HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   $2.4B estimated HRR for 2012-13 (despite lockout) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1365609)

LadyStanley 03-03-2013 03:34 PM

$2.4B estimated HRR for 2012-13 (despite lockout)
 
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...hPdXnsX2QvFI/0

Quote:

Slap Shots has learned the NHL recently informed the NHLPA the projected hockey-related revenue (HRR) for this truncated season will reach $2.4 billion, a staggering number with implications far beyond the obvious that the league essentially suffered no damage by locking out the players for more than three months.

Remember: HRR for 2011-12 hit a record $3.3 billion. That was for a 1,230-game regular-season, plus playoffs, preseason and special events — including the Winter Classic and All-Star festivities.

This $2.4 billion projection is for a 720-game regular season plus the playoffs. Thus, the NHL expects to generate 72.7 percent of last year’s revenue in 58.5 percent of the season — and without the benefits reaped from the money-printing outdoor game.
...
Attendance and percentage of capacity are up dramatically, essentially across the board. Television ratings, both locally and nationally, are healthier than ever on almost a case-by-case basis. Fewer games have created more importance, and thus more focused attention, on each one.

The lesson here for the NHL (and NHLPA) is reducing the schedule to 70 games in a season that begins in the final week of October — it would be important to get a jump on the NBA — very well could and almost certainly would not only produce better hockey but generate more interest and thus more revenue.

Tinalera 03-03-2013 04:03 PM

Wow, what a number for a lockout shortened season-not 3 Billion, but not far off-I'm impressed.

I agree about the "less games mean each game means more" idea, though I don't think the NHL is going to go to 70 games-that's asking the owners to remove 6 home games(?), very unlikely IMO.

Still though, impressive numbers which must have more than a few economists scratching their heads.

Kitten Mittons 03-03-2013 04:23 PM

Highly doubt games will be cut.

Orrthebest 03-03-2013 04:30 PM

What does this mean in terms of the Cap next year? It makes no sense to drop the Cap with this large of a revenue increase.

Diamondillium 03-03-2013 05:39 PM

Wow, you know the sport is growing fast when a half-season lockout doesn't even slow down growth.

Don't know if I should be happy or mad.

MountainHawk 03-03-2013 05:43 PM

That's an amazing number. Should help the owners make up for the artificially high cap this year.

patnyrnyg 03-03-2013 05:45 PM

I'm not surprised at all. The league makes the bulk of the money after Christmas.

XX 03-03-2013 06:27 PM

You don't cut games based off of this peculiar season. Revenues could just as well transfer over to an 82 game season and then some.

Tough Guy 03-03-2013 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinalera (Post 60874275)
I agree about the "less games mean each game means more" idea, though I don't think the NHL is going to go to 70 games-that's asking the owners to remove 6 home games(?), very unlikely IMO.

If it results in more revenue, why wouldn't they do it? If increasing revenue was simply a matter of having lots of games, then why stop at 82? Why not play 100 or more?

A 70 game season would be great. I would bet everything I owned that overall revenues would skyrocket if they reduced the number of games. Not to mention the quality of the game itself would go through the roof. Modern players are too big, too fast, and too strong to be running into each other 82 times a season.

Crease 03-03-2013 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orrthebest (Post 60876565)
What does this mean in terms of the Cap next year? It makes no sense to drop the Cap with this large of a revenue increase.

Nothing.

The 2013/14 salary cap range has already been defined, independent of 2012/13 revenue.

The Payroll Range for 2013/14 shall be as follows:
Lower Limit = $44 Million
Midpoint = $54.15 Million
Upper Limit = $64.3 Million

It makes sense to lower it because in 2014/15 the Upper Limit will be most likely be significantly lower than $70 million because the Midpoint will be based on 50% of HRR instead of 57%.

saffronleaf 03-04-2013 02:10 AM

Although the NHL is estimating 72.7% of last year's revenue while only playing 58.5% of the season, it is important to keep the following in mind:

1. The best part of the season is being played. If you split up the NHL season into three parts; the first part of the regular season, the second part of the regular season, and the postseason, the revenue is unlikely to be spread equally among the three parts. It is more likely that the revenue is disproportionately located in the second part of the regular season and especially the playoffs.

A more appropriate comparison would be to look at the revenue generated from the second part of last year's regular season and the revenue generated by the last year's postseason.

2. The sudden spike in interest may be due to:
a) Excitement over the lockout ending and shortened season commencing.
b) Less games and therefore each game gets more attention.

I completely agree with the article -- the NHL should shorten its season. Playing in October is a complete joke in the vast majority of the US -- even in its best hockey markets. You have the MLB playoffs going on and the NFL season is well under way. It makes complete sense to wait until the end of the MLB postseason before starting the NHL season. Personally, I think they could also end the season earlier to ensure that we are not playing hockey in June, which strikes many as kind of silly.

Tinalera 03-04-2013 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G Dawg (Post 60885017)
If it results in more revenue, why wouldn't they do it? If increasing revenue was simply a matter of having lots of games, then why stop at 82? Why not play 100 or more?

A 70 game season would be great. I would bet everything I owned that overall revenues would skyrocket if they reduced the number of games. Not to mention the quality of the game itself would go through the roof. Modern players are too big, too fast, and too strong to be running into each other 82 times a season.

Oh, the owners DO want more than 82 games, part of the reason there's always the talk of adding more teams-IMO they want 32 teams so they can push towards 84 or more games a season. Its the PA who don't want more than 82 games-as it was there were issues during the lockout about playing so many games in so little time.If the owners really wanted that (and could get the players to agree), they'd drop 4-5 preseason games and have 4 more reg season added to the calender.

Less game is more arena related I think. Managers of said arenas (not the team-the Arena Management) for NHL games-ones who manage concessions ect would not want to have the less games-less games less concessions less money. That's part of the reason there are (IMO) 8 preseason games (which is unnecessary)-meaningless games that people pay a fair bit to go see.
There would also have to be shown clearly without a doubt that a majority of teams would makes MUCH more money with less dates-, outside of the Canadian teams, NYR and a couple of others, that's not happening. Now if you wanted to cull the teams down to 24 or so, THEN you might talk about less games, but that's a WHOLE other discussion (and I don't think mods would care for the change in thread discussion ;) )

tony d 03-04-2013 10:15 AM

Really good to see. Many people, myself included, thought that the lockout would cause the NHL to take a step back revenue-wise. Looks like we were wrong, thankfully.

cptjeff 03-04-2013 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G Dawg (Post 60885017)
If it results in more revenue, why wouldn't they do it? If increasing revenue was simply a matter of having lots of games, then why stop at 82? Why not play 100 or more?

A 70 game season would be great. I would bet everything I owned that overall revenues would skyrocket if they reduced the number of games. Not to mention the quality of the game itself would go through the roof. Modern players are too big, too fast, and too strong to be running into each other 82 times a season.

Adding more games does add more revenue- you just get diminishing returns. Going from 40 games to 50 is going to get you a lot more new money than going from 80 to 90, but going from 80 to 90 will still net you more money.

They won't be shortening the season. If you shorten the season enough to make a difference in terms of the drama of a season (70 games would not be different enough from 80 for anyone to notice), you're going to be leaving money on the table.

Injury is why they don't lengthen it, along with the length of season- the offseason is already too short for teams that go deep in the playoffs. I would like to see them compress the season though, I'm enjoying how closely packed the games are this season. That also allows you to lengthen the offseason a bit while maintaining the number of games.

Hugh Mann* 03-04-2013 04:35 PM

I wonder what kind of creative accounting tricks they have used to inflate the numbers for this season. The same they've been using every year since the prior lockout, probably.

ForumNamePending 03-04-2013 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh Mann (Post 60955971)
I wonder what kind of creative accounting tricks they have used to inflate the numbers for this season. The same they've been using every year since the prior lockout, probably.

Why would the NHL want to inflate the numbers? The greater the revenue the more they have to pay out to the players. If anything they would use 'creative accounting' to deflate the reported revenue.

silvercanuck 03-04-2013 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh Mann (Post 60955971)
I wonder what kind of creative accounting tricks they have used to inflate the numbers for this season. The same they've been using every year since the prior lockout, probably.

Not seeing the logic of your post. If the NHL was going to cook numbers they would try to show that revenues were down.

Shrimper 03-04-2013 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolForumNamePending (Post 60956661)
Why would the NHL want to inflate the numbers? The greater the revenue the more they have to pay out to the players. If anything they would use 'creative accounting' to deflate the reported revenue.

But if they inflate it don't they also get more for themselves?

Surprised there was such a big number despite a lockout but I guess the sports growing at an alarming pace.

Do Make Say Think 03-04-2013 06:04 PM

That's insane

Well good for the NHL and the NHLPA

Bad for us in terms of future lockouts!

MountainHawk 03-04-2013 06:34 PM

No. If there is only $2.0b of real revenue, but they say it is $2.4b, then players get $1.2b and owners are left with $800m.

mouser 03-04-2013 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shrimper (Post 60960395)
But if they inflate it don't they also get more for themselves?

The implication was that the league was falsely inflating revenue figures in some way. If that were the case then no they wouldn't get more for themselves because the fake revenue claims would increase the share that goes to the players, reducing the amount to the owners. Hence the responses that the league has no incentive to do that.

Hugh Mann* 03-05-2013 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silvercanuck (Post 60959269)
Not seeing the logic of your post. If the NHL was going to cook numbers they would try to show that revenues were down.

I'm not sure why they would do it either, but I'm confident the numbers reported are false. They basically expect us to believe that "hockey related revenue" (whatever the hell that means, anyways) increased by nearly 25% ($2.4 pro-rated over 82 games is $4.1) with no new teams, no relocations, no increase in attendance, and still no serious national TV deal in the states. Nope. I don't do enough drugs to believe that.

mouser 03-05-2013 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh Mann (Post 60990491)
I'm not sure why they would do it either, but I'm confident the numbers reported are false. They basically expect us to believe that "hockey related revenue" (whatever the hell that means, anyways) increased by nearly 25% ($2.4 pro-rated over 82 games is $4.1) with no new teams, no relocations, no increase in attendance, and still no serious national TV deal in the states. Nope. I don't do enough drugs to believe that.

You're making a mistake of pro-rating revenue for 48 games vs. 82 games. Not all league revenue is based on the number of regular season games.

The simplest example is that there will be 100% of playoff series and accompanying revenue this season when compared to last. I also wouldn't be shocked if many of the national and local TV contracts don't have % payment reductions based on the number of games they can carry this season.

patnyrnyg 03-05-2013 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony d (Post 60932805)
Really good to see. Many people, myself included, thought that the lockout would cause the NHL to take a step back revenue-wise. Looks like we were wrong, thankfully.

On the otherhand, this could be a negative. If they really took a hit, like MLB did with the 94 strike, there would less of a chance of a work-stoppage on the next lockout. Based on this season, if I am an owner, I have no problem locking out the players next time to get even more on the CBA.

patnyrnyg 03-05-2013 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh Mann (Post 60990491)
I'm not sure why they would do it either, but I'm confident the numbers reported are false. They basically expect us to believe that "hockey related revenue" (whatever the hell that means, anyways) increased by nearly 25% ($2.4 pro-rated over 82 games is $4.1) with no new teams, no relocations, no increase in attendance, and still no serious national TV deal in the states. Nope. I don't do enough drugs to believe that.

I don't think so. The league makes the bulk of the money after Christmas. That is when the NBC deal really kicks in, and of course the play-offs. That is why I truly believed that neither the owners OR the player were all that concerned about a late start. In fact, I think all the August-December "negotiating" were simply stalling tactics where both sides were making offers they knew the other side wouldn't accept.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:10 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.