SabresFan526 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 a) I assume we both know that their $20 million loss is mostly paper losses so they really aren't trying to cover any mounting losses.b) For the sake of the argument, I will use your numbers. 1) An owner looking to get out is probably more inclined to take the $4.5 million in guarnateed savings over the remote likelihood of making $6.65 million by going six or seven games deep in two playoff rounds against Detroit and San Jose. 2) New ownership would probably be more inclined to start its regime with little to no long term high end contracts. c) It far from bores me. I love this stuff and if I had the time, I would go through your analysis point by point. Good deal. I'm glad we can keep this discussion going cordially and intellectually. So here goes my rebuttal: a.) Yes, I assume that this is a $20 million loss against the income statement, which says nothing about the actual net cash outflow for the club. However, I am inclined to believe that there is probably some net cash outflow for the club. How much and for what purposes? I have no idea. From an income statement perspective, for most companies the biggest what I would call "fake" items are usually depreciation and amortization as those have nothing to do with cash at all and are just made up expenses. With a hockey club, I don't know what tangible assets they have and what they are depreciating and how. I assume you cannot depreciate the skills of hockey players and account for that on your income statement, but if you could Detroit would have huge depreciation charges for Chris Chelios. From a cash perspective, however, I would imagine that they are paying out player payroll (think COGS), employee salaries and facilities and operations (think SG&A), and interest payments against whatever loans they have as a franchise. And, if attendance, concessions, and merchandise do not match up to the cost structure of the team (most likely COGS and SG&A) they could be in big trouble depending on how much they have in cash reserves. There is a lot of accounting manipulation that you can do to make things worse or better than you'd like, and without looking at their income statement, balance sheet, and statement of cash flows, I don't know what that $20 million loss really means. However, I'd still maintain the additional contribution you would make from playoff gates could go a long way to offset those losses. If nothing else, you're guaranteed at least two home playoff games if you make it which maybe about $2-$3 million, which may be less than what you save in payroll by trading away stars, but still not bad and something that can potentially increase the value of the team for potential investors. b.) Yeah, I can agree with both of your points here. That would make sense. The $4.5 million savings is guaranteed and depending on the player can save money against next year's payroll as well. However, any savings on UFAs like Derek Morris will only be nominal after the trade deadline. As for #2, I can agree with that as well as recent precedent kind of shows us this as the Preds traded for Forsberg who was a UFA and then after the season was over traded away just about every UFA they had to stockpile draft picks and had very low payroll. Even Pittsburgh did not have too many long term contracts before their new arena deal was agreed upon, so I can buy that as well. I guess the question is, would the additional revenue from playoff gates to offset the losses increase the overall value of the team for potential investors (i.e. present value of future growth opportunities from merch and ticket sales for a good team) vs. the savings made by trading away players? I'd argue making the playoffs can increase the value of the team for potential investors as you may be able to grow the fan base and hopefully increase attendance next year, but who knows?
inkman Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Clarke MacArthur...power forward I'm guessing you meant Drew Stafford. I think you've made that swicheroo before.
carpandean Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Carp can probably back me up on this as he's a PhD in this kind of stuff. Carp, please weigh in. Hey, I'm an Ops guy. Don't drag me into this finance argument. :nana:
Two or less Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 I'm guessing you meant Drew Stafford. I think you've made that swicheroo before. MacArthur is a power forward.
stenbaro Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 MacArthur is a power forward. LOL....WHAT??? He is no power forward..He is a in between lifeless NHL hockeyplayer and AHL super scrub..Power Forward is not in his arsenal...
Two or less Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 LOL....WHAT??? He is no power forward..He is a in between lifeless NHL hockeyplayer and AHL super scrub..Power Forward is not in his arsenal... Come on. Be serious. His best games are when he throws his body around and fights for the puck. A "lifeless NHL player" and a "AHL super scrub" who's got 11 goals in the NHL... including 5 in his last 11. Suuuuuure.
stenbaro Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Come on. Be serious. His best games are when he throws his body around and fights for the puck. A "lifeless NHL player" and a "AHL super scrub" who's got 11 goals in the NHL... including 5 in his last 11. Suuuuuure. Vanek..I read a lot of your posts and often choose not to reply..I agree with some and move on on the others I disagree with without comment out of respect to you..But to call Macarthur a power forward is ridiculous..You want a power forward youre talking a Brad May, Youre talking a Bertuzzi, youre talking about a player who puts fear in the defensemans mind when he is going back to get the puck and makes the mistake of a bad pass so not to get hit...Youre not talking Clarke Macarthr..Now Macarthur might get the odd goal out because he was playing hockey at the time the puck was near him but to say he scores goals because he is knocking players off the puck or forcing them to make a bad play is ludicrous (sp)..The only players close on this team to "power forward" are Gaustad and Paille..
darksabre Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Come on. Be serious. His best games are when he throws his body around and fights for the puck. A "lifeless NHL player" and a "AHL super scrub" who's got 11 goals in the NHL... including 5 in his last 11. Suuuuuure. Well maybe if he threw his body around every game, then he'd be a power forward. Until then he's just an average player who happens to hit now and then, along with potting a few goals.
Two or less Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Vanek..I read a lot of your posts and often choose not to reply..I agree with some and move on on the others I disagree with without comment out of respect to you..But to call Macarthur a power forward is ridiculous..You want a power forward youre talking a Brad May, Youre talking a Bertuzzi, youre talking about a player who puts fear in the defensemans mind when he is going back to get the puck and makes the mistake of a bad pass so not to get hit...Youre not talking Clarke Macarthr..Now Macarthur might get the odd goal out because he was playing hockey at the time the puck was near him but to say he scores goals because he is knocking players off the puck or forcing them to make a bad play is ludicrous (sp)..The only players close on this team to "power forward" are Gaustad and Paille.. Umm THOMAS VANEK? You're mistaken a power forward to a grinder. Patrick Kalete and Brad May are NOT power forwards. Their grinders. MacArthur. Is a power forward.
stenbaro Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Umm THOMAS VANEK? You're mistaken a power forward to a grinder. Patrick Kalete and Brad May are NOT power forwards. Their grinders. MacArthur. Is a power forward. I am done debating this point with you because obviously you have a different defintion of power forward than every one who has ever watched or played or been associated with hockey so I will move on from this point...
Patty16 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Thanks for the comments. Since you've done this before, it sounds like the team really makes on average about $3/seat in contribution profit on concessions? If you do the math and assume again 15,000 seats for a playoff game for the Coyotes, you're probably able to add about $45,000 in profit to the team. So, based on my previous post, the revised number is probably around, $1.545 million/playoff game in ticket sales and concessions. After taking out the 50K as part of their lease for parking, your back at about $1.5 million and then taking out the 15% escrow to the NHL for the playoff bonus pool, you're now at about $1.275 million/playoff game. Seems like the P&L would still make sense for home playoff gates than trading away your best players since they won't have player payroll to deal with during the playoffs which is the biggest cost for any team. As for your other points, this is quite strange, I read an article on espn.com and apparently the Coyotes not only get no revenue from parking, they are actually subsidizing parking and have to pay $50K/game to the city of Glendale. Parking is a net loss for the Coyotes instead of a source of revenue like for most teams. I think this is where they end up losing the most money and why they are in dire straits financially, or at least one of the many reasons for it. theres so many variables its hard to get a decent number down but I like yours. And sorry i didnt hear the WGR report i was just speaking in general so with the parking thing ill defer to you. Still like the analysis!
Wraith Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 I am done debating this point with you because obviously you have a different defintion of power forward than every one who has ever watched or played or been associated with hockey so I will move on from this point... Oh please. Stop being so dramatic. The fact that you think Paille is closer to a power forward than Thomas Vanek makes your opinion on this subject suspect at best. Vanek and Stafford are the closest players we have to the mythical "power forward." Vanek may night fight much, but he uses his size effectively, is hard to get off the puck, is obviously an excellent shooter with great hands, plants himself in front of the net and scores a lot of goals within 10 feet of the net with defenseman draped all over him. Stafford doesn't plant himself in front of the net but rather grinds it out in the corners, uses his size effectively to maintain the puck and has great hands and scoring ability.
tom webster Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Good deal. I'm glad we can keep this discussion going cordially and intellectually. So here goes my rebuttal: a.) Yes, I assume that this is a $20 million loss against the income statement, which says nothing about the actual net cash outflow for the club. However, I am inclined to believe that there is probably some net cash outflow for the club. How much and for what purposes? I have no idea. From an income statement perspective, for most companies the biggest what I would call "fake" items are usually depreciation and amortization as those have nothing to do with cash at all and are just made up expenses. With a hockey club, I don't know what tangible assets they have and what they are depreciating and how. I assume you cannot depreciate the skills of hockey players and account for that on your income statement, but if you could Detroit would have huge depreciation charges for Chris Chelios. From a cash perspective, however, I would imagine that they are paying out player payroll (think COGS), employee salaries and facilities and operations (think SG&A), and interest payments against whatever loans they have as a franchise. And, if attendance, concessions, and merchandise do not match up to the cost structure of the team (most likely COGS and SG&A) they could be in big trouble depending on how much they have in cash reserves. There is a lot of accounting manipulation that you can do to make things worse or better than you'd like, and without looking at their income statement, balance sheet, and statement of cash flows, I don't know what that $20 million loss really means. However, I'd still maintain the additional contribution you would make from playoff gates could go a long way to offset those losses. If nothing else, you're guaranteed at least two home playoff games if you make it which maybe about $2-$3 million, which may be less than what you save in payroll by trading away stars, but still not bad and something that can potentially increase the value of the team for potential investors. b.) Yeah, I can agree with both of your points here. That would make sense. The $4.5 million savings is guaranteed and depending on the player can save money against next year's payroll as well. However, any savings on UFAs like Derek Morris will only be nominal after the trade deadline. As for #2, I can agree with that as well as recent precedent kind of shows us this as the Preds traded for Forsberg who was a UFA and then after the season was over traded away just about every UFA they had to stockpile draft picks and had very low payroll. Even Pittsburgh did not have too many long term contracts before their new arena deal was agreed upon, so I can buy that as well. I guess the question is, would the additional revenue from playoff gates to offset the losses increase the overall value of the team for potential investors (i.e. present value of future growth opportunities from merch and ticket sales for a good team) vs. the savings made by trading away players? I'd argue making the playoffs can increase the value of the team for potential investors as you may be able to grow the fan base and hopefully increase attendance next year, but who knows? a) I have always been wary of sports teams accounting practices. When I "hung with the big boys" during the Rigases era, we would constantly joke about their accounting practices. Suite revenue was a perfect example. Our checks for the suite actually went to Crossroads Arena, LLC and our understanding was that only the cost of 12 tickets at regular club level prices actually went to the hockey corp. When the Rigases forced their way into the hockey corp, it was the result of substantial cash infusions that the Knoxes could never repay. They later recouped this cash as loan repayments escalating reported losses. The list of questionable accounting practices goes on and on. I do believe that some teams do argue that player contracts are assets and thus depreciate them accordingly but I am not sure about this.
stenbaro Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Oh please. Stop being so dramatic. The fact that you think Paille is closer to a power forward than Thomas Vanek makes your opinion on this subject suspect at best. Vanek and Stafford are the closest players we have to the mythical "power forward." Vanek may night fight much, but he uses his size effectively, is hard to get off the puck, is obviously an excellent shooter with great hands, plants himself in front of the net and scores a lot of goals within 10 feet of the net with defenseman draped all over him. Stafford doesn't plant himself in front of the net but rather grinds it out in the corners, uses his size effectively to maintain the puck and has great hands and scoring ability. I never said Paille was more of a power forward thatn Vanek..I just forgot to include him...Doesnt make the point that Macarthur is not a power forward any less..Because he is not which is what the point of contention is..Read the whole debate before passing judgement..
SDS Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Power Forward :lol: I was going to do the same thing (well, sort of the same).
Two or less Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 I am done debating this point with you because obviously you have a different defintion of power forward than every one who has ever watched or played or been associated with hockey so I will move on from this point... Good. We'll see what type of player MacArthur develops into. But i'll end this believing what i believe, and you go on your way and believe Paille and May are power forwards. :lol:
inkman Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Good. We'll see what type of player MacArthur develops into. But i'll end this believing what i believe, and you go on your way and believe Paille and May are power forwards. :lol: First, you need to stop lol at the end of every post. Do you really laugh out loud after every one of your posts...weird. Second, not one poster here agrees with your definition of a power forward. Just because a guy scores ugly goals, doesn't mean he's a power forward. Third, when I envision a power forward, a certain body-type comes to mind. BTW, it doesn't resemble a horse jockey. Clarke is 5'11", 180lbs. Some players like Erik Cole (6'2" 205lbs) have pushed the boundaries of what a power forward should look like but he plays an uber physical game, a game that is more typical of a power forward. Most of the power forwards in the game are >6'3" and well north of 200 lbs.
SabresFan526 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 First, you need to stop lol at the end of every post. Do you really laugh out loud after every one of your posts...weird. Second, not one poster here agrees with your definition of a power forward. Just because a guy scores ugly goals, doesn't mean he's a power forward. Third, when I envision a power forward, a certain body-type comes to mind. BTW, it doesn't resemble a horse jockey. Clarke is 5'11", 180lbs. Some players like Erik Cole (6'2" 205lbs) have pushed the boundaries of what a power forward should look like but he plays an uber physical game, a game that is more typical of a power forward. Most of the power forwards in the game are >6'3" and well north of 200 lbs. Which is why, as sad as it is to say this, the closest thing the Sabres have to a true Power Forward is Ales Kotalik. Like him or not, he has the body type of a power forward and definitely the skill it takes to be a power forward in terms of his ability to score. His problem is that he will never be an upper echelon player because he is lazy and does not have the passion and motivation to be an upper echelon player, but he has all of the physical tools to be a top flight power forward. It's frustrating because he's got great hands, an amazing shot, and great size. If he just worked harder and played more in front of the net and did not shy away from contact, he'd be a top flight forward in the NHL. But, because he plays on the perimeter and tries to avoid contact and plays more of a finesse style, he'll never be a top flight power forward in the NHL.
Two or less Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Which is why, as sad as it is to say this, the closest thing the Sabres have to a true Power Forward is Ales Kotalik. Like him or not, he has the body type of a power forward and definitely the skill it takes to be a power forward in terms of his ability to score. His problem is that he will never be an upper echelon player because he is lazy and does not have the passion and motivation to be an upper echelon player, but he has all of the physical tools to be a top flight power forward. It's frustrating because he's got great hands, an amazing shot, and great size. If he just worked harder and played more in front of the net and did not shy away from contact, he'd be a top flight forward in the NHL. But, because he plays on the perimeter and tries to avoid contact and plays more of a finesse style, he'll never be a top flight power forward in the NHL. Ok, maybe this entire forum needs to go to hockey 101, me included, relax folks. Kotalik is NOT a power forward. Just because he may have the "build" of a power forward doesn't make him one. His #1 strength is his wrist show. He's a very good shooter and has good accuracy. He's horrible in the corners, he doesn't win too many battles infront of the net and his play with his back to the net is a joke. He never gets in front of the net. Kotalik is what i'd call a sniper. And like you said, he plays on t he perimeter a lot, because of his hard shot and his wrist shot. Kotalik isn't a top flight power forward because he isn't a power forward period.
Two or less Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 First, you need to stop lol at the end of every post. Do you really laugh out loud after every one of your posts...weird. Second, not one poster here agrees with your definition of a power forward. Just because a guy scores ugly goals, doesn't mean he's a power forward. Third, when I envision a power forward, a certain body-type comes to mind. BTW, it doesn't resemble a horse jockey. Clarke is 5'11", 180lbs. Some players like Erik Cole (6'2" 205lbs) have pushed the boundaries of what a power forward should look like but he plays an uber physical game, a game that is more typical of a power forward. Most of the power forwards in the game are >6'3" and well north of 200 lbs. Dude, what the fvck are you talking about? I didn't say "lol" once in this thread after one of my posts. The one time i used the smily for LOL was to mock the one guy who thought Paille and May were power forwards. My definition of a power forward is a talented forward, who plays well with his back to the net. Who is very good at winning battles in the corners, who plays most of his time in the offensive zone near or infront of the net. A player who scores majority of his goals with hard work by fighting off defenders, by screening the goalie and by getting lucky deflections because he plays infront of the net. A player who can not rely on his shot but has to rely on hard work infront of the net for success. Normally, i look at the bigger players as power forwards as your example on wiki showed. However, i think MacArthur is a low-grade power forward, but a power forward none the less. I don't think he's a sniper. I don't think he's a grinder. I don't think he's a playmaker. I don't think he can create his own chances. I don't think he has the shot to scare off to many goalies in this league. If he survives in this league, i think it'd be more of the power forward role then not. It's my opinion and i do respect people on this forum a lot, and if you guys say he's not and all i think have said he is not, i do respect that. But, don't mock me and then say PAILLE and BRAD FVCKING MAY are power forwards because Paille won the OHL best hitter award. A hitter doesn't make a power forward either.
SabresFan526 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Ok, maybe this entire forum needs to go to hockey 101, me included, relax folks. Kotalik is NOT a power forward. Just because he may have the "build" of a power forward doesn't make him one. His #1 strength is his wrist show. He's a very good shooter and has good accuracy. He's horrible in the corners, he doesn't win too many battles infront of the net and his play with his back to the net is a joke. He never gets in front of the net. Kotalik is what i'd call a sniper. And like you said, he plays on t he perimeter a lot, because of his hard shot and his wrist shot. Kotalik isn't a top flight power forward because he isn't a power forward period. Kotalik is not a top flight power forward because he chooses not to play the game that way. The term power forward originally came about to describe a player back in the 70s and early 80s who was bigger than most other players, played physical along the boards, and had a great knack for scoring. I think the original power forward is Gordie Howe, but I know the term was often used to describe Esposito. Then, the term became synonymous with the Legion of Doom and Keith Tkachuk. Back in the old days Esposito's build was bigger than most players of his day, but unlike the truly big guys who could fight and do nothing else, Esposito could score goals. Guys like Tiger Williams and Dave Schultz are not power forwards, they're just thugs. Esposito was a power forward. The prototypical power forward as used by the media to define the term is typically a player who is about 6'2-6'5 and weighs about 215-240 lbs. The power forward's game is one that combines a physical presence as well as deft scoring touch. If by your own admission, you do not consider Paille a Power Forward, then you should not consider MacArthur a Power Forward. Paille scored 19 goals last year, but is he really bigger than most hockey players? No, he's got a very average hockey player build. Does MacArthur have a build bigger than most hockey players? No, he's got a very average hockey player build. If MacArthur scores 19 or 20 goals this year, does that make him a power forward? No, it makes him as much of a power forward as Danny Paille is, and if Paille is not one, then neither is MacArthur.
Two or less Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Kotalik is not a top flight power forward because he chooses not to play the game that way. The term power forward originally came about to describe a player back in the 70s and early 80s who was bigger than most other players, played physical along the boards, and had a great knack for scoring. I think the original power forward is Gordie Howe, but I know the term was often used to describe Esposito. Then, the term became synonymous with the Legion of Doom and Keith Tkachuk. Back in the old days Esposito's build was bigger than most players of his day, but unlike the truly big guys who could fight and do nothing else, Esposito could score goals. Guys like Tiger Williams and Dave Schultz are not power forwards, they're just thugs. Esposito was a power forward. The prototypical power forward as used by the media to define the term is typically a player who is about 6'2-6'5 and weighs about 215-240 lbs. The power forward's game is one that combines a physical presence as well as deft scoring touch. If by your own admission, you do not consider Paille a Power Forward, then you should not consider MacArthur a Power Forward. Paille scored 19 goals last year, but is he really bigger than most hockey players? No, he's got a very average hockey player build. Does MacArthur have a build bigger than most hockey players? No, he's got a very average hockey player build. If MacArthur scores 19 or 20 goals this year, does that make him a power forward? No, it makes him as much of a power forward as Danny Paille is, and if Paille is not one, then neither is MacArthur. I consider Paille a speedy defensive forward. But thanks for the long explanation.
stenbaro Posted January 13, 2009 Report Posted January 13, 2009 Dude, what the fvck are you talking about? I didn't say "lol" once in this thread after one of my posts. The one time i used the smily for LOL was to mock the one guy who thought Paille and May were power forwards. My definition of a power forward is a talented forward, who plays well with his back to the net. Who is very good at winning battles in the corners, who plays most of his time in the offensive zone near or infront of the net. A player who scores majority of his goals with hard work by fighting off defenders, by screening the goalie and by getting lucky deflections because he plays infront of the net. A player who can not rely on his shot but has to rely on hard work infront of the net for success. Normally, i look at the bigger players as power forwards as your example on wiki showed. However, i think MacArthur is a low-grade power forward, but a power forward none the less. I don't think he's a sniper. I don't think he's a grinder. I don't think he's a playmaker. I don't think he can create his own chances. I don't think he has the shot to scare off to many goalies in this league. If he survives in this league, i think it'd be more of the power forward role then not. It's my opinion and i do respect people on this forum a lot, and if you guys say he's not and all i think have said he is not, i do respect that. But, don't mock me and then say PAILLE and BRAD FVCKING MAY are power forwards because Paille won the OHL best hitter award. A hitter doesn't make a power forward either. You are ridiculous..I said the only Sabres that are "close" to a power forward on this team are Gaustad and Paille..Youre freaking unbelievable..Vanek is the only one I guess you could argu over being a power forward only becasue he has a sneaky way way of gettting the puck, it seems to stick to him, but he doesnt go knocking snot from players heads..Mock away but when it comes down to it you prove what you really know by your posts..The only ones laughing are the ones that read your posts..
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.