HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Notices

Business of Hockey: Jets Edition

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-22-2012, 03:59 PM
  #26
surge1979
Registered User
 
surge1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 743
vCash: 50
I was hoping you would chime in here, ps241. Thanks for your valued input.

Do you have estimates for advertising? If board advertising is going for $200-$250k a pair, my ballpark guess based on CAR's situation is really low. With all the in-game advertising, game sponsors, Toyota deal, etc...what would you say is a reasonable number?

Great points on allocating only a share of suite and concession revenues to hockey events. Suite prices essentially tripled from the Moose to the Jets, so I think its obvious that the difference of $120K should likely fall under the Jets income side (even though Chippy might have a different set of books for HRR )

Concessions. I had no idea that the ACC was pulling in $30M / yr in concessions. If we're really in the $10M range for the Jets portion of concession revenues...thats really awesome.

Province's VLT Revenues. I was under the impressions that the province was cutting a cheque to the team for $4M / year and that money was coming from VLT revenues. Selinger made some argument about how they'd be moving some low performing machines to better locations to make up the money...but really it was just smoke and mirrors, IMO. I interpretted this to mean that the province was essentially going to take over the mortgage payments on the MTS Centre with $4M per year.

City Entertainment Tax Refund. I don't believe this is revenue neutral, but could be mistaken. I believe they charge the tax on all tickets, submit it to the city and then get $5.8M back. Can anyone clarify?

surge1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 04:47 PM
  #27
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,375
vCash: 500
Good job surge.

One thing I would keep in mind though is that a lot of the time it may be beneficial for TNSE to not list a few of these things as Hockey Related Revenue (HRR). For example, it would not surprise me if the way that the Winnipeg Jets are officially playing in the MTS through a lease to the MTS Centre. Obviously TNSE owns both, but it may be beneficial for the team to work under that agreement.

Which means for stuff like concessions the Jets may only get a very small cut of them, but MTS Centre gets a cut as well. Naming rights may be completely listed as revenue for MTS Centre, not Jets. In certain cases advertising may be paid to MTS Centre as well.

This helps reduce HRR, which is good for the owners who can then claim poor in situations like this CBA. It would also artificially lower the Jets HRR to the point where we might become eligible for revenue sharing. Obviously we (and everyone) knows that MTS Centre revenue goes straight into TNSE hands anyways, but it might be useful for the Jets to skirt the rules like that in order gain some benefits (most teams do things like that).

__________________


Holden Caulfield is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 05:01 PM
  #28
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by surge1979 View Post
Revenue Sharing
Central Revenues $10,000,000
Bottom 15 Share $0
Also, this number is low.

NHL gets 200 million annually via it's NBC Sports deal, 140-150 million a year via Canadian broadcasters (100 million from CBC, 50 million from TSN). All this revenue is split exactly 30 ways for the teams.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...php?p=31877239
200m/30 = 6.67 million
140m/30 = 5 million

On top of this we have the merchandise for the league, the league gets paid rights money for anything you buy with an NHL name on it which is split 30 ways. Can't find any info on that though, but I gotta think there's money there as well.

Obviously the NHL takes a cut to pay salaries of NHL employees and what not, but I would still estimate this number closer to 12-13 million.

Holden Caulfield is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 05:04 PM
  #29
Pavelec4MVP
MVP! MVP! MVP!
 
Pavelec4MVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 30,759
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Good job surge.

One thing I would keep in mind though is that a lot of the time it may be beneficial for TNSE to not list a few of these things as Hockey Related Revenue (HRR). For example, it would not surprise me if the way that the Winnipeg Jets are officially playing in the MTS through a lease to the MTS Centre. Obviously TNSE owns both, but it may be beneficial for the team to work under that agreement.

Which means for stuff like concessions the Jets may only get a very small cut of them, but MTS Centre gets a cut as well. Naming rights may be completely listed as revenue for MTS Centre, not Jets. In certain cases advertising may be paid to MTS Centre as well.

This helps reduce HRR, which is good for the owners who can then claim poor in situations like this CBA. It would also artificially lower the Jets HRR to the point where we might become eligible for revenue sharing. Obviously we (and everyone) knows that MTS Centre revenue goes straight into TNSE hands anyways, but it might be useful for the Jets to skirt the rules like that in order gain some benefits (most teams do things like that).
God bless creative accounting

__________________
Most Valuable Player
Most Valuable Player

Most Valuable Player
Most Valuable Player
Pavelec4MVP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 06:20 PM
  #30
epo
Registered User
 
epo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Good job surge.

One thing I would keep in mind though is that a lot of the time it may be beneficial for TNSE to not list a few of these things as Hockey Related Revenue (HRR). For example, it would not surprise me if the way that the Winnipeg Jets are officially playing in the MTS through a lease to the MTS Centre. Obviously TNSE owns both, but it may be beneficial for the team to work under that agreement.

Which means for stuff like concessions the Jets may only get a very small cut of them, but MTS Centre gets a cut as well. Naming rights may be completely listed as revenue for MTS Centre, not Jets. In certain cases advertising may be paid to MTS Centre as well.

This helps reduce HRR, which is good for the owners who can then claim poor in situations like this CBA. It would also artificially lower the Jets HRR to the point where we might become eligible for revenue sharing. Obviously we (and everyone) knows that MTS Centre revenue goes straight into TNSE hands anyways, but it might be useful for the Jets to skirt the rules like that in order gain some benefits (most teams do things like that).
Its all defined in the CBA. MTS Centre is a team affiliated so 65% of naming rights is HRR. It doesn't matter how TNSE sets it up for taxes or publication.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Also, this number is low.

NHL gets 200 million annually via it's NBC Sports deal, 140-150 million a year via Canadian broadcasters (100 million from CBC, 50 million from TSN). All this revenue is split exactly 30 ways for the teams.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...php?p=31877239
200m/30 = 6.67 million
140m/30 = 5 million

On top of this we have the merchandise for the league, the league gets paid rights money for anything you buy with an NHL name on it which is split 30 ways. Can't find any info on that though, but I gotta think there's money there as well.

Obviously the NHL takes a cut to pay salaries of NHL employees and what not, but I would still estimate this number closer to 12-13 million.
Illustration: Assume the total required amount of Player Compensation Cost Redistribution in a League Year is $80 million and that there are centrally generated League revenues of $350 million. The League is entitled to use up to fifty (50) percent of the excess centrally generated League revenues over $300 million (i.e., fifty (50) percent of $50 million, or $25 million) to fund up to twenty-five (25) percent of the Player Compensation Cost Redistribution Commitment. Since $80 million in Player Compensation Cost Redistribution must be raised, the League may use the centrally generated League revenues to satisfy $20 million of this required amount.

I've heard that around $140M is redistributed, so around $35M would come off central revenue (central revenue being > $370M allows for this).


Last edited by epo: 08-22-2012 at 06:26 PM.
epo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 07:15 PM
  #31
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,062
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Good job surge.

One thing I would keep in mind though is that a lot of the time it may be beneficial for TNSE to not list a few of these things as Hockey Related Revenue (HRR). For example, it would not surprise me if the way that the Winnipeg Jets are officially playing in the MTS through a lease to the MTS Centre. Obviously TNSE owns both, but it may be beneficial for the team to work under that agreement.

Which means for stuff like concessions the Jets may only get a very small cut of them, but MTS Centre gets a cut as well. Naming rights may be completely listed as revenue for MTS Centre, not Jets. In certain cases advertising may be paid to MTS Centre as well.

This helps reduce HRR, which is good for the owners who can then claim poor in situations like this CBA. It would also artificially lower the Jets HRR to the point where we might become eligible for revenue sharing. Obviously we (and everyone) knows that MTS Centre revenue goes straight into TNSE hands anyways, but it might be useful for the Jets to skirt the rules like that in order gain some benefits (most teams do things like that).
I've always thought that this issue (how each team organizes their business), was as, or more important than almost every other issue.

If I was a player I would be worried about what makes up the pie before I was fighting over my percentage of it.

I'll take 45% of a dollar over 60% of 70 cents any day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by epo View Post
Its all defined in the CBA. MTS Centre is a team affiliated so 65% of naming rights is HRR. It doesn't matter how TNSE sets it up for taxes or publication.
Thanks for that epo. What happens to ownerships that have more than one professional franchise in the same arena? I can't imagine the hockey team taking 65% of the naming rights and leaving 35% left over for the NBA.

As for how HRR is calculated, isn't that one of the big stumbling blocks? The players just got the "audited" records because they wanted to see how the owners were doing their books. And wasn't one of the issues in the Coyote saga the way the previous ownership group structured the books so that the hockey team took the losses from his other businesses?

Huffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 07:22 PM
  #32
ps241
2.6% chance
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,992
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Good job surge.

One thing I would keep in mind though is that a lot of the time it may be beneficial for TNSE to not list a few of these things as Hockey Related Revenue (HRR). For example, it would not surprise me if the way that the Winnipeg Jets are officially playing in the MTS through a lease to the MTS Centre. Obviously TNSE owns both, but it may be beneficial for the team to work under that agreement.

Which means for stuff like concessions the Jets may only get a very small cut of them, but MTS Centre gets a cut as well. Naming rights may be completely listed as revenue for MTS Centre, not Jets. In certain cases advertising may be paid to MTS Centre as well.

This helps reduce HRR, which is good for the owners who can then claim poor in situations like this CBA. It would also artificially lower the Jets HRR to the point where we might become eligible for revenue sharing. Obviously we (and everyone) knows that MTS Centre revenue goes straight into TNSE hands anyways, but it might be useful for the Jets to skirt the rules like that in order gain some benefits (most teams do things like that).
I can't speak to the structure of TNSE but most business's I know would absolutely separate up land and building co and business co.

I am not sure about their ability to split "game day" consession revenue away from HRR and I am sure most of that would have been dealt with in the CBA under HRR catagory. I know you are our CBA expert do you know how they Define HRR Holden?

On a side note they would definatley be able to run the lotteries money into the land and building co for capital improvements of facility and or other interesting venues that could end sweep the HRR catagory.

ps241 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 07:43 PM
  #33
ps241
2.6% chance
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,992
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by surge1979 View Post
I was hoping you would chime in here, ps241. Thanks for your valued input.

Do you have estimates for advertising? If board advertising is going for $200-$250k a pair, my ballpark guess based on CAR's situation is really low. With all the in-game advertising, game sponsors, Toyota deal, etc...what would you say is a reasonable number?

Great points on allocating only a share of suite and concession revenues to hockey events. Suite prices essentially tripled from the Moose to the Jets, so I think its obvious that the difference of $120K should likely fall under the Jets income side (even though Chippy might have a different set of books for HRR )

Concessions. I had no idea that the ACC was pulling in $30M / yr in concessions. If we're really in the $10M range for the Jets portion of concession revenues...thats really awesome.

Province's VLT Revenues. I was under the impressions that the province was cutting a cheque to the team for $4M / year and that money was coming from VLT revenues. Selinger made some argument about how they'd be moving some low performing machines to better locations to make up the money...but really it was just smoke and mirrors, IMO. I interpretted this to mean that the province was essentially going to take over the mortgage payments on the MTS Centre with $4M per year.

City Entertainment Tax Refund. I don't believe this is revenue neutral, but could be mistaken. I believe they charge the tax on all tickets, submit it to the city and then get $5.8M back. Can anyone clarify?
I am guessing the ACC would run their own concessions but if they used centre plate MLSE would probably gross $13,800,000 profit from concessions on all events then the leafs game day revenue would have to be defined for HRR.

for TNSE I would think they would gross closer to $6.7 million on "all" MTS centre concession business and then they would need to submit the Jets portion for HRR.

If I was talking to TNSE or MLSE I would encourage them to keep this service in house and hire a consultant to run it. You have zero competition, a captive audience, and really attractive margins. more often than not the logistics and "original" set up are a bit of a distraction for a group like TNSE but once the agreement expires it would be easier to "assume" existing operations by coop-ting existing staff and Managment and running with it as is.

I have know idea on the sponsorship and advertising revenue but I will be hanging out with some guys next week who will be able to speak on the subject from a position of knowledge. not about the Jets specifically but certainly other NHL operations. I will add it to my list of questions when we are all drunk.

ps241 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 07:44 PM
  #34
Brian Cadle Fan
Registered User
 
Brian Cadle Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 204
vCash: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
I was shocked to go to Jet games this year and see EVERYONE spending gobs of Money on concessions. Beers were everywhere all game long. I would estimate the cost per person at Jets games at least 40 dollars per person

That might even be conservative
You have to average in cheapskates like me. I usually spend $0.00 at games or movies on concessions.

Brian Cadle Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 07:53 PM
  #35
KingSalamon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
I am a cheapskate too... of all the games I've gone to, I've bought concessions maybe for 3 games... and that was a hot dog or a drink.

We aren't talking 50/50 though right? My wife won't let me go to a game without buying a 50/50. lol

$5 may be a little low though... my neighbours more than make up my lack of spending by spending a lot on several drinks and junk food every game. (One neighbour bought me a beer one game... I owe him a drink next season... lol)

KingSalamon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 08:02 PM
  #36
epo
Registered User
 
epo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffer View Post
I've always thought that this issue (how each team organizes their business), was as, or more important than almost every other issue.

If I was a player I would be worried about what makes up the pie before I was fighting over my percentage of it.

I'll take 45% of a dollar over 60% of 70 cents any day.



Thanks for that epo. What happens to ownerships that have more than one professional franchise in the same arena? I can't imagine the hockey team taking 65% of the naming rights and leaving 35% left over for the NBA.

As for how HRR is calculated, isn't that one of the big stumbling blocks? The players just got the "audited" records because they wanted to see how the owners were doing their books. And wasn't one of the issues in the Coyote saga the way the previous ownership group structured the books so that the hockey team took the losses from his other businesses?
32.5% with an NBA team. Also allowed to deduct some for other teams (NLL, WNBA, CHL) before the 65% is applied. Moyes was sketchy on costs with the coyotes, and only HRR matters to the players. Coyotes rented expensive office space from him and I believe flew expensive charter through him.

epo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 09:56 PM
  #37
No Name Poster
Maurice Navidad
 
No Name Poster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Peg
Country: Canada
Posts: 301
vCash: 1000
The thing I take solace in the most here is that in our first year we likely out grossed the Coyotes by 50 some odd million dollars.
For the record, I don't believe TNSE owns any parking yet. The large parade at City Place and the surface lot by Tavern are owned by MPIC as far as I know. longboat development which I believe is Chipman family business does own parking lots but I'm guessing that revenue doesn't see True North's books

Great thread!!

No Name Poster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 10:36 PM
  #38
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,988
vCash: 500
For those who aren't spending $$$$ on concessions at Jets games have no worries, plenty of other folks are dropping some money at games.

There may also be some other ways for the Jets to still increase revenues but it would require league approval and may not be popular with fans.

This was in yesterday's Freep. It is much of what we have seen before.

Quote:
No updates or estimates of figures have yet been reported for 2011-12, but other than the situation of the Winnipeg Jets transfer from Atlanta, the financial situation of the league isn't thought to be much different.

In the league's first season back in Winnipeg since 1996, the Jets were believed to have generated revenues near $100 million, not far from the league average and likely within the top half of teams in that category.

Jets governor and True North Sports and Entertainment chairman Mark Chipman said in the spring projections showed his team likely would not qualify for league revenue sharing for the season, based on its standing in the top 15 of individual team revenue.

That result would be an improvement of tens of millions of dollars (revenue and net income) for both the franchise and the NHL over 2010-11, when the club was in Atlanta.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/spo...166859576.html

This is an older article from 2008 but outlines some $$$ for rink board adds in large markets. I don't think the Jets sold all of their rink board adds last season. There was a lot of in house advertising for Jets Gear and another in house pair if adds if I remember correctly. I assume those spots are for sale.

The article may be older but is worth a read.

Quote:


There are also subtle ways to spur revenue. A year ago, the NHL ordered rink-board ads, which sell for as much as $600,000 a pair for a season, to be reduced in width from 3.6 to 3.2 metres, so the league could squeeze more ads in rinks, says Toronto sports marketer Bob Stellick, a former Maple Leafs marketing executive.
Uniform advertising remains an untouched revenue stream. This could be a really good solution for teams having financial difficulties.

Quote:
The players are working alongside prominent hockey marketer Brad Robins and Edmonton player agent Ritch Winter. Robins and Winter estimate on-uniform ads might generate upwards of $30 million a season for the NHL. Robins has already briefed Gary Bettman on the concept, though it's uncertain whether the NHL commissioner has endorsed the idea
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/304287

blues10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 11:57 PM
  #39
Reed Solomon
GO ✈'s GO
 
Reed Solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Man.
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
Uniform advertising remains an untouched revenue stream. This could be a really good solution for teams having financial difficulties.
Your definition of "Good" is different from mine.

Bleh to uniform advertising.

Reed Solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 06:41 AM
  #40
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
I can't speak to the structure of TNSE but most business's I know would absolutely separate up land and building co and business co.

I am not sure about their ability to split "game day" consession revenue away from HRR and I am sure most of that would have been dealt with in the CBA under HRR catagory. I know you are our CBA expert do you know how they Define HRR Holden?

On a side note they would definatley be able to run the lotteries money into the land and building co for capital improvements of facility and or other interesting venues that could end sweep the HRR catagory.
I mostly know about the player management side, the roster rules, prospects, contracts, that sort of thing. That stuff interests me a lot more than this business stuff, there is a reason why I am not in business at university

Quote:
Originally Posted by epo View Post
Its all defined in the CBA. MTS Centre is a team affiliated so 65% of naming rights is HRR. It doesn't matter how TNSE sets it up for taxes or publication.

Illustration: Assume the total required amount of Player Compensation Cost Redistribution in a League Year is $80 million and that there are centrally generated League revenues of $350 million. The League is entitled to use up to fifty (50) percent of the excess centrally generated League revenues over $300 million (i.e., fifty (50) percent of $50 million, or $25 million) to fund up to twenty-five (25) percent of the Player Compensation Cost Redistribution Commitment. Since $80 million in Player Compensation Cost Redistribution must be raised, the League may use the centrally generated League revenues to satisfy $20 million of this required amount.

I've heard that around $140M is redistributed, so around $35M would come off central revenue (central revenue being > $370M allows for this).
Hmmm, I knew it was defined in the CBA, did not know it was that precise. There is still ways to avoid this though, is there not? Like what I said about the Centerplate, who does many things for MTS centre not related to Jets, seems to me like they would be able "hide" some money generation away from HRR. I would think the VLT's as well are easy to get away from HRR. IDK for sure, I was just throwing ideas out there, I am no lawyer or business person.

Holden Caulfield is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 06:51 AM
  #41
KingBogo
Admitted Homer
 
KingBogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 4,093
vCash: 1126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
I mostly know about the player management side, the roster rules, prospects, contracts, that sort of thing. That stuff interests me a lot more than this business stuff, there is a reason why I am not in business at university



Hmmm, I knew it was defined in the CBA, did not know it was that precise. There is still ways to avoid this though, is there not? Like what I said about the Centerplate, who does many things for MTS centre not related to Jets, seems to me like they would be able "hide" some money generation away from HRR. I would think the VLT's as well are easy to get away from HRR. IDK for sure, I was just throwing ideas out there, I am no lawyer or business person.
I would be shocked if VLT revenue was included in HRR. Most of the money being generated is not from people attending Jets games. There might be a bit of a bump before and after games, but most revenue is being generated by the guy sitting at the machine day after day not the guy throwing in a couple bucks before a game.

KingBogo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 06:58 AM
  #42
Pavelec4MVP
MVP! MVP! MVP!
 
Pavelec4MVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 30,759
vCash: 50
If the nhl starts putting adds on their jerseys like the cfl or european sports, i think i will just go crazy
I may not even watch hockey anymore

Pavelec4MVP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 07:20 AM
  #43
GermanJetsFan
*PEW* *PEW* *PEW*
 
GermanJetsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Darmstadt, GER
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,726
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Woodballs View Post
If the nhl starts putting adds on their jerseys like the cfl or european sports, i think i will just go crazy
I may not even watch hockey anymore
BS

Of course it would suck and IT. WOULD. SUCK. HARD.! But you'll get used to it. I hope for you that your love for hockey and the Jets is bigger than your aestethic feelings on hockey uniforms

Everybody will have to learn to live with it as there would be NOTHING we can do against it.

GermanJetsFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 07:22 AM
  #44
Pavelec4MVP
MVP! MVP! MVP!
 
Pavelec4MVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 30,759
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanJetsFan View Post
BS

Of course it would suck and IT. WOULD. SUCK. HARD.! But you'll get used to it. I hope for you that your love for hockey and the Jets is bigger than your aestethic feelings on hockey uniforms

Everybody will have to learn to live with it as there would be NOTHING we can do against it.
I wont live with it.
I would stop watching.
All that is, is money grubbing by already rich people

Pavelec4MVP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 07:37 AM
  #45
fitzy0019
Registered User
 
fitzy0019's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 48
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by surge1979 View Post
One thing thats missing from the revenue equation is the Moxie's lease. I have no clue what they're paying the Jets to lease that space but a guarantee its 3 times what it used to be. Anyone know?[/B][/B]
The other line item that seems to get a lot of attention is merchandise. Jets merch was literally flying off the shelves last year but most of that revenue goes to NHL Central Revenues and is divided up equally amongst all 30 teams. THe NHL and its member clubs are licensors, and are paid accordingly. Essentially, the Jets Stores get to keep the 20% retail markup and any of the customizing revenues...but its not as high as most people think.

Leaked data from Carolina had their merchanise revenue at $667,000K in 2010. I've also seen reports that the Leafs / Habs make about $3.5M on merchandising....so I settled on $2.5M.
the moxies lease, CHEAPEST rate they will be getting is $30/sq ft/year. no clue what their square footage is, but if 2000 sq ft that would be $60 000/yr i guarantee i am super low balling this number as well. wouldnt surprise me to have a $40/sq ft lease rate. im assuming in the event of a new tenant, cushman & wakefield would handle the leasing

fitzy0019 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 09:05 AM
  #46
ps241
2.6% chance
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,992
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzy0019 View Post
the moxies lease, CHEAPEST rate they will be getting is $30/sq ft/year. no clue what their square footage is, but if 2000 sq ft that would be $60 000/yr i guarantee i am super low balling this number as well. wouldnt surprise me to have a $40/sq ft lease rate. im assuming in the event of a new tenant, cushman & wakefield would handle the leasing
If you were to take a standard restaurant deal around the time the MTS centre was built a run of the mill deal would have been $22 to $28 PSF with a leasehold inducement of at least $50 PSF (100 psf if it was a new freestanding building). When this lease deal was done the Jets were not a tenant nor was that even on the radar screen. As a matter of fact as I recall this space was not easy to move since it is a very untraditional location. A norm for a deal like this would be a 10 year lease with two (or three) 5 year options for renewal. It is highly unlikely the rent picture changed when the Jets came to town since the tenant would have wanted the upside of the lift from that unlikely event occurring to offset some of the challenges facing this locations on non event and non game day revenue parts.

It would be safe to carry a number 7000 square feet x $25 to $30 PSF or $175,000 to $210,000 on the high side. This money would obviously flow into the building investment and would not be part of our Jets revenue model.

ps241 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 10:09 AM
  #47
ps241
2.6% chance
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,992
vCash: 50
Guys I would also caution that I highly doubt TNSE is concerned about gaming the HRR numbers. To begin with they are pretty honest people, and secondly there just isn't much upside to it. Any savings would be a drop in the big bucket that goes toward defining the overall league HRR and would have next to zero direct impact on their profitability.

I would think they would be much more focused on how to structure their operations and properly tax plan within the law to maximize net profit and return on invested capital.

ps241 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 10:32 AM
  #48
surge1979
Registered User
 
surge1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 743
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
It would be safe to carry a number 7000 square feet x $25 to $30 PSF or $175,000 to $210,000 on the high side. This money would obviously flow into the building investment and would not be part of our Jets revenue model.
Thats the range I was thinking. For simplicity, lets leave the Moxies' / Tim Hortons / Arby's/ Off the Rack rental income out of the Jets revenue model.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
Guys I would also caution that I highly doubt TNSE is concerned about gaming the HRR numbers. To begin with they are pretty honest people, and secondly there just isn't much upside to it. Any savings would be a drop in the big bucket that goes toward defining the overall league HRR and would have next to zero direct impact on their profitability.

I would think they would be much more focused on how to structure their operations and properly tax plan within the law to maximize net profit and return on invested capital.
So true. The likeliness that TNSE set up their operations and corporate structure to minimize HRR and subsequently save a few grand a year through reduced player compensation is zero. (I did a quick calc: for every $10M a team can shelter away from HRR would amount to about $188,000 in savings on the cap. Peanuts.) TNSE's business model, like any profit-seeking enterprise, would be based on maximizing profits and minimizing taxes.


Last edited by surge1979: 08-23-2012 at 10:41 AM.
surge1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 05:31 PM
  #49
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reed Solomon View Post
Your definition of "Good" is different from mine.

Bleh to uniform advertising.
I am a soccer fan so no big deal to me. It remains an untapped revenue stream in the NHL. Considering this is a primarily gate driven league the future may hold advertising on jerseys. With that being said I would want it to be up to individual teams to sell their own jersey advertising.

Jersey advertising could be very popular with the Nascar crowd to the south.



blues10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 06:15 AM
  #50
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
Guys I would also caution that I highly doubt TNSE is concerned about gaming the HRR numbers. To begin with they are pretty honest people, and secondly there just isn't much upside to it. Any savings would be a drop in the big bucket that goes toward defining the overall league HRR and would have next to zero direct impact on their profitability.

I would think they would be much more focused on how to structure their operations and properly tax plan within the law to maximize net profit and return on invested capital.
I am sure they have the plan in place that is needed, we can debate all day about hockey, but I honestly doubt anyone is questioning Thomson and Chipman's ability to make money and understand business

My main point in bringing this up is that I have a feeling that we will see many reports (think I saw one saying Jets revenue was under 100 million, could be wrong, I'll see if I can find it) stating the Jets revenue as not nearly as high as what is given in this thread, so I was just saying that although it may be this high or even higher, reported numbers may be much lower. And it may mean that it looks like the Jets are not doing that great, when in fact TNSE is making money hand over fist.

It is similiar to the situation in Florida in that although the team may not show up as a huge revenue source, the overall business plan is a very effective one that will be set up to maximize profits, which is why teams with a strong model like that will never be in financial trouble despite showing in the red at times. Teams like Los Angeles and Florida (that I know of off the top of my head) have reported losses in recent years, yet none are in bad shape financially since they are set up as mere parts of a huge business that makes alot of money for the owners. The Jets will be in a similiar situation to that (as in team is perhaps not the primary source of profit).

Holden Caulfield is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 06:13 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.