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.

$2.4B estimated HRR for 2012-13 (despite lockout)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-03-2013, 03:34 PM
  #1
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,260
vCash: 500
$2.4B estimated HRR for 2012-13 (despite lockout)

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...hPdXnsX2QvFI/0

Quote:
Slap Shots has learned the NHL recently informed the NHLPA the projected hockey-related revenue (HRR) for this truncated season will reach $2.4 billion, a staggering number with implications far beyond the obvious that the league essentially suffered no damage by locking out the players for more than three months.

Remember: HRR for 2011-12 hit a record $3.3 billion. That was for a 1,230-game regular-season, plus playoffs, preseason and special events — including the Winter Classic and All-Star festivities.

This $2.4 billion projection is for a 720-game regular season plus the playoffs. Thus, the NHL expects to generate 72.7 percent of last year’s revenue in 58.5 percent of the season — and without the benefits reaped from the money-printing outdoor game.
...
Attendance and percentage of capacity are up dramatically, essentially across the board. Television ratings, both locally and nationally, are healthier than ever on almost a case-by-case basis. Fewer games have created more importance, and thus more focused attention, on each one.

The lesson here for the NHL (and NHLPA) is reducing the schedule to 70 games in a season that begins in the final week of October — it would be important to get a jump on the NBA — very well could and almost certainly would not only produce better hockey but generate more interest and thus more revenue.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 04:03 PM
  #2
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,005
vCash: 500
Wow, what a number for a lockout shortened season-not 3 Billion, but not far off-I'm impressed.

I agree about the "less games mean each game means more" idea, though I don't think the NHL is going to go to 70 games-that's asking the owners to remove 6 home games(?), very unlikely IMO.

Still though, impressive numbers which must have more than a few economists scratching their heads.

Tinalera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 04:23 PM
  #3
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 47,405
vCash: 500
Highly doubt games will be cut.

Kitten Mittons is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 04:30 PM
  #4
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
What does this mean in terms of the Cap next year? It makes no sense to drop the Cap with this large of a revenue increase.

Orrthebest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 05:39 PM
  #5
Diamondillium
DO YOU WANT ANTS!?
 
Diamondillium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,359
vCash: 50
Wow, you know the sport is growing fast when a half-season lockout doesn't even slow down growth.

Don't know if I should be happy or mad.

Diamondillium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 05:43 PM
  #6
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
That's an amazing number. Should help the owners make up for the artificially high cap this year.

MountainHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 05:45 PM
  #7
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,591
vCash: 500
I'm not surprised at all. The league makes the bulk of the money after Christmas.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 06:27 PM
  #8
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,093
vCash: 500
You don't cut games based off of this peculiar season. Revenues could just as well transfer over to an 82 game season and then some.

XX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 06:37 PM
  #9
Tough Guy
Registered User
 
Tough Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
I agree about the "less games mean each game means more" idea, though I don't think the NHL is going to go to 70 games-that's asking the owners to remove 6 home games(?), very unlikely IMO.
If it results in more revenue, why wouldn't they do it? If increasing revenue was simply a matter of having lots of games, then why stop at 82? Why not play 100 or more?

A 70 game season would be great. I would bet everything I owned that overall revenues would skyrocket if they reduced the number of games. Not to mention the quality of the game itself would go through the roof. Modern players are too big, too fast, and too strong to be running into each other 82 times a season.

Tough Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 07:47 PM
  #10
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
What does this mean in terms of the Cap next year? It makes no sense to drop the Cap with this large of a revenue increase.
Nothing.

The 2013/14 salary cap range has already been defined, independent of 2012/13 revenue.

The Payroll Range for 2013/14 shall be as follows:
Lower Limit = $44 Million
Midpoint = $54.15 Million
Upper Limit = $64.3 Million

It makes sense to lower it because in 2014/15 the Upper Limit will be most likely be significantly lower than $70 million because the Midpoint will be based on 50% of HRR instead of 57%.


Last edited by Crease: 03-03-2013 at 07:56 PM.
Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 02:10 AM
  #11
saffronleaf
Registered User
 
saffronleaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country:
Posts: 3,040
vCash: 500
Although the NHL is estimating 72.7% of last year's revenue while only playing 58.5% of the season, it is important to keep the following in mind:

1. The best part of the season is being played. If you split up the NHL season into three parts; the first part of the regular season, the second part of the regular season, and the postseason, the revenue is unlikely to be spread equally among the three parts. It is more likely that the revenue is disproportionately located in the second part of the regular season and especially the playoffs.

A more appropriate comparison would be to look at the revenue generated from the second part of last year's regular season and the revenue generated by the last year's postseason.

2. The sudden spike in interest may be due to:
a) Excitement over the lockout ending and shortened season commencing.
b) Less games and therefore each game gets more attention.

I completely agree with the article -- the NHL should shorten its season. Playing in October is a complete joke in the vast majority of the US -- even in its best hockey markets. You have the MLB playoffs going on and the NFL season is well under way. It makes complete sense to wait until the end of the MLB postseason before starting the NHL season. Personally, I think they could also end the season earlier to ensure that we are not playing hockey in June, which strikes many as kind of silly.

saffronleaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 07:05 AM
  #12
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by G Dawg View Post
If it results in more revenue, why wouldn't they do it? If increasing revenue was simply a matter of having lots of games, then why stop at 82? Why not play 100 or more?

A 70 game season would be great. I would bet everything I owned that overall revenues would skyrocket if they reduced the number of games. Not to mention the quality of the game itself would go through the roof. Modern players are too big, too fast, and too strong to be running into each other 82 times a season.
Oh, the owners DO want more than 82 games, part of the reason there's always the talk of adding more teams-IMO they want 32 teams so they can push towards 84 or more games a season. Its the PA who don't want more than 82 games-as it was there were issues during the lockout about playing so many games in so little time.If the owners really wanted that (and could get the players to agree), they'd drop 4-5 preseason games and have 4 more reg season added to the calender.

Less game is more arena related I think. Managers of said arenas (not the team-the Arena Management) for NHL games-ones who manage concessions ect would not want to have the less games-less games less concessions less money. That's part of the reason there are (IMO) 8 preseason games (which is unnecessary)-meaningless games that people pay a fair bit to go see.
There would also have to be shown clearly without a doubt that a majority of teams would makes MUCH more money with less dates-, outside of the Canadian teams, NYR and a couple of others, that's not happening. Now if you wanted to cull the teams down to 24 or so, THEN you might talk about less games, but that's a WHOLE other discussion (and I don't think mods would care for the change in thread discussion )

Tinalera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 10:15 AM
  #13
tony d
Thanks for memories
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,044
vCash: 500
Really good to see. Many people, myself included, thought that the lockout would cause the NHL to take a step back revenue-wise. Looks like we were wrong, thankfully.

__________________
tony d is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 10:27 AM
  #14
cptjeff
[insert joke here]
 
cptjeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Washington, DC.
Country: United States
Posts: 8,411
vCash: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by G Dawg View Post
If it results in more revenue, why wouldn't they do it? If increasing revenue was simply a matter of having lots of games, then why stop at 82? Why not play 100 or more?

A 70 game season would be great. I would bet everything I owned that overall revenues would skyrocket if they reduced the number of games. Not to mention the quality of the game itself would go through the roof. Modern players are too big, too fast, and too strong to be running into each other 82 times a season.
Adding more games does add more revenue- you just get diminishing returns. Going from 40 games to 50 is going to get you a lot more new money than going from 80 to 90, but going from 80 to 90 will still net you more money.

They won't be shortening the season. If you shorten the season enough to make a difference in terms of the drama of a season (70 games would not be different enough from 80 for anyone to notice), you're going to be leaving money on the table.

Injury is why they don't lengthen it, along with the length of season- the offseason is already too short for teams that go deep in the playoffs. I would like to see them compress the season though, I'm enjoying how closely packed the games are this season. That also allows you to lengthen the offseason a bit while maintaining the number of games.

cptjeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 04:35 PM
  #15
Hugh Mann*
Hey! Hey! You! You!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New Westminster, BC
Country: Greenland
Posts: 17,514
vCash: 50
I wonder what kind of creative accounting tricks they have used to inflate the numbers for this season. The same they've been using every year since the prior lockout, probably.

Hugh Mann* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 04:47 PM
  #16
CoolForumNamePending
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 957
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Mann View Post
I wonder what kind of creative accounting tricks they have used to inflate the numbers for this season. The same they've been using every year since the prior lockout, probably.
Why would the NHL want to inflate the numbers? The greater the revenue the more they have to pay out to the players. If anything they would use 'creative accounting' to deflate the reported revenue.

CoolForumNamePending is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 05:35 PM
  #17
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Mann View Post
I wonder what kind of creative accounting tricks they have used to inflate the numbers for this season. The same they've been using every year since the prior lockout, probably.
Not seeing the logic of your post. If the NHL was going to cook numbers they would try to show that revenues were down.

silvercanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 05:57 PM
  #18
Shrimper
Trick or ruddy treat
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 67,061
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolForumNamePending View Post
Why would the NHL want to inflate the numbers? The greater the revenue the more they have to pay out to the players. If anything they would use 'creative accounting' to deflate the reported revenue.
But if they inflate it don't they also get more for themselves?

Surprised there was such a big number despite a lockout but I guess the sports growing at an alarming pace.

Shrimper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 06:04 PM
  #19
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15,245
vCash: 256
That's insane

Well good for the NHL and the NHLPA

Bad for us in terms of future lockouts!

Do Make Say Think is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 06:34 PM
  #20
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
No. If there is only $2.0b of real revenue, but they say it is $2.4b, then players get $1.2b and owners are left with $800m.

MountainHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 08:32 PM
  #21
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
But if they inflate it don't they also get more for themselves?
The implication was that the league was falsely inflating revenue figures in some way. If that were the case then no they wouldn't get more for themselves because the fake revenue claims would increase the share that goes to the players, reducing the amount to the owners. Hence the responses that the league has no incentive to do that.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 12:13 AM
  #22
Hugh Mann*
Hey! Hey! You! You!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New Westminster, BC
Country: Greenland
Posts: 17,514
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
Not seeing the logic of your post. If the NHL was going to cook numbers they would try to show that revenues were down.
I'm not sure why they would do it either, but I'm confident the numbers reported are false. They basically expect us to believe that "hockey related revenue" (whatever the hell that means, anyways) increased by nearly 25% ($2.4 pro-rated over 82 games is $4.1) with no new teams, no relocations, no increase in attendance, and still no serious national TV deal in the states. Nope. I don't do enough drugs to believe that.

Hugh Mann* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 12:37 AM
  #23
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Mann View Post
I'm not sure why they would do it either, but I'm confident the numbers reported are false. They basically expect us to believe that "hockey related revenue" (whatever the hell that means, anyways) increased by nearly 25% ($2.4 pro-rated over 82 games is $4.1) with no new teams, no relocations, no increase in attendance, and still no serious national TV deal in the states. Nope. I don't do enough drugs to believe that.
You're making a mistake of pro-rating revenue for 48 games vs. 82 games. Not all league revenue is based on the number of regular season games.

The simplest example is that there will be 100% of playoff series and accompanying revenue this season when compared to last. I also wouldn't be shocked if many of the national and local TV contracts don't have % payment reductions based on the number of games they can carry this season.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 08:01 AM
  #24
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony d View Post
Really good to see. Many people, myself included, thought that the lockout would cause the NHL to take a step back revenue-wise. Looks like we were wrong, thankfully.
On the otherhand, this could be a negative. If they really took a hit, like MLB did with the 94 strike, there would less of a chance of a work-stoppage on the next lockout. Based on this season, if I am an owner, I have no problem locking out the players next time to get even more on the CBA.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 08:04 AM
  #25
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Mann View Post
I'm not sure why they would do it either, but I'm confident the numbers reported are false. They basically expect us to believe that "hockey related revenue" (whatever the hell that means, anyways) increased by nearly 25% ($2.4 pro-rated over 82 games is $4.1) with no new teams, no relocations, no increase in attendance, and still no serious national TV deal in the states. Nope. I don't do enough drugs to believe that.
I don't think so. The league makes the bulk of the money after Christmas. That is when the NBC deal really kicks in, and of course the play-offs. That is why I truly believed that neither the owners OR the player were all that concerned about a late start. In fact, I think all the August-December "negotiating" were simply stalling tactics where both sides were making offers they knew the other side wouldn't accept.

patnyrnyg is offline   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 07:04 PM.

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.