View Single Post
11-17-2012, 10:26 AM
Registered User
Gooch's Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Coeur d'Alene Idaho
Country: United States
Posts: 14,250
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Wes C Addle View Post
I think one of the main arguments was this section of the article

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.
It is confusing from that wording but it almost seems to suggest that because there was a bad year the year of the lockout that it means the arena deal is not the profitable aspect of why the Panthers were making some small profits over a 14 year period?

If that's the case it naively assumes there are absolutely no hockey costs during that locked out season. I am sure the Panthers still had people they had to pay, or other various expenses that don't magically disappear during a locked out season. All the owner right now are shelling out some sort of expenses and they're not taking in any revenue unless they have a sweetheart arena deal to subsidize their team.

Gooch is offline