Your Thoughts About: Ownership

[Derlique]

Dont think Mozic or O'Brien will generate much discussion and I think we're out of potential 2015-16 Devils.

 

Note: Please keep this civilized. It's ok to have dissenting opinions but please be respectful of other posters. Attack the post, not the poster.

 

Looking back at the changes from two years ago is insane.  We had an owner who was scraping the bottom of his cushions for money so he could pay his rent. Although he should be commended for being a huge Devils fan and helping with the construction of the Prudential Center, he was in way over his head. The lawsuits and constant speculation was growing tiresome. Lou pretty much admitted that we lost Parise because of JVB.

 

Enter Josh Harris and David Blitzer. Our funds went from zilch to billions overnight. I know people like to point that this ownership isnt committed to the franchise but they did get us out of debt, revamp the arena and have sought to improve fan relations. They also handed out large contracts to Schneider, Cammalleri and Greene.

 

Of course the goal song fiasco is/was somewhat of a black eye and they've raised ticket prices, but they're trying to appeal more to corporations, which is something we need as there isnt a ton of fan interest.

 

 

Then you have the apparent overthrow of Lou. I think most agree that it was the most healthy thing for the franchise.

Overall, I think we're pretty lucky to have these guys

[capo]

Since the 2012 run the Devils had been in a desperate need to change the direction of the franchise for the obvious. It's going to take some time but I think the owners have had a good summer.

[vadvlfan]

I like the way it's gone so far. All the changes that happened this off season have us on a path. We're in very good hands. Wecan't pass judgement on Shero yet in that after this season we'll know what we have.

 I just wish Lou would've stayed on as president & let Shero alone.

[sundstrom]

this is a smart ownership group that wants to make money and is willing to spend it. they are actually doing a lot for STH and trying to make the in-game atmosphere as inclusive to all as possible. perhaps they try to pander more to the "casual" fan than the die-hard but I don't know what ownership group doesn't.

 

they've shown that they're plenty willing to go away from tradition if it makes sense.

[Daniel]

The business/off-ice side things have been almost uniformly positive.  The financial stability alone is probably worth more than on-ice success considering another financially shaky owner would again create serious talk of bankruptcy and relocation.  The upgrades to the arena also come to mind.  As someone who hates indiscriminate post-goal "you suck" chants, I'm glad they changed the song, although it could have been handled better, by getting rid of it in the preseason.  I actually like the new goal song a lot, except for the canned "let's go Devils" in it, and that it isn't quite as "you suck" proof as I had hoped, although I'll give credit to the YS'ers that they'd have managed to find a way to do it if the goal song were a tune from Les Miz. 

 

Ticket prices, I don't love it, but I understand.  Hopefully though shrinking the club seat area will make the arena seem a little more full. 

 

Part of me doesn't love the move to things like allowing players to wear odd ball numbers and using social media.  The buttoned up approach was something that was kind of unique to the Devils and had a cache of its own.  I'm also afraid that we're going to see a really, really obnoxious third-jersey coming sometime in the future.

 

As to replacing Lou with Shero, and, by extension, getting rid of Conte, I think "necessary, but frightening" is the best way to put it.  Any other GM that had Lou/Conte's track record for the past five years would have been fired, but of course those guys don't have all the success that Lou and Conte prior to that.  Shero's moves have been good for the most part, except for drafting Blackwood, but that was probably just as much a Conte move. 

Edited August 21, 2015 by Daniel

[Triumph]

My only real concern about ownership right now is that given how money conscious they are, they may sell the team in 6-7 years, and then who knows who that owner will be.  Lou lasted for 4 owners, and he was pretty much perceived as a constant here, but now there is no constant.  

 

Otherwise, though, they've been doing and saying the right things.  Can't really speak to how they've treated STHs.  

[Daniel]

My only real concern about ownership right now is that given how money conscious they are, they may sell the team in 6-7 years, and then who knows who that owner will be.  Lou lasted for 4 owners, and he was pretty much perceived as a constant here, but now there is no constant.  

 

Otherwise, though, they've been doing and saying the right things.  Can't really speak to how they've treated STHs.  

 

I suppose it should be taken with a grain of salt, and it was hard to tell if he was being facetious, but I recall Harris saying something to the effect his share of the team would part of his kids' inheritance, so perhaps he fancies himself as creating an ownership dynasty like the Rooneys or Maras.  In fact, I think he said something to the effect that his shares in the team are in some kind of trust that would help avoid a giant estate tax bill. 

[Triumph]

I suppose it should be taken with a grain of salt, and it was hard to tell if he was being facetious, but I recall Harris saying something to the effect his share of the team would part of his kids' inheritance, so perhaps he fancies himself as creating an ownership dynasty like the Rooneys or Maras.  In fact, I think he said something to the effect that his shares in the team are in some kind of trust that would help avoid a giant estate tax bill. 

 

NFL teams make profit every year on top of becoming more valuable with each passing season.  NHL teams, especially a mid-market team like the Devils, don't - some years it loses money, some years it makes money.  The way to make money with an NHL team outside of a big market is to own it for 10 years then sell it off for 125%-150% of what you paid for it.  Given that Harris and Blitzer don't seem like huge hockey fans this isn't a stretch.

[Zubie#8]

My only real concern about ownership right now is that given how money conscious they are, they may sell the team in 6-7 years, and then who knows who that owner will be. Lou lasted for 4 owners, and he was pretty much perceived as a constant here, but now there is no constant.

Otherwise, though, they've been doing and saying the right things. Can't really speak to how they've treated STHs.

Wouldn't one rather hold onto this franchise as long as possible since it is linked to am extremely busy arena in the New York market?

[Devilsfan118]

My only real concern about ownership right now is that given how money conscious they are, they may sell the team in 6-7 years, and then who knows who that owner will be.  Lou lasted for 4 owners, and he was pretty much perceived as a constant here, but now there is no constant.  

 

You just had to go there, didn't ya?!  Damn man, the one thing I don't want to have to worry about anymore..

 

But the above comment aside - love everything they've done so far (except change the goal song  ).  

 

Excited for the future.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Devilsfan118

[mfitz804]

The right moves have begun being made, but we still have a gigantic hole in our offense (or rather a giant hole that IS our offense). If that gets addressed I'd say ownership has the right direction in mind.

[titans04]

Totally fine with the moves they've made up to this point. 

[Satans Hockey]

My only complaint is about the stupid limitations on season ticket holders selling tickets.

[2ELIAS6]

My only complaint is about the stupid limitations on season ticket holders selling tickets.

i can understand it for the most part on their end.. a few seasons back you could buy tikets and go to a game for $7.. which was totally awesome for all of us that arent season ticket holders..but than it ruins their market for trying to gain more sth's.. people are going to pay thousands of dollars for a seasons worth of seats when they can scrape them up off the secondary market for much less because the team still sucks.

[jagknife]

 

Devils 5th in new NHL season tix, 76ers 7th re NBA, says club exec - teams have same owners

 

From a few days ago, TG retweeted

[Devils Pride 26]

I hate the stupid "cool" Twitter thing they're going with. You're a professional hockey franchise. Not a 16 year old show off. Act like it. I liked how professional/private the Devils had been.

[jagknife]

I hate the stupid "cool" Twitter thing they're going with. You're a professional hockey franchise. Not a 16 year old show off. Act like it. I liked how professional/private the Devils had been.

 

At some point, though, you have to evolve with your fanbase.

 

The bulk of our fans are of the Twitter/Facebook/Instagram generation. They don't utilize message boards or simply visit websites, they need the instant information at their thumb tips of their phones.

[BostonNala370]

It's all good give them credit for giving Lou a chance to improve the on ice product but that didn't happen so we have what we have and it's all positive for me. The proof is that NEW Devils Season Tickets have grown and the stand at #5 in the NHL.right now for growth.

 

I hope the on ice product improves to a competitive team by 2017/18, that's two full season to rebuild.

[DJ Eco]

I hate the stupid "cool" Twitter thing they're going with. You're a professional hockey franchise. Not a 16 year old show off. Act like it. I liked how professional/private the Devils had been.

 

Fair enough, although marketing strategies work in ebbs and flows. They're going along with teams like the Kings or Blue Jackets (and others) in what's made their social media strategies so successful and right now, in this time and place our franchise is in now, it makes sense. Marketing strategies can change from one month to the next, so I'm not worried it's something larger than just an initial push. I think the head of marketing will find a balance that makes more sense and is more tasteful, OR the approach they're taking now is "working" (better attendance, better visibility, etc.)... Either end result is a good thing. While I think our social media strategies were "okay" in the past, they weren't anything special, I'd say they had a neutral effect on the overall marketing. This is at least trying something new; I'm sure they're planning on throwing out a few darts to see what hits the mark.

[DevsMan84]

Fair enough, although marketing strategies work in ebbs and flows. They're going along with teams like the Kings or Blue Jackets (and others) in what's made their social media strategies so successful and right now, in this time and place our franchise is in now, it makes sense. Marketing strategies can change from one month to the next, so I'm not worried it's something larger than just an initial push. I think the head of marketing will find a balance that makes more sense and is more tasteful, OR the approach they're taking now is "working" (better attendance, better visibility, etc.)... Either end result is a good thing. While I think our social media strategies were "okay" in the past, they weren't anything special, I'd say they had a neutral effect on the overall marketing. This is at least trying something new; I'm sure they're planning on throwing out a few darts to see what hits the mark.

 

I would argue our social media strategies were nonexistent.

[DJ Eco]

I'm very happy with ownership thus far. Personally my season ticket prices went down last offseason, and only went back up close to the original price this offseason (just a little bit more), so I don't have any gripes with the price raise.

 

I've liked everything I've seen, heard, and read about these guys so far, so you could say I'm drinking their Kool-Aid. As for this offseason, the changes they did make were all positive in my opinion, so yeah...

[Chuck the Duck]

I have no issues with ownership thus far.  They are re-investing in the arena and upgrading the off-ice management of the team.  The on-ice product is a much harder/longer work in progress, and I'm glad they are taking the long view on things, rather than go for short term fixes.   

 

We have seen a lot of change this offseason, and most of it I'm in favor of.  That being said, if they start tinkering with the logo or our primary jerseys, I'm going to have a big problem with them.  An alternate jersey is inevitable, and it likely will be horrible looking since most 3rd jerseys are.  But the primary jersey should not change at all. 

[themightyall]

I wrote a lot of things but decided against posting a dissertation that would end with "tl;dr."  I did want to see what other people had to say about one topic though.

 

The ownership is a little hard for me.  One thing that everyone else references is how they stabilized the team financially.  I do appreciate that they stabilized the team, but I don't really give them that much credit for it because are they really that unique in doing it?  As in, put up Harris and Blitzer against any hypothetical owner that would have bought the team from JVB; did they do anything differently on that side that another owner wouldn't have?  Barroway and any other name that would've been approved to buy the team would've done the same thing.  So if this is true, why should I think Harris and Blitzer are that great for doing it?  This is a genuine question because I just think they didn't do anything unique.

 

I guess you can say that my point is moot.  I do admit that regardless of one's answer, these owners aren't the hypothetical guys that did it, but rather the actual ones that did.  Furthermore, they don't seem like they will be like JVB in that they may have started off financially sound but would tail off.  This still just sounds like people are comparing these owners to the previous one who would never owned the team, while I'm comparing them with an hypothetical alternative.  Neither is right or wrong, just interested if that was the case.

Edited August 25, 2015 by themightyall

[DevsMan84]

I wrote a lot of things but decided against posting a dissertation that would end with "tl;dr."  I did want to see what other people had to say about one topic though.

 

The ownership is a little hard for me.  One thing that everyone else references is how they stabilized the team financially.  I do appreciate that they stabilized the team, but I don't really give them that much credit for it because are they really that unique in doing it?  As in, put up Harris and Blitzer against any hypothetical owner that would have bought the team from JVB; did they do anything differently on that side that another owner wouldn't have?  Barroway and any other name that would've been approved to buy the team would've done the same thing.  So if this is true, why should I think Harris and Blitzer are that great for doing it?  This is a genuine question because I just think they didn't do anything unique.

 

I guess you can say that my point is moot.  I do admit that regardless of one's answer, these owners aren't the hypothetical guys that did it, but rather the actual ones that did.  Furthermore, they don't seem like they will be like JVB in that they may have started off financially sound but would tail off.  This still just sounds like people are comparing these owners to the previous one who would never owned the team, while I'm comparing them with an hypothetical alternative.  Neither is right or wrong, just interested if that was the case.

 

I would argue that JVB was never financially sound to begin with.  Ray Chambers owned the same % of the team during JVB's tenure and he was a billionaire who supported the team financially through the JVB years.  Yeah JVB's personal finances took a big hit with the building of the arena and with the collapse of Lehman Bros., but the financial struggle with the team really began around 2011 when Chambers decided he wanted (and eventually did) sell off his shares of the team to JVB.  Basically Chambers was JVB's sugar daddy for his really expensive toy.

 

In regards to Barroway, I would say you are correct in that he too would have provided financial stability as well, but that is only because compared to JVB anyone would have been more stable.  However, given the choice between Harris/Blitzer and Barroway, given their backgrounds I would choose Harris/Blitzer as they have the deeper pockets and more business acumen to run the team IMO. 

Edited August 25, 2015 by DevsMan84

[DJ Eco]

I do appreciate that they stabilized the team, but I don't really give them that much credit for it because are they really that unique in doing it?  As in, put up Harris and Blitzer against any hypothetical owner that would have bought the team from JVB; did they do anything differently on that side that another owner wouldn't have?  Barroway and any other name that would've been approved to buy the team would've done the same thing.  So if this is true, why should I think Harris and Blitzer are that great for doing it?  This is a genuine question because I just think they didn't do anything unique.

 

First off, it's worth mentioning, not only did they pay "fair" market value for the team and the building, but a) knowingly took on all of Jeff Vanderbeek's debts/loans, settled all litigations (and there were a lot, $200m in debt I think), and b) even gave him a paid ghost "consultant" position afterward, which we would later find out was essentially a $2m severance, something they really didn't have to do. 

 

Another prospective owner could've probably gotten the team for much cheaper too, and truly put Vanderbeek on the street. Another prospective owner could've probably drawn the sale out a bit longer (maybe this was Barroway's strategy, and the reason he lost out on the bid?), harming Vanderbeek and the NHL's credit standing in the process, in order to pressure the NHL to push for the sale at all costs (aka forcing the price down).

 

I'm not painting them out to be saints, I mean, at the end of the day it's all capitalism. But the way in which the sale was handled was done in good faith and carried out in a positive fashion. They really didn't need to pay out an extra $2m to Vanderbeek, and they probably had good enough lawyers to litigate some of the debt claims made toward Vanderbeek; but they didn't, they paid it all out, and of course they knew it was a good enough deal and that it is a potential cash cow (that's business) but it could've been way way way more painful for us fans, the league, and Vanderbeek. And at the end of the day, it wasn't, it was handled extremely well and painlessly.

 

 

I would argue that JVB was never financially sound to begin with.  Ray Chambers owned the same % of the team during JVB's tenure and he was a billionaire who supported the team financially through the JVB years.  Yeah JVB's personal finances took a big hit with the building of the arena and with the collapse of Lehman Bros., but the financial struggle with the team really began around 2011 when Chambers decided he wanted (and eventually did) sell off his shares of the team to JVB.  Basically Chambers was JVB's sugar daddy for his really expensive toy.

 

And ^^^ this.

Edited August 25, 2015 by DJ Eco