HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Forbes 2012 annual review of NHL

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-29-2012, 09:49 AM
  #101
Errol Swaghammer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 47
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaneone View Post
Well the MLB numbers are from last March, so when the new one comes out before the season starts, I'd bet that Boston will be valued higher. Same goes for the Lakers this January.

Probably the Lakers did just get Dwight. But nonetheless it's fairly impressive and certainly not an indication that the NHL is a joke of league which the poster I was replying to implied. There are other arguments to be made for that, but the Leafs being worth more than the Rangers and other American teams is not it.

Errol Swaghammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 10:03 AM
  #102
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 53,620
vCash: 500
SunGarrioch 7:50am via Twitter for BlackBerry® I love the Forbes Magazine stories. Nobody believes them but ...





LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 10:21 AM
  #103
JMT21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 767
vCash: 500
The Yotes may have lost "only" 20M..... but imagine if the city didn't give them 25M and the team didn't enjoy the playoff revenue they got by making it to the 3rd round.

JMT21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 11:21 AM
  #104
DanZ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordie View Post
I would have said the same thing if Detroit was put at #1 by Forbes.
ok.... lol

Either way Toronto and Montreal are #1 and #2.

DanZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 11:54 AM
  #105
canuckster19
Former CDC Mod
 
canuckster19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Gothenburg Sweden
Country: Canada
Posts: 685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by syc View Post
But then they won't get that billion dollar US TV deal owners were promised 10 years ago...Oh yeah and US based teams ticket sales will take a hit because they will have more teams from Canada coming to town. Ask any US owner and they will tell you they sell less tickets when a Canadian team comes to town.
Well that's not entirely true

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/...2/sort/awayPct

Once you get past the big 5 American markets, the subjectivity of your statement increases dramatically, factor in as well that fluctuation in this list based on teams by division isn't that great, ex all PAC teams in bottom 10. I would also say the percentage skew from 3 to 10 isn't that significant of a difference to say one is truly better than the other without looking at other influences behind the numbers, ex what game the day was on and who had more away games against "traditional" markets. Philadelphia is also ranked lower than Columbus, does that make sense?


Last edited by canuckster19: 11-29-2012 at 12:00 PM.
canuckster19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 12:20 PM
  #106
ThePhoenixx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 835
vCash: 500
How in the world can any of these borderline profit teams build a new arena?

If the city doesn't build it for them, then they are toast.

ThePhoenixx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 12:44 PM
  #107
Shawa666
Registered User
 
Shawa666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Québec, Qc, Ca
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,277
vCash: 490
So the Coyotes still lost 20M$ after cashing in the Jobing.com egg management fee?

LOL

Shawa666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 12:46 PM
  #108
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhoenixx View Post
How in the world can any of these borderline profit teams build a new arena?

If the city doesn't build it for them, then they are toast.
Or they lower player costs until they make enough of a profit that they can afford to build their own arena's... however for that to happen, a couple things would have to change.

One would almost have to pass a law that public funds cannot go into facilities of this nature that are then run by private (for profit) companies.

Then teams would almost all need to post 15-20m+ a year so that in 30+ years they can afford to build a new arena privately.

__________________
"It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 12:58 PM
  #109
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
One of Bettman's goals is wider TV coverage, I would assume that consolidating the NHL back into Canada doesn't help him do this. That's my hunch at least, no idea if it's correct.
They're locked in for the next two CBAs at this rate. 11 years if this year is lost. How many of the current owners will still be here in 11 years?


Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhoenixx View Post
How in the world can any of these borderline profit teams build a new arena?

If the city doesn't build it for them, then they are toast.
Maybe it's just too expensive to have pro teams in cities where not enough demand exists. It shouldn't be the role of government to pay millionaires and billionaires to entertain you, and further line their own pockets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Or they lower player costs until they make enough of a profit that they can afford to build their own arena's... however for that to happen, a couple things would have to change.

One would almost have to pass a law that public funds cannot go into facilities of this nature that are then run by private (for profit) companies.

Then teams would almost all need to post 15-20m+ a year so that in 30+ years they can afford to build a new arena privately.
You do realize that lowering salaries that much can only be done if unions exist. I have no idea what self-respecting union would remain intact so they could leave on the table more than half of the money a freer market system would give them.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 01:26 PM
  #110
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
You do realize that lowering salaries that much can only be done if unions exist. I have no idea what self-respecting union would remain intact so they could leave on the table more than half of the money a freer market system would give them.
If it became illegal for public funds to be used for arena's (in any way shape or form), the PA wouldn't have much of a choice if NHL teams were forced to build their own arena's at 250m+. Which would need to be done every what... 35-40 years?

The PA's option would be either allow teams to fold/relocate (and even relocating is only an option for so long), or take a cut so that owners could afford to build their own arena's. It wouldn't ALL be on the NHL club to come up with the money for the arena, but a chunk of it would certainly be.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 02:16 PM
  #111
Gotta Catch Em Staal
#bandwagonwildcup
 
Gotta Catch Em Staal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 6,843
vCash: 500
Or you would just have teams playing in much older arenas, which is why if you look at say the English Premier League, half the current teams are playing in stadiums built before 1900 (with extensive renovations and expansions over the decades obviously). Then you look at a team like Arsenal, which is one of the biggest, richest and most popular sports clubs in the entire world, and yet for nearly 10 years they have taken a big hit in on-pitch performance due to a decrease in available funds resulting from debt payments on a new stadium they opened in 2006.

It would definitely be a very different landscape.

__________________
-Jonathan
Gotta Catch Em Staal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 02:27 PM
  #112
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaroldVonKimblestein View Post
Or you would just have teams playing in much older arenas, which is why if you look at say the English Premier League, half the current teams are playing in stadiums built before 1900 (with extensive renovations and expansions over the decades obviously). Then you look at a team like Arsenal, which is one of the biggest, richest and most popular sports clubs in the entire world, and yet for nearly 10 years they have taken a big hit in on-pitch performance due to a decrease in available funds resulting from debt payments on a new stadium they opened in 2006.

It would definitely be a very different landscape.
I do not know a lot about the football scene in England, but how many other bookings do they have in their stadiums other than football? The NHL arena's can make decent coin off of other events - to the point that Markham feels they have a business case to build a rink without an NHL tenant (although I'm sure that they'd love to get an NHL tenant at some point down the road).

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 02:30 PM
  #113
Gotta Catch Em Staal
#bandwagonwildcup
 
Gotta Catch Em Staal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 6,843
vCash: 500
That is a good point. Out of curiosity I looked up London's O2 Arena, which would be more comparable for this discussion, and it does appear to have been publicly funded.

For what it's worth I do think there is considerable public value in investing in these types of facilities, but I am uncertain as to whether there is enough value to justify it. It is also an issue where my heart and head may conflict hah.

The biggest issue for me is scenarios where teams hold governments hostage for a new arena. I watched this happen with the Charlotte Hornets and of course am also reaping the benefits of it as a Canes fan after Connecticut did not give Karmanos what he wanted.

Gotta Catch Em Staal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 02:50 PM
  #114
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 9,913
vCash: 500
must read from Tyler Dellows:

http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=4784

Basically, the Forbes numbers are crap. Even if it was a good approximation of overall revenues and expenses, the margin of error is too large to make any conclusions on a franchise by franchise basis.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 04:03 PM
  #115
Bongo
Registered User
 
Bongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by viper0220 View Post
"If the salary cap were lowered to, say, 50% of revenue and the subsidies from high-revenue teams to their low-revenue rivals were increased to $200 million from the current $150 million, which is essentially where the two sides seem to be headed, small-market team values would get a big boost (as was the case in the NBA when the New Orleans Hornets and Memphis Grizzles sold for $338 million and $330 million, respectively, after the league worked out a new labor pact last year). The league’s overall profitability would also increase. But teams like the Carolina Hurricanes, Phoenix Coyotes, Tampa Bay Lightning, Anaheim Ducks and Columbus Blue Jackets would still have trouble making money unless they went at least two rounds in the playoffs."
At least everyone of those teams, with the exception of Columbus, have won some playoff games and even advanced past the 2nd round.

Bongo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 01:06 PM
  #116
cheswick
Registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,728
vCash: 574
FWIW Doug Maclean said on Hockey Central at noon yesterday that when he was the blue jackets president he checked the Forbes numbers yearly and they were usually 10 to 15% off reality; either too high or too low.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 09:22 AM
  #117
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
FWIW Doug Maclean said on Hockey Central at noon yesterday that when he was the blue jackets president he checked the Forbes numbers yearly and they were usually 10 to 15% off reality; either too high or too low.
In July of 2009 pretty much everyone on this board had access to the Coyote's court filing that showed their operating loss for the 2008-2009 season to be $27,087,669. (Of course this is just an estimate because all of the listed items are rounded to the nearest dollar. )

In November of 2009, with the court filings being readily available, Forbe's estimated the operating losses for the Yote's to be $18.5M. This wa up from their estimate of a $9.7M loss in 2007-2008 which we also know was wildly off the mark.

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 10:04 AM
  #118
OmniCube
Registered User
 
OmniCube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 64
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
FWIW Doug Maclean said on Hockey Central at noon yesterday that when he was the blue jackets president he checked the Forbes numbers yearly and they were usually 10 to 15% off reality; either too high or too low.
That's okay, Doug MacLean is usually more than 10-15% off with everything he does.

OmniCube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 03:04 PM
  #119
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
You do realize that lowering salaries that much can only be done if unions exist. I have no idea what self-respecting union would remain intact so they could leave on the table more than half of the money a freer market system would give them.
You do realize that the so called "freer market" would be much smaller than the market currently? How many self-respecting unions would be willing to sacrifice 10-30% of it's jobs just to make sure that the top earners would getting more money?

Oh and were did you get "more than half of the money" from? Source please.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 07:51 PM
  #120
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
You do realize that the so called "freer market" would be much smaller than the market currently? How many self-respecting unions would be willing to sacrifice 10-30% of it's jobs just to make sure that the top earners would getting more money?
I don't give a rat's ass what the union thinks. I think the NHL is too big for 30 teams. Deal with it. You have an odd obsession with my opinions.

No, really? Fewer teams would be a smaller market?

Quote:
Oh and were did you get "more than half of the money" from? Source please.
Pepper, you do realize that asking for sources is only valid when someone claims to know an inside issue or have data, correct?

Also-- do you ever read the posts that are being responded to when someone responds? To make it easier for you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Or they lower player costs until they make enough of a profit that they can afford to build their own arena's... however for that to happen, a couple things would have to change.
In order for that to be viable, if the players had to take less to build arenas, they would be IN MY OPINION leaving half the money on the table.

There's your source. Me.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 12:06 PM
  #121
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I don't give a rat's ass what the union thinks. I think the NHL is too big for 30 teams.
NHL is too big for 30 teams? What do you mean by that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
You have an odd obsession with my opinions.
Sorry to disappoint you, I have no obsessions with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Pepper, you do realize that asking for sources is only valid when someone claims to know an inside issue or have data, correct?
Huh? You made the claim that players are leaving more than half on the table, since that's a somewhat specific estimation (instead of more general claim like "lots of money" etc), I assumed you had some data.

IMHO asking for sources or reasoning is valid whenever claims are made. If someone clearly states that the claim is based on personal opinion, sources shouldn't be asked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Also-- do you ever read the posts that are being responded to when someone responds? To make it easier for you:

In order for that to be viable, if the players had to take less to build arenas, they would be IN MY OPINION leaving half the money on the table.

There's your source. Me.
I'm little confused here. Did I miss an earlier post from you where you said that the claim was based only on your opinion? If so, my bad.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 01:27 PM
  #122
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
NHL is too big for 30 teams? What do you mean by that?
I've written half a tome on the topic, in other threads. If you go to the thread about the sports economist who believes contraction is the real answer, I link to a couple of posts I made in the lockout threads, and have added additional comments in that thread.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 02:59 PM
  #123
flames12
Registered User
 
flames12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 909
vCash: 500
Makes be wonder what the value of the leafs would be if they were good?

flames12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 07:07 AM
  #124
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I've written half a tome on the topic, in other threads. If you go to the thread about the sports economist who believes contraction is the real answer, I link to a couple of posts I made in the lockout threads, and have added additional comments in that thread.
Ok, I think I just read it wrongly ("NHL is too big WITH 30 teams" maybe?)

I think NHL is fine with 30 teams as long as they get the right deal with PA.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 08:32 AM
  #125
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,814
vCash: 500
I think there is enough evidence to illustrate a key point here. Even if the Leafs and Rangers disbursed the majority of their profits to the weaker franchises, it would not be sufficient enough to make those teams financially viable under the current system. ie. cap ceiling is too high, floor is too high, revenue sharing isnt the answer. Fewer teams is an answer, lower cap is another one. Long term, trying to grow fan interest in these weaker markets to charge higher ticket prices and or better national TV deals. Its that simple. Hopefully the owners can relay these concepts to the players in their meeting this week. The numbers just dont add up.

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:33 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.