View Single Post
10-12-2012, 04:08 PM
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
Gump Hasek's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 8,377
vCash: 1200
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
And yet again, year-to-year profit and loss is meaningless to whether or not hockey "works" in these markets.

Tons of good markets have had long periods of losses in bad times (NYI, PIT, BUF, STL, DET, CHI)
A lot of teams in GOOD MARKETS have periods of losses in GOOD TIMES (Detroit spending $70 million on payroll before the cap, for example).
Tons of teams in "non-traditional markets" show consistent profit and have a nice population base. Hockey is "working" in Tampa, even if they have periods with losses.
Tons of teams show losses on purpose to hide revenue.
And most teams fluctuate between large profits and large losses.

And of course, accounting practices vary widely (depreciating the value of assets over time is an acceptable accounting practice; and it's frequently applied to PLAYERS as an accounting practice). This is why Forbes has estimates: To try and provide an estimate of each team using consistent accounting practices.

They listed Phoenix's losses at $9.7 million the year before the bankruptcy, and $24.1 million in 2011. How's the situation getting worse? Maybe the fact that PHX has lost 3,000 fans per game since Moyes declared bankruptcy. The debacle it's become has pissed off the fan base. Let's see who comes back when the team actually has an owner.

Not that I'm advocating the health of teams in PHX or wherever. Merely pointing out the flaw of that as a metric. Hockey works just fine in Long Island; they just need a new arena. So their 20 years of losses can't be used to say the market is a failure.
You claim year-to-year profit and loss to be meaningless; that flies fully in the face of the current reality however that sees a bunch of marginal US franchises forcing the locking out of their players in an effort to cut cost. You further refuse to admit that many of those markets are basically failures that only survive via the taxing of other conversely profitable locales.

You often essentially claim here that all will be well with increased revenue sharing. Geoff Molson, Rogers, Bell, etc are however also entitled to a fair rate of return on their massive recent purchases of the league's most profitable teams. I'm guessing the slight bump in revenue sharing represents the best the NHL have to offer on that front and believe that you likely grossly overestimate the desire of profitable teams to continue fronting failures in Columbus, Phoenix, Tampa, etc in perpetuity.

Gump Hasek is offline