View Single Post
11-29-2012, 07:19 AM
Embrace The Suck
SackTastic's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,269
vCash: 500
If you actually read the article, many of his question stem from information found from the PA proposal from the last lockout.

His point is that if you take the numbers found in other sources, and compare them to Forbes' numbers, things don't quite add up.

You cherry picked one sentence. If you read the preceeding paragraphs, his point is more clear.

What about the top end? Well, according to the Forbes, the Toronto Maple Leafs, who went two rounds in the playoffs that year, were second in the NHL in revenue, finishing $1MM behind the New York Rangers, who did not make the playoffs. The NHLPA proposal talks about one team (it doesn’t specify which team) that has revenues that dwarf even the second place team. You can infer from the proposal that this team had regular season revenues that were $19MM more than the team with the second highest revenues. You can further infer from the ordered list that that team was the Toronto Maple Leafs – they were the team that would have paid the most in revenue sharing and, therefore, the highest grossing team in the league.

Again, that’s a huge miss – according to Forbes, the Maple Leafs brought in $1MM in revenue less than the New York Rangers – counting playoff games – of which the Rangers played zero and the Leafs seven. According to the NHLPA’s proposal, the Rangers were more than $19MM back in regular season revenue alone. Again, they have to be out by more than 25% on someone here.
He also cites multiple other cases where published information doesn't mesh with what Forbes puts out.

I'm not saying this guy is dead right here, but he raises enough questions, backed up with facts, about Forbes' numbers. They may not be as gospel as we all thought they were.

SackTastic is offline   Reply With Quote