Since hearing ASG lost 40-50 million dallors last year

[Buzzard]

I disagree completely with the notion that hockey can't exist south of the northern US. Look at the attendance numbers, the fans in the South do a good job in fan attendance. The big difference is when those teams have cheap ownership and the fans have no incentive to support the team financially. The Thrashers used to have great attendance until years of cheap ASG ownership have killed many of the fans.

My point really is from a kid growing up in the souths perspective; I cannot recall any hockey teams in high school. With that being said, the future of any sports regional growth IMO is in the youngsters coming up through high school, then college, and on to the pros should they be good enough. Those kids that do not get to the next levels, like my friend from Detroit, become life long fans as well as their kids become fans...

I see that happening in baseball, basketball, football and to a small extent soccer down south but its hard for me to imagine that with hockey. I know there are die hard hockey fans in the south; but most are transplants or kids who grew up with parents who were hockey fans. If you cannot play the game its really hard to become a fan. Just my opinion but I think some of it is relevant...

[DeacKillsaDevil]

They didn't lose that much. I'm a CPA and there are all kinds of noncash write offs that are likely in those numbers.

[Sothron]

My point really is from a kid growing up in the souths perspective; I cannot recall any hockey teams in high school. With that being said, the future of any sports regional growth IMO is in the youngsters coming up through high school, then college, and on to the pros should they be good enough. Those kids that do not get to the next levels, like my friend from Detroit, become life long fans as well as their kids become fans...

I see that happening in baseball, basketball, football and to a small extent soccer down south but its hard for me to imagine that with hockey. I know there are die hard hockey fans in the south; but most are transplants or kids who grew up with parents who were hockey fans. If you cannot play the game its really hard to become a fan. Just my opinion but I think some of it is relevant...

I agree with you that being able to play a sport at a junior level and growing up naturally makes a broader fanbase. I personally played basketball at the division II level in college but hockey has always been the one sport I would kill to play. If you look at the local hockey teams in the South that get involved with the community you do see an ardent fanbase. I live in Columbus, Ga. and the Cottonmouths are very popular here just for one example. I know going to away games in nearby states or cities you can see their fans are die hards as well and we're talking like minor league hockey leagues.

[AHF]

I don't think that there should be no hockey in the south. I think it is ****ing ridiculous that places that live and breath hockey don't have teams while Florida has two teams, etc. The NHL made a mistake pulling out of Canada. There is a place for a southern presence but also a key place for Canadian fans.

[dlpin]

First of all, I significantly distrust those numbers.

Second, I doubt that is the net loss. One of the big things people don't talk about when it comes to losing money in sports is that there are all sorts of numbers games that shape things. For example, contracts can be depreciated. So a bad contract also provides tax relief.

Third, even if those numbers were true. the increase in a franchise's value more than makes up for yearly losses. Heck, how can franchise values be going up, and the cap, which is based on basketball income, be going up, if every team claims a loss?

[Guest]

First of all, I significantly distrust those numbers.

Second, I doubt that is the net loss. One of the big things people don't talk about when it comes to losing money in sports is that there are all sorts of numbers games that shape things. For example, contracts can be depreciated. So a bad contract also provides tax relief.

Third, even if those numbers were true. the increase in a franchise's value more than makes up for yearly losses. Heck, how can franchise values be going up, and the cap, which is based on basketball income, be going up, if every team claims a loss?

Exactly. This is just positioning for the new CBA. These numbers are bogus in my mind. Its not a net loss, this numbers probably reflect operating losses and are still being fudged. Anyone defending the ASG in this case are delirious in my mind. And anyone talking about the fans needing to support the team are even more delirious in my mind. As Dr.Z talks about, this is a business. If the ASG realize their customers aren't buying their product the problem is not about the customers, its the business that is doing something wrong. Does Microsoft blame the public when they are at a loss? No, so why should the ASG be allowed to do so?

[hogfulness]

I don't doubt these numbers at all. The NBA as a whole has a reason to misrepresent their bottom line, but not ASG. They are trying to take on investors and really need to polish their turds.

And the Thrashers are one of many poorly located NHL franchises that need to be contracted or moved north.

Edited June 23, 2010 by hogfulness

[DJlaysitup]

And the Thrashers are one of many poorly located NHL franchises that need to be contracted or moved north.

Who are these "thrashers" some folks talk about?

[thecampster]

it's hard to pound on these guys for going cheap with LD. I'm honestly shocked that they are even considering paying out 20+ million per to JJ. Could someone please help me understand why ASG think JJ is so important. I understand W/L but I doubt Joe has real impact on the bottom line.

Thats:

Thrashers - 30 mill

Hawks -10

Arena +10

There is a difference between lost money and lost money against budget. These numbers are almost assuridly lost money against budget. How does that work? Here are depictions of the two.

Lost money ... Total gross - Total costs = profit or loss. So for example 100 million - 110 million = 10million

Lost money against budget ... Total Gross - Total costs - projected profit = profit or loss. So for example: 100 million gross - 110 million - (projected profit of 10% of gross (10 million)) = 20 million

Same budget, in one we lose 10 mil but in two we report losing 20 million. This is common procedure on most company ledgers. ASG did not lose 20 million on the Hawks, they were 20 million over budget which was probably 10 - 20 million profit projected.

This was how the owners for MLB argued with the arbitrators years ago when doing their collective bargaining agreement.

The reason they do this is because it's reasonable to assume money invested returns a profit. The same money they own the team with could go into bank CD's and earn 3-5% so it stands to reason they could assume a profit in their books.

Edited June 23, 2010 by thecampster

[Sothron]

I don't doubt these numbers at all. The NBA as a whole has a reason to misrepresent their bottom line, but not ASG. They are trying to take on investors and really need to polish their turds.

And the Thrashers are one of many poorly located NHL franchises that need to be contracted or moved north.

No, the Thrashers need an ownership that will actually spend more than the league minimum on a roster and hire a real coaching staff instead of going through AHL or assistant coaches.

[lethalweapon3]

Throwing this into the mix for the Thrashers' situation, from the Janaury AJC (Schultz) blog. The $30 mill is not all you heartless fans refusing to buy tickets and hot dogs.

Waddell acknowledged that the Thrashers will be among only a few teams penalized in the NHL’s revenue-sharing program: 10 to 25 percent. Last year’s normal share was $17 million. The loss would be $1.7 million to $4.25 million for a franchise already counting pennies.

Same article, this might fall under the "projected profit" category:

He also acknowledged that Philips has sought to get out of its naming-rights deal at the arena and sell it to a third party. He dismissed any notion that ownership would accept a reduction in the deal with Philips.

~lw3

Edited June 23, 2010 by lethalweapon3

[drzachary]

but how can they develop the product if they're losing so much money? These guys look to be in a no-win situation in this city. They got JJ hoping that he could bring fans back but that failed. I think they've done enough. At some point we fans have to carry our weight or risk losing the team to a more supportive city.

What is 'carrying our weight,' though? Is it shelling out our own money (i.e. personally taking financial losses) when the ownership is going to run things on the cheap? No thanks! I had season tickets this year, but I'm pointedly waiting a while before exploring buying new ones. Businesses need to win the loyalty of customers, not the other way around.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

What is 'carrying our weight,' though? Is it shelling out our own money (i.e. personally taking financial losses) when the ownership is going to run things on the cheap? No thanks! I had season tickets this year, but I'm pointedly waiting a while before exploring buying new ones. Businesses need to win the loyalty of customers, not the other way around.

Carrying our weight = supporting the team when it shows that it can play real good ball at home

Fans like you aren't the problem Dr. Z. You more than carry your weight by being a season ticket holder. The "problem fans" are those fans that find every excuse in the world NOT to support the Hawks by going to the games. And there are far more of them in Atlanta than people, even loyal fans like yourself, want to admit to.

And some of them might be on this board. Which is why they get mad at me and others who bring this topic up.

I still don't understand where all of the apathy comes from? Some of it . . . yes. But not all of it.

- 65 wins the last 2 years at home

- 90 wins at home during the "Horford era"

- 3 consecutive playoff appearances

- 2 flame-outs in the 2nd round

The last 2.5 to 3 years should've been some of the most enjoyable years Hawk fans have had since the mid 90s. But some people are still miserable.

Fans are so quick to say things like . . "we pay the players' salaries". Why do fans even say this, if they don't believe that not spending money going to the games wouldn't have the opposite effect . . in which management looks to not add or reduce payroll because of the lack of revenue coming in? ( see New Orleans ).

[dlpin]

I don't doubt these numbers at all. The NBA as a whole has a reason to misrepresent their bottom line, but not ASG. They are trying to take on investors and really need to polish their turds.

And the Thrashers are one of many poorly located NHL franchises that need to be contracted or moved north.

Of course the ASG has a reason to misrepresent their bottom line. Since they are not publicly traded they can put this out there even as they give the potential investors the real numbers.

By putting misleading information out there, they have all sorts of things to gain: justifying ticket increases, justifying not spending on the team, and so on.