View Single Post
12-24-2012, 03:39 PM
Registered User
hockeyball's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19,266
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
Economists are typically hired to estimate the impact of proposals. I haven't been able to find a specific name but if you want I can get back to you on that. Now the number isn't set in stone as a deal hasn't been hammered out yet, but all the things I mentioned apparently add up to 15-20%. 20% just happens to nearly be the exact percentage the players lost in 2004. What a bizarre coincidence...
Here lets do some basic math: In 2004 the players made about 1.494 billion and the revenues were about 1.996 billion. The league had to have around 770 million in other costs in order to equate the overall 273 loss they reported.
The Lockout happened and players share was rolled back by 20%. Todays revenues are reported to be 3.2 billion and player costs have only risen by about 25-30%. This would leave the league a little more than 1.3 billion to cover "other costs". In short the only real way the league could be losing money as a whole is if other costs have basically doubled. BUT ITS ALL THE NHLPA!!!! The owners shouldn't have to contribute or take any responsibility to the partnership they lied to the players about. They shouldn't take any responsibility for horrible decisions like keeping the Yotes in AR when they didn't have to. They should be able to pocket all that fee money and laugh all the way to the bank.
The last time the players made significant successions it didn't seem to help the league. In fact all it did was lead to the league asking for significant cuts as soon as it was able to to do so. Why should the players believe that this time around will be any different? So let me ask again what concessions have the owners made to the players in order to help the overall sustainability of the league?
Using your numbers $770m is only $25m per team. I'm not sure how teams could have operated that lean, but it's pretty tough to imagine. That would include arena leases, staff, maintenance, travel expenses, utilities, marketing, equipment, Coaches (some make upto $1m+ alone), etc. $1.3b is $43m per team.

So $43m operating budget for all expenses. Keep in mind, that's an average. Some teams like the Islanders pulled in only $66m, and had a payroll of around $50m which left them with $16m to spend on everything. Let me write that another way, the New York Islanders gave 76% of their revenue to the players. In fact, the San Jose Sharks who are considered a very well run franchise brought in about 101m, spend $62m on players (62% basically) leaving them $39m to spend on everything else.

As a comparison, the Oakland Raiders had $226m in revenue in the same time period, making them the worst performer in the entire NFL, and they brought in more than the Maple Leafs.

The NHL cannot operate like the NFL, NBA, MLB or the MLS. As a business they are in deep financial trouble. If they don't correct that course in very short order their literally may not be an NHL in the near future.

hockeyball is offline