Rant

[DaGreatGazoo]

This is not hard.

Apparently, it's EXTREMELY hard, difficult, and almost impossible to resolve.

[Vanflyer]

@Vanflyer

THANK YOU!!! Awesome job running the numbers to ground and giving them some real definition. I can't believe someone like Hackel has not done the same and published it. I am so sick and tired of the Bettman outright lies. I hope this info gets some read time on the innerwebs. People need to understand exactly where Gary Bettman is coming from............

My thought is incomplete and there is more to come. I am definitely a simpleton when it comes to accounting. Yet, I have been in large corporations as an executive strategists. If I was a controller, or CFO- I would have a greater ability to grind these numbers down. Forbes is one of the most refutable financial rags. With that said, everything I stated, based on their numbers, should be taken with a +10 / -10 variance (assuming they did allot of homework first). Even at that, the variance will still wash the same way.

I will work on the summation now- and a bit more statistics to follow.

[JackStraw]

Forbes is one of the most refutable financial rags

Do you really mean refutable? Or reputable?

[Podein25]

refutable? reputable?

Inconceivable!

[JackStraw]

Inconceivable!

Reportable!

[Podein25]

Reportable!

Culpable

[aziz]

There was an article by Stu Hackel the other day that cited Florida Panthers as reporting to Forbes a loss of 7 million but someone checked the tax record filed with Broward County Florida and they actually made 10 million.....Just how much of this creative book keeping is going on with other teams?

stu hackel pointed out that the ownership group, Sunrise Sports & Entertainment, made $117.3m over a 14 year span. didn't indicate from whence those dollars came. SSE owns the pathners, their arena, and their practice facility. they see income from all three. could be creative accounting, or it could be that the arena makes a couple million a year by itself.

[Vanflyer]

Or reputable?

Meow.

[idahophilly]

4) Ticket prices are not uniform in the league, thus fueling the fire that it is a league of separate owners (not even franchise, because even as a franchise, the corporate headquarters gonvern prices.

Seems like the whole thing supports the Owners position in slashing salaries so the "lowlight" teams can compete. I say slash, slash and slash some more. Then we can get the new CBA done and the owners can spend the next 7 years finding new loop holes... It's a win win.....

[Vanflyer]

stu hackel pointed out that the ownership group, Sunrise Sports & Entertainment, made $117.3m over a 14 year span. didn't indicate from whence those dollars came. SSE owns the pathners, their arena, and their practice facility. they see income from all three. could be creative accounting, or it could be that the arena makes a couple million a year by itself.

Agree With This

Exactly! Yet look at my post in which I hope Forbes and other sites are doing due diligence to state the numbers.

Dallas, St Louis, Tampa and Buffalo are great poster childs for this situation. I of course chose to natural hockey markets v. on non-traditional.

1) Dallas-

a- Revenue to Salary> nearly half half (54 / 46).

b- Operating income> -1.1M

c- Attendance> 28th in the league

2) St Louis

a- Revenue to Salary> (60/40)

b. Operating income> -2.7M

c. Attendance> 9th in the league

3) Tamba Bay

a) Revenue to Salary> (33 / 63)

b) Operating income> -8.5M

c) Attendance> 13th in the league

4) Buffalo

a) Revenue to Salary> (33/ 63)

b) Operating income> -5.6M

c) Attendance> 11th in the league

How is it that Dallas is operating at a significantly lower loss than St Louis or Buffalo (not to mention Tampa)?

Looking at all the data, I think the answer is not easy. But allot has to do with operations / Tix cost. For example, some teams charge allot less on average to see a live game. Other teams charge more, but lose more (thus undercutting the whole have / have not theory). At the end of the day, I think that there are teams that are well managed AND price themselves correctly for their geographical region and others that do not. There in lies a triumverant of issues regarding teams that are both solvent and insolvent:

1) Management- capability to function the front office and back office at a reasonable expense.

2) Priceability- How to create equal foot steps on tix prices despite market region.

3) Cap- Combining item 1 and 2 create a reasonable cap for all teams.

In summation, a teams ability to manage, draw revenue AND attendance should all be significant factors. When over 80% of the league is drawling 90% plus attendance, there should not be these significant issues. Yet, they are. In looking at all the numbers, I am disgusted with the owners. Despite loses annually by a handful of teams, most are appreciating at record levels that extremely overshadow any loses.

Make more and more money, sure. But to cry poor is completely beyond me after looking at these numbers. I am now 100% behind the players now- unless someone can post some compelling data that states other wise!

[Vanflyer]

Seems like the whole thing supports the Owners position in slashing salaries so the "lowlight" teams can compete. I say slash, slash and slash some more. Then we can get the new CBA done and the owners can spend the next 7 years finding new loop holes... It's a win win.....

I do agree. But WHO are the low light teams? Montreal? Winnipeg? Colorado? There is the problem. Many if not most think it is the Florida, TB, Nashville's of the world that are hemoraging. Yet, they are and they are not. If I was a NHLPA rep, that would be my stance 100%. We only hear tid bits, but there is much more behind the scenes. How about St Louis- are you going to get rid of them? Or Minnesota? All of those are teams that are extremely viable but are either losing valuation or losing operationally.

I just gave you a list of some very successful teams. There are a couple of limbs that need to be transplanted, but that is not the problem. I know what I would do immediately to remedy the situation and add parity to the league.

[aziz]

How is it that Dallas is operating at a significantly lower loss than St Louis or Buffalo (not to mention Tampa)?

i'll be honest, i am not following a lot of the analysis that you did. not your fault, you went into a ton of detail, and well done. i just need to take the time to squint at it and work it all out.

one thing you don't mention that is, imo, a huge difference maker, is merchandising. it's why toronto it at the top of the league inspite of similar ticket sales to a bunch of other teams, and why a lot of teams with decent attendance end the year in a bad spot. toronto is a metro area with ~3 million people, and sells leaf hats to hockey fans the world over. dallas is a metro area with around ~2mil people, and retains some sheen from a cup win in living memory. buffalo is an island of 260k people and ****all around it, st louis 318k, also in the middle of nowhere. no one outside of buffalo or st louis buy buffalo or st louis gear.

a team can only sell around 820k seats per 41 game season, but they can sell as many $20 hats and $200 jersey's as their (not necessarily local) popularity allows.

i'll bet a bunch of people around the country were looking to buy a stars jagr jersey, but i'll bet no one outside of nashville was getting ready to order new parise jersey.

[JackStraw]

one thing you don't mention that is, imo, a huge difference maker, is merchandising.

Related to that, is TV revenue. My guess is that the Leafs TV contract is worth a bundle. A bit more than say, the 'yotes.

[Vanflyer]

i'll be honest, i am not following a lot of the analysis that you did. not your fault, you went into a ton of detail, and well done. i just need to take the time to squint at it and work it all out.

I do not disagree at all. I have zero reference on what makes up the revenue (even from Forbes), Ie. concessions, parking, merchandising, etc. I can only go by raw data. But I think there is more to it than that. I think there are local TV and advertising that play a mammoth part of the picture. I do not know how facilities, concession, merchandise is sliced in the revenue picture stated by Forbes. One can only guess that they are part of the revenue stated (one or all). That said, the thing that is more compelling to me is the operational income / gate revenue / gate % stats. I guess what I mean by this is that Toronto is gods country for hockey. Detroit is Hockey town. Montreal is Hockey Mecca....adnaseum. Yet Montreal lost nearly 25% of their value while retaining a significantly higher operating income than detroit. You look at the gate receipts by dollar and Montreals were 33% higher than Detroit while each team was number 2 / 4 in the league in attendance.

I get your point on ancillary sales and it is a great point. Yet, I dont think it is merchandising that changes the numbers in the top 11 that much. I have to also look at the numbers more. I wish somebody that is not as dumb as me would know more about regional advertising and local tv contracts for the teams. I think that is as mammoth a part as is the corporate boxes / suites and in facility advertising.

Yet, it is the players faults! ha ha ha

[Vanflyer]

Related to that, is TV revenue. My guess is that the Leafs TV contract is worth a bundle. A bit more than say, the 'yotes.

I just said that in my reply to Aziz. I would love to see a pie that breaks down the revenue. And not an american apple pie.

[aziz]

I am now 100% behind the players now- unless someone can post some compelling data that states other wise!

and i can't get beyond the fact that the players are given input into how their employers runs their organizations at all, much less make demands. regardless of the numbers. don't like how a given team handles its contracts? don't sign with them. don't like how the league compensates its players? go to a different league, there are hundreds. like i said before, NHL players make more than 4 times more than players in any other hockey league in the world, hundreds of times more than in most other leagues. i have a tough time finding common cause with the most exceptionally well paid athletes in their choosen sport demanding much of anything. a pool of workers with an average salary well over $2million per year are not the victims of anything. these guys are getting in front of microphones talking about the game being "looted" by the owners, and then getting into their exotic supercar and driving home to their luxury mansion/penthouse suite. the lowest of the low NHL player makes at least 15 times more than the average american, so they can pretty much stop crying as far as i'm concerned.

this is a lockout, not a strike. i know. i just wish the owners could say, "hey, no new CBA. we've just decided how things will work amongst ourselves, here you can read a copy, if you want. if you are displeased, feel free to sign your next contract elsewhere."

the only obligation i see is paying existing contracts in full. beyond that, collective bargining is laughably out of place, imo, given the nature and straight up affluence of "labor" in this situation.

[JackStraw]

I just said that in my reply to Aziz. I would love to see a pie that breaks down the revenue. And not an american apple pie.

I don't know how comparable things might be to baseball, but I know that the Yankees rake in a fortune from TV. It helps that they own their own broadcast network.

[aziz]

Yet Montreal lost nearly 25% of their value while retaining a significantly higher operating income than detroit. You look at the gate receipts by dollar and Montreals were 33% higher than Detroit while each team was number 2 / 4 in the league in attendance.

well, when was the last time you were able to walk down the street and not see someone with a piece of 'wings gear? heck, i have a redwings hat. detroit has been the de facto bandwagon team of the league for 20 years. montreal, given their last 10/15 years of performance, not so much.

i really think it is the merchandising/licensing that makes the yeoman's share of the difference.

[Vanflyer]

I don't know how comparable things might be to baseball, but I know that the Yankees rake in a fortune from TV. It helps that they own their own broadcast network.

Yup and the Rangers rake in a fortune from the MSG network (though it does televise some Buffalo and NYI games).

[JackStraw]

this is a lockout, not a strike. i know. i just wish the owners could say, "hey, no new CBA. we've just decided how things will work amongst ourselves, here you can read a copy, if you want. if you are displeased, feel free to sign your next contract elsewhere."

I think I can tell you what would happen if they did that (and the players didn't revolt and form their own league). Salaries would go through the roof. The rich teams would horde the top players (the Leafs might even manage to win a Cup). There would be no more hockey in Phoenix, Nashville, Columbus, etc..

To put it another way, it would basically be counter-productive to what the owners (and Bettman) at least claim that they want.

[Vanflyer]

well, when was the last time you were able to walk down the street and not see someone with a piece of 'wings gear? heck, i have a redwings hat. detroit has been the de facto bandwagon team of the league for 20 years. montreal, given their last 10/15 years of performance, not so much.

i really think it is the merchandising/licensing that makes the yeoman's share of the difference.

While Montreal had enormous depreciation, the still ranked 2nd in operating income, 2nd in attendance and 2nd in attendance income. I really need to look at these numbers more. If you (or anyone else is interested), I can send you my compiled spread sheet.

[aziz]

@JackStraw

unless the owners built salary controls into their internal document.

[JackStraw]

@JackStraw

unless the owners built salary controls into their internal document.

I'm no lawyer, but they might be inviting a lawsuit if they did that.

[aziz]

I'm no lawyer, but they might be inviting a lawsuit if they did that.

maybe. it'd be an interesting case. mcdonalds sets its pay structure centrally, and the independantly owned franchises follow those guidelines. not sure what functional difference there is to the NHL's franchising set up.

there is probably some kind of case law on it, i guess. and, it probably favors the union, so likely won't happen.

[JackStraw]

maybe. it'd be an interesting case. mcdonalds sets its pay structure centrally, and the independantly owned franchises follow those guidelines. not sure what functional difference there is to the NHL's franchising set up.

there is probably some kind of case law on it, i guess. and, it probably favors the union, so likely won't happen.

One difference might be that the Justice Dept would likely consider the NHL a monopoly, whereas fast food workers can always try to get a job at BK if they don't like McD's policies. But even if they could get away with it legally, do you really think they'd follow their own rules? They don't now, some team (Flyers) is always trying to get around the rules to sign the players they want. There's just no way that the Leafs, with their license to print money, are going to tie their own hands just to keep Phoenix in the league.