Vanderbeek still nearly $20M short

Maybe he can get the prospective owner(s) in Arizona to loan him $.87 cents? Should get him to 8:48 AM today.

I don't understand it. You have an arena built for you. Your team makes the final. You're paying a ridiculous amount of money to a pretty-good-but-HOLY-SHNIT-YOU-GAVE-HIM-HOW-MUCH?! player. Isn't this the type of situation where a league SHOULD step in and rescind the team from the owner? You have a much easier time finding an owner for the Devils than you do a team in the middle of the Sahara.

QUOTE(#1):

Originally posted 08:47 AM ET  08.14 by Slapshot

Maybe he can get the prospective owner(s) in Arizona to loan him $.87 cents? Should get him to 8:48 AM today.

I was going to suggest maybe they go in together, make one really good team, and put it somehwere that can support it

QUOTE(#2):

Originally posted 08:57 AM ET  08.14 by dannylimes

I don't understand it. You have an arena built for you. Your team makes the final. You're paying a ridiculous amount of money to a pretty-good-but-HOLY-SHNIT-YOU-GAVE-HIM-HOW-MUCH?! player. Isn't this the type of situation where a league SHOULD step in and rescind the team from the owner? You have a much easier time finding an owner for the Devils than you do a team in the middle of the Sahara.

all kidding aside (for now!) This is exactly right
the owners make their ridiculous statements about revenue sharing and such, and then get themselves into positions like this.
Bettman needs, as commisioner, to step in here, possibly with The Board of Governors and call SHENANAGINS

QUOTE(#4):

Originally posted 09:01 AM ET  08.14 by Spiny Norman

all kidding aside (for now!) This is exactly rightthe owners make their ridiculous statements about revenue sharing and such, and then get themselves into positions like this. Bettman needs, as commisioner, to step in here, possibly with The Board of Governors and call SHENANAGINS

For the lack of a better term, it's poor supervision. How do the bigger, more profitable teams possibly allow this crap to go on?

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 08:59 AM ET  08.14 by Spiny Norman

I was going to suggest maybe they go in together, make one really good team, and put it somehwere that can support it

Like the Barons and the North Stars? Uh..er...

QUOTE(#6):

Originally posted 09:06 AM ET  08.14 by dannylimes

Like the Barons and the North Stars? Uh..er...

no no, I believe these are two pretty decent teams, and though admittedly no fan, I'd take a 40 year olde LOTF over Gilles Meloche pretty quickly....but the NORTH stars had better uniforms than NJ or Pho.
The Barons....eh....that red/black thingy was too dark
And weren't the Barons just an olde name slapped on the remnants of The Seals?

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 09:12 AM ET  08.14 by Spiny Norman

no no, I believe these are two pretty decent teams, and though admittedly no fan, I'd take a 40 year olde LOTF over Gilles Meloche pretty quickly....but the NORTH stars had better uniforms than NJ or Pho.The Barons....eh....that red/black thingy was too darkAnd weren't the Barons just an olde name slapped on the remnants of The Seals?

The Cleveland Barons were a long-time AHL team up here. I actually saw them play Hershey (and the Baltimore Clippers) back in the 60s!

QUOTE(#2):

Originally posted 08:57 AM ET  08.14 by dannylimes

I don't understand it. You have an arena built for you. Your team makes the final. You're paying a ridiculous amount of money to a pretty-good-but-HOLY-SHNIT-YOU-GAVE-HIM-HOW-MUCH?! player. Isn't this the type of situation where a league SHOULD step in and rescind the team from the owner? You have a much easier time finding an owner for the Devils than you do a team in the middle of the Sahara.

Its because of the new arena he owed so much. And the creditors are letting the team slide right now because they have paid 62 mil of the 80 mil owed in the past 6 months. So while the owner is obviously not to bright for building an arena in the paradise that is Newark, why would the NHL and rescind a team that has paid over 60 mil already.
Vanderbeek found a new owner to take over 47% of the team as well. So while I don't love the owner, I don't see why the NHL would take the team from him, nor do I see a ton of owners who would love to take the team over.

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 09:18 AM ET  08.14 by Slapshot

The Cleveland Barons were a long-time AHL team up here. I actually saw them play Hershey (and the Baltimore Clippers) back in the 60s!

yeah, I knew it was an olde name...Balt. Clippers? What about The Skipjacks?

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 09:18 AM ET  08.14 by Slapshot

The Cleveland Barons were a long-time AHL team up here. I actually saw them play Hershey (and the Baltimore Clippers) back in the 60s!

The (AHL) Barons were always a good game when they came to play the Pittsburgh Hornets. The Glover brothers were two of the dirtiest players in hockey at that time, but they made it interesting.

QUOTE(#10):

Originally posted 09:30 AM ET  08.14 by Spiny Norman

yeah, I knew it was an olde name...Balt. Clippers? What about The Skipjacks?

I prefer albacore.

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 09:23 AM ET  08.14 by Nard Dog

Its because of the new arena he owed so much. And the creditors are letting the team slide right now because they have paid 62 mil of the 80 mil owed in the past 6 months. So while the owner is obviously not to bright for building an arena in the paradise that is Newark, why would the NHL and rescind a team that has paid over 60 mil already. Vanderbeek found a new owner to take over 47% of the team as well. So while I don't love the owner, I don't see why the NHL would take the team from him, nor do I see a ton of owners who would love to take the team over.

I think if the Devils were able to put a few more warm bodies in the seats it might help there situation, but if you're not going to show up in the regular season for a playoff caliber team, then why bother? At least Phoenix has the excuse that, for a long time, the team sucked.

QUOTE(#12):

Originally posted 09:37 AM ET  08.14 by Canuck eh?

I prefer albacore.

what about albatross?

QUOTE(#14):

Originally posted 09:47 AM ET  08.14 by Spiny Norman

what about albatross?

I prefer Gannet on a stick.

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 09:39 AM ET  08.14 by Burgh-Fan

I think if the Devils were able to put a few more warm bodies in the seats it might help there situation, but if you're not going to show up in the regular season for a playoff caliber team, then why bother? At least Phoenix has the excuse that, for a long time, the team sucked.

I wish that were true. Attendance plays a part but not that big of a part. The Devils might not owe 18 mil but they wouldn't be profitable.

The Sharks are at 100% capacity and lost $15 mil last year (if you can trust what any owner or the NHL tells you, I have no clue how accurate any of these financial details are).

QUOTE(#16):

Originally posted 09:51 AM ET  08.14 by Nard Dog

I wish that were true. Attendance plays a part but not that big of a part. The Devils might not owe 18 mil but they wouldn't be profitable.The Sharks are at 100% capacity and lost $15 mil last year (if you can trust what any owner or the NHL tells you, I have no clue how accurate any of these financial details are).

Do the Devils have someone broadcasting their games in the Newark area? Pittsburgh has Root Sports which carries almost all the games, home and away. With the cable it gets across most of Pennsylvania with the exception of the southeast corner which is dominated by the Philadelphia Philistines.

QUOTE(#17):

Originally posted 09:58 AM ET  08.14 by Burgh-Fan

Do the Devils have someone broadcasting their games in the Newark area? Pittsburgh has Root Sports which carries almost all the games, home and away. With the cable it gets across most of Pennsylvania with the exception of the southeast corner which is dominated by the Philadelphia Philistines.

Woo-hoo! Philistines rule, man!! ;)

QUOTE(#5):

Originally posted 09:05 AM ET  08.14 by dannylimes

For the lack of a better term, it's poor supervision. How do the bigger, more profitable teams possibly allow this crap to go on?

If the league is going to have revenue sharing then they should do it right, but I'm not sure all the owners are totally on board with the idea of revenue sharing. Why should the bigger more profitable teams do anything about this? If Vanderbeek can't make it work then so be it. Either find a buyer who can pay the bills or the league should move or contract them. Personally, I hope they can work it out.

QUOTE(#17):

Originally posted 09:58 AM ET  08.14 by Burgh-Fan

Do the Devils have someone broadcasting their games in the Newark area? Pittsburgh has Root Sports which carries almost all the games, home and away. With the cable it gets across most of Pennsylvania with the exception of the southeast corner which is dominated by the Philadelphia Philistines.

The Devils have a huge TV contract from Cablevision, if that is what you are asking. Kind of funny, the owner of the Rangers paying money to the Devils.

I was also looking at Forbes. It shows what teams are worth and what their profit was. I believe the what are they worth is from January and the profit was the 2011 year (so playoffs of 2010), calendar year.

Toronto is tops in both at 521 mil worth and made a profit of 81 mil (so why would they care about playoffs). Canadiens and Rangers were 2 and 3, both in different categories. Your team Pitt is 9th at 264 mil up 9%. Yet it says they lost money last year, says about 200k. Devils are at 181 that is down 17% (obviously the debt is a big issue) and lost 6 mil (obviously missing the playoffs in 2010 hurt)