How Much Power Does Chris Gear Have?

[Nucksfollower1983]

9 minutes ago, goog16 said:

thank you

[Roger Neilsons Towel]

 

[IBatch]

14 hours ago, The Lock said:

I kind of feel like you're picking up a rock, staring at it for a moment, and then making some bold claims about the rock.

 

It's about as effective at the very least.

It wasn’t just a rock, a special rock with a mirror on the other side and he saw a troll.   Then he smiled his wicked smile and got an idea.   Then this thread was born.   Not even subtly trying to turn this into a JB bashing thread - full on lost Aqua $500 million, which is hilarious given they didn’t once not make money during JBs tenure.    The clubs value going down is way more a reflection of the fan base then it is anything JB has done.    50k TO fans come out to watch them play rain or shine OUTSIDE win or lose (because good luck getting tickets).   MTL sells out no matter what too.   And really so did Vancouver for the most part as well.  500-1k under isn’t close to what happens win or lose in CAR, or PHX or Florida.   Lazarus check out the average attendance.   Plus seven years? How does May 21st 2014 equal that?  Good job!

 

Edit:  Our team doubled in value from 2011-2012, and peaked at 800.   After a rebuild and some market correction it went down to 740.   Wow.  Bet next year it’s back up too.  How much did they pay again?  220ish or was it 240ish for it?   Plus of course their annual net earnings which paid them out the first 4-5 years.   Since then all gravy.   Factually the Aquas have made over a billion on this franchise.   If your interested the books are available.   50-60 million ROI of what it was at the beginning is an excellent return.  Not to mention whatever they could sell it for.  

Edited September 25, 2020 by IBatch

[oldnews]

23 hours ago, Lazurus said:

Promoted on Jan 7 to Assistant General Manager from being in an advisory committee position.

He is described as having contract and cap management.

 

I wonder because Benning has not negotiated or signed a single contract in 12 months now.

 

You would think that a decision between Markstrom and Demko would have been solved well before February 1 and Markstrom signed well before his contract ran out. Covid was an unknown back then so that is not a reason.

But then all contracts are being allowed to run out even in the front office.

 

Under Benning the team value has dropped by over a quarter of a billion dollars, he has spent well over 500 million on player and front office contracts and the team's win loss record is pretty dismal over a 7 year period.

That is pretty significant amount of money the Aquilini's have allowed Benning, pretty much unrestricted.

 

So along comes Chris Gear, basically a cap guy that was also writing up contracts for Benning, doing the legal work, following instructions and now he in charge of getting control of finances.

 

I wonder just how much say he has now? Benning has never restrained himself with contracts over the last 7 years so is Gear in charge of that part now?

Pointless, unanswerable hypothetical questions imo - that look like they're not so subtly intended to steer towards the assumption that Benning was financially irresponsible, while creating a curious separation between him and the Aquilini's - as if they gave him licence - and he mismanaged it.

 

First of all - ironically - the 7 year period you refer to - pre-dates Benning's 6 year tenure - and if you honestly take that fact into consideration, then you are forced to realize where the team was - and where it was tracking - 7 years ago.  So the implication that this is all 'Benning's tenure' is dishonest, or at the very least, suffering some real blind spots.

 

It's an underlying narrative that I find quite curious - particularly in light of the Gillis/Tortorella fracture - and then the Aquilini/Linden fracture.

 

You might ask yourself how much power Aquilini has?

 

What happened 7 years ago - that lead to the hiring of Tortorella - that ironically - took place at the outset of the timeline you define?  And then the firing of Gillis?

Who among Aquilini, Linden, Benning was the most likely candidate to be pushing for it to be  'sped up'?

 

What are the signs of attempting to 'speed it up'?  Most people consider veteran signings to be the evidence of that - the hindsighting of veteran contracts that is the basis of your entire 'case'.  I wonder how you manage the abstract separation of Aquilini from the process, as if he is a bystander and his pocket book is a casualty of Benning?   Curious read on your part imo.

 

Wadr - who is going to tell ownership that hockey decisions are better left to hockey people/managers?   Gillis?  Or Linden?

Edited September 25, 2020 by oldnews

[Lazurus]

3 minutes ago, oldnews said:

First of all - ironically - the 7 year period you refer to - pre-dates Benning's 6 year tenure - and if you honestly take that fact into consideration, then you are forced to realize where the team was - and where it was tracking - 7 years ago.  So the implication that this is all 'Benning's tenure' is dishonest, or at the very least, suffering some real blind spots.

You have to include the year before to get a starting point otherwise there is no comparisons. Forbes lists are based on the income for the year before.

In 2014 the team was worth more than Chicago Blackhawks, now it is 400 mil less

Adding up Benning player expenses is easy. Max cap times 6 plus bonuses, buyout and retained money, but don't count Luongo recapture.

7 years ago the team needed re-tooling in a big way

Benning got the team and had 14 mil in cap space with only 7 clause contracts, he quickly got rid of Garrisons, they never asked the twins, Burrows, Beiska and Hamhuis all agreed to waive. Not one of Benning's clause contract players agreed to waive.

Is it dishonest to point out Benning's numerous

clause contracts he has handed out or the 7 in existence today?

Is it dishonest to point out that no Vancouver GM has ever has 5 top ten picks at the draft? Or even 7 1rst round selections in consecutive years or ever in the NHL?

17 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Pointless, unanswerable hypothetical questions imo - that look like they're not so subtly intended to steer towards the assumption that Benning was financially irresponsible, while creating a curious separation between him and the Aquilini's - as if they gave him licence - and he mismanaged it

So before it was all about the interference from the owners that was screwing up the team and now it because they stepped back and gave a free rein and allowed him to run the team, it is their fault again for not interfering.

When MacCaw was absent bad play was because of absentee ownership, an owner only interested in making money, everyone was clamoring for an owner invested in the team.

I have absolutely no idea what success means to you, maybe you could enlighten me, to me in a league where points are used to measure success they have meaning

24 minutes ago, oldnews said:

You might ask yourself how much power Aquilini has?

You could be right, Aquilini only owns the franchise and the NHL has taken them back before (Buffalo), the NHL owns the teams that is how Bettman can testify that they are one entity.

26 minutes ago, oldnews said:

What happened 7 years ago - that lead to the hiring of Tortorella - that ironically - took place at the outset of the timeline you define?  And then the firing of Gillis?

The media leak got fired and the media descended on Gillis and the Aquilinis' like vultures and fueled fan reaction to the point of personal threats and the need to hire security.

In hindsight Tortorella was correct, Benning and Linden almost quoted him word for word, the core was old and stale, the team needed to get younger fast. Well he went on to a struggling very, very young team and got coach of the year and the playoffs.

Benning and Linden, fed the fans the idea the team didn't need anything, they were competitve, a playoff team for 3 years until Linden finalle admitted they knew the team needed rebuilding but they would not do it while the Sedins were on it because it would not be fair to them. Really how being a 60 point team did them any favours.

Gillis got fired, it was Benning that fired Tortorella.

34 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Who among Aquilini, Linden, Benning was the most likely candidate to be pushing for it to be  'sped up'?

 

What are the signs of attempting to 'speed it up'?  Most people consider veteran signings to be the evidence of that.  I'm curious how you separate Aquilini from the process, as if he is a bystander and his pocket book is a casualty of Benning?   Curious read on your part imo.

Only Aquilini would be pushing for a speedier rebuild as his father is very old, Linden and Benning, well it would be their best interest financially to drag it out as long a s possible.

How do you separate Aquilini from the process, it is easy, you threaten his kids and family and schools and markets, make it necessary to hire security so that he steps so far away the media cannot get a hint of involvement.

There has not been one instance of a contract not being done at the ownership level.

Maybe that is changing now, kids have graduated fans are getting restless with a team that thinks losing around 60% of their games is a success, that adding 2/3 young star players over 6 years is the end of the job,

 

Wow, really off topic.

IMO Gear is running the show or has final say. A defacto presidential powers

[Lazurus]

6 hours ago, IBatch said:

It wasn’t just a rock, a special rock with a mirror on the other side and he saw a troll.   Then he smiled his wicked smile and got an idea.   Then this thread was born.   Not even subtly trying to turn this into a JB bashing thread - full on lost Aqua $500 million, which is hilarious given they didn’t once not make money during JBs tenure.    The clubs value going down is way more a reflection of the fan base then it is anything JB has done.    50k TO fans come out to watch them play rain or shine OUTSIDE win or lose (because good luck getting tickets).   MTL sells out no matter what too.   And really so did Vancouver for the most part as well.  500-1k under isn’t close to what happens win or lose in CAR, or PHX or Florida.   Lazarus check out the average attendance.   Plus seven years? How does May 21st 2014 equal that?  Good job!

 

Edit:  Our team doubled in value from 2011-2012, and peaked at 800.   After a rebuild and some market correction it went down to 740.   Wow.  Bet next year it’s back up too.  How much did they pay again?  220ish or was it 240ish for it?   Plus of course their annual net earnings which paid them out the first 4-5 years.   Since then all gravy.   Factually the Aquas have made over a billion on this franchise.   If your interested the books are available.   50-60 million ROI of what it was at the beginning is an excellent return.  Not to mention whatever they could sell it for.  

Do you really beleive all those attendance records supplied by the NHL?

Nashville had to buy their own tickets a few years to get the NHL handout.

Tickets given away for marketing purposes count as sold even if not used in some markets.

FYI Vancouver has been donating up to 12 mil a season to have not teams.

 

I if I pay you 10 bucks to dig my ditch and 100 to another guy, you should be happy right?

 

We are damn lucky the Aquilini's didn't have to mortgage themselves to buy the team, but then again Ottawa is doing fairly well in the standings and they don't have the fan base of Vancouver, ditto Edmonton and Calgary, teams with active owners that got new arenas, in Ottawas case they are only 6 wins behind the Canucks.

 

Or is it some envy on your part that a rich person should not make as much as other rich people?

 

The team value should be the same or more than Chicago.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Lazurus

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Lazurus said:

Do you really beleive all those attendance records supplied by the NHL?

Nashville had to buy their own tickets a few years to get the NHL handout.

Tickets given away for marketing purposes count as sold even if not used in some markets.

FYI Vancouver has been donating up to 12 mil a season to have not teams.

 

I if I pay you 10 bucks to dig my ditch and 100 to another guy, you should be happy right?

 

We are damn lucky the Aquilini's didn't have to mortgage themselves to buy the team, but then again Ottawa is doing fairly well in the standings and they don't have the fan base of Vancouver, ditto Edmonton and Calgary, teams with active owners that got new arenas, in Ottawas case they are only 6 wins behind the Canucks.

 

Or is it some envy on your part that a rich person should not make as much as other rich people?

 

The team value should be the same or more than Chicago.

 

Weak reply.   You make claims that Vancouver has lost tons of money under JB then do a full reversal and make claims they had extra left over for the fledging teams.   Which one is it?

[JM_]

somewhere between the Pope and Dr Manhattan. 

[IBatch]

22 hours ago, Sean Monahan said:

Well of course. The team went from being very good to very s**tty. What did you expect 

 

 

Fake news.   It doubled in value from 2011-2013 and peaked at 800.   In 2019 valued at 740.   Lowest under JB tenure.   Not sure how that’s 250 or as the OP says 500 million.  Plus the average net earnings are 50-60 per year.   Not too shabby on a 220ish million dollar investment.   The Aquas have made fistfulls of cash since the start and throughout the rebuild too.   It’s almost like made up stuff really.   All the books are available and I’m sure they paid themselves a pretty penny too. 

Edited September 25, 2020 by IBatch

[RomanP]

Practically every thread this guy starts is just dumber and dumber than his previous one, disguised with some supposedly clever words and fake news. Just wow...

[Lazurus]

18 hours ago, IBatch said:

 

Weak reply.   You make claims that Vancouver has lost tons of money under JB then do a full reversal and make claims they had extra left over for the fledging teams.   Which one is it?

 

17 hours ago, IBatch said:

 

 

Fake news.   It doubled in value from 2011-2013 and peaked at 800.   In 2019 valued at 740.   Lowest under JB tenure.   Not sure how that’s 250 or as the OP says 500 million.  Plus the average net earnings are 50-60 per year.   Not too shabby on a 220ish million dollar investment.   The Aquas have made fistfulls of cash since the start and throughout the rebuild too.   It’s almost like made up stuff really.   All the books are available and I’m sure they paid themselves a pretty penny too. 

I see, you think of loss as money going out the door rather than failed or reduced income.

In 2015 the Canucks were in the top 5 for revenue earned by comparison to other franchises, now they are below 10.

They were worth more than Chicago according to Forbes back then and now trail by 25% or more.

To me that is a loss of value that corresponds with overall worth.

IE;  if you bought a house for 200K, you spend 160 mil on it and the value went up to 1 mil and then fell to 500K, if you sold on that day would say you made 140K or look at it if you sold at 1mil you missed on a 640K increase of value? Glass half full or glass half empty.

 

The reason the Canucks give money out has to do with the league formula, teams over the median with sell outs help out teams under that have a minimum number of season ticket sales. That is where teams buy up their own season tickets and they use them for marketing, but it counts as seats sold. Have you ever seen the arena's in Florida or Arizona? Sometimes they look like Covid and distancing were regular occurrences but the annual attendance will show one number and the ticket sales another.

That is why the Canucks donate up to 12 mil a season to teams below a certain median in league average

 

The other number Forbes shows is operating income and net income, both of those show a decline under Benning and he still has been spending to the cap , in value per dollar spent, money spent for points the Canucks have been dismal, they spend like cup contenders but still have ways to go.

 

In short under this "plan" the Canucks spend up to 3 times as much money per point than they used to, money puck.

And if this "plan" is so good how is it that Ottawa is only 6 wins behind Vancouver and they didn't have Ana and LA to beat up on in only 2 years?

 

If I had a company earning 1 mil profit a year and I hired manager and company started earning only 700K profit a year I think I would question the manager as what he is doing won't you? 

 

As far as the Aquilini's making fist fulls of money would you rather have an owner that can barely make payroll? It is almost like the posters detest the fact the owners are rich rather than the owner's themselves.

[IBatch]

4 hours ago, Lazurus said:

 

I see, you think of loss as money going out the door rather than failed or reduced income.

In 2015 the Canucks were in the top 5 for revenue earned by comparison to other franchises, now they are below 10.

They were worth more than Chicago according to Forbes back then and now trail by 25% or more.

To me that is a loss of value that corresponds with overall worth.

IE;  if you bought a house for 200K, you spend 160 mil on it and the value went up to 1 mil and then fell to 500K, if you sold on that day would say you made 140K or look at it if you sold at 1mil you missed on a 640K increase of value? Glass half full or glass half empty.

 

The reason the Canucks give money out has to do with the league formula, teams over the median with sell outs help out teams under that have a minimum number of season ticket sales. That is where teams buy up their own season tickets and they use them for marketing, but it counts as seats sold. Have you ever seen the arena's in Florida or Arizona? Sometimes they look like Covid and distancing were regular occurrences but the annual attendance will show one number and the ticket sales another.

That is why the Canucks donate up to 12 mil a season to teams below a certain median in league average

 

The other number Forbes shows is operating income and net income, both of those show a decline under Benning and he still has been spending to the cap , in value per dollar spent, money spent for points the Canucks have been dismal, they spend like cup contenders but still have ways to go.

 

In short under this "plan" the Canucks spend up to 3 times as much money per point than they used to, money puck.

And if this "plan" is so good how is it that Ottawa is only 6 wins behind Vancouver and they didn't have Ana and LA to beat up on in only 2 years?

 

If I had a company earning 1 mil profit a year and I hired manager and company started earning only 700K profit a year I think I would question the manager as what he is doing won't you? 

 

As far as the Aquilini's making fist fulls of money would you rather have an owner that can barely make payroll? It is almost like the posters detest the fact the owners are rich rather than the owner's themselves.

Dude your missing the point.   Aqua doesn’t sell his team because each year he’s making 1/4 what he paid in revenue/net income - even during the down years.   No ordinary person can invest say 10k and make 2500k per year PLUS watch his investment go up 3-4 times when it’s ready to sell.   Like a 25% dividend every year and the value has gone way up.   Whatever your smoking isn’t worth it.   Trying to say JB has lost the owners money is ridiculous. It’s now under the cap a very elite 32 person club.   Wish I had 500 or even 750 million to drop on one of these clubs.   It’s price set to make more money.     Most stocks dividends are in the 2-5% range.  
 

Edit:   They won’t ever sell.   Real estate doesn’t go up 25% a year.   It’s an incredible investment.   Doesn’t matter if it stays at 740 million for 100 years.     I have a degree in business and was self-employed and worked my ass off.   Wish I had that sort of cash to buy their business I’d do it in a millisecond.    The Canucks brand is still strong.   It doubled in one year - yet they still didn’t sell it... why?  Because they still make 50-80 million after everyone gets paid.   It’s a  cash cow.  It’s also why Aqua never blinked an eye at letting JB spend to the cap.  And he never will. 

Edited September 26, 2020 by IBatch

[JeremyCuddles]

I keep coming back here hoping to see the Palpatine unlimited power meme. I am not complaining though, we got some good Star Trek memes at least. The "I am the senate" meme from Star Wars would also fit decently nice in the thread. I'd do it myself but I am illiterate. 

[Dr. Crossbar]

I'm enjoying this thread and the challenge of discussion. Interesting back and forth.

[MrCanuck94]

Any business valuation is never based solely off of one set of numbers. There's various quantitative and qualitative factors that are looked at.

 

Every team goes through good and bad times.

 

Canucks have various revenue streams.

 

Chris Gear does not have final say over Jim Benning .

Edited September 27, 2020 by MrCanuck94

[IBatch]

18 hours ago, N7Nucks said:

I keep coming back here hoping to see the Palpatine unlimited power meme. I am not complaining though, we got some good Star Trek memes at least. The "I am the senate" meme from Star Wars would also fit decently nice in the thread. I'd do it myself but I am illiterate. 

[IBatch]

Just now, IBatch said:

Only Quin has done this.   Three Hat Pat and all....JB - well he garnered some best GM this year - before the playoffs...have to wonder what he manages this year.   Need an actuary to do the math right with everyone that’s up this year and the next.   For sure 2019 was a massive success for him, acquiring the best RHD, one of the better ones that have come up the past five years really, JT Miller - Captain America IMO,  plus little things like Fanta ... yes Ferland was a disappointment but not the end of the world.   Vancouver has a very bright future - and JB is climbing the list as the best we’ve had yet.   I’ve said we need bold moves and think we do.   But wouldn’t want his job. He’s at this point, putting himself in the catbird seat as far as his next contract goes - and wouldn’t have to wait long for a job if for some reason there is a rift coming up. 

[MattJVD]

On 9/26/2020 at 11:07 AM, Lazurus said:

 

I see, you think of loss as money going out the door rather than failed or reduced income.

In 2015 the Canucks were in the top 5 for revenue earned by comparison to other franchises, now they are below 10.

They were worth more than Chicago according to Forbes back then and now trail by 25% or more.

To me that is a loss of value that corresponds with overall worth.

IE;  if you bought a house for 200K, you spend 160 mil on it and the value went up to 1 mil and then fell to 500K, if you sold on that day would say you made 140K or look at it if you sold at 1mil you missed on a 640K increase of value? Glass half full or glass half empty.

 

The reason the Canucks give money out has to do with the league formula, teams over the median with sell outs help out teams under that have a minimum number of season ticket sales. That is where teams buy up their own season tickets and they use them for marketing, but it counts as seats sold. Have you ever seen the arena's in Florida or Arizona? Sometimes they look like Covid and distancing were regular occurrences but the annual attendance will show one number and the ticket sales another.

That is why the Canucks donate up to 12 mil a season to teams below a certain median in league average

 

The other number Forbes shows is operating income and net income, both of those show a decline under Benning and he still has been spending to the cap , in value per dollar spent, money spent for points the Canucks have been dismal, they spend like cup contenders but still have ways to go.

 

In short under this "plan" the Canucks spend up to 3 times as much money per point than they used to, money puck.

And if this "plan" is so good how is it that Ottawa is only 6 wins behind Vancouver and they didn't have Ana and LA to beat up on in only 2 years?

 

If I had a company earning 1 mil profit a year and I hired manager and company started earning only 700K profit a year I think I would question the manager as what he is doing won't you? 

 

As far as the Aquilini's making fist fulls of money would you rather have an owner that can barely make payroll? It is almost like the posters detest the fact the owners are rich rather than the owner's themselves.

You specificly said value though. Not net income. If you say value it means something, and yes present value of future cash flows in part of that equation. It's already included though, you can't take a company valuation and then add delta revenue/net income to it again to come to your own figure of how much you think JB lost the owners. 

 

Now 'loss of money' can sure include opportunity cost or reduced profit (like you said in this post). But you didn't say that in the OP, you said value.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by MattJVD

[Lazurus]

Regardless of thread content

 

IMO something must have changed in the front office. Gear is the only person given a contract this year.

Why would his title include being in charge of cap management and contract unless that is something Benning is not going to be doing in the future?

If it was a simple matter of just having input, well he had that before, just not decision making which I have to assume is something important in the scheme of things unless he was promoted to take the heat for some really ugly trades or off season moves.

I am not sure that Benning even hired him to be the assistant, Benning did announce his promotion but that would be within Benning job description.

 

So I was wrong, the team did make one hire and sign one contract, Gear's. Maybe he is acting sort of in a "president's" role without all the hoopla, sort of the guy that gives the go ahead on any Benning trades or moves?

 

So far nobody has done anything this year after the trade for Toffoli.

[spook007]

On 9/26/2020 at 10:29 PM, IBatch said:

Dude your missing the point.   Aqua doesn’t sell his team because each year he’s making 1/4 what he paid in revenue/net income - even during the down years.   No ordinary person can invest say 10k and make 2500k per year PLUS watch his investment go up 3-4 times when it’s ready to sell.   Like a 25% dividend every year and the value has gone way up.   Whatever your smoking isn’t worth it.   Trying to say JB has lost the owners money is ridiculous. It’s now under the cap a very elite 32 person club.   Wish I had 500 or even 750 million to drop on one of these clubs.   It’s price set to make more money.     Most stocks dividends are in the 2-5% range.  
 

Edit:   They won’t ever sell.   Real estate doesn’t go up 25% a year.   It’s an incredible investment.   Doesn’t matter if it stays at 740 million for 100 years.     I have a degree in business and was self-employed and worked my ass off.   Wish I had that sort of cash to buy their business I’d do it in a millisecond.    The Canucks brand is still strong.   It doubled in one year - yet they still didn’t sell it... why?  Because they still make 50-80 million after everyone gets paid.   It’s a  cash cow.  It’s also why Aqua never blinked an eye at letting JB spend to the cap.  And he never will. 

Cheers Ibatch...

You don't need a degree in business to see the value of this hockey club...  25% dividend wow.... imagine getting in on such a venture... after 4 year its all paid off... its what dreams are made off.... On top of this the team is actually starting to gather momentum and interest amongst the band wagon fans... Once the doors open again it will be the hottest ticket in town... 

Edited September 28, 2020 by spook007