or the midpoint and there might teams like that but Buffalo I don't think is one.

 

[Fugu]

So your plan for the smallest and poorest American NHL market that has almost zero corporate ticket sales is to just raise the prices of tickets when the team becomes good? I'm glad you're not running the Sabres.

Buffalo has the largest "average joe" fanbase in the NHL. A significant ticket price increase is nothing short of financial suicide.

Here's the thing, and I actually like the Sabres....

Zero corporate sales is less than the Preds have, and look how their owner cited that as an issue. The model for success in the NHL says you need at least 60% corporate STH support. Why does Buffalo get to be different?

The reasons you cite are also the reason Canadian teams get shot down [on this board].... lack - potentially - of corporate support and ticket prices that are too low for the NHL.

Are you saying that it is okay for fans in bigger markets to get price gouged, to not be "Average Joe Fan" friendly so that Buffalo can survive by selling to Joe Fan? Why is the Buffalo fan entitled to lower ticket prices at the expense of Detroit, Toronto, St. Louis or Colorado fans.... for example?

 

[Fugu]

Yes, as long as they meet the other qualifying criteria.

That is the point of revenue sharing to bring up small market/lower revenue generating teams so they can compete with the big boys.

Why do you believe this makes sense, and if so, for how long?


(Putting aside for the time being that these are billionaires asking for hand outs from other billionaires...... I find this part kind of funny actually.)

 

[Fugu]

I've grown tired of the endless complaints of 'whining'. Some of you obviously have an issue with the Sabres' recent success. There's not a sentence in that article that could be considered 'whining'.

Perhaps the words from the proverbial horse's mouth might demonstrate how some people here might conclude Golisano is worried about the CBA-featuring a cap:

“Would it be considered a success,” Sabres owner B. Thomas Golisano asked, “when you have a team that sells out every game and sells out all the suites but would lose money unless they were in the playoffs? That’s a thing an organization like the Buffalo Sabres must be aware of.

“If they move the salary cap up and we go with it, there’s a good possibility we would lose money unless we reached the second round of the playoffs. That’s an unhealthy situation.”

...

“The league has got to be careful,” Golisano said. “I’m very interested to see the individual team finances across the league. Before the lockout, 19 teams lost money. After the first year of the agreement — I won’t say exactly how many — a significant number lost money. If that cap continues to rise, the number of teams that lose money may increase.”

...

“You still have the haves and the have-nots,” Golisano said. “The revenue sharing is a partial cure. If you take a team like Toronto, with ticket revenues 2z times ours, they love it when the salary cap goes up. But the Sabres and the competition for the players? It gets more difficult.”

You know, every way I read this, Golisano is saying he's uncomfortable (generous description) with the cap going up and what it means for several teams-- all of whom wanted this CBA and had a role in designing how the cap was calculated. He is part of the "they" he refers to here. He knows the formula for the cap. He knew there was a significant revenue gap between the haves and have nots.... Now he's saying it's just like the old days, right?