HFBoards

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

Forbes slams Levitt report

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2004, 10:49 AM
  #76
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 16,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
LOL WHAT A JOKE the OWNERS are. With there LIES LIES AND LIES!

224 MILLION LOST? ********! It was only 94 MILLION and the AVERAGE lost per team is only 3.1 MILLION. A salary cap for THAT? I DONT THINK So. I have lost ALL respect for the owners side now. The Levitt report was from the NHL side..the Forbes report is NEUTRAL.

Might i had only 17 Teams LOST money. So its not even LEAGUE WIDE. Im sure the TEAMS that did loose money are the ones where

1) The OWNERS set up a team in a HORRIBLE LOCATION like NASHVILLE where nobody cares about hockey
2) OWNERS made there PAYROLL way too high.

I was PRO owners for AWHILE but after this Im going to support the players. And its only a HANDFUL of players who want the big bucks...the Average player salary is like 1.85 MILLION only..which is VERY fair for a PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE.
Nashville is a horrible location because the lost 3M last season? What does that make Chicago, NY Islanders, Washington, Pittsburg, Detroit, NY Rangers or Anahiem?

You guys don't get it. Suite reveanue is areana controlled not NHL controlled, suites aren't seats, they're rented property. Revenue in suites might drop during the lock out as a portion of that total package is now gone. Same with arena sign revenue and naming rights. If a city or other league has control over those revenues are you counting them as a loss? No, you're only counting them as revenue.

I'm in property management (CBRE). I also own a landscape company. I do get landscape jobs from my property management contacts. So should CBRE be allowed to count my landscapping revenue as part of my base salary? No.

This is the same line of reasoning Forbes is using.

triggrman is online now  
Old
11-12-2004, 11:01 AM
  #77
ctfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
This also includes arena debt, and with the renovations they just did to the Gardens no wonder it is so high, but if you want to go by those numbers then, the interest is neglagible because you will also now include revenue from basketball and other sources of revenue that are not counted.

Why wouldn't it include the arena they bought both of them as a package, why should they be seperated now?
Who says the Rangers own Madison Square Garden? Cablevision owns Madison Square Garden and the Rangers and Knicks. And the entire sports end of the business is losing money.

ctfan is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 11:01 AM
  #78
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Despite the fact that Forbes may be generous in calculating revenues, and doesn't actually do an audit (they get their info, according to senior editor Michael Ozanian, from bankers, broadcast sources and league sources), they still found that over half the teams had an operating loss. These teams lost money before they had to make tax and interest payments. Something is obviously wrong with the system.

ceber is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 11:09 AM
  #79
ctfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
That would be true if the owners held the arena leases, they don't the hockey teams do. How do you think the owners are getting these arena's for free, cities build them and hand them over to the teams not the owners. The owners then seperate them. How do you think owners could sell these arena's with their teams? Why did the owner of the Thrashers have to be sold with the arena and basketball team, because the Thrashers have the Arena not the owner.
Where are you getting this information that most hockey teams own the arenas. It's simply not true.

ctfan is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 11:09 AM
  #80
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
Despite the fact that Forbes may be generous in calculating revenues, and doesn't actually do an audit (they get their info, according to senior editor Michael Ozanian, from bankers, broadcast sources and league sources), they still found that over half the teams had an operating loss. These teams lost money before they had to make tax and interest payments. Something is obviously wrong with the system.

Your QUESTIONING there system? FORBES Is an international leader in economic and finance reporting....you QUESTIONING how they do things is a joke im sorry. MUCH MUCH More reliable then one man and his HUGE paycheck from the NHL.

FLYLine24* is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 11:11 AM
  #81
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nferr
Where are you getting this information that most hockey teams own the arenas. It's simply not true.
There are only 6 teams in the league who do not own there arena, source TSN and Sportsnet.

vanlady is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 11:11 AM
  #82
sundaystar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffaloed
According to the article Forbes published last year that isn't true.
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/1208/094a.html



The only reason I can come up with for franchise values increasing this year after last year's decline is confidence that the new CBA will insure profitability.

Forbe's also stated at that time:


I'm sure NHL is over reporting losses. When entering negotiations try to make as strong as a case as possible. Likewise the NHLPA is going to look at the numbers and under report the losses counting everything tangentially related as revenues. The bottom line is there wouldn't be a lockout if everything was peachy.

Acording to the article you cited the average franchise value has increased by 31% over the last 6 years to $163 million. The average value of a team 6 years ago was $112.5 million. The average appreciation was $50.5 million. Forbes reports that the league lost $96 million last season and $123 the season before making the average loss $109.5. In a 30 team league that's an average $3.65 million loss per team per year. Over the course of 6 years it's $21.9 million per team. An owner who bought a team at the average price of $112.5 million six years ago and sold it for $163 million today realizes a $50.5 million gross profit. After deducting the $21.9 million loss incurred over those 6 years, there's a $28.6 million net profit. Investing $112.5 million in a 72 month CD with a 3.75% APY, yields approximately $28 million in interest. That's really conservative too. There's much better deals than that available for the high rollers. Even if we use Forbes numbers, the return on investment isn't acceptable.
i couldn't have said it any better

sundaystar is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 11:11 AM
  #83
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
something is obviously wrong with the system.
more like something is obviously wrong with the management, both at the club and at the league level.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 11:23 AM
  #84
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Your QUESTIONING there system? FORBES Is an international leader in economic and finance reporting....you QUESTIONING how they do things is a joke im sorry. MUCH MUCH More reliable then one man and his HUGE paycheck from the NHL.
What are you talking about? I didn't question Forbes' system whatsoever.

ceber is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 11:29 AM
  #85
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
more like something is obviously wrong with the management, both at the club and at the league level.

dr
So instead of a CBA that makes it easier to be profitable, we should change the management of Dallas, Pittsburgh, Colorado, NY Rangers, Panthers, Flyers, Senators, Kings, Coyotes, NY Islanders, Sabres, Devils, Capitals, Red Wings, Hurricanes, Mighty Ducks, and the Blues?

Somehow I think it'll be easier to get a better CBA agreed upon.

ceber is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 11:57 AM
  #86
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
What are you talking about? I didn't question Forbes' system whatsoever.
I am sorry, i read your post and thought you were questioning the way forbes came up what they did. My fault man.

FLYLine24* is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 11:58 AM
  #87
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
So instead of a CBA that makes it easier to be profitable, we should change the management of Dallas, Pittsburgh, Colorado, NY Rangers, Panthers, Flyers, Senators, Kings, Coyotes, NY Islanders, Sabres, Devils, Capitals, Red Wings, Hurricanes, Mighty Ducks, and the Blues?

Somehow I think it'll be easier to get a better CBA agreed upon.

Everyone should agree with that but the way Bettman wants it is just too drastic. That is my main Compliant.

FLYLine24* is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 12:11 PM
  #88
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
Somehow I think it'll be easier to get a better CBA agreed upon.
Really? Do you see any progress? Is the NHL even an inch closer to getting what they want? Set aside what you think should happen or what you would like to see happen, or what you think the players should do.

The players clearly are not going to accept the Levitt report. They are not going to design or accept a formula for NHL revenues and tie salaries to it. If that is not clear by this point, is anything about this dispute clear?

The owners and owner apologists have managed to trash the product and paint the players as greedy pigs who are bent on destroying the NHL as we know it. Fine, that's what the players are. The greedy pigs have shrugged and now they are flocking to Europe. Slam had a piece this morning: There are six Ottawa Senators who are not playing hockey right now. That's pressure on the players, eh?

We've got empty rinks, no NHL revenues, booming European leagues, more and more fans turning off, and more and more players finding alternate employment while they wait for the owners to crack.

The NHL has been reduced to trotting out the likes of Jean Beliveau and William Wirtz. Pierre Maguire is wondering why no one seems concerned about terrorism in Europe, John Davidson is linking Zholtok's death to poor medical care in Europe, and Brian Burke is assuring us that Gary Bettman really does like hockey, yes sir.

Now what? What's the plan? The players are going to cave? Who believes that?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 12:13 PM
  #89
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
If there was to be revenues linked to salaries these things would have to be worked out in advance, in any CBA. The NHLPA would require much more transparency and access to the books. That much is a given.
But it's not a given.
The NHLPA can't get transparency right now. During CBA negotiations. When could they ever get transparency.

There is simply no way you can tie revenues to salaries given the owners refusal to openly and honestly open the books.
And their refusal to do so (plus reports like the one in Forbes) is only going to strengthen players resolve.

At this point, to save the season, the owners should work with the players on the players proposal.
Using the 5 percent salary reduction, Luxury tax/revenue sharing as a starting point, the owners could make real gains.
Maybe Eight percent salary reduction, a stiffer luxury tax at a lower threshold.

Such a proposal would really help any ill franchises that are worth saving. (ie, see ya later Carolina Hurricanes. Move'em to Winnipeg.)

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 12:13 PM
  #90
Thrashd00d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 48
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
There are only 6 teams in the league who do not own there arena, source TSN and Sportsnet.
The team does not own it, the owners of the team happen to own the Arena also as a seperate entity. The Thrashers and the Hawks and Phillips Arena were all owned by AOL/time Warner. They were all sold as a package deal. They did not have to be sold that way, AOL wanted to.

Thrashd00d is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 12:16 PM
  #91
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 16,963
vCash: 500
The Predators do not own the GEC but do run it.

triggrman is online now  
Old
11-12-2004, 12:18 PM
  #92
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Here is a study that blows the doors off the theory that players salaries are the reason for escalating ticket prices. Let me explain, the strong majority of arenas in the US are more than 70% publically funded, to recover the costs the governments have issue bond issues. To pay that money back teams have issued levies on guess what TICKETS and parking. So the owner pays less than 30% for the arena and you john Q public pay the rest, and the kick the owner gets to keep the arena. Let me give you an example you walk into a dealership, you pay $5,000 for a 17,000 dollar car and John Q public pays the rest for you. Nice deal eh. The owners did not become billionaires by not taking advantage.

http://law.marquette.edu/s3/site/ima...datecharts.pdf

vanlady is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 12:19 PM
  #93
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 16,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Your QUESTIONING there system? FORBES Is an international leader in economic and finance reporting....you QUESTIONING how they do things is a joke im sorry. MUCH MUCH More reliable then one man and his HUGE paycheck from the NHL.
Forbes is journalism. It's like saying NHL tonight is the leader in hockey knowledge.

triggrman is online now  
Old
11-12-2004, 12:21 PM
  #94
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
Forbes is journalism. It's like saying NHL tonight is the leader in hockey knowledge.
And the most relied upon finanacial magazine in the world.

vanlady is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 12:22 PM
  #95
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
Forbes is journalism. It's like saying NHL tonight is the leader in hockey knowledge.

What???????? They PUT out a magazine from time to time about THERE FINDINGS but if you think there just a journalism then you have no idea what they really are.

FLYLine24* is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 12:23 PM
  #96
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Really? Do you see any progress? Is the NHL even an inch closer to getting what they want? Set aside what you think should happen or what you would like to see happen, or what you think the players should do.
You think it would be easier to change the management of 17 teams??? Heck, lets keep 7 money losers. I still think it would be easier to change the CBA than to change 10 ownership groups.

Quote:
The players clearly are not going to accept the Levitt report. They are not going to design or accept a formula for NHL revenues and tie salaries to it. If that is not clear by this point, is anything about this dispute clear?

The owners and owner apologists have managed to trash the product and paint the players as greedy pigs who are bent on destroying the NHL as we know it. Fine, that's what the players are. The greedy pigs have shrugged and now they are flocking to Europe. Slam had a piece this morning: There are six Ottawa Senators who are not playing hockey right now. That's pressure on the players, eh?

We've got empty rinks, no NHL revenues, booming European leagues, more and more fans turning off, and more and more players finding alternate employment while they wait for the owners to crack.

The NHL has been reduced to trotting out the likes of Jean Beliveau and William Wirtz. Pierre Maguire is wondering why no one seems concerned about terrorism in Europe, John Davidson is linking Zholtok's death to poor medical care in Europe, and Brian Burke is assuring us that Gary Bettman really does like hockey, yes sir.

Now what? What's the plan? The players are going to cave? Who believes that?

Tom
What does the rest of this have to do with the Forbes numbers? Are they not to be trusted as well? Are the only acceptable numbers ones that say everything is absolutely fine; it's time to open the doors and start playing?

The plan is for both sides to come to the table and talk about a new CBA. I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

ceber is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 12:24 PM
  #97
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
The Predators do not own the GEC but do run it.
Actually once the bond issue is payed off yes they will own it.

vanlady is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 12:28 PM
  #98
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 16,963
vCash: 500
Actually no they will not.

It is owned by the tax payers of Nashville and was built 2 years before Nashville was granted a franchise.

I was on the Check into Nashville board.

triggrman is online now  
Old
11-12-2004, 12:32 PM
  #99
Marconius
Registered User
 
Marconius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Really? Do you see any progress? Is the NHL even an inch closer to getting what they want? Set aside what you think should happen or what you would like to see happen, or what you think the players should do.

The players clearly are not going to accept the Levitt report. They are not going to design or accept a formula for NHL revenues and tie salaries to it. If that is not clear by this point, is anything about this dispute clear?

The owners and owner apologists have managed to trash the product and paint the players as greedy pigs who are bent on destroying the NHL as we know it. Fine, that's what the players are. The greedy pigs have shrugged and now they are flocking to Europe. Slam had a piece this morning: There are six Ottawa Senators who are not playing hockey right now. That's pressure on the players, eh?

We've got empty rinks, no NHL revenues, booming European leagues, more and more fans turning off, and more and more players finding alternate employment while they wait for the owners to crack.

The NHL has been reduced to trotting out the likes of Jean Beliveau and William Wirtz. Pierre Maguire is wondering why no one seems concerned about terrorism in Europe, John Davidson is linking Zholtok's death to poor medical care in Europe, and Brian Burke is assuring us that Gary Bettman really does like hockey, yes sir.

Now what? What's the plan? The players are going to cave? Who believes that?

Tom

Or you could look at it this way.
The players, desperate enough to go over to Europe and start playing, are creating a ton of negative publicity for themselves. Most are playing for a fraction of their NHL salaries.
The players are starting to realize that a businessman/owner can make money till he's dead of old-age, whereas their earning power is roughly between the ages of 20-35. The owners, claiming they lose less money with lockout on, seem to be quite comfortable to let their other enterprises keep making money. A player who loses 3 million this year due to the lockout, does not have many chances to recoup those losses. An owner who loses 3million this year has the rest of his life to recoup the loss.
It also seems that the players are starting to recognize that there is about 20% of them who can ride this lockout out, all the mid-tier, low-tier players are starting to realize that their morgate payments are going to keep coming due, wether they are playing hockey for 1.3 million, or working at Home depot for 8 bucks an hour.

Seems to me that the players are a lot closer to caving

Marconius is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 12:39 PM
  #100
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 16,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
Actually no they will not.

It is owned by the tax payers of Nashville and was built 2 years before Nashville was granted a franchise.

I was on the Check into Nashville board.
Oh and technically Powers Management is the operating management company under contract with the Nashville to manage the arena. Powers is owned by Craig Leopold the owner of the Predators.

He does not now nor never will own the arena.


Last edited by triggrman: 11-12-2004 at 01:11 PM.
triggrman is online now  
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 04:11 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.