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.
Lockout VII: I've walked for miles, my feet are hurting
If so, why has Fehr been quiet on this subject if the majority of the NHL franchises are operating with a profit. I think the fact is that they are not..
That is indeed the question. If PA audit showed most teams making a profit (or not losing money), why hasn't Fehr said anything?
Precisely. We don't know. The NHL themselves have never said the majority of teams are losing money. It just bugs me how many people state this as a fact, when it is not by any stretch.
What are you basing that on? At least people who say many teams are losing money have people on the inside backing them up. Former Blue Jackets governor Doug Maclean has stated many times that roughly 10 teams lose money every year and another 10 are around break even every year, while roughly 10 make money every year. Bill Daily was on hockey central at noon at one point and essentially confirmed that was in the ballpark.
Secondly, the NHLPA has mountains of financial documents form the NHL. Of all the rhetoric the players say about the lockout. We want our contracts to be honoured. We have given and given but never got anything back. They not once have said, hardly any teams are losing money. The PA knows very well how many teams make or lose money. If the vast majority made money they would certainly have made it public
Some evidence (Forbes) that teams are losing money. No evidence that they're not. If you're impartial, you take what you can get. If you're committed to proving one side wrong, of course you can choose to ignore the limited evidence we have.
A lot of the NHL teams are what I consider loss leaders for their owners who also manage the arena. Florida being a prime example. Team loses money but the company owning the Panthers makes a profit by running the arena.
What are you basing that on? At least people who say many teams are losing money have people on the inside backing them up. Former Blue Jackets governor Doug Maclean has stated many times that roughly 10 teams lose money every year and another 10 are around break even every year, while roughly 10 make money every year. Bill Daily was on hockey central at noon at one point and essentially confirmed that was in the ballpark.
Secondly, the NHLPA has mountains of financial documents form the NHL. Of all the rhetoric the players say about the lockout. We want our contracts to be honoured. We have given and given but never got anything back. They not once have said, hardly any teams are losing money. The PA knows very well how many teams make or lose money. If the vast majority made money they would certainly have made it public
That is the point. Forbes said 18 teams are losing money, LeBrun (IIRC) said 14 are losing money.
Some people here claim you can't prove that. True, nobody here can prove that since we don't have the audited books available to us.
But here's the question; if PA doesn't challenge the notion of most teams losing money/breaking even, should anyone here doubt it?
The Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers, and Montreal Canadians are separate franchises in the same business. They are not separate companies. Read the NHL bylaws.
Care to cite a specific by-law? Because not only did I not stumble across any such by-law when skimming through them earlier today, everything I have read implies the opposite.
That is indeed the question. If PA audit showed most teams making a profit (or not losing money), why hasn't Fehr said anything?
Fugu?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick
Secondly, the NHLPA has mountains of financial documents form the NHL. Of all the rhetoric the players say about the lockout. We want our contracts to be honoured. We have given and given but never got anything back. They not once have said, hardly any teams are losing money. The PA knows very well how many teams make or lose money. If the vast majority made money they would certainly have made it public
This is a fallacy that keeps being perpetuated - they are not getting anything close to a full financial audit from the league. The NHLPA is NOT getting P/L statements from the league. They are getting financial documents necessary to calculate HRR only. They are not getting documents relating to expenses. Needless to say, if you are only getting financials relating to revenue but not expenses, it is impossible to determine profit or loss.
However, let's say we have McDonald's or Subway or Tim Horton's or whatever franchise you want.
There is one in Town A that is doing great. There is another in Town B that is owned by another owner and they are doing poorly, not even breaking even. Does the Town A franchise have to share money with the Town B franchise to keep them going?
Your example doesn't work because the Tim Horton's in Town A isn't a partner of the one in Town B. They are COMPLETELY separate entities that paid for the right to own a Tim Horton's banner.
The NHL doesn't work this way. Every teams are business partners, the league is set up that way. The operate under the exact same rules (which isn't true with your Tim Horton's example) and RELY on each other to make money - after all, your team has to play another team. The league, with the approval of the owners, decided to expand down South in order to grow the game. They decided it was a good business idea (if done properly, it would be) to explore new markets and they knew it would take time for them to flourish, so yeah, IMO' they should be the ones helping them breaking even.
Your example doesn't work because the Tim Horton's in Town A isn't a partner of the one in Town B. They are COMPLETELY separate entities that paid for the right to own a Tim Horton's banner.
The NHL doesn't work this way. Every teams are business partners, the league is set up that way. The operate under the exact same rules (which isn't true with your Tim Horton's example) and RELY on each other to make money - after all, your team has to play another team. The league, with the approval of the owners, decided to expand down South in order to grow the game. They decided it was a good business idea (if done properly, it would be) to explore new markets and they knew it would take time for them to flourish, so yeah, IMO' they should be the ones helping them breaking even.
Or, to put it another way, it's in the interest of a McDonalds to put a Burger King out of business. It's NOT in the interest of a McDonalds to put another McDonalds out of business. Sport leagues compete internally of the playing fields (or ice, or court, ect.) but operate as business partners OFF the playing fields.....Indeed, it's the only way they CAN operate if they want long-term success.
#NHL players will have a chance to vote on whatever offer exists at the deadline...players give me the impression they'll vote to play
Well duh, seems that Donnie may not have been acting in ALL of the players' best interest. If Bettman is a #@*&, and he just may be, he should lower the offer right before the deadline.
This is a fallacy that keeps being perpetuated - they are not getting anything close to a full financial audit from the league. The NHLPA is NOT getting P/L statements from the league. They are getting financial documents necessary to calculate HRR only. They are not getting documents relating to expenses. Needless to say, if you are only getting financials relating to revenue but not expenses, it is impossible to determine profit or loss.
Considering HRR has many expenses encomposed in it, they would be getting some expense information. HRR is not a gross revenue number.
Well duh, seems that Donnie may not have been acting in ALL of the players' best interest. If Bettman is a #@*&, and he just may be, he should lower the offer right before the deadline.
Would the owners vote "no" on the NHLPA's current proposal if a simple majority was all that was needed to end the lockout? I wonder...
Your example doesn't work because the Tim Horton's in Town A isn't a partner of the one in Town B. They are COMPLETELY separate entities that paid for the right to own a Tim Horton's banner.
The NHL doesn't work this way. Every teams are business partners, the league is set up that way. The operate under the exact same rules (which isn't true with your Tim Horton's example) and RELY on each other to make money - after all, your team has to play another team. The league, with the approval of the owners, decided to expand down South in order to grow the game. They decided it was a good business idea (if done properly, it would be) to explore new markets and they knew it would take time for them to flourish, so yeah, IMO' they should be the ones helping them breaking even.
So both Tim Horton's franchises aren't part of the same company, like both NHL teams are part of the same league? I am sure Tim Horton's wants each one to be successful, just like the NHL wants every team to be successful. Tim Horton's doesn't want to have any franchises get closed down or moved, just like the NHL doesn't want any teams to close up shop or move. One has revenue sharing and one doesn't. One is based upon only the strong surviving and the other is based upon helping out franchises that don't make money.
Two different business models. I understand how the NHL is set up. I know that the league as a whole has revenue sharing and it is best for the league and the only way that it will survive with 30 teams.
They just go against themselves when they are competing directly against one another, on the ice/in free agency, yet they go back and help each other out with revenue sharing, because at the end of the day Gary Bettman has a state of the union on how the NHL is doing as a whole and not each team individually. Toronto won't let another team come within the GTA but they are willing to share money with Phoenix?
As a side note, why is it that all the posters that retaliate against me are always Canadian? I like your country.
This is a fallacy that keeps being perpetuated - they are not getting anything close to a full financial audit from the league. The NHLPA is NOT getting P/L statements from the league. They are getting financial documents necessary to calculate HRR only. They are not getting documents relating to expenses. Needless to say, if you are only getting financials relating to revenue but not expenses, it is impossible to determine profit or loss.
Care to provide some backup to that claim?
They got 76.000 pages of independently audited statements in the summer and players called that "the first drop".
The expenses taken off the top of HRR are pretty minor. They would not give you an inkling of the overall picture.
You never did reply where you got the information that the majority of teams don't lose money, not by a stretch. I'm genuinely curious cause I base my assumptions based on information from hockey people I find credible. If you have better sources I'd like to know. Through this whole thing I've tried being as informaed as I can.
Riptide, care to show us a summary of that number crunching you did?
Certainly. See the attachment.
Two tabs. Tab 1 (splitting the gate) strictly TMR data (which we KNOW is basically invalid). However I used it as a base point, as I had nothing else to gauge ticket prices on. Tab 2 (modified ticket price) took the TMR numbers and added $270 to each teams ticket price. My only goal here was to see how high ticket prices needed to be to redistribute the same 200m the NHL has said they'll redistribute under their RS plan (really more of a wealth redistribution plan). There's no basis for this price, as we know it's a LOT higher than whatever the true average NHL ticket price is.
There's a legend in the table explaining each column. Everything is based off the ticket price and attendance. Screw around with those numbers to your hearts content.
As an FYI, TMR is not a valid source for the average ticket price. Sometime in the last few years (maybe longer, I'm not sure), they divided their ticket prices into two columns. Average ticket price, and Premium ticket price. These premium seats are not included in TMR's average ticket prices (so I've been told). However without knowing how many premium seats a team has, we have no method of determining what a teams true average seat costs.
If anyone actually has some valid data for this, I'd love to have it.
__________________ "It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
All you know is that they haven't publicly made a big deal about it.
Huh? You mean when Brooks, Shoalts etc keep publishing daily PA-leaked propaganda but something as crucial as not having enough data to challenge claims of most teams not making money hasn't been made public?
Because the NHL would tell them to take a short walk off a long pier, as well as they should. It is none of the NHLPA's business.
So you seriously expect the PA and their media shills to keep quiet about not having the data? Does that sound believeable to you when Brooks etc. keep spewing leaked info every day?
Not buying that for a second.
Also I'm waiting for you to prove that the 76.000 pages of independently audited statements NHL provided in the summer didn't include anything close to a P/L statement.
You don't know that they haven't.
All you know is that they haven't publicly made a big deal about it.
And I would be willing to bet a LOT of money on the fact that IF those papers showed that the vast majority of teams (say 24+ teams) were posting profits from their hockey operations (including things like parking, concessions, etc) that it would have been leaked by someone in the PA.
There's not a chance in hell that the PA would keep quiet and allow rumors to circulate regularly that 1/3rd of the league (or more) were losing money on a yearly basis if they knew and could prove that wasn't the case.
