View Single Post
Old
09-13-2012, 07:43 PM
  #55
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild48 View Post
Simply put the players create all the wealth that this system relies on. The NHL could exist without billionaire owners, but it simply could not exist without the players. They deserve the lion's share of the wealth they create.
False, and a ridiculous false dichotomy. The players generally do not create the wealth, the hockey watching public creates the wealth. It comes not from the product put on the ice, but from the pockets of the fans who have decided to provide that money, or from the pockets of corporations who choose to purchase seat/marketing/advertising/merchandising for those fans. The "product" in hockey sales is the people filling the seats, not the players putting on a show. Furthermore, the percentage the players should receive of revenues is not remotely based upon their share of revenue generating activity, it's based upon large scale profit maximization strategies for both sides as well as various other economic, not "fairness" measures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild48 View Post
league revenue will stagnate because what? the NHL says so? I've said it before, i'll say it again. If I owned a pro-sports franchise, I'd do everything I can to show losses until it's time to sell. There are plenty of completely legal accounting tricks that can disguise revenue by large portions.
League revenues will stagnate because we're not brainless, unthinking automatons who belief the all-knowing hockey writer and his horrible statements about the big bad evil billionaires.

NHL revenues have risen for a variety of reasons over the past 6 years. In the first post-lockout years there was a significant increase across the board in disposable income amongst sporting fans. Spending on sporting events and viewing of sporting events in general throughout North America saw massive increases. Those increases stopped, but spending mostly held steady through the economic downturn, but now is tapering off. Another major revenue increase was due to the new 10 year, $2BN deal with NBC. Well, that deal's for 10 years, meaning there will not be another extra cent of revenue generation from that provider. NHL revenues are always calculated in US dollars. The Canadian dollar saw around a 20-25% increase in value as compared to the US dollar, this has resulted in dramatically rising revenues from Canadian franchises. The USD/CAD exchange has largely stabilized and will likely fall rather than continue to rise if there are further changes in the currency rates. Relocation of Atlanta to Winnipeg caused a major, and one time, increase in revenue due to low attendance in Atlanta and sellout attendance in Winnipeg. This will not be mirrored anywhere except in further one time relocations. With the Coyotes the only other team possible for relocation it's possible but not necessarily likely for 1 more time of this occurring. The only possible meaningful increase in HRR would be the upcoming HNIC deal being up for renewal soon. Covering only a quarter of the league, this could be meaningful, but will be substantially less effective than the NBC deal, and with CBC's bidding power limited by the CRTC, could even result in no increase at all.

HRR will rise at a rate slightly higher than inflation. With inflation extremely low at this point, short run expectations for HRR increases should be in the 1-3% range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild48 View Post
What is more important to gauge is franchise values, which have skyrocketed since the lockout. That is the true watermark for the health of a franchise.
Franchise values haven't exactly "skyrocketed." They've risen, but most franchises have at best matched their losses with increases in franchise values. While those values are important, they're only truly meaningful for those who intend to severe themselves from their investment at some point. The value of my TV doesn't mean a thing if I'm not going to sell it. The same is true of franchise values.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild48 View Post
Yes the system needs fixing, but it's not the players fault. It's years of forcing teams into terrible markets despite real hockey markets drooling for teams (how long did Winny have to beg?). The NHL's biggest problem is the lack of meaningful revenue sharing, not player salary.
Yeah, keep parroting that line, it only makes you look like you don't belong in the conversation. Winnipeg is still an extremely borderline success. If TNSE didn't own MTS Centre, have the richest people in Canada as owners (willing to suffer a loss) and a variety of other situational issues going for them, they would not be a viable market. They're certainly not some sort of guaranteed profit maker. While a Toronto2 team would likely be a success, that's a political issue and not a league decision. Houston doesn't have an owner. Seattle doesn't have an owner. KC is questionable. QC might work but only because the particular buyer owns a cable network. The team would likely see major annual losses, which the corporation would bear in exchange for profits on the broadcast side of the deal.

The teams losing money aren't exactly "bad markets." Minnesota, Chicago, Pittsburgh (until the past couple years), St. Louis, and others are all hockey markets that should post great profits. But yeah, let's keep pretending it's Dallas and Phoenix who are losing all the money, not any of those places that have history or like hockey in general.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote