View Single Post
Old
03-03-2005, 12:25 PM
  #28
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Good post, Chief...

NYIsles...if the Rangers are losing so much money, then why would Cablevision, in its filing with the SEC, say this:

'We do not expect the lockout to have a significant impact on the Company’s consolidated operating results, however if the entire season were cancelled, the effect on the operating results of the Madison Square Garden segment would be significant'

I'm assuming significant is negatively significant. If you're losing so much money, even without revenues, by reducing your main cost to zero, one would expect the entity to lose less money. I'm guess the same can be said for teams in which they own the arena, luxury boxes, or the like.

Throw away the losses for a second, as the lockout should not be about that, but Bettman has made it about that. Edmonton cries poverty every year, but I'm pretty sure they make money, so it's not about losses. It's about leveling the playing field, which is essentially narowing the gap between the highest payroll team and the lowest payroll team (which was about $22-80 million last season). What the magical number is up for interpretation. How to get there could be up for interpretation, as there isn't only one way (the NHL's way) to get there. And the gap doesn't need to b $5 million. A $15-20 million wouldn't break this business.

It is funny how Bettman clamors for an NFL solution (even though there are three major sports out there, three different CBAs, and hockey's different in terms of geography and demography). And even with the NFL solution, he doesn't even offer-up NFL-like revenue sharing. Doesn't even offer-up the 'link' to revenues the NFL has. Yet, that's the way it has to be. The basketball CBA won't work...even though he expanded to be like the NBA. I've had enough.

Fletch is offline