View Single Post
Old
11-12-2004, 10:14 AM
  #40
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,779
vCash: 500
My goodness people. That article says virtually NOTHING about the NHL franchises. What it says is that holdings that have connections with the teams can make money. THe owners aren't going to deny this. HOWEVER, these things are not that relevant when it comes to profitability of the NHL entity....which is what the LEvitt report and URO's are about.

Let's go point by point:
Before the union folks go all crazy the first thing it says is over half the teams lost money. That's 17 teams before taxes and depriciation. With taxes added you are going to bump that number up a few more I think. so somewhere in between 55-70% of the teams are indeed losing money even according to Forbes.

Appreciation of a franchise means nothing until it is sold. THEN AND ONLY then can it be considered profit. I guarantee you that for most teams there are not buyers lining up.

Chicago - those suites are not just for Blackhawk games. As the arena is not just for Blackhawk games. Not all arena revenues can be justified to go to the Blackhawks in the first place. Secondly unless Forbes has a copy of the URO's (which they do not from anything I've ever heard...the NHLPA, NHL and LEvitt have received those. Not outside sources) they DO NOT KNOW if the blackhawks reported this as revenue to the NHLPA. It may not show up on the blackhawks balance sheet and instead as part of the arena affiliate but those affiliates are to be included in teh URO. Unless there is proff that those numbers were not reported I'm going with the guy whose reputation is beyond reproach and has seen the numbers in the URO. Also btw Levitt accounted for things he thought might have been amiss and estimated numbers that perhaps should have been included.

Islanders cable deal - there might be a point here but again it depends how it was reported in the URO.

Kings - Staples center is a separate entity. Just because it is owned by the same guy means nothing. Clipper rent etc. SHOULD not and DOES not go the Kings as operating revenue. Further development again doesn't have anything to do with the Kings operating revenue.

Ditto for the Coyotes stuff.

Yes Comcast used the Flyers to build Sportsnet. So what? Why would anything other than the cable rights, which are substantial at $8 mil, go on the Flyers URO? Sportsnet is a separate entity. Just because The flYers may be the main draw oin the channele doesn't mean the FLYERS get any of the TV revenue from the other programs. They just get a substantial cable deal for their rights.

IN the end all this article says is that a hockey team can be an important part of a conglomerates and large scale developments. I don't think any of the owners would argue anything different. What it also says is that on their own a hockey team doesn't make money. And that last little bit is the whole issue. Things like revenues from the arena on non-NHL nights don't really have any business on the NHL teams balance sheet or URO (btw many teams do include such things as concerts revenue junior hockey games in the URO...such as the flames and Oilers). NHL teams should be able to make money on their own without these other things instead of merely being a big name tenant of the commercisl district.

And as the last point about transparency. The players don't have the right negotiate what should or should not be included in those numbers until they agree to tie themselves to those numbers. That is the only time they have the right to discuss these other sources of income talked about in the article...and then I don;t think you;ll find that they get very far as you really have to make a stretch to even think about those things as being part of the NHL team business entity and as such revenues/expenses.


Last edited by tantalum: 11-12-2004 at 10:19 AM.
tantalum is offline