http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Ne ... 73381.html

I didn't see this one coming at all. Hope they work it out and get new ownership. The Devils are what I used to think was a model franchise in all aspects. I guess shaky ownership can screw up decades of good work by a GM. Kovie.....

Micky Mouse organization....

Racki wrote:Micky Mouse organization....

Devils fans on HF seem to think that this is quite a major exageration

Dallas now....
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Da ... 78921.html

Bring back the North Stars!!!! Wait......

interesting. Do you think it's more of a function of the US economy being crap, or hockey just not working in certain locales in the US? probably both...don't know.

I'm thinking it's an economy thing. But maybe a little bit of the other thing too. But hell, even Detroit was hit pretty hard in the hockey world with this US Economy prob.

hemmerlady wrote:interesting. Do you think it's more of a function of the US economy being crap, or hockey just not working in certain locales in the US? probably both...don't know.

I think it's likely a bit of both. Dallas has lost money fo a very long time. Not entirely surprising to me.

If a team has fans, like a packed house almost every night and they still lose money there's something wrong. Haven't heard any bad things about getting enough fans in Dallas either.

Mr.Majestyk wrote:If a team has fans, like a packed house almost every night and they still lose money there's something wrong. Haven't heard any bad things about getting enough fans in Dallas either.

Yeah the CBA is not working in my opinion. The floor is now way higher than most teams could not sustain pre-lock out. The players take too much of the gate. I would be very surprised to see the NHL kep the current floating cap. The need a hard cap that does not mandate hem to pay in more to salaries because they have six teams making lots of money.

Is the answer to some teams making money and many not making any = more revenue sharing?

chucker wrote:

Mr.Majestyk wrote:If a team has fans, like a packed house almost every night and they still lose money there's something wrong. Haven't heard any bad things about getting enough fans in Dallas either.

Yeah the CBA is not working in my opinion. The floor is now way higher than most teams could not sustain pre-lock out. The players take too much of the gate. I would be very surprised to see the NHL kep the current floating cap. The need a hard cap that does not mandate hem to pay in more to salaries because they have six teams making lots of money.

Yeah agreed, things just don't seem right somehow. If I had to guess where all the money was going, it would be "salaries". I don't know what the answer is. Other than having a long post-season. We made a lot of money in '06. And have not since.... :'( Just joking we're doing ok. But we're mad about hockey, we'll even take the humiliating-suck kind and beg for more.

I think a lot of this will be more owner debt, than actual team debt, same case with Manchester United. Where the entire debt is basically the Glazers debt.

Mr.Majestyk wrote:Is the answer to some teams making money and many not making any = more revenue sharing?

You can only milk that cow for so long. Not a lot of teams turn a huge profit.

Stastical uber analysis by Moi

OK, Click the link for a pic of an Excel doc (maybe I'll upload this thing to Google Docs later) I made based on Forbes NHL Team Valuation reports.

First off... an important note: Take this with a grain of salt! That is because these numbers might not be 100% accurate. Plus the values are a bit off already in that it (as they state at Forbes) they don't include "interest, taxes, amortization, depreciation". Also keep in mind we don't have last year's numbers yet. However, I think they still give us an overview to see what teams have been succeeding and which have been keeping their head above water.

Dallas... what the fuck? Really? The data at Forbes doesn't support that there is a problem, although there has been a downward trend since 2009. But still, it looks like they've been in the same ball park as the Oil. Why are they suffering that bad? This is an honest question.. are the numbers from Forbes missing a huge chunk of coin?

Anyways, I thought I'd use this info to point out that keeping this league afloat (and this should be obvious) are profits by Toronto, Montreal, New York, and to lesser extents Detroit and Vancouver, DALLAS, Edmonton and Chicago.

Your bottom feeders are:
Phoenix, Florida, New York Islanders, Columbus, Carolina, Atlanta, Nashville, Buffalo, St. Louis, Washington (a team that is losing money despite Ovechkin being there).

Here's a sorted version of that table I did up above.

No surprises in the bottom, but I can't figure out what is going on with Dallas based on the Forbes information, unless that info is way off.

Actually, after reading the article Chucker linked.. it sounds to me more like it isn't the Dallas Stars that bankrupt the ownership group but their other interests that did.

I liked your chart, Racki. I wonder about the correlation between off-season success (or off-season presence, waaaaah) and profit. Maybe it's a catch-22. Those who are making BIG money can afford to have a good team, and those that have a good team make the playoffs. (Except for Toronto). I was surprised at our (Edm's) 2006 figure - maybe it isn't totally correct? as I thought we quadrupled our profits or something. (Or perhaps that's in relation to years previous).

Forbes figures for the 2004 report (the "hockey" year before the 2006 report) show the Oilers with operating income of $3.3M... so that works out to 3 and a quarter times more from 2004 to 2006... rounded up is 4? Close enough, anyways.

Likely another deal gone bad and the Stars suffer. The talks of them having ownership and money problems have been going on for a few years now and is a regular topic on the hot stove.

Racki wrote:Forbes figures for the 2004 report (the "hockey" year before the 2006 report) show the Oilers with operating income of $3.3M... so that works out to 3 and a quarter times more from 2004 to 2006... rounded up is 4? Close enough, anyways.

Ahahaha, my memory is better than I thought.