Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

How much per game do they lose?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
49 replies to this topic

#31 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,155 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 18 September 2012 - 11:00 AM

Crap. Well most of the teams will still make a profit.

- Whoever owns a building...


Even that's not right. Just because the owner owns both the building and the team doesn't mean the team playing in it is necessarily profitable. While the arena may turn a profit hosting concerts, car shows, trade shows, monster trucks, figure skating, whatever, none of those things have anything to do with the team itself.

What if that owner also owned an NBA franchise. Should hockey revenue count towards the NBA salary cap just because they are in the same building? Of course not. The hockey franchise needs to be viable based on hockey related revenue. Not concerts or anything else.
Posted Image

#32 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,939 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 18 September 2012 - 11:34 AM

Even that's not right. Just because the owner owns both the building and the team doesn't mean the team playing in it is necessarily profitable. While the arena may turn a profit hosting concerts, car shows, trade shows, monster trucks, figure skating, whatever, none of those things have anything to do with the team itself.

What if that owner also owned an NBA franchise. Should hockey revenue count towards the NBA salary cap just because they are in the same building? Of course not. The hockey franchise needs to be viable based on hockey related revenue. Not concerts or anything else.

Too much logic!
Posted Image

#33 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,155 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 18 September 2012 - 11:48 AM

Too much logic!


Sorry. I'll try harder to leave logic out next time.
Posted Image

#34 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,939 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 18 September 2012 - 11:50 AM

Sorry. I'll try harder to leave logic out next time.

Thats right! If its not rumor or conjecture or a gut feeling or something your uncle's best friend who works for the NHL's janitorial services told him in good faith - I don't wanna know about it!
Posted Image

#35 McMucus

McMucus

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 391 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 10

Posted 18 September 2012 - 11:53 AM

I heard somewhere that for an afternoon game a team will lose an estimated $80,000 simply because people don't eat or, mainly, drink as much. If you then factor in ticket prices, add revenue, etc. The price per game is prety steep.

#36 mbal23

mbal23

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,717 posts
  • Joined: 02-May 11

Posted 18 September 2012 - 12:13 PM

Your math is flawed.

HRR = Hockey Related Revenue. Revenue does not equal profit. Revenue is just the amount of money that comes in and does not take expenses into account.

As for the last bit about owners and their greedy hands; if they were so greedy, they wouldn't have purchased a hockey team. Do you really think that Aquilini is in it for the money?


Yes. He is seeing that the Canucks are the most profitable team after the original six.

#37 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 18 September 2012 - 02:25 PM

Your math is flawed.

HRR = Hockey Related Revenue. Revenue does not equal profit. Revenue is just the amount of money that comes in and does not take expenses into account.

As for the last bit about owners and their greedy hands; if they were so greedy, they wouldn't have purchased a hockey team. Do you really think that Aquilini is in it for the money?


Well said. And on Acquilini, the one thing I can guarantee is your comment on him is 100% correct. I have met him through chance and ended up having a 20 minute conversation with him about the Canucks. It was over the summer and I have to say, I love the Canucks but I definitely love them more (hard to do) knowing he's the owner. The guy is a fan like every one of us, his eyes just lit up when we started talking hockey, he's defintitely not in it for the money, he's in it for the Cup, and my guess is he's probably against the lockout given the age/makeup and chances for our team right now...we are lucky to have this club and lucky to have had owners like the Griffiths and now Francesco...

Edited by BuretoMogilny, 18 September 2012 - 02:26 PM.


#38 dorrcoq

dorrcoq

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,037 posts
  • Joined: 12-September 05

Posted 18 September 2012 - 02:28 PM

Easier to be a big fan of the team you own when you are raking in profits each year and seeing the value of your franchise skyrocketing that if it was a finacial loser.

#39 Kesheniel

Kesheniel

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,363 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 18 September 2012 - 06:00 PM

Let's not forget about the people behind the scenes not getting paid because of the lockout. I think the owners should have to cover the lost wages while this is going on - the least they could do!


Wtf is with you and all these other people that think its all the owners fault?

#40 TACIC

TACIC

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,398 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 12

Posted 18 September 2012 - 06:04 PM

The Blue Jackets can't do anything to make money,hence having no effect
AUmxe4h.gif
Credit to JimLahey for this awesome sig

TACIC

Yes i am a Leafs fan too, DEAL WITH IT!!

Go Canucks Go!

#41 cire2222

cire2222

    K-Wing Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 12

Posted 18 September 2012 - 07:21 PM

idn what to do without Canucks games. its usually a better day when i can come home and watch hockey. Ive been a canucks fan for like 10 years now. So, In my english class my argumentative speech is about this stupid lockout and i must say after reading that i can't watch hockey because a bunch of greedy billionaires can't even seem to deal with the fact that they might lose a few million dollars, but in comparison they have billions of dollars. Im shocked by there greed.sure they might not make as much as they want to but who cares. you own a hockey team for the purpose of people being able to watch hockey and let millions of people watch them. All these owners or the NHLPA, or gerry betman need to forget about money and remember about the game. its1300 games of hockey won't be played, watched or enjoyed by ANYONE because they are looking like there not going to happen.
figure it out.

Edited by cire2222, 18 September 2012 - 07:21 PM.


#42 thehamburglar

thehamburglar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,282 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 10

Posted 19 September 2012 - 06:31 PM

Your math is flawed.

HRR = Hockey Related Revenue. Revenue does not equal profit. Revenue is just the amount of money that comes in and does not take expenses into account.

As for the last bit about owners and their greedy hands; if they were so greedy, they wouldn't have purchased a hockey team. Do you really think that Aquilini is in it for the money?


Good points, but I think the money is a big reason why Aqulini is in it; there's no way there isn't. If he just wanted to be a rich fan, why wouldn't he just get season tickets, own a box, and do something else?
Posted Image

#43 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,838 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 19 September 2012 - 06:54 PM

Wtf is with you and all these other people that think its all the owners fault?

Maybe because it is the NHL hierarchy and franchise owners that live in Billionaire la la land?
These guys will circumvent any rules that attempt to govern them to one up their competition.
In the end the NHLPA has to police the owner?Pathetic ,grubby owner nonsense.

#44 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,404 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 19 September 2012 - 09:00 PM

Maybe because it is the NHL hierarchy and franchise owners that live in Billionaire la la land?
These guys will circumvent any rules that attempt to govern them to one up their competition.
In the end the NHLPA has to police the owner?Pathetic ,grubby owner nonsense.


I agree with you nucknit - a small market team like Minnesota throws a quarter century and 200ish million at a pair of UFAs on the eve of the lockout - and the NHL proceeds in the wake to cry poverty, expects the players to take a pay cut to subsidize the oddball markets that Bettman chose to move into, while the powerhouse teams continue to rake in the cake. The owners need to resolve their contradictions between their interests and honour the contracts that they freely chose to enter into - in the meantime, as you say, their position is pathetic and grubby.

Edited by oldnews, 19 September 2012 - 09:00 PM.


#45 That Commentator

That Commentator

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 12

Posted 19 September 2012 - 09:20 PM

Good points, but I think the money is a big reason why Aqulini is in it; there's no way there isn't. If he just wanted to be a rich fan, why wouldn't he just get season tickets, own a box, and do something else?


Which do you think sounds most impressive:
1. I own the rights to sit in these seats/a box for a season and watch Canucks games.
2. I own the Canucks organization and the arena they play in.

Those 2 aren't really in the same realm.

Certainly he would prefer to have a franchise that actually earns money rather than losing it, just like anyone else would. But as goalie13 said, there are much easier ways to make money. If something other than money wasn't the main motivation behind wanting to own a hockey team, I'm pretty sure Jamison wouldn't be attempting to acquire the Coyotes right now (and promising to keep the team in Phoenix for 20 more years).

#46 Edlerberry

Edlerberry

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,245 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 12

Posted 20 September 2012 - 12:54 AM

The Players essentially make 57% of the total revenues with no costs other than their own taxes, while the owners incurr ALL the running costs with only 43% to cover it, as well as paying their taxes, hence the reason they're asking for more...
July 7-2013

Toronto will take a step back next year.
Feel free to quote me.


July 8-2013

Wow I can't believe peoples replies...
Im done here. You people are disgusting..


#47 Max-a-Million

Max-a-Million

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 539 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 08

Posted 20 September 2012 - 07:25 AM

THN posted that the Montreal Canadien's owner, Geoff Molsen commented on "100% support by the owners for Gary Bettman and his tactics". Of course, there is an imposed $1,000,000 fine for any owner that speaks up against the NHL. Molsen goes on to say he hopes the lockout is short lived.

Since the owners have imposed the lockout, it would seem they are the ones in control of how long the work stoppage lasts. I don't believe the union has even mentioned the word strike once.

With all pre-season games now cancelled and players heading off to Europe, it seems they are at a stalemate and, while giving lip service to the public, are determined to stand their ground.

The NFL is looking more and more attractive each week as we chip away at the hockey season. This is not good for hockey!

I spend half my money on Wine, Women and Song.
The other half I waste!


#48 thehamburglar

thehamburglar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,282 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 10

Posted 27 September 2012 - 09:23 PM

Which do you think sounds most impressive:
1. I own the rights to sit in these seats/a box for a season and watch Canucks games.
2. I own the Canucks organization and the arena they play in.

Those 2 aren't really in the same realm.

Certainly he would prefer to have a franchise that actually earns money rather than losing it, just like anyone else would. But as goalie13 said, there are much easier ways to make money. If something other than money wasn't the main motivation behind wanting to own a hockey team, I'm pretty sure Jamison wouldn't be attempting to acquire the Coyotes right now (and promising to keep the team in Phoenix for 20 more years).


You raise many good points, which I have to agree too. But, yes Aqullini is in it for hockey, I'd love to buy the team if I could because I'm a fan as well. But, I highly doubt he'd be the owner if there wasn't a profit.

I'm sure most people assume just like me Jamison is going to try and move the team somewhere to make money.
Posted Image

#49 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,393 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:52 PM

The Players essentially make 57% of the total revenues with no costs other than their own taxes, while the owners incurr ALL the running costs with only 43% to cover it, as well as paying their taxes, hence the reason they're asking for more...


Players have an average wage of 2.72m (=3300m x 57% of revenue ÷ 690 players). They then pay out to agents, union dues, taxes. Owners make an average revenue 47.3m (=3300m x 43% of revenue ÷ 30 owners). This is obviously after player contracts are paid. They then pay staff, maintenance, heating and electric, airfare and hotel costs. It adds up to a lot, no doubt, but then they also make money off of concession sales which players get none of. Moreover, owning a team is a part time job, thus the owners are able to manage other investments as well. So even if they're "just scraping by" making a few mil a year, they're doing just fine for something that doesn't even take up their weekdays.

Keswho.jpg


#50 CanuckinEdm

CanuckinEdm

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,397 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 06

Posted 27 September 2012 - 11:37 PM

Is the 57% the upper cap or the lower?




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.