View Single Post
03-03-2005, 01:03 PM
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Fletch
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 have no idea, it's very vague, designed to be that way, Cablevision says a lot of things that contradict one another (Voom). But Dolan did claim the most losses 40.9 and these industry sources also are reporting these losses between 25-40m. The Washington Post, NY Post, and Daily News are giving out this info. No one put a gun to Dolan's head and these owners do not work together well. He could have said like the Leafs the Rangers make a profit, he was under no pressure. This is an owner who has done what he wanted for a decade and not cared what Bettman or his fellow owners thought along the way.

Originally Posted by Fletch
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.
Edmonton does not cry poverty and breaks even but they want to keep their team together and go out and improve, under the current system they cannot do either and they are tired of operating this way. Lowe is tired of Niinimaa-Carter deals at the trade deadline.

Seems the NHL is willing to allow some disparity, but if the business losses what it claims that 15-20 million dollar difference cannot be near 50m. I think most owners would glady sign up for a system that gives them a chance a modest profit, but they are not going to sign up for one that only allows them to only lose a little less.

Originally Posted by Fletch
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.
Bettman wanted the linkage so both sides could be partners and share the risks. The NHLPA wants no part of that and only want the cap to increase if profits increase. Hockey is not football or the NBA and between the disparity of the percentages going to the players is too high.

NYIsles1* is offline