HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Hurricanes revenue declines by $4m, payroll to decline

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-10-2010, 09:42 PM
  #1
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 31,605
vCash: 500
Hurricanes revenue declines by $4m, payroll to decline

We're a couple weeks late on this, but some interesting numbers that really should be documented on the BOHB.

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/tria...536000^3824221

Quote:
One reason for the payroll cuts in Carolina is the team’s financial performance a year ago – a time when heaps of losses coincided with the economic downturn. While he won’t reveal specifics, Rutherford says the team lost money in 2009-10.

Financials that the organization provides to the Centennial Authority – which is the landlord for the RBC Center, where Carolina plays its home games – are a little more revealing.

Hurricanes Hockey LP generated total revenue of $65 million for the nine-month period that ended March 31, 2010. That was a 5.8 percent decline from the same period in the previous season, when the Canes made the playoffs and advanced all the way to the conference finals.

The two big culprits for the revenue decline were admissions, down 9.5 percent, to $21.8 million, and the “NHL” line item that includes revenue sharing. It declined by 9.1 percent, to $23 million. The declines would have been worse if not for a nearly 30 percent spike in revenue from advertising sales, which totaled $6.1 million.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2010, 09:56 PM
  #2
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 31,605
vCash: 500
And a hat tip to MC79hockey for digging this up. From Tyler:
Quote:
I think the revenue sharing thing is a bit misleading - I suspect that the ‘Canes got about $10MM in shared revenue and $13MM in revenue sharing. That sort of implies that they’re getting a full share of revenue sharing, which strikes me as a bit unusual - my recollection is that they weren’t entitled to that in 2008-09 because they didn’t make the revenue growth goals and they were down last year, although I might be thinking of 2007-08;
http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=3474#comments

Some interesting comments, although their discussion is mostly about the Oilers revenues, claimed to be about $120m. (Which probably should go in a different thread.)

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2010, 09:59 PM
  #3
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
How's the thesis?
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 33,600
vCash: 562
not too much of a surprise. I hate to say it but the 14 game losing streak early in the season was an absolute killer in more then just the standings. People don't want to see a losing team, especially not one that was expected by many to be better then the year before when the team made it to the Conference Finals. It's one thing to see a young team struggle but slowly start to get it right, like the Canes were doing at the end of the season. It's another entirely when the team is spending the most it ever has on payroll and many of the supposed veteran leaders are playing like they just don't care.

That said, I would actually expect a bit of a bump in ticket sales this year due to the All Star Game. Perfect timing for it for the Canes. You have to be a STH (either full or half) to even be guaranteed tickets for it. That's already done a lot to boost sales among a lot of people I know that otherwise wouldn't be doing more then buying on a game to game basis.

FWIW, those numbers are probably accurate. Rutherford and Karmanos have actually been very open with TBJ in the past, no reason to change that now just because of a down year.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2010, 10:25 PM
  #4
frivolousz21
Registered User
 
frivolousz21's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St. Louis, Mo
Country: United States
Posts: 2,889
vCash: 500
how is the revenue sharing 23 mil?

so 5 mil from local tv or is that national tv as well?

if so..they get nothing from local tv.

frivolousz21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2010, 10:46 PM
  #5
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 13,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by frivolousz21 View Post
how is the revenue sharing 23 mil?

so 5 mil from local tv or is that national tv as well?

if so..they get nothing from local tv.
The $23M is almost certainly Revenue Sharing plus their share of Centrally Generated League Revenues (including national broadcast revenues as well as merchandise licensing revenues from NHL Properties).

The $5.5M is very likely local broadcast revenues.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2010, 11:25 PM
  #6
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 36,689
vCash: 500
FWIW, the Hurricanes should see a bump in revenue from their new affiliation with the Charlotte Checkers. I'd expect some tickets and merchandise to move because of it.

But maybe more importantly, people in Charlotte will have a significant reason to watch the Canes on TV for the first time. In the past they have been an afterthought, perhaps the affiliation will help change that somewhat.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 12:03 AM
  #7
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
The $23M is almost certainly Revenue Sharing plus their share of Centrally Generated League Revenues (including national broadcast revenues as well as merchandise licensing revenues from NHL Properties).

The $5.5M is very likely local broadcast revenues.
In addition, i would warrant that the revenue sharing numbers are in respect of the 2008-09 season, whcih do not get distributed until October/November of the 2009-10 season (per PHO bankruptcy information). The CAR numbers cite June/09-March/10, so they may have done the revenues on a cash basis (rather than an accrual basis). That would probably account for the higher-than-expected revenue sharing receipts.

GSC2k2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 01:32 AM
  #8
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
So they're right about $500k/game in ticket revs? That's way down in Phoenix territory. For some reason I thought they were drawing better than that.

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 03:54 AM
  #9
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Another example of a financially and culturally non-viable team and one that won the Cup recently. What a disgrace for the NHL yet again.

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 04:45 AM
  #10
canesrun
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 35
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
Another example of a financially and culturally non-viable team and one that won the Cup recently. What a disgrace for the NHL yet again.

GHOST
Good God, can you give it a rest....Your incessant whining reminds me of that saying, "When you only have a hammer you see the whole world as a nail". For the love of God--Please stop...


Last edited by canesrun: 09-11-2010 at 04:47 AM. Reason: mis-spelling
canesrun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 05:20 AM
  #11
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,906
vCash: 500
The Carolina numbers are very useful. Combined with the Coyote's data we are starting to get a pretty good
picture of the revenue side of the equation for most of the teams.


Last edited by Fourier: 09-11-2010 at 06:44 AM.
Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 08:22 AM
  #12
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
How's the thesis?
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 33,600
vCash: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
Another example of a financially and culturally non-viable team and one that won the Cup recently. What a disgrace for the NHL yet again.

GHOST
Non-viable, riiiiiiiight, that would explain why they turned a profit in 2005-06 and 2008-09.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 09:32 AM
  #13
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 31,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
In addition, i would warrant that the revenue sharing numbers are in respect of the 2008-09 season, whcih do not get distributed until October/November of the 2009-10 season (per PHO bankruptcy information). The CAR numbers cite June/09-March/10, so they may have done the revenues on a cash basis (rather than an accrual basis). That would probably account for the higher-than-expected revenue sharing receipts.

Unless I missed something, they can only count these numbers once. You can move the dates around, but in one twelve-month period, each of those line items will have one final figure in it.

Thus, the total for revenue sharing (central HRR share and revenue transfer for payroll puposes, I presume), is $23m. This figure also happens to be less than the prior year's [12 mo] period, down from $25.3m.

Are you deliberately trying to be obfuscatory?

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 09:47 AM
  #14
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
Non-viable, riiiiiiiight, that would explain why they turned a profit in 2005-06 and 2008-09.
WOW two whole years of turning a profit. How much of those profits were from revenue sharing.

CC Chiefs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 10:02 AM
  #15
BadHammy*
MSL For Hart!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Right Behind Me!
Posts: 10,444
vCash: 500
We should move every team to Canada, that'd solve all of the leagues problems! No, it wouldn't? Who knew.

Back to the task at hand, the Canes shouldn't really be all that worried. They have lots of talented youth and an NFL or NBA lockout would be a huge shot in the arm for them. Yeah, maybe it's time for a new marketing strategy but lots of teams are seeing attendance decline. It's no surprise, especially in this economic climate...

BadHammy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 10:03 AM
  #16
headsigh
leave at once!
 
headsigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Atlanta
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 9,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
Another example of a financially and culturally non-viable team and one that won the Cup recently. What a disgrace for the NHL yet again.

GHOST
I'm sure you were saying that Chicago and Washington were disgraces a handful of years ago, I take it?

headsigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 10:39 AM
  #17
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by headsigh View Post
I'm sure you were saying that Chicago and Washington were disgraces a handful of years ago, I take it?
The part that most people miss or forget is: Chicago HAD a fanbase and they stopped coming when the team sucked. The same can't be said about several struggling franchises. If you build it they will come isn't working.

CC Chiefs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 10:51 AM
  #18
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 36,689
vCash: 500
Carolina's fanbase is just fine. So they lost $4m in a nightmare year -- a year where they were carrying a ton of overpaid aging players, had an unwatchably awful team most of the season, and the value of economic assets was dropping across the board. Yeah, that's pretty much a formula for not turning a profit.

But guess what? Rod Brind'Amour's contract represented the size of the deficit. Not exactly a hopeless situation, nor one that should be the source of derogatory comments about the viability of the franchise.

Certain members of this forum show up in EVERY thread to throw around stock phrases like "cultural viability" without any context, and that act has long since gone stale.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 10:57 AM
  #19
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gibson Cup View Post
The part that most people miss or forget is: Chicago HAD a fanbase and they stopped coming when the team sucked. The same can't be said about several struggling franchises. If you build it they will come isn't working.

They also stopped coming, in addition to poor play, when Wirtz implemented a blackout and refused to have the Hawks on TV because (my understanding) "it was fair to the season ticket holders". Things picked up dramatically when he passed on(even to a far observer like me) when the first thing the franchise did was get to work on putting the hawks on TV and started getting the young drafted talent to pull together.

I'm agreeing with you on this viewpoint btw re The Hawks

Tinalera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 10:59 AM
  #20
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Carolina's fanbase is just fine. So they lost $4m in a nightmare year -- a year where they were carrying a ton of overpaid aging players, had an unwatchably awful team most of the season, and the value of economic assets was dropping across the board. Yeah, that's pretty much a formula for not turning a profit.

But guess what? Rod Brind'Amour's contract represented the size of the deficit. Not exactly a hopeless situation, nor one that should be the source of derogatory comments about the viability of the franchise.

Certain members of this forum show up in EVERY thread to throw around stock phrases like "cultural viability" without any context, and that act has long since gone stale.
Please if you will show me another (other than TB) SC winner that within 5 years is losing big money?

CC Chiefs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 10:59 AM
  #21
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
In addition, i would warrant that the revenue sharing numbers are in respect of the 2008-09 season, whcih do not get distributed until October/November of the 2009-10 season (per PHO bankruptcy information). The CAR numbers cite June/09-March/10, so they may have done the revenues on a cash basis (rather than an accrual basis). That would probably account for the higher-than-expected revenue sharing receipts.
From the "dumb question" category:

Why does it take a year to bring up the previous year's numbers? Is it because it is such an amount of data that it takes that long to cultivate it(to "wait for them to all come in") so speak?

Tinalera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 11:05 AM
  #22
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gibson Cup View Post
Please if you will show me another (other than TB) SC winner that within 5 years is losing big money?
Asking earnestly here, but how's Anaheim doing these days moneywise?

Tinalera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 11:08 AM
  #23
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
How's the thesis?
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 33,600
vCash: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gibson Cup View Post
WOW two whole years of turning a profit. How much of those profits were from revenue sharing.
How much of the overall revenue sharing is part of the leagues television contracts? To know the answer to your sarcastic response we have to know the answer to that question.

Fact of the matter is that 4 million in losses is much lower then many (including myself) were expecting for this season.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 11:09 AM
  #24
C77
Registered User
 
C77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Junior's Farm
Country: United States
Posts: 13,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gibson Cup View Post
WOW two whole years of turning a profit. How much of those profits were from revenue sharing.
So what?

Why does it matter to you whether or not the Hurricanes make a profit?

C77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2010, 11:13 AM
  #25
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by C77 View Post
So what?

Why does it matter to you whether or not the Hurricanes make a profit?
This is very easy. If this team and others were doing better it would be better for the NHL as a whole.

CC Chiefs* 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 01:02 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.