NHL: Too Much Monkey Business?

Tukker wrote:Columbus is a good hockey market. They've supported their team though the good and the bad.

But are they making money, scraping by or hemorrhaging?

ETA: Sorry didn't see the other posts until now. They aren't doing well now. Perhaps the newness has worn off. Perhaps the recession has set in. My guess is it's the latter, and with nojobs people will spend on college football and hoops before hockey.

wprager wrote:

Tukker wrote:Columbus is a good hockey market. They've supported their team though the good and the bad.

But are they making money, scraping by or hemorrhaging?

Forbes Magazine's 2008 financial profile of the Columbus Blue Jackets franchise can be found here:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/31/nhl08_Columbus-Blue-Jackets_316038.html

Forbes' 2008 picture of NHL teams "The Business of Hockey" can be found here:

http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/29/nhl-team-values-biz-sports-nhl08_cz_mo_kb_1029nhl_land.html?partner=whiteglove_google

Making the playoffs, according to Forbes, is financially critical for the Jackets.

As an example of a franchise that has been turned around under William Wirtz' son Rocky, Forbes' profile on the Blackhawks is worth reading.

An excerpt:

Since Rocky took over, the team's season ticket base has grown from 3,400 to 13,500. FORBES estimates that the team swung from a $3.6 million operating loss in 2006 to an operating profit (Ebitda) of $1.4 million in 2007. A team with a storied brand in hockey's third-biggest city, the Blackhawks last year were worth $179 million. Now we peg the team value at $205 million. "I loved my dad, and he was a wonderful businessman," says Wirtz, who in the past had little to do with the hockey team and ran the liquor operation (annual revenue, $1.5 billion). "But if you are not in front of big changes, you are going to be left in the dust."

The full article here:
Chicago's Comeback
Nathan Vardi for FORBES, 11.17.08, 12:00 AM EST
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/1117/123.html

The Forbes Ottawa Senators' profile can be read here (though Filip Kuba's personal info is wrong).
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/31/nhl08_Ottawa-Senators_318444.html

Given the potential amount of playoff revenue (Forbes estimates that a Stanley Cup would net George Gillett $10MM in profit), Forbes' speculation (written in October) regarding Bryan Murray is worth noting:
"If the Senators do not go past the first round this season look for Murray to be replaced."

davetherave wrote:The Forbes Ottawa Senators' profile can be read here (though Filip Kuba's personal info is wrong).
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/31/nhl08_Ottawa-Senators_318444.html

Given the potential amount of playoff revenue (Forbes estimates that a Stanley Cup would net George Gillett $10MM in profit), Forbes' speculation (written in October) regarding Bryan Murray is worth noting:
"If the Senators do not go past the first round this season look for Murray to be replaced."

Interesting read, but what makes Forbes such a authoritative source on Murray's job security?

No one says Forbes is an 'authoritative source' on Bryan Murray...note that their comment is characterized as speculation.

Just passing along the info.

Given that though, wouldn't it be more prudent to give up a bit now, in favour of several years of a better showing later? This is what Murray is building towards, and he must have put that plan in front of Melnyk at some point.

We shall see shortly what Mr Murray's plan is...and if Mr Melnyk approves.

Frankly, I think the Forbes writer was being provincial.

IMHO Murray and Melnyk made the plan before Muckler was axed. They just haven't shared it with anybody until now.

That plan would be: reduce payroll, secure the most visible assets, rebuild the prospect pipeline, change the makeup of the team from offence first to defence first, and get younger/cheaper.

At least that's what the evidence seems to indicate...

davetherave wrote:We shall see shortly what Mr Murray's plan is...and if Mr Melnyk approves.

Frankly, I think the Forbes writer was being provincial.

IMHO Murray and Melnyk made the plan before Muckler was axed. They just haven't shared it with anybody until now.

That plan would be: reduce payroll, secure the most visible assets, rebuild the prospect pipeline, change the makeup of the team from offence first to defence first, and get younger/cheaper.

At least that's what the evidence seems to indicate...

That's sort of what I've been thinking, although not dating back to Muckler's departure. It's hard to imagine them changing the makeup of the team coming off a trip to the Finals.

However, I do think it's possible that Melnyk and Murray have already thrown in the towel on this season, and the team's inactivity on the trade front is purely a smoke screen. At first glance, it may look like Murray is doing all he can to improve this team now, by not making rash moves, but in reality could be waiting it out until the deadline to make some moves to cut payroll, get young and give this team a shakeup. By the deadline it's much easier for the casual fan to accept that the team is out of contention. I talk to my parents about the team and I've been saying for months that a rebuild of sorts is in order. They refuse to see that this team is broken and fully expect that Murray will make a move somehow to make everything all better.

davetherave wrote:No one says Forbes is an 'authoritative source' on Bryan Murray...note that their comment is characterized as speculation.

Just passing along the info.

Sorry, I think you misunderstood. I didn't mean that anyone on this site was implying they were such an authoritative source, but just they way they state as matter of fact that Murray will be fired if they don't make the playoffs seems a little too strongly worded for a business magazine writing about the inner workings of an NHL franchise. I didn't mean it in any way as a criticism of you or anyone else on this board.

Mojo wrote:

davetherave wrote:No one says Forbes is an 'authoritative source' on Bryan Murray...note that their comment is characterized as speculation.

Just passing along the info.

Sorry, I think you misunderstood. I didn't mean that anyone on this site was implying they were such an authoritative source, but just they way they state as matter of fact that Murray will be fired if they don't make the playoffs seems a little too strongly worded for a business magazine writing about the inner workings of an NHL franchise. I didn't mean it in any way as a criticism of you or anyone else on this board.

No worries...I agree with you that the Forbes writer was kinda snarky about it anyway... :pirat: