HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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
12-11-2012, 02:27 PM
  #51
Sanderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 4,739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pondnorth View Post
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.
No, but you probably should go and let a doctor take a look at your eyesight, because the Panthers are far away from playing in an "near empty arena".

The Panthers had a horrible team for years, guess what, that tends to hurt the attendance. Teams depend on the succes they have, Colorado and Dallas had great numbers in the past, then they had a severe drop in talent which caused their attendance to crumble. Detroit had horrible attendance figures in the 80s, yet great numbers since they have a winning team. It's simply incomprehensibly that some people can't understand this very simple process.

Heck, the average attendance of most of the Canadian teams had also been far below capacity in quite a few years of the past, yet somehow certain people have completely forgotten about that. It may not have happened in the very recent past but it did happen. So if those teams were allowed to continue and have a chance to move beyond that stage, so should every other team in the league.

Sanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 02:58 PM
  #52
PanthersHockey1
Avs Bandwagon
 
PanthersHockey1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UF & Boca Raton
Country: United States
Posts: 5,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
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.
Im sure you must've been a big proponent for winnipeg leaving in 1996 then for similar economic reasons.

PanthersHockey1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 03:07 PM
  #53
Finlandia WOAT
Do U Like Quebec?
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
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.
He has a point though.

Contracting the 4 lowest income earners doesn't fix the income disparity problem. It just moves the total revenue of the League up on paper. Yet the money that the League was actually earning did not change. All that changed was negative expenditures being removed. So the salary cap will increase without an actual increase in revenue, and we are back at the problem of having several teams that can not afford to pay the salary cap.

Finlandia WOAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 03:29 PM
  #54
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
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.



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.
We agree on most points. I never suggested Florida was a possible target for relocation but I was trying to clarify that the earnings for the parent company of the hockey franchise are made in large part because of business transactions that have almost nothing to do with hockey operations or the franchise.

Some posts imply or seem to imply that the Panthers make money when they don't. SSE makes money from their company managing the arena and the Panthers are tied to it.

I don't think the Panthers are going to be a relocation target anytime soon and the arena management rights will be tied to the franchise for a long time based on how things are going.

No matter what anybody does, the Panthers will be hard pressed to make money but that doesn't mean they aren't a viable and stable franchise right now because the franchise doesn't sit on an island by itself.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 03:34 PM
  #55
The Zetterberg Era
Moderator
Nyquist Explosion!
 
The Zetterberg Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ft. Myers, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 17,686
vCash: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
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.
You're avoiding the legal consequences of moving one of these teams. The only thing that makes the Phoenix situation completely confusing is they have now entered a period of time where moving them is an option legally. Florida, Columbus and the NYI now all have longterm lease deals. They aren't moving and I doubt very much that the other NHL owners want to pool together money to buy out not only the owner but the local governments that would come after them.

The Zetterberg Era is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 03:46 PM
  #56
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWings19405 View Post
You're avoiding the legal consequences of moving one of these teams. The only thing that makes the Phoenix situation completely confusing is they have now entered a period of time where moving them is an option legally. Florida, Columbus and the NYI now all have longterm lease deals. They aren't moving and I doubt very much that the other NHL owners want to pool together money to buy out not only the owner but the local governments that would come after them.
Just want to point out the Islanders are moving at the start of the 2015-16 season. That said you are correct on the lease thing as they won't be moving until the current lease in Nassau county expires.

tantalum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 04:46 PM
  #57
The Zetterberg Era
Moderator
Nyquist Explosion!
 
The Zetterberg Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ft. Myers, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 17,686
vCash: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
Just want to point out the Islanders are moving at the start of the 2015-16 season. That said you are correct on the lease thing as they won't be moving until the current lease in Nassau county expires.
They also just signed in Brooklyn was more of my point. I guess you could see that as a move, but they are staying in the New York area. They have now agreed to something that runs for a long time and should be removed off the relocation list.

The Zetterberg Era is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 06:17 PM
  #58
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,515
vCash: 500
I would probably put money on team losses being higher than earnings from the arena.

Anyway, even if the Panthers weren't playing there, chances are such an asset would turn a profit of $10M per year anyway.

SuperUnknown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 06:34 PM
  #59
The Zetterberg Era
Moderator
Nyquist Explosion!
 
The Zetterberg Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ft. Myers, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 17,686
vCash: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUnknown View Post
I would probably put money on team losses being higher than earnings from the arena.

Anyway, even if the Panthers weren't playing there, chances are such an asset would turn a profit of $10M per year anyway.
Maybe they use the Panthers broadcasts and ad spaces in the area to push other events. They are very cooperative in pushing the total package as an events center around their major tenant. I am not saying it wouldn't be successful, but I think the Panthers do a great job of helping that arena.

The Zetterberg Era is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 08:07 PM
  #60
seawolves
IT'S BOSS TIME!!!
 
seawolves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
Just want to point out the Islanders are moving at the start of the 2015-16 season. That said you are correct on the lease thing as they won't be moving until the current lease in Nassau county expires.
And in 2015 begins the Islanders 25 year lease at Barclays Center.

seawolves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 08:42 PM
  #61
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUnknown View Post
Anyway, even if the Panthers weren't playing there, chances are such an asset would turn a profit of $10M per year anyway.
Actually, from the actual report (table 1), net income for the arena was:

1999: $15.325 million
2000: $12.674 million
2001: $12.305 million
2002: $7.387 million
2003: $5.148 million
2004: $6.497 million
2005: $1.024 million
2006: $11.710 million
2007: $9.576 million
2008: $8.257 million

AOC's fiscal year-end date is September 30. Guess what was so special about FY 2005?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the actual numbers suggest that the only year without the Panthers was also by far the worst year. Don't forget that AOC pockets net profits from food/merchandise, suites and club seats for Panthers games too.

barneyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 08:56 PM
  #62
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
Actually, from the actual report (table 1), net income for the arena was:

1999: $15.325 million
2000: $12.674 million
2001: $12.305 million
2002: $7.387 million
2003: $5.148 million
2004: $6.497 million
2005: $1.024 million
2006: $11.710 million
2007: $9.576 million
2008: $8.257 million

AOC's fiscal year-end date is September 30. Guess what was so special about FY 2005?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the actual numbers suggest that the only year without the Panthers was also by far the worst year. Don't forget that AOC pockets net profits from food/merchandise, suites and club seats for Panthers games too.
Interesting.

__________________
"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
12-11-2012, 09:41 PM
  #63
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Knowing that this isn't a serious comment, I'll answer regardless. MLSE is more than just the Leafs. They're making money off of the Marlies, Raptors, ACC and whatever else they own.
of course. but the original point did underscore the upside-down world the lockout has created in terms of discrete profits and losses. to be fair, the leafs should at least get credit on next years sharing payment for their net leafs loss this year, however their accountants slice it out from the big corporate pie. and it will be a loss. leafs expenses will exceed leafs revenues as long as the lockout lasts. and its the leafs that count, not the marlies, raptors, concerts, beer and sushi. it's hrr in revenue sharing. and their loss will indeed likely be one of, if not, the largest in the league because of the lockout.

GuelphStormer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 10:43 PM
  #64
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
Actually, from the actual report (table 1), net income for the arena was:

1999: $15.325 million
2000: $12.674 million
2001: $12.305 million
2002: $7.387 million
2003: $5.148 million
2004: $6.497 million
2005: $1.024 million
2006: $11.710 million
2007: $9.576 million
2008: $8.257 million

AOC's fiscal year-end date is September 30. Guess what was so special about FY 2005?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the actual numbers suggest that the only year without the Panthers was also by far the worst year. Don't forget that AOC pockets net profits from food/merchandise, suites and club seats for Panthers games too.
The implication with the 2005 number is misleading for a number of reasons.
They sent 10 million to the Panthers in 2005 (4 million more than in 2004 for some reason, guessing taxes and/or for restructuring purposes, Table 3 of the audit linked below).
AOC shorted the county 8.4 million over the course of the audit, looks like 2005 was one of those offending years based on the rules in the audit.
Operating expenses were nearly identical in 2004 and 2005, SSE had to pay for operating expenses and didn't have all the dates utilized because of the lockout. Revenues were only down 7 million in 2005 despite the lack of a hockey season for the arena and despite dumping significantly more cash into the Panthers that year.

Refinancing also referenced in 2004, 2006, and 2007 in the audit but not enough info is included to speculate on all implications for SSE

Here was the screwed up backwards article that lead to all the followup articles about a month ago:
http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...at-lose-money/

Here's the audit of AOC (not it's not SSE or the Panthers):
http://www.broward.org/Auditor/Docum...inal052510.pdf

It appears that AOC averaged about 17-18 million from 99-08 while the Panthers took an average loss of about 7.5 million per year except in 2005 (Forbes).

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 10:22 AM
  #65
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
The implication with the 2005 number is misleading for a number of reasons.
They sent 10 million to the Panthers in 2005 (4 million more than in 2004 for some reason, guessing taxes and/or for restructuring purposes, Table 3 of the audit linked below).
AOC shorted the county 8.4 million over the course of the audit, looks like 2005 was one of those offending years based on the rules in the audit.

Operating expenses were nearly identical in 2004 and 2005, SSE had to pay for operating expenses and didn't have all the dates utilized because of the lockout. Revenues were only down 7 million in 2005 despite the lack of a hockey season for the arena and despite dumping significantly more cash into the Panthers that year.

It appears that AOC averaged about 17-18 million from 99-08 while the Panthers took an average loss of about 7.5 million per year except in 2005 (Forbes).
I think we've linked the audit report enough in this thread now Just a few comments:

1) your "AOC shorted the county 8.4 million over the course of the audit" comment suggests AOC defrauded the County. This is completely false and isn't what the audit report suggested. What the report states is that AOC unduly decreased its own cash reserves by distributing more than its net income to the Panthers. This wasn't allowed under the terms of their agreement, but with or without that move, the County gets exactly the same amount of money.

2) if operating expenses stayed the same while revenues were down 7 million when going from 2004 to 2005, don't you think the most reasonable explanation is that AOC benefits from the presence of the Panthers without incurring much in terms of costs? If you have an alternative explanation I'd like to hear it, but so far I'm not convinced that something is "only" 7 million when that's actually 30-50% of arena profits before County payments, and roughly 75% of arena profits after County payments.

3) "despite dumping significantly more cash into the Panthers that year" -- what the Panthers did with that money is outside the scope of the audit. I'm not sure why you are suggesting that decreasing AOC's cash reserves should have any effect on that year's actual revenues.

4) how do the numbers imply that "AOC averaged 17-18 million from 1999-2008"? the average income before county obligations was $13.3 million ($133 million over 10 years), dropping to ~$9 million after paying the county. that's a far cry from 17-18.

barneyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 12:42 AM
  #66
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
I think we've linked the audit report enough in this thread now Just a few comments:
Quote:
1) your "AOC shorted the county 8.4 million over the course of the audit" comment suggests AOC defrauded the County. This is completely false and isn't what the audit report suggested. What the report states is that AOC unduly decreased its own cash reserves by distributing more than its net income to the Panthers. This wasn't allowed under the terms of their agreement, but with or without that move, the County gets exactly the same amount of money.
You are correct, I worded my point poorly. My point was about the shuffling of cash from the profitable AOC to the Panthers when they shouldn't have. That's what I meant by "shorting the county". They violated their agreement.

Quote:
2) if operating expenses stayed the same while revenues were down 7 million when going from 2004 to 2005, don't you think the most reasonable explanation is that AOC benefits from the presence of the Panthers without incurring much in terms of costs?
Of course AOC probably benefits to an extent but SSE does not because the Panthers still post a loss year over year.
2005 does not paint a clear picture that AOC is so profitable because of the Panthers. We know their is some gain for AOC because of the Panthers but there is not nearly enough information available to suggest that Panthers make them more revenue than if they had the rest of those dates (especially all those weekends) to schedule concerts and other big events on their own. In 2005, not only were the Panthers paid more which lowered AOC's numbers(the difference puts them close to 2004 numbers) but they were tied down with costs and did not have the availability to schedule other events. We don't know how revenue generated from other events flucuates from year to year. So while possible, I find very unlikely that AOC is net beneficiary of the Panthers compared to if AOC could operate on its own without them. I say that within the scope of what we saw from Cohen and SSE during the last lockout as well.

We agree AOC sees some benefit, but we disagree on how significant that amount was. I believe it was much more modest than many imply.

Quote:
3) "despite dumping significantly more cash into the Panthers that year" -- what the Panthers did with that money is outside the scope of the audit. I'm not sure why you are suggesting that decreasing AOC's cash reserves should have any effect on that year's actual revenues.
To reference 2005 means you have to reference 2008 too where the arena nets 8 and the Panthers lose 9.4. My point about the cash is that it moves around, probably for a number of reasons. For people to suggest AOC takes money from the Panthers, why wouldn't the Panthers take more money from AOC to offset the tax liability if it could be done? I think the reach for either one is similar.

I'll use one quote from the Sun Sentinel instead of linking other articles.
"It should be noted that SSE did cover its debt service when the last NHL lockout wiped out the 1004-05 season. At the time, then-Panthers owner Alan Cohen said he would lose considerably less money without hockey than the previous season."
It was better that year for them to not have hockey regardless of the limited earnings listed for AOC in the limited info given in the audit, and other than 1 line on the audit out of context of everything else there is no reason to suggest the Panthers would have made AOC or SSE more money that year if they had hockey. SSE was barely profitable in 2004 and negative in 2003.

Quote:
4) how do the numbers imply that "AOC averaged 17-18 million from 1999-2008"? the average income before county obligations was $13.3 million ($133 million over 10 years), dropping to ~$9 million after paying the county. that's a far cry from 17-18.
17-18 million were the expenses. We know AOC and the Panthers move money between each other through SSE but we don't know specifics or business structure. We see a proportional increase in expenses and income after the lockout that also makes it difficult to link AOC's profitability to the hockey franchise.

Cohen still has interests so we'll have to wait for the biography.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 04:10 AM
  #67
flapanthersfan
Registered User
 
flapanthersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,927
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.
MOD

you couldn't be anymore wrong about what the NHL needs, or what the NHL "wants". it's been pretty damn clear the NHL wants to grow the game in the US and the only way to do that is to have stakes in America's biggest markets. South Florida is one of them, and is why we were awarded a franchise many moons ago. Atlanta was an entirely different situation so don't even bring it up.

the hockey team loses money, but the organization doesn't. if cliff viner relocates the Panthers, AOC & SSE cease to exist.


Last edited by kdb209: 12-13-2012 at 10:32 AM. Reason: flaming
flapanthersfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 04:20 AM
  #68
flapanthersfan
Registered User
 
flapanthersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
Actually, from the actual report (table 1), net income for the arena was:

1999: $15.325 million
2000: $12.674 million
2001: $12.305 million
2002: $7.387 million
2003: $5.148 million
2004: $6.497 million
2005: $1.024 million
2006: $11.710 million
2007: $9.576 million
2008: $8.257 million

AOC's fiscal year-end date is September 30. Guess what was so special about FY 2005?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the actual numbers suggest that the only year without the Panthers was also by far the worst year. Don't forget that AOC pockets net profits from food/merchandise, suites and club seats for Panthers games too.

probably sponsorships and ads as well, and if you're ever been in the BB&T center, you'd see how shameless they are with their advertising. there's an add on every inch of the arena - so much so that our beat writer (George Richards) refers to the arena as "The Billboard" without the Panthers, theres absolutely no way they get that type of sponsorship.

it's all creative accounting. making the panthers a loss leader. it hasn't even been mentioned here that exaggerating the panthers losses also benefits the organization thru NHL revenue sharing.

regardless, we're all just speculating because we don't have access to the books - but if you assume forbes numbers are accurate, SSE is profitable most years.

flapanthersfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 07:18 AM
  #69
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,382
vCash: 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by flapanthersfan View Post
MOD.

you couldn't be anymore wrong about what the NHL needs, or what the NHL "wants". it's been pretty damn clear the NHL wants to grow the game in the US and the only way to do that is to have stakes in America's biggest markets. South Florida is one of them, and is why we were awarded a franchise many moons ago. Atlanta was an entirely different situation so don't even bring it up.

the hockey team loses money, but the organization doesn't. if cliff viner relocates the Panthers, AOC & SSE cease to exist.
MOD

It might surprise you to find out that the NHL consists of businesses whose main goal is the selling of hockey. In a follow-up post you claimed that "it's all creative accounting. making the panthers a loss leader. it hasn't even been mentioned here that exaggerating the panthers losses also benefits the organization thru NHL revenue sharing." I'm sure the players would appreciate an admission that the Florida franchise is possibly being used to show a loss that reduces their overall take of HRR. The Panthers existence doesn't really act as much of a benefit to them if your claims are true. Surely the league partners would also be interested as well to find out that a partner is perhaps exaggerating losses in an effort to extract more revenue share money from teams that actually earn versus take - if your claims are true that is.

It matters little in the grand scheme to the league if AOC & SSE were to cease to exist - given that the league partners receive little of those profits to begin with. In fact, basis your theory that the league needs to grow the game in that region, it seems then that they've a potential burgeoning failure on their hands if growth of the hockey business is used as a defining metric - given that the Panthers television ratings are absolutely tiny, as are their miniature annual gate receipts of just $25 million annually (as per Forbes). Not much growth to be found there in fact. That the organization shows annual losses north of $10 million after receiving millions in annual revenue sharing speaks to the weakness of the underlying business. There is a difference between the pursuit of illusory growth (see: Florida Panthers) and actual growth. If the NHL was truly seeking financial growth then they'd probably ditch the franchise that costs the players from an HRR perspective, and costs the league from a revenue perspective annually, and would replace it with a guaranteed money maker elsewhere (see: GTA, QC).


Last edited by kdb209: 12-13-2012 at 10:35 AM. Reason: flaming
Gump Hasek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 11:54 AM
  #70
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
In 2005, not only were the Panthers paid more which lowered AOC's numbers(the difference puts them close to 2004 numbers) but they were tied down with costs and did not have the availability to schedule other events. We don't know how revenue generated from other events flucuates from year to year. So while possible, I find very unlikely that AOC is net beneficiary of the Panthers compared to if AOC could operate on its own without them. I say that within the scope of what we saw from Cohen and SSE during the last lockout as well.
I think you don't understand that distributions to the Panthers neither affect AOC revenues nor AOC expenses (and therefore do not affect AOC net income either). With or without the $6.1 million distribution in 2004, AOC's net income is still exactly $6.5 million. With or without the $10.1 million distribution in 2005, AOC's net income is still exactly $1 million. No offense but that's basic accounting, especially given the structure where Broward County gets a cut if profits are large enough. Net income is calculated first, that determines what the Panthers can get. Then they get the money (or too much, as per the audit report). That (over)payment doesn't affect net income.

As for the bolded part -- fair enough, you discount the piece of evidence I provided. It may indeed just be circumstancial evidence. But this is the only fact we have: AOC net income was the lowest in the only year without the Panthers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
To reference 2005 means you have to reference 2008 too where the arena nets 8 and the Panthers lose 9.4. My point about the cash is that it moves around, probably for a number of reasons. For people to suggest AOC takes money from the Panthers, why wouldn't the Panthers take more money from AOC to offset the tax liability if it could be done? I think the reach for either one is similar.
I don't understand your point here at all. The report explicitly states that AOC pockets at least some Panthers-related revenues. It's not a "reach", the only unknown (to us) is by how much. I haven't read the agreement but I'm sure it defines the "operating expenses" in a way that, for example, excludes Panthers employees from being on AOC payroll. So whatever tax planning or "downward drag" caused by the Panthers, how could it impact AOC's operating expenses? THAT is clearly a reach.

barneyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 03:51 PM
  #71
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,874
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
I don't understand the point of this.

They are seperate entities owned by the same people. The panthers lost money. The arena made money. The arena's money shouldn't matter if it's not part of the HRR.
the Arena and the team are different entities. When I lived in ft lauderdale the bb@t center was booked nearly every night and is one of the busiest arenas for both public and private functions. Making 9 mill a year is not that much

Arenas have always been money makers from the stuff the happens that are non hockey oriantated

__________________
not sure how--but the fish just jumped in the boat and put the hook in it's mouth
52299/14814
The twenty year rebuild is on!!! Embrace the suck
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 04:10 PM
  #72
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,874
vCash: 1000
http://www.thebbtcenter.com/news
http://www.thebbtcenter.com/events/c...concertsevents

jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 04:56 PM
  #73
flapanthersfan
Registered User
 
flapanthersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
MOD

It might surprise you to find out that the NHL consists of businesses whose main goal is the selling of hockey. In a follow-up post you claimed that "it's all creative accounting. making the panthers a loss leader. it hasn't even been mentioned here that exaggerating the panthers losses also benefits the organization thru NHL revenue sharing." I'm sure the players would appreciate an admission that the Florida franchise is possibly being used to show a loss that reduces their overall take of HRR. The Panthers existence doesn't really act as much of a benefit to them if your claims are true. Surely the league partners would also be interested as well to find out that a partner is perhaps exaggerating losses in an effort to extract more revenue share money from teams that actually earn versus take - if your claims are true that is.
do you really think the nhl and cliff viner are at all interested in how their business model affects the players?seriously? that's the best argument you can come up with?

Quote:
It matters little in the grand scheme to the league if AOC & SSE were to cease to exist - given that the league partners receive little of those profits to begin with. In fact, basis your theory that the league needs to grow the game in that region, it seems then that they've a potential burgeoning failure on their hands if growth of the hockey business is used as a defining metric - given that the Panthers television ratings are absolutely tiny, as are their miniature annual gate receipts of just $25 million annually (as per Forbes). Not much growth to be found there in fact. That the organization shows annual losses north of $10 million after receiving millions in annual revenue sharing speaks to the weakness of the underlying business. There is a difference between the pursuit of illusory growth (see: Florida Panthers) and actual growth. If the NHL was truly seeking financial growth then they'd probably ditch the franchise that costs the players from an HRR perspective, and costs the league from a revenue perspective annually, and would replace it with a guaranteed money maker elsewhere (see: GTA, QC).
it's hard to "grow" when the franchise in question has been floundering with atrocious teams on the ice - or do you expect to see 20,000 strong show up to see a team lose 50-60 games a year? [Mod]

as someone mentioned earlier, franchises that were thought to be "success" stories (dallas, colorado) are struggling to draw fans with a couple of poor seasons. what do you think they'd look like after TEN YEARS of irrelevance? because that's what florida went through.

if you remember correctly, in 1996-1998 the panthers were on fire in this market. every home game sold out for TWO STRAIGHT SEASONS, they were easily the second most popular franchise in this market, at the time. there were no questions as if to their legitimacy then, was there?

10 straight years of losing tends to kill fans mojo...and still yet they never sank to the depths of franchises like dallas did after only a couple years of losing. but no one questions dallas, do they?

and as far as TV ratings go, yes, the panthers ratings are poor.but again, 10 straight years of losing might turn off a few people. the playoff ratings were decent and if you remember correctly (you probably don't) - the broward/west palm beach area was top 10-15 in US markets for the US-Canada gold medal game... ahead of cities like NYC and D.C. that goes to show - theres a market here if you put a decent product on the ice.

[Mod] it takes generations (usually, successful generations) to build a true fanbase...yet people like you expect it to happen overnight. south florida has proven before it will support a hockey team just fine. couple that with a successful business model and you have zero chance the team relocates anytime soon.

hit us up in 20 years when our lease is over and maybe you'll have an argument then


Last edited by Killion: 12-13-2012 at 05:20 PM. Reason: easy there....
flapanthersfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 12:27 AM
  #74
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan The Parade View Post
He has a point though.

Contracting the 4 lowest income earners doesn't fix the income disparity problem. It just moves the total revenue of the League up on paper. Yet the money that the League was actually earning did not change. All that changed was negative expenditures being removed. So the salary cap will increase without an actual increase in revenue, and we are back at the problem of having several teams that can not afford to pay the salary cap.floor.
Amended for accuracy. It makes a difference here. Not being able to spend to the cap is inconvenient and annoying. Not being able to spend to the floor is the slow heat death of a franchise.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 09:10 AM
  #75
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,382
vCash: 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by flapanthersfan View Post
do you really think the nhl and cliff viner are at all interested in how their business model affects the players?seriously? that's the best argument you can come up with?
This is a business board.

I repeat; you claimed earlier that "it's all creative accounting. making the panthers a loss leader. it hasn't even been mentioned here that exaggerating the panthers losses also benefits the organization thru NHL revenue sharing." That speaks directly to incredibly unethical behavior on their part if your claim is true. The net result of that behavior is that the players receive less money at the end of the day because their salaries are tied to a percentage of league HRR. Another result is that the franchise would be essentially stealing revenue sharing money from other league partners; of course you are aware of this because you claimed it to be a "benefit". That isn't a benefit, it is theft/fraud.

Apparently it would surprise you to know that many in the business world value ethical behavior quite highly, near above anything else in fact. So, yeah, I think it to be a rather compelling point actually, given that ethical behavior of counter-parties in business is pretty much vital. Then you said "do you really think the nhl and cliff viner are at all interested in how their business model affects the players?". I would hope they would be as theft is always the less preferable option, and especially when your claims speak to the additional stealing of money from other owners as well.

Leases are designed to be broken, FYI, there is always an out, so I'm not that impressed with your claim that the lease keeps them tied to that market. I won't even address the balance of your post as it amounts to little more than an emotional plea. Emotions hold no sway in business discussions. The bank doesn't care how many games the team won or lost.


Last edited by Gump Hasek: 12-14-2012 at 09:18 AM.
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 02:18 PM.

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.