Teams that Lost Money in 2004

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

i live in denver and i can tell you i went to a bunch of DU games this year during a championship season - and most of the games were half empty till the cc games toward the end.

I live here too, which is why I don't understand the characterizations you're making. And regarding your statement about DU attendance above, they averaged 6067 (in a 6026-seat arena) for the entire year. Every game was over capacity.

we agree to respectfully disagree. i just dont see how its clear that denver is a better market.

And as I said, I live here too, and I don't see how it's not clear to you. Unless you have some data on the Raleigh market that we're not familiar with. Before the Avs even arrived in Denver, e.g., during the '94-'95 season, this market led all non-NHL markets in hockey TV ratings by a mile... it wasn't even close. Prior to the Canes' arrival in Raleigh, did that market demonstrate a similar overwhelming dominance over the rest of the markets in the nation without NHL teams in terms of hockey TV ratings? Does Raleigh have anywhere near the same per capita participation in the sport of hockey as is found in this area? Does a Denver college hockey tradition that goes back well over half a century count for nothing?

hockey has been invisible this year in denver.

As opposed to all of those US markets where hockey has been the driving passion of sports fans during this never-ending lockout.

For someone who doesn't even live here, I think Bruwinz37 had a pretty good handle on the market.

 

[bleedgreen]

i went to st cloud, BU, wisconsin, CC - and only cc was close to capacity. every other game the entire upper section was available. i know this because i moved from crappy seats to really good ones. the numbers show season tickets holders who werent there maybe? i only speak from the games i was at - there was plenty of room at all of them except the cc game that was the last home gane of the season. i was really surprised for the lack of turnout of the games i went to. wisconsin is a big rival and BU had chris bourque. upper section was half empty. the history counts for nothing unless people really care. i can only speak for myself, maybe you're surrounded by DU freaks everywhere you go, but i play twice a week, ref three times a week, coach twice a week -and have had a similar schedule for the last 7 years (whole time ive lived here in CO). ive also had fulltime/part time jobs in rinks in denver as well as springs - i bsae my opinions on people i spend my time around, who have been predominantly hockey people. ive worked in office jobs and places not at all affiliated with hockey, so i feel i have a grasp of how the other side of it thinks.

i feel confidant that if the avs moved to raliegh instead of denver - they wouldve done just as well...thats my point and the only one im defending. i think the canes wouldnt have done as well here in denver - and attendance would be lagging. its my opinion, you can get insulted about my views of denver - its your right but i feel its as accurate as anyone else's is. raliegh is as legitimate a hockey market as denver - i stand by it.

as far as the areas hockey participation - im sure the raliegh numbers are improving after the team arrived in 99, much like the avs did over time. from everything ive heard from working in hockey rinks almost the entire time the avs have been in town - the avs are responsible for a major boost in local hockey, which wasnt all that good prior to the avs arrival.

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

i went to st cloud, BU, wisconsin, CC - and only cc was close to capacity. every other game the entire upper section was available.

I honestly don't know how to respond to a claim of an empty upper level when every shot I've seen of the arena on telecasts indicated otherwise, when every game was not only at, but above, a sellout, and when the players, coaches, and staff spoke repeatedly about how much it meant to them to play in front of packed houses every single night this year. I'm at a loss... we can just let this one go, I guess... maybe there were parallel universes during the DU hockey season this year.

the history counts for nothing unless people really care.

This I don't understand. College hockey has its own following in each town/city in which college hockey is played. I'm not sure why you're choosing to single out this one and declare that people don't care.

i feel confidant that if the avs moved to raliegh instead of denver - they wouldve done just as well...thats my point and the only one im defending. i think the canes wouldnt have done as well here in denver - and attendance would be lagging. its my opinion, you can get insulted about my views of denver - its your right but i feel its as accurate as anyone else's is. raliegh is as legitimate a hockey market as denver - i stand by it.

I'm not insulted... it's not like you called me a bad hockey fan. I'm just disagreeing with your characterizations. It's no revelation that attendance anywhere will suffer with a crap team and improve with a good team. There's also no way to prove the degree to which these trends would carry themselves out in these respective markets under different conditions without seeing it played out. I did at least offer one objective measure--TV ratings at a time when no NHL team was in town (you didn't respond to this one). I can't claim to know about Raleigh, but I'd be willing to bet the farm that they weren't demonstrating that same kind of interest (gap between themselves and the rest of markets without teams) in hockey before the Canes arrived in town.

For the record, I also play regularly, ref some, and have been doing so for many years here... but I don't hang around with only "DU freaks."

 

[nyr7andcounting]

If the owners "police themselves" then they are guilty of collusion.

There's a difference between 30 different owners sticking to 30 different budgets and collusion.

And if you don't think so than they can make the teams' books public, and than we will know how much each can really afford and it would be up to that individual owner to decide if he wants to spend that and break even or spend more and lose money that year.

 

[bleedgreen]

I honestly don't know how to respond to a claim of an empty upper level when every shot I've seen of the arena on telecasts indicated otherwise, when every game was not only at, but above, a sellout, and when the players, coaches, and staff spoke repeatedly about how much it meant to them to play in front of packed houses every single night this year. I'm at a loss... we can just let this one go, I guess... maybe there were parallel universes during the DU hockey season this year.


This I don't understand. College hockey has its own following in each town/city in which college hockey is played. I'm not sure why you're choosing to single out this one and declare that people don't care.

I did at least offer one objective measure--TV ratings at a time when no NHL team was in town (you didn't respond to this one). I can't claim to know about Raleigh, but I'd be willing to bet the farm that they weren't demonstrating that same kind of interest (gap between themselves and the rest of markets without teams) in hockey before the Canes arrived in town.

i in no way meant du freaks as an insult - because i am one im not trying to insult denver as an area, i love it here - its just after being on these boards for a while i feel the perception of the area doesnt mesh with my experiences. as for the games, i dont know what the telecasts showed but typically they really focus on the lower bowl and the student section - and the broadcasts are always going to talk glowingly of the fans and the overall atmosphere - its basically required. i wouldnt expect them to complain during the broadcasts, and one thing ive noticed in the denver media versus back east...everything out here seems so positive. most bad things that happen to the teams doesnt seem to hold the spotlight (or be thrust into it) as much as back east. i can tell that three of the four games i went to had tons of empty seats. i talked to my girlfriend about it, to see if i was remembering it wrong - she couldnt believe people think they way you do about it. she reminded me of a couple of stories about our experiences of sitting basically anywhere we wanted. we had to scalp seats because there supposedly wasnt any tickets, but the entire upper bowl was half empty. i guess there is a ton of season tickets holders that dont show earlier in the year - its my only explanation for the discrepency. i know where your getting your facts from -but i was there. im not trying to pick on them - im just refuting the notion that denver is a "college hockey hotbed" that the bruins poster remarked about. im a huge du fan, and do know other fans - imo its just not the "hotbed" people seem to think it is. i have also been at many of the avs supposed sellouts (i worked at the games for about 2 years), and can tell you that many werent even close in terms of actual butts in seats. i think this is just a numbers thing teams do to make it look positive - a count of fans through the turnstiles would be more accurate - imo. i agree that DU has its own following, but i dont think that makes denver a hockey hotbed - the group just isnt that big. i also think its also mostly seperate from the avs - much like how cc fans are a set group regardless of what pro hockey is going on. the avs coming or going doesnt affect this small group - and it has little affect in terms of making the city a good pro market.

as far as the good teams have more fans - that part of the conversation came from the bruins poster and wasnt meant to be in your direction - my rebuttals toward him ended up in my posts for you. as for the ratings - im just not in tune with them and arent familiar or trusting of them enough to use them as a basis for or against the discussion. im sure you can back that up - i just dont know what i would agree with in terms of the overall worth of market in terms of tv success. the nhl has no tv success - so i cant see the percentages you would use being a big deal.

 

[mooseOAK*]

There's a difference between 30 different owners sticking to 30 different budgets and collusion.

And if you don't think so than they can make the teams' books public, and than we will know how much each can really afford and it would be up to that individual owner to decide if he wants to spend that and break even or spend more and lose money that year.

Then you have the same situation as MLB where there are teams that will never have any hope of making the playoffs and develop prospects only to have them leave for the highest bidder once they get to their prime. Better to follow the lead of the NFL which is far more successful.

 

[Weary]

Then you have the same situation as MLB where there are teams that will never have any hope of making the playoffs and develop prospects only to have them leave for the highest bidder once they get to their prime. Better to follow the lead of the NFL which is far more successful.

The NFL became sucdessful well before they had a salary cap. It became the most popular sport in the U.S. when there were dynasties and near-dynasties. Of course, the owners engaged in a great deal of revenue sharing, so no franchise was poor. You can't point to the NFL to show that you need a salary cap because they were also successful when they didn't have one.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Then you have the same situation as MLB where there are teams that will never have any hope of making the playoffs and develop prospects only to have them leave for the highest bidder once they get to their prime. Better to follow the lead of the NFL which is far more successful.

First off all there are 15-20 teams in MLB this year with a shot at the playoffs...and only 8 teams make the playoffs. If 16 teams made the playoffs, like the NHL, almost every team in the league would go into this season with a shot at it. Second, there are no Yankees in the NHL. No NHL owner can spend a huge multiple of what other teams spend.

The NFL has nothing to do with it. They introduced revenue sharing long before they had a cap. I wish the NHL would have followed the NFL's lead, but they didn't. Unlike NFL owners, NHL owners have never wanted a partnership with each other (at least they haven't for the entire negotiations, rumours are that it will change but we will see).

But anyway, owners can "police" themselves without being charged with collusion. It's called sticking to a budget. Doesn't matter what that budget is and if they want to share revenues they can be very similar, but the point is fiscal restraint isn't illegal.

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

as for the games, i dont know what the telecasts showed but typically they really focus on the lower bowl and the student section - and the broadcasts are always going to talk glowingly of the fans and the overall atmosphere - its basically required.

FWIW, I was referring to my own observations when there were occasional shots up higher, not broadcaster comments. But again, might as well let this go with no-shows (or late arrivers) being an explanation for empty seats you saw.

i have also been at many of the avs supposed sellouts (i worked at the games for about 2 years), and can tell you that many werent even close in terms of actual butts in seats.

But again, you're trying to single out Denver for some reason that I can't explain. Every team counts attendance the same way, and every team has more reported paid attendance than literal butts in the seats. Have you ever taken a look at the masses of empties at the ACC? Or at MSG? Or at Joe Louis? Pepsi Center is no different. Empty seats at lots of games, especially at the start of the game (or the end as people start to leave early... especially the corporate types).

i agree that DU has its own following, but i dont think that makes denver a hockey hotbed - the group just isnt that big.

Again, this is basically what college hockey followings are in almost any market--smaller, devoted followings. And in this case, we're also talking about a small school situated in a four-sport major metro area. Most college hockey games aren't going to dominate the local sports world in an area with this type of saturation... at least until things heat up with special rivalries or post-season developments. Do you think routine games involving the U of Michigan hockey team take over the sports scene in the Detroit area, right up there with the Lions/Tigers/Wings?

the nhl has no tv success - so i cant see the percentages you would use being a big deal.

The NHL has had little success nationally. Some areas have stood out, however, including this one. And that's been true on many levels... both with and without a local team involved.

 

[nyrmessier011]

If the owners "police themselves" then they are guilty of collusion.

you don't collude when you stick to a budget to prevent going into the red. Something tells me these morons knew to just keep spending and not bothering policing themsleves in 1999 so that they could cry even harder to all of you today...and whatta you know, 75% of you buy into there crap!

 

[Johnnybegood13]

Wait, you mean for Calgary to make money they had to be successful...interesting...I thought owners were supposed to simply be handed an envelope filled with money at the start of every day.

Who would have thought that success on the ice (and in good business decisions) could translate into business success?

Your statement gets my vote as best fan without a brain post of the year

 

[mooseOAK*]

The NFL became sucdessful well before they had a salary cap. It became the most popular sport in the U.S. when there were dynasties and near-dynasties. Of course, the owners engaged in a great deal of revenue sharing, so no franchise was poor. You can't point to the NFL to show that you need a salary cap because they were also successful when they didn't have one.

The obvious question then is, why did they feel the need to have a salary cap if everything was so successful beforehand?

The reason being the same as the NHL. In order to maintain a healthy league with franchises in as many places as possible to create and maintain interest in the game there had to be some sort of cost control.

 

[mooseOAK*]

you don't collude when you stick to a budget to prevent going into the red. Something tells me these morons knew to just keep spending and not bothering policing themsleves in 1999 so that they could cry even harder to all of you today...and whatta you know, 75% of you buy into there crap!

I love being called dumb by people who write like that.

Had teams in the NHL in 1999 or at any time decided to stop signing free agents to keep their bottom lines in order the collusion charges would be coming thick and fast. Along with the whining of the fans of teams that their club should be spending money to try to win, probably the same bunch that are calling the owners stupid now for spending that money.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

The obvious question then is, why did they feel the need to have a salary cap if everything was so successful beforehand?

The reason being the same as the NHL. In order to maintain a healthy league with franchises in as many places as possible to create and maintain interest in the game there had to be some sort of cost control.

Because the league became so succesful that even with revenue sharing, the playing field wouldn't be level unless the big markets were capped. Not to mention I believe the PA accepted a cap because at the time it raised salaries somewhat and they also got free agency for the first time ever.

 

[AM]

yah

Interestingly ..

The teams that have been reported to be the strongest supporters of Bettman and a Lower Hard Cap :

Chicago, Boston, Calgary, Edmonton, Nashville .. all are not on the losing list ..

They want to compete, but all the other teams did was inflate salaries so they couldnt afford any players.

Bad CBA bad!

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Had teams in the NHL in 1999 or at any time decided to stop signing free agents to keep their bottom lines in order the collusion charges would be coming thick and fast.

No they wouldn't? Sticking to a budget, every business in the world does it and they don't get charged with collusion. It is not illegal.

How about the teams make their books public, than fans can't complain about anything.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Several teams have done just that and surprise, surprise the PA refused to look at the books . . . perhaps they fear (know) that the owners are more truthful than not.

 

[mooseOAK*]

No they wouldn't? Sticking to a budget, every business in the world does it and they don't get charged with collusion. It is not illegal.

How about the teams make their books public, than fans can't complain about anything.

It has probably been pointed out thousands of times but NHL teams are franchises and not individual businesses. They can't go by their own rules they have to go by the CBA.

Any attempt by the owners en masse to control the spending on players unilaterally would be met with so much resistance from the NHLPA your head would be spinning from reading about all the charges they would be levying. If we have learned anything about how things work form this whole mess that is one.

 

[Icey]

They want to compete, but all the other teams did was inflate salaries so they couldnt afford any players.

Bad CBA bad!

Since when has Chicago ever wanted to compete. The Hawks are a pure write-off for Wirtz and nothing more. He could afford the player, he just choose not to. Winning has never been part of Wirtz's agenda and probably never will be. What owner would choose to not show every home game on TV?

 

[Icey]

Several teams have done just that and surprise, surprise the PA refused to look at the books . . . perhaps they fear (know) that the owners are more truthful than not.

Teams have not made their books public. Only the LA kings made their books available to one particular fan, but the books were never allowed to be made public.

I have been following the CBA issues for a few years now and not once I have ever heard the NHL say "your welcome to come and examine all 30 teams books on your terms. The teams will open their books up to them and they are free to do a thorough examination." And when the NHLPA wanted to go through the levitt report last summer, the NHL accused them of stalling and that it was pointless in the negotiating process.

 

[AM]

thats

Its only 50 Miles to San Fransisco as well from San Jose .. So do you count them ??..

Only a bridge separates SF and Oakland??

Is Hamilton the same as Toronto to you??

What the NHL says.

 

[NYIsles1*]

Uh, they are filled because those are good hockey markets? MSG is not filled because there is plenty of competition for entertainment money in NYC and they haven't made the playoffs in 7 years. What's your point?

My point is win or lose no matter what the Rangers spend they cannot compete for attention vs their competition in New York anymore. In other markets hockey can expand and compete, here that's not possible and will remain that way and likely continue to regress.

Things are not good when you spend 80m and your seats are not sold and filled like they are in Philadelphia or Montreal. As a matter of fact the Rangers should be doing even better than those team in the stands with a huge waiting list. The Rangers traded for Jagr and there was absolutely no buzz at all here because he is a small market signing compared to A-Rod.

If Jagr was traded to Nashville he would become a major market star there and elevate hockey. Here he is just another big name playing on the market's seventh or eighth team with the media.

You still don't know how many seats are sold in advance to companies and season ticket holders with tons of money that barely show up. Sometimes they'll go for a period and a half, sometimes not at all. I'm not talking about fan attention, I'm talking simple paid attendance...I don't think it is any less than 17,000 on any night, and most nights it's more than that when the walk-ups show up for a good game.

When Newsday reports only 60,000 homes tune into Ranger games on Msg that's a serious lack of fan attention and even though your not talking about that it's what drives ticket sales. Tell me how is a team with general interest that low with no reporters, radio shows or columnists to drive attention with the public getting anyone to purchase all the seats you think are sold at those high prices?

This has nothing to do with what I said. "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."

I have given you several examples of Hockey coverage in other markets being greater in volume and superior to New York and why. The problem here is unique because other hockey markets do have room for growth while here nothing hockey can do will pull attention from baseball's lock on the public interest
year-round. This was not the case ten or twenty years ago and when the Devils won the cup in today's baseball-driven media market we saw it up close how tough the problem is for hockey in this area.

Again, I don't care what kind of attention the Rangers get compared to the Yankees, Mets etc. Say whatever you want about NYR's popularity in NYC, they are still better off than a majority of the NHL so what is your point? If you are looking to contract teams, there are over a dozen teams with more problems than NYR. If you are simply looking to point out deficiencies in NHL markets, you will have a lot more to talk about if you focus on other markets.

My point is they are not better off because win or lose they are the seventh or eighth team with the general public in Manhattan. The Pittsburgh Penguins can be the first team in that market after football season and create excellent media support and interest to drive that market. That will not happen here.

I'm also not calling for the contraction of any team but today it's a bad idea to have a team inside the Yankees-Mets baseball market. Especially after they cannot get any attention with the highest payrolls in the sport and have such a small demographic of fans following hockey to begin with.

I think a 30-40m dollar successful team with a few franchise players in Nashville, Phoenix, Carolina will get attention and interest in those markets. A lot more than an 80m dollar product in Manhattan has done.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

It has probably been pointed out thousands of times but NHL teams are franchises and not individual businesses. They can't go by their own rules they have to go by the CBA.

Any attempt by the owners en masse to control the spending on players unilaterally would be met with so much resistance from the NHLPA your head would be spinning from reading about all the charges they would be levying. If we have learned anything about how things work form this whole mess that is one.

That makes no sense.

So what your saying is the CBA says only a certain amount of owners can work on their revenues, the rest need to spend as much as they can and lose money? Makes no sense.

Each owner has a different amount of revenues and a different amount of expenses outside of player costs. With that said, every team has a different amount they can spend on players in order to break even. And your telling me that if each owner spends that amount because he doesn't want to lose money, it's collusion? No, we aren't talking about one "budget" league-wide, and we're not talking about a cap. If every team has a different budget to stick to, and they stick to it, there is nothing illegal in that.

 

[kdb209]

Teams have not made their books public. Only the LA kings made their books available to one particular fan, but the books were never allowed to be made public.

I have been following the CBA issues for a few years now and not once I have ever heard the NHL say "your welcome to come and examine all 30 teams books on your terms. The teams will open their books up to them and they are free to do a thorough examination." And when the NHLPA wanted to go through the levitt report last summer, the NHL accused them of stalling and that it was pointless in the negotiating process.

Levitt et al welcomed the NHLPA to go through their numbers, but the PA wasn't interested.

From the Pittsburgh Post Gazette:
Accused of failing to disclose luxury box revenues in former U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt's report of NHL finances in February 2003, Wirtz was cleared of any wrongdoings by another member of the commission.
"Let me say without reservation that when the Levitt Report was done, it was ensured that all hockey-related luxury box revenues were included in the reported revenues," former commission chief accountant Lynn Turner wrote in an e-mail to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "Unfortunately, the players have refused to accept Mr. Levitt's written offer to sit down with them and take them through the numbers. This has led to such uninformed statements."
The accusation was made by Penguins defenseman Brooks Orpik, who told the newspaper Wirtz "declared no revenue from luxury boxes at the United Center in Chicago."

And as for first hand info - Greg Jaimison, President, CEO, and managing partner of the San Jose Sharks ownership group, told me straight to my face (at a small Season Ticket Holder's breakfast) that the Sharks have offered to open up their books and those of SVSE (Sillicon Valley Sports & Entrtainment), the umbrella organization that owns the Sharks and manages the San Jose Arena (I hate the HP Pavilion name). The Union refused.

 

[CGG]

It has probably been pointed out thousands of times but NHL teams are franchises and not individual businesses. They can't go by their own rules they have to go by the CBA.

Any attempt by the owners en masse to control the spending on players unilaterally would be met with so much resistance from the NHLPA your head would be spinning from reading about all the charges they would be levying. If we have learned anything about how things work form this whole mess that is one.

It's the NHL that's filing a charge against the players every other day, not the other way around. Sticking to a budget is not collusion, nor would it ever be called collusion by the players. Collusion would be a league-wide memo saying "spend no more than $30 million on salaries or else".

All along the players have wanted their so-called "market" system, meaning the owners pay them what they are worth and what they can afford. No more, no less. They actually want owners to set a budget and stick to it. Despite their business savvy, owners apparently have no ability to do this, so they claim they need an artificially-set number that will physically prevent them from spending more. That is why there's a lockout.

Florida stuck to their budget. Pittsburgh gutted their team to stick to their budget, I didn't see any collusion charges. The Ducks didn't think Kariya was worth a $10 million qualifying offer, so they turned him loose. No collusion charges. The Rangers dumped payroll and didn't sign any significant free agents last summer while Chicago has toiled in mediocrity for years, again, no collusion charges.