View Single Post
Old
12-13-2012, 04:56 PM
  #73
flapanthersfan
Registered User
 
flapanthersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 2,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
MOD

It might surprise you to find out that the NHL consists of businesses whose main goal is the selling of hockey. In a follow-up post you claimed that "it's all creative accounting. making the panthers a loss leader. it hasn't even been mentioned here that exaggerating the panthers losses also benefits the organization thru NHL revenue sharing." I'm sure the players would appreciate an admission that the Florida franchise is possibly being used to show a loss that reduces their overall take of HRR. The Panthers existence doesn't really act as much of a benefit to them if your claims are true. Surely the league partners would also be interested as well to find out that a partner is perhaps exaggerating losses in an effort to extract more revenue share money from teams that actually earn versus take - if your claims are true that is.
do you really think the nhl and cliff viner are at all interested in how their business model affects the players?seriously? that's the best argument you can come up with?

Quote:
It matters little in the grand scheme to the league if AOC & SSE were to cease to exist - given that the league partners receive little of those profits to begin with. In fact, basis your theory that the league needs to grow the game in that region, it seems then that they've a potential burgeoning failure on their hands if growth of the hockey business is used as a defining metric - given that the Panthers television ratings are absolutely tiny, as are their miniature annual gate receipts of just $25 million annually (as per Forbes). Not much growth to be found there in fact. That the organization shows annual losses north of $10 million after receiving millions in annual revenue sharing speaks to the weakness of the underlying business. There is a difference between the pursuit of illusory growth (see: Florida Panthers) and actual growth. If the NHL was truly seeking financial growth then they'd probably ditch the franchise that costs the players from an HRR perspective, and costs the league from a revenue perspective annually, and would replace it with a guaranteed money maker elsewhere (see: GTA, QC).
it's hard to "grow" when the franchise in question has been floundering with atrocious teams on the ice - or do you expect to see 20,000 strong show up to see a team lose 50-60 games a year? [Mod]

as someone mentioned earlier, franchises that were thought to be "success" stories (dallas, colorado) are struggling to draw fans with a couple of poor seasons. what do you think they'd look like after TEN YEARS of irrelevance? because that's what florida went through.

if you remember correctly, in 1996-1998 the panthers were on fire in this market. every home game sold out for TWO STRAIGHT SEASONS, they were easily the second most popular franchise in this market, at the time. there were no questions as if to their legitimacy then, was there?

10 straight years of losing tends to kill fans mojo...and still yet they never sank to the depths of franchises like dallas did after only a couple years of losing. but no one questions dallas, do they?

and as far as TV ratings go, yes, the panthers ratings are poor.but again, 10 straight years of losing might turn off a few people. the playoff ratings were decent and if you remember correctly (you probably don't) - the broward/west palm beach area was top 10-15 in US markets for the US-Canada gold medal game... ahead of cities like NYC and D.C. that goes to show - theres a market here if you put a decent product on the ice.

[Mod] it takes generations (usually, successful generations) to build a true fanbase...yet people like you expect it to happen overnight. south florida has proven before it will support a hockey team just fine. couple that with a successful business model and you have zero chance the team relocates anytime soon.

hit us up in 20 years when our lease is over and maybe you'll have an argument then


Last edited by Killion: 12-13-2012 at 05:20 PM. Reason: easy there....
flapanthersfan is offline   Reply With Quote