View Single Post
Old
11-12-2004, 09:29 AM
  #44
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Hardly. All we have is a third party who counts differently. They include everything, and a good case can be made that they over-include revenues. Yeah, the owners under-include a bit. So the real result is in the middle somewhere.

But note the real story here is that even with the most optimistic financial reporting, the NHL is still losing hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

Folks are running around here trying to paint this as positive news, when it's really just more bad news. This is like the private detective telling you "I'm sorry, I was wrong, you're wife didn't screw around with 200 other guys, it was only 100.". Woohoo! That's great! I knew she could be trusted!
According to Forbes the NHL is losing 93 million, not hundreds of millions. Now lets look at the money losing teams

NY Rangers
Philidelphia Flyers
Detroit Red Wings
Colorado Avelanche
LA Kings
NY Islanders
St Louis Blues
Pheonix Coyotes
New Jersey Devils
Washinton Capitols
Mighty Ducks of Anaheim
Buffalo Sabres
Carolina Hurricanes

Do the Sabres loses include the debt incured from the Rigas family fraud? Most of the rest of these clubs are in the top half of the league in attendance, have the biggest regional TV audience, and merchandising is in the top half of the league. So how are they not making money? Easy, in the Flyers case they are making on the back of SportsNet, which Comcast owns, the Flyers have made it the largest sports channel in the region, know what that means, huge advertising revenue. What I am getting at here is, they sacrafice a little money on their hockey team to make huge money from other related assets.

vanlady is offline