204 replies to this topic

[Triumph]

I agree with you 100%. But at the same time Pittsburgh and Buffalo are in different situations because they are in markets where they can garner tons of support and have the opportunity to sell out most nights if the team is made up correctly. The Devils are in a sh!t market and no matter how good this team is, we'll never be a club that fills up its building every night (as we've seen in the past).

Basically what I'm saying is that ownership in Pittsburgh has every reason to spend in order to make the team better, since they can be assured of higher revenue if the team succeeds. The Devils don't necessarily have that, and I'm not sure if they'll ever have it. In that case, why would an owner pick up this team and really spend his money without regard to revenue in the short term?

I don't know what the new CBA will bring, but the NHL's money losing owners have to look at the fact that basically 10 teams drive the NHL's revenue (and could afford a salary cap 50% larger than the current one) and the rest of the teams collectively break even. So what you have is a salary cap that continually rises even though revenues are largely stagnant in a majority of markets.

Again, I reiterate - you can't be a bottom 10 team for many years without being completely mismanaged. The salary floor prevents this - you've got to be paying someone.

[Chuck the Duck]

The simple fact is, it would take a massive financial commitment for any new owner of the Devils to get them out of their 30 year "lease" with the Newark Housing Authority, the entity that owns the Rock. In reality, that new owner would have to leverage himself so much to get the deal done and move the team, that he would put himself in the same situation as Vanderbeek.

The more likely scenario is the one that has us getting a new owner who puts no financial backing into the team and we run on shoe-string budgets for the foreseeable future. I just hope that, if things are as bad as they say they are, and we can't resign Parise by the trade deadline, they get the best package of prospects possible and make a deal rather than let him go for nothing on July 1. I'd hate to see it happen, but letting him walk for nothing would be devastating for this team.

[Bringbackbrylin]

The Devils will start having collection bins at the entrances located by the Verizon and PNC towers.

[Marv4Life]

I agree with you 100%. But at the same time Pittsburgh and Buffalo are in different situations because they are in markets where they can garner tons of support and have the opportunity to sell out most nights if the team is made up correctly. The Devils are in a sh!t market and no matter how good this team is, we'll never be a club that fills up its building every night (as we've seen in the past).

Pittsburgh was averaging under 12,000 a night before Crosby came along. http://espn.go.com/n...nce/_/year/2004 And Buffalo wasn't exactly selling out the place nightly either. So you're saying if the Devs get their act together, make deep playoff runs, and somehow make the Finals(or even win the whole thing!) a couple of years in a row in a more accessible arena they'd still have poor attendance?

[Devilsfan118]

Honestly, if i'm Parise im outa here if these reports keep popping up.

[Amberite]

I don't know what the new CBA will bring, but the NHL's money losing owners have to look at the fact that basically 10 teams drive the NHL's revenue (and could afford a salary cap 50% larger than the current one) and the rest of the teams collectively break even. So what you have is a salary cap that continually rises even though revenues are largely stagnant in a majority of markets.

Again, I reiterate - you can't be a bottom 10 team for many years without being completely mismanaged. The salary floor prevents this - you've got to be paying someone.

How many teams are mismanaged? Quite a bit. How many have owners that really don't care? Quite a bit. The Devils have been blessed with both ownership and management that cares and does anything to succeed. We are likely losing JVB and Lou very soon, and there is a very likely chance that their replacements will not be very good or very involved. I'm not saying we will be a bottom 10 team forever, but in all likelihood, we would be one for quite a while, which again is why I don't understand why most people here are "OK" with it as long as the team stays in NJ.

[NJDevs4978]

Won't make a difference. Bowl was still near empty on Wednesday till the 2nd period. 7:30 on Fridays, yeah, but not Mon-Thu when folks have work the next morning and rely on the trains to get in and out.

I think the point of comparing 7 to 7:30 is the theory that people might not decide to go to a 7 game beforehand since they know they'll be late arriving and miss part of the game anyway. Personally I like the 7 PM time, but I'm in the minority and recognize 7:30 would be more convenient for the majority of people.

That said I'm not sure how much of a difference it actually would make in the attendance. The Toronto game was just as empty as the LA weekday game (7 PM start) was, and Toronto's more of a rival.

Plus you have to factor in that people who want to take kids - granted, there aren't many at weekday games to begin with - probably like the earlier start time too. If we did start games at 7:30 you'd probably have just as many people complaining they don't get home till after 11 on a weeknight as you do saying it's too early now.

Edited by NJDevs4978, 04 November 2011 - 11:29 AM.

[Amberite]

Pittsburgh was averaging under 12,000 a night before Crosby came along. http://espn.go.com/n...nce/_/year/2004 And Buffalo wasn't exactly selling out the place nightly either. So you're saying if the Devs get their act together, make deep playoff runs, and somehow make the Finals(or even win the whole thing!) a couple of years in a row in a more accessible arena they'd still have poor attendance?

Yes, if you read what I wrote again, I mention that Pittsburgh and Buffalo are in markets where they can sell out every night if they have success. The Devils have had plenty of success in the past and still have had relatively poor attendance. We're simply in a market that is mostly divided among Philly / NYR / NYI. The Devils are a 3rd or 4th option for most people. We haven't had great success in Newark yet, but I don't anticipate it would create THAT much of a difference.

[halfsharkalligatorhalfman]

Honestly, if i'm Parise im outa here if these reports keep popping up.

Well it depends on what Vanderbeek is able/willing to offer, but there's no way I'd sign before hitting UFA.

[NJDevs4978]

How many teams are mismanaged? Quite a bit. How many have owners that really don't care? Quite a bit. The Devils have been blessed with both ownership and management that cares and does anything to succeed. We are likely losing JVB and Lou very soon, and there is a very likely chance that their replacements will not be very good or very involved. I'm not saying we will be a bottom 10 team forever, but in all likelihood, we would be one for quite a while, which again is why I don't understand why most people here are "OK" with it as long as the team stays in NJ.

Who said they were 'okay' with it? I was just pointing out THAT was the 'nuclear' scenario, not moving. Not with the team having a long-term lease and money-making TV deal. Would I rather the team be bad than actually move, absolutely. But that's like asking someone would they rather have a leg amputated or be dead. Neither scenario's particularly appealing but I'd pick the first one every time because I'd at least still be alive

[Devils731]

Yes, if you read what I wrote again, I mention that Pittsburgh and Buffalo are in markets where they can sell out every night if they have success. The Devils have had plenty of success in the past and still have had relatively poor attendance. We're simply in a market that is mostly divided among Philly / NYR / NYI. The Devils are a 3rd or 4th option for most people. We haven't had great success in Newark yet, but I don't anticipate it would create THAT much of a difference.

The Devils ticket prices are also much higher than in Buffalo and I doubt Buffalo has a TV deal like the Devils do. We can't just look at attendance to decide on what teams make, it's probably too opaque for us to really guess where team revenues are, beyond the teams at the extreme upper and lower ends.

[Devils731]

Even if the team has been in bad financial straights, since nobody can really do anything about it bankruptcy wise until after the season ends, I wonder how important this seasons financial success or lack of success matters. Would a profitable year allow VBK the ability to stay while a neutral or loss year would result in a forced sale? Or does it not matter either way? VBK could be on a razors edge for all we know.

[Mitico12]

Bankruptcy may actually be beneficial to the Devils. It wipes your debt clean, making you come out leaner and meaner. Of course, there are huge consequences, mainly difficulty securing future credit, and basically becoming "pigeon holed" by creditors.

However, bankruptcy can help the Devils leverage contracts (sometimes eliminating contracts altogether). I'm not referring to "player contracts," but more likely contracts given to non-hockey personnel and perhaps contracts with the city of Newark/state/NHL etc.

A lean, debt-erased franchise would be a lot more appealing to a new owner than a debt-ridden franchise, and perhaps bankruptcy, although dangerous in many ways, might help the Devils long term.

I'm not a financial guy, but that's my opinion...

[DevsMan84]

In the end, this is something I nor anyone here can do a single fvcking thing about. So either way I will just enjoy this season for now and only worry about ripping my hair out every time Marty lets a soft goal in.

[Marv4Life]

Yes, if you read what I wrote again, I mention that Pittsburgh and Buffalo are in markets where they can sell out every night if they have success. The Devils have had plenty of success in the past and still have had relatively poor attendance. We're simply in a market that is mostly divided among Philly / NYR / NYI. The Devils are a 3rd or 4th option for most people. We haven't had great success in Newark yet, but I don't anticipate it would create THAT much of a difference.

Didn't they average over 17,000 in 1998? Which is close to the Rock's capacity? In a more inaccessible arena that got worse over time? Still had to compete with others back then. With the right marketing and on-the-ice success like I mentioned, there's no reason why they couldn't average between 90-100% imo.

[DevsMan84]

Didn't they average over 17,000 in 1998? Which is close to the Rock's capacity? In a more inaccessible arena that got worse over time? Still had to compete with others back then. With the right marketing and on-the-ice success like I mentioned, there's no reason why they couldn't average between 90-100% imo.

I remember going to plenty of games in 98 and remember many times the arena being pretty barren. That 17,000 average statistic is BS.

Edited by DevsMan84, 04 November 2011 - 11:31 AM.

[Daniel]

Bankruptcy may actually be beneficial to the Devils. It wipes your debt clean, making you come out leaner and meaner. Of course, there are huge consequences, mainly difficulty securing future credit, and basically becoming "pigeon holed" by creditors.

However, bankruptcy can help the Devils leverage contracts (sometimes eliminating contracts altogether). I'm not referring to "player contracts," but more likely contracts given to non-hockey personnel and perhaps contracts with the city of Newark/state/NHL etc.

A lean, debt-erased franchise would be a lot more appealing to a new owner than a debt-ridden franchise, and perhaps bankruptcy, although dangerous in many ways, might help the Devils long term.

I'm not a financial guy, but that's my opinion...

Wiping debts clean in its true sense only applies to Chapter 7 (liquidation). The Devils would go Chapter 11 (reorganization), which means you still have future obligations to your creditors, albeit on presumably more favorable terms. Plus, declaring bankruptcy does not protect collateralized assets, which apparently is the case with both the team and the arena. For example, if I have a mortgage on my house, I don't get to keep my house debt free after the fact.

[Amberite]

I remember going to plenty of games in 98 and remember many times the arena being pretty barren. That 17,000 average statistic is BS.

I was about to post this - thanks. The Devils are notorious for inflating their numbers. Inflated numbers may look good on paper, but you can't fool your bank account.

[Triumph]

Didn't they average over 17,000 in 1998? Which is close to the Rock's capacity? In a more inaccessible arena that got worse over time? Still had to compete with others back then. With the right marketing and on-the-ice success like I mentioned, there's no reason why they couldn't average between 90-100% imo.

On the flipside, there was no HDTV and I'm sure ticket prices were lower relative to the average Devils' fan's income.

But I am sure that someone's memory of games in 1998 is better than the attendance numbers. Apparently Rainman posts here - what was Ted Kluszewski's batting average in 1954?

Edited by Triumph, 04 November 2011 - 11:39 AM.

[DevsMan84]

On the flipside, there was no HDTV and I'm sure ticket prices were lower relative to the average Devils' fan's income.

But I am sure that someone's memory of games in 1998 is better than the attendance numbers. Apparently Rainman posts here - what was Ted Kluszewski's batting average in 1954?

You DID say that your memory of watching the Devils win the cup in 95 and going to the parade that year is better than you posting on here that you only started following the Devils during the 95-96 season

So we are just taking your advice:)