The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
NHL Business is growing (MIT Sports Analytics Conf); HRR $3.2 billion this year?
Give it a read. You can lambast Bettman all you want and while growth is inevitable, you can't deny the stats.
Regarding other stats: I don't believe hockey can ever utilize or rely on stats as much as baseball.... take the science of face off wins as an example.
Also, anyone else see the irony of Ottawa "discovering" that weight is a better predictor of NHL success than height and then signing Turris?
Hmmm, I don't think I buy this number, or there are several teams that are in serious trouble:
Quote:
ESPN personality Michael Wilbon introduced Bettman as a sports leader who has accomplished quite a number of impressive analytics while running the NHL, including taking the League’s licensing revenues "from $275 million in the mid-1990s to $1.3 billion." Adding in all League and team revenues, the overall number was $2.8 billion for the most recent fiscal year.
"None of the leagues were in the businesses we are now," said Bettman, referencing that he began working in the sports leagues industry 31 years ago. "When I started at the NHL [in 1993] there was no NHL.com, no NHL Network, no NHL Radio. We have maybe 40 people working for the League. Now we have 500.
Revenue from licensing is $1.3 billion? Does that include TV contracts? Without knowing what constitutes licensing, if you subtract $1.3 billion from $2.8 billion, you're left with $50 MM per team (assuming that remainder is all team sourced HRR).
And that the NHL is contributing $43.3 MM per team for HRR?
Hmmm, I don't think I buy this number, or there are several teams that are in serious trouble:
Revenue from licensing is $1.3 billion? Does that include TV contracts? Without knowing what constitutes licensing, if you subtract $1.3 billion from $2.8 billion, you're left with $50 MM per team (assuming that remainder is all team sourced HRR).
And that the NHL is contributing $43.3 MM per team for HRR?
You may have just uncovered the truth of the NHL's woes!
The common misconception is that growth is inherently good for the game when quite the opposite is true.
Growth can be great for the game. But the method that the NHL has gone about it for the last 20ish years hasn't been balanced or efficiently planned, and while there have been some positives that resulted, the negatives have outweighed them overall, especially in the views of the public eye.
Growth can be great for the game. But the method that the NHL has gone about it for the last 20ish years hasn't been balanced or efficiently planned, and while there have been some positives that resulted, the negatives have outweighed them overall, especially in the views of the public eye.
Canadians have felt marginalized in the past since two of our teams were transplanted to the southern US for the "growth of the game" which clearly had no place in Canada based on the NHL's philosophy of the time. Which is why there are so many bitter Canadians towards southern US teams. Most of this was due to economic factors of the 1990s.
Now the tables have turned and certain southern US teams which are facing immense financial hardship, and also relocation possibilities, with the Canadian teams in decent financial shape and the NHL now looking at Canadian markets for stability in the league, as the "grow the game" philosophy appears to have major flaws and has been put on the backburner for now. As a result, we now see immense bitterness coming from Americans, particulary from southern markets, towards Canada claiming that we are "stealing their teams" resulting in hatred to Canadians and in particular the Canadian media.
So now both nations are pitted against each other for the NHLs affection and with the Atlanta and Phoenix situations having occured and still occuring, the overall perception of the league is that it's poorly run.
Last edited by Puckschmuck: 03-04-2012 at 11:56 AM.
Hmmm, I don't think I buy this number, or there are several teams that are in serious trouble:
Revenue from licensing is $1.3 billion? Does that include TV contracts? Without knowing what constitutes licensing, if you subtract $1.3 billion from $2.8 billion, you're left with $50 MM per team (assuming that remainder is all team sourced HRR).
And that the NHL is contributing $43.3 MM per team for HRR?
I thought the number was fascinating too; im also unsure what to make of it.
Looked at another way, if we can assume that nhl revenues are now approaching $3.3 Bil, then almost the entire revenue growth during this CBA would have come from central revenue sources.
Which would would shoot down in flames the attempted suggestion that revenue growth has been unequal, and in fact driven by the large revenue clubs.
Bettman took the stage at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics in Boston to talk about how well the 2004-05 lock-out had worked for NHL owners.
He said the NHL recovered from the work stoppage on the same day that it re-opened for business in August 2005, and has been pulling in record revenues since then. NHL revenue will hit $3.2 billion this year, a 50 percent increase in seven years since the lock-out wiped out a full season.
The rallying cry to reduce the players' share, which I feel compelled to point out was structured to increase upwards from 54-57% if HRR exceeded $2.7 billion, will be that the NFL and NBA don't give their players that much so why should the NHL.
So if I get this right... NHL says: Start at 54%, and if we grow HRR, being partners and all, you get more of the pie as HRR grows.
Seven years later, after said record growth, NHL says: The NFL and NBA are fatter than us and their players only get 50%. Forget about that partner and growing revenues thingy.
Then this gem:
Quote:
New NHLPA director Donald Fehr is still going through learning curve about league issues, so CBA negotations haven’t yet started up, Bettman says.
I call BS, Gary. Fehr has been addressing labor and league issues longer than you've been commissioner. I doubt there's much of a learning curve, plus this league has no antitrust protection his last one.
Game of chicken, labour negotiations, as the guy reading the lyrics to the song the first time said: "you say to-may-to, and i say to-may-to ... i dont get it." They're lawyers, its all about leverage.
The alarming thing to me is Glen Healey announcing on HNIC that a rollback is coming. He would know the numbers and the business. Doesnt jump out at me immediately why that should be the case, unless he is just accepting the inevitable that players have no leverage. And when the NHL owners say that the other leagues jumped off the empire state building and got their unique individual public consumption number to 50%, so should the NHL get its entirely differently derived public consumption number to be the same as the other leagues. Its only natural. The course forward and its reasoning has now been accepted as convention wisdom; no reason to question fundamentals anymore.
Hmmm, I don't think I buy this number, or there are several teams that are in serious trouble:
Revenue from licensing is $1.3 billion? Does that include TV contracts? Without knowing what constitutes licensing, if you subtract $1.3 billion from $2.8 billion, you're left with $50 MM per team (assuming that remainder is all team sourced HRR).
And that the NHL is contributing $43.3 MM per team for HRR?
I would say that it must include the national TV deals. It may even be more broad, including individual team licensing.
I thought the number was fascinating too; im also unsure what to make of it.
Looked at another way, if we can assume that nhl revenues are now approaching $3.3 Bil, then almost the entire revenue growth during this CBA would have come from central revenue sources.
Which would would shoot down in flames the attempted suggestion that revenue growth has been unequal, and in fact driven by the large revenue clubs.
However, the leaked gate receipts fly in the face of this suggestion.
I would say that it must include the national TV deals. It may even be more broad, including individual team licensing.
I think the lines between NHL-generated growth (Bettman et al.) and team-generated growth becomes blurred fairly rapidly. While these conference types may play fast and loose with the numbers, the individual teams cannot. Either it's their revenue or it's league revenue. Difference being that league revenue is divided among 30 partners equally, as you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier
However, the leaked gate receipts fly in the face of this suggestion.
Exactly. We're getting to a point where if you add up the separate amounts. Furthermore, as recently as 3-4 yrs ago, Dolan pointed out that the NHL only accounted for 10% of all HRR. That's some incredible growth if Gary tripled that number in 3 yrs.....
What is clear cut to you from that? That big markets are driving the NHLs revenue growth from $2 bil to $3.2 bil over the life of this cba in which Bettman raised central shared revenues by $1.3 bil?
I would think that type of inference would at least need to be made against a trend line not this snapshot.
Looking at the numbers for Ottawa, our game day revenues since our fabulous season have dropped 8% over the last 3 years while franchise value increased by $10 mil? I wouldnt want to make too many long term inferences from that data point.
And Chi and Bos, the two cba hawks who claimed poverty and demanded a $31 mil cap, now all of a sudden have found a way to spend and increase revenues astronomically? No way,!! Who could’ve seen that coming? I’d suggest that their rise proves something entirely different.
And Pit and Wash who won the draft sweepstakes and surprise have seen their revenues rise round out the top. Where is Det, Col, and NJ?
Tampa revenues have dropped by half in the last 3 years? Meanwhile the recent Cup Winners have gone up by 50%?
Atlanta, Dallas, NYI, NJ, Cbus have all seen revenues drop? No way!!!
This is the perfectly rounded team seat revenues. And we know that accounts for less than half of overall revenues. New numbers seem to suggest far less than half now.
These fluctuations represent a snapshot at a particular point in time of the normal ebb and flow of individual team revenues as they will rise and fall over their lifetimes. Taking out the obvious bottom and top outliers who’s numbers seemingly obviously represent far different things than big markets succeeding, there is no obvious, look at the numbers as they stand on their own moment for me. Ymmv
What is clear cut to you from that? That big markets are driving the NHLs revenue growth from $2 bil to $3.2 bil over the life of this cba in which Bettman raised central shared revenues by $1.3 bil?
I would think that type of inference would at least need to be made against a trend line not this snapshot.
Looking at the numbers for Ottawa, our game day revenues since our fabulous season have dropped 8% over the last 3 years while franchise value increased by $10 mil? I wouldnt want to make too many long term inferences from that data point.
And Chi and Bos, the two cba hawks who claimed poverty and demanded a $31 mil cap, now all of a sudden have found a way to spend and increase revenues astronomically? No way,!! Who could’ve seen that coming? I’d suggest that their rise proves something entirely different.
And Pit and Wash who won the draft sweepstakes and surprise have seen their revenues rise round out the top. Where is Det, Col, and NJ?
Tampa revenues have dropped by half in the last 3 years? Meanwhile the recent Cup Winners have gone up by 50%?
Atlanta, Dallas, NYI, NJ, Cbus have all seen revenues drop? No way!!!
This is the perfectly rounded team seat revenues. And we know that accounts for less than half of overall revenues. New numbers seem to suggest far less than half now.
These fluctuations represent a snapshot at a particular point in time of the normal ebb and flow of individual team revenues as they will rise and fall over their lifetimes. Taking out the obvious bottom and top outliers who’s numbers seemingly obviously represent far different things than big markets succeeding, there is no obvious, look at the numbers as they stand on their own moment for me. Ymmv
How does any of what you say negate the statement that growth since the lockout has been unequal, or that large revenue clubs have on the whole not grown much more in general?
But rather than debating with you the question of what this chart says about team by team distribution of revenues lets simply look at the question of the amount in which central revenues have grown.
It would seem that we are being told that over the course of the CBA that revenues have grown from $1.8B to $3.3B, a total of $1.5B and yet the claim would be that in the same time central revenues are up by about $1.1B? That leaves about $400M in total team related growth. Take a look at the numbers I posted and see if this seems reasonable.
The claim of $1.3B in central revenues makes no sense. That would mean a distribution to each team of approximately $43M per year. All you have to do is look at the Coyotes filing and you know this is way off base.
