News Article: Contract talks for Senators’ Matt Duchene: update - Offer made

[Gil Gunderson]

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Eklund is living the dream, he is making money by making up hockey rumours for all of those, like us, who are dying to hear anything about their teams. There will never be a shortage of hits to his site, because when he is wrong, it was just a rumour. The odd time (1/1000+) he is right, he gets a ton of credit and coverage and receives more hits. Even though his track record is literal dog ****, people will still go because they want to read things about their team.

It's genius, absolute genius.

Reminds me of the "Prestige Worldwide" presentation in Step Brothers.

It really is genius. There is no product, there is no substance, just an empty shell made of lies.

 

[HSF]

Eklund didn't say its a done deal lol

 

[jbeck5]

Meh having a loan isnt the worst thing as an owner...To run the team with your credit card ,and never put any realised money from the team...Is something else all together

Don't successful teams keep their profits liquid to easily improve,invest and expand?

A successful business doesn't need loans unless they are doing something like a huge expansion.

A small successful renovation company can make 6,7 figure profit. If they need 50,000 for a new company truck, they aren't taking a loan out of the bank and paying interest. They're using some of their, say, $400,000 profit from last year to buy the truck. Many companies keep an account for stuff just like that.

So you're right, taking out a loan isn't the worst option, if it leads to better stuff in the future. But if it's just trying to stay afloat, then it's not a good thing at all. It means interest payments will increase and disposable income will decrease unless you increase revenue.

 

[coladin]

There are already quite a few competing twitter feeds out there.

Gotta give Eklund credit, being wrong 99% of the time but is still able to get as many hits as he does for as many years as he has is pretty impressive. Trevor Shackles, who covers the Sens on the site, also provides pretty decent coverage on the Sens..

Shackles is a clown. His whole schtick is to find any means possible to crap on the team.

 

[stempniaksen]

Shackles is a clown. His whole schtick is to find any means possible to crap on the team.

I guess he hasn't had to work very hard for the last year.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

The only connection Eklund has is with Philadelphia Flyer news, anything else I wouldn't even bother wasting my eyeballs on.

 

[PoutineSp00nZ]

Eklund didn't say its a done deal lol

He never says anything is done for sure. Then he'd be held accountable when his nonsense predictions don't come to pass.

 

[BonkTastic]

Eklund didn't say its a done deal lol

He never says anything is done, ever.

He even invented his own rating system to categorize how "not done" anything he says is.

 

[topshelf15]

Don't successful teams keep their profits liquid to easily improve,invest and expand?

A successful business doesn't need loans unless they are doing something like a huge expansion.

A small successful renovation company can make 6,7 figure profit. If they need 50,000 for a new company truck, they aren't taking a loan out of the bank and paying interest. They're using some of their, say, $400,000 profit from last year to buy the truck. Many companies keep an account for stuff just like that.

So you're right, taking out a loan isn't the worst option, if it leads to better stuff in the future. But if it's just trying to stay afloat, then it's not a good thing at all. It means interest payments will increase and disposable income will decrease unless you increase revenue.

Agreed it also helps to show a little loss,from the start of a tax year...But to run a team from your line of credit ,to show complete loss on one side while another makes money...Seems more like completely thugging Peter to pay Paul...

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Shackles is a clown. His whole schtick is to find any means possible to crap on the team.

So he has an easy job is what you are saying. I mean.. no one has to really look to hard to crap on this team

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Eklund is living the dream, he is making money by making up hockey rumours for all of those, like us, who are dying to hear anything about their teams. There will never be a shortage of hits to his site, because when he is wrong, it was just a rumour. The odd time (1/1000+) he is right, he gets a ton of credit and coverage and receives more hits. Even though his track record is literal dog ****, people will still go because they want to read things about their team.

It's genius, absolute genius.

Can't stop the grift

 

[Mingus Dew]

Don't successful teams keep their profits liquid to easily improve,invest and expand?

A successful business doesn't need loans unless they are doing something like a huge expansion.

A small successful renovation company can make 6,7 figure profit. If they need 50,000 for a new company truck, they aren't taking a loan out of the bank and paying interest. They're using some of their, say, $400,000 profit from last year to buy the truck. Many companies keep an account for stuff just like that.

So you're right, taking out a loan isn't the worst option, if it leads to better stuff in the future. But if it's just trying to stay afloat, then it's not a good thing at all. It means interest payments will increase and disposable income will decrease unless you increase revenue.

Businesses take out ordinary course business loans all the time (most revolvers are designed for exactly that - “general corporate” financing).

It is very often the case that debt is “cheaper” than equity (i.e., you can get an ROI on the equity via alternative investment that’s higher than the interest you’ll have to pay on the loan).

This idea that debt is bad and you only take it on when you’re desperate isn’t realistic at all.

 

[albator71]

I was so excited to have one of either Karlsson or Chabot on the ice for almost the whole game.. no idea how the sens screwed this up.. I was picturing lord Stanley in our future.

We had Karlsson for 10 years and we were a .500 team so there's no reason to believe that if he would have stayed, we would have been any better.

 

[Micklebot]

As Supsens pointed out in his post directly below yours...the "absurd" amount of loans reflects the amount of money cumulatively lost minus what was initially financed when the team was acquired.

A lOckout benefits ottawa...they still owe whatever they owe to finance the debt but they don't lose any more so it's kinda helpful

Where's this idea coming from that the team loses less money from a lockout than a season played, not sure if that's entirely what you're suggesting, but I think @coladin suggested as much. I just don't see it. You've still got any bonuses to pay out, you've got injured players who still get their pay, you've got fixed costs associated with the venue, management's pay, property taxes, servicing ~150 mil in debt, ect.

Based on Bettman's comments last year, I'm confident the TV deals don't pay out while the lockout is on, so based on forbes estimates last year, the 124 mil in revenue drops by at least 80 mil in tv contracts and gates, then on top of that there's no revenue sharing when there's no revenue to share, so that's somewhere between 6 to 15 mil for the sens based on the estimates I've seen thrown around. So, somewhere between 86 and 96 mil in lost revenue, not including all the sponsors and advertisers who likely aren't signing up to do business in the same quantity during a lockout.

Idk how much costs they can cut; obviously they cut ~70 mil in player salaries (minus any bonuses and injured player salaries), and then travel and accomodations associated with 43 away games including pre-season, but is that going to be enough? How much more revenue from concernts and other events can they get to make up for the loss of home games?

All I'm saying is it's a lot more complicated than saying he's losing 10 mil a season so if we don't play a season he's up 10 mil relatively speaking.

 

[JD1]

Where's this idea coming from that the team loses less money from a lockout than a season played, not sure if that's entirely what you're suggesting, but I think @coladin suggested as much. I just don't see it. You've still got any bonuses to pay out, you've got injured players who still get their pay, you've got fixed costs associated with the venue, management's pay, property taxes, servicing ~150 mil in debt, ect.

Based on Bettman's comments last year, I'm confident the TV deals don't pay out while the lockout is on, so based on forbes estimates last year, the 124 mil in revenue drops by at least 80 mil in tv contracts and gates, then on top of that there's no revenue sharing when there's no revenue to share, so that's somewhere between 6 to 15 mil for the sens based on the estimates I've seen thrown around. So, somewhere between 86 and 96 mil in lost revenue, not including all the sponsors and advertisers who likely aren't signing up to do business in the same quantity during a lockout.

Idk how much costs they can cut; obviously they cut ~70 mil in player salaries (minus any bonuses and injured player salaries), and then travel and accomodations associated with 43 away games including pre-season, but is that going to be enough? How much more revenue from concernts and other events can they get to make up for the loss of home games?

All I'm saying is it's a lot more complicated than saying he's losing 10 mil a season so if we don't play a season he's up 10 mil relatively speaking.

yes you're right it is more complicated than that but keeping it pretty simple if they lose money playing but don't play...you'd need to get inside the books for sure but I suspect for half the league they aren't holding their breath because they have to play. Toronto, Montreal and NYR...those teams lose probably 250 between them ...

 

[jbeck5]

Businesses take out ordinary course business loans all the time (most revolvers are designed for exactly that - “general corporate” financing).

It is very often the case that debt is “cheaper” than equity (i.e., you can get an ROI on the equity via alternative investment that’s higher than the interest you’ll have to pay on the loan).

This idea that debt is bad and you only take it on when you’re desperate isn’t realistic at all.

Why would you take on a loan when you have liquid money available? Makes no sense.

Loans have their place. Like you said, if you can invest it in something that returns more than the interest on the loan? Great.

But if you have 20,000 sitting there, and you need something that costs 20,000, it's silly to take out a loan to pay for it while keeping your 20,000 sitting there. Unless that 20,000 generates more than the interest.

So that brings me to the question of the sens. What investment made with loan money is bringing in more extra revenue than the added cost of interest?

 

[Micklebot]

yes you're right it is more complicated than that but keeping it pretty simple if they lose money playing but don't play...you'd need to get inside the books for sure but I suspect for half the league they aren't holding their breath because they have to play. Toronto, Montreal and NYR...those teams lose probably 250 between them ...

What does two of the highest earning teams being upset about losing lots of money have to do with how much Ottawa makes playing NHL games vs not playing them? I'm sure they're upset about all the lost profits, that doesn't mean that teams like Ottawa don't stand to lose financially as well.

The assumption that teams that lose money year over year lose less money by not playing games is flawed imo and really shouldn't be the assumed truth. We know they have a great deal of fixed costs that don't go away during a lockout. Then there are the depressed sales that typically follow lockouts. I suspect everyone would prefer to avoid a lockout, but owners are looking for long term victories that will allow them to recoup short term loses.

 

[coladin]

So he has an easy job is what you are saying. I mean.. no one has to really look to hard to crap on this team

Lol good point...but he actually is adept at finding a lot more than the usual stuff.

 

[coladin]

Where's this idea coming from that the team loses less money from a lockout than a season played, not sure if that's entirely what you're suggesting, but I think @coladin suggested as much. I just don't see it. You've still got any bonuses to pay out, you've got injured players who still get their pay, you've got fixed costs associated with the venue, management's pay, property taxes, servicing ~150 mil in debt, ect.

Based on Bettman's comments last year, I'm confident the TV deals don't pay out while the lockout is on, so based on forbes estimates last year, the 124 mil in revenue drops by at least 80 mil in tv contracts and gates, then on top of that there's no revenue sharing when there's no revenue to share, so that's somewhere between 6 to 15 mil for the sens based on the estimates I've seen thrown around. So, somewhere between 86 and 96 mil in lost revenue, not including all the sponsors and advertisers who likely aren't signing up to do business in the same quantity during a lockout.

Idk how much costs they can cut; obviously they cut ~70 mil in player salaries (minus any bonuses and injured player salaries), and then travel and accomodations associated with 43 away games including pre-season, but is that going to be enough? How much more revenue from concernts and other events can they get to make up for the loss of home games?

All I'm saying is it's a lot more complicated than saying he's losing 10 mil a season so if we don't play a season he's up 10 mil relatively speaking.

They lose 20M this year with a 65M payroll and the expenses that come along with it. You are right that it is not as simplistic as that (eliminating the payroll expense), but he is clearly better off financially not playing hockey. All the teams losing money are. They can't make it work with all the revenue coming in, and the operating income doesn't take into account loans. So, if Ottawa has an operating income loss if 10M, before loans, safe to say it will be now neutral.

 

[Micklebot]

They lose 20M this year with a 65M payroll and the expenses that come along with it. You are right that it is not as simplistic as that (eliminating the payroll expense), but he is clearly better off financially not playing hockey. All the teams losing money are. They can't make it work with all the revenue coming in, and the operating income doesn't take into account loans. So, if Ottawa has an operating income loss if 10M, before loans, safe to say it will be now neutral.

Let's play this out; if he's losing 20 mil with 65 in player salaries, that means, by not paying the salaries, he'd be up to +45 mil. Now take away 85 mil minimum in revenues from TV deals and gates lost by not playing, and potentially a lot more when accounting for merchandise, concessions, parking, and as advertisers drop out, and what do you have? By far, his biggest variable expense is player salaries, I'm not sure there's enough additional variable costs to make up the difference here.

Going by the docs release when the coyotes went bankrupt, the Coyotes were spending 53 mil in hockey operations of the big club in 2009, of which 39 was salary. So thats 14 mil, adjusted for inflation is what, 17 mil? Melnyk said we run a skeleton crew already, but even if you bump us up to 25, how much of that can you cut back?

All I'm saying is it's far from safe to say anything your proposing imo. Your taking some pretty big leaps.

 

[Agent Zub]

Shackles is a clown. His whole schtick is to find any means possible to crap on the team.

It's physically impossible to talk about this team without crapping on it.

 

[JD1]

What does two of the highest earning teams being upset about losing lots of money have to do with how much Ottawa makes playing NHL games vs not playing them? I'm sure they're upset about all the lost profits, that doesn't mean that teams like Ottawa don't stand to lose financially as well.

The assumption that teams that lose money year over year lose less money by not playing games is flawed imo and really shouldn't be the assumed truth. We know they have a great deal of fixed costs that don't go away during a lockout. Then there are the depressed sales that typically follow lockouts. I suspect everyone would prefer to avoid a lockout, but owners are looking for long term victories that will allow them to recoup short term loses.

Ooooh...the assumed truth...a new term in the HF Sens lexicon...we've had discussions about the assumed truth and the problems it creates on this board and how it has contributed to the downward spiral here.

Now you want to use that term in response to a post where i indicated you'd need to get a look at the books?

Seriously? My only takeaway from this is that my comments resonated so that's a positive.

 

[Micklebot]

Ooooh...the assumed truth...a new term in the HF Sens lexicon...we've had discussions about the assumed truth and the problems it creates on this board and how it has contributed to the downward spiral here.

Now you want to use that term in response to a post where i indicated you'd need to get a look at the books?

Seriously? My only takeaway from this is that my comments resonated so that's a positive.

Though its clear you don't follow your own advice so theres that...

At least with the loan rumour there was speculation from various outside sources. Here we have uou and Coladin throwing out claims with no support and expecting everyone to just accept it as fact.

 

[Spartachat]

As the trade deadline nears, leverage only increases for Duchene. Time is not on PD’s side.