View Single Post
12-03-2004, 05:16 PM
Registered User
Kodiak's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
NYIsles, I'm not going to respond to each individual point. I find that method just makes things longer and harder to grasp as posters get caught up in a number of side arguments while failing to make one cohesive point.

Anyway, the sources you are citing are public releases from private corporations, which are notoriously misleading. Explain to me why Toronto, a big money team, can turn a profit despite the weak Canadian dollar, despite the additional Canadian tax burdens, and despite not having attendance figure significantly higher than the other big money teams. Is it because so many more people are buying Maple Leafs hats and t-shirts, or is it because they are a publicly owned corporation, so their books are transparent and all revenue streams are accounted for? I'd lean towards the latter.

As a side note, you cited the claim that player salaries make up 75% of salaries, which is simply false. The NHL's claim is that player COSTS take up 75% of the revenue, and then cite the growth in salaries, which is not technically lying, but intentionally misleading. The NHL reported revenue at $2.1 billion. The average league payroll was $44 million, so the total payroll was $1.32 billion (give or take, since the figures are rounded off). That means that player salaries account for 63% of the revenue, which is with the other major sports leagues. The other 12% is for the same player costs (benefits, pension plans, travel expenses, perks) that the other leagues have. The NHL is not spending more proportionately than the other leagues.

Kodiak is offline