Teams that Lost Money in 2004

[Mess]

If you think that is relevant to the situation today then I assume that you also have a plan to market 8 track car stereos. I wasn't even considering it.

Atlanta Flames .. tried and failed (now Calgary Flames)
Cleveland OHIO ..tried and failed (merged with the Minesota North Stars, relocated to Dallas )

Some people learn from other's mistakes, while those that don't are condemned to repeat them through their own misfortune.

The only thing that may in fact have saved the Av's from repeat failure is the strength of the ALL-STAR studded team relocated there and the Championship it won in the first season ..

Should this new NHL and Hard Cap force the Av's back to mediocrity once its current stars are gone, we will truly see if the Denver market supports an NHL team or just a WINNING one .. It will be a great measuring stick to see, because if it can't then other markets far less fortunate then they are, surely are doomed to fail and the only thing missing is time .. and Bettman has dragged the good now down with the sinking ship, which is the fear on many ..

 

[alecfromtherock]

But you don't disagree with my comments then. The Rangers should exist because they put 18,200 fans in the seats 33 out of 41 home games a year and the other games are 18,000+. For NYR, the image and media problem doesn't come close to the problems in 25 or so other cities, nor does image matter that much to NYR, TOR or DET because they sellout more games then the other franchises combined I bet.

You should provide a link with factual bases before you say something that has been well documented such as the average NHL attendance’s in 2003-2004.

Link

Montreal reins supreme in total attendance(842,767) and average attendance(20,555) last season and will continue to do so once the NHL resumes.

Montreal is followed by Detroit, Toronto, Philadelphia and Vancouver.

The Rangers are 9th in average attendance with 18,081 and as many have pointed out paid seats and actual attendance are 2 entirely different things with the Rangers.

How many times on TV have we seen empty seats in a supposed sellout crowd in Madison Square Garden?

A far better variable to compare NYR,TOR,DET to the ‘lower’ teams is their player salaries.

Detroit ($77,856,100) + Toronto ($62,458,140) + Rangers ($76,488,750) = $216,802,990

Where as the bottom 5 teams(Nashville, Pittsburgh, Florida, Minnesota and Atlanta) combined for only $191,029,750 for a difference of $25,773,240.

Link

2 of the bottom 5 attendance teams(Nashville and Pittsburgh) are also in the bottom 5 of salaries, until the playing surface is levelled how can those teams compete?

Back on topic to teams losing money John Davison said it best for Calgary PF ‘Calgary has made its first profit in 10 years and it ONLY took going 7 games in to Stanley Cup finals to achieve’

Teams should not have to make deep runs/any runs in the playoffs to achieve a break-even point. The regular season should be enough time for a team to find the fiscal equilibrium.

If teams can not break even with a low salary cap and revenue sharing then it is up to those pictural money-losing owners if they want to relocate or contract their respective teams or keep their teams right where they are.

Big market fans should shut their mouths when saying that smaller market teams should just fold because they can not ‘compete’ or are not a ‘hockey’ market.

Small market fans might see some exact-revenge once the $55 million fiscal hammer that the Detroit’s of the league hold over their teams is shattered with a salary cap.

How sad indeed when the ‘crappy’ hockey market teams will knock off the ‘big market’ teams for a playoff spot under a fiscally fair system.

 

[Mess]

Big market fans should shut their mouths when saying that smaller market teams should just fold because they can not ‘compete’ or are not a ‘hockey’ market.

Small market fans might see some exact-revenge once the $55 million fiscal hammer that the Detroit’s of the league hold over their teams is shattered with a salary cap.

How sad indeed when the ‘crappy’ hockey market teams will knock off the ‘big market’ teams for a playoff spot under a fiscally fair system.

That is the exact reason why Big Market teams have no interest in Revenue Sharing ..

By making their opponents better it lessons their own chances of success and playoff gates by topping up the very teams you're trying to beat out for a playoff spot ..

 

[Drury_Sakic]

I also wonder if Forbes counted the 10 million each team put into the War Chest... or if that would be under 2005 expences..

 

[nyrmessier011]

You should provide a link with factual bases before you say something that has been well documented such as the average NHL attendance’s in 2003-2004.

I estimated about the Rangers having sold out 33 out of 41 games in 2003-2004. I wouldn't throw out numbers like that unless I thought they were factual or very close to factual. I looked up the numbers and found they sold out 28 out of 41 home games. Pretty close, eh? If you need the link to count the number 18,200 on the right side then here it is.

And also, they are 9th in attendance because there arena holds less then the average nhl barn. there average attendance was only about 150 seats less then capacity, according to your numbers.

Again, I just want to ask NYIsles1 how you can say they don't sell tickets when the average is that high. Please explain, this isn't in a challenging way I'm seriously wondering what you are talking about

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/teams/schedule?team=nyr&season=2004

 

[mooseOAK*]

Atlanta Flames .. tried and failed (now Calgary Flames)
Cleveland OHIO ..tried and failed (merged with the Minesota North Stars, relocated to Dallas )

Some people learn from other's mistakes, while those that don't are condemned to repeat them through their own misfortune.

The only thing that may in fact have saved the Av's from repeat failure is the strength of the ALL-STAR studded team relocated there and the Championship it won in the first season ..

Should this new NHL and Hard Cap force the Av's back to mediocrity once its current stars are gone, we will truly see if the Denver market supports an NHL team or just a WINNING one .. It will be a great measuring stick to see, because if it can't then other markets far less fortunate then they are, surely are doomed to fail and the only thing missing is time .. and Bettman has dragged the good now down with the sinking ship, which is the fear on many ..

You forgot the California Seals, failed franchise replaced by the Sharks, a successful franchise. Good thing that they didn't learn from past mistakes.

 

[Mess]

You forgot the California Seals, failed franchise replaced by the Sharks, a successful franchise. Good thing that they didn't learn from past mistakes.

Wrong again

The Oakland Seals ... became the California Golden Seals which failed .....and were relocated to Cleveland to become the Barons and failed there as well... and rather then moving them again they were merged with the stuggling Minnesota North Stars and then once merged together became the Dallas Stars ..

Oakland is not San Jose !!!!!!!!!!!

For every San Jose you have an Anaheim..

San Jose is not exactly a good role model of a stable franchise .. It has had plenty of down swings including walking away from Selanne and trading Nolan in cost cutting measures and recently letting Damphouse, Mike Ricci and other UFA walk despite going to the final 4 .. Not a team I would hitch all my hopes and dreams on , not so long ago they Fired Darryl Sutter and struggled mightily IMO..

 

[mooseOAK*]

Wrong again

The Oakland Seals ... became the California Golden Seals which failed .....and were relocated to Cleveland to become the Barons and failed there as well... and rather then moving them again they were merged with the stuggling Minnesota North Stars and then once merged together became the Dallas Stars ..

Oakland is not San Jose !!!!!!!!!!!

For every San Jose you have an Anaheim..

San Jose is not exactly a good role model of a stable franchise .. It has had plenty of down swings including walking away from Selanne and trading Nolan in cost cutting measures and recently letting Damphouse, Mike Ricci and other UFA walk despite going to the final 4 .. Not a team I would hitch all my hopes and dreams on IMO..

Oakland is not San Jose. Priceless.

The Sharks have played at close to 100% capacity for over 10 years. Better than Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa over that stretch of time, I would guess.

 

[Johnnybegood13]

You should provide a link with factual bases before you say something that has been well documented such as the average NHL attendance’s in 2003-2004.

Link

Montreal reins supreme in total attendance(842,767) and average attendance(20,555) last season and will continue to do so once the NHL resumes.

Montreal is followed by Detroit, Toronto, Philadelphia and Vancouver.

Not sure who kenn.com is in your link but according to the Flames themselfs those numbers are wrong for Calgarys attendance.

I have a letter right in front of me from the Flames and they claim that 719,587 people attended regular season games in 03/04 for an average of 17,551 per game.

Not sure where this guy got his numbers? but i think i would beleive the Flames office.

[edit]...maybe he was lazy that year because in the "general propertys" of his webpage it shows... 2002-2003 NHL Attendance - The Sports Attendance Database at kenn.com

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

Messenger, I hate to help Mooseoak look like he knows what he is talking about, but before the Stars moved to Dallas, the franchise was raided by the former owners, the Gund Brothers to stock their new franchise in San Jose. So the Seals became the Barons, were merged by the Gund Brothers into the North Stars and then when they sold the Stars took part of the reserve list to become the Sharks. In a round about way the Barons (who were owned by one of the Gunds) de-merged from the Stars and were Re-christened the Sharks.

 

[grego]

I go to games at the garden and i know they don't bring 18,200 people into the seats, but that does not mean it doesn't "sell out." The paid attendance is more important then what the attendance actually is. The biggest money maker for the NHL is the sale of tickets, which accounted for exactly 50% (coinsidentally?) of the NHL revenue in 2003-2004 which can be found in the Levitt report. The guys that don't show up to the games are the guys who have season tickets, guys who can't make the game because of work, or they are company seats...either way, the place sells out

It hardly matters if 18,200 buy tickets and 100 people show up, they still are bringing in revenues of the avg ticket price times 18,200. I just don't see how your statements regarding baseball have anyhting to do with NYR. The Rangers have absolutly no problem with the Yankees paying there guys $208M as long as they keep bringing 18,000 people to games. Like all other statements you make bashing on NYR, I think you should focus your arguments to Long Island and not Manhattan.

That is likely true that they are sold out.

I know in the 80s when the Leafs totally sucked in the Ballard years. The Maple Leaf Gardens were often ( maybe always ) sold out due to business tickets and stuff like that. But it was not physically full in the stands at all. From a business stand point as long as the ticket is getting sold it doesn't matter if the person comes or not to the game

 

[Mess]

Messenger, I hate to help Mooseoak look like he knows what he is talking about, but before the Stars moved to Dallas, the franchise was raided by the former owners, the Gund Brothers to stock their new franchise in San Jose. So the Seals became the Barons, were merged by the Gund Brothers into the North Stars and then when they sold the Stars took part of the reserve list to become the Sharks. In a round about way the Barons (who were owned by one of the Gunds) de-merged from the Stars and were Re-christened the Sharks.

Isn't that kind of what I posted above, just not mentioning the Gund brothers and San Jose starting back up again, by robbing a few pieces of the old Stars for example??

On May 9, 1990, the NHL granted approval to the Gund brothers to sell the Minnesota North stars in return for the rights to an expansion franchise for the 1991-92 season. The new franchise would be later awarded to the city of San Jose, and in 1993, the Minnesota North Stars were relocated to Dallas and became the Stars.

The Cleveland Barons were Cleveland's SECOND attempt at major league hockey. In the 1970's, the NHL and WHA were in constant combat. Player raids were forcing some teams out of business due to a lack of funds. The California Golden Seals, who played in Oakland, were one of these. The team had been struggling since it entered the NHL in 1967-68, and after the 1975-76 season, the then-owners, the Gund brothers, decided to move it to Cleveland, where the WHA's Cleveland Crusaders played at the Richfield Coliseum. The Seals, who were renamed the Barons, after Cleveland's old AHL team, forced the Crusaders out and took up residence. However, the Barons soon found out why the Crusaders had been struggling. Richfield Coliseum was located in the far southern suburbs, too far from both Cleveland or Akron to draw fans consistently. The Barons' atrocious play didn't help the situation. Outside of strong goaltender Gilles Meloche, the Barons had no stars. For two seasons they played at the Coliseum, but they were getting deeper in the red. At the same time, the Minnesota North Stars were also near bankruptcy. The NHL soon realized that it was about to lose two franchises, and made an attempt to cut its losses. It decided to merge Minnesota and Cleveland into one franchise, owned by the Gund brothers and based in Minnesota. Ironically, Minnesota was where the Crusaders had moved to in 1976. All players on the two teams were pooled, and the team then picked the best ones, with the rest being declared free agents. This marked the end of the NHL in Cleveland.


That whole Gund brothers was a complete mess to the NHL wasn't it?

http://hockey.ballparks.com/NHL/ClevelandBarons/index.htm

​

You are right .. that San Jose was a expansion team in 1991, the TB in 1992 and then the remaining merged Stars/Barons became Dallas in 1993.

Mooseoak is disputing that Oakland, CA is a not different city than San Jose, CA, might as well say San Fransisco is the same city as well ..

Oakland is not San Jose. Priceless.

 

[Icey]

Wrong again


For every San Jose you have an Anaheim..

San Jose is not exactly a good role model of a stable franchise .. It has had plenty of down swings including walking away from Selanne and trading Nolan in cost cutting measures and recently letting Damphouse, Mike Ricci and other UFA walk despite going to the final 4 .. Not a team I would hitch all my hopes and dreams on , not so long ago they Fired Darryl Sutter and struggled mightily IMO..

I believe it was Selanne who chose not to exercise his option on his contract not San Jose walking away from Selanne. Selanne wanted to leave San Jose.

San Jose is one of the smarter teams out there. They have a crop of good young guys in their system. They draft excellent and more important they have top development. The Sharks didn't need Ricci and Damphouse because they have so many young kids waiting to fill their skates. The Sharks knew a new CBA was coming and adjusted for it.

The paid attendance is more important then what the attendance actually is. The biggest money maker for the NHL is the sale of tickets, which accounted for exactly 50% (coinsidentally?) of the NHL revenue in 2003-2004 which can be found in the Levitt report. The guys that don't show up to the games are the guys who have season tickets, guys who can't make the game because of work, or they are company seats...either way, the place sells out

It hardly matters if 18,200 buy tickets and 100 people show up, they still are bringing in revenues of the avg ticket price times 18,200.

Actually you are wrong. The NHL needs to do more than just selling tickets, becasue just selling tickets doesn't make them any money and it actually makes all 30 teams lose money. The teams need you not only to buy the tickets, they need you to show up at the games, park in their lots, buy food at their concession stands and merchandise at their store. Then and only then will teams make money.

 

[Mess]

Sorry but it was Selanne who chose not to exercise his option on his contract not San Jose walking away from Selanne. Selanne wanted to leave San Jose.

San Jose is one of the smarter teams out there. They have a crop of good young guys in their system. They draft excellent and more important they have top development. The Sharks didn't need Ricci and Damphouse because they have so many young kids waiting to fill their skates. The Sharks knew a new CBA was coming and adjusted for it.

I like San Jose so I am not really going to get into any real debate there was a reason that Selanne left and that was to join his buddy Kariya, but he did feel that the team was going into rebuilding with the trading of Nolan ealier, and the had just been through that in the late 90's..

While I agree they do draft well, they have also drafted low Marleau, Stewart, etc, and we shall see how the team performs with all the youth next time the NHL starts up .. Without the vets like Damphousse, Ricci, Curtis Brown and others .. San Jose is acting very much like a newer expansion team, with very little money invested in the team, at this point ..

 

[NYIsles1*]

Again, I just want to ask NYIsles1 how you can say they don't sell tickets when the average is that high. Please explain, this isn't in a challenging way I'm seriously wondering what you are talking about

[url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/teams/schedule?team=nyr&season=2004"]http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/teams/schedule?team=nyr&season=2004[/url]

Fair enough. Hopefully I can explain.

It's not as easy as posting a link to what Dolan reports to Espn as attendance vs what the true numbers are. A lot of other folks in other markets take those numbers and go with it as fact or just think all New York teams draw like the Yankees or only remember the 94 Rangers. The general hockey media in the US today barely knows their own markets much much less other teams.

I already wrote about what the ticket people at Msg said so I will not repeat it. Steve Zipay of Newsday on 12/14/04 wrote about the Ranger television ratings...
***************************
http://www.newsday.com/sports/colum...orts-columnists
(link does not work)

No NHL plus no Cablevision rebates doesn't add up

And unlike the public outcry over missing the high-profile Yankees, fewer subscribers are screaming about the lack of Rangers, Islanders and Devils telecasts. That's because substantially fewer viewers tune in: Last season, Rangers telecasts on MSG produced an average 0.75 rating, or about 60,000 homes.
***************************
Tell me how could a team with those terrible television ratings for 82 games have 18,000 sold tickets? For a little reference those were the Isles television ratings when they had a 15m dollar payroll in the late 90's.......

Going into 2003-04 Dolan told the media before the season began ninety four percent of his seats for Ranger hockey were already sold for the season. Basically that means he only had six percent of his building available to the public for the rest 2003-04 regular season.

Considering the empty seats all over the building at games all season it's just not possible.

Dolan's runs a very political operation at Msg, he is not going to post his true paid attendance or admit he cannot sell tickets when it would be considered a huge failure on his part and neither would a lot of owners.

Let me ask if you do not believe Dolan's reported losses at 40m why are you so willing to accept his attendance figures? What Dolan lie are you more willing to accept.

You never see open seats like that in Philadelphia or Detroit. Look at the media covering the Flyers in that market, look at how small the hockey media is here today. When was the last time as a hockey fan you read an objective article from this market about the work stoppage? You pick up a paper here and it's baseball coverage dominating the public interest.

 

[nyrmessier011]

Fair enough. Hopefully I can explain.

It's not as easy as posting a link to what Dolan reports to Espn as attendance vs what the true numbers are. A lot of other folks in other markets take those numbers and go with it as fact or just think all New York teams draw like the Yankees or only remember the 94 Rangers. The general hockey media in the US today barely knows their own markets much much less other teams.

I already wrote about what the ticket people at Msg said so I will not repeat it. Steve Zipay of Newsday on 12/14/04 wrote about the Ranger television ratings...
***************************
http://www.newsday.com/sports/colum...orts-columnists
(link does not work)

No NHL plus no Cablevision rebates doesn't add up

And unlike the public outcry over missing the high-profile Yankees, fewer subscribers are screaming about the lack of Rangers, Islanders and Devils telecasts. That's because substantially fewer viewers tune in: Last season, Rangers telecasts on MSG produced an average 0.75 rating, or about 60,000 homes.
***************************
Tell me how could a team with those terrible television ratings for 82 games have 18,000 sold tickets? For a little reference those were the Isles television ratings when they had a 15m dollar payroll in the late 90's.......

Going into 2003-04 Dolan told the media before the season began ninety four percent of his seats for Ranger hockey were already sold for the season. Basically that means he only had six percent of his building available to the public for the rest 2003-04 regular season.

Considering the empty seats all over the building at games all season it's just not possible.

Dolan's runs a very political operation at Msg, he is not going to post his true paid attendance or admit he cannot sell tickets when it would be considered a huge failure on his part and neither would a lot of owners.

Let me ask if you do not believe Dolan's reported losses at 40m why are you so willing to accept his attendance figures? What Dolan lie are you more willing to accept.

You never see open seats like that in Philadelphia or Detroit. Look at the media covering the Flyers in that market, look at how small the hockey media is here today. When was the last time as a hockey fan you read an objective article from this market about the work stoppage? You pick up a paper here and it's baseball coverage dominating the public interest.

Thanks for trying to clarify...I'm no accountant or finance wiz, but I know enough to understand that revenues can easily be hidden. To be honest, I don't quite buy into the Levitt Report. I think that what is written on a T-chart isn't an absolut 100% accurate way of representing a teams gain or loss. There are other factors that go into revenues, especially NYR with all the luxury suits that I've been told are partially owned by multi million dollar businesses and are not accurately included as NYR revenue because they are not directly owned by NYR. I sure as hell don't buy into a $40 Million loss which is why I somewhat believe his attendance numbers. Which brings me to what Icey said...

Actually you are wrong. The NHL needs to do more than just selling tickets, becasue just selling tickets doesn't make them any money and it actually makes all 30 teams lose money. The teams need you not only to buy the tickets, they need you to show up at the games, park in their lots, buy food at their concession stands and merchandise at their store. Then and only then will teams make money.

I agree with you, but my point was that the largest intake of revenue comes from gate receipts (50% according to Levitt) so 18k+ on average can't be bad for revenues. I think Forbes counts beyond the T-chart and into what the actual owners are losing. Luxury suits may be indepedently owned for example by Jim Dolan, but officially not be a part of NYR. In this case of owners vs players, you have to count what owners profit/lose. I don't mean to downplay the importance of a team being in the black, but the profits for a team is often far worse then the owners profits. In other words, I won't disagree that 19 teams lost money--but how many owners lost money? I would guess less then 19.

I think NYR lost money because Icey is right, you need the food, beverage, parking etc revenues...but it makes sense that the attendance really is 18k+ on average but only 11k are at the game buying food etc. I don't buy into $40M because there's no way Dolan actually lost that much (altho maybe NYR as the franchise on the T-chart did), but I do believe the paid attendance is 18k+...even I know personally quite a few family members who have season tickets, and family members who work for NY firms who have season tickets, and they simply just don't go to games ever...it's sad, but companies can afford to blow $2k a year to have the good seats for when the team is good again.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

Another reason the Rangers lost money, lets face it...

Jagr, Lindros, Messier, Holik, Poti plus a bunch of overpriced 3rd/4th liners and 3-4 d-men... and NO playoffs year after year after year.... equals a loss no matter how much you sell out...

 

[NYIsles1*]

I sure as hell don't buy into a $40 Million loss which is why I somewhat believe his attendance numbers. .

Ask yourself a question. Why does a team with ninety four percent of his tickets sold as Dolan claimed have to advertise tickets are available for upcoming games on every broadcast last season?

It comes down to a question of credibility. Dolan claimed the 40.9 million dollar loss to Levitt, no one forced him to do this. Dolan is a person who never has cared one bit about what Bettman wanted him to do. All of a sudden he is willing to be the poster boy for losing revenue in the NHL when no other team stepped up?

This is an owner who pays the Islanders almost as much as the Rangers make in television revenue just to keep them off television and sues everyone who gives him any opposition. This is a man who would not let Marv Albert talk up the opposition or rip the Knicks on his telecasts so he would not renew his contract.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Going into 2003-04 Dolan told the media before the season began ninety four percent of his seats for Ranger hockey were already sold for the season. Basically that means he only had six percent of his building available to the public for the rest 2003-04 regular season.

Considering the empty seats all over the building at games all season it's just not possible.

Dolan's runs a very political operation at Msg, he is not going to post his true paid attendance or admit he cannot sell tickets when it would be considered a huge failure on his part and neither would a lot of owners.

It seems like your opinion is based on what you see in the stands...but the thing is in NY a ton of seats are paid for by people and companies with huge money who don't go to a weekday game all year, for example. I don't care how many seats are open...I don't care 1,000 people go to Rangers games...but you can't argue that almost all of the arena is not sold for each game. Say whatever you want about fan support and attention to hockey in NYC and say whatever you want about the stands not being full, because you are right most of the time. But the bottom line is that each game almost all of the tickets are sold. NYR might not make as much as they should on concessions etc. but you as far as ticket sales go they are fine, even if it might not look like it.

You never see open seats like that in Philadelphia or Detroit. Look at the media covering the Flyers in that market, look at how small the hockey media is here today. When was the last time as a hockey fan you read an objective article from this market about the work stoppage? You pick up a paper here and it's baseball coverage dominating the public interest.

The unfortunate thing is that as little coverage as the Rangers get in NYC, it's still more than most other markets. Yes, NYR is competing against other teams in their market for attention...but even though they are losing the battle they are still in better shape than most of the other NHL teams. Come up with as many problems as you want, there are more in other NHL markets.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

It comes down to a question of credibility. Dolan claimed the 40.9 million dollar loss to Levitt, no one forced him to do this. Dolan is a person who never has cared one bit about what Bettman wanted him to do. All of a sudden he is willing to be the poster boy for losing revenue in the NHL when no other team stepped up?

Yea, and to me Dolan is not one bit credible. None of these owners are, no one with that much money is.

We don't that no one forced him to do it, unless you have a link. Of course no one put a gun to his head, but considering claiming those losses could be in his best interest as well as his fellow owners...and considering he could have overstated losses...it's certainly possible he's not being truthful.

You are right in saying that Dolan doesn't care about Bettman, he probably doesn't care about anyone but himself. He probably cares most about money...so if overstating losses could help the league get a cap, which would boost his franchises' value(a franchise which his company is rumoured to be thinking about selling) than why not overstate losses?

 

[nyrmessier011]

Yea, and to me Dolan is not one bit credible. None of these owners are, no one with that much money is.

We don't that no one forced him to do it, unless you have a link. Of course no one put a gun to his head, but considering claiming those losses could be in his best interest as well as his fellow owners...and considering he could have overstated losses...it's certainly possible he's not being truthful.

You are right in saying that Dolan doesn't care about Bettman, he probably doesn't care about anyone but himself. He probably cares most about money...so if overstating losses could help the league get a cap, which would boost his franchises' value(a franchise which his company is rumoured to be thinking about selling) than why not overstate losses?

Dolan is one of the least credible humans I've ever heard of. He is currently fueding with his own father over keeping some business venture afloat or not--lawsuits etc. Cablevision is a mess and because they own MSG, dolan constantly, and i mean CONSTANTLY fueds with Time Warner (manhattan cable provider) about playing mets/knicks/rangers games. Right now Mets games are being blacked out. This literally happens every 6 months. This guy is a an absolut mess, should not be trusted and I pray someone finds some dirt on him to send him to jail.

 

[codswallop]

Atlanta Flames .. tried and failed (now Calgary Flames)

The owner of the Atlanta Flames failed, not the team. He lost a bundle in the late 70s when his primary business, real estate, hit the skids. He had no choice but to sell the team. Despite attempts to keep the team in Atlanta, the offer from the Calgary investors was too much to pass up.

The Atlanta Flames weren't in the top flight, as you might call it. But they were as solid franchise, which is ironic. I remember reading a few quotes after the NHL awarded an expansion team to Atlanta in the early 70s; saying that the NHL was senile, this was be an enormous mistake, the team would flop, etc (similar to comments made about the Thrashers in the last five years). The Flames turned out to be solid and many people had to eat crow. Unfortunately, something outside the scope of the franchise and the game forced a sale and they were moved to Calgary.

Despite what you may have thought before, the team didn't fail.

 

[kdb209]

But you don't disagree with my comments then. The Rangers should exist because they put 18,200 fans in the seats 33 out of 41 home games a year and the other games are 18,000+. For NYR, the image and media problem doesn't come close to the problems in 25 or so other cities, nor does image matter that much to NYR, TOR or DET because they sellout more games then the other franchises combined I bet.

Your bet would be wrong.

The numbers are a bit old - from 2001-02 - from a NYR Press Release - but the point still holds. NYR/DET/TOR are not the only teams that sellout (or nearly sellout) - in fact of those 3, only DET sold out all 41 games. 5 teams sold out all games and 6 others had 99%+ attendance.

http://www.newyorkrangers.com/pressbox/pressreleases.asp?id=584

RECORD ATTENDANCE
The 2001-2002 regular season saw NHL fans turn out in record numbers once again. The total attendance was 20,614,613 and the per-game average was 16,760.

The total represented an increase of 1.2% from the previous high of 20,373,379, set last season. The per-game average exceeded the prior record of 16,564, also set in 2000-2001.

The Colorado Avalanche, Columbus Blue Jackets, Dallas Stars, Detroit Red Wings and Minnesota Wild reported sellouts for each of their 41 home games. Colorado boasts the NHL's longest current sellout streak at 336 games, including playoffs. The streak began Nov. 9, 1995, during the team's inaugural season in Denver.

The New York Rangers, Edmonton Oilers, Philadelphia Flyers, St. Louis Blues, San Jose Sharks and Toronto Maple Leafs played to crowds of 99% of capacity or better for the full season.

 

[kdb209]

San Jose is not exactly a good role model of a stable franchise .. It has had plenty of down swings including walking away from Selanne and trading Nolan in cost cutting measures and recently letting Damphouse, Mike Ricci and other UFA walk despite going to the final 4 .. Not a team I would hitch all my hopes and dreams on , not so long ago they Fired Darryl Sutter and struggled mightily IMO..

The Sharks - Plenty of downswings????

They have had a grand total of 1 down yr in attendance in their history (2003-04). That was after the complete debacle of 2002-03, trading Owen Nolan, firing Sutter, firing the GM, and having Teemu leave as a UFA (Note that Teemu chose to leave - he did not pick up his player option - the Sharks did not "walk away" from him). And that one down yr was still 90%+ of capacity - most of that shortfall happening in Oct/Nov/Dec. When the Sharks started winning the sellouts and near sellouts came back.

Season Total Average
2003-04 649,261 15,836
2002-03 711,386 17,351
2001-02 714,337 17,420

Season Total Capacity
2000-01 716,196 99.8%
1999-00 708,925 99%
1998-99 693,029 97%
1997-98 701,494 98%
1996-97 714,238 100%
1995-96 704,790 98%
1994-95 412,560 98%
1993-94 680,407 95%
1992-93 452,849 100%

Season Total Average
1991-92 435,520 10,888


Yes - San Jose is not Oakland - it is almost 3x the size. It is also bigger than SF, BTW - passed it over a decade ago.

Again - San Jose is the 9th friggen largest city in the US. With demographics that most markets would drool over.

You decry the firing of Darryl Sutter - It was the right move at the time. Yes, he had led the Sharks to 5 straight years of increasing pts, but coaches have a shelf life. He was completely unable to adjust to the collapse in early 02-03, the players had by then completely zoned him out. Darryl is a great coach, unfortunately he is better at taking a team of adequate talent and making them play his system and over achieve. He is not a great coach on a more talented team - he forces all his players to conform to his system, rather than adapt his style to match his teams strengths.

They didn't fire Sutter and then struggle mightily - they fired Sutter because they were struggling mightily. And you notice where they were in Wilson's first full season - 104 pts and a Pacific Division title - yup, that's sure struggling.

Maybe you meant downturns in terms of points. Nope again.

YEAR W L T OL PTS Finish
2003-04 43 21 12 6 104 1st
2002-03 28 37 9 8 73 5th
2001-02 44 27 8 3 99 1st
2000-01 40 27 12 3 95 2nd
1999-00 35 30 10 7 87 4th
1998-99 31 33 18 80 4th
1997-98 34 38 10 78 4th
1996-97 27 47 8 62 7th
1995-96 20 55 7 47 7th
1994-95 19 25 4 42 3rd
1993-94 33 35 16 82 3rd
1992-93 11 71 2 24 6th
1991-92 17 58 5 39 6th

OK, two downturns in pts - 02-03 (after 8 yrs of increasing pt totals) and 95-96 (after their two improbable early playoff yrs) and by the way they had a 100+ game sellout streak during that "downturn".

You complain about letting Damphousse and Ricci go. Both were overpaid for their roles. Yes Vinny had a nice playoffs, but his regular season was pitiful. The Sharks were cutting salary, getting in position for a post-lockout (probably hard cap) world and making room on their roster for younger players (Sturm, Goc. Michalek). Ricci would have been nice to have back, but Vinny would not have made this team come last October (if there was a last October). He can't play on a 3rd or 4th line and is way behind Marleau, Sturm, and McCauley (and probably Goc and Michalek at this point) on the depth chart.

 

[Mess]

It really wasn't about San Jose .

It was about Oakland and the California Golden Seals failing and someone who thought that was disproved because they thought Oakland is the same city as San Jose ..