HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Forbes qisputes league's figures

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-13-2004, 02:39 PM
  #1
Laches
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,175
vCash: 500
Forbes qisputes league's figures

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp...11&hubName=nhl

I don't know what to make of this. I've always been somewhat skeptical of the owner's claims, although I don't really know how much credit to give this report since they didn't have access to a lot of information and probably had to engage in a fair amount of speculation and extrapolation to arrive where they did.

No matter whose numbers you believe, the league is doing pretty poorly. Even if you believe this report, the fact that the league lost 'only' $96 million is only further proof that something needs to be worked out.

Laches is offline  
Old
11-13-2004, 03:25 PM
  #2
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,900
vCash: 500
This likely includes a lot of the unreported income. For example, the Cablevision owns the Rangers and MSG network. How much money does the network "pay" the team for the broadcast rights? The numbers Bettman used (and the report which said the Rangers lost $40MM) likely credited all the advertising revenue to the MSG Network books. Same can be said for teams like the Leafs (Leafs TV) and the Flyers (comcast). These numbers probably give the money to the teams as if they were receiving a payment. Other things probably inculded are concessions. Most of the teams contract out and get a percent of revenues. The Rangers and Flyers are self-op by the arena. Do the books for the team reflect a percentage of the concessions? Probably not for Bettman's numbers, but I'm sure these numbers take this into consideration.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
11-13-2004, 05:17 PM
  #3
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
No doubt, Laches...

but a $31 million cap is not the absolutely only solution...

Fletch is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 08:11 AM
  #4
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg
This likely includes a lot of the unreported income. For example, the Cablevision owns the Rangers and MSG network. How much money does the network "pay" the team for the broadcast rights? The numbers Bettman used (and the report which said the Rangers lost $40MM) likely credited all the advertising revenue to the MSG Network books.
Dolan does not get a hundred percent of the television revenue.
Rupert Murdoch's agreement with Msg from the MSG-Fox merger gives him a 40/60 split of all television revenue.

NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 11:45 AM
  #5
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
but a $31 million cap is not the absolutely only solution...

That was not the only solution when we found out how much money was lost from the Levitt report and now that we found it its only about a thrid of what they claimed a 40 million salary cap seems silly. 3.1 losses on average per team...a Luxary Tax and Revenue Sharing would EASILY fix that. Heck they can even add a 6 million player cap. (For NEW contracts not on exsisting contracts)

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 12:20 PM
  #6
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Dolan does not get a hundred percent of the television revenue.
Rupert Murdoch's agreement with Msg from the MSG-Fox merger gives him a 40/60 split of all television revenue.
That I did not realize, but I'm sure the 60% is going on the books of MSG Network and not the Rangers. Besides, that may be the case with the games on Fox Sports. The Rangers have always been on MSG, are you sure that is acurate?

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 12:23 PM
  #7
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
That's been my point from the get-go...

me, I don't look at overall league losses and try to develop one solution to fix it. I think the problem is different that $224 million in losses, or $90+, whatever the number is. Sorry for the repitition, but I'll say it again. The problem is that few teams dominate the UFA market. Other teams have trouble holding onto RFAs when they become good. To me, teams are pretty maxed-out in terms of what they'd spend on player salaries. There does come a point at which you say enough's enough (i.e., the Rangers could've spent more than $80 mil., but didn't, somehow). Put in a luxury tax. It will drag salaries, and teams such as Edmonton would benefit from money in their pocket to spend or save, as well as costs for UFAs and RFAs would decrease by an amount. Next, with revenue sharing, teams such as Edmonton will benefit from the Rangers' revenue streams. Again, a redistribution. This is what the NHLPA wants, and this will get it going again, and it promotes overall healthiness of the league. I don't care if the Rangers lose $40 million. I care if Edmonton and Calgary continuously have to dump players because the Rangers and others drive up prices.

Fletch is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 01:18 PM
  #8
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
me, I don't look at overall league losses and try to develop one solution to fix it. I think the problem is different that $224 million in losses, or $90+, whatever the number is. Sorry for the repitition, but I'll say it again. The problem is that few teams dominate the UFA market. Other teams have trouble holding onto RFAs when they become good. To me, teams are pretty maxed-out in terms of what they'd spend on player salaries. There does come a point at which you say enough's enough (i.e., the Rangers could've spent more than $80 mil., but didn't, somehow). Put in a luxury tax. It will drag salaries, and teams such as Edmonton would benefit from money in their pocket to spend or save, as well as costs for UFAs and RFAs would decrease by an amount. Next, with revenue sharing, teams such as Edmonton will benefit from the Rangers' revenue streams. Again, a redistribution. This is what the NHLPA wants, and this will get it going again, and it promotes overall healthiness of the league. I don't care if the Rangers lose $40 million. I care if Edmonton and Calgary continuously have to dump players because the Rangers and others drive up prices.
Yea..thats why i said have a 6 million player cap max...so if they have a superstar they dont have to worry about losing him over money...i mean if they wont pay a player like Heatley 6 million then they dont deserve him..but 8 10 million is insane. The whole thing with the new CBA is cost certainey not even playing field..which there aready is because look who makes the finals...Ducks, Flames, Tampa, Devils. None of these teams have a payroll like the Avs or Det but still manage to make it to the finals...its all about the GM picking team players and players that will fit with the team..once he does that it doesnt matter the salary. Baseball it matters because in baseball its an Induvial sport(which is y they REALLY REALLY need a cap)..hockey is an all team sport. So you can have all the best players in the world but it doesnt mean anything if they cant play together...hmm like the Rangers the past seasons.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 08:38 PM
  #9
Laches
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
but a $31 million cap is not the absolutely only solution...
---Never suggested it was.

Laches is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 09:16 PM
  #10
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Sorry Laches..

I wasn't implying...it's just been my tagline for all conversations in relation to the cap.

Fletch is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 07:37 AM
  #11
Sad London Ranger
RIP Boogie
 
Sad London Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: london england
Posts: 2,455
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Sad London Ranger
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/1129/124.html

that is good journalism!

Sad London Ranger is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 12:01 PM
  #12
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg
That I did not realize, but I'm sure the 60% is going on the books of MSG Network and not the Rangers. Besides, that may be the case with the games on Fox Sports. The Rangers have always been on MSG, are you sure that is acurate?
Absolutely.

I read this about a month ago where the percentage was released as to what Murdoch get's for his partnership with Msg. Whatever the television revenue is, however it is broken down from each team Murdoch get's forty percent of the overall network revenues.

This is from the merger agreement years ago. Fox (sportschannel) and Msg used to be seperate. Which is why over a season now all three teams will play games on Msg, Fox and Metro...

NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 12:11 PM
  #13
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laches
No matter whose numbers you believe, the league is doing pretty poorly. Even if you believe this report, the fact that the league lost 'only' $96 million is only further proof that something needs to be worked out.
However it DOES furhter throw doubt as to Bettman's $31m cap number, since his reason for such a low cap is the purported $224m loss. Obviously if the losses are not as great as he is making them out to be, it would stand to reason that eiher 1) the $31m number can be greatly raised or 2) there are better solutions than the one he presented.
However, Laches IS 100% correct. Anyway you look at it, something has to change.

True Blue is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 12:21 PM
  #14
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
However it DOES furhter throw doubt as to Bettman's $31m cap number, since his reason for such a low cap is the purported $224m loss. Obviously if the losses are not as great as he is making them out to be, it would stand to reason that eiher 1) the $31m number can be greatly raised or 2) there are better solutions than the one he presented.
However, Laches IS 100% correct. Anyway you look at it, something has to change.
the owners are still losing a lot of money and who knows if forbes is right.

in order for us to see hockey again the players have to give more back more than the owners

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 12:37 PM
  #15
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
the owners are still losing a lot of money and who knows if forbes is right.

in order for us to see hockey again the players have to give more back more than the owners
I think that we poked enough holes in Levitt's report to show that the chances of his numbers being real are very low. Most of us agree that the $223 number is inflated. BUT, you ARE right in saying that there IS money being lost. NO ONE can dispute that. However, WHY must it be the players that give? Again, all you are saying is that the players must give so that we can have our hockey fix. You've said as much before.
The players DO NOT have to give more than the owners. With every day that goes by, the owners position is weaker and weaker. More and more reports will come out that will make Levitt's report loose credence. Bettman's intent to declare an impasse is iffy at best. No impasse means no replacement players and thus he would HAVE TO deal with the NHLPA unless the owners are ready to fold the NHL (highly doubtfull).

True Blue is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 01:06 PM
  #16
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
SoS...

I seriously doubt that Forbes' number are correct, as much of it has to do with estimates, but I'm sure that at the minimum you can split the difference and feel pretty safe. They do cite a couple big numbers that were excluded from the league's figures, which could be somewhat accurate. Point is, the players, most likely, were looking at a set of books that were not accurate. It's tough to put forth a proposal when you don't really know the numbers. Of course TSN, in its pro-owner state, had to throw in verbage that suggests that the Forbes' numbers are inaccurate, but one thing is for sure, there's no way the losses are understated, and I'm sure many financial analysts and accountants can poke holes and eat away at the league's losses.

Fletch is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 01:13 PM
  #17
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
I think that we poked enough holes in Levitt's report to show that the chances of his numbers being real are very low. Most of us agree that the $223 number is inflated. BUT, you ARE right in saying that there IS money being lost. NO ONE can dispute that. However, WHY must it be the players that give? Again, all you are saying is that the players must give so that we can have our hockey fix. You've said as much before.
The players DO NOT have to give more than the owners. With every day that goes by, the owners position is weaker and weaker. More and more reports will come out that will make Levitt's report loose credence. Bettman's intent to declare an impasse is iffy at best. No impasse means no replacement players and thus he would HAVE TO deal with the NHLPA unless the owners are ready to fold the NHL (highly doubtfull).
the owners created these problems and the players have to pay the price for it. is it fair? no its not but thats the reality of the situation. in order for the nhl to exist there needs to be a salary cap, although a 31 million dollar cap is unreasonable. (although i have only heard that number from larry brooks so i have to believe its higher because brooks doesn't get anything right)

you ask why the players have to give in and the simple answer is because the owners are not going too.


Last edited by Son of Steinbrenner: 11-15-2004 at 01:20 PM.
Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 01:19 PM
  #18
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
I seriously doubt that Forbes' number are correct, as much of it has to do with estimates, but I'm sure that at the minimum you can split the difference and feel pretty safe. They do cite a couple big numbers that were excluded from the league's figures, which could be somewhat accurate. Point is, the players, most likely, were looking at a set of books that were not accurate. It's tough to put forth a proposal when you don't really know the numbers. Of course TSN, in its pro-owner state, had to throw in verbage that suggests that the Forbes' numbers are inaccurate, but one thing is for sure, there's no way the losses are understated, and I'm sure many financial analysts and accountants can poke holes and eat away at the league's losses.
the NHLPA has to know the owners are losing money and i'm sure they can come up with a ballpark figure. I'm sure anybody can poke holes at the numbers but it seems to me a business that is losing over a 100 million every year is not going to survive. i'm putting the numbers at 100 millino while forbes has them at 123 million and the owners have them at 273 million. 50 million in the red is a huge loss!!!!!!

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 03:04 PM
  #19
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
although a 31 million dollar cap is unreasonable. (although i have only heard that number from larry brooks so i have to believe its higher because brooks doesn't get anything right)
Are you telling me that you have never heard the words $31m hard cap from either Bettman or Daly?

"you ask why the players have to give in and the simple answer is because the owners are not going too."

Then the owners had better be prepared to fold the entire league. Something I do not think that 99% of them are prepared to do, since such an action does 3 things:
1. Trashes their name
2. Causes them to loose TONS of money
3. Perhaps the most gauling to them. They would still be required to pay the players with existing contracts IN FULL.

Blindly stating that owners are not going to give in one inch is turing a blind eye to reality. Much as I am on the players side, I cannot state the same thing about the players. However, the players are not going to give in simply because the owners do not. And that is not a good enough reason to do so. With more and more time that goes by, there are going to be more and more reports that show the the league's reported loss number is not factual and that Bettman is not bargaining in good faith. That will prevent Bettman from declaring an impasse. At that point, Bettman will either have to deal with the NHLPA on their terms or fold the NHL as a league. I highly doubt that the owners are prepared for the latter to occur.

True Blue is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 03:05 PM
  #20
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
50 million in the red is a huge loss!!!!!!
Sure it is. But it does not require a $31m hard cap.

True Blue is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 03:38 PM
  #21
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
but a $31 million cap is not the absolutely only solution...
Perhaps not but will the NHLPA accept any link between revenue and player salary?

dedalus is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 03:43 PM
  #22
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
the owners created these problems and the players have to pay the price for it. is it fair? no its not
I disagree with this but agree with your basic premise. The owners did indeed create this problem, but it is the players who have benefited from it. In fact I find it a joke when players call the league's financial difficulties "a problem" that owners have created. For as much as some like to whine about the league being "fixed on the players' backs," the players have benefited immensely from this broken league. The NHLPA wasn't screaming about fairness when they were collecting their windfall throughout the last CBA.

Therefore, if the problem is to be fixed, they must (and will) be the ones who pay the most to fix it. They reaped the most rewards as it skewed out of balance, and so the reversal now isn't merely necessary, it's just.


Last edited by dedalus: 11-15-2004 at 03:59 PM.
dedalus is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 03:45 PM
  #23
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
What I mean by a $31 million cap...

is not the only solution was not to suggest that perhaps $40 million is the number. The suggestion is that perhaps there's a solution that's other than a cap. That 'cost certainty' or a link between the two is the only solution. Will the NHLPA accept a higher, more reasonable number? I really don't know. Like I said, I don't care if the Rangers lose $100 million - that's their darn stupidity. I care that the league is healthy enough so the Edmonton's and Calgary's don't have to continuously shed players when youngsters become good - or save a bit extra in times to rebuilding. Getting $5-10 million in their pockets, with overall costs coming down due to taxes, is a way to achieve that objective, I believe.

On a side note, has the league talked about revenue sharing, or has that just been the NHLPA? I'm thinking the league would want to stay away from that because then you'd have smaller clubs, like PITT, saying to Wirtz that he has to include as income a proportion of those luxury box revenues in the 'sharing'. That could divide the owners a bit.

Fletch is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 03:57 PM
  #24
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
is not the only solution was not to suggest that perhaps $40 million is the number. The suggestion is that perhaps there's a solution that's other than a cap. That 'cost certainty' or a link between the two is the only solution. Will the NHLPA accept a higher, more reasonable number? I really don't know.
*shrugs* According to THN they're not. Goodenow will have nothing to do with a revenue/salary link of any kind.

dedalus is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 05:00 PM
  #25
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 8,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
On a side note, has the league talked about revenue sharing, or has that just been the NHLPA? I'm thinking the league would want to stay away from that because then you'd have smaller clubs, like PITT, saying to Wirtz that he has to include as income a proportion of those luxury box revenues in the 'sharing'. That could divide the owners a bit.
Can't post a link, but from what I've seen, the league is completely against revenue sharing.

Not surprising really.

Brooklyn Ranger 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 12:26 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.