View Single Post
Old
11-03-2004, 04:14 PM
  #6
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
Most, perhaps...

but that's one of the problems with this blanket $31 million cap. Every team's situation is so different. Most teams own arenas, and without a hockey team, may be hurting to fill the arena, despite what they say about losing money. For their entire enterprise (like Cablevision), having hockey is better than not having hockey, and this is for most teams in the league. Another intereting point was only a few teams had a going concern paragraph in their audited financial statements. Ottawa and Buffalo were there, obviously, and there were supposedly three others. For a league bleeding of losses, how does an auditor issue an unqualified opinion? That basically says that they can sustain losses over the next 12-18 months, and that's losses after accounting for depreciation and amortization, and interest expense.

Another thing I found interesting, albeit elsewhere, is that the Rangers had approximately twice as much revenue as the Blues two seasons ago. That's a huge number. I wonder what the number is compared to the Hurricanes? And this shows once again that perhaps this sport is not meant for each city it is in. That's a huge decrepancy between a team that was abysmal, and a playoff team in a decent market (I think the numbers were something like $115 million vs. $65 million).

Fletch is offline