yeah the Habs can become one of the most profitable teams in the League... except Gillett already said that the team can not continue to survive without radical changes in the economics, and that one of the reasons he agreed to buy the team was because Bettman promised him that there would be a new economic order after the new CBA.
Generally speaking profit is defined as revenue minus all expenses including accruals for expenses that exist now but wont be paid till the future.... if we're strictly talking accounting profits then the number can easily be manipulated to show earnings by decreasing discretionary accruals such as depreciation on equipment and building, or O/H rates (which can be manipulated) applied to expenses.... also owners have incentive to show profit because they may have loans that will be triggered if certain bank imposed ratios are not met.... all this to say that accounting profit does not equal cash profit.... to determine the actual amount of cash a company made in the year you'd have to look at the cash flow statement and determine if there was an increase or decrease in cash flow and whether or not it's positive in the first place (factoring out the money coming from loans because that has to be repaid).... profit is very vague and simply by looking at the income statement figure you wont really know if the company is cash profitable..... having said that accruals may or may not be very prevalent in hockey ( I don't know the financial side of the industry too well so I can't comment on that)....
I'm entirely guessing here, but I bet you they've played with the numbers to get this. By "most profitable" I would guess (guess mind you, guess) that they mean that 5 of the 6 Canadian teams did better than the average NHL franchise last year. That doesn't mean they made money, it means they lost less than the average NHL club. That isn't too surprising, we all know Vancouver and Toronto are doing fine, Calgary and Edmonton are pretty cheap teams with pretty good followings, so they probably didn't hurt too bad, and most of us would know that the habs probably did loose money, but not too much last season. If you look at it this way, I don't find this report that surprising at all.
I could see the Habs being profitable last season, when the dollar jumped nearly 12 cents from the season before. However, that would only be with the Canadian stabilization fund. Do you count that money in your profit?
The fact is, Edmonton and Calgary didn't lose money last year. However, with Calgary, they can't expect to make the Finals every year in order to make a profit. The key is to make a profit every year whether the team makes the playoffs or not. Or, at the very least, break even every year the team doesn't make the playoffs, and have profit every time the team does make it. With the dollar at 84 cents, this could've been a very profitable year for all Canadian teams, likely including Ottawa for once. But it's not sustainable when you're relying solely on an exchange rate and a stabalization fund that might not be there the next time around.
However, Bettman still hasn't convinced me that a luxury tax system can't work. He claims some teams would spend above and beyond the fixed value... well, then tax them really hard! Make them pay big time for overspending! Then use that money for revenue sharing! It's not hard!
Great Financial analyst Healy has spoken. Oh yeah and Mccabe is the 4th best D-man in the world.
Dont be an ass, he didnt say he calculated it, he said League documents showed it and no one seemed to refute it(not even Bob McKenzie). 5 of the 6 most profitable teams being canadian isnt something I wouldve believed because it means were being lied to.
Look, the whole CBA issue with the owners demanding a cap and Bettman spearheading it, etc. Really, all he needs is 8 teams if he wants to push some kind of policy. And he's definitely got the weaker teams (Carolina, Nashville, Atlanta, Florida, Anaheim, Columbus, Pittsburgh) plus some middle teams (all the Canadian teams except Toronto, , Los Angeles) and some rich jerks (Chicago, Boston). I'd say about half the teams are onside, but that number could drop if the next offer by the NHLPA could likely save a season, yet has no cap. This is all about Bettman fighting for owners he promised stability when they bought into a "profitable" league just as recently as 5 years ago (according to Bettman at the time). And it's also about a-holes like Jacobs and Wirtz fighting the players who k!cked their @ss in the last CBA. They're sick of Goodenow and they're making it a revenge thing and if you don't think so, you got another thing coming.
If we are one of the most profitable, that doesn't mean we couldn't of lost money this year. If we lost, say, 15 million this year, and 23 other teams lost more than 25 million, that would still make us one of the most profitable teams in the league, by definition.
The more posturing, propaganda / lack of substantive bargaining that is out there from both sides just makes me shake my head. Title of this thread says it all - professional hockey is now on par with charities where profit is an ugly word.