Why can't Goodenow just understand?

[dawgbone]

If you were an owner and paid $250 million USD. for the Colorado Avalanche, shouldn't you expect to generate more revenue than an owner that paid $150 million Cdn. for the Ottawa Senators ???

Naturally... I am not sure what you're problem is.

I am not talking about revenue generation, I am talking about spending.

Revenue generation isn't the problem... there is enough money for a healthy 30 team league...

The problem is spending. Alot of teams do practice smart business decisions for themselves (spending within their means), but it doesn't mean that it is good for the league on a whole, especially when other teams try and keep up by spending outside their means.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

It's not about generating it's about spending... if you can generate twice as much as some other teams but were REGULATED to spend the same amount as everyone else, then isn't that a good thing in terms of your investment?

That depends on why you bought the team in the first place.

95% of owners in all sports bought the team for a reason other than "an investment to make money"

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Naturally... I am not sure what you're problem is.

I am not talking about revenue generation, I am talking about spending.

Revenue generation isn't the problem... there is enough money for a healthy 30 team league...

The problem is spending. Alot of teams do practice smart business decisions for themselves (spending within their means), but it doesn't mean that it is good for the league on a whole, especially when other teams try and keep up by spending outside their means.

Revenue generation is a MAJOR problem for some teams.

 

[dawgbone]

Revenue generation is a MAJOR problem for some teams.

Well, depends on what you mean...

If you mean that not every team eclipses $100mil in revenue, you are bang on.

If you mean that teams can't be financially viable with proper salary controls and a certain amount of revenue sharing (say from a salary cap), I would have to disagree.

I mean, you could have a stable franchise that only generates $40-50mil in revenues... which I am sure most teams are at least pulling in.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Well, depends on what you mean...

If you mean that not every team eclipses $100mil in revenue, you are bang on.

If you mean that teams can't be financially viable with proper salary controls and a certain amount of revenue sharing (say from a salary cap), I would have to disagree.

I mean, you could have a stable franchise that only generates $40-50mil in revenues... which I am sure most teams are at least pulling in.

I disagree with you there.

IMO an average of about $40 million across the board is the best the NHL owners can realistically expect.

If $40 million is going to be the average, I think a team needs to generate close to $60 million to be considered financially stable.

 

[dawgbone]

That depends...

If your revenues are maxed out at $40mil, you are toast. That means if you sellout the building, and maximize every source of revenue you can muster, there is no saving you.

However, if you are pulling in $40mil, without maxing out your revenue streams and you cap your own payroll at $30mil, and say get a luxury tax payment of $3-4mil, your salary to revenue ratio is still a little high, but you still have the ability to increase your own revenues.

Sometimes it's by going out and really selling your team to the public. The Edmonton Oilers have been absolutely fantastic at maximizing their revenues by doing things like getting the corporate community as well as the general public involved in everything.

Will every teams maximum revenues be enough? I honestly don't know. There may be a couple of teams, who despite the fact they are making as much money as possible, can't compete.

But if they've survived this long, let's see how long they survive in a salary-controlled era.

 

[copperandblue]

That depends on why you bought the team in the first place.

95% of owners in all sports bought the team for a reason other than "an investment to make money"

That may be, in fact I largely agree with that sentiment.

My comment was just in response to you saying that, if feasible, owners should have the right to generate more money.

I thought it missed the mark on what Dawgbone was originally talking about ...which was spending.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

That depends...

If your revenues are maxed out at $40mil, you are toast. That means if you sellout the building, and maximize every source of revenue you can muster, there is no saving you.

However, if you are pulling in $40mil, without maxing out your revenue streams and you cap your own payroll at $30mil, and say get a luxury tax payment of $3-4mil, your salary to revenue ratio is still a little high, but you still have the ability to increase your own revenues.

Sometimes it's by going out and really selling your team to the public. The Edmonton Oilers have been absolutely fantastic at maximizing their revenues by doing things like getting the corporate community as well as the general public involved in everything.

Will every teams maximum revenues be enough? I honestly don't know. There may be a couple of teams, who despite the fact they are making as much money as possible, can't compete.

But if they've survived this long, let's see how long they survive in a salary-controlled era.

The thing is it takes TIME to maximize revenues. Teams in Tampa, Nashville, Miami, Charlotte etc. should be focusing on growing their revenues.

Philadelphia wasn't a hockey town or market in 1967 or 1971, but the Flyers were smart a built a strong organization, therefore it's now one of the strongest franchises in the NHL.

IMO if Ed Snider owned the Penguins, Blues, North Stars or Kings they would be premiere franchises in the NHL.

 

[dawgbone]

IMO if Ed Snider owned the Penguins, Blues, North Stars or Kings they would be premiere franchises in the NHL.

That's debatable... and not out of disrespect for Snider. While it does take a lot of intelligence, it also takes a lot of luck both in terms of how your team does on the ice, as well as to how your populace responds to the team, and the market you are in.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

That's debatable... and not out of disrespect for Snider. While it does take a lot of intelligence, it also takes a lot of luck both in terms of how your team does on the ice, as well as to how your populace responds to the team, and the market you are in.

I don't think very much is luck, but alot of it is all about winning, and building a winning team has almost nothing to do with luck. Cities for the most part support winning organizations.

Snider wasn't a hockey many, but he hired the right people and supported them in the right way.

If the Flyers switched records with the Kings or Penguins over the last 35 years, Philadelphia would be in a very similar situation that the Los Angeles or Pittsburgh is currently in.

 

[dawgbone]

I don't think very much is luck, but alot of it is all about winning, and building a winning team has almost nothing to do with luck. Cities for the most part support winning organizations.

Snider wasn't a hockey many, but he hired the right people and supported them in the right way.

If the Flyers switched records with the Kings or Penguins over the last 35 years, Philadelphia would be in a very similar situation that the Los Angeles or Pittsburgh is currently in.

True... but the Flyers have carved out their own identity. The Broad Street bullies were Philadelphia. Once you have that connection, it's hard to lose it.

It's the same in cities like Toronto, Montreal, New York... the fabric of the team is ingrained in the society.

Not every team gets that, even teams who have a history of winning... so while it is a lot of smart decisions, there is that intangible of connecting the team and the people together that is sometimes luck. The fans indentify themselves so strongly with the team that there is a permanant bond.

That does involve some luck, because as we've seen, it doesn't happen everywhere, no matter how successful the team has been in the past, or how long the team has been around.

Trust me, this isn't a shot at Snider at all, and I do beleive he is one of the better execs in the NHL... it's more of a compliment to the Flyer fans, who have completely sold their souls to the team... so to speak.

 

[I in the Eye]

I don't think very much is luck, but alot of it is all about winning, and building a winning team has almost nothing to do with luck.

There are four things needed for success:

(1) competence
(2) hard work
(3) good support group
(4) luck

Without all 4 criteria in place, success cannot happen... The most successful of businessmen always say that luck played a role to get where they are... being in the right place, at the right time...

 

[John Flyers Fan]

True... but the Flyers have carved out their own identity. The Broad Street bullies were Philadelphia. Once you have that connection, it's hard to lose it.

It's the same in cities like Toronto, Montreal, New York... the fabric of the team is ingrained in the society.

Not every team gets that, even teams who have a history of winning... so while it is a lot of smart decisions, there is that intangible of connecting the team and the people together that is sometimes luck. The fans indentify themselves so strongly with the team that there is a permanant bond.

That does involve some luck, because as we've seen, it doesn't happen everywhere, no matter how successful the team has been in the past, or how long the team has been around.

Trust me, this isn't a shot at Snider at all, and I do beleive he is one of the better execs in the NHL... it's more of a compliment to the Flyer fans, who have completely sold their souls to the team... so to speak.

Winning back-to-back Stanley Cups was huge, absolutely, but IMO the key is sustained winning and consistancy.

Other than a stretch during the early 90's the Flyers have been one of the NHL's top teams for 30 years. The fact that the organization has always showed that they're TRYING their best to win, even if they aren't winning.

Also they have been a great member of the Philadelphia community for 35 years.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

There are four things needed for success:

(1) competence
(2) hard work
(3) good support group
(4) luck

Without all 4 criteria in place, success cannot happen... The most successful of businessmen always say that luck played a role to get where they are... being in the right place, at the right time...

Luck always plays a part, but IMO luck is so far behind the rest it's not even close.

 

[I in the Eye]

Luck always plays a part, but IMO luck is so far behind the rest it's not even close.

I believe that you make your own luck - you put yourself in positions to be 'lucky' through your own competence, hard work, and a good support group... Through the other 3, you put yourself in opportunities to be lucky... In this sense, I agree that luck is far behind the rest...

 

[hunter1909*]

I disagree with you there.

IMO an average of about $40 million across the board is the best the NHL owners can realistically expect.

If $40 million is going to be the average, I think a team needs to generate close to $60 million to be considered financially stable.

the owners can pay any price they like...

you learn this kind of thing in business class

 

[John Flyers Fan]

the owners can pay any price they like...

you learn this kind of thing in business class

Huh ???