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.

It says here Players talking of $60 million luxury tax threshold

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-05-2004, 07:54 PM
  #51
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579

Under a cap, every team would have to operate under the same budget. At that point, it comes down to how well teams draft, how well teams develop players, and how well teams trade..
so a team that drafts and trades and develops players well will build up a stable of good players who have earned good contracts. some of them will have to be let go under a cap.

a team that has drafted, traded and developed players poorly, therefore doesnt have much in the way of salary commitments, will be able to sign those players away from the well run teams because they have more cap room because they did not draft and trade well enough to have anyone to pay.

how is that fair ? how is it fair to break up OTT so that CHI can sign the castoffs ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 08:16 PM
  #52
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
so a team that drafts and trades and develops players well will build up a stable of good players who have earned good contracts. some of them will have to be let go under a cap.
This is already happening now, but only for some teams. Not all... How is this fair? I mean really, how is all teams having to work under the same salary restrictions not fair? They all do play in the same league right?

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 08:18 PM
  #53
DownFromNJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
how is that fair ? how is it fair to break up OTT so that CHI can sign the castoffs ?
I think its fair to let the players play where they want after a certain point.

DownFromNJ is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 08:18 PM
  #54
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
This is already happening now, but only for some teams. Not all... How is this fair? I mean really, how is all teams having to work under the same salary restrictions not fair? They all do play in the same league right?
answer the question ... you have avoided it over the course of about 4 threads ...

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 08:19 PM
  #55
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownFromNJ
I think its fair to let the players play where they want after a certain point.
then argue for lower UFA. the fact is, if you want to really drive salaries down, just make every player UFA after each season.

the fans would whine though.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 08:28 PM
  #56
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
answer the question ... you have avoided it over the course of about 4 threads ...

dr
And you still have not answered my question about how rising player salaries are good for the fans...

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 08:29 PM
  #57
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
And you still have not answered my question about how rising player salaries are good for the fans...
its a question that has no answer. i dont care how much each guy gets paid, its none of my business. i already answered that a week ago.

however, it is my business if my team has to start giving up good players just so crappy managment teams can pick them off.

so answer my question.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 08:32 PM
  #58
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
its a question that has no answer. i dont care how much each guy gets paid, its none of my business. i already answered that a week ago.

however, it is my business if my team has to start giving up good players just so crappy managment teams can pick them off.

so answer my question.

dr
And like I said. It is already happening now, just not with every team. You just refuse to see that it's happening.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 09:55 PM
  #59
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
And like I said. It is already happening now, just not with every team. You just refuse to see that it's happening.
forget it ... you wont even debate the issue. i dont see teams like OTT breaking themselves up for any artificial reasons.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 10:10 PM
  #60
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
forget it ... you wont even debate the issue. i dont see teams like OTT breaking themselves up for any artificial reasons.

dr

Exactly. We will never agree on anything if you can't even see that this is happening right now.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 11:49 PM
  #61
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Exactly. We will never agree on anything if you can't even see that this is happening right now.
ok, i give in ... if you can show me where its happened.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-06-2004, 12:28 AM
  #62
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
so a team that drafts and trades and develops players well will build up a stable of good players who have earned good contracts. some of them will have to be let go under a cap.

with a salary cap, what a player makes would be kept more in line than it is now, thus making it easier for teams to keep their players

a team that has drafted, traded and developed players poorly, therefore doesnt have much in the way of salary commitments, will be able to sign those players away from the well run teams because they have more cap room because they did not draft and trade well enough to have anyone to pay.

a team such as that would have picked through and offered contracts to two or three UFA's that they could afford, while having to watch their finances to keep themselves from being in trouble when another of their players' salaries comes up for a raise, while it's possible the team may offer a little more than what the player would be worth anywhere else, it would be more controlled and in line with the rest of the salaries around the league

how is that fair ? how is it fair to break up OTT so that CHI can sign the castoffs ?

would you really call them castoff's if the players were so good that they asked for too much from their current teams? IMO a player that was 'castoff' would be on the lower end of the payscale, thus more likely than not, not as talented as a star player coming off a pretty damn good year

dr

garry1221 is offline  
Old
09-06-2004, 12:38 AM
  #63
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,641
vCash: 500
re: castoffs .... no they wouldnt be crappy players, but lets use OTT for example. they may not be able to resign Havlat or Spezza and CHI who has done nothing in 10 years of drafting will pick them off because they have no major salary commitments due to their poor player development.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-06-2004, 02:34 AM
  #64
Scheme
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
so a team that drafts and trades and develops players well will build up a stable of good players who have earned good contracts. some of them will have to be let go under a cap.

a team that has drafted, traded and developed players poorly, therefore doesnt have much in the way of salary commitments, will be able to sign those players away from the well run teams because they have more cap room because they did not draft and trade well enough to have anyone to pay.

how is that fair ? how is it fair to break up OTT so that CHI can sign the castoffs ?

dr
This argument fails - because a poorly managed team does not equal more cap room. If anything, it would more likely have less cap room - since a poorly managed team would be more likely to overpay players or sign players that aren't worth the money.

All other things being equal, in a cap situation, emerging stars will get raises (but not crazy contracts) with their current teams, because other teams are busy giving raises to their own stars. So you won't see a lot of movement to other teams. With a cap, rich teams can't offer enough of an incentive for a player to uproot from his established home/friends/teammates for crazy money. Just look at the soccer world and Real Madrid paying millions to buy stars for a stacked team. That's the future of hockey if things aren't fixed.

Scheme is offline  
Old
09-06-2004, 08:42 AM
  #65
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Ummm, would the answer to that be that under a cap, every team would have the same ability to keep and retain their stars? That is considerably different from the current system where some teams can keep their stars and other teams can't.

Under a cap, every team would have to operate under the same budget. At that point, it comes down to how well teams draft, how well teams develop players, and how well teams trade. In other words, a GM has to know what he is doing and make good hockey decisions, not just sign the best free agents available, or run up player salaries so other teams have to trade good players before they reach free agency.
It does not come down to how well a team drafts. The argument that its fair because every team is under the same restraints is not valid, because they're not. Teams that draft well are invariably going to be punished, while teams that don't draft well are going to have their choice of superstars.

Maybe the current system is unfair, maybe its not, that's not the argument I'm having. I'm showing you why a hard cap is not fair.

HYPOTHETICALLY: Under a $30 million cap, lets say the average salary for a superstar is $4 million. Calgary has two superstars on their team, both of whom they drafted and developed. They both become free agents the same year. Because Calgary has been well run, they also have lots of other good players signed. But because they have alot of good players, they only have $5 million in cap room, even though they have the revenue to sign both. They only have enough room to sign one of the superstars, unless they both agree to take alot less than the league average. So they sign superstar "A" for $3 million, who takes less becuase he wants to stay. But, now they only have $2 million to sign supestar "B". At the same time, Detroit has been terribly run for some time, is devoid of superstars and only has a few marginally good players. They've drafted terribly, but they have $4 million in cap room, and offer Calgary's superstar "B" the $4 million he deserves, based on league average. Superstar "B" now has to decide between loyalty and a $2 million difference. I think its safe to assume most professional atheletes would take the extra $2 million, so lets assume superstar "B" does in this case. Now I ask you, if you were a Calgary fan would you be upset over this? Would you feel this is fair? Your team did the drafting and developing, had the revenue to sign both, but were unable to while, a poorly run team his been rewarded.

Now lets say there's a luxury tax at around $40 million. Salaries will come down under this system as well. Lets take the two superstars from my example above, and say a luxury tax has lowered the average superstar salary to $5 million. Calgary has the revenue to pay each $4 million, but they both want $5. Calgary then takes the extra money they received from the teams paying a luxury tax and is able to give both what they want. Calgary has not been punished for drafing well, and they're not paying any more of their money for those players than they would have under a cap.

So, if you were a Calgary fan, which situation would you prefer? The cap, which took one of your superstars away? Or the luxury tax which allowed you to keep both without spending anything more than you would have under a cap?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-06-2004, 09:20 AM
  #66
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
ok, i give in ... if you can show me where its happened.

dr

Peca - Traded for prospects because Buffalo could not afford his salary demands

Barnes - Traded for prospect, draft pick to reduce salary

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-06-2004, 11:12 AM
  #67
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Peca - Traded for prospects because Buffalo could not afford his salary demands

Barnes - Traded for prospect, draft pick to reduce salary
so this is about BUF ?

anyhow, even the rich teams like COL make player personell decisions based on money. its called managing. in fact, just this last season, COL traded a dman fine young dman in Derek Morris because they didnt want to QO him at 3.5m.

if BUF cant afford to pay its #1 C 4m, then the problem is with their team, not the system. and trading Barnes, a pending UFA, just makes sense. they didnt want to pay him because they felt his value was dropping. so what ?

it happens for every team in the league and is not a sign of "unfairness". for instance, the Canucks let go Lachance, Cassels, Baron, & Klatt in recent off seasons AND didnt even trade them for a draft pick.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-06-2004, 02:40 PM
  #68
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
so this is about BUF ?

anyhow, even the rich teams like COL make player personell decisions based on money. its called managing. in fact, just this last season, COL traded a dman fine young dman in Derek Morris because they didnt want to QO him at 3.5m.

if BUF cant afford to pay its #1 C 4m, then the problem is with their team, not the system. and trading Barnes, a pending UFA, just makes sense. they didnt want to pay him because they felt his value was dropping. so what ?

it happens for every team in the league and is not a sign of "unfairness". for instance, the Canucks let go Lachance, Cassels, Baron, & Klatt in recent off seasons AND didnt even trade them for a draft pick.

dr
It's about Buffalo becase that's the team I'm most familiar with. Go on any small market team board and propose a trade. On of the biggest concerns is whether the team can afford picking up the salaries...

But you asked for an example, I gave you two. But of course, this isn't good enough. You always have another excuse, er, I mean justification...

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-06-2004, 03:15 PM
  #69
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
It's about Buffalo becase that's the team I'm most familiar with. Go on any small market team board and propose a trade. On of the biggest concerns is whether the team can afford picking up the salaries...

But you asked for an example, I gave you two. But of course, this isn't good enough. You always have another excuse, er, I mean justification...
It's not that it's good enough more than you put your GM management aside to blame the CBA.

I can talk to you about 1 team I'm familiar with : The Montreal Canadiens.

Andre Savard the EX-GM of the team , was very poor when it comes to give contract to players. He gave 4,25M$/2 years to Randy McKay (2M$, 2,25M$). Will you honestly tell me that it's because of the CBA that Andre Savard gave him this deal ? Or it's maybe because of poor management ?

Andre Savard offer the same 20M$/4 years to Martin Lapointe not because other follow him but they truly think that his leadership & intangibles would be an asset to the team. It's not about the CBA , it's about management decision that are GOOD & BAD.

Now you have Bob Gainey, he didn't offer 6M$ to Kovalev & it's not because of the END of the CBA , it's because he got a ''BUDGET'' to respect ? Is it not COST CERTAINTY when a GM respect what the OWNER can afford to pay for his players ?

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-06-2004, 04:39 PM
  #70
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
It's about Buffalo becase that's the team I'm most familiar with. Go on any small market team board and propose a trade. On of the biggest concerns is whether the team can afford picking up the salaries...

But you asked for an example, I gave you two. But of course, this isn't good enough. You always have another excuse, er, I mean justification...
well of course a concern is about whether you can afford a salary or not. thats part of managing a business.

you gave me two examples and i showed you why your examples were flawed. you mean to tell me that CGY can afford to pay IGinla 7,5m but BUF cant afford to pay Peca 4m ? they made a decision they didnt want to pay him, not that they couldnt pay him.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-06-2004, 05:05 PM
  #71
PigPen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 1,831
vCash: 500
Here are some ideas I've been kicking around for the new CBA

I'm all for a 50 mil soft cap. Increase the cap by 2.5% each year to cover raises. (1.25 mil the first year, 1.28 the 2nd, and so on) A team over the cap pays 55% on the dollar until they reach the 61 mil limit, then they pay 110% on the dollar. (this will keep some teams from splurging.)

With a 50 mil maximum before there's a luxury tax, there should be a very minimum of a 30 mil USD. 60% I don't want to see other teams in the league hovering around 40-45 mil, trying to ice a competative team while others like Chicago and Boston constantly jetison any talent that's making over 2.5 mil. To prevent this, put something in there to make sure the team increases it's payroll per year so they don't do what the LA clippers do; Trade any talent for cash/picks and maintain the lowest league salary so they can collect big TV checks. Not that the NHL has any big TV contracts, but you get my point.

Also, the league-wide maximum a player can make should be around 7 mil, which increases 1.5% each year. It's what the current Norris winner is making, and it's about what Iginla and Thornton are making. Why should there be guys making 8+ mil when those 3 are in my opinion at least, the best at their respective positions right now? I don't like the fact that even Lidstrom makes over 7 mil a year.

Also, a team may defer no more than 15% of a player's salary in any one contract year, and the defered money is added onto the following year's salary.
Example: Player A who makes 7 mil a year defers 1.05 mil this season so that the team may use that money to offer it to a free agent, Player B.
That teams's payroll with player A's defered money is 35 mil. The following year 1.05 mil gets added to team's total salary in the books is not counted as being added to Player A's .
Also, a team may defer salary from no more than 3 players in any one season and pay a 2% interest on each player after the first.

And...there was more I was going to post but I lost my train of thought when I got pulled away from the computer halfway through this.

PigPen is offline  
Old
09-06-2004, 05:29 PM
  #72
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYI
the problem is, that for the New York Rangers and Some other teams, they are making "smart moves" because they can afford giving huge salaries, it makes it unfair to lower teams that have to overspend to survive.

I would argue that although it screws mostly ever other team, what Dolan is doing is best for his business and makes him the most money. As long as he can sell out MSG and have good ratings for local TV, it's smart for him to go out and create a sense of excitement(trade for high priced players).

The Luxury tax would even it out for lower level teams, while still allowing Dolan to go out and overpay players.
It's amazing how many fans around hockey follow this so closely and just do not know how many big markets teams lose revenue and how bad things really are.

Outside of Toronto no big market makes revenue. If Colorado does they have not taked about it.

The selfish actions of some owners willing to just bleed money to win created this player market watered down things for everyone and put the game where it is today which is at a point where it's smarter for them not to play. People hate Bill Wirtz and the Bruins owner but this is where big market teams should be operating in a sport that really is hardly a major sport any longer.

One of the biggest misconceptions around hockey today is that the Rangers are this big market team that make money and has revenue to share and sellout games, it's just not true. Writers in other markets do not follow what happens, meanwhile the Rangers play in obscurity in the New York sports market today, their high priced team of name players are invisible in the media here because baseball drives the market and the other teams take the rest of the attention span year round. There is only one fan demographic that goes to hockey games here. Hockey is not a major sport in this area.

The Rangers were mentioned this week as a team losing revenue at these league meetings and have been for a few seasons. The garden does not play to sellouts many games and their network lost a ton of revenue, cut programming and laid off employees. Dolan also has to cut his fans back ten percent of ticket prices.

The Islanders at 13 million a year for Msg to own their broadcasts rights may be doing better than the Rangers. The entire NHL got only 60 million for their new deal.

Same goes for Philadelphia, Detroit, Dallas, St.Louis, San Jose, Los Angeles and even Tampa Bay, all of who claim to have lost money this year. Detroit's owner claims he must go to a final to break even. Ed Snyder claims his team will ice a 35 million dollar product because they lost too much, this is a team that always plays to capacity.

It's not working.

Problem is these owners want/need an advantage to make up for their weak management and cannot contain themselves when they see a name. Which has driven up the market and put the game where it is today.

I'm not in favor of any luxury tax because a few of these owners will attempt to exploit it one way or another. If it comes down to one it has to be strict to a point
where it's like signing restricted free agents, no one will bother with a contract because it's too high. Dollar for dollar match for every dollar over 35 million. First round draft pick compensation for every five million a team is over the cap.

No cash exchanged in deals.

But Bettman wants no hard cap at all and I respect his motives. He knows some of these owners are all for themselves, not the business and cannot be trusted to act for the good of the league and put things where they are today. He's right.

And a lot of these owners come and go.


Last edited by NYIsles1*: 09-06-2004 at 06:09 PM.
NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
09-06-2004, 05:52 PM
  #73
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
One problem is the misconceptions around hockey about the Rangers being a team that makes money and has revenue to share and sellout games, it's just not true.

It's already been reported they are losing money this week as are Detroit, Philadelphia. What they do is simply lose even more and spend more with no thought as to the league.

Problem is these owners want/need an advantage to make up for their weak management and cannot contain themselves. Which has driven up the market and put the game where it is today.

Meanwhile the Rangers play in obscurity in the New York sports market, their high priced team of name players are invisible in the media here because baseball drives the market and the other teams take the rest of the attention span.

I'm not in favor of any luxury tax unless it begins at 35 million with a dollar for dollar match and first round draft pick compensation for every five million over. In other words a system where if you spend you pay an absurd amount in prospects and revenue where teams have to comply.

But Bettman wants no hard cap at all. He knows some of these owners are all for themselves, not the business and cannot be trusted to act for the good of the league. He's right.
sorry for my skepticism but I sincerely doubt the Rangers are losing money ! If they Leafs are making a ton of money $$$$ & being in a Canadian Market paying mostly in USD$$$$, I would be very , very, surprise if they lose money.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-06-2004, 06:14 PM
  #74
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
well of course a concern is about whether you can afford a salary or not. thats part of managing a business.

you gave me two examples and i showed you why your examples were flawed. you mean to tell me that CGY can afford to pay IGinla 7,5m but BUF cant afford to pay Peca 4m ? they made a decision they didnt want to pay him, not that they couldnt pay him.

dr

Like I said, you will refuse to see anything that does not support your position...

You always have some excuse or reason, anything but see things as they are. Buffalo was already losing money at the time. Hell, the owner was stealing money from his cable company to pay for some of his toys (such as golf courses and hockey teams). Was it bad management? Maybe. Is it bad management that 2/3's of the league is losing money? Probably in some cases. In others, owners are doing what they can to keep their team viable until a solution is made.

Your entire argument is that owners and gm's need to make smarter decisions. Then you look back with hindsight and say "That wasn't a smart decision..." How is it that the best minds is the business (the gm's) and the heads of multi-billion dollar corporations (the owners) with all of their advisors, can only make "bad" decisions when it comes to hockey? You must know, or must be sitting in on their meetings to come up with such a simple solution to this problem...

The only way to solve the NHL's problems right now, which I see as escalating player salaries driven by teams having vastly different spending constraints is to put some kind of limit on what individual teams can spend. I don't care if it's a hard cap, a soft cap, a luxury tax or any other idea people can come up with. I'm not going to put blinders on and pretend that there are things that are outside of individual teams ability to control.

Believe me when I say I want to see hockey this season, because I do. But I also want to see NHL hockey in all 30 cities 10 years from now as well. If the players have to sacrifice some salary for this to happen, I'm not going to cry for them. They want more money each year, mainly to assuage their egos, then get lazy when they do get it (some of them anyway).

A salary cap, even with it's problems is still better than sticking your head in the sand hoping the problems will go away. Personnally, I would like to see a luxury tax starting at $35M (50% or 100%) that increases by 50% or 100% every $5M, with cost of living increases using the gov'ts infaltion rate each year.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-06-2004, 06:16 PM
  #75
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
sorry for my skepticism but I sincerely doubt the Rangers are losing money ! If they Leafs are making a ton of money $$$$ & being in a Canadian Market paying mostly in USD$$$$, I would be very , very, surprise if they lose money.
Here it is from the New York Rangers own beatwriter, Larry Brooks.

http://www.nypost.com/sports/27797.htm</FONT></FONT></FONT>

They aren't about aiding small markets, either, not when one of the pieces of the league's now-obsolete proposal to the PA for centralized negotiation of contracts included a stipulation in which free agents due the largest contracts would be assigned to teams with the largest revenues and thus, the ability to absorb them; not when in the Newark meeting a few weeks ago, the league cited the Rangers, Chicago and St. Louis as primary examples of clubs that lose money under the current system.

Here is Cablevisions own statement, which is not the easier to understand Newsday version breakdown that basically said the Rangers were losing money but this explains Msg's profits and where they came from, nothing came from the hockey operation.
******************************************
http://www.cablevision.com/index.jhtml?id=2004_08_09</FONT>

Madison Square Garden

Operating income for the second quarter totaled $107.7 million compared to an operating loss of $9.3 million in the prior year period.

The second quarter operating income and AOCF include the recognition of a $54.0 million payment received from the New York Mets (related to the exercise of a termination option under their rights agreement, effective for the 2006 season) and the related reversal of a $41.8 million purchase accounting liability. Additionally, the quarter includes a one-time expansion payment from the NBA of $10.3 million, which is recorded in net revenue. Excluding these
one-time items, second quarter net revenues would have grown 17% and AOCF would have grown $4.7 million or 49%, driven by playoff revenue from the Knicks and more event bookings.

So in short Msg's sports revenue increase from an operating loss of 9.3 million a year ago to 107.7 million:

Where did it come from:
Mets buyout 54 million
purchase accounting liability 41.8 million
Charloette Bobcats expansion fee 10.3 million

Without the one time accountings Msg would have produced 4.7 million in revenue from the Knicks and event bookings.

It's fair to say if those bookings are significant the Rangers lost a lot of revenue and it confirms two years of losses from the same quarter.


Last edited by NYIsles1*: 09-06-2004 at 07:25 PM.
NYIsles1* is offline  
Closed Thread

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 11:49 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.