The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Chipman: Jets will not receive revenue-sharing this season
Dallas (2,571,310) and San Jose (2,506,510) have passed the 2.5MHH threshold. Boston is close and it probably would have passed it if Nielsen hadn't recalibrated their models - virtually every DMA dropped in HHs from 2010-11 to 2011-12 - Boston dropped from 2,460,290 to 2,379,690.
Next up would likely be Washington (2,360,180). although I expect the 2.5MHH threshold - which was basically a screw Wirtz rule - to go away (or be increased/modified) in the next CBA.
I presume Toronto would be exempt as well? Montreal?
Is that a serious question? 1/2 the teams in the NHL receive at least some revenue sharing each year. The Thrashers were at the very bottom of league revenue.
...
This means Winnipeg was at least in the top 1/2 of the NHL in revenue and it would not surprise me if they were in the top 1/3rd or very close to it.
I am too lazy to find the link right now, but I recall seeing an article that estimated the revenues for all NHL teams earlier this season. The list had the 6 Canadian teams – other than the Jets – in the top 10 – and it had Winnipeg I believe at 11 or 12 overall.
I never said it would be safe to assume anything. I said it would not surprise me if the Jets were in or near the top 10 this year.
I'm not sure what you are getting at in the first comment, but the NHL's revenue sharing formula is very complex. To be eligible you MUST NOT BE ANY of the following:
i) a franchise with revenue ranking in the top 15,
ii) a franchise located in a market with 2.5 million or more TV households, or
ii) a franchise with Available compensation that exceeds Target compensation.
The only reason a club in the bottom 15 in revenues would be ineligible for revenue sharing is because it is located in a city with a TV market over 2.5 million -- see New York, Chicago and L.A. only I believe.
Just because you are Eligible for revenue sharing, doesn't mean you get the maximum or same amount as other teams. Again, it is a complicated formula that takes into account the following:
Actually just because you are eligible for revenue sharing doesn't mean the team is guaranteed to receive any money. There is still a "needs" formula applied to the team's regular and pre-season revenue to determine how much [if any] the team receives. Most of the teams in the 16 to 20th rankings probably don't receive revenue sharing.
Minimum targeted team payroll for revenue sharing is $4m [25% of floor/cap gap] over the cap floor -> $51.95m this season. Team preseason and regular season revenue is tallied and the player share % of HRR applied against that total. Player share is currently 57% which means any team with $51.95m/0.57 = $91.1m or greater in revenue may not receive revenue sharing, even if they would otherwise qualify by being in the lower 15 revenue teams and meeting the market threshold. If the NHL has excess funds available in the revenue sharing pool after fulfilling all the eligible team minimums then it could raise the sharing target up to a limit of $8m over floor [50% of floor/cap gap, $55.95m/0.57 = $98.1m]. Based on some past number crunching I've done for available revenue sharing dollars I suspect the actual % the past few years has been 25%, or much closer to 25% than 50%.
If the Jets did finish in the top 10 this season it won't be a secret for long. Since the top 10 teams all pay into the revenue sharing pool I'm sure that would be trumpeted in the media if it happened.
I presume Toronto would be exempt as well? Montreal?
Yes, Toronto is over the limit. I'm pretty sure Montreal isn't.
For the Canadian cities the NHL uses the BBM TV Market sizing. I was having trouble finding the official BBM list online if anyone wants to go searching. I believe Montreal is around 2 million households in the BBM ranking.
It's not like the team wasn't bringing in revenue in Atlanta. If a team in Winnipeg is not making a profit, then the league is likely better off keeping the team in an American market where they can grow the game to a new audience.
Although you may not have spent money in previous years, most Canadian's, regardless of if they live in an NHL market or not, spend money on the NHL or at least indirectly support it. Do you think there are a lot of people in Atlanta who still support the NHL in anyway now that they've left? I doubt it, just like there are very few people who support the NHL in Kansas City, Las Vegas, Seattle, etc. (and for the record I don't believe these places should have a team over Winnipeg). However, the majority of Canadian's will support the NHL by either purchasing merchandise of locally born players, watching HNIC/ whoever is carrying live games or by following another team and buying their merchandise/watching their games. In non-traditional, non-NHL markets, the penetration rate for the NHL is almost 0%.
In other words, Canadian's (for the most part) will support and spend money on the NHL regardless of if they have a team locally or not. American's won't.
I'll disagree and the playoffs are a prime example, many people stop watching once their team has been eliminated. I'm sure many more watch when their home town is playing. No team means less viewers, this holds true everywhere I believe.
Toronto is a prime example, everyone po'd Leafs always on HNIC. It's because if other teams are playing viewership dramatically drops. So even though the team is crap they still get shown.
Toronto having a good team would be great for the league. This has been stated many times by players and broadcasters. Mainly or should I say solely for the extra money that could be made by charging more for commercials during playoff games. If the team is golfing so are most of their fans.
Last edited by Charon of Styx: 04-07-2012 at 02:12 PM.
I'll disagree and the playoffs are a prime example, many people stop watching once their team has been eliminated. I'm sure many more watch when their home town is playing. No team means less viewers, this holds true everywhere I believe.
Toronto is a prime example, everyone po'd Leafs always on HNIC. It's because if other teams are playing viewership dramatically drops. So even though the team is crap they still get shown.
Toronto having a good team would be great for the league. This has been stated many times by players and broadcasters. Mainly or should I say solely for the extra money that could be made by charging more for commercials during playoff games. If the team is golfing so are most of their fans.
It's not like the team wasn't bringing in revenue in Atlanta. If a team in Winnipeg is not making a profit, then the league is likely better off keeping the team in an American market where they can grow the game to a new audience.
Although you may not have spent money in previous years, most Canadian's, regardless of if they live in an NHL market or not, spend money on the NHL or at least indirectly support it. Do you think there are a lot of people in Atlanta who still support the NHL in anyway now that they've left? I doubt it, just like there are very few people who support the NHL in Kansas City, Las Vegas, Seattle, etc. (and for the record I don't believe these places should have a team over Winnipeg). However, the majority of Canadian's will support the NHL by either purchasing merchandise of locally born players, watching HNIC/ whoever is carrying live games or by following another team and buying their merchandise/watching their games. In non-traditional, non-NHL markets, the penetration rate for the NHL is almost 0%.
In other words, Canadian's (for the most part) will support and spend money on the NHL regardless of if they have a team locally or not. American's won't.
I don't think keeping a team in a market that loses money year over year, has poor attendance and lousy television ratings is any better than even a marginal market for the sake of growing the game (regardless of location). Besides, doesn't the owner have more say of whether a team stays or goes in a particular market.
I'm not trying to bash non-traditional markets but I find the "growing the game" argument over smaller Canadian markets to be somewhat dubious.
It's not like the team wasn't bringing in revenue in Atlanta. If a team in Winnipeg is not making a profit, then the league is likely better off keeping the team in an American market where they can grow the game to a new audience.
Although you may not have spent money in previous years, most Canadian's, regardless of if they live in an NHL market or not, spend money on the NHL or at least indirectly support it. Do you think there are a lot of people in Atlanta who still support the NHL in anyway now that they've left? I doubt it, just like there are very few people who support the NHL in Kansas City, Las Vegas, Seattle, etc. (and for the record I don't believe these places should have a team over Winnipeg). However, the majority of Canadian's will support the NHL by either purchasing merchandise of locally born players, watching HNIC/ whoever is carrying live games or by following another team and buying their merchandise/watching their games. In non-traditional, non-NHL markets, the penetration rate for the NHL is almost 0%.
In other words, Canadian's (for the most part) will support and spend money on the NHL regardless of if they have a team locally or not. American's won't.
No. This post is pretty ignorant of the facts. Like "all Americans drive pick up trucks and carry guns everywhere they go" ignorant.
the amount of money i spent on the NHL last year was $0.
the amount of money i spent on the NHL this year was something like $3000.
the NHL grew exponentially in the manitoba market...and would do the same in quebec or hamilton....the league is far from having saturated its potential in canada particularly because it is a gate driven league.
in fact, i believe that its greatest opportunity for growth is the canadian market.
No, you spent that money on the Jets, not the NHL.
The NHL makes it's money from national TV contracts and sponsorships. Most of the potential money to be made is from American TV contracts and American sponsorships.
Canadian networks and sponsors are going to give the NHL money regardless of how many small Canadian towns have teams.
No, you spent that money on the Jets, not the NHL.
The NHL makes it's money from national TV contracts and sponsorships. Most of the potential money to be made is from American TV contracts and American sponsorships.
Canadian networks and sponsors are going to give the NHL money regardless of how many small Canadian towns have teams.
FP: When Mark Chipman suggested you two partner to buy this team, there must have been a discussion about its potential for profitability. Some outsiders have suggested you were brought in to be Winnipeg's "sugar daddy." Was the news that the team would not qualify for league subsidy because it was one of the NHL's top 15 teams in terms of hockey-related revenue a comforting surprise?
DT: "We (Thomson and Chipman) had the benefit of being partners for many years, so the qualities of each are known to each. We all believed we had a very fine chance of moving beyond the waterfall and standing on our own without subsidy. This wasn't just an important place to reach as an economic or business point. More than that it stated to the community and the world that no subsidies are needed in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Period."
I'll disagree and the playoffs are a prime example, many people stop watching once their team has been eliminated.
You mean many Toronto fans stop watching.
I'd say the average casual hockey fan will keep watching so long as there is a Canadian team to promote in the playoffs. Or if Detroit or Crosby are still sticking around too.
I'd say most will watch up until the point it's something like St.Louis vs Florida in the SCF.
No, you spent that money on the Jets, not the NHL.
The NHL makes it's money from national TV contracts and sponsorships. Most of the potential money to be made is from American TV contracts and American sponsorships.
Canadian networks and sponsors are going to give the NHL money regardless of how many small Canadian towns have teams.
Except that revenue sharing and the salary cap are determined by total league revenues.
