AllByDesign
Who's this ABD guy??
With no blood spilled either. Don't get me started.
I know... I only kid out of respect... and ... well.. amusement.
kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
Waxing poetic - nope, my poetic is two parts rust and one part bondo.
That bit was
Plagiarize,
Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize -
Only be sure always to call it please 'research'.
Last edited:
Damn!
Move them to Winnipeg.
Wow, three teams in Winnipeg. We might have to turn away some Justin Bieber concerts.
kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
AllByDesign
Who's this ABD guy??
Did Leipold ever get his $10 million back from Bootsy? Hard to feel too sorry for him having money problems now.
This sounds like big trouble for the wlid - they arent guaranteed a profit this year. I mean just because they didnt do a good job running their business is no reason to lose money. Just because teams set up their books to lose money unless they make the 2nd round of the playoffs is no reason that any team should actually lose money.
Where would the cash calls be made to? Do NHL owners actually cover their losses by writing a cheque? Or do they loan the team money at high rates which makes them lose even more money the next year before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. What is the team amortizing btw, hopefully not the arena? So the problem here is that because his partner is just another in a long line of nhl owners under fraud investigations, he cant lend the money to cover the loses they expected?
I wonder if there is any news on how much the franchise value likely depreciated during these times of cash losses?
But the whole idea of talking about the annual profits and losses of the Team portion of a sports and entertainment conglomerate as being important or indicative of anything seems highly suspect journalism to me.
Where would the cash calls be made to? Do NHL owners actually cover their losses by writing a cheque? Or do they loan the team money at high rates which makes them lose even more money the next year before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. What is the team amortizing btw, hopefully not the arena? So the problem here is that because his partner is just another in a long line of nhl owners under fraud investigations, he cant lend the money to cover the loses they expected?
I wonder if there is any news on how much the franchise value likely depreciated during these times of cash losses?
But the whole idea of talking about the annual profits and losses of the Team portion of a sports and entertainment conglomerate as being important or indicative of anything seems highly suspect journalism to me.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
The "cash call" would be sent by Leipold to Falcone. The other 29 (28 actually, Phx=NHL) teams are not lending money to one another (beyond the normal revenue sharing mechanisms which are not loans but subsidies). And yes, I agree with your assertion; separating the team from the entirety of a sports & entertainment conglomerate & claiming losses (Wirtz Sr. for eg) is disingenuous, though a fairly common practice as we know not only here with NHL teams, but so too in the NBA, MLB & to a lesser extent the NFL.
BigFatCat999
First Fubu and now Pred303. !@#$! you cancer
Nashville reminds me a lot of Ottawa, and it looks to be following much the same path Ottawa did. I recognize many of the talking points and progressions.
---
For sure i didnt mean to suggest the owners would lend to each other, although even if they did, and i think they do, i wouldnt bother me that much.
I was more thinking that if i owned the Sens, and the team portion of the sports and entertainment conglomerate lost money on the books that year, i wouldnt write a cheque out of my bank account and cover it, i'd lend them the money. That would be one of the great beenfits of having this great cash flow business, even when its having alleged cash flow problems.
But during the last lockout the league represented its revenues and expenses as if it were one enterprise and demonstrated its great losses, suggesting that by pegging salaries at a fixed percentage of revenues they would solve their problems. Now if increases in revenue can undo those fixes, surely the solution was not properly thought through.
I might go even further and say that revenue sharing is neither loans nor subsidies, bur rather the required redistributions to keep the system operating optimally. Since, and perhaps counter intuitively for some, the new system guarantees the relocations of unsuccessful franchises rather than protecting them, there should be no stigma in being forced to accept revenue transfers in order to maintain the artificial equilibrium desired.
---
For sure i didnt mean to suggest the owners would lend to each other, although even if they did, and i think they do, i wouldnt bother me that much.
I was more thinking that if i owned the Sens, and the team portion of the sports and entertainment conglomerate lost money on the books that year, i wouldnt write a cheque out of my bank account and cover it, i'd lend them the money. That would be one of the great beenfits of having this great cash flow business, even when its having alleged cash flow problems.
But during the last lockout the league represented its revenues and expenses as if it were one enterprise and demonstrated its great losses, suggesting that by pegging salaries at a fixed percentage of revenues they would solve their problems. Now if increases in revenue can undo those fixes, surely the solution was not properly thought through.
I might go even further and say that revenue sharing is neither loans nor subsidies, bur rather the required redistributions to keep the system operating optimally. Since, and perhaps counter intuitively for some, the new system guarantees the relocations of unsuccessful franchises rather than protecting them, there should be no stigma in being forced to accept revenue transfers in order to maintain the artificial equilibrium desired.
Can't say that I'm surprised honestly. The team has moved along with merchandise sales being strong and selling out the arena night in and night out. You start to lose games and you start to not make the playoffs for consecutive years, then you better be ready for the fans to jump ship to something else. Unlike many of the other metro areas of the teams, Minnesota has waaaay more options for hockey to keep them occupied when the team is sucking. Instead of a Wild game, you go to the Gopher game or a prep hockey game. Or hell, just go play yourself. No one in any market was to spend close to $200-$300 for a night of watching your team get spanked 8-1 by someone. When people stop going to games, they stop paying for merchandise. It'll just trickle from there. I don't think they are in deep heat to where the team is going to need a bailout from the league or anything because there are more than enough richies in this state that would be more than happy to pick up a piece of ownership, just matters how much of the share Leipold is willing to actually give up, and if there is an actual upside to the team in the near future. Most of us would agree there is.
