[News] Flames and Treliving agree to part ways. Maloney promoted to PoHO and interim GM

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

If they operated like a normal business and paid for their own critical capital needs, that might be fair. But really, owning a team is a luxury hobby, and very few luxury hobbies are a net positive financially (which owning a pro sports team almost always is in the long run).

Owning a professional sports team is not a luxury hobby. The value of these teams continues to grow at over 10% annually on average. We are now at a point among professional sports teams in North America that we have pretty much reached max team saturation, and these franchises are harder and harder to come by.

For somebody like Murray Edwards, even if he is not selling the team, his ownership of an appreciating asset like an NHL team allows him to collateralize with banks and access that money regardless, allowing him to continue to increase his wealth. Owning a professional sports team is a goldmine, which is why it is so hard to get one.

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Where is this notion coming from that the Flames underpay RFAs? Go back at look at the player Lindholm was when he came here. He was offered and accepted a fair deal.

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Tage Thompson as an RFA scored 68 points in 78 games and was given 7 year, $50M deal - and people on here thought they were drunk.

No, they're projecting their players. Minor risk, massive reward. If you can't correctly project the players you are/you have built your team around, you're a bad organization.

ComixZone makes the point I was trying to with Lindholm. If the league is moving toward big second deals instead of waiting until UFA then the Flames either need to get on board or they'll become even less desirable for players.

[Dentoman]

Season ticket holder for 15 years. Keeping them for next season because my kids enjoy going and I'm willing to see what next year brings. Winter entertainment options are limited, lol. My bar for team success isn't as high as others on here.

Once the rebuild starts, my tickets won't be renewed. I can buy tickets off of Fansfirst at a huge discount if there are games I'm interested in going to during a rebuild.

I'm sure there are many others like me. Guess we are part of the problem.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by kipperiggy

ComixZone makes the point I was trying to with Lindholm. If the league is moving toward big second deals instead of waiting until UFA then the Flames either need to get on board or they'll become even less desirable for players.

Lindy isn't a good example though. That was his third contract, and he wasn't even considered a centre by his old team. He wasn't considered to be a potential elite player at all.

It's not like Treliving signed him short term. 6 years is a good length for most contracts. And Lindholm has been well below PPG in 3/5 seasons. He had the one gatorade season and last season as a top player.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Dentoman

Season ticket holder for 15 years. Keeping them for next season because my kids enjoy going and I'm willing to see what next year brings. Winter entertainment options are limited, lol. My bar for team success isn't as high as others on here.

Once the rebuild starts, my tickets won't be renewed. I can buy tickets off of Fansfirst at a huge discount if there are games I'm interested in going to during a rebuild.

I'm sure there are many others like me. Guess we are part of the problem.

I still remember the glory years of the early 2000s. I had $500 season tickets in the nosebleeds, but watched every game from the lower bowl becuase no one was there.

[Ashasx]

I would gladly watch a young team build towards something rather than always be stuck in the middle hoping we draft another Gaudreau in the 4th round.

The Flames struggled to sell tickets this season doing exactly that. The Flames sold out from 2013-2016.

I'll gladly look at season tickets for a long-term plan.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I think people constantly make two potentially wrong leap when the start to critique the ownership groups "alleged" win now mandate, as a lack of foresight. BTW, I actually believe that the ownership group does have a win now, or no full rebuild mandate, but I don't KNOW that they do, that's why I say alleged, but I do think it's the most likely.

The wrong leap people make IMO is that they assume the owners think it's actually our best strategy to win. I think it's less to do with that, and more to do with what the owners are willing to spend, or more appropriately, what they aren't willing to LOSE financially during the rebuild. People falsely think the Flames make money for our ownership group, it doesn't, it likely loses them money. At the very least, it's a massive opportunity cost for them in that every dollar they "invest" in the Flames would generate a much much higher rate of return invested elsewhere. The Flames are not a good investment for our ownership group, they do it for other reasons.

Which leads to the second leap, which is that the owners should just throw more money at this team, even if that means more losses, because, well they are rich right? They certainly are, wealthy beyond my wildest dreams. But that doesn't actually mean they should / can afford to lose millions and millions of dollars (it would be a staggeringly high number) during a multi year rebuild.

While most of us on here, who spend time posting about the Flames, would certainly tolerate a rebuild and likely invest in the team the same amount (although certainly, even in this community much of our investment in the team doesn't actually translate to real value creation for the team), the fact in a market the size of Calgary, the fringe fans, the bandwagon fans are required to push the team financially to break even or make a little money each season. The team needs the extra playoff games, and they need the building to creep up to 95% to 100% full (at meaningful ticket prices too, not overly discounted) to do that. That doesn't happen in this city (or any small market Canadian city) when the games aren't meaningful. When the team is not playing for anything, the casual attendance wains, and so does the teams cost recovery or profits. I actually find the expectation that the ownership group should just eat that, or even that they can just eat that from many in here to be a little ridiculous / borderline entitled.

Our ownership group isn't perfect.........but I think if we were to get a new owners there is a more than likely chance we'd realize the grass if far from greener on the other side. Generally the team has been allowed to spend to the cap, we don't see them in front of the cameras all day, and seemingly we have to invent our own ownership is meddling stories. I think it could be a lot worse ownership wise, and we should be careful what we wish for. I'm happy that we have owners committed to keeping the team here, and that are willing to invest reasonably to bring players here, I don't think people should assume that would be a given.

Forbes has the Flames operating revenue at 41 million bucks a year so not quite sure how one could come to the conclusion that they are losing money each year.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Forbes has the Flames operating revenue at 41 million bucks a year so not quite sure how one could come to the conclusion that they are losing money each year.

Forbes does a lot of guesswork for private companies, though NHL teams have to open the books somewhat under the CBA.

But moreover, revenue is only half the equation. What are the expenses?

What even is "operating revenue" in this context? I mean, $41M can't be all there is because that doesn't even cover 50% of their player salary expenditure.

[Ashasx]

Operating income or revenue?

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Forbes does a lot of guesswork for private companies, though NHL teams have to open the books somewhat under the CBA.

But moreover, revenue is only half the equation. What are the expenses?

What even is "operating revenue" in this context? I mean, $41M can't be all there is because that doesn't even cover 50% of their player salary expenditure.

This is income after expenses have already been covered.

[Dentoman]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I would gladly watch a young team build towards something rather than always be stuck in the middle hoping we draft another Gaudreau in the 4th round.

The Flames struggled to sell tickets this season doing exactly that. The Flames sold out from 2013-2016.

I'll gladly look at season tickets for a long-term plan.

I'll let you know if/when I give mine up

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I would gladly watch a young team build towards something rather than always be stuck in the middle hoping we draft another Gaudreau in the 4th round.

The Flames struggled to sell tickets this season doing exactly that. The Flames sold out from 2013-2016.

I'll gladly look at season tickets for a long-term plan.

Agreed. You can’t tell me watching this season’s team, competing for a playoff spot and all, is an exciting on-ice product.

I never paid to go to one game this year, and if the team as currently constructed stays the same, that won’t change for me anytime soon. I would enthusiastically put money towards going to games when there’s a vision and plan to bring this team back to contender status, inclusive of a rebuild and youth movement.

Watching young players emerge into the NHL spotlight is a lot of fun. Hell, it’d be a soul cleanse after watching Lewis and Lucic the last couple years.

[GioforPM]

This is the site that provides the number. It differentiates between revenue ($148M) and operating income ($48M). But it's a pretty sketchy article since it lists player expenditures at $81M which doesn't match CF at all. They also don't seem to know there is more than one owner.

https://www.forbes.com/teams/calgary...h=1a4b64f19050

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

This is income after expenses have already been covered.

Looked it up myself - it's misleading then because operating income =/= net income. Only operating expenses are deducted in operating income, while all expenses are deducted to get to net income (i.e. profit).

[Burning Beard]

Man you guys are nuts if you think you are the norm and most people would pay to see a team actively tanking. You and I might but normal Joe Calgarian would not. Watch any Ducks game this year and tell me average, non die-hard people would want to shell out money for that.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

Agreed on everything you've said in this thread so far. If I do remember correctly though, the Flames actually had pretty fair chances at Crosby in 2005. I think teams could get between 1 to 3 balls, and the Flames qualified for 2 because they had only made the playoffs once out of the last three years. I think only 5 teams had 3 balls in play. That lottery was truly ridiculous.

Only 4 teams had 3 balls in play, Flames would have been the 5th had they missed the playoffs in 03-04. Probably doesn't matter because there is no doubt in my mind that lottery was rigged.

Calgary drafting 26th was also super unlucky based on how it all worked.

Based on odds Flames still should have likely had a top 10 pick, and instead they draft 26th.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Burning Beard

Man you guys are nuts if you think you are the norm and most people would pay to see a team actively tanking. You and I might but normal Joe Calgarian would not. Watch any Ducks game this year and tell me average, non die-hard people would want to shell out money for that.

It's the long game right. You have the rebuilding years where you plan for lean times and after years of building if the team turns into into a contender then reap the benefits of sell outs for multiple seasons. Flames still don't sell out and they won't as long as they continue to be mediocre. Build a team of stars that can compete annually and sellouts will become the norm. The risk of course is that the rebuild stalls you end up like the Blue Jackets but for every Blue Jackets and Coyotes, there's a Devils and Rangers. No risk, no reward. Like Eric said it's all about safe with the Flames and you aren't going to win anything playing it safe.

[curves2000]

I don't want to go too off topic but there is a weird way that the Flames organization markets the team that is rubbing me the wrong way and has for a while. Some directly and some indirectly.

It's always "Tre is always on the phone, in on all the deals" "We are skinning everybody at the draft day table" "Top UFA's signed here" "We spend to the cap to consistently make playoffs even though we don't do crap over the last 20 years"


Bottom line is that this franchise from a reputational perspective , business and fanbase perspective can survive and even thrive. Get the PROPER messaging out. Tell the fanbase and the clients what your doing. Get innovative on marketing, fan support, season ticket holder events etc. Discount some tickets, get young players into the line up. Will the Dome sell out? Doubtful but you can count on some excitement and some hope for the future. This team has absolutely ZERO excitement attached to it and it shows. You can't give the clients and the fans a hardsell BS about how we are some superior managed and elite hockey club and constantly be dog ****

Have a plan and present it! Look at Chicago now, after a decade + of dominance and high performance, they tried a quick re-tool and now are full on about getting a mountain of draft picks and rebuilding quickly through the draft. If they land Bedard or another elite top 3 pick, how long till they fill in the key pieces from their farm club and some solid UFA that they will contend? Very soon.

The sad and scary part is Calgary hasn't even gone through the tough times as a team post 04 lockout. The team and the fan's haven't really paid the price. We traded away our franchise players or lose them to expansion clubs or UFA and never really had a chance to rebuild. No pain and no gain. It's comical if it wasn't so sad.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Burning Beard

Man you guys are nuts if you think you are the norm and most people would pay to see a team actively tanking. You and I might but normal Joe Calgarian would not. Watch any Ducks game this year and tell me average, non die-hard people would want to shell out money for that.

I don't think this is true. Calgary is a knowledgeable hockey market, its not Anaheim. I actually think if the organization mapped out and communicated a realistic plan the market would respond favorably to it.
What they shouldn't do is patronize the fans that the team is just that one or two OT wins in the regular season away from winning it all. Don't say what Bean said yesterday.

[Demzy84]

Season ticket holder here

This team needs to sell me on a long term vision otherwise next year could be my last.

Seems like a dysfunctional organization the last couple season, and when the GM of the team decides to just walk away from what they’ve been trying to build…I think that’s a bad sign.

Almost as if the team needs to be gutted from the top and new blood brought into the organization. Maybe that’s what’s been asked, and Treliving didn’t want to be that guy since he seemed to have great relationships with everyone, so he walked.

Team and organization as a whole just seems lost to me