View Single Post
12-21-2012, 02:35 PM
Fugu's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 36,745
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by skydog71 View Post
Here's an interesting thought... if you contracted a rich team like Toronto ($200 million/year revenue according to Forbes), the salary cap would drop by $200 million * 0.57 / 31 = $3.68 million per team. This move would push 3 teams that are currently losing money (Capitals, Sharks, Predators) into the black.

If you also contracted the Rangers & Canadiens ($368 million/year in revenue), the cap would drop another $368 million * 0.57 / 29 = $7.23 million per team. This would make the Wild, Ducks, Sabres, Hurricanes & Blues profitable.

So we've basically saved 8 franchises by eliminating the 3 richest franchises. That's kind of messed up when you think about it.

Forbes NHL valuations:

It also goes against every business doctrine that anyone capable of making money would accept. You don't sacrifice the cash cows so the dogs can live another day.

Originally Posted by atomic View Post
Nashville has 1700 more fans per game than Winnipeg. Almost as much as the hockey hotbed of Edmonton. SO there goes that lame theory. And not far behind Boston.

Hockey is doing great filling their arenas. the median attendance percentage is 100 percent. It is simple where the hockey financial problems lie. Too much money going to the players.

Perhaps you should consider what supply and demand do to ticket prices.

So, no, it's simple where the financial problems like, but it's not due to player cost. It's due to player cost relative to the problem created by supply and demand in each market (revenue).

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote