Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [hockhist] Digest Number 2157

Expand Messages
  • Richard Krueger
    ... yes, absolutely. orca bay (which owns the canucks and gm place) consistently claims to be losing money. however, this is nothing more than payments on
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 2, 2002
      >We've been around on this before. Be careful of "in the red"
      >
      > > 3-Two thirds plus of the league is actually in the red.
      >
      >As an E.A. with a little bit of hockey business knowledge, I would
      >guesstimate that only three or four teams are actually in the red
      >when depreciation and capital gains are taken into consideration.

      yes, absolutely. orca bay (which owns the canucks and gm place)
      consistently claims to be losing money. however, this is nothing more than
      payments on the stadium. the canucks themselves are in the black; don't let
      them tell you otherwise! any team which also owns their stadium can engage
      in any manner of creative accounting to show a loss. and unless they're
      publicly-traded corporations (such as disney or turner broadcasting, etc),
      well, their books are their own business. yet, even though disney is
      required to give their figures, the mighty ducks form such a tiny part of
      their annual revenues and expenditures that it's likely impossible to
      extract from all the other numbers.

      richard.


      _________________________________________________________________
      Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.� Join now!
      http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
    • William Underwood
      I agree about Vancouver. But it isn t ALWAYS the case. As for making separation from other corporate business, it isn t all that hard for the people who own
      Message 2 of 2 , Nov 2, 2002
        I agree about Vancouver. But it isn't ALWAYS the case.

        As for making separation from other corporate business, it isn't all that
        hard for the people who own the team. Like any other division that fails to
        pull it's weight, you divest. Disney has seen the light! And they haven't
        even been spend thrifts.

        Again I have seen books and the loss of the team that I saw was real and
        subsequent events have borne that out.

        For a SMALL fraction of teams you are right! But Vancouver is a viablke
        hockey market with manny intangibles at work. Not every place is like that!

        Indeed if it was all just trick accounting wouldn't we have NFL rteams doing
        the fancy trick of filing Chapter 11 or going into recievership and league
        governance? We DON'T see that because their sport actually works...


        I've been in the pro hockey business for twenty years and the sports
        marketing business for ten, consulting for groups seeking to buy and sell
        hockey teams are a big part of that aspect of what I do. There are REAL
        problems here! The Canucks are an exception to the rule, I myself have
        always balked at alot of their particular claims of woe! Although they DO
        have one structural flaw that COULD be a problem. An American owner with a
        Canadian asset can prove volitile. There is no nationalistic loyalty, a
        hostility to taxes and currency issues that could make them restive. I'd
        actually feel better if they had solvent Canadian ownership. There is always
        the chance that they may want to move the team to a US tax environment. But
        there is NO real reason why Vancouver can't survive! I balk here too!

        But I don't balk at Edmonton, Calgary, Pittsburgh, Anaheim and several other
        spots! They really are hurting and the future IS bleak.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Richard Krueger [mailto:dig4fish@...]
        Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 2:22 PM
        To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [hockhist] Digest Number 2157


        >We've been around on this before. Be careful of "in the red"
        >
        > > 3-Two thirds plus of the league is actually in the red.
        >
        >As an E.A. with a little bit of hockey business knowledge, I would
        >guesstimate that only three or four teams are actually in the red
        >when depreciation and capital gains are taken into consideration.

        yes, absolutely. orca bay (which owns the canucks and gm place)
        consistently claims to be losing money. however, this is nothing more than
        payments on the stadium. the canucks themselves are in the black; don't let
        them tell you otherwise! any team which also owns their stadium can engage
        in any manner of creative accounting to show a loss. and unless they're
        publicly-traded corporations (such as disney or turner broadcasting, etc),
        well, their books are their own business. yet, even though disney is
        required to give their figures, the mighty ducks form such a tiny part of
        their annual revenues and expenditures that it's likely impossible to
        extract from all the other numbers.

        richard.


        _________________________________________________________________
        Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.  Join now!
        http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp


        To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
        hockhist-unsubscribe@onelist.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.