Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0
View Single Post
12-04-2012, 10:56 PM
Join Date: Jul 2009
Originally Posted by
I'm making a somewhat complicated point, you need to be able to see a full two or three steps ahead in order to understand. Let's break it down:
1) There are 30 teams in the NHL. Some of them are struggling, you want to remove the weakest 4.
2) There will then be 26 teams in the NHL, average revenues per team are now up.
3) Now that average revenues have risen from say, ~110 million per year to ~115 million per year, the salary cap is now up, the cost of scouts is up, the cost of coaches and GMs is up, etc. The next 4 weakest teams, ranked 23-26, are now struggling.
4) You're right back to square one.
BTW Dallas Stars are a profitable team. They have an operating income of 3 million/year, and their franchise valuation increased by 4% last year. There is no need for them to relocate. However, if you removed the 4 weakest teams from the NHL, they would become unprofitable due to rising costs. Dallas would only need to be contracted if you contracted other teams first.
Not that I have heartburn with this, but why are costs rising if we cull the weak and remove the bottom 4 teams?
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by AntonCH