Jump to content

NHL Anti-Thread: Bad Business Decision Aggregator


The_Admiral

Recommended Posts

So slightly unbalanced conferences (an issue, sure) is a bigger problem than putting a team in a market that WILL NOT WORK and have the franchise become an epic fail. I know it's an owner that said it but all know the head honchos feel that way as well. I don't understand the NHL.

I think there's an acronym for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still looking forward to seeing Arizona's new uniforms. Hopefully we'll see a new unveiling not long after that.

Hey guys, their new jerseys were unveiled today!!!

1f0e374717f7c75b5cb0d0eaeb74b482.jpg

That looks like a christmas sweater my aunt bought me when I was in school. It didn't have a seattle 'S' but it had a similar pattern.

islandersscroll.gif

Spoilers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I love to see hockey (or any sport) thrive in non-traditional markets, it's just not going to nor will it ever in Phoenix. Move the franchise somewhere it will be successful.

You don't have to worry about them being in a successful situation. The franchise is moving to Las Vegas. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still looking forward to seeing Arizona's new uniforms. Hopefully we'll see a new unveiling not long after that.

Hey guys, their new jerseys were unveiled today!!!

1f0e374717f7c75b5cb0d0eaeb74b482.jpg

If that does happen, hopefully they do better with the uniforms. These are just garish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought this would get more notice/traction in this thread.

From DarkJourney in the NFL Merry-Go-Round thread:

From Field of Schemes:

San Jose could be about to approve $100m+ in lease breaks for Sharks in exchange for diddly-squat

Posted on May 18, 2015 by Neil deMause

The San Jose city council is set to vote tomorrow on a lease extension for the Sharks on their current arena while talking about whether to build a new one. You can read the proposal here; it’s a bit convoluted and I haven’t made sense of it all yet, but Marc Morris of Better Sense San Jose has sent along his analysis, which is this:

1. The Sharks get immediate relief from previously obligated rent payments (total reduction is $7.25M = $2M for the Arena and $5.25M for the Ice Center, where the Sharks and their new AHL farm team practice).

2. Starting in 2018, the Sharks stop paying any rent at all (that’s $0 per year) for the city owned Arena, down from roughly $5M per year.

3. The City in the short term kicks in $6M and then, starting in 2018, pays $2.6M for ‘capital and modernization needs’ for the Arena. That of course will be financed by the $0 a year rent.

4. The Sharks get to spend a lot of this ‘capital’ money for revenue enhancing improvements; for its efforts, the City gets precisely none of the enhanced revenue.

5. Just to rub it in, the agreement also explicitly prohibits the City from getting any new revenue from its own Arena, like maybe adding a ticket tax.

6. It appears that the City will take on the interest rate risk for the bonds on the Ice Center, making the current ultra-low rates the new baseline for the rent calculation. After all, there’s little to no probability that rates will go up in the next 10 to 20 years.

7. And, although this never gets mentioned, the City will continue to pay over $10M a year in interest on the bonds that paid for construction of the Arena in the first place. In the best case, the net loss to the City from the Arena is over $8M a year.

Like I said, I haven’t done the math on this myself, but if Morris is correct, that could easily be more than $100 million in concessions that the city would be providing to the Sharks — all for a team that doesn’t have an immediate alternative option to play in, and which isn’t even agreeing to a long-term lease deal in exchange. (They’d have to stay put through 2025, but it’s unlikely they could get a new arena built much before then anyway.) That’s the kind of thing you might think you’d want to have a hearing on, or even a financial study, before voting on whether to approve it, but that’s apparently not the way the San Jose city council rolls.

So the Sharks would pull a Red Wings and stop paying rent in 2018, all while essentially getting an extra $100 million out of the city, all the while trying to edge for a NEW arena?

A lot of things wrong with this, most of all that Tank needs a replacement. I mean, I guess they're talking about 10 years down the road. But besides it's sterility and brightness, the Shark Tank is a fine facility.

5963ddf2a9031_dkO1LMUcopy.jpg.0fe00e17f953af170a32cde8b7be6bc7.jpg

| ANA | LAA | LAR | LAL | ASU | CSULBUSMNT | USWNTLAFC | OCSCMAN UTD |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick Foligno is offically the new "Captain" of the Blue Jackets. Couldn't of picked a better guy in my opinion. Can't wait for next season!

You accidentally posted this in the correct thread.

  • Like 2
On 1/25/2013 at 1:53 PM, 'Atom said:

For all the bird de lis haters I think the bird de lis isnt supposed to be a pelican and a fleur de lis I think its just a fleur de lis with a pelicans head. Thats what it looks like to me. Also the flair around the tip of the beak is just flair that fleur de lis have sometimes source I am from NOLA.

PotD: 10/19/07, 08/25/08, 07/22/10, 08/13/10, 04/15/11, 05/19/11, 01/02/12, and 01/05/12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Rutherford is so incompetent that he can't even game the OITGDNHL system of demanding compensation for people you fired:

When the Buffalo Sabres hired Dan Bylsma to serve as the team’s bench boss, they agreed to provide the Pittsburgh Penguins with a third-round draft pick as compensation. That’s because Bylsma was still under contract with the Penguins, even though he had been fired.

And yet the Penguins didn’t seek compensation when the New Jersey Devils hired Ray Shero under similar circumstances. So why the double standard?

“The rule is not as clear as it should be,” Penguins GM Jim Rutherford told Trib Total Media. “We felt that the intent of the rule was for employees that were still with the team, that were working with the team, not terminated employees.

“Once Edmonton (gave Boston) a pick for (former Bruins GM) Peter Chiarelli — when he was a terminated employee — we decided to ask for picks for future employees.”

In Rutherford's rickety defense, it really is a stupid system. Thank the Red Wings for being so butthurt over Jim Nill boogieing off to Dallas to build a team with no defensemen.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friedman:

11. One last note about meetings: expect to see some clarification on the compensation issue when the GMs and Board of Governors sit down in Las Vegas. Some of the biggest supporters of the idea didn’t expect it to involve Dan Bylsma or Peter Chiarelli, who were fired by their previous teams. Mike Babcock? Yes. No question. The wildcard in all this is one exec said Commissioner Gary Bettman made it very clear he wanted a black-and-white rule without controversy, which didn’t happen. Could he scrap it altogether? Not sure, and, right now, he’s got other things to worry about. I also wondered if it’s possible Buffalo and Edmonton could get their picks back, but there’s no answer at this point. But I do think the fired-employee issue gets cleared up.

They didn't read the terms before they voted for it, did they.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.