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.

Panther's arena had net income of ~$90mm from 1998-2008

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-10-2012, 12:29 PM
  #26
PerformanceOil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
There was no "accounting trickery". There was no profit-sharing because the agreement says SSE can keep the first 14 million (/year) in profits before they have to share anything (they would share 20% of the excess). That happened only once, see link below.
Oh yeah, missed that thanks. Just remember the report noting that they had sent too much to the Panthers, and I was wondering what difference it makes to the county?

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Obviously, the ownership would prefer that the Panthers were in the black as well, but they'll gladly accept a team that's in the red if in return it helps them have a lot more black ink elsewhere. They're a loss leader.
Except they don't have a lot of black ink elsewhere. They paid more than 100% of the arena profits back into the Panthers. The only question, was how profitable (or not) were the Panthers after this subsidy.

The only thing left, is maybe they made some money on real-estate development around the arena.

But, again, even if this is true, I don't think the county is making out very well on the arena deal.

I guess the only real question is what would the net gain/loss be for everyone (SSE and the County) if the arena was built without the Panthers - assuming that the arena is a net positive in 'community value' (but maybe a smaller cheaper arena could be built for the other events that the city has demand for).

PerformanceOil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 01:18 PM
  #27
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by albatross View Post
As for the team itself should have to make money, who says so? Not the cities they are located in, not the league. I'm sure they would enjoy making a profit just on the team, but it's not strictly necessary.
There's a reason why the league is looking to reduce player salaries...

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís 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
12-10-2012, 01:56 PM
  #28
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
Without tye panthers, that arena losses money. Can the same be said for the failing restaurant?
You cannot say that. What you can say is that SSE can only pocket arena profits IF it also provides the Panthers as an anchor tenant. There is no "what if" analysis that suggests the arena would be losing money without the Panthers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerformanceOil View Post
Oh yeah, missed that thanks. Just remember the report noting that they had sent too much to the Panthers, and I was wondering what difference it makes to the county?
From the audit report:

"Unallowable distributions reduce AOCís cash reserves which are required to meet their County obligations and create additional risk to the County."

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerformanceOil View Post
Except they don't have a lot of black ink elsewhere. They paid more than 100% of the arena profits back into the Panthers. The only question, was how profitable (or not) were the Panthers after this subsidy.
This is due to big payments in FY 2005 (October 2004-September 2005 i.e. the lockout year), a year during which arena net income was much lower. AOC retains a bunch of revenues during hockey events according to the report: food/merchandise, suites, club seats... so long story short, there's really not much of a way to answer that question.

barneyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 02:12 PM
  #29
Screw You Rick Nash
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Screw You Rick Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,258
vCash: 3000
Wasn't there recently an article with the Panthers' CEO saying something like how it's good for their company to have a hockey team there, even if they are losing money? I'm pretty sure he also said that they help make the entire sports and entertainment complex there profitable, even if team itself is losing money.

__________________
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<
-]>++++++.>+.+++++++++++++++.>+++++++++.<-.
>-------.<<-----.>----.>.<<+++++++++++.>-------------
-.+++++++++++++.-------.--.+++++++++++++.+.>+.>.

New and improved Hockey Standings
"A jimmie for a jimmie makes the whole world rustled." ó -31-
Screw You Rick Nash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 03:18 PM
  #30
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 24,569
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerformanceOil View Post
Except they don't have a lot of black ink elsewhere. They paid more than 100% of the arena profits back into the Panthers. The only question, was how profitable (or not) were the Panthers after this subsidy.

The only thing left, is maybe they made some money on real-estate development around the arena.

But, again, even if this is true, I don't think the county is making out very well on the arena deal.

I guess the only real question is what would the net gain/loss be for everyone (SSE and the County) if the arena was built without the Panthers - assuming that the arena is a net positive in 'community value' (but maybe a smaller cheaper arena could be built for the other events that the city has demand for).
First of all, Panthers ownership could care less if it's good for the county or not. None of their concern, nor do I think that the financial well-being of the city/county/state/province is high up in the minds of any sports owner that gets public monies for their arena construction and/or management.

Second, yes, it does include the local real estate development. They use the arena as a draw for other real estate development in the area and they wouldn't be able to do that unless they had the Panthers as a primary tenant there. So, they're losing money in the realm of professional sports to make money in real estate. As such, they're not looking to sell. If that weren't the case, and they were hemorrhaging money and not making it up elsewhere with the implicit need of having the team to make said money, they would've given the boot to the team years ago and accepted a cool hundred million+ from some Canadian market in a heartbeat.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 03:39 PM
  #31
PerformanceOil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
First of all, Panthers ownership could care less if it's good for the county or not. None of their concern, nor do I think that the financial well-being of the city/county/state/province is high up in the minds of any sports owner that gets public monies for their arena construction and/or management.
Sure, but I care. My team is trying to get a new arena, and I would prefer my city not to have to accept a bad deal to get it.

Bottom line to me - if you own an NHL team, it should either be feasible to lease an arena at a rate where both you and the arena managers make profit, or privately build and debt service an arena with the money from the team and other events, with some money left over for profits.

There is probably some room for public subsidies, since I think these projects can benefit cities, but it shouldn't be required at the levels that it seems to be.

Like I said, the business model doesn't seem sustainable, and seems to require 'legacy project' thinking on the behalf of city councils to actually occur.

PerformanceOil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 04:19 PM
  #32
epo
Registered User
 
epo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 327
vCash: 500
This thread should be merged wit the other one on the same topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
AOC retains a bunch of revenues during hockey events according to the report: food/merchandise, suites, club seats
This is a important detail that sports writers seem to miss.

epo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 04:27 PM
  #33
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 24,569
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerformanceOil View Post
Sure, but I care. My team is trying to get a new arena, and I would prefer my city not to have to accept a bad deal to get it.

Bottom line to me - if you own an NHL team, it should either be feasible to lease an arena at a rate where both you and the arena managers make profit, or privately build and debt service an arena with the money from the team and other events, with some money left over for profits.

There is probably some room for public subsidies, since I think these projects can benefit cities, but it shouldn't be required at the levels that it seems to be.

Like I said, the business model doesn't seem sustainable, and seems to require 'legacy project' thinking on the behalf of city councils to actually occur.
That's nice and all, but you're not arguing from a logical standpoint from the owner's/league's perspective. If they can get someone else to pick up the check, or someone else to give up the rights to something, then it's in their best interest to do so like any business.

Certainly may be bad in the long run from the locals, much as I think that the deal that's on the table will absolutely wreck Glendale before it's all said and done, but it's an extremely good deal for the league and Jamison, so props to them for negotiating it. Same goes for the Panthers' arena deal, the deal that looks to be passing the Michigan state legislature for the Wings' new arena, and just about any other arena/stadium plan you can imagine that has gotten public monies or other forms of public support. It being bad for others isn't on the radar for the team owners and league, so it's not really reasonable to expect anyone to suddenly back away from that unless they absolutely have to.

There might very well be deals that are beneficial to both sides, but why stop at an arm if the owners/league can get a leg, too?

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 06:27 PM
  #34
Dr Beinfest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Orlando, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,014
vCash: 500
I don't understand why some people still persist even after this information as been presented (and something Panthers fans have been saying for a long time)...


They're a financially stable team who as a whole operates in the positive (even if you don't like the way it goes down). They've shown they can have a phenomenal live experience if the right team is on the ice... so the fans are fairweather and that sucks and all but I mean that's how most teams are down here. It's got little to do with hockey, and more to do with the fact that it's a winning-only area. Even the Heat's arena was a ghost town when they sucked, not too long after winning a championship.

Dr Beinfest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 08:50 PM
  #35
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Beinfest View Post
I don't understand why some people still persist even after this information as been presented (and something Panthers fans have been saying for a long time)...

They're a financially stable team who as a whole operates in the positive (even if you don't like the way it goes down). They've shown they can have a phenomenal live experience if the right team is on the ice... so the fans are fairweather and that sucks and all but I mean that's how most teams are down here. It's got little to do with hockey, and more to do with the fact that it's a winning-only area. Even the Heat's arena was a ghost town when they sucked, not too long after winning a championship.
Very few posts in this thread actually claim the opposite. If you read the whole thread you'll see the Panthers aren't really the main topic even though they were the starting point.

barneyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 10:12 PM
  #36
Gallatin
A Banksy of Goonism
 
Gallatin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
Very few posts in this thread actually claim the opposite. If you read the whole thread you'll see the Panthers aren't really the main topic even though they were the starting point.
Some data to consider.
I went through the Auditors Report of Arena Operations 1998-2008 for this facility a few weeks back. They did really well the first few years they were open, but from 2002-2008 they averaged less than 7mil profit per year.

That's with 10mil per year in Arena development bonds covered by local taxes.

It has commonly been reported the Panthers have lost on average 7.5 mil per season over the last 10 years....

Gallatin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 03:54 AM
  #37
flapanthersfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallatin View Post
Some data to consider.
I went through the Auditors Report of Arena Operations 1998-2008 for this facility a few weeks back. They did really well the first few years they were open, but from 2002-2008 they averaged less than 7mil profit per year.

That's with 10mil per year in Arena development bonds covered by local taxes.

It has commonly been reported the Panthers have lost on average 7.5 mil per season over the last 10 years....
income in 2006 was over 11m. 2007 was over 9m. 2008 was over 8m.

facts: they're awesome.

flapanthersfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 03:56 AM
  #38
flapanthersfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
Very few posts in this thread actually claim the opposite. If you read the whole thread you'll see the Panthers aren't really the main topic even though they were the starting point.
regardless of it being the main topic or not, you still see a couple of ignorant posters come in from time to time and attempt to paint the panthers as a viable relocation target, when they obviously aren't.

i assume that was his point, anyway.

flapanthersfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 10:36 AM
  #39
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,558
vCash: 500
The Parent company that owns both them and the arena management contract makes money. The franchise does not and the franchise cannot stand on its own as it exists now.

The differences between the arena management company, the Panthers, and the parent company have to be distinguished.

Much of the success of the parent company has to do with their business operations that have almost nothing to do with the hockey franchise.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 11:05 AM
  #40
Undertakerqc
Registered User
 
Undertakerqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
Hockey in Florida does not make sense, and its been a failure in my humble opinion. The only time they sell out is when a big northeastern team visits them. No wonder the new realignment had them playing in the Northeast.

Undertakerqc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 11:06 AM
  #41
PanthersHockey1
Avs Bandwagon
 
PanthersHockey1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UF & Boca Raton
Country: United States
Posts: 5,477
vCash: 500
No one mentions that the existing structure of the panthers will certainly be benefited by their winning ways. Having one of the best prospects pools in the league should hopefully mean more playoff appearances. Im sure this past season was a much better one in revenues than the previous decades.

When the panthers start winning, which is very soon imo its just icing on the cake of an overall profitable venture for SSE.

PanthersHockey1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 11:09 AM
  #42
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,248
vCash: 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by flapanthersfan View Post
regardless of it being the main topic or not, you still see a couple of ignorant posters come in from time to time and attempt to paint the panthers as a viable relocation target, when they obviously aren't.

i assume that was his point, anyway.
It is not simply "ignorant posters" that suggest the Panthers are a relocation target as you claim, but rather, it is most often the press and anyone with a read on league business. Whenever relocation is discussed on Hockey Central for example, the hosts always mention the Panthers as a team that could possibly move; they don't suggest that name within a vacuum, it is based upon the best available information they are able to gather from their league sources.

.5 of a second on Google returns stories such as this one...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle5830873/

So while it is great that the team earns money via arena operations, the fact of the matter is that the league is better served to be located in markets that make money on NHL operations; the players by extension are better served by having teams located in areas where the operations grow their salaries - versus contract from the percentage of revenues that the players' take.

Gump Hasek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 11:12 AM
  #43
PanthersHockey1
Avs Bandwagon
 
PanthersHockey1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UF & Boca Raton
Country: United States
Posts: 5,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
It is not simply "ignorant posters" that suggest the Panthers are a relocation target as you claim, but rather, it is most often the press and anyone with a read on league business. Whenever relocation is discussed on Hockey Central for example, the hosts always mention the Panthers as a team that could possibly move; they don't suggest that name within a vacuum, it is based upon the best available information they are able to gather from their league sources.

.5 of a second on Google returns stories such as this one...
http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2...-for-the-game/

So while it is great that the team earns money via arena operations, the fact of the matter is that the league is better served to be located in markets that make money on NHL operations; the players by extension are better served by having teams located in areas where the operations grow their salaries - versus contract from the percentage of revenues that the players' take.
So youre in favor of relocating all the teams in lose money? Which figure was it again only 13 teams in the league earn a profit?

Your ideas are golden in theory but not applicable to the panthers in the real world. sorry.

PanthersHockey1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 11:23 AM
  #44
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,248
vCash: 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanthersHockey1 View Post
So youre in favor of relocating all the teams in lose money? Which figure was it again only 13 teams in the league earn a profit?

Your ideas are golden in theory but not applicable to the panthers in the real world. sorry.
Not sure how you extrapolated that? Try instead to address what I actually said next time.

They aren't my ideas, and I didn't suggest that any and all teams lose money should be relocated, just that some connected people do believe the Panthers to be a potential target. In the real world what matters to the league is that their teams make money on NHL operations, and this is even more important to the players now given that their percentage of the revenue take is set to decline.

Gump Hasek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 11:31 AM
  #45
impeach estaalo
RIPronrefo nevar4get
 
impeach estaalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,565
vCash: 50
I'm looking forward to seeing the Panthers go from a profitable team engaging in accounting trickery to a money-losing sunbelt team that is a drain on the league as soon as the lockout ends.

impeach estaalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 12:21 PM
  #46
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
It is not simply "ignorant posters" that suggest the Panthers are a relocation target as you claim, but rather, it is most often the press and anyone with a read on league business. Whenever relocation is discussed on Hockey Central for example, the hosts always mention the Panthers as a team that could possibly move; they don't suggest that name within a vacuum, it is based upon the best available information they are able to gather from their league sources.

.5 of a second on Google returns stories such as this one...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle5830873/

So while it is great that the team earns money via arena operations, the fact of the matter is that the league is better served to be located in markets that make money on NHL operations; the players by extension are better served by having teams located in areas where the operations grow their salaries - versus contract from the percentage of revenues that the players' take.
Laughable. First of all, that's Jeremy Roenick. Not the brightest bulb, especially when we are talking business of hockey. You really trust that everyone working IN CANADA have no ulterior motive and are just looking out for the game? Or maybe the HC guys always like to talk Florida relocation since it panders to their HOCKEY IS OUR GAME demographic? You really think the media is above this type of manipulation. They have an audience to please, and attacking the evil south is a very easy way to do it, particularly with little understanding of the financials of the game of hockey or franchises in the south, which happens constantly here in Canada.

So some economist says the gap between poor and rich teams is big. Ok. So contract the lowest earners (which since your such a fan of flawed media numbers, Florida isn't even among the bottom 4!). It just changes where the line is. Now since the average revenue has been increased by so much, instead of NYI, PHO, CAR, CBS being the lowest earners and struggling, now it's FLA, TBL, NSH, STL. Oh no! More dirty southern teams. Let's just contract them. Driving the average revenue even higher, meaning now that COL, ANA, BUF, MIN are the teams at the bottom of the revenue pie and the ones struggling. And guess what, precious Canadian teams like EDM, WPG, OTT, WSH are BARELY higher than those teams, and any given year can be at the bottom and losing money. Moving the bottom teams accomplishes nothing.

Some people just cannot STAND the fact that Florida has set themselves up with a solid business model, a developing fanbase and as an overall strong business. It scares people that hockey can work in the south, since they know that will eventually Canada will no longer be the center of the hockey world. Deal with it.

__________________


Holden Caulfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 12:50 PM
  #47
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 24,569
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
The Parent company that owns both them and the arena management contract makes money. The franchise does not and the franchise cannot stand on its own as it exists now.
Well, if the current ownership ever wants to sell but keep everything else they have, then you might have a point. Doubt that someone would want to buy them and keep them in that market without all the ancillary revenue streams that they have access to.

But, as that isn't the case, the fact that the team probably doesn't have stable legs on its own doesn't matter. The current ownership isn't looking to sell or move. That's pretty much the only criteria there is for potential relocation.

Quote:
The differences between the arena management company, the Panthers, and the parent company have to be distinguished.

Much of the success of the parent company has to do with their business operations that have almost nothing to do with the hockey franchise.
If that were the case though, then why would the parent company keep owning the team if it was just a massive money sink with no end in sight, knowing full well that they could've easily gotten a hundred million+ dollars from Winnipeg up until the Thrashers moved and from Quebec City now? Somehow doubt that the desire to just own a pro sports team is the only thing keeping them in the game here.

The differences are meaningless if the team's being used as a loss-leader for their arena management rights and regional real estate development plans.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:28 PM
  #48
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
If that were the case though, then why would the parent company keep owning the team if it was just a massive money sink with no end in sight, knowing full well that they could've easily gotten a hundred million+ dollars from Winnipeg up until the Thrashers moved and from Quebec City now? Somehow doubt that the desire to just own a pro sports team is the only thing keeping them in the game here.

The differences are meaningless if the team's being used as a loss-leader for their arena management rights and regional real estate development plans.
Yes and no. Yes it is meaningless to the team's owners. However it's not meaningless to the NHL or the players (especially them as it impacts their money directly). However as long as the owners are content to keep the team there, then other than trying to secure the best CBA possible, there's not a lot they can do.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:54 PM
  #49
pondnorth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Laughable. First of all, that's Jeremy Roenick. Not the brightest bulb, especially when we are talking business of hockey. You really trust that everyone working IN CANADA have no ulterior motive and are just looking out for the game? Or maybe the HC guys always like to talk Florida relocation since it panders to their HOCKEY IS OUR GAME demographic? You really think the media is above this type of manipulation. They have an audience to please, and attacking the evil south is a very easy way to do it, particularly with little understanding of the financials of the game of hockey or franchises in the south, which happens constantly here in Canada.

So some economist says the gap between poor and rich teams is big. Ok. So contract the lowest earners (which since your such a fan of flawed media numbers, Florida isn't even among the bottom 4!). It just changes where the line is. Now since the average revenue has been increased by so much, instead of NYI, PHO, CAR, CBS being the lowest earners and struggling, now it's FLA, TBL, NSH, STL. Oh no! More dirty southern teams. Let's just contract them. Driving the average revenue even higher, meaning now that COL, ANA, BUF, MIN are the teams at the bottom of the revenue pie and the ones struggling. And guess what, precious Canadian teams like EDM, WPG, OTT, WSH are BARELY higher than those teams, and any given year can be at the bottom and losing money. Moving the bottom teams accomplishes nothing.

Some people just cannot STAND the fact that Florida has set themselves up with a solid business model, a developing fanbase and as an overall strong business. It scares people that hockey can work in the south, since they know that will eventually Canada will no longer be the center of the hockey world. Deal with it.
So when i turn on my tv and tune in Center Ice and see the Panthers game playing to a near empty building i`m supposed to believe that this is a solid business model for a nhl hockey franchise because some guy on the net says so.Makes perfect sense,carry on.

pondnorth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 02:13 PM
  #50
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,248
vCash: 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Laughable. First of all, that's Jeremy Roenick. Not the brightest bulb, especially when we are talking business of hockey. You really trust that everyone working IN CANADA have no ulterior motive and are just looking out for the game? Or maybe the HC guys always like to talk Florida relocation since it panders to their HOCKEY IS OUR GAME demographic? You really think the media is above this type of manipulation. They have an audience to please, and attacking the evil south is a very easy way to do it, particularly with little understanding of the financials of the game of hockey or franchises in the south, which happens constantly here in Canada.

So some economist says the gap between poor and rich teams is big. Ok. So contract the lowest earners (which since your such a fan of flawed media numbers, Florida isn't even among the bottom 4!). It just changes where the line is. Now since the average revenue has been increased by so much, instead of NYI, PHO, CAR, CBS being the lowest earners and struggling, now it's FLA, TBL, NSH, STL. Oh no! More dirty southern teams. Let's just contract them. Driving the average revenue even higher, meaning now that COL, ANA, BUF, MIN are the teams at the bottom of the revenue pie and the ones struggling. And guess what, precious Canadian teams like EDM, WPG, OTT, WSH are BARELY higher than those teams, and any given year can be at the bottom and losing money. Moving the bottom teams accomplishes nothing.

Some people just cannot STAND the fact that Florida has set themselves up with a solid business model, a developing fanbase and as an overall strong business. It scares people that hockey can work in the south, since they know that will eventually Canada will no longer be the center of the hockey world. Deal with it.
You know what is laughable? That you extrapolated the "our game" stuff from a comment that was intended as a simple throwaway suggestion of one of the myriad of outlets that suggest Florida to be a relocation target. Frankly, there is little to differentiate the operating income results of the teams that finished 25-29 in that category. They could all go for all I care, via relocation, contraction, no difference. So I'm just as in favor of saying sayonara to Columbus and NYI as to any other franchise - including Florida, but thanks regardless for presuming to know what I "trust" and "think". Nice rant.

Gump Hasek 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 10:33 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.