[Rumour] Canucks will not retain $ or add a sweetener for Loui to be moved

[BPA]

2 hours ago, grandmaster said:

Ya I got a bit carried away there. I just feel strongly about it.
 

You’re right I don’t know his financial situation but folks that are rich don’t get rich by just throwing money into a guaranteed loss. That is exactly you are expecting him and some other owners to do. I already made a statement on how lucky we were to have an owner to make us a cap team but things will be very bad next year. 
 

81.5 million full team salary
1 million Travis Green

??? JB’s salary

??? building maintenance

??? building property taxes

??? other staffing costs (that are not players)

 

God know what else....

 

Arena income $0.00

Tax write off for financial losses.

 

Take a page from old Donny Trump and just pay $750 in income taxes. 

 

Lol.

[JM_]

15 hours ago, grandmaster said:

Ya I got a bit carried away there. I just feel strongly about it.
 

You’re right I don’t know his financial situation but folks that are rich don’t get rich by just throwing money into a guaranteed loss. That is exactly you are expecting him and some other owners to do. I already made a statement on how lucky we were to have an owner to make us a cap team but things will be very bad next year. 
 

81.5 million full team salary
1 million Travis Green

??? JB’s salary

??? building maintenance

??? building property taxes

??? other staffing costs (that are not players)

 

God know what else....

 

Arena income $0.00

S'all good.

 

I think the Canucks are actually in a good position to really capitalize on things here given Aqulini's apparent commitment to spend. If we can just shed Loui things can get very interesting in a hurry. 

 

We don't know his situation, but real estate is actually one of the few things still doing really well through covid. 

[oldnews]

13 hours ago, BPA said:

Tax write off for financial losses.

 

Take a page from old Donny Trump and just pay $750 in income taxes. 

 

Lol.

skyrocketing food - and produce prices....iirc, the Aquilini's own more than residential or commerical real estate = also a fair amount of farming....

 

just googled....blueberries, cranberries, aquaculture, apiaries, vineyards, dairy.....

[oldnews]

14 hours ago, BPA said:

Tax write off for financial losses.

 

Take a page from old Donny Trump and just pay $750 in income taxes. 

 

Lol.

This province, this market - seriously supports this franchise - in a whole range of forms, not just attendance, or even viewership/access via cable or online subscriptions - the various offshoots, concessions, the merchandise, the licencing, etc - a lot of which are technically, financially separated from the franchise - are also huge sources of revenue.  I think there is more profitability than people generally realize / owners aren't charitably throwing money away to do fans a favour - I think that kind of perception can be really naive.

 

I think when you buy into a Canadian franchise like this, where the hockey team is part of the culture, identity, embedded, relatively certain -  the idea that 'we' are 'lucky' that ownership spends to the cap - might be naive and subject to otherwise relatively 'lowered expectations'.   I'd be surprised there isn't more counterbalanced opinion - the expectation that an owner in a market like this spend to the cap - but Canadians tend to be deferential.

[Ballisticsports.]

On 9/29/2020 at 12:12 PM, oldnews said:

This province, this market - seriously supports this franchise - in a whole range of forms, not just attendance, or even viewership/access via cable or online subscriptions - the various offshoots, concessions, the merchandise, the licencing, etc - a lot of which are technically, financially separated from the franchise - are also huge sources of revenue.  I think there is more profitability than people generally realize / owners aren't charitably throwing money away to do fans a favour - I think that kind of perception can be really naive.

 

I think when you buy into a Canadian franchise like this, where the hockey team is part of the culture, identity, embedded, relatively certain -  the idea that 'we' are 'lucky' that ownership spends to the cap - might be naive and subject to otherwise relatively 'lowered expectations'.   I'd be surprised there isn't more counterbalanced opinion - the expectation that an owner in a market like this spend to the cap - but Canadians tend to be deferential.

The culture appears to be changing oldnews

When i grew up, there was a hockey game on almost every street after school, when you weren't playing ice hockey, same with fields full of football and baseball that are sparse and more soccer (though many kids played soccer too then)

You see far more basketball nets than hockey nets on the street now

[grandmaster]

On 9/29/2020 at 12:12 PM, oldnews said:

This province, this market - seriously supports this franchise - in a whole range of forms, not just attendance, or even viewership/access via cable or online subscriptions - the various offshoots, concessions, the merchandise, the licencing, etc - a lot of which are technically, financially separated from the franchise - are also huge sources of revenue.  I think there is more profitability than people generally realize / owners aren't charitably throwing money away to do fans a favour - I think that kind of perception can be really naive.

 

I think when you buy into a Canadian franchise like this, where the hockey team is part of the culture, identity, embedded, relatively certain -  the idea that 'we' are 'lucky' that ownership spends to the cap - might be naive and subject to otherwise relatively 'lowered expectations'.   I'd be surprised there isn't more counterbalanced opinion - the expectation that an owner in a market like this spend to the cap - but Canadians tend to be deferential.

1) If anyone is being naive, it would be you to think that merchandising, tv disbursements or these other “offshoots” will cover the operating costs of running a NHL team, especially with a full salary cap  (let’s not even mention all the other staffing and financial burdens). This is not the NFL, the NHL needs fans in arenas to be profitable. 

 

2) Your comment that this is a Canadian market and expectations are surprisingly not that of wanting more from owners is a sentiment of true utter ignorance.
 

Owners of Canadian clubs have been handicapped for decades with a whopping 20-30 percent difference in US dollar values for player salaries.  Canadians are well aware of this.

3) What could possibly make you think that “culture” is an issue? Last I checked NHL teams are not government entity or Crown corporations. They don’t get handouts. There are no cultural grants or tax breaks. 

 

Be more appreciative we are not like Ottawa. FA has every right to say no I’m not going to go to the full cap for next season. The losses that they will be enduring next year are going to be insurmountable. 

[UKNuck96]

3 hours ago, grandmaster said:

1) If anyone is being naive, it would be you to think that merchandising, tv disbursements or these other “offshoots” will cover the operating costs of running a NHL team, especially with a full salary cap  (let’s not even mention all the other staffing and financial burdens). This is not the NFL, the NHL needs fans in arenas to be profitable. 

 

2) Your comment that this is a Canadian market and expectations are surprisingly not that of wanting more from owners is a sentiment of true utter ignorance.
 

Owners of Canadian clubs have been handicapped for decades with a whopping 20-30 percent difference in US dollar values for player salaries.  Canadians are well aware of this.

3) What could possibly make you think that “culture” is an issue? Last I checked NHL teams are not government entity or Crown corporations. They don’t get handouts. There are no cultural grants or tax breaks. 

 

Be more appreciative we are not like Ottawa. FA has every right to say no I’m not going to go to the full cap for next season. The losses that they will be enduring next year are going to be insurmountable. 

Take a look at the figures

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193413/percentage-of-ticketing-revenue-in-the-nhl-since-2006/

 

about 1/3 of the revenue is gate recipes. Yes I know that means that some of the revive will be the match day income and ancillaries that they get for the 41 home games a season.

sponsorship, advertisement and TV revenues makes up the bulk of the income. The league average profit for 2018 was 25 million. 
 

if you the go and break it down on the team level yes some of the teams will really struggle, others can actually take the hit on no crowds and still maintain a slim profit margin. 
 

 

[mll]

9 minutes ago, UKNuck96 said:

Take a look at the figures

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193413/percentage-of-ticketing-revenue-in-the-nhl-since-2006/

 

about 1/3 of the revenue is gate recipes. Yes I know that means that some of the revive will be the match day income and ancillaries that they get for the 41 home games a season.

sponsorship, advertisement and TV revenues makes up the bulk of the income. The league average profit for 2018 was 25 million. 
 

if you the go and break it down on the team level yes some of the teams will really struggle, others can actually take the hit on no crowds and still maintain a slim profit margin. 
 

 

 

Bettman says at least 50% of revenue is from attendance.  

 

[Provost]

4 hours ago, mll said:

 

Bettman says at least 50% of revenue is from attendance.  

 

I had explained this in a thread a while back.

 

Ticket sales are around 30-35% depending on the year.  There are a lot of other revenue streams that are dependent on “attendance” though which are part of HRR but not gate receipts (ticket sales)

 

Concession, Parking, Luxury and corporate boxes, In arena souvenirs sales, etc.  
 

That is what Bettman is including when he says roughly half of revenues are dependent on having butts in seats.

Edited October 1, 2020 by Provost

[mll]

7 minutes ago, Provost said:

I had explained this in a thread a while back.

 

Ticket sales are around 30-35% depending on the year.  There are a lot of other revenue streams that are dependent on “attendance” though which are part of HRR but not fate receipts (ticket sales)

 

Concession, Parking, Luxury and corporate boxes, In arena souvenirs sales, etc.  
 

That is what Bettman is including when he says roughly half of revenues are dependent on having butts in seats.

 

Exactly.  Regardless of how it's broken down they need fans in the stands and can't survive on TV revenue and advertisement alone.  They are more attendance dependent than other major sports leagues.

 

[rekker]

8 hours ago, ba;;isticsports said:

The culture appears to be changing oldnews

When i grew up, there was a hockey game on almost every street after school, when you weren't playing ice hockey, same with fields full of football and baseball that are sparse and more soccer (though many kids played soccer too then)

You see far more basketball nets than hockey nets on the street now

Your right. Sad but true. It's the costs. I have two kids in high level rep. One is off to play university hockey this year, the other is at a top Midget level. It's ridiculous the costs and unless you make a decent living, don't even think about it. House hockey is of course cheaper but even that is expensive. 

[Provost]

9 minutes ago, mll said:

 

Exactly.  Regardless of how it's broken down they need fans in the stands and can't survive on TV revenue and advertisement alone.  They are more attendance dependent than other major sports leagues.

 

They can survive on TV revenue alone, but it isn’t going to be that pretty.  They have the benefit of a hard salary cap unlike other leagues.

 

They get to cut out half their labour costs right off the bat which is their largest expense.  There is the escrow cap right now, so they can only take back the 20% this year plus the 10% deferral.  But they will be owed that money.

 

Then they cut expenses significantly by not having audiences as they don’t have to have all the event related staff.  You can be sure they are also going to reduce travel expenses as that is probably the biggest non-labour expense.  Look for a lot of back to back games against the same opponent, or even upping the number of in division games where you will see 4 games against the same opponent in a row in your arena, and then playing that opponent the same number of timed in their arena.  Flight costs could be dropped by 50-75%.

[Provost]

8 minutes ago, rekker said:

Your right. Sad but true. It's the costs. I have two kids in high level rep. One is off to play university hockey this year, the other is at a top Midget level. It's ridiculous the costs and unless you make a decent living, don't even think about it. House hockey is of course cheaper but even that is expensive. 

My nephew is 14 and is now at some sort of regional academy In a nearby town at a cost of $18k for this season not including travel expenses or the skills training stuff or anything outside the season.
 

It is not chump change, and with 2-3 more years of that just to get to maybe the point of getting a scholarship to play at a US college... it will cost more than the scholarship itself.

[rekker]

18 minutes ago, Provost said:

My nephew is 14 and is now at some sort of regional academy In a nearby town at a cost of $18k for this season not including travel expenses or the skills training stuff or anything outside the season.
 

It is not chump change, and with 2-3 more years of that just to get to maybe the point of getting a scholarship to play at a US college... it will cost more than the scholarship itself.

Ya. It's nut bar, competitive parents with kid googles, and excessive lines of credit driving it all. Been through the scholarship phase and it's not what people think. Full rides are for only the exceptional, but not guaranteed once signed. Most are partial scholarships to American universities. Their tuitions are through the roof and with the exchange rates it's astronomical. Best scholarships are actually Canadian imho. It's not much but even a partial tuition is great. Our tuitions are reasonable, no exchange, and you play for free. Thing is you have to actually be good to earn a Canadian scholarship. Any half decent player can get a US scholarship through the three divs of university hockey. You just have to write a cheque. A lot of these kids you hear playing in the states are paying twenty-five thousand or more for the opportunity on a "partial" scholarship. Parent's, like myself, need to honestly evaluate their kid, their finances, make responsible, emotionless, decisions. But too many just borrow against their mortgages, lol. 

[oldnews]

12 hours ago, ba;;isticsports said:

The culture appears to be changing oldnews

When i grew up, there was a hockey game on almost every street after school, when you weren't playing ice hockey, same with fields full of football and baseball that are sparse and more soccer (though many kids played soccer too then)

You see far more basketball nets than hockey nets on the street now

If we are going to anecdote this - I see a lot more Canucks flags on cars than I do Raptors or Lebron jerseys....I'm not sure I agree with you - and particularly as you step outside the particular urban areas you seem to be describing.

And regardless, if you're attempting to imply that the market doesn't really support the Canucks anymore, or that there isn't a remaining, massive, rabid hockey culture in this province, I can't concur.

Edited October 1, 2020 by oldnews

[oldnews]

9 hours ago, grandmaster said:

Be more appreciative we are not like Ottawa. FA has every right to say no I’m not going to go to the full cap for next season. The losses that they will be enduring next year are going to be insurmountable. 

Yawn. 

I pay for what I consume - and further, I engage in the rabid hockey interest you witness in places like this - an NHL site, powered by advertising and generally an underlying 'endorsement' and engagement with the 'product'.    A consumer is no more responsible to thank a producer/product than that producer/product is to thank a consumer for their patronage.

So  spare me your deferential ideology.

I am not receiving anything resembling charitable from 'ownership' - and I dont' owe a whiff of 'appreciation' to anyone.  I give that when I feel it is appropriate - and where this ownership is concerned, there are plenty of both positives and negatives.

I could not care less wadr, who owns this franchise - whether it's public, private or not - the market itself and the economy in general is what makes the Canucks possible - not some individual suitor - and the storylines around professional franchise ownership - being a 'favour' to us fans - is a non-starter wadr.  I wasn't born yesterday.

Edited October 1, 2020 by oldnews