Larry Brooks is clueless

[Mess]

. Until it is you should take this number with a grain of salt and not base your arguments on it.....

Definitely do not base a CBA with linkage on numbers that need half the grains in the Ocean of sea salt to justify them .. I would say ..

 

[mooseOAK*]

i just googled it - by stan fischler -

Burke has several solid selling points. One is the fact that the Canucks, under his stewardship, made a $25 million profit in 2003-2004 and $20 mil the previous season.

jeez

So, two misinterpretations of a statement make them right?

 

[Wetcoaster]

So, two misinterpretations of a statement make them right?

There have been various direct statements from Canucks' ownership and management confirming the figures as well as the reports.

 

[mooseOAK*]

There have been various direct statements from Canucks' ownership and management confirming the figures as well as the reports.

If Burke could take a team with $39 million in gate receipts and with a $45 million payroll turn a $20-25 million profit then they are fools for firing him.

 

[Wetcoaster]

If Burke could take a team with $39 million in gate receipts and with a $45 million payroll turn a $20-25 million profit then they are fools for firing him.

In spite of his own PR, Burke has had little to do with the financial management of the team and its profitability outside of direct hockey operations as that was the sole province of Chief Operating Officer Dave Cobb. Cobb implemented the Pay-Per-View packages, negotiated the lottery scheme, set up the business roundtable and generally handles all media, sponsorship and league matters not directly related to hockey operations. He is also the alternate League Governor and had been taking more and more of leading role with the Board of Governors. Cobb has made a pile of money for Orca Bay playing the currency market and has used the rising Canadian dollar as hedge.

Everyone in the organization who was not in the hockey operations department reported to Cobb and he in turn reported not to President Brian Burke but rather Stan McCammon, Burke’s boss. Is it any wonder that Dave Cobb was the insider’s pick as the new President of the team when Burkie was let go? However Dave would get a once in a lifetime offer from the Vancouver olympic Committee and he moved on leaving a huge hole in the financial end of the team.

The financial matters were in the hands of Dave Cobb (Orca Bay was smart to not let Burkie near the finances) and Dave Nonis and SteveTambellini were basically running the hockey operations. Burke was expensive and superfluous plus he was legend in his own mind. He started to believe the press clippings for a couple of his pet reporters and decided to get in a pi$$ing match with the owner's right hand man. Not terribly bright.

His record as GM is pretty abysmal in terms of drafts and trades and every time he stuck his nose in a negotiation it blew up.

Burkie was not offered a further contract (he was not fired) for any number of very good reasons.

 

[Matty]

The financial matters were in the hands of Dave Cobb (Orca Bay was smart to not let Burkie near the finances) and Dave Nonis and SteveTambellini were basically running the hockey operations. Burke was expensive and superfluous plus he was legend in his own mind. He started to believe the press clippings for a couple of his pet reporters and decided to get in a pi$$ing match with the owner's right hand man. Not terribly bright.

His record as GM is pretty abysmal in terms of drafts and trades and every time he stuck his nose in a negotiation it blew up.

Burkie was not offered a further contract (he was not fired) for any number of very good reasons.

No, the President and GM had nothing to do with the success of the Vancouver Canucks...

 

[Wetcoaster]

No, the President and GM had nothing to do with the success of the Vancouver Canucks...

Very little, that is why he was let go. Superfluous and expensive.

Burkie was figurehead as President, he had none of the powers or repsonsiblities of an NHL team president - they were vested in Dave Cobb.

His record as GM is a matter of debate.

 

[mooseOAK*]

In spite of his own PR, Burke has had little to do with the financial management of the team and its profitability outside of direct hockey operations as that was the sole province of Chief Operating Officer Dave Cobb. Cobb implemented the Pay-Per-View packages, negotiated the lottery scheme, set up the business roundtable and generally handles all media, sponsorship and league matters not directly related to hockey operations. He is also the alternate League Governor and had been taking more and more of leading role with the Board of Governors. Cobb has made a pile of money for Orca Bay playing the currency market and has used the rising Canadian dollar as hedge.

Everyone in the organization who was not in the hockey operations department reported to Cobb and he in turn reported not to President Brian Burke but rather Stan McCammon, Burke’s boss. Is it any wonder that Dave Cobb was the insider’s pick as the new President of the team when Burkie was let go? However Dave would get a once in a lifetime offer from the Vancouver olympic Committee and he moved on leaving a huge hole in the financial end of the team.

The financial matters were in the hands of Dave Cobb (Orca Bay was smart to not let Burkie near the finances) and Dave Nonis and SteveTambellini were basically running the hockey operations. Burke was expensive and superfluous plus he was legend in his own mind. He started to believe the press clippings for a couple of his pet reporters and decided to get in a pi$$ing match with the owner's right hand man. Not terribly bright.

His record as GM is pretty abysmal in terms of drafts and trades and every time he stuck his nose in a negotiation it blew up.

Burkie was not offered a further contract (he was not fired) for any number of very good reasons.

Okay, but the same stories that you cite a sproof of the Canucks' $20-$25 million profit give the credit to Burke. So They are right on one half and not on the other or, most likely, wrong on both?

 

[mr gib]

Very little, that is why he was let go. Superfluous and expensive.

Burkie was figurehead as President, he had none of the powers or repsonsiblities of an NHL team president - they were vested in Dave Cobb.

His record as GM is a matter of debate.

also - burke mentored nonis and tambellini - they were on the verge of being snapped up by other clubs - ie - the sharks - it was probably cheaper and less of headache to keep them than burke - and all the aggravation he can bring -

 

[Wetcoaster]

Okay, but the same stories that you cite a sproof of the Canucks' $20-$25 million profit give the credit to Burke. So They are right on one half and not on the other or, most likely, wrong on both?

The profits are fact - the owners and management of the Canucks have made that clear.

Burkie's role in achieving those profits is highly questionable given the corporate structure of the Canucks.

 

[Wetcoaster]

also - burke mentored nonis and tambellini - they were on the verge of being snapped up by other clubs - ie - the sharks - it was probably cheaper and less of headache to keep them than burke - and all the aggravation he can bring -

Actually Tambellini was there 7 years before Burke came in as GM and had already reorganized the minor pro system and was playing the part of a GM in concert with Mike Keenan at the time of burke's hiring.

 

[mr gib]

Actually Tambellini was there 7 years before Burke came in as GM and had already reorganized the minor pro system and was playing the part of a GM in concert with Mike Keenan at the time of burke's hiring.

true - both him and nonis were due for gm jobs elsewhere

 

[Wetcoaster]

true - both him and nonis were due for gm jobs elsewhere

The Canucks were simply replacing an expensive and aging asset with those who were younger and cheaper.

 

[Jarqui]

Burke, Nonis and McCammon have said clearly that the hockey team has made a profit of $20 million and $25 million over the past two seasons.

http://www.canucks.com/subpage.asp?sectionID=413
Orca Bay Sports & Entertainment, being Orca Bay Hockey Limited Partnership, owner and operator of the Vancouver Canucks, land Orca Bay Arena Limited Partnership, owner and operator of General Motors Place

As filed with the CRTC:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ownership/cht175.pdf
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2001/DB2001-399.htm
John E. McCaw Jr. owns 729132 SportsCo Investments, Inc.& 729133 SportsCo Investments II, Inc. which each own pieces of 729134 Orca Bay Holdings Company and 728302 Orca Bay Hockey Inc.who in turn, each own 729135 Orca Bay Hockey Limited Partnership BUT as above, 729135 Orca Bay Hockey Limited Partnership makes up part of Orca Bay Sports & Entertainment.

All of those limited partnerships/corporations have to file tax returns to show how much money they made. And we have not even looked at the ownership structure of Orca Bay Arena Limited Partnership which also is under the umbrella of Orca Bay S&E.

Since you maintain that the above parties "have said clearly", then you should be able to clearly identify and provide a link to determine which of the above companies they were talking about.

As some have already posted above, similar claims about roughly similar levels of profit have been made about Orca Bay S&E. I suggest that it is all being loosely tossed together when it is being discussed in the media. Just as you have previously claimed the sale of the Canucks while overlooking that GM Place was included in the deal.

As well, you should be able to provide a link that clearly identifies that they followed the URO guidelines approved by Levitt on gathering and reporting revenue and expenses for their hockey team when they made this particular statement to the media and that they included no other non-hockey revenue sources or expenses like music concerts that just got roughly bundled into their talk.

Further, I note that the 25 + 20 mil profit claim have been roughly rounded up to $50 mil but we know that they are in fact $45 mil in Canadian funds = 17.2 + .15.0 = 32.2il USD so we haven’t even been talking apples to apples on currency.

Finally, if they have made $32.2 mil USD on their NHL URO for hockey, how do you explain Forbes $2 mil result over the same period when you and many of the PA apologists have clung to that result. Is the PA apologists rule "We’ll take the highest number we can get our mitts on beyond any reason !" ?

 

[Wetcoaster]

http://www.canucks.com/subpage.asp?sectionID=413
Orca Bay Sports & Entertainment, being Orca Bay Hockey Limited Partnership, owner and operator of the Vancouver Canucks, land Orca Bay Arena Limited Partnership, owner and operator of General Motors Place

As filed with the CRTC:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ownership/cht175.pdf
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2001/DB2001-399.htm
John E. McCaw Jr. owns 729132 SportsCo Investments, Inc.& 729133 SportsCo Investments II, Inc. which each own pieces of 729134 Orca Bay Holdings Company and 728302 Orca Bay Hockey Inc.who in turn, each own 729135 Orca Bay Hockey Limited Partnership BUT as above, 729135 Orca Bay Hockey Limited Partnership makes up part of Orca Bay Sports & Entertainment.

All of those limited partnerships/corporations have to file tax returns to show how much money they made. And we have not even looked at the ownership structure of Orca Bay Arena Limited Partnership which also is under the umbrella of Orca Bay S&E.

Since you maintain that the above parties "have said clearly", then you should be able to clearly identify and provide a link to determine which of the above companies they were talking about.

As some have already posted above, similar claims about roughly similar levels of profit have been made about Orca Bay S&E. I suggest that it is all being loosely tossed together when it is being discussed in the media. Just as you have previously claimed the sale of the Canucks while overlooking that GM Place was included in the deal.

As well, you should be able to provide a link that clearly identifies that they followed the URO guidelines approved by Levitt on gathering and reporting revenue and expenses for their hockey team when they made this particular statement to the media and that they included no other non-hockey revenue sources or expenses like music concerts that just got roughly bundled into their talk.

Further, I note that the 25 + 20 mil profit claim have been roughly rounded up to $50 mil but we know that they are in fact $45 mil in Canadian funds = 17.2 + .15.0 = 32.2il USD so we haven’t even been talking apples to apples on currency.

Finally, if they have made $32.2 mil USD on their NHL URO for hockey, how do you explain Forbes $2 mil result over the same period when you and many of the PA apologists have clung to that result. Is the PA apologists rule "We’ll take the highest number we can get our mitts on beyond any reason !" ?

They have said the Vancouver Cancucks have made profits of $20 million and $25 million over the past two seasons played. Seems pretty clear that are referring to the hockey team.

 

[mr gib]

The Canucks were simply replacing an expensive and aging asset with those who were younger and cheaper.

fer sure - these guys were due -

 

[Jarqui]

They have said the Vancouver Cancucks have made profits of $20 million and $25 million over the past two seasons played. Seems pretty clear that are referring to the hockey team.

Let's have a look at the media quotes you provided as "evidence":

McCaw has been trying to sell all or part of the Canucks for several years.

The Canucks are reported to have made a profit of about $25 million last season and $20 million the season before.

So above we have an Wetcoaster example of the media talking about McCaw trying to sell all or part the Canucks and the sort of profit that the Canucks supposedly made (which doesn't jive with Forbes).

Here we have another media quote from Wetcoaster:

November 16, 2004
The Vancouver Canucks have called a news conference for Wednesday morning at GM Place to announce the sale of a percentage of the National Hockey League club.

The deal is expected to include a sale of 49% of the team with current owner John McCaw of Orca Bay Sports & Entertainment retaining majority ownership. McCaw has reportedly been trying to sell all or part of the club for several years.

The Canucks are reported to have made a profit of $25 million last season and $20 million in the 2002-2003 campaign.

This one is even more revealing. It interchanges Orca Bay and the Canucks with no distinguishing that Orca Bay does other things to generate money that would not be included on a league URO as hockey revenue or business. It says that the Vancouver Canucks have called a press conference to announce the sale of it's parent company (but of course, the parent company didn't call a press conference !! - because to the media they're one and the same).

McCaw isn't selling the Canucks based upon a league URO input that represents no entire legal entity. McCaw sold the Canucks team and it's arena and whatever other holdings based upon 49% of Orca Bay S&E financials that do not conform to the league UROs. Apples vs oranges. Orca Bay made the dough. The man bought 49% of Orca Bay - not just the Canucks. The Canucks probably publicized the profits to help make the sale. But nowhere do they define the profits as limited to the team itself beyond the media using the terms loosely and interchangeably.

So Wetcoaster, your own media examples illustrate the point. The media lump it all together randomly/casually. They do not attempt to distinguish hockey from non hockey the way a URO or even Forbes tried to do.

 

[me2]

Cobb has made a pile of money for

So Cobb is behind the financial success? Got it.

Orca Bay playing the currency market and has used the rising Canadian dollar as hedge.

Which no doubt lowers the NHLPA can claim on Canuck profitability. Smaller cap, anyone?

Dave Nonis and SteveTambellini were basically running the hockey operations.

So any successes and failures were really their faults. So Nonis blew the Umberger deal and others. Got it.

His record as GM is pretty abysmal in terms of drafts

So the scouts blew any bad picks not Burke. Got it.

Actually Tambellini was there 7 years before Burke came in as GM and had already reorganized the minor pro system and was playing the part of a GM in concert with Mike Keenan at the time of burke's hiring.

So Nonis is responsible for the Nucks bad scouting, especially before Burke. Got it.

 

[mr gib]

So Cobb is behind the financial success? Got it.

Which no doubt lowers the NHLPA can claim on Canuck profitability. Smaller cap, anyone?

So any successes and failures were really their faults. So Nonis blew the Umberger deal and others. Got it.

So the scouts blew any bad picks not Burke. Got it.

So Nonis is responsible for the Nucks bad scouting, especially before Burke. Got it.

that's not fair - you took all his comment's out of context

 

[PecaFan]

Since you maintain that the above parties "have said clearly", then you should be able to clearly identify and provide a link to determine which of the above companies they were talking about.

Yup. Living here in Vancouver, I have *never* heard an official source give profit numbers. It's been a particular bone of contention on Sportstalk, the local talk show, because they had no problems releasing specific numbers when they were losing money.

The closest I ever heard was Burke, months after being let go, who said something like "it's in that ballpark" when the host said "$15 million?"

 

[me2]

that's not fair - you took all his comment's out of context

Sorry, I'll try again


Burke was running the Canucks so Cobb gets all the credit for the financial turn around. Got it.

Dave Nonis and SteveTambellini were basically running the hockey operations, so any Canucks hockey operation failures are Burke's fault. Got it.

Nonis is in charge of all of the Canucks deals with players, but if they blow up its all Burkes fault. Got it.

If the scouts blow any bad pick its all not their fault its all Burke. Got it.

So Nonis is responsible for the Nucks bad scouting, especially before Burke got there but that is still Burke's fault. Got it.


"If it turned out well its nothing to do with Burke, but if it is bad it is all Burke's fault"

 

[Mess]

Sorry, I'll try again


Burke was running the Canucks so Cobb gets all the credit for the financial turn around. Got it.

Dave Nonis and SteveTambellini were basically running the hockey operations, so any Canucks hockey operation failures are Burke's fault. Got it.

Nonis is in charge of all of the Canucks deals with players, but if they blow up its all Burkes fault. Got it.

If the scouts blow any bad pick its all not their fault its all Burke. Got it.

So Nonis is responsible for the Nucks bad scouting, especially before Burke got there but that is still Burke's fault. Got it.


"If it turned out well its nothing to do with Burke, but if it is bad it is all Burke's fault"

When Nonis, Tambellini and Cobb got into the office and all the crispy crème doughnuts were gone that is all Burke's fault ..

When Burke was let go , and the profit went up .. The Doughnut slush fund was a major reason for the turnaround I hear ..

 

[mackdogs*]

From an article today:

Get this, they are trying to determine what is and isn't revenue before they go forward. This, after the owners offered to open their books to independent auditors more than three years ago. This, after the players' union has done a complete about-face concerning what it will and will not negotiate.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Simmons/2005/05/17/1043341.html

More evidence that the NHL is more than happy to open their books to a third party for auditing. It's really hard to give some of you blind PA followers credit when you continue to be proven wrong.

 

[Matty]

"If it turned out well its nothing to do with Burke, but if it is bad it is all Burke's fault"

That's the best summary I've heard so far...

 

[NYIsles1*]

Had anybody listened to Tanenbaum, Lemieux and Domi in December, there would have been a season played -- and there would be a salary cap in place with a sliding scale. Had anybody bothered to hear from the Leafs, rather than worry about protecting the interests of the Nashville Predators and Carolina Hurricanes, there would have been playoff hockey on television last night, tonight and tomorrow night.

Maple Leaf reporter entitlement bias: 1
NHL Future as an equal business for each team: 0