sorry to beat a dead horse, but this is exactly why I don't trust the owners. $224 million's the loss number that's been bantered around. The Rangers represent approximately $40 million. OK, then why does Cablevision, in its recent quarterly filing with the SEC, state this:
'We can give no assurance as to when this labor dispute will be resolved and therefore can not determine the extent to which our operating results will be negatively impacted. We do not expect the lockout to have a significant impact on the Company’s consolidated operating results, however if the entire season were cancelled, the effect on the operating results of the Madison Square Garden segment would be significant.' If you lost $40 million, not having to pay $80 million in salaries would likely theoretically lower your loss and positively impact your results when compared to prior years. There are administrative expenses, against which there are no revenues, but they cannot be too significant given the bulk of expenses are player personnel costs.
Obviously I don't have all the pieces, but on the surface I don't trust the numbers.
It is very easy for the Rangers to show a loss or a profit, whichever is more convenient. First: TV revenue, since MSG Network and the Team are owned by the same parent company, the Rangers could state that ALL of the commercial revenue goes to MSG Network, and they do not receive a penny. Second: Concessions. Where most teams contract out, MSG is self-op. Since MSG is also owned by the same parent company, they (the Rangers) could claim the concession revenue is kept entirely by MSG. All of this is perfectly legal. It allows the Rangers to show a loss for Bettman's sake, but Cablevision's common stock is helped by the network, and the arena. I read an interview given by someone from the Flyers. Basically he said they have two sets of books. One is for the NHL, using only revenues which THEY consider to be hockey revenues. They also have their internal books which are more acurate to what the Flyers are making. Obviously, if there is no game to attend, the popcorn and hotdogs will not get sold, therefore it makes sense to credit ALL the concession profit to the team. Needless to say, the Flyers are also one of the teams which claimed a loss under Bettman's, and Levitt's figures. I am sure the Rangers have a second set of books which are used internally, and are more reflective of how much the Club earns for the parent company.
the Levitt audit was supposed to weed these things out. But I was being facetious when asking any questions. I don't trust any numbers and believe that most owners are being hurt by this lockout, despite reports to the contrary. I recognize that the current framework cannot be continued and needs to be changed for the better of the game and the health of the League, despite the league doing this to itself mostly (expansion was short-sighted as franchise fees brought windfalls to current owners, but at the expense of the long-term health of the game). I just think there's more than one way to go about, which is why I'm so frustrated as I sit here watching Karate Kid for the second time today when I should be watching the Rangers, or some other hockey game
Well you have to figure that their revenue streams are down...they've not got the advertising dollar they would have with the Rangers, which can also hurt other shows on their network by not publicising them which then drives their advertising dollar down...not to mention those luxury boxes they weren't counting in the profit column.
Not to mention all those other expenses you have just for owning the building and getting less revenue on it. Obviously it's a very complicated sum that depends a lot on what's going into it.
and has been, it's really tough to look at a league loss number as it's nearly impossible to segregate the hockey operations from other operations as despite a loss, the hockey operations is beneficial to an entity's overall performance, for many of the reasons you suggest Fish. Bettman's cited losses, losses and losses and bases his plan on those losses, but that's just the wrong way to go about it, which is something that's bothered me from the get-go.
The biggest problem I've had is not so much that as understanding which revenues are actually included and which expenses are included...I think the players association accept there's a problem (based on their last offer)...it's matter on agreeing what the numbers are, I still believe it's possible to do it.