View Single Post
Old
12-03-2004, 07:49 PM
  #34
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
That's not the point. The point is you cannot blame Carolina for the Rangers reported losses. The Washington Press also singled out the Rangers, Isles and Devils.
Nor am I. However, you cannot compare Carolina or Florida to the Rangers. The Rangers have the capability of being profitable. I maintain that Carolina (there are others, but let's call the 'Canes the spokesman for the other franchises) has not shot at EVER being profitable. Even if you have a $25m cap.

"You are aware hockey failed in Colorado and they moved for the same reasons you claim Florida and Carolina should be contracted now. "

But whatever they did wrong when the Rockies were there, they have clearly fixed for the 'Lanche. Colarado is condusive to hockey. Carolina is not. Moving Hartford to Carolina was easily one of the biggest blunders in sports history.

"I don't think we can say whether people care unless we live in that market and experience it. "

I have friends that are die-hard hockey fans. They are transplanted New Yorkers who live in Florida. I get it from the horses mouth. The only hockey fans in Florida are those who are transplanted. Half of Florida residents do not even know that they have 2 teams.

"Where has Bettman said he is opposed to revenue sharing?"

Bettman is against league-wide revenue sharing. What he wants is the top ten teams footing the bill for the rest of the NHL. That is a fact. This so-called sharing of revenues has been mentioned by him several times. We had a nice discussion on this board about it. Bettman had to scrap his original formula becuase it would have teams paying the Blackhawks handout money. Bettman is dead set against league-wide revenue sharing like the NFL has (though he is quick to site NFL's hard cap).

"The number one expense in this league are player salaries, they make over seventy percent of the revenue. "

To this, read Kodiak's response. He puts it well. I would only add that once again, you are talking about REPORTED revenue. Reported by whom? The owners. The very same owners that somehow forgot to include AHL revenue, but made sure that they included AHL expenses.

"We know the Levitt report is not perfect but the NHLPA wants no part of any of this process, they do not care if the league loses revenue. Is it that big a reach this business losses what it claims to lose, I do not think so. "

And Bettman wants no part of an independent audit. So how does he look better? Want to really open eyes? Get an independent auditor. You know perfectly well that Bettman will never allow an indepenent audit as all of the owners little schemes will be unfolded. You think Bettman cares what the league looks like? ALl he cares about is that every owner is profitable. And yes, it is a big reach that the buisiness looses as much money as Bettman claims. If it did, then why do all but 30 teams have perfect audit opinions? If any were close to going under, they would all be going-concern disclaimers, as Buffalo was last year.

"And your basing this on what, the games you went to when they were in last place. "

Try again. I was there as late as last year.

"Did Msg deny the Rangers were losing the revenue all these news sources reported? No, never. "

MSG does not own the Rangers. Cablevision does. And why would they say that the RAngers income or loss can arbitrarily be moved up or down, depending on Cablevision's needs and wants?

"Hockey has always been a one demographic sport here and they have lost the casual fan. The impact baseball has with the general public is enormous and has never been larger.

Ticket prices are almost impossible for younger fans."

Can't argue on that point.

True Blue is offline