The teams in danger of folding are the teams that don't own their arenas. While many teams (like, say, the Flames) get cash flow from the team and the arena, teams like the Penguins are at the mercy of the lock-out. If there's no hockey, the Flames can still make money running other events in the Saddledome. Meanwhile, the Penguins would have no source of cashflow.
I expect at least one team to fold or move after this is all done.
2004 CALGARY FLAMES: 42-30-7-3 in 82 games for 94 points in the regular season 15-11 in 26 games in the playoffs 2004 Western Conference Champions
Originally posted by evilwaldo If an owner decides to pay himself a $100 million dollar salary it comes out of net income so it appears as though the team is losing money when the owner is actually being greedy.
Most accountants take it out of the Owner's Equity account with keeps track of all owner deposits and withdraws.
Yes, eventually it comes out of profit (net profit = revenue - expenses (like salary and owner withdraws)), but on the balance sheet there is a separate account to track owner "greediness" or lack thereof.
Hell, that account is a big section of the Equity part of the Accounting Equation.
Originally posted by BigVitoMarkThat certainly does make the case for a salary cap more compelling on the surface, but don't forget it was the ownership that either did a terrible job projecting revenue or couldn't manage their costs effectively. You can't blame guys for taking what you offered them.
Did that SI article happen to mention how that percentage was representative of the expenses on a team to team basis? I think that'd be an interesting point to look at. Honestly, I don't care if the Rangers are spending 99% of their revenues on player salaries because they clearly have no idea what to do with their money and, frankly, deserve to get fleeced. I think such a breakdown could shed some light on how much of the salary problem in the league is due to stupid spending and how much is due to an overall problem with the market.
They didn't really bring that up in that much detail (it was one of those mini articles they have contained in one big article; in this case, Tampa winning the Cup), but it's a good point to look at. You're right about the owners, as they deserve a lot (if not most of) the blame regarding the poor financial structure. As far as the Rangers go, aren't they one of the few teams that's actually profitable? Ditching them would only make things worse.
Originally posted by BigVitoMarkThe San Jose Mercury News (mercurynews.com) lists five other teams besides the Sharks taking steps this early.
CRZ, any chance you can name off what five teams are laying off staff this early, as it's one of those newspaper sites that you gotta register to view anyway?
Originally posted by evilwaldo If an owner decides to pay himself a $100 million dollar salary it comes out of net income so it appears as though the team is losing money when the owner is actually being greedy.
Most accountants take it out of the Owner's Equity account with keeps track of all owner deposits and withdraws.
Yes, eventually it comes out of profit (net profit = revenue - expenses (like salary and owner withdraws)), but on the balance sheet there is a separate account to track owner "greediness" or lack thereof.
Hell, that account is a big section of the Equity part of the Accounting Equation.
True. But remember that the owners are corporations and the pay of the individuals which own the corporation (most individuals in this case are the same) is counted on the income statement which will eventually flow through to the balance sheet.
Are you a professional halfwit or talented amateur?
Originally posted by David Pollak of the San Jose Mercury NewsSeveral other teams -- including Dallas, Phoenix, Ottawa, Washington and Carolina -- have laid off employees. Others are reducing employee hours and salaries. Article here. (registration free but required) (mercurynews.com)
(Not Bob Kohm)
In the context of baseball, the use of drugs hurts only the player. In the context of baseball, the use of alcohol hurts only the player. In the context of baseball, womanizing hurts whom? Maybe the wife of the player? In the context of baseball, felonies are crimes against society, not against baseball. In the context of baseball, gambling is the only crime against baseball.
Gambling, in the context of baseball, is a capital offense and Rose has richly earned-- hell, he agreed to-- his death sentence. Let him hang.
Bob Kohm, co-owner of Rotojunkies.com (rotojunkies.com) , and a large market kind of guy.
Thread ahead: 2004 NHL Entry Draft Preview Next thread: WWE article on Canadian's supporting the Flames Previous thread: The NHL's Most Futile Franchise?
Thread rated: 5.48
#
#
