View Single Post
11-16-2012, 08:58 PM
Wes C Addle
Bernard Shakey
Wes C Addle's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Allentown, Pa
Country: United States
Posts: 1,634
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Gooch View Post
One thing I noticed from reading that article and the other one it linked to. That profit was factoring in Arena related revenue and basically citing it as the main reason for the profit. Meaning that the actual owning of the hockey team isnt profitable, it's the arena deals and the money that comes through that which is the bread earner.

I don't really see how this gives any sort of legitimacy from the players side, as they are not or should not be arguing over the personal wealth of the owners but over the ability of the team itself to generate money via it's hockey team. If the hockey team itself is not generating a profit or it's a very small one and a team has to rely on a sweet heart arena deal to offset that I don't see how that somehow means there is no legitimacy to the owners side of this issue.
I think one of the main arguments was this section of the article

2. Hockey-related revenue is defined in such a way so as to maximize the appearance of losses on the hockey side. I expected to see that the Panthers were making good money on their arena deal; I was surprised to find that what was far and away their worst fiscal year coincided with the NHL lockout. If the Panthers were losing money but the arena business was profitable, we would not expect to see a major drop in SSE revenue in 2005: instead we saw a significant dip.; (Note: judging by the email commentary Ive received, this point is being missed by many readers. If the Panthers were acting as a drag on revenue, the 2005 lockout year should have been quite profitable for SSE; instead it was easily their worst fiscal year of the decade JW.)
If I'm understanding the article correctly, during the lockout season, they had their worst financial year. Which, I believe the author is suggesting is curious if the assumption is that hockey is not profitable. That aspect seems to contradict itself.

Wes C Addle is offline