Defending Big D: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
New Blog: Cottagers Confidential for Fulham FC Fans!

Analyzing The Dallas Stars Financial Situation

Tom Hicks was overseas last week when the news broke that the Dallas Stars would potentially be up for sale this summer, and he met with the media in his office today to give his side of the story. There have been multiple reports on this meeting tonight, including a very lengthy story on ESPN.com, so I'm going to do my best to round up the most important news that came out today.

Before I get to the tidbits from Hicks and team president Jeff Cogen, I'd like to share a few personal thoughts on Tom Hicks as the owner of the Dallas Stars. This is an owner who allowed his general managers the freedom to make the moves they needed to make in order to build the team. Big trades, free spending in free agency; anything in order to maintain the Stars as competitive as possible. Yet a number of free agent blunders hurt the team financially, and the final straw seemed to come with the failure that was the Sean Avery contract.

Hicks Sports Group is a company that, led by Tom Hicks, tried to do too much at once. And while they have tried to maintain that the Rangers and Stars are separate entities, it's become very clear lately that HSG's financial issues are far reaching and are affecting all aspects of their operations. And during this time, Hicks has come across as stubborn and unwilling to admit when the issues were at their worst; this is most evidenced by reports that Hicks was dragging his feet in the sale of the Texas Rangers.

Stars fans have not had much to complain about during Tom Hicks' time as the team's owner, but now they are starting to feel the anger that many Rangers fans have had over the past several years.

And when you start to analyze what Hicks said today in his office, that frustration will grow even more.

Star-divide

First off, let's get some of the facts out of the way. These are the bullet points emphasized by Hicks to the media, and ESPN.com runs them down.

  • Hicks lent $85 million of his money to Hicks Sports Group, which owns the Stars and Texas Rangers, over a two-year period that ended March 31, 2009, when HSG defaulted on $525 million in loans.
  •  

  • A sale of the Stars could be completed within six months, and the team has an agreement with American Airlines Center that prevents it from being moved.
  • The Stars will reduce ticket prices next season for lower-bowl seats between the blue lines.
  • The team can be successful under its current budget, and fans shouldn't expect a new owner to increase the payroll.
  • The big news out of all of this is that Hicks himself loaned money to HSG. Now, I am not going to pretend to be a financial mastermind here (I am just a blogger), but it seems that if you are pouring $85 MILLION of your own money into company then there would come a point that your realize the current model was not working. Perhaps at that point the failure was inevitable and Hicks' money was a last-ditch effort to slow the bleeding.

    The other interesting news out today's meeting was Hicks' statements regarding the team's budget and payroll. Since there are no actual quotes from Hicks on this, we'll take a look at what both Heika and ESPN had to say:

    ESPN:

    Hicks said what the hockey team is spending now -- about $50 million in terms of the salary cap hit (about $45 million in cash) -- is likely to be the average in the NHL in a few years. Hicks said the team is losing money at that budget because revenues, including ticket sales and suites, have dropped.

    He said teams "south of Pennsylvania" have figured out that if they spend to the $56.8 million salary cap, they will lose money. Five Sunbelt teams (Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Jose, Florida and Carolina) are spending at least $54.5 million in salary cap money this season.

    Hicks said a new owner will discover the same thing and, therefore, isn't likely to increase spending.

    Heika:

    He said the model for spending in the NHL is broken and that the economy simply will not carry a $56 million payroll for teams in the south (the NHL salary cap is $56.8 million) and that he fully expects Sunbelt teams to follow suit. This season, Carolina, Anaheim, Florida and San Jose all have cap hits above $55 million. The Stars' cap hit is $49.9 million (including bonuses, some of which will not get paid).

    Ok then. Let's try to make sense of all that.

    Basically, Hicks is saying that the Dallas Stars cannot afford to spend up to the $56 million cap and instead of using two potentially disappointing seasons in a row as a reason he instead uses the "southern teams cannot be successful" excuse. That's a fairly serious statement, coming from the owner of a franchise that has been the model for the success of ice hockey in the south.

    Currently, there are 26 teams in the NHL spending more than the Dallas Stars. There are just 14 teams in the NHL with more points than the Stars. So, on first glance, it would appear that spending freely does not automatically equal on-ice success. Obviously the key for any sports franchise is to not only win and be successful, but to make a profit while doing so. If that franchise can maintain an even margin then at least they won't find themselves in dire straits and forced to slash payroll in order to make ends meet. It's the never ending battle in sports; be successful and make money, or spend money to be successful.

    Tom Hicks learned the hard way with the Texas Rangers that just because you spend as much as you possibly can, that doesn't mean you'll automatically have success with the actual product. Just as in any business venture, you must find the personnel to make the right decisions with the money you actually have to spend. Hicks did not have that general manager with the Rangers until Jon Daniels came along, and he had a general manager in Doug Armstrong that did nearly everything wrong with the Dallas Stars.

    We can argue the merits of financially successful hockey in the South another day, but here is what I see: the Dallas Stars franchise was always near the top of the NHL in generated revenue, yet now the team in bottom five in overall spending. It's the chicken or the egg theory all over again; does the success breed revenue or does the big spending breed success?

    Hicks stated that the Stars, as they are currently assembled and with their current payroll, are losing money and he's eating those monetary losses permanently. Not Hicks Sports Group. So you can immediately see where the strict financial restrictions are coming from. He also says that just because the Stars get sold to a new owner, that fans should expect to start spending again:

    "If he goes to the cap, it will all come out of his pocket," Hicks said. "We are losing money where we are now. It's not something to infer to the fans that once we get a flush owner we're going back to the cap. The only reason a guy would do that is because he wanted to win so bad he was uneconomical. I've done that. I know how that works."

    So which is it? Are the Stars in facing serious financial issues solely because hockey no longer makes money in Dallas like it once did? Or has revenue slowly fallen over the years because the on-ice product has steadily diminished to the point where the team is threatening to not make the playoffs in two straight seasons for the first time since coming to Dallas? Can we blame poor free agency signings and overspending on aging veterans as a reason that the revenue has dropped while the payroll was so high for so long?

    Perhaps a number of absolutely horrible decisions made by the front office can be blamed for this situation, rather than laying the blame on hockey not being as successful "south of Pennsylvania."

    Logo_dallas_stars_medium

    The reality: Don't expect the team to be able to do 'whatever it takes' to make the Stars more competitive and burst into the playoffs. If the Stars are bleeding money right now, $7 million under the salary cap, then don't expect any trades or signings to be made that adds any sort of extra salary to the roster. That means no big defensemen, without parting with key pieces. That also could spell trades that involve players with inflated contracts.

    Hicks said the Stars were No. 1 in the NHL in total revenue in 2002, with Colorado No. 2. He said the Stars are now No. 19 with Colorado right behind them. Cogen added that after the club went to the Western Conference Finals in 2008, the team sold 2,000 more season tickets. But when the Stars missed the playoffs in 2009, they were only able to retain 25 percent of those sales.

    "We believe the team plays better in a full building," Cogen said. "Our No. 1 job is to be playing games in May and June, and that's what we're focused on."

    What the above statements say to me is that the Dallas Stars are close to being in official 'rebuilding mode'. Not exactly rebuilding when it comes to the on-ice personnel, but a restructuring of the entire franchise in an effort to recoup the losses and find a way to get back to being competitive without spending up to the salary cap. The Stars are having to cut ticket prices just to get bodies into American Airlines Center, which in itself forces the team to cut their payroll.

    It's a valley in the ups and downs of sports franchise, and the key is to be able to rebuild the team and come out on the other side as soon as possible. Some teams are never able to find a way to climb the slope back to being a top competitor, and money has a lot to do with it.

    Mark Stepneski, as he always does, breaks down the situation very simply:

    A decade later, they haven’t done much in the playoffs other than one run in 2008 and they are no longer a hot ticket in town. They are back to No. 4 among the four pro teams in the market. Throw in the economy, and it gets a little tougher. Start looking ahead, and the next TV deal may not be so lucrative. Spending has to reflect the reality of the revenues coming in, and that’s where they are.

    Logo_dallas_stars_medium

    So how do the Stars rebuild without spending money?

    Nieuwendyk wants a team with the likes of Jamie Benn, Stephane Robidas, Loui Eriksson and James Neal steadily improving and becoming the foundation of future success. He'll then add pieces where he can, much like [Jon] Daniels has tried to do with the Rangers.

    "You have to draft well, develop on your own and move forward that way," Nieuwendyk said. "I think we can be competitive that way."

    The Texas Rangers are an interesting comparison. They've drastically cut payroll the past few years, are hesitant and unable to sign any top free agents, yet they are their most competitive in over a decade. The Rangers also have a strong nucleus of players that should make the Rangers competitive for years to come.

    This is the model the Stars will have to follow, and it's going to mean a bit slower climb back to the top than most fans would hope for. It's going to mean trading away some of your top, expensive players for a bevy of young talent, prospects and draft picks. It's going to mean rebuilding the team from the bottom up, using smart and crafty acquisitions to build around a strong nucleus of talent that the Stars already have. Yet the big name, expensive additions that most fans are convinced this team needs to automatically take the next step most likely will not happen.

    Dallas Stars fans should be incredibly excited about the future of this team and the franchise. The young, raw talent on this team is at a level not seen in a long, long time. Fans must accept the fact that for the immediate future, this team will not be able to spend the money many feel is necessary to be competitive once more. Instead, expect a number of calculated moves that are made to not only better this team in the immediate future, but next season as well.

    While the Stars certainly are nowhere near the point of looking ahead and scrapping the current season, all signs are pointing to a total lockdown until a sale is made. And Tom Hicks can lay claim that a ownership change will do nothing for the team's finances as much as he wants, but the truth that any change at this point will be welcome.

    Until said change is made, however, the Dallas Stars are handcuffed by an owner who refuses to accept any blame for the current situation. He has no personal monetary stake in this franchise (he was sure to point out that Tom Hicks is doing just fine financially), nor have his decisions as an owner done any ill towards the Dallas Stars, Texas Rangers or Liverpool.

    ``We were hopeful to be quietly doing this,'' [Hicks] said. ``I don't know what direction it's going to go. I don't know if I'm going to be involved (as part of the future ownership group), I don't know if my children will be involved. We're going see what happens and our advisors will start looking at all of the options. Hockey has a smaller universe of interested investors certainly than baseball has, so our advisors will be trying to find the most interest they can find.''

    Quiet indeed. Let's not let anyone in on the fact that grossly mismanaged sports franchises but a big business into default of over $500 million in loans.

    Tom Hicks will sell the Dallas Stars and move on, and fans will be left with a franchise that will spend several years recovering. The Stars aren't going to turn back into top Stanley Cup contenders overnight, nor with the fans start spending the money on tickets and merchandise like they did five years ago as soon as new owner takes over. It's going to be a long process, but the good news is that the future is bright. We do have something to look forward to, the season and beyond.

     

    Logo_dallas_stars_medium

    Epilogue

    Jeff Cogen confirmed what I've been saying the past week: the Dallas Stars are not going anywhere.

    ``The Dallas Stars aren't going anywhere, '' team president Jeff Cogen said. ``We are in the fourth largest market in the country, we are the pride of the NHL Sunbelt, and still are in spite the present state. We have a non-location agreement with American Airlines Center, and we're not going anywhere. I just want to get that on the record.''

    "Fourth largest market". Well, that hurts to hear. Fourth largest market, 19th in revenue and 27th in spending.

    Must be the south's fault.

    Anyways, the key is the agreement with the AAC.

    0 recs  |  Comment 38 comments |

    Story-email Email Printer Print

    Comments

    Display:

    The assertion that new ownership

    Won’t be able to spend money here either was the thing that got me the most. It’s either true, and therefore frightfully foreboding. Or it’s sour grapes and pointing fingers.

    Also the rather interesting way he went about assuring us that he, Tom Hicks, was doing quite well for himself. That’s really great, Mr. Hicks. Really nice.

    by Brad Gardner on Feb 9, 2010 12:37 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

    Shenanigans

    I am calling major shenanigans on this. If only spending $57m makes teams unprofitable you might as well fold the league because that is nothing. I think the explanation for losing money is pretty simple in this case. Last season they reportedly lost $5m while spending to the cap, that is without a playoff run and a poor economy and then subsequently lost more season ticket holders after a poor season. Poor results = poor cash flow = financial sheet losses. Add in large interest on debt payments from over extending yourself financially with the Rangers and Liverpool and all of the sudden you are adding in high costs making breaking even hard, if not impossible. If a new owner comes in, isn’t leveraged to the hilt and has a good GM/front office in place. There is no reason that this thing can’t be a mony making machine.

    by jf55510 on Feb 9, 2010 12:38 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

    Turco

    Also, I think that this is why Turco gets moved after the olympic break.

    by jf55510 on Feb 9, 2010 12:39 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    Don't forget..

    FOURTH largest sports market in the US.

    Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

    by Brandon Worley on Feb 9, 2010 12:40 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    I wish I knew more about the specifics.

    But this all just screams foul to me.

    If it’s just the slap in the face that it kind of feels like, I hope it’s one we can say was “as he was almost out the door” when it’s all over with.

    Who knows. He was a good owner for a long time, like you said Brandon.

    by Brad Gardner on Feb 9, 2010 12:46 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

    Just admit you made some mistakes..

    Don’t say “This won’t work this way in the South like it does elsewhere, so that’s the issue. The NHL needs to change, not me.”

    Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

    by Brandon Worley on Feb 9, 2010 12:49 AM CST via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

    Mostly I hate him for trying to take away my hope

    I’ve been plodding along this year with no hope bc I knew the financial situation wasn’t going to improve. We hear the team might get sold and it reinvigorated me. Gave me something to look forward to.

    Now they’re trying to take it away….Kick me while I’m down, why don’t (they)…

    by Brad Gardner on Feb 9, 2010 12:51 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    The article was definitely a tough read. I am not a fan of the way Hicks` chose to go about this. It feels like a stab in the back to us fans, and as was said above it has that kick me while i`m down feeling. It just screams lack of integrity or any emotion towards this franchise whatsoever.

    I understand financial issues however maybe the free spending on contracts to Avery, Guerin, Turgeon along with deadline deals to add guys such as Nagy, Numinnen, Norstrom threw many draft picks out the window, not to mention the lack of attention at the draft when they did choose. It feels like finally this franchise is in prime position to regain the form of the 90`s and the rug is not so nicely being pull out from under that idea.

    I just do not understand how he can just so quickly basically say this franchise is doomed to minimal financial spending because of the location even tho it has been proven this team can be successful and profitable at the highest level.

    by brendan1 on Feb 9, 2010 2:44 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

    Norstrom

    Hey now, Matti doesn’t count in the bad deadline deal groupings.

    by Waywardstars on Feb 9, 2010 8:18 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    Add Arnott

    Don’t forget the Jason Arnott trade that sent Niewy and Langenbrunner to the Devils. Norstrom was the one decent transaction of the bunch. It would be cool to see a follow up article on what the draft picks involved in some of those deals ended up being.

    by 1paniolo on Feb 9, 2010 12:33 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    Draft

    Stars gave up their 2007 1st Round Pick (#21) to Phoenix. Riley Nash was drafted #21 (PHX traded pick to EDM).

    Stars traded their 2007 2nd and 3rd (#52,#82) round Picks to LA as well as their 2008 1st (#13) for Norstrom. Those picks ended up being:

    2007:
    52- Oscar Moller
    82- Bryan Cameron

    2008:
    13- Colten Teubert

    by Buds on Feb 9, 2010 12:57 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    Norst.

    I was by no means trying to say having Matti was a move. I was just pointing out how the team was throwing around 1st/2nd round picks and for the most part it didn’t reallt bread the success that was anticipated.

    by brendan1 on Feb 9, 2010 2:17 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    It seems to me more and more that the financial success of the 90s

    was tied directly to the success the Stars had on the ice compared to other sports teams in Dallas. When the Stars started to become a huge draw in Dallas, at the time the Mavericks were terrible, the Rangers were still dealing with the strike, and the Cowboys were on their long downward slide. Even though its the 4th largest sports market, the Stars have become Fourth Fiddle and interest has waned ever since the lockout.

    What’s frustrating is that as a fan the Stars, they have lately been anywhere between the slightly-above-average to mediocre to slightly poor. Yet they haven’t been absolute league-wide bottom feeders. Again, what is frustrating is seeing clubs like Pittsburgh and Washington and Chicago pick up so much young talent from very early first round picks.

    by RyanBlueThunder on Feb 9, 2010 11:51 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    I've got a few questions...

    How can a team like the Leafs, mired in mediocrity for years, continue to spend like they do? Just because they sell out? I find that hard to believe.

    Every team that spends to the cap is losing money? If not, why not?

    by Mike Russo on Feb 9, 2010 7:49 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

    The average ticket price in toronto

    Is astronomical.

    Their tv deal is probably awesome.

    The leafs are like the Yankees or the Lakers. Doesn’t matter if they suck. They’re insanely popular.

    It’s probably only fair to compare southern teams in this discussion.

    by Brad Gardner on Feb 9, 2010 9:05 AM CST via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

    Hicks Comments Don't Pass the Smell Test

    But that’s nothing unusual. Ranger fans have been hearing the same things from him for years.

    Afterall, wasn’t this the same team whose payroll was up around the $80 million mark before the lockout? If the team isn’t making money with a payroll below $50 million, how the hell were they able to stay afloat when Hicks was trying to keep up with the Red Wings?

    My theory is he wanted to slash the payroll for a number of years, but knew he really couldn’t get away with it as long as the Stars were making the playoffs. As soon as they miss the playoffs, he gets out his machete.

    Defending Big D Free to use and easy to join, as well as easy to use and free to join!
    TheStarsFans Because a knee-jerking city needs a little common sense
    YNWA Because do you really want to root for ManU?

    by Brandon Bibb on Feb 9, 2010 9:50 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

    And in case you're wondering

    The last television contract the NHL had with ESPN was for $600 million over 5 years.

    Divided by season, it was $120 million.

    Divided by 30 teams = $4 million per season.

    Yes, folks. Tom Hicks really does take you all for a bunch of ignorant lemmings that can’t figure this stuff out on their own.

    Defending Big D Free to use and easy to join, as well as easy to use and free to join!
    TheStarsFans Because a knee-jerking city needs a little common sense
    YNWA Because do you really want to root for ManU?

    by Brandon Bibb on Feb 9, 2010 11:19 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    Wow

    Like others, reading this was a slap in the face. As someone who’s spent way too much money on season tickets and merchandise, I can’t believe some of the quotes Hicks is throwing out there. He’s been such a great owner and now this? WTF Tom? Nobody gives a rats ass that you lent HSG $85 million of your own money. Hell, I lent you $700 of my own money for last years non-existant playoff tickets and did you give a crap about that?? NO. Poor baby Tom had to lend money while drinking a bottle of Dom Perignon and sitting pool side at his $35 million dollar mansion.

    Hicks’ ego has clearly gotten the better of him. I’m sure he’s bruised from the embarrassment of the HSG mess and sale of the Rangers, but to treat the Stars and Stars fans like a meaningless group of useless morons is downright pathetic.

    The Stars average attendance last season was 17,680 with an average ticket price of $37.80. That’s $27.4 million in ticket revenue alone. I wish I could find the concession and merchandise sales numbers. While I appreciate their effort to lower ticket prices (or keep them steady), I think it has really hurt the teams finances. Their average attendance has been between 17,680-18,527 since they moved to the AAC. Say their average ticket price was $48 (still below the $49.66 league average) and say the resulting price increase caused average attendance to drop to 16,680 (which would be the lowest since the Reunion days). You would still end up with $32.8 million in ticket revenue… Hell, average attendance can drop to 14,000 and you’ll still end up with more ticket revenue than you have now ($27.5 mil). Yes I know there are costs to consider that I have left out, I’m mainly pointing out that some of HIcks decisions has cost this team a chance to contend. I’m sorry, I’m just not buying Hicks’ “southern teams can’t survive spending to the cap” bs.

    by Buds on Feb 9, 2010 10:28 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

    What are the various revenue streams?

    If they are getting less than $30m in ticket revenue, where do they get the rest? Using Buds avgs total attendance is around 750,000. Even assuming $20 per person on concessions with a $10 profit only generates another $7m. Also remember that the salary # of say $45m does not include any IR payments or guys under contract not on the parent team or coaches. Or travel, administrative costs and salary or marketing.

    by 1paniolo on Feb 9, 2010 12:50 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    Off the top of my head...

    Merchandising
    Corporate Sponsorships
    TV Revenue

    by Sugaa on Feb 9, 2010 12:55 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    parking

    Conceessions
    Dr pepper Star Centers

    by Brad Gardner on Feb 9, 2010 12:57 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    TV revenue is the big one.

    And THAT contract is way, way, way down over recent years.

    Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

    by Brandon Worley on Feb 9, 2010 1:00 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    As a numbers guy ...

    I would love to have a look at some financial stmts of an NHL club. AFAIK all of them are closely held. hmmm wonder if Phx statements became part of the public record in their brupcy filings.

    by 1paniolo on Feb 9, 2010 1:16 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    They are.

    I don’t know where you’d have to go but James Mirtle and company were parsing them all during that situation. A google search or going over to HF Financial boards will probably lead you to a link or three. I know the money situation there makes Dallas look healthy.

    by Hull Fan on Feb 9, 2010 1:46 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    Yeah, right.

    And I’m sure the Rangers had financial difficulties because baseball just can’t thrive outside of New York.

    by Sugaa on Feb 9, 2010 10:37 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

    I really feel for the season ticket holders...

    How does any of this inspire confidence in fans to spend money on the team?

    Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

    by Brandon Worley on Feb 9, 2010 11:19 AM CST via mobile reply actions   0 recs

    Well...

    What the hell are we supposed to do?

    If we all say “screw you we’re not spending money” then it’s not going to make things any better. (Given the fact that I’m not going to stop caring about the team, which I won’t any time soon). Not showing up to the games would just make things that much worse. It’s a real catch 22. We don’t want to positively reinforce the behavior, but we pay the players salaries and we kind of like those guys.

    If he treated us like this for a couple more seasons, then yes I think I would stay away.

    Now that I think he might be out of here? That’s different.

    by Brad Gardner on Feb 9, 2010 12:05 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    For me, the question is "do I get $X worth of enjoyment out of the games I attend?"

    And I’d say, for me, the answer is yes. We’ve seen some real snoozefests, but I’d say we’ve seen far more exciting and fun games, and the Stars have still played pretty well at home. Whether we buy season tickets again next year depends on a variety of personal factors, but I can’t say I regret purchasing them this year, or that this season’s performance or the team’s ownership/financial situation would keep me from purchasing season tickets again. But then again, we’ve got cheap seats that we share with another couple, so I’m sure the answer to the question above is probably going to be different for different people.

    by Sugaa on Feb 9, 2010 12:30 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    exactly....

    If I was living in Dallas as much as I love this team and would so badly wanna be a season ticket holder I am just not sure I could justify it if this is the kind of attitude he is going to present.

    by brendan1 on Feb 9, 2010 2:19 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    Here is the deal:

    Obviously you do not buy a sports team to make money. You buy one because you have exorbitant amounts of money and you like sports. It is a bunch of crap what Hicks has stated; saying how the new owner will lose money if he spends to cap so he will stick with the low payroll. Now let us assume for arguments sake, that at a payroll < 45mil you break even or make money and anything above you risk loss if you fail to make the playoffs. Now obviously we don’t know the validity of this statement, but if you are rich enough to buy a sports franchise for hundreds of millions of dollars, and in Hicks’ case 3 teams, you probably wouldn’t mind losing 5 to 10mil a year for a chance to win a stanley cup. The deal here is that Hicks has over-extended his empire and is feeling the pinch and wants to claim that it is not his doing. Yes the economy is not benefiting him at the moment, but the fact is he did not account for the downturn. Any person who has enough money to buy a team would likely make enough dollars from interest off their various investments and accounts to compensate for a 5 – 10mil loss. And if the new owner is competitive enough, you would hope so if he wants a sports franchise, then that potential loss does not outweigh the possible success of the franchise.

    by modano9 on Feb 9, 2010 12:54 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

    Is Hicks really that stupid?

    The argument he is making seems designed to drive the price of the franchise down. As a potential buyer why would you pay top dollar for something that the owner professes can not structurally break even?

    Seems like it would be a lot easier to sell for what you want if you took the approach that we have an aging talent base which was made worse by free agent and trade decisions which have depressed attendance and revenues. Combined with financial setbacks, due to the economy, the ownership group is unable to spend the amounts necessary to get a top level team on the ice that would restore those historical revenue levels. That approach gives a new owner hope that they can run the operation more effectively and have a winning team that generates some profit.

    I guess Hicks hubris is just too great to acknowledge the truth … even when it is in his best interests. :shaking head:

    by 1paniolo on Feb 9, 2010 1:03 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

    Well, he seems to be a reluctant seller...

    He may be intentionally undermining the sale. He’s denied that he’s going to need to sell the Stars for months after everyone else did the math and realized that selling the Rangers most likely wasn’t going to cover all that debt. This may be yet another stall tactic.

    by Sugaa on Feb 9, 2010 1:56 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    He could be trying to convince his creditors ...

    that the value of the franchise is not that great and they would be better off restructuring the remaining debt after the Rangers portion is paid. lol Good luck with convincing them of that when he got his RE interests with the ballpark slotted in front of the banks.

    by 1paniolo on Feb 9, 2010 2:32 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

    This is a tough situation to be in...

    Especially when you consider how it’s been for other teams in the same situation. I don’t want the Stars to be the Coyotes, who were the talk of an entire summer and still are far from a resolution.

    Best case scenario would be to end up like the Penguins’ ownership situation did, but these things don’t always have happy endings like that one…

    Here's to all us girls who love hockey...and the men who play it.

    by Brad_Richards_Rocks on Feb 9, 2010 3:43 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

    The Whole "Hockey In The South" Thing

    Tom Hicks isn’t entirely wrong with his version of the “Hockey In The South” argument. While I mostly agree with Brandon’s excellent work here, there is more to the Sun Belt NHL than meets the eye. The difference between hockey down here and hockey “up there” has to do with a matter of economics: Elasticity of demand.

    As we’ve seen here in Dallas, hockey can do wonderfully in the south. Or, at least it could before the strike and lockout. In our brave post-lockout world, though, the margins are much thinner for teams in areas where demand for hockey is more elastic than inelastic. I don’t care where you go in the southern U.S., demand for hockey is elastic when it comes to discretionary income of average sports fans. There’s football, there’s baseball, there’s NASCAR, and there’s the NBA. By my count, Florida, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Nashville, Dallas, and Phoenix all have at least two alternatives from that list to compete with for fan dollars. Most teams on this list have several competitors for fan dollars.

    A commenter upstream mentioned Toronto and how they could spend what they do and still suck. The simple difference between Toronto and Dallas is that the demand for hockey in Toronto is inelastic. Will a sizable minority of the Leafs’ fan base ditch them and spend their Canadian dollars on the Argonauts, the Blue Jays, or the Raptors? Not likely. By contrast, here in Dallas a sizable minority of the Stars’ fan base (what most of us would consider bandwagon fans) will take their dollars and spend them on the Cowboys, the Mavs, possibly the Rangers, or on NASCAR.

    No matter what die-hard fans may think of the bandwagon fans, those bandwagon dollars are crucial to teams’ revenue streams. In locations where demand for hockey is more inelastic, whether due to deep cultural roots or due to fewer alternatives, revenue streams from fans aren’t as much of a concern as they are for teams in locations where cultural roots aren’t as deep and where there are alternatives for spending discretionary income on sports.

    A jobless recovery from recession magnifies the bandwagon dilemma for fans. For many folks, it’s not a matter of choosing the hockey game over taking the whole family to the Ballpark or the Spring Cup Series race at TMS. It’s a matter of “we can’t afford to do any of this stuff right now.”

    I’m not trying to excuse any of Tom Hicks’ foolishness here. I do believe that NHL teams in the south are operating on tighter margins due to elasticity of demand than NHL teams in the north or especially in Canada. It doesn’t mean that hockey can’t make it in the south, but it does mean that owners and front offices of southern teams have less room to mess up.

    by Mister Naxal on Feb 9, 2010 6:02 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

    Very, very well put.

    I don’t deny that hockey in Texas is something that has to be worked at. In fact, I wrote earlier this season that two bad years in a row will be devastating financially for the Stars. That’s just the way it works.

    What irked me was how Tom Hicks just laid all of the blame on “hockey in the south”, while a number of personnel decisions have put this team in some bad situations over the past few years.

    Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

    by Brandon Worley on Feb 9, 2010 6:32 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    Not to mention

    The fact that it’s completely idiotic to tell people that a franchise you own won’t make it in the South if:

    1. The franchise can’t be moved
    2. You’re trying to sell it

    Isn’t that sort of Business 101?

    Hey come by this car from me- it’s costing me a ton more money than it’s worth!

    by jabudi on Feb 10, 2010 12:49 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    I Agree

    Hicks used a legitimate argument to obfuscate his culpability. That’s not the first time he’s done that with sports teams, and even if HSG does sell the Stars, I know it won’t be the last time that he’ll do it.

    Especially since the lockout, all the Sun Belt hockey teams have been operating on the thinnest of margins in the best of times, with many teams bleeding cash most seasons. I think Hicks has been, at best, distracted from the Stars since he and Gillette bought Liverpool and with the Rangers’ financial woes. At worst, he hasn’t viewed them as anything other than a money-losing proposition in quite some time. Either tactic has led to a team and a franchise that were neglected in the short term by their owner.

    I wish that it were easier for a hockey team to build a minor league system the same way that a franchise can in baseball. Unfortunately, besides the fundamental differences in talent, skills, and development of both in hockey players versus baseball players, there’s simply not the money to do it in hockey. I’d love to see the Stars build a bullpen of talented forwards and defensemen in the minors, but right now the minors for the Stars look eerily like what the Rangers system did when JD took over: Big gaps in talent due to trading draft picks away, with the additional problem of being just good enough for an extended period of time that they went years without a high draft pick.

    I’m looking forward to watching Neal, Benn, Glennie, Roman, Larsen, et al these next few years grow into what I hope will be the nucleus of the next great Stars squad.

    by Mister Naxal on Feb 10, 2010 2:58 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

    Comments For This Post Are Closed


    User Tools

    Welcome to SB Nation's Dallas Stars website. We talk Stars hockey 24/7/365. You're welcome to join in the discussion; please follow the code of conduct for commentary.
    Start posting about the Stars »

    Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

    Connect_with_facebook

    FanPosts

    Community blog posts and discussion.

    Recent FanPosts

    Small
    Video highlights from the Stars-Sharks game, 16 March
    Profile_pic_small
    Brandon Segal: The Value of a Right-Handed Shot
    Small
    Ovie....
    0027_small
    Maybe Time To Experiment With Trevor Daley At Forward?
    Small
    Cap Room
    Small
    Crawford
    Batman_small
    The mythical number one on the block
    Vegeta_2_small
    Missing Our Finns
    Small
    Hockey is still a team game: A look at the Dallas Stars' Offense
    Small
    Lehtonen and the Rest of the Season

    + New FanPost All FanPosts >

    SBNation.com Recent Stories

    New Jersey Devils' Patrik Elias, of the Czech Republic, comes out with a green hat on St. Patrick's Day after defeating the Pittsburgh Penguins 5-2 in an NHL hockey game Wednesday, March 17, 2010, in Newark, N.J. Elias was voted the star of the game. (AP Photo/Bill Kostroun)

    Devils Complete Regular-Season Sweep Of Penguins With 5-2 Win

    Vancouver Canucks' Mikael Samuelsson, of Sweden, celebrates after scoring against the Ottawa Senators during the second period of an NHL hockey game in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, on Saturday, March 13, 2010. (AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Darryl Dyck)

    Canucks' Mikael Samuelsson Out 2-To-3 Weeks With Upper-Body Injury

    Philadelphia Flyers defenseman Braydon Coburn (5) passes the puck away from Nashville Predators left wing Steve Sullivan in the first period of an NHL hockey game on Tuesday, March 16, 2010, in Nashville, Tenn. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey) link

    Who Are The NHL's Least Valuable Players?

    More from SBNation.com >


    Managing Editor

    Sb_avatar_small Brad Gardner

    Staff Writers

    Twitterme_small Brandon Bibb

    Photo_10_small Derek B

    Irbe_hockey_card_small Art_M

    20266_239076958435_675463435_4277662_4878279_n_small Pat Iversen

    Don_small Mike Russo

    AHL Correspondent

    Gtalk_profile_small scm83x

    Graphic Design Artist

    Avatar_small RyanM