Daly: Teams may not survive

[vanlady]

I cannot figure out what a typo has to do with this? You simply totally misinterpreted the quotes meaning and you based a thread on your mistake. So now what exactly is the topic?

The original quote that started this topic was

"I can't guarantee 30 teams will survive," he said. "I think we are prepared as we can possibly be for that eventuality.

So exactly where have I misinterpreted the meaning, seem pretty clear to me.

 

[txomisc]

The original quote that started this topic was

"I can't guarantee 30 teams will survive," he said. "I think we are prepared as we can possibly be for that eventuality.

So exactly where have I misinterpreted the meaning, seem pretty clear to me.

You misinterpreted, obviously, when you said to you it meant that teams were actually losing more money by not playing. So, once again, what typo are you speaking of?

 

[vanlady]

You misinterpreted, obviously, when you said to you it meant that teams were actually losing more money by not playing. So, once again, what typo are you speaking of?

Ahh now I see where you are going. As I pointed out if teams are being cut off by there banks now, why? You would think the banks would be supporting this drive for cost certainty not cutting teams off, if teams were losing less money by not playing.

 

[Buffaloed]

No one can convince me that any team has "no chance" of making a profit.

I don't see the logic in this statement. Are you saying that teams have a chance to make a profit during the lockout? My understanding of your post and the article you cited is that some teams may be lost if the lockout is prolonged. That is what I'm addressing.

In 97/98 the Canucks were losing money and in a downward cycle. Today they are making 25 million. Every team has a profit cycle, the difference is the owners want profits to come constantly and instantly, no matter how badly they manage there team.

Show me the profit cycle for the Buffalo Sabres, Pittsburgh Penguins, Carolina Hurricanes, NY Islanders, Florida Panthers, Tampa Bay Lightning etc.. You have to go back a decade to find when some teams last made money. It's absurd to expect any normal investor to tolerate that. The Canucks were so profitable they looked to sell the team. Would anyone in their right mind want to sell a profitible business? They could just as easily lose millions, and that will surely happen when their fans grow disenchanted with their playoff failures. It happened in Buffalo when the fans got tired of the team being knocked out every year in the 1st or 2nd round for 5-6 years. It amazes me how many Canuck fans have forgotten the bad times and think the old CBA was a panacea. The bad times are right around the corner if no reasonable way to tie revenues to expenses is agreed to by the NHL and NHLPA>

Funny the business editor for espn.com doesn't agree with you. And recent articles about other teams lead me to beleive where there is smoke there is fire. Let's face it, the owners don't want the players to know just how bad it is, or you give the players instant leverage.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If the situation is really bad, how would that give the players leverage? The last article I read that had a statement by an owner was from the Oiler's Cal Nichols. He basically stated that if there's no cap the team will relocate or become a dormant franchise.

 

[vanlady]

I don't see the logic in this statement. Are you saying that teams have a chance to make a profit during the lockout? My understanding of your post and the article you cited is that some teams may be lost if the lockout is prolonged. That is what I'm addressing.

NO I was refering to teams making a profit during the regular season

Show me the profit cycle for the Buffalo Sabres, Pittsburgh Penguins, Carolina Hurricanes, NY Islanders, Florida Panthers, Tampa Bay Lightning etc.. You have to go back a decade to find when some teams last made money. It's absurd to expect any normal investor to tolerate that. The Canucks were so profitable they looked to sell the team. Would anyone in their right mind want to sell a profitible business? They could just as easily lose millions, and that will surely happen when their fans grow disenchanted with their playoff failures. It happened in Buffalo when the fans got tired of the team being knocked out every year in the 1st or 2nd round for 5-6 years. It amazes me how many Canuck fans have forgotten the bad times and think the old CBA was a panacea. The bad times are right around the corner if no reasonable way to tie revenues to expenses is agreed to by the NHL and NHLPA>


I'm not sure what you mean by this. If the situation is really bad, how would that give the players leverage? The last article I read that had a statement by an owner was from the Oiler's Cal Nichols. He basically stated that if there's no cap the team will relocate or become a dormant franchise.

The Buffalo Sabres made money before the Rigas disaster.

Pittsburg was profitable in the early 90's however even the bankruptcy trustee agreed that the biggest factor in the Pens not making money was a rediculous lease for Melon arena.

Tampa and Florida are both struggling thanks to rediculous arena debt as well, but with the recent refinancing of Florida's arena this should help.

Carolina never should have been placed where it was.

The Islanders have one of the worst leases in Hockey, ranks right up there with the Pens lease.

As for the Canucks, John McCaw is the owner that never wanted to be. John McCaw to ownership of the team as a favor to a freind and has been looking to get out of it ever since.

As for profitability, well as well published in the Vancouver media the Canucks have made over the last 3 years 10 million, 20 million and last year 25 million. Trust me anyone who knows the Aquilini family knows they never invest unless they can see a steady profit and potential for growth.

As for leverage, in 94 the PA used the losses for teams as leverage against the owners to get a deal done. The likelyhood is not even each of the owners doesn't know how bad it is getting for each of them.

 

[BLONG7]

Let's hope that 4 teams don't survive... then 100+1 will be outta work, 100 players and 1 arrogant A$$ in Knob Goodenow////

 

[Buffaloed]

The Buffalo Sabres made money before the Rigas disaster.

You make some very good points, but statements like this lead me to believe that you make things up as you go along to suit your agenda. The Sabres were drowning in a sea of red ink from the late 1980's. John Rigas came along and invested $2 million here, $5 million there and covered their losses. Eventually he was viewed as the franchise savior. He had so much money invested, he was able to buy the team on his terms. No one else was interested in buying it. The major losses were incurred before Rigas became owner, particularly from debts on the new arena and the bloated payroll assembled by John Muckler. The team assembled during the Rigas ownership got a lot of bang for its buck. Then Rigas got goofy in the Bobby Clark sense, and the rest is history.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Let's hope that 4 teams don't survive... then 100+1 will be outta work, 100 players and 1 arrogant A$$ in Knob Goodenow////

sure, as long as you volunteer 1 of them to be your favourite team.

dr

 

[Cully9]

Isn't is possible, since this thread is conjecture about a quote that is more than a year old, that the NHL was testing the waters with the PA? Seeing where the PA stood on the idea that teams could be lost due to the lockout? Once the PA made it abundantly clear they had little concern if teams folded up shop, the NHL knew where one dividing line could be in the PA. (ie. Any of the guys who might be fighting for the last 100 jobs in the league.)

When combined with the NHL's offer to the players -- the one that didn't cut salaries of players making less than the league average -- it seems like the league may have been hoping the working class of the NHLPA would be the ones to agree with the league's proposals because it's clear, at least through negotiation, that the PA hasn't hesitated -- to borrow a phrase -- to throw them under the bus.

 

[vanlady]

You make some very good points, but statements like this lead me to believe that you make things up as you go along to suit your agenda. The Sabres were drowning in a sea of red ink from the late 1980's. John Rigas came along and invested $2 million here, $5 million there and covered their losses. Eventually he was viewed as the franchise savior. He had so much money invested, he was able to buy the team on his terms. No one else was interested in buying it. The major losses were incurred before Rigas became owner, particularly from debts on the new arena and the bloated payroll assembled by John Muckler. The team assembled during the Rigas ownership got a lot of bang for its buck. Then Rigas got goofy in the Bobby Clark sense, and the rest is history.

When the Sabres went Bankrupt they owed 206 million, 160 million of that was owed to Adelphia for the purchase of the team, the vast majority of the other creditors owed the 46 million were players. Plenty of pundits in Buffalo agree that in the 90's the Sabres were enjoying success both on and off the ice. Remember this is the rise of Hasek. It wasn't till 01/02 that the Sabres failed to make the playoffs in a decade. Remember these guys were in what 3 confence championships and the Stanley Cup playoffs in this period. If they weren't making money something was drastically wrong, perhaps another Rigas scam.

http://www.sabres.com/thesabres/team_history.php

 

[likea]

Pittsburg was profitable in the early 90's however even the bankruptcy trustee agreed that the biggest factor in the Pens not making money was a rediculous lease for Melon arena.

she is making things up as she goes along

the Pens were drowning in red ink because they could not afford the great players they developed

but the owner signed these players anyways because he wanted to keep the team together

he then took money up front and signed the bad lease and a bad TV in exchange for the money he took from them because he needed it so badly

and in another thread you stated the Steelers are dismantling their team because of the cap

please learn Pittsburgh sports before you talk about them

the Steelers may lose one big named player and its not because of the cap..Burress

Bettis may retire, chad scott will be cut cause he sucks

and that will save the steelers around 10 million under the cap alone

Bettis does not deserve 4 million for what he brings to the table so if he does stay he will be asked to take another pay cut, he will be the back up

Burress could be signed but he is not worth what he is aksing for is all

 

[habitue*]

Deep in their subconscious, I think Bettman and rich NHL owners want to see half a dozen teams collapsed. This lock out is as muck to kill the PA than to kill few teams.