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.
How much money is the NHL losing due to the lockout?
How much money is the NHL losing due to the lockout?
Just curious if anyone knows how much they are losing per day because of the lockout. I'm about to post a website for fun and need to calculate an estimate.
Just curious if anyone knows how much they are losing per day because of the lockout. I'm about to post a website for fun and need to calculate an estimate.
Please highlight Phoenix who is not losing 60 million to salary...
IIRC, Daly reported that the cancelled pre-season games cost $100M in revenue - not profits.
Of that $100M, 57% would have gone to the players, so the League is out only $43M in net revenue - minus any operating costs they save by not having a training camp and playing the games.
Just curious if anyone knows how much they are losing per day because of the lockout. I'm about to post a website for fun and need to calculate an estimate.
Probably, in terms of what it means to the lockout, the answer should be "significantly far less than the players".
But overall. Not much. I'd probably peg overall league losses in the 500M range for a year, but thats a gut instinct number based on probable numbers in the past plus expected costs of 10M per team if they do not play due to overhead. But a lot of that loss takes place in the playoffs, so the owners do not feel it now.
My best guess is Toronto, Montreal and NY Rangers are losing money (profit), and the rest of the teams are breaking even or generating less losses at the current time. As this drags on though teams like Chi, LA, FL, teams that would have made the playoffs are basically leaving money on the table.
This is why its tough to imagine the players winning. Only one team generates more profit than their payroll (Toronto) so roughly 91% of the players are losing more money than their team owners. Not a recipe for success ....
Going by the Forbes numbers, $126.5 million will be lost in profit for the league as a whole.
However, if you combined the Leafs, Rangers, and Habs profits you get $170.9 million in income, or in other words, outside of those 3 teams, the NHL is not profitable. Outside of those 3 teams, they lose $44.4 million per year if the games are actually played.
Going by the Forbes numbers, $126.5 million will be lost in profit for the league as a whole.
However, if you combined the Leafs, Rangers, and Habs profits you get $170.9 million in revenue, or in other words, outside of those 3 teams, the NHL is not profitable. Outside of those 3 teams, they lose $44.4 million per year if the games are actually played.
Yes, but remember there are overhead costs associated with the team (minor leagues, GM, coaches, skeleton staff, arena upkeep, etc) which do cost money.
It seems obvious though that the owners will lose more by not playing this year, and opposed to the last lockout when they lost a lot less by not playing. But how high is that number? Not sure, but its definitely far less than the players lose by not playing, and eventually that is probably what will turn negotiations around.
Probably, in terms of what it means to the lockout, the answer should be "significantly far less than the players".
But overall. Not much. I'd probably peg overall league losses in the 500M range for a year, but thats a gut instinct number based on probable numbers in the past plus expected costs of 10M per team if they do not play due to overhead. But a lot of that loss takes place in the playoffs, so the owners do not feel it now.
My best guess is Toronto, Montreal and NY Rangers are losing money (profit), and the rest of the teams are breaking even or generating less losses at the current time. As this drags on though teams like Chi, LA, FL, teams that would have made the playoffs are basically leaving money on the table.
This is why its tough to imagine the players winning. Only one team generates more profit than their payroll (Toronto) so roughly 91% of the players are losing more money than their team owners. Not a recipe for success ....
$500 million for the year is probably a good estimate. Doug Maclean was the president of the Blue Jackets during the last lockout and said his owner had to write a check for $17 million to cover loses incurred that season (he didn't say if that was less of a loss vs what they incur playing the games). I believe he said his owner refused to lay anyone off so other teams loses would likely be less if they took cost cutting measures.
Figure "average ticket price" X # of teams X games lost as a starter.
Add "average attendance" X "average concession spend" X # of teams X # of games lost as an adder
Add some # of merchandise bought each game X # of teams X # of games lost as well.
And the $100million number already cited.
No revenue kind of guarantees no profit. So tracking lost Revenue is a good start. Then you can split it by previous CBA split (57/43) to show NHLPA losses and NHL losses.
Then, try to determine how long it will take to recoup all the lost revenue, with proposed allocations even at 50/50, to highlight how stupid this standoff is.
Daly on HNIC radio today (about an hour ago) indicated that the league is expecting to lose about $140mm in the first two weeks of the season (or about $250mm cumulative from start of lockout).
No revenue kind of guarantees no profit. So tracking lost Revenue is a good start. Then you can split it by previous CBA split (57/43) to show NHLPA losses and NHL losses.
Not really because that does not paint an accurate picture of what the owners are really losing. Its accurate for the players, yes.
In any business revenue is easy to generate. Easy. Profit, thats an entirely different story. Company do not go into business to generate revenue, they want to generate profit. There is soft linkage between these for sure, but if you want to compare the real losses between the two you have to account for that.
This is what I don't get. They claim they are losing money when they are playing and now they are losing by not playing. Then they shouldn't have locked the players out. I think the owners are talking with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
This is what I don't get. They claim they are losing money when they are playing and now they are losing by not playing. Then they shouldn't have locked the players out. I think the owners are talking with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
They had t lock the players out, there really is no option otherwise. If they do not, then the players have zero reason to negotiate, and lets face it, they are not really trying to negotiate even after a lockout. And secondly, they can strike before the playoffs.
This time around the league has not said (to my knowledge) that they lose less by not playing. Everyone seems in agreement they are losing more by not playing. But its not the short loss these guys care about, its the losses that accumulate over years.
They had t lock the players out, there really is no option otherwise. If they do not, then the players have zero reason to negotiate, and lets face it, they are not really trying to negotiate even after a lockout. And secondly, they can strike before the playoffs.
This time around the league has not said (to my knowledge) that they lose less by not playing. Everyone seems in agreement they are losing more by not playing. But its not the short loss these guys care about, its the losses that accumulate over years.
As is the players, except the players have a short window to make their money and the owners window is up to them as how they manage their team and for how long they own it.
Just curious if anyone knows how much they are losing per day because of the lockout. I'm about to post a website for fun and need to calculate an estimate.
