Official Aquilini Thread

[me2]

What you'd see is better food and drink. What you'd see is better in-arena entertainment. What you'd see is a better "experience".

When the team is doing well, we get overpriced hotdogs with Cheese whiz. When the team isn't doing well, we get "The Steamer"... hot dog wrapped in bacon! Same price of admission.

There are ways to maintain high ticket sales, even if the Canucks suck as badly as you want them to during a possible transition, the next few years. The team can be a cash cow, even if the on-ice product sucks.

Don't believe me? Ask Jon Spoelstra: http://www.amazon.com/Ice-Eskimos-Market-Product-Nobody/dp/0887308511 . He's made a real good living generating lots of revenue for sports franchises that suck.

We're seeing it even with the latest summer summit - signed big name "free agents" bartender and executive chef. The Aquillini's will open their wallets to maintain high ticket sales. They are not just going to let the season ticket holders go. They're going to provide as best as they can buy on-ice product, and as best as they can buy off-ice experience... and that golden day, when the two mesh at the same time, ticket prices go through the roof. The new "experiences" is to justify maintaining the current ticket prices, while there are current questions about the on-ice product. After things are comfortable again that the Canucks are likely an annual playoff team, major jump in price.

The Aquillini's may or may not be a lot of things... but stupid isn't one. Cheap isn't one either.

So what you are saying is the Aquilini's will spend a dollar if they think it gains them two

 

[carolinacanuck]

So what you are saying is the Aquilini's will spend a dollar if they think it gains them two

gotta spend money to make money. that's how it works.

 

[Free Edler]

So what you are saying is the Aquilini's will spend a dollar if they think it gains them two

Almost as though they are businessmen.

 

[Gormo]

You are like the child that got a Sega Gensis for Christmas, but throws a temper tantrum because he wanted a Super Nintendo.

Obscure, but this definitely works.

 

[LeftCoast]

To channel Trevor Linden, the Aqualini's check all of the boxes for me.

• Deep pockets - since they've owned the team we have had no internal payroll cap. Pretty much everything the GMs have asked for they have ponied up for. Buyouts - Ballard and Booth. Retirement contracts - the Sedins and Luongo. High priced free agents - Sundin. Willing to eat sunk costs? Vigneault, Gillis, Tortorella, Luongo's retained salary. We have one of the largest scouting staffs in the business, a world class facility (thank you Arthur Grifiths) and every possible resource the Hockey Ops department wants. Compare that to teams with limited financial resources such as Florida, NYI (for a variety of reasons), Phoenix, etc, or even our past owners Frank / Arthur Grifiths - many of the sleazy moves that Pat Quinn made (Bure's first contract) were driven by pressure from owners to cap costs.
  
• Cares about the game - John McCaw never really wanted the Canucks. He wanted the Grizzlies, until he didn't, and really only wanted to be a minority owner. His focus was on return on investment, with a relatively short investment horizon. He left running of the team to Stan McCammon, who didn't really know the business and butted heads with Burke and Quinn. An owner who cares about the game is less likely to do things that harm the game and its traditions or alienate traditional fans. While the league doesn't currently allow it, I can't see the Aquilini's going for advertising on uniforms. Likewise pay per view, local blackouts, silly degrading promotions etc. While some of these things might help the owner financially in his local market, they harm the game overall.
  
• Results oriented - there is little question that the AquaBros are results oriented. They have fired 2 GMs who failed to make the playoffs. Clear message - failing is unacceptable. Compare this to the Leafs who for years were well funded by Ontario Teachers Pension Plan - who didn't really care if the team won or lost as long as it increased in value. Or Ralston Purina, who bought the St. Louis Blues as a corporate write off, then had a change in strategy and neglected the team to the point where they didn't even send a representative to make their pick in the 1983 entry draft. While the focus on result can lead to reactionary intervention, I'll take this over neglect any day.
  
• Connected to the Community - The AquaBros are from Vancouver and very connected to the city and region. There is very little risk that they move the team or blackmail the city for absurd concessions. They have never threatened to move the team, and will not likely sell it for a long, long time. This means stability. As long as AIG is solvent, the Canucks will have stabile management.
  
• Not a part of the NHL Old Boys Club - The Aqualini's are a part of the next generation of NHL owners, who don't have the baggage of the Jeremy Jacobs, Ed Sniders, Bill Wirtz, etc. While these owners have a lot of clout, they often see the league as a zero sum game and have acted in ways that have harmed the game. Eventually, when these guys pass their ownership on to their heirs (as Bill Wirtz did), more progressive owners such as the Aqualini's, Anchutz, Moulsons (who are strangely lacking in clout), etc. will assume their roles on the NHL executive committee.
  
• Private Money - they purchased GM Place along with the Canucks from John McCaw, but it was built and later purchased entirely with private money. They only concession the Aqualini's have gotten from the City of Vancouver is a relaxation of the noise by-law in the immediate vicinity or Rogers Arena.
  
• Philanthropic - the Aqualini's are not the greatest philanthropists amoung the NHL owners, but they have given back to the community -whether its the Templeton Boys Club, a P3 community centre and Practice Facility, preservation of wetlands in Pitt Meadows, gardens at Hastings Park, the Canucks Autism Network (I believe Paulo's son is autistic), etc.This isn't Bill and Mellinda Gates or George Soros level, but it's a start.

Are they the best owners? Who knows.

Most sports publications that have done lists (SI, Bleacher Report) tend to rank Mike Ilitch, Ron Burkle / Mario Lemieux, the Gund family and Peter Karmanos pretty highly, but US publications seem to ignore Canada. The Moulsons are by all accounts excellent owners and you can't really argue about what Mark Chipman / David Thompson have done in Winnipeg. But in a league where owners seem to be routinely photographed in handcuffs, the Aquilini's are undoubtedly among the better owners.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Seems this imaginary "meddlesome owners" narrative is still running wild. Either you have an owner that cares and spends to the cap (ie meddlesome ) or you have a tightwad who lets the hockey personnel do their thing blah blah blah.

Don't think you can have it both ways. I'm fine with the ownership, I remember the McCaw days vividly and they sucked.

 

[Barney Gumble]

Seems this imaginary "meddlesome owners" narrative is still running wild. Either you have an owner that cares and spends to the cap (ie meddlesome ) or you have a tightwad who lets the hockey personnel do their thing blah blah blah.

I prefer to think of it as what kind of meddlesome owner do you want.

A Mark Cuban or a Jerry Jones?