View Single Post
Old
12-02-2013, 09:50 AM
  #34
Bongo
Registered User
 
Bongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
For the teams or the league?

We know that in places like Florida, ownership uses the NHL franchise as a lost leader. The team is tied to the lease, so while it losses money, ownership is happy because the events and concerts held at the arena generate a profit.

However, to my knowledge, that profit isn't counted in HRR. So, by the NHL's financials, the Panthers lose money. Whether the ownership group is making money is not important. It helps stabilize the franchise, it (combined with the lease) makes it unlikely the team will move, but it doesn't make the Panthers franchise any less of a drag on league revenues.

If the NHL had the option of moving the Panthers today, the lease pushed aside with no legal ramifications and emotions of the "we stand by our fans" stance dropped, I think they do. There's no economic benefit at this point to having a team in South Florida, but the status quo ensures that there will be.

This deal won't change those facts. The Panthers and Coyotes will continue to be an anchor around the NHL's neck. Their revenues haven't changed, their underlying economics haven't changed, only league revenues have. Since every team gets that benefit equally, I don't see how this will fix the problems plaguing them. Whatever benefit the extra money brings in, much of that will be eroded by a rising cap floor.



ASG and Moyes' lack of desire to own a franchise doesn't change the fact that each franchise was losing in excess of $10 million a year.
While that's true, isn't it possible that said lack of desire is the main reason behind the 10M a year loss? If you owned a restaurant that served nothing but leftovers, how successful do you think you might be?

Bongo is offline