View Single Post
Old
10-30-2012, 02:01 AM
  #49
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton Tigers View Post
In defense of Hamilton, (and I'm grasping at straws here to counter your point) the NHL isn't so much projecting revenues with Hamilton, as they are comparing the southern Ontario market with existing hockey markets.

Is that different enough? But, aside from assigning them a ranking of 5th in revenue, is there really any doubt that Hamilton/southern Ontario is probably one of ,if not, the best hockey market in the world?
Short story, no. There's no doubt Hamilton is not at worst, a top 12 market, and most likely in the 3-8 range somewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
Nobody's business projections can foresee drastic, unpredictable currency fluctuations 7 years out. Economists who specialize in currencies can't predict that. Too many variables.

What would a sport W team in market X, with attendance Y make right now? Numbers are going to be pretty accurate. Like, nearly bullseye, almost no matter who's doing them.
I wasn't commenting really on Hamilton at all. I think if you were to take a comparable market/circumstance, it would be fair. For example: NYI in Barclays, probably the same as the Devils. Kansas City, probably same or 90% of St. Louis.
Houston, about the same or a little less than Dallas.

But my point was that any moron with access to decent data and Excel (like me!) can pull up team revenue numbers from two seasons five years apart, say "if the growth pattern continues…" and apply it to the CBA they just proposed.

For example, when they proposed the last CBA, there was 26 teams within the payroll range, 3 teams could easily spend to the cap, and one team that would struggle to hit the floor. Just looking at the Top, Middle and Bottom:

#1 TOR 42% growth from 2001-06; 2011 projection: $169 mil.
#15 LA 12% growth from 2001-06; 2011 projection: $93 mil.
#30 NYI 22% growth from 2001-06; 2011 projection: $68 mil.

That would have told me that at the end of 2012, we'd probably have a situation where the league average was $110 million, and the bottom 10 teams couldn't afford the damned floor. (It's actually 12). As you correctly said: We couldn't have predicted Toronto surging to $193 million, or Dallas going into the crapper, etc. But it's a ballpark).

Looking at 2006-11 and projecting that to 2017, if the last NHL proposal was approved, we'd have SIXTEEN teams that couldn't afford the floor by spending 50% of HRR on payroll and 21 teams below the midpoint.

Obviously, there's outside factors: EDM, CAL, DET and NYI will open new arenas. FLA (winning) PHX (sale), NASH and CBJ (new leases) have the ability to grow their revenues. But where is the GROWTH coming from in places like St. Louis, Anaheim, Pittsburgh or Ottawa?

Which is why I think this lockout is going horribly. Not because the two sides aren't talking, or are far apart. They're not talking and are far about about THE WRONG ISSUE.

It doesn't matter if we have teams in Hamilton, Quebec, Seattle or wherever. Because if they go through with their payroll tied to average revenue plan, PIT, OTT, WIN, MIN, SJ, LA, and EDM are going to join the list of have nots by 2020. We'll have 11 good markets and 19 ones that are struggling to keep up.


Last edited by KevFu: 10-30-2012 at 02:06 AM.
KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote