Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Shaq As Orlando Magic General Manager? Don't Bet On It

Let's Breakdown the New Jersey Devils Response to Inaccurate NY Post Article on Team Finances

I just included this photo for the sheer number of fans mimicking Tedenby raising his arms.  (Photo by Bruce Bennett/Getty Images)

Today's big news came early this morning and was a big shock for Devils fans everywhere. In an exclusive story in today's New York Post, Josh Kosman reported that the Devils were in serious financial trouble, missing a $100 million loan payment. Based on Josh Kosman's reporting and his source(s), the Devils "are blowing up," they told banks to "get lost," the Nets made the Prudential Center profitable, that Ray Chambers has cut his asking price for 47% share in the Devils down to $200 million, and the Devils would be starting training camp tomorrow.

In a word: wow.  This report caught on like wildfire; and why not?  A professional ice hockey team finding themselves in financial dire straits is most seriously news. The claims are massive and should cause at least a little concern. It blew up among the hockey media and a lot of fans were either surprised or defiant at Kosman's article.  Well, the latter group can claim bragging rights as the Devils' own statement on the matter metaphorically kicked Kosman's claims in the teeth. Here's the statement the Devils made, reported here by Tom Gulitti:

"Today’s New York Post story is inaccurate. The notions that the Devils are facing bankruptcy or that "the Devils have told their banks to get lost" are patently untrue. The Devils value their relationship with their banks and are confident a refinancing will be completed shortly. As stated previously, ownership is close to finalizing an agreement that would lead to a buyout of Brick City’s share of the company. The organization is also pleased to report that new season ticket sales are up 130% over last year and last week’s on-sale for single game tickets were 260% above last year’s similar period.  Finally, the start of training camp was incorrectly reported in the article as tomorrow. In fact, training camp starts on Friday for the rookies and Saturday for the veterans."

Well, that was right to the point.  And it even called out that error in the beginning of Kosman's article.  Adding tersly to this point, Tom Gulitti relayed Bill Daly's reaction in this tweet.

NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly says via e-mail that league stands by all in Devils' statement concerning NY Post report being "untrue."

So the New Jersey Devils are not going bankrupt. Good.  However, I don't think everything is perfectly well and good with the team.  I think this statement says more than it does and it's worth examining further.  If only to clarify it for those like Rich Chere, who called this a rambling statement.

Star-divide

Rich Chere called this a "rambling statement" and I'm not sure why.  Angry, sure.  I'd be angry if Josh Kosman tried to throw my organization (is In Lou We Trust an organization?) under the bus based on "anonymous sources." But each part of the statement serves a purpose relevant to these claims.

But, first, I want to sympathize with Mike Gilfillan, who is the president of Brick City LLC, the group that owns 47% of the team.   Based on Kosman's article, you're not even mentioned even once as co-owner of the group.  Not one mention in the article.  Sorry, man. 

Anyway, the statement.  Let's break it down.  Here are the first two sentences. 

Today’s New York Post story is inaccurate. The notions that the Devils are facing bankruptcy or that "the Devils have told their banks to get lost" are patently untrue. The Devils value their relationship with their banks and are confident a refinancing will be completed shortly.

I don't think it's a big leap to figure that the team telling the banks off was false.  I don't think anyone can really say that to a bank and get away with it.  They're the ones with leverage, after all.  

The most important part here is that "a refinancing will be completed shortly."  The Devils didn't deny that they didn't pay their loan payment on September 1.  If they didn't, it's not because the team could or would not be able to do so; it's because they're refinancing their deal. They're replacing their current debt to their banks with debt under different terms.  I don't believe it would be possible for a refinancing to be in process if the bank or banks aren't on board.   Moreover, their payments would likely be rolled into the refinanced deal; the Devils and the banks likely agreed to pay them when that would be complete.   To me, the Devils are saying that they are on the same page with the banks - and I'm not seeing much reason to doubt this explanation.  It's sensible in my opinion.  Maybe if I was Josh Kosman and/or his anonymous source, I'd think differently.

As stated previously, ownership is close to finalizing an agreement that would lead to a buyout of Brick City’s share of the company.

This is probably the one thing that needs to happen before refinancing is completed and payments continue.  Since February, Ray Chambers (and Mike Gilfillan!) have been trying to sell their share in the team.  I don't know for how much, though I would hope Josh Kosman's anonymous source was kidding when he said it was $200 million.  Given that Kosman's own article points out Forbes' estimate of the team's value at $218 million.  I can't imagine too many people would be interested in buying 47% of a team for 91.7% worth of Forbes' estimate.

Though, this may be moot. Way back in June, Tom Gulitti reported that Jeff Vanderbeek has been in talks with Chambers and Gilfillan. There hasn't been much discussion since then, but there also hasn't been any news of an outside party buying into Brick City. It's not much of a leap to conclude that perhaps Vanderbeek is still interested in taking over.

However, the Devils' statement is quite clever here.  It does not say that Vanderbeek is close to finalizing an agreement - but ownership.  Now, we know Vanderbeek is the managing partner of the Devils.  Why does it use the generic "ownership?"  Well, I have two guesses. The first is that the Devils wanted to avoid being personal at all. By not mentioning any names, the message is the only focus.  The second is pure speculation.  Perhaps there's an outside partner that Vanderbeek wants to bring in to buy up the shares.  Instead of revealing their name or committing to someone, it's "ownership" that's buying up Brick City.    It's probably the first guess. 

In any case, once this issue gets resolved, the refinancing will probably then be able to be completed, payments will resume, and it'll be like this never happened.  That's my reading into this statement. Let's continue on.

The organization is also pleased to report that new season ticket sales are up 130 percent over last year and last week’s on-sale for single game tickets were 260 percent above last year’s similar period. 

At first glance, this seems out of place. Why pump up your own sales in a statement against an inaccurate report?

Well, let's consider the issue at hand.  Kosman's article alleges the Devils are in financial trouble.  The Devils have responded by providing some explanation about the loan payment without directly stating it and brought up the ownership issue. That doesn't really address the business, though.  At the heart of these allegations is that the Devils' business is not doing well.  The Devils recognized that and so they note that sales have increased since a year ago.

Now, I've done the math and figured that the Devils have raised their ticket prices for some sections at the Rock for the 2011-12 season.  Surely, some of the increase in sales would be a result of that. However, I don't think that alone would cause an increase of 130% in season ticket sales or 260% in single games. it was not an across-the-board increase; they've made changes or froze prices elsewhere.  Therefore, the increase would have to be result of more people buying tickets, people buying more expensive tickets, or some other combination.   It follows that business hasn't been all that bad for the Devils. 

It's not a very clear statement, though. We don't  know exactly how much an increase in 130% or 260% is worth.  We don't know whether it's substantial enough to the team's bottom line.   That's not public information, and I don't think it will ever be.  So the Devils have to be intentionally general here. The point remains: business isn't bad.

Finally, the start of training camp was incorrectly reported in the article as tomorrow. In fact, training camp starts on Friday for the rookies and Saturday for the veterans.

This really doesn't have much to do with the report. It's just a dig at Kosman's incorrect opening to his article. A stab at his credibility. The intent is to raise this question: If Kosman got something as simple as that wrong, then who knows what else he got wrong?  I can't say I blame the Devils for this ending.

So that's the statement broken down. It worked well enough and Bill Daly of the NHL said they stand with New Jersey. That alone justifies how well the statement worked.  If it was poor or ranting, the NHL wouldn't be

That said, I think it could have been stronger. For example: If the Devils made loan payments in the past, then I would have mentioned that in conjunction that there is a refinancing of their loan with the banks.  It would highlight that this isn't an ongoing problem and that recent developments haven't made it possible to do so (like the Nets becoming temporary tenants).  Of course, I don't know if the Devils did or not; I'm only assuming since we haven't had any news of them missing a loan payment prior to today.  I would just bring that up if that was the case along with other claims being disprovable without bringing up sensitive information.  But, then, these statements would be as long as the posts I write here and who really wants that?

Anyway, I want to take another shots at the messenger, but this isn't the first time the Devils hit back at the NY Post for making some sensationalist claims. The last time I believe was on June 16, when Tom Gulitti reported at Fire & Ice a joint statement from Vanderbeek and Chambers/Gilfillan against the Post's inaccuracies - which included the a false sale price for Brick City's share as in today's article.  Guess who wrote the article in the Post that led to that response? That's right: Josh Kosman with an anonymous source! What are the odds? 

Seriously, I wouldn't take this to mean that Kosman or the NY Post should be ignored or blacklisted either by the team or even the fans. For the team: a simple response, like today's, when he reports what are inaccuracies would suffice.  As for the fans: If it's dumb, then point out why you think so it's dumb with facts and reasoning. 

Most of all, while the Devils aren't going bankrupt or dissing banks or moving elsewhere, I wouldn't immediately conclude that everything is fine with respect to the team.  While you may not think much of the finances of the Devils and the Rock, they do have a direct impact on the team.  If you recall the past few months, you'll remember that the Devils traded away Brian Rolston and ultimately bought out the return Trent Hunter; they bought out Colin White; and they only committed one season to Zach Parise. Rich Chere even pointed out that several members of management have been let go, possibly as a cost-cutting move in this article with a now-obsolete headline. The Devils shaved their payroll down to just over $59 million after spending over $63 million on players last season.  Knowing that there is now a budget, it's easy to connect all these dots and with an article like Kosman's, get genuinely worried about the team.  While Kosman's report may be a lot of hooey, the Devils' moves speak for themselves.  Perhaps these ownership issues have led to these moves; or perhaps they were just agreed upon to not spend so much money (Seriously, Brian Rolston wasn't worth his contract).  It might even be just coincidence, with different reasons behind each move - yet it looks like the sole driver were the team's finances.

So to that end, I don't know what the real situation is with respect to the team's or arena's finances.  Ergo, I'm not going to worry unless the Devils start dumping players left and right (and before you say they did: remember, they added Eric Boulton and Cam Janssen - and both are wholly unnecessary to the team and added to payroll) or raising prices to incredible heights or some other extreme situation.  While it does affect the team directly; most of the actual truth isn't going to be public. While there's value in not taking team statements at face value, that also goes for sensational reports that provide more claims than proof.  Like those by Josh Kosman and his anonymous source(s).

Anyway: thoughts.  What did you make of this statement by the Devils to Josh Kosman's article? Did you think it was effective as I thought, or do you think it could have been better? Do you agree or disagree with my interpretation of the statement? What do you think about the Devils' financial situation given the article from the Post and the response?   Please leave your answers and other thoughts in the comments.

Comment 35 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

How about the fact the whole country is in an economic recession and the Devils are trying to streamline their operations? It makes financial sense to do in tough times.

by Steve LaDue on Sep 12, 2011 10:23 PM EDT reply actions  

Just take a look

at the other articles available to read on the Post’s website. Even some of the headlines alone would cause you to smile and sadly shake your head in disbelief. Kosman’s probably a Ranger fan who wishes the Rags were the ones who were bankrupt so Sather would cut it out with the gross overpayments of overrated free agents..

"On a scale of 1-10, I'd have to say 60 to 65 percent"
-NBA Union rep Billy Hunter

by Jersey_Puck on Sep 13, 2011 12:05 AM EDT reply actions  

Just a note

Sports teams have historically been sold at premiums to what they are valued at because prospective buyers have various reasons for seeing extra value (potential for growth, tax benefits, sentimental value). Hence its not unreasonable to see someone pay much more than the actual value of a team.

GET TO THE CHOPPAH

I don't know about the guy(s) upstairs, but I do believe in Welsh Jesus

VICK-VICK-VICK-VICKTORIOUS

by NJoverNY on Sep 13, 2011 2:28 AM EDT reply actions  

Sure, I can understand teams being sold for more they are worth. But $200 million for 47% of the team is fairly ludicrous if Kosman and his anonymous source are to be believed.

Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog

by John Fischer on Sep 13, 2011 11:47 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

Malcolm Gladwell wrote an article on the “psychic benefits” of owning a NBA team. The worst: “Forbes valued the Wizards at $322 million. They just sold for $551 million.” Thats paying roughly 170%. Using that overpay and the Devils valuation, 47% of the team would cost about $175 million. Sounds crazy, but the thought of owning a sports team makes smart people do dumb things (see Dan Synder and the Washington Redskins).

Personally I agree with you that $200 million is ludicrous, but it may not be completely out of the question.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6874079/psychic-benefits-nba-lockout

by NJHockey8 on Sep 13, 2011 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

I understand that it does happen, the Wizards are a great example. However, Brick City has been on the market for 8 months. If someone’s willing to overpay for 47% of the Devils without being the managing partner, then he/she/they haven’t even showed up yet. I could be wrong – maybe it’ll only be a few more weeks?

Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog

by John Fischer on Sep 13, 2011 1:01 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

Sounds crazy, but the thought of owning a sports team makes smart people do dumb things (see Dan Synder and the Washington Redskins).

Hey now!

Minor hijack:

Snyder does some dumb things (read: a LOT of dumb things), but they’re entirely unrelated to buying a team. He paid a lot for them ($750m in 1999 when they were valued at $607m), but they were and are still are one of the most profitable franchises in the NFL, and have increased in value a little over 250% since he took over (current value: $1.56b).

Some people look at sports teams as an investment opportunity, and while some do it for the wrong reasons (to make a quick buck at the expense of the team and its fans, a la the Atlanta Thrashers), Snyder is not an example of this. His dumbness is fueled by a desire to win and a lack of understanding of just how to accomplish that.

by elesias on Sep 13, 2011 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think it’s going to be difficult to replace revenue lost from the Nets relocation to Brooklyn. Still, I believe the team will be fine after issues with the minority owners are resolved.

 Although, hypothetically, if the claims in the article were true, does anyone think the state would help the team? I can’t see it happening considering the state budget despite the team soon being the only major sports franchise in New Jersey. The NHL is dealing with the Coyotes so they probably won’t be able to provide any significant assistance. The Devils better not be in danger because they are on their own.

Anyway, everyone knows that the team with the major problems in the region is the Islanders, and they will be moving to Kansas City shortly. The Devils can recruit the former Islander fan base.

by tigger on Sep 13, 2011 5:29 AM EDT reply actions  

What, if anything, do they have in the works right now to replace revenue from the Nets? The circus? A place for the Islanders to move to when the Colosseum falls apart halfway through the year?

I haven’t heard anything about this (and in all fairness, any mention of the Nets moving just got me angry with New Jersey losing one of its teams…like NY really needs another team?) so I feel a bit out of the loop here…

by SatanicStickholders on Sep 13, 2011 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions  

You do I hope realize that the Rock is one of the highest ranked arenas in the country and world for ticket sales and drawing gate attractions. None of that has much to do with the Devils and especially not the Nets, so relax.

by Zelepukin on Sep 13, 2011 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions  

Good to know. I was more or less just raging about NY. At least it’s not as bad as California and the way they collect sports teams.

by SatanicStickholders on Sep 13, 2011 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

Am I the only one who noticed that no one went to Nets games and tix were selling for under $1 on Stubhub?

na-na-na-na HEY! You SUCK!!

by mogilny89 on Sep 13, 2011 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah

Ive been to a couple of Nets games recently and they were selling tickets for $14 at the gate. They weren’t nose-bleed seats either.

Fan of: New Jersey Devils, Tennessee Titans, New Jersey Nets, New York Mets, and the U

by NJD28 on Sep 14, 2011 9:58 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

“(and before you say they did: remember, they added Eric Boulton and Cam Janssen – and both are wholly unnecessary to the team and added to payroll)”

this barely adds to payroll and you know that, John.

Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines

by Triumph44 on Sep 13, 2011 4:18 PM EDT reply actions  

It adds at least a million if both are on the roster. If you’re in a total cost-cutting mode, then you don’t add any costs; certainly not even league-minimum hired fists.

Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog

by John Fischer on Sep 13, 2011 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

you know better than this. it doesn’t add a million dollars if both are on the roster. think about why it doesn’t.

Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines

by Triumph44 on Sep 13, 2011 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

I do know better than this. And what I’ve said is still true: if both are on the Devils’ roster, salary is added. Moreover, Boulton’s on a one-way deal. He’s getting his $575,000 this season whether he plays in NJ or Albany. Cam Janssen’s on a two-way deal worth $525,000, so if he’s in Albany, he only gets $105,000. So the Devils added $680,000 if Janssen’s in Albany where he belongs or $1.1 million if both are in New Jersey.

Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog

by John Fischer on Sep 13, 2011 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Mind you, that doesn’t even include that Greene and Hedberg got raises, or the one-time costs of buying out White & Hunter.

Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog

by John Fischer on Sep 13, 2011 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

buying out hunter unquestionably saves money. i’ve made the case that buying out white doesn’t save money, but it certainly doesn’t cost much either.

Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines

by Triumph44 on Sep 13, 2011 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

No, what you’ve said is erroneous. Yes, if Janssen and Boulton are on the roster, the Devils pay out 1.1 million. But they would have paid that money out anyway to someone else, as I don’t think they were going to go with a less than 23 man roster. They don’t look to have any forwards in the minors who will be on one-way contracts. So the money they’re really spending is on the two-way contracts that are being kept in the minor leagues instead of being in the NHL as a result of their presence.

Imagine it like this, with player X and player Y already being Devils’ property and signed in the AHL to two way deals worth 105K/525K:

Janssen + Boulton = minimum of 1.1M

Player X + Player Y = minimum of 1.05M

so they spend $50,000 on Janssen and Boulton + the money they are spending on those players’ two-way contracts. But remember that if player X and player Y are called up to the NHL, they have to be replaced by player Z and player A on the AHL roster. if we imagine they have AHL contracts, i think an AHL contract pays $40,000 a year. so the difference between player X and player Y and player Z and player A is $130,000 total. so the total money they are spending on janssen and boulton being here is $180,000 at most.

even if that math isn’t exactly correct, the thought process behind it seems pretty ironclad to me, and in short, the devils are spending nickels and dimes on boulton and janssen compared to these gigantic debt obligations they have.

Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines

by Triumph44 on Sep 13, 2011 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

OK. You are correct – the addition of their salaries to the 23 man roster is a wash assuming the Devils do go with 23 players. I concede.

However, the Devils aren’t just going to be paying those 23 players, but everyone on the books with some kind of contract be it in the NHL or AHL. Even if it doesn’t add to the team’s cap or significantly adds to it, the Devils didn’t have to add either to their payroll all the same.

Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog

by John Fischer on Sep 13, 2011 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

However, the Devils aren’t just going to be paying those 23 players, but everyone on the books with some kind of contract be it in the NHL or AHL. Even if it doesn’t add to the team’s cap or significantly adds to it, the Devils didn’t have to add either to their payroll all the same.

it’s a drop in the bucket.

Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines

by Triumph44 on Sep 13, 2011 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Minor Point - The word "refinance" is often used in statements that are totally false about not paying loans.

In other words, I wouldn’t take anything from that statement at all – any business near bankruptcy who misses a loan claims they’re trying to refinance….even when the odds of that are ZERO.

I’m not saying things are as Dire as the New York Post suggests, or even dire at all. But that statement tells you literally nothing – they could honestly be refinancing or they could in fact have just missed the loan payments and are scrambling.

Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.

by garik16 on Sep 13, 2011 5:34 PM EDT reply actions  

So you’re saying the Devils are lying?

Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog

by John Fischer on Sep 13, 2011 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

Brian Rolston was insanely overpaid and eating up our Cap space. Trading him was a shrewd move, not an indication that we are operating under a budget.

If we don’t make any trades in Feb, or shred even more payroll next season, than I will be concerned.

Until we let Parise walk, or don’t go after Rinne, I’ll sleep well.

na-na-na-na HEY! You SUCK!!

by mogilny89 on Sep 13, 2011 6:25 PM EDT reply actions  

My thoughts:

John: I am interested in what you think about the reasons I lay out below.

Here are my thoughts, and I will lay out the factual basis for them first in bullet form.

1. The statement merely said that they are in the process of refinancing. Often, refinancing occurs when an entity is having trouble paying off a loan in the short term, but the bank expects the entity to be capable of paying it in the long term, probably at a higher interest rate. This is particularly true of entities that are large enough to possess loans of, say, $100 million. It is expected — barring any facts to the contrary — that an entity of such a size and with a history of profitability will be able to pay the loan in the future and at a higher cost than in the original deal.

2. Though the statement reference increases in ticket sales, it did not mention an increase in revenue. The very first thing a company would do to combat a story like this would usually be to give actual monetary figures that contradict it. Instead, the Devils chose to use ticket sales, completely ignoring revenue.

3. One of the two pieces of ticket sale evidence involves a comparison to last year’s sales. Far more worrisome is that this piece of evidence references only a one week period. Granted, single game tickets have not been available for very long at this point, but to offer a comparison of ticket sales over a one week period means almost nothing.

4. While the Post has pulled stuff like this in the past, it has usually been something slightly different than completely making up stories. Instead, stories like this in the Post tend to be severely exaggerated and sensationalized, yet based around a core grain of truth.

5. As soon as I heard the Devils suddenly had a “budget” this year, I immediately began to worry. In recent seasons, there has never been any significant amount of evidence demonstrating any sort of internal budget. To impose one, no matter how insignificant, is a change in course, and one should assume that it is rooted in some sort of financial concern. The only other possible reason I could give is that they are trying to make the team slightly more attractive to prospective buyers for Brick City’s share, but this seems highly unlikely because such purchases are based largely on recent performance and future projections.

For these reasons, I believe that there is a grain of truth to the Post story, but that the story is highly sensationalized.

by Dr. Witticism on Sep 13, 2011 6:51 PM EDT reply actions  

How could I forget the most important thing...Sorry

6. The one and only reference to financial solvency in the statement is this:

The notions that the Devils are facing bankruptcy or that “the Devils have told their banks to get lost” are patently untrue.

Considering that the story to which they are responding is about their financial solvency, one would think that the Devils would at least say something to the effect of, “we are in no way facing any significant financial problems. Not only will we be able to pay off our loans after refinancing, but we will continue to be successful and profitable in the coming season.” To make no mention of financial stability besides “well, we aren’t going bankrupt!” and “we’re refinancing” is extremely worrisome to me.

by Dr. Witticism on Sep 13, 2011 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

"we are in no way facing any significant financial problems. Not only will we be able to pay off our loans after refinancing, but we will continue to be successful and profitable in the coming season."

that’s bluster. why would anyone put that in a press release?

2. Though the statement reference increases in ticket sales, it did not mention an increase in revenue. The very first thing a company would do to combat a story like this would usually be to give actual monetary figures that contradict it. Instead, the Devils chose to use ticket sales, completely ignoring revenue.

the devils don’t publicly disclose their finances, and they’re not going to start doing so for a mostly worthless article.

Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines

by Triumph44 on Sep 13, 2011 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also, a lot of revenue comes from concessions, programs, and other impulse sales during the season. Its hard for the team to discuss revenue, because there hasn’t been a game yet to gauge these types of revenue. I agree that this whole thing is worrisome, and I don’t entirely trust the team’s statement, but the only figures they have right now is ticket sales. No other revenue will be generated until the season starts and people actually go to games.

by SonicJoe on Sep 14, 2011 8:04 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

OK, let's work backwards

First, the Devils aren’t going to publicly mention their financial stability in clear and certain terms because that would require opening up the books, and that’s not going to happen. Yes, a general statement like that may help (though, it sets the Devils up for failure if they aren’t successful and profitable in 11-12). Short of the obvious (e.g. whether players are getting paid), we’re sort of forced to take someone’s word over what’s going on – be it from the team of Josh Kosman and his anonymous sources.

Second, about the budget, I can understand the concern. It’s a new thing and it suggests something isn’t going so well. I get that. Let me offer a third possible reason, though: the salary cap. The Devils have been very willing to spend to the cap since 2005-06; and there were a few seasons where the Devils were right up against the cap ceiling – like last season. That hurts flexibility and early on in the season, forced New Jersey to play with a shortened roster, which wasn’t even the first time they’ve done that. It’s entirely possible that the Devils wanted to avoid that headache and so imposed a budget. I don’t think that’s so unreasonable.

Third, what is the grain of truth? OK, I agree it’s exaggerated and sensationalized, so what’s the meat? That the Devils missed a loan payment, which is disputable since they’re refinancing their deal with the banks? That Brick City is still up for sale and that in of itself is an issue, which isn’t really news? I’m not haranguing you for it or outright doubting that there’s something of substance in Kosman’s article. Maybe I’m in too deep reading thing closely, so I’m just curious.

Fourth, you are right that the ticket sales line is a bit unclear. Is it an increase over this very time period or is it increase over their net gain up until now? That would be more helpful, true. Yet, ticket sales are very much revenue. This is a gate-driven league. While it would be great if we had more information on the increase of ticket sales to see if, say, 130% more season ticket sales is actually a significant increase or not, that will never be public as it require the team to open their books. It may be more appropriate to say that it suggests more revenue

Fifth, the refinancing addresses what I think is what set up this article. A source finds the Devils didn’t make a payment they were supposed to. They don’t know the whole story – which means the refinancing – but it’s worth sharing so they do. A little more digging and a little sensationalism later, you have your article. It’s entirely possible that the Devils are doing so to get out of the short term payment in lieu of someone else coming in to get Brick City, who wanted out back in February.

Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog

by John Fischer on Sep 13, 2011 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think we basically agree on most of this. I would never expect an organization like the Devils to disclose actual revenue figures, but I definitely would expect them to make some — any — reference to financial solvency when attempting to refute an article that concerns the issue. But you’re absolutely right about raw figures. Never ever would the Devils disclose those.

I also accept your third possibility for the budget. Definitely possible, but taken in the context of the other facts, it’s just a bit more cause for concern. Still, you’re again right that it is not necessarily a reflection of financial trouble, just part of a larger picture (in my opinion).

Now, when I say that there may be a grain of truth in the Post article, I mean that there may be financial trouble and, more specifically, that the loan hasn’t been paid because they are refinancing due to either an inability to pay or paying would place an undue burden on them. It’s possible that this is not the case, but I think their refinancing suggest that, at the very least, paying off the loan in its current structure may be burdensome for the Devils at this time.

In terms of tickets, I absolutely agree that ticket sales are an important piece of evidence and that they are the primary source of revenue. I am merely surprised that this was the one and only piece of evidence the organization provided.

In the end, it’s all just speculation, but my personal opinion is that the facts, taken as a whole, point to some sort of financial stress. At the end of the day, I really have no way of knowing, and I desperately hope that I am wrong.

by Dr. Witticism on Sep 13, 2011 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hey wait a second. Something doesn’t feel right…Did we just agree on a whole bunch of stuff? Hold on while I go buy a lotto ticket :)

by Dr. Witticism on Sep 13, 2011 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

In the end, it’s all just speculation, but my personal opinion is that the facts, taken as a whole, point to some sort of financial stress. At the end of the day, I really have no way of knowing, and I desperately hope that I am wrong.

I think anyone who denies this has their head in the sand. However, I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. I see the problem as two-fold:

A: The Devils have probably hit around a 10th percentile profit projection since moving to Newark. They’ve had 10 home playoff dates in 4 years. That’s with 2 division championships and a 4th place finish.

B: Vanderbeek does not have the money to own the team outright. He claims he didn’t have any distress from the Lehman Brothers dissolution, but I don’t really believe him. Even so, he wants to find a partner who will let him own the team, and let him run it like the vanity purchase a sports franchise tends to be, when he doesn’t have the money to do so.

I think we’ll see some resolution to this in the coming months. The Devils aren’t going into bankruptcy and they won’t be a cap floor team.

Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines

by Triumph44 on Sep 13, 2011 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

$59 Millions dollars in payroll, 13th highest in the league. I’m not worried yet.

"It's magic, it's tragic, it's a loss, it's a win"

by Elektrostal_Kid on Sep 13, 2011 7:52 PM EDT reply actions  

Just one point. As a business man I can’t conceive of a multi-million enterprise operating without a budget. I don’t think if you go to the Devils office you will see Jeff Vanderbeek sitting with pen in hand next to his bookkeeper, signing checks to pay salaries and bills.

by Barry G on Sep 15, 2011 1:56 AM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the New Jersey Devils! New here? Check out the Rules and Guidelines before posting.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

The_official_web_site___new_jersey_devils_small
FOR THE LOVE OF THE DEVILS...PLEASE DON'T SELL YOUR TICKETS TO RANGERS FANS

Recent FanPosts

Tdevilsg_small
GAME SIX SIGN IN
Small
A Paean to Ilya Kovalchuk
A_s_game_small
Game 6 tickets
31519_397927484582_78722009582_3938348_414926_n_small
Goal Bar Seats
Small
Games Played in the Conference Playoffs: A History Lesson
Small
Line Changes...Again
Small
Cup or Bust?
Claude_small
Post your press conference question(s) for John Tortorella here.
Pig_face_small
Mar-ty, Hen-ke
Small
Top Secret Agent or Cranky Middle Aged Man?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

joomla visitors

Managers

Stanley_cup_and_you_-_sbn_small John Fischer

Authors

Puddy_small Tom Stivali

Marty_sbetter_small Matthew Ventolo

Zidlickymania_small Kevin Sellathamby

1729_small Matt Evans SNC