Confirmed with Link: #MelnykOut Campaign - successfully raised 8K over this past weekend.

Status
Not open for further replies.

mysens

Registered User
Apr 9, 2013
847
687
Yeah spending doesn't guarantee winning, we've seen that. However what we've also seen is that not spending guarantees not winning. That's enough correlation to know that Melnyk's current approach to the team isn't gonna lead to any sustained success.
The correlation between bringing in money by filling the building with fans and not leads to spending money he does not have. You can not spend money you do not have. If I were owner, why would I leverage my other business to carry on another business that is not bringing in money...therefore I would be forced to cut spending on the non profiting business. Simple. No fans in seats, have to cut salaries. Period.
 

Sensung

Registered User
Oct 3, 2017
6,101
3,357
The correlation between bringing in money by filling the building with fans and not leads to spending money he does not have. You can not spend money you do not have. If I were owner, why would I leverage my other business to carry on another business that is not bringing in money...therefore I would be forced to cut spending on the non profiting business. Simple. No fans in seats, have to cut salaries. Period.
The Sens had an operating revenue surplus of approx. 27M last season according to the best source we have, Forbes.

Eugene cut spending further this season, in spite of his promise to "spend more when we were ready to compete" when he imposed the budget.

And in the rare season when he doesn't have surplus operating revenue, he can tap into the increased value of THIS BUSINESS, which has gone up by 400M (min) since he purchased it.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,783
30,983
The correlation between bringing in money by filling the building with fans and not leads to spending money he does not have. You can not spend money you do not have. If I were owner, why would I leverage my other business to carry on another business that is not bringing in money...therefore I would be forced to cut spending on the non profiting business. Simple. No fans in seats, have to cut salaries. Period.

It shouldn't need to be pointed out, but sports franchises aren't like normal businesses. They typically aren't the direct money maker (although often operating the arena as a whole can be). The value comes from the growth in the franchise valuation. The growth in the Sens valuation over Melnyk's tenure has been well worth the investment. The issue is you can't cash in on capital gains unless you sell, but nobody should have pity for a sports team owner who cries about loses as they knew full well what they were getting into when they bought the franchise; a business that at face value looks unappealing, but will almost always result in a spectacular return when you go to sell it.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,783
30,983
The Sens had an operating revenue surplus of approx. 27M last season according to the best source we have, Forbes.

Eugene cut spending further this season, in spite of his promise to "spend more when we were ready to compete" when he imposed the budget.

And in the rare season when he doesn't have surplus operating revenue, he can tap into the increased value of THIS BUSINESS, which has gone up by 400M (min) since he purchased it.


I beleive to start the season, expenditures (at least on players) was actually up from the previous year's start. It's hard to find the data now, but there were a few new contracts and such (Pageau, Dzingel, Smith, Oduya, Thompson, Burrows vs Methot, Chiasson and Lazar out from the start of last season). We were probably down if you look at the playoff roster though. I think the team likely planed on spending a touch more this year, but changed it's mind when the losing streak happened and it was clear we'd miss the playoffs.

The problem is that a small climb in expenditures didn't mean maintaining the same quality of roster as we finished last season with and agruably didn't even mean having as strong a team as we started last year with.
 

Sensung

Registered User
Oct 3, 2017
6,101
3,357
I beleive to start the season, expenditures (at least on players) was actually up from the previous year's start. It's hard to find the data now, but there were a few new contracts and such (Pageau, Dzingel, Smith, Oduya, Thompson, Burrows vs Methot, Chiasson and Lazar out from the start of last season). We were probably down if you look at the playoff roster though. I think the team likely planed on spending a touch more this year, but changed it's mind when the losing streak happened and it was clear we'd miss the playoffs.

The problem is that a small climb in expenditures didn't mean maintaining the same quality of roster as we finished last season with and agruably didn't even mean having as strong a team as we started last year with.
The team was, in Melnyk's own words, "a goal from the cup final".

He had the playoff revenue (and no "but we didn't sell out" parrots, a few unsold seats doesn't offset that windfall).

He had the expansion fee windfall.

In other words, the perfect storm to restore hope by increasing spending, yet he chose to downgrade the roster instead of using the profits to make the team more competitive.

The fanbase could handle the embarrassment everytime Melnyk opened his mouth when he was spending to keep the team competitive. Now that he has taken away hope, he's just not worth the trouble.

#Melnykout
 

Nac Mac Feegle

wee & free
Jun 10, 2011
34,891
9,307
The correlation between bringing in money by filling the building with fans and not leads to spending money he does not have. You can not spend money you do not have. If I were owner, why would I leverage my other business to carry on another business that is not bringing in money...therefore I would be forced to cut spending on the non profiting business. Simple. No fans in seats, have to cut salaries. Period.

That isn't how it works. You don't simply open the doors of a business and sit there and expect people to throw money at your feet. You need to give folks a reason to be your customers. And making a point of constantly calling out your customers as not good enough and ungrateful is NOT the way to woo them back.
 

Smash88

Registered User
Mar 15, 2012
3,484
344
Ottawa
Yeah this is basically why I was never fond of the billboard campaign and specifically the hashtag they chose.

I knew people were lazy and would just automatically assume it meant trying to get the owner out.

It is what it is, A lot of people will hang on Don Cherry's every word. Many people dismiss him, but you would be surprised at the amount that still tune in religiously.
 

Rand0m

Registered User
Oct 2, 2011
1,272
987
Yeah this is basically why I was never fond of the billboard campaign and specifically the hashtag they chose.

I knew people were lazy and would just automatically assume it meant trying to get the owner out.

It is what it is, A lot of people will hang on Don Cherry's every word. Many people dismiss him, but you would be surprised at the amount that still tune in religiously.

Anyone who takes Cherry seriously at this stage is probably a 60+ yo who’s just as xenophobic and senile as he is. And they’re most likely Leafs fans.

It IS about getting the owner out. Mark my words, Karlsson is (will be) gone not because the team won’t offer him a fair contract, he’s gone because of Melnyk. Melnyk is a detriment to this team. No star player will ever want to play here as long as he’s around.

A billboard will obviously not be the thing that causes him to sell. But I’m pretty sure there wouldn’t be any town halls with Melnyk without the billboards.

Again, everyone has to watch his actual rant:

Sens fans get #MelnykOut trending in Canada after owner's comments - Sportsnet.ca
 

BatherSeason

Registered User
Jun 16, 2009
6,640
3,702
Gatineau
A billboard will obviously not be the thing that causes him to sell. But I’m pretty sure there wouldn’t be any town halls with Melnyk without the billboards.

Like it or not, the billboards worked. On a local level, the conversation was started. TSN1200 NEVER spoke about the owner, the billboards made them open the doors to the conversation. The local papers stayed far far away from any criticism of the owner, the billboards created a buzz that forced them to write about the owner and the purpose of the campaign. Don Cherry, believe it or not, has now also helped bring #MelnykOut to a National audience.

The only unfortunate part in all of this is that there are many, Don Cherry, Steve Warne, and many more etc, who didn't think it was necessary to research what the actual campaign stood for and just decided to be against in from the start. Instead of complaining about the message behind the billboards, for some it has solely been because of the money people spent on the billboards. Nothing is worse than when uniformed people tell you how to spend your money.
 

YouGotAStuGoing

Registered User
Mar 26, 2010
19,354
4,929
Ottawa, Ontario
As much as I think it's a facile argument, I do wonder how much of this disparity in opinion can be attributed to generational gap. It seems like it's somewhat separated by age groups – those who are old enough to remember a time without NHL hockey in Ottawa seem more likely to think it's a fan problem, while those of us who have grown up with the Sens our whole lives seem more likely to hold ownership more accountable for the team's woes.

Maybe it's just confirmation bias and I'm seeing what I want to see? I don't know. Just spitballing. But there seems to be a level of learned helplessness, of "be happy we've got anything at all" coming from the detractors of the campaign. And on some level, I think we can all agree that having an NHL team is a good thing. Otherwise, we wouldn't be engaged enough to discuss the team's problems at all. But on the other hand, I think the younger generation feels more empowered to call attention to things that are being done poorly and realizing that we do have a voice and we just need to make it heard.

All that said, it's a damn shame that everything always becomes so adversarial. And I guess this is a problem that reaches far beyond hockey. But the notion that we're all Sens fans who just want what's best for the team never seems to enter the equation. It's so much easier to view it as an us vs. them kind of thing with each "side" getting more and more entrenched in its views.
 

coladin

Registered User
Sep 18, 2009
11,814
4,500
The Sens had an operating revenue surplus of approx. 27M last season according to the best source we have, Forbes.

Eugene cut spending further this season, in spite of his promise to "spend more when we were ready to compete" when he imposed the budget.

And in the rare season when he doesn't have surplus operating revenue, he can tap into the increased value of THIS BUSINESS, which has gone up by 400M (min) since he purchased it.

Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true. Operating Income is not profit. You know this already!
 

coladin

Registered User
Sep 18, 2009
11,814
4,500
As much as I think it's a facile argument, I do wonder how much of this disparity in opinion can be attributed to generational gap. It seems like it's somewhat separated by age groups – those who are old enough to remember a time without NHL hockey in Ottawa seem more likely to think it's a fan problem, while those of us who have grown up with the Sens our whole lives seem more likely to hold ownership more accountable for the team's woes.

Maybe it's just confirmation bias and I'm seeing what I want to see? I don't know. Just spitballing. But there seems to be a level of learned helplessness, of "be happy we've got anything at all" coming from the detractors of the campaign. And on some level, I think we can all agree that having an NHL team is a good thing. Otherwise, we wouldn't be engaged enough to discuss the team's problems at all. But on the other hand, I think the younger generation feels more empowered to call attention to things that are being done poorly and realizing that we do have a voice and we just need to make it heard.

All that said, it's a damn shame that everything always becomes so adversarial. And I guess this is a problem that reaches far beyond hockey. But the notion that we're all Sens fans who just want what's best for the team never seems to enter the equation. It's so much easier to view it as an us vs. them kind of thing with each "side" getting more and more entrenched in its views.

That's a good point.

I remember a city without a team, and a city with a really crappy, embarrassing 10 win team. I don't want the owner to tie revenues to salaries because he won't sell the team, but it will be a constantly young, cheap cap floor team who watches their stars leave being priced out of this market. You almost wish that the cap floor hits 70M sooner or later to ensure that Ottawa gets a decent team on the ice. I don't want a 58M team. He can certainly make it work at 58M team with the revenues. That would truly suck.

But he ain't selling. Not with a brand new arena in the works and the development all around it. It will be fantastic, except the hockey for the next 5 years can be extremely depressing waiting for the move.

I run a business and accountability is a way of life, no matter what generation. I think what younger people feel is accountability may be interpreted in a different way from many here. That is when you see words like "entitled", etc...come up.

Sticking with your team through thick and thin makes the rewards much more significant and memorable. That is pro sports. It can be extremely unfair, just look at what the Cubs and Red Sox went through, The Eagles. The Maple Leafs. It can take a lifetime and then some to reap that reward. But they always pack the place, fiercely loyal. I wish this city was that way. We just don't have enough of those types, even with Karlsson on this team.

To that extent one can't help but admire the Toronto fans for always being there for their team. This city needs to be loyal in the hard times. Sure, I don't agree with how things are run, but I don't doubt that the team wants to win. We need to support the team and weather the turbulence.
 

coladin

Registered User
Sep 18, 2009
11,814
4,500
What I said is precisely true.

You are the one using the word profit.

Right, profit. because Operating Income is irrelevant.

Anyways, you bang that drum, I will not bother after this post as there is no point to it. Carry on.
 

Tnuoc Alucard

🇨🇦🔑🧲✈️🎲🥅🎱🍟🥨🌗
Sep 23, 2015
8,059
1,919
The Sens had an operating revenue surplus of approx. 27M last season according to the best source we have, Forbes.

Why do you lie?

giphy.gif



Your Pants are on fire.​





Forbes has reported an Operating Income of only 10 Million, not 27 Million.

Ottawa Senators on the Forbes The Business of Hockey List
 

Sensung

Registered User
Oct 3, 2017
6,101
3,357
Right, profit. because Operating Income is irrelevant.

Anyways, you bang that drum, I will not bother after this post as there is no point to it. Carry on.
No, operating income is important. It shows the team is viable and thriving in this market.

If our owner has structured the finances of the team in a way that chews up the potential profits by treating the
Franchise like a piggy bank and saddling it with debt, then it is HIS FAULT.

Just another reason for Melnyk to cash out and go away.
 

Tnuoc Alucard

🇨🇦🔑🧲✈️🎲🥅🎱🍟🥨🌗
Sep 23, 2015
8,059
1,919
BREAKING DOWN 'Operating Income'

Operating income is a measurement that shows how much of a company's revenue will eventually become profit. Operating Income is a synonym for earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) and is also referred to as "operating profit" or "recurring profit."
Operating income is calculated as: Operating income = gross income - operating expenses - depreciation - amortization
The measure of operating income excludes items such as investments in other firms, taxes and interest expenses. In addition, nonrecurring items such as cash paid for a lawsuit settlement are not included. Operating income is required to calculate operating margin, which describes a company's operating efficiency.

BREAKING DOWN 'Profit'

Profit is the money a business makes after accounting for all expenses. Regardless of whether the business is a couple of kids running a lemonade stand or a publicly traded multinational company, consistently earning profit is every company's goal. As a result, much of business performance is based on profitability in its various forms. Some analysts are interested in top-line profitability, whereas others are interested in profitability before expenses, such as taxes and interest, and still others are only concerned with profitability after all expenses have been paid.
There are three major types of profit that analysts analyze: gross profit, operating profit and net profit. Each type of profit gives the analyst more information about the company's performance, especially when compared against other time periods and industry competitors. All three levels of profitability can be found on the income statement.
Gross, Operating and Net Profit

The first level of profitably is gross profit. Gross profit is sales minus the cost of goods sold. Sales is the first line item on the income statement and the cost of goods sold, also referred to as CGS, is generally listed just below it. For example, if company A has $100,000 in sales and a CGS of $60,000, it means the gross profit is $100,000 minus $60,000, which is $40,000. Divide gross profit by sales for the gross profit margin, which is $40,000 divided by $100,000, or 40%.
The second level of profitability is operating profit. Operating profit is calculated by deducting operating expenses from gross profit. Gross profit looks at profitability after direct expenses, and operating profit looks at profitability after operating expenses. These are things like salaries, general and administrative costs, also referred to as SG&A. If company A has $20,000 in operating expenses, the operating profit is $40,000 minus $20,000, equaling $20,000. Divide operating profit by sales for the operating profit margin, which is 20%.
The third level of profitably is net profit. Net profit is the income left over after all expenses, includes taxes and interest, have been paid. If interest is $5,000 and taxes are another $5,000, net profit is calculated by deducting both of these from operating profit. In this example the answer is $20,000 minus $5,000, minus $5,000, which equals $10,000. Divide net profit by sales for net profit margin, which is 10%.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,783
30,983
Right, profit. because Operating Income is irrelevant.

Anyways, you bang that drum, I will not bother after this post as there is no point to it. Carry on.

everybody seems to be using imprecise terms here; Profit could mean gross profit, operating profit (aka operating income), or net profit. I tend to agree with you that operating profit is being used and it's in a misleading way, but the operating profit does show that the team would likely be in very good shape if it wasn't for a pretty sizable amount of debt the team is rumoured to have that's probably offseting much of the net profit.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,783
30,983
No, operating income is important. It shows the team is viable and thriving in this market.

If our owner has structured the finances of the team in a way that chews up the potential profits by treating the
Franchise like a piggy bank and saddling it with debt, then it is HIS FAULT.

Just another reason for Melnyk to cash out and go away.

If you're using Operating income to show we are thriving in the market, don't include the LV expansion fee as that's a one time thing that has nothing to do with the viability of the market.
 

Tnuoc Alucard

🇨🇦🔑🧲✈️🎲🥅🎱🍟🥨🌗
Sep 23, 2015
8,059
1,919
If our owner has structured the finances of the team in a way that chews up the potential profits by treating the Franchise like a piggy bank and saddling it with debt, then it is HIS FAULT.

Is this happening, or is this another lie?
 

Sensung

Registered User
Oct 3, 2017
6,101
3,357
If you're using Operating income to show we are thriving in the market, don't include the LV expansion fee as that's a one time thing that has nothing to do with the viability of the market.
Well it's about to become a two time thing with an even bigger payout for Seattle...

Even at 10M and posting operating surplus for pretty much the entire decade the Sens are viable and thriving in this market.
 

Tnuoc Alucard

🇨🇦🔑🧲✈️🎲🥅🎱🍟🥨🌗
Sep 23, 2015
8,059
1,919
Derp.

The team received a 17M expansion fee that Forbes did not include. I added it to give a more accurate picture of the Sens financial picture for last year.

You are welcome.


Expansion fees goes to the owners, not to the teams.

To offset, in perpetuity, their (now) smaller piece of the NHL revenue pie that is now divided by 31.
 

Sensung

Registered User
Oct 3, 2017
6,101
3,357
Expansion fees goes to the owners, not to the teams.

To offset, in perpetuity, their (now) smaller piece of the NHL revenue pie that is now divided by 31.
The Team gets the money, not the owner.

The revenue pie is not divided 31 ways. Each team generates their own portion of the pie.

If the league had true revenue sharing, like the NFL, then even an idiot like Melnyk could make money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

  • Sydney Swans @ Hawthorn Hawks
    Sydney Swans @ Hawthorn Hawks
    Wagers: 6
    Staked: $6,201.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Inter Milan vs Torino
    Inter Milan vs Torino
    Wagers: 3
    Staked: $1,447.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Metz vs Lille
    Metz vs Lille
    Wagers: 2
    Staked: $220.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Cádiz vs Mallorca
    Cádiz vs Mallorca
    Wagers: 2
    Staked: $240.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Bologna vs Udinese
    Bologna vs Udinese
    Wagers: 3
    Staked: $265.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:

Ad

Ad