honest ... if VAN can do it, why cant others ?

[Brent Burns Beard]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=98932

"The Canucks have made a profit of $45 million the past two years..." said Nonis."

"Nonis said if the NHL season were to begin today the Canucks would have a payroll of around $49 million US"



So if Vancouver can do it, why cant other teams ?

DR

Click to read more...

 

[Russian Fan]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=98932

"The Canucks have made a profit of $45 million the past two years..." said Nonis."

"Nonis said if the NHL season were to begin today the Canucks would have a payroll of around $49 million US"



So if Vancouver can do it, why cant other teams ?

DR

Good stuff DR

Why is that ? GOOD MANAGEMENT !!

- Tough dealing contract with players
- Getting more revenues with pay per view games & strong marketing

They are getting reward for taking their responsabilities instead of waiting to getting reward for doing the same mistakes over & over.

 

[ACC1224]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=98932

"The Canucks have made a profit of $45 million the past two years..." said Nonis."

"Nonis said if the NHL season were to begin today the Canucks would have a payroll of around $49 million US"



So if Vancouver can do it, why cant other teams ?

DR

Imagine the money they'd make if they could win in the playoffs.

 

[Russian Fan]

wow

John Madden for cap = 1/750 = 0,001%
Nonis not sure about bettman's position = 1/30 = 3%

Let's jump on this !!! (ironic)

 

[Oilers Ent]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=98932

"The Canucks have made a profit of $45 million the past two years..." said Nonis."

"Nonis said if the NHL season were to begin today the Canucks would have a payroll of around $49 million US"



So if Vancouver can do it, why cant other teams ?

DR

TV Revenue is better in Vancouver than most small markets. Also, there are 3 Million people in the Vancouver area and a lot of them are hockey-mad Canadians or foreigner's who have adopted the sport. The team also has a couple of superstars and has been a contender the last couple of years due to spending more to keep their group together. I don't think they'd have that option in a smaller market.

Vancouver was losing lots of money when they were losing badly. The Messier years are a good example of that.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

TV Revenue is better in Vancouver than most small markets. Also, there are 3 Million people in the Vancouver area and a lot of them are hockey-mad Canadians or foreigner's who have adopted the sport. The team also has a couple of superstars and has been a contender the last couple of years due to spending more to keep their group together. I don't think they'd have that option in a smaller market.

Vancouver was losing lots of money when they were losing badly. The Messier years are a good example of that.

All revenues are fabulous in Vancouver now. Player costs have risen with the value of the team. Vancouver was losing money when they were losing badly. They had the 4th highest payroll in the NHL and they were selling less than 13,000 tickets a night.

I was told then - as a fan - that Vancouver was a small market Canadian team that was doomed by this collective bargaining agreement. The team had dumped Linden, Lumme, Bure and Mogilny. Cutting payroll worked. The fans did not come back - revenue still sucked - but the team was close to breaking even because the payroll was so small.

The fans started to come back when they realized the Canucks had a good young team with some great young players. The team was never - I was told - going to be able to keep all their young players. I had many arguments with fellow fans about this. "Nonsense," I said. "Look at the revenues climb. If the Canucks keep winning they will be able to afford to keep all their players." No, no, other Canuck fans told me. We need a new CBA or Vancouver can't compete. We are better than Edmonton, but not by much.

Suddenly, Vancouver is not a small market any more. Give this CBA a couple of more years and the Canucks would be one of those big revenue teams ruining it for everyone else.

DR points out the obvious. If Vancouver can do it, why can't anyone else? If the NHL was holding Vancouver up as a team that was not going to survive three years ago, why are they now one of the most profitable NHL franchises even without playoff revenues and even with a rink arrangement that has Canuck revenues stashed in GM Place? Three years ago, the word was that McCaw was desperate to get out but he couldn't find a chump willing to buy the team. Now he is selling out and quadrupling his original investment.

What is the story? I'd like someone who thinks the future of the NHL is at stake in this dispute to explain how the Canucks could possibly be doomed three or four years ago and be one of the financially flush teams today.

Tom

 

[loudi94]

If every team follows Vancouver's model for business, the union would sue for collusion.

 

[hockeytown9321]

All revenues are fabulous in Vancouver now. Player costs have risen with the value of the team. Vancouver was losing money when they were losing badly. They had the 4th highest payroll in the NHL and they were selling less than 13,000 tickets a night.

I was told then - as a fan - that Vancouver was a small market Canadian team that was doomed by this collective bargaining agreement. The team had dumped Linden, Lumme, Bure and Mogilny. Cutting payroll worked. The fans did not come back - revenue still sucked - but the team was close to breaking even because the payroll was so small.

The fans started to come back when they realized the Canucks had a good young team with some great young players. The team was never - I was told - going to be able to keep all their young players. I had many arguments with fellow fans about this. "Nonsense," I said. "Look at the revenues climb. If the Canucks keep winning they will be able to afford to keep all their players." No, no, other Canuck fans told me. We need a new CBA or Vancouver can't compete. We are better than Edmonton, but not by much.

Suddenly, Vancouver is not a small market any more. Give this CBA a couple of more years and the Canucks would be one of those big revenue teams ruining it for everyone else.

DR points out the obvious. If Vancouver can do it, why can't anyone else? If the NHL was holding Vancouver up as a team that was not going to survive three years ago, why are they now one of the most profitable NHL franchises even without playoff revenues and even with a rink arrangement that has Canuck revenues stashed in GM Place? Three years ago, the word was that McCaw was desperate to get out but he couldn't find a chump willing to buy the team. Now he is selling out and quadrupling his original investment.

What is the story? I'd like someone who thinks the future of the NHL is at stake in this dispute to explain how the Canucks could possibly be doomed three or four years ago and be one of the financially flush teams today.

Tom

Vancouver has been able to keep thier players under this CBA, but would they have been able to under a cap? I think not.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

If every team follows Vancouver's model for business, the union would sue for collusion.

They'd get laughed out of court. Vancouver has done nothing that the NHLPA could possibly complain about. They have used the CBA to hold down player salaries before the player reached the age of free agency and dabbled very selectively in the free agent market.

The team used the same model every successful franchise used to become a big revenue team. They rebuilt the team from the ground up. They did a good job. They deserve their rewards. They can do it, but "Boo-hoo, Buffalo can't". They can do it, but "boo-hoo" Washington, Boston or Chicago can't?

What happened to "Boo-hoo, poor Vancouver will never be able to compete"?

Tom

 

[SedinFan*]

A big part is treating players the right way when they're under contract here in Vancouver. Most players would say that they have loved, or love their time playing in Vancouver, for reasons such as fan support, atmosphere of the city etc etc...

Not every city can do it, and that's the problem in the NHL. Too many teams, where the fans don't really give a damn.

 

[littleHossa]

I think that Nonis is just groomed by Burke, let's not forget that Burke might of been the only GM in the NHL who had a business mind. Some other GMs don't spend, but they don't think either. Burke spent the best amount, advertised in the right places, took the sure gambles etc. When Burke opens his mouth about his ideas in the NHL, they all only have 1 goal in mind and that's winning more money and having his team succeed, in short what a businessman would do.

There is nothing wrong with that, it's just that some GMs are more hockey oriented. Some GMs realize that their team could be above a cap, but would still support the cap because their life doesn't begin and end with the success of their team, but also with a fair playing field and good hockey. Business people don't think like that, for good reason, we're seeing right now that from a financial point of view, they run their franchises 10x better than the "hockey" GMs do. But who are you going to choose, sports is more than just a business to most fans.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Vancouver has been able to keep thier players under this CBA, but would they have been able to under a cap? I think not.

I think not, too. If they keep doing well, they could be like Colorado for the next several years under the old CBA. One of Bettman's agendas is to make sure nobody gets that good. If Vancouver and Tampa and Ottawa and Atlanta and Calgary become tomorrow's elite teams, the poor teams won't be able to assure their fans they can win every year.

Tom

 

[degroat*]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=98932

"The Canucks have made a profit of $45 million the past two years..." said Nonis."

"Nonis said if the NHL season were to begin today the Canucks would have a payroll of around $49 million US"



So if Vancouver can do it, why cant other teams ?

DR

The writer of the article, NOT NONIS, said that the Canucks have made $45M over the past two years.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

A big part is treating players the right way when they're under contract here in Vancouver. Most players would say that they have loved, or love their time playing in Vancouver, for reasons such as fan support, atmosphere of the city etc etc...

I don't think this is part of it at all. Burke described Morrison as a mouse between two elephants at his arbitration hearing. He's offered to drive more than one player to the airport. I don't think Felix Potvin had much fun in Vancouver.

Too many teams, where the fans don't really give a damn.

If this is the problem, a new CBA can't fix it.

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

The writer of the article, NOT NONIS, said that the Canucks have made $45M over the past two years.

Nonis said it at his press conference.

Tom

 

[loveshack2]

I was told then - as a fan - that Vancouver was a small market Canadian team that was doomed by this collective bargaining agreement. The team had dumped Linden, Lumme, Bure and Mogilny. Cutting payroll worked. The fans did not come back - revenue still sucked - but the team was close to breaking even because the payroll was so small.

Naslund is now 31 and Bertuzzi turns 30 this season, just coming up on their UFA years. I wonder how much longer the Canucks could have kept them under the old and now defunt collective agreement. Brian Burke deserves alot of credit for keeping their salaries under control during their RFA years.

 

[Spezza]

I like this quote the most by Nonis.

"You're talking about waiting so you have a deal that makes sense so we can complete long term and the people who do the best job are the people that end up with the Stanley Cup."

Lets hope we get that.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Naslund is now 31 and Bertuzzi turns 30 this season, just coming up on their UFA years. I wonder how much longer the Canucks could have kept them under the old and now defunt collective agreement. Brian Burke deserves alot of credit for keeping their salaries under control during their RFA years.

Since Bertuzzi has another three years to go on his deal, I don't think he is relevant. The issue with Naslund is whether he wants another contract. The Canucks tried to start negotiations under the old CBA, but Naslund demurred, saying he might want to finish his career back home.

Otherwise they would have signed him just like the Senators signed Alfredsson.

What is your point? I was told Vancouver would never be able to afford a $40 million payroll. They are now at $50 million. It is fairly obvious they could carry a $60 million payroll if they start winning some playoff games. If they want to keep Naslund - and he wants to keep playing - he's a Canuck. Under the old system anyway.

Under any new system the Canucks have to choose between Naslund or Morrison and Cloutier. Dan and Brendan are the two guys who wanted long term deals. Ther Canucks refused because they are the guys to go in a cap situation.

The Canucks were obviously not disadvantaged under the old system. If the Canucks are not disadvantaged, who is?

Tom

 

[SedinFan*]

I don't think this is part of it at all. Burke described Morrison as a mouse between two elephants at his arbitration hearing. He's offered to drive more than one player to the airport. I don't think Felix Potvin had much fun in Vancouver.



If this is the problem, a new CBA can't fix it.

Tom

Did Vancouver fans like Potvin? The fans drove him out of Vancouver...4 years of Trent Klatt? No thanks.

 

[NFITO]

Vancouver has been able to keep thier players under this CBA, but would they have been able to under a cap? I think not.

this is impossible to say, but I think they would.

remember if Vancouver has to operate under a cap, so do other teams around the league... this would in itself reduce the $$ that players could ask for.

If the Canucks, for example, couldn't afford to re-sign Bertuzzi under the cap, then most teams wouldn't be able to either... again this is under a lot of assumptions, where a team like Nashville wouldn't be able to hit that $45mill cap in anyways (throwing a cap number, but in any cap system it's unlikely that every team is able to hit the cap)... and teams that can, might already be hardpressed to get their own players under their cap.

in the end, in a cap system, it's more likely that Bertuzzi isn't making over $7mill a season, thus making it possible for the canucks to still re-sign all their players under their cap.

 

[loveshack2]

What is your point?

My point is just what I said. Brian Burke deserves alot of credit for keeping the star players salaries under control and making the Canucks financially stable. He was one of the few smart GMs who used the CBA the way it was supposed to be used and Ive always had alot of respect for the way he did business. I mean Naslund at $5.5 million is just insane, in a good way. If every team in the league had a GM who handled player contracts the way Burke did then the current collective agreement might have had a chance of working. Too bad there is only one Brian Burke. Personally Im against a cap, but Im also against the old system. Im crossing my fingers that the two parties will be able to meet in the middle on some kind of soft cap or luxury tax system.

 

[Russian Fan]

My point is just what I said. Brian Burke deserves alot of credit for keeping the star players salaries under control and making the Canucks financially stable. He was one of the few smart GMs who used the CBA the way it was supposed to be used and Ive always had alot of respect for the way he did business. I mean Naslund at $5.5 million is just insane, in a good way. If every team in the league had a GM who handled player contracts the way Burke did then the current collective agreement might have had a chance of working. Too bad there is only one Brian Burke. Personally Im against a cap, but Im also against the old system. Im crossing my fingers that the two parties will be able to meet in the middle on some kind of soft cap or luxury tax system.

Exactly what I'm saying all along. from 1994 to 2002 , Most gm's never read what were the advantages of the CBA for the franchise, they all just go with the flow & we can all say that ''good management'' (ironic).

The last 2 years , GM's & Owners suddenly realized that something could be done to controle inflation of the salaries but it was too late. Now we need to ''FIX IT''

HOCKEY will be back in JANUARY when everyone wll say in the press conference that they made an ''HISTORICAL DEAL'' for the LOVE OF THE GAME.

 

[NFITO]

My point is just what I said. Brian Burke deserves alot of credit for keeping the star players salaries under control and making the Canucks financially stable. He was one of the few smart GMs who used the CBA the way it was supposed to be used and Ive always had alot of respect for the way he did business. I mean Naslund at $5.5 million is just insane, in a good way. If every team in the league had a GM who handled player contracts the way Burke did then the current collective agreement might have had a chance of working. Too bad there is only one Brian Burke. Personally Im against a cap, but Im also against the old system. Im crossing my fingers that the two parties will be able to meet in the middle on some kind of soft cap or luxury tax system.

The Naslund contract might not be the best example here...

Naslund signed the offseason right after coming off that major knee injury which forced him to miss the playoffs in 2001, and it was a concern as to how it would affect his career... he had a metal bolt put in his knee to help him.

he signed a long term deal, which gave him stablity... he also took 2 steps forward as a player since that deal.... while he broke out the season before, he established himself as a legit superstar after he signed that deal.

that deal therefore is a bad example of what Burke did.

Cooke's contract, and Sopel (before his re-signing this year) are better examples...

 

[xtra]

My point is just what I said. Brian Burke deserves alot of credit for keeping the star players salaries under control and making the Canucks financially stable. I mean Naslund at $5.5 million is just insane, in a good way.

Yes he is good but it had more to do with timing than anything. if Naslund had not been hurt in that buffalo game i guarantee you that he would have wanted more money. and the cancusk would have given it to him but they were lucky that Naslund broke his leg. Same thing with Ed Jovanovski when he got injured they were able to sign him.... But not everything Burke did was good....2 million dollars for Trevor linden? my god the guy is great for the city but if it was up to me a 500K 4th liner (which is what he is now) and a 1.5 million(2 million if you add kings salary in) for a second line winger would have been better spent in my mind.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I mean Naslund at $5.5 million is just insane, in a good way. If every team in the league had a GM who handled player contracts the way Burke did then the current collective agreement might have had a chance of working. Too bad there is only one Brian Burke. Personally Im against a cap, but Im also against the old system. Im crossing my fingers that the two parties will be able to meet in the middle on some kind of soft cap or luxury tax system.

Actually the Naslund contract was right on market value when he signed it. I know this because we were into predictions at that time over at Fanhome and I called it on the button. (And furthermore, there is an often overlooked point here. Brian Burke's contracts are used by teams in arbitration all the time. Naslund set the rate for Alfredsson and Jovanovski for Redden.)

I think there is truth in what you say about Burke, but I think that makes the point. If other teams don't want to operate that way, fine. They can lose hockey games and lose money. The teams that make the best decisions should reap the rewards. Under the old CBA they did. The Canucks - and every other successful team - got where they are because they made good decisions. Competitiveness is not defined by finances and market size. It is defined by the quality of the management.

Tom