The corporate guys will weigh cost vs opportunity and the risks/hurdles to financial success. A project that doesn't meet the corporate required return on investment won't be approved.
- Scoob

So how does that translate to the Flyers? Otherwise it's just corporate speak. Show me how the Flyers are cutting costs or expenditures that shows that they aren't committed to winning?

Size of new TV deals tend to be strongly correlated with market size, and not team performance. And in the Flyers' case, there's no competition to drive up the price since Comcast owns the team.

AFAIK, the Flyers already charge a premium for tickets, ads, sponsorships and licensing. They could conceivably charge even more if they won championships, but it would be a marginal increase only.
- Tomahawk

Team performance grows the market size. The absolutely could charge more for a lot of things if they become a championship level team. Revenue will grow substantially just from the playoffs.

You and I are process junkies. We actually preferred Hexy's tenure lol.
- Tomahawk

.

Not really. I wasn't very entertained then either but I knew that it had to be done. I personally loved the Holmgren years where they spent and spent and always went for it. However I learned that you just can't operate that way anymore. I wish the Flyers would learn that

So Panarin wasn't a need? The Flyers had all they needed at that point in time? You aren't making sense.
- MJL

Oh .. so let me guess, that was Fletcher's fault too?

Well, the only way building a true contender happens in my opinion is do a further reset, because this group is not going to get it done.
- jd250

What's a further reset? That culture change just never kicked in.

What's a further reset? That culture change just never kicked in.
- MJL

Obtaining better players ... OH Wait .. forget that, the Rangers got them all!

The Belichick way….draft Tom Brady. Lol.

What the WFT shows is what the product of the NFL is worth in a market like Washington. Despite ineptness…despite making so many wrong decisions Snyder has an asset worth that. Winning would only add to its value.
Now if your argument is more about a team like the Coyotes who know full well they are not going to win this year, but also know in their market they must show improvement to keep fans engaged then ya not every team tries to win every year. But every teams ultimate goal should be to win….because winning only adds to the value of a franchise.
- landros 2

Belichick is by far the greatest coach the NFl has ever seen. His defences didn't have Brady playing for them. He is on his way again. I don't want to get into that digression though.

1st bold: Snyder has handsomely beaten trend (which takes care of the "rising NFL tide lifts all boats") ever since he went full corporate this past decade. If you want further evidence on a larger scale of how many NFL teams have beaten trend without winning games, I paste graph from 2017 below.

2nd bold: This is the 3rd time I am saying this, and Claudefather has said it as well, among others, so I don't understand why you keep saying the same thing over and over again

"If winning very likely needs to be preceded by doing badly (to get high picks), and this means loss of revenue, what's the incentive of a business facing a sure, large loss of revenue to gain future sales which are both random and incremental compared to loss?"

Team performance grows the market size. The absolutely could charge more for a lot of things if they become a championship level team. Revenue will grow substantially just from the playoffs.
- MJL

By market size I mean the # of network subscribers in a given area.

https://www.forbes.com/si...on-deals/?sh=6d03b0b8523f

You are such a ^&** its not funny. Sorry folks, let's pack it up and leave town, the Flyers have NO SHOT of getting better players .. Apparently the Rangers have taken them all! You can be so an ass sometimes, always looking to make others look bad. What a small person you must be!
- jd250

No, there is a chance of getting better players but it's not going to happen the way you think it is. How does repeatedly schooling you on hockey make me a small person? I'm not right about everything but you're rarely right about anything. I just point out your almost daily flip flopping. Perhaps give less opportunity.

By market size I mean the # of network subscribers in a given area.

https://www.forbes.com/si...on-deals/?sh=6d03b0b8523f
- Tomahawk

I know what you mean. You don't think that improving the team can add more fans of the team? More fans are going to want to watch their team play.

.

Not really. I wasn't very entertained then either but I knew that it had to be done. I personally loved the Holmgren years where they spent and spent and always went for it. However I learned that you just can't operate that way anymore. I wish the Flyers would learn that
- MJL

Guess it was just me then lol.

Obtaining better players ... OH Wait .. forget that, the Rangers got them all!
- jd250

You mean like the franchise changing, culture changing moves that you were all in on last off season that was going to elevate this team to contender status? Yea, that's a good idea. Let's do that again.

Guess it was just me then lol.
- Tomahawk

Well, I wan't entertained, because I am even more of a "process junkie", but the process was flawed. The team should have picked higher in draft.

That was part of my point in the original example. If winning very likely needs to be preceded by doing badly (to get high picks), and this means loss of revenue, what's the incentive of a business facing a sure, large loss of revenue to gain future sales which are both random and incremental compared to loss?
- PT21

Flyers fans need to stop showing up to games for management to get a kick in the ass

Flyers fans need to stop showing up to games for management to get a kick in the ass
- 2Real

They need to stop showing up for games where they are a bubble/competitive team and show up when they are earnestly rebuilding.

THAT would completely change the dynamic.

They need to stop showing up for games where they are a bubble/competitive team and show up when they are earnestly rebuilding.

THAT would completely change the dynamic.
- PT21

i was thinking about going to the sharks game at the end of the year but the flyers to garbage and it's not worth paying money for

So how does that translate to the Flyers? Otherwise it's just corporate speak. Show me how the Flyers are cutting costs or expenditures that shows that they aren't committed to winning?
- MJL

I didn't say they were cutting costs. However, were they to make moves/decisions that result in attendance dropping (thus less revenue dropping) the corporate guys wouldn't like it in the short term. They may not like it in the long term either because success would likely only then return them to the revenue levels they currently achieve - perhaps temporarily marginally higher due to euphoria should they win the Cup - but would eventually settle back down to current levels. The Flyers are not a growth engine in the Comcast corporate portfolio.

The fans care about winning the Cup.
The players care about winning the Cup.
The coaches and staff care about winning the Cup.
The GM cares about winning the Cup.
The team upper management cares about winning the Cup.
The corporate ownership cares about the bottom line and keeping investors happy. Winning the Cup has nominal impact on those two groups.

imo, of course

I know what you mean. You don't think that improving the team can add more fans of the team? More fans are going to want to watch their team play.
- MJL

You're still talking in terms of fans. Teams are looking at it in terms of subscriber base. It's less about putting eyeballs in front of ads now. Teams want to get paid for anybody who could potentially watch a game, not just those who they know will watch.

The fans care about winning the Cup.
The players care about winning the Cup.
The coaches and staff care about winning the Cup.
The GM cares about winning the Cup.
The team upper management cares about winning the Cup.
The corporate ownership cares about the bottom line and keeping investors happy. Winning the Cup has nominal impact on those two groups.

imo, of course
- Scoob

I agree completely about that separation between the team and Comcast corporate. However they aren't involved in how the team is run. Just about the bottom line. The main factor is how the team is run.

Well, I wan't entertained, because I am even more of a "process junkie", but the process was flawed. The team should have picked higher in draft.
- PT21

I was just happy that they were accumulating picks and prospects and shedding bad deals.

Comcast overlords never gonna let em tank.

Belichick is by far the greatest coach the NFl has ever seen. His defences didn't have Brady playing for them. He is on his way again. I don't want to get into that digression though.

1st bold: Snyder has handsomely beaten trend (which takes care of the "rising NFL tide lifts all boats") ever since he went full corporate this past decade. If you want further evidence on a larger scale of how many NFL teams have beaten trend without winning games, I paste graph from 2017 below.

2nd bold: This is the 3rd time I am saying this, and Claudefather has said it as well, among others, so I don't understand why you keep saying the same thing over and over again

"If winning very likely needs to be preceded by doing badly (to get high picks), and this means loss of revenue, what's the incentive of a business facing a sure, large loss of revenue to gain future sales which are both random and incremental compared to loss?"


- PT21

On Belichick…let’s not go down that rabbit hole.
It doesn’t matter how many guys say it. Your example of WFT is a poor one. But I think you know that. Your argument suggest all sports….all markets are created equally and we know that’s simply not the case. There are different rules, circumstances including all the different CBA’s in the different sports that most definitely influence what the best course of actions are to build a team or make a profit. The above statement is far to generic.

You're still talking in terms of fans. Teams are looking at it in terms of subscriber base. It's less about putting eyeballs in front of ads now. Teams want to get paid for anybody who could potentially watch a game, not just those who they know will watch.
- Tomahawk

You don't seem to understand that winning creates more fans and in turn creates more subscribers to watch their team. They are not always two separate groups.

I agree completely about that separation between the team and Comcast corporate. However they aren't involved in how the team is run. Just about the bottom line. The main factor is how the team is run.
- MJL

I'm sure they have a say as far as how the running of the team affects the bottom line. That's one reason why corporate ownership of teams is messy. What would be a bit helpful is if someone in Dave S's position understood hockey better than he does.

On Belichick…let’s not go down that rabbit hole.
It doesn’t matter how many guys say it. Your example of WFT is a poor one. But I think you know that. Your argument suggest all sports….all markets are created equally and we know that’s simply not the case. There are different rules, circumstances including all the different CBA’s in the different sports that most definitely influence what the best course of actions are to build a team or make a profit. The above statement is far to generic.
- landros 2

I never said anything about all markets being equal. Indeed, that is why I mentioned big market teams for NHL. Dynamics are completely different in small market teams, like essentially all teams south of Mason-Dixie: there, winning implies much greater % changes in attendance/viewership, and base (bubble team attendance levels) are much lower. Hence, mgmt has a much greater incentive to field winning teams as there is much greater space to move up.

I don't understand why WFT is a bad example. It is a poster child for my point. It has beaten trend for rise in value while underperforming trend for wins.

You don't seem to understand that winning creates more fans and in turn creates more subscribers to watch their team. They are not always two separate groups.
- MJL

You really think the Flyers winning would cause a significant uptick in cable/satellite subscriptions? I can't really see that. Everybody who even has a passing interest in live sports is likely already accounted for.