11 US teams received revenue sharing in '06

[Hawker14]

The 11 teams receiving revenue sharing for '05-'06 were:

Pittsburgh
Boston
Buffalo
St. Louis
Columbus
Atlanta
Carolina
Florida
Washington
Phoenix
Nashville

 

[Doc Scurlock]

The 11 teams receiving revenue sharing for '05-'06 were:

Pittsburgh
Boston
Buffalo
St. Louis
Columbus
Atlanta
Carolina
Florida
Washington
Phoenix
Nashville

I'm surprised Boston is in that group. Sure the team hasn't been top notch but given it being Boston I thought they'd be in better shape.

Carolina, I have no idea what's going on there. You'd think a Stanley Cup win would mean you'd be making some money and not looking for a handout. I mean look at what the Stanley Cup run did to the Oilers bottom line.

 

[Fugu]

Boston?

Are you sure?

 

[Hawker14]

Boston?

Are you sure?

100%. I'm sure there were alot of gritted teeth when they had to hand the cheque over to Jacobs.

I was also surprised that Anaheim, New Jersey and the NY Islanders weren't on it, but none of the teams located in the New York, Los Angeles or Chicago TV markets are eligible for revenue sharing.

 

[Fugu]

Are you sure? I think it's San Jose, so the list looks like this:

Pittsburgh
Buffalo
St. Louis
Columbus
Atlanta
Carolina
Florida
Washington
Phoenix
Nashville
San Jose

 

[Hawker14]

Are you sure? I think it's San Jose, so the list looks like this:

Pittsburgh
Buffalo
St. Louis
Columbus
Atlanta
Carolina
Florida
Washington
Phoenix
Nashville
San Jose

yes, you are correct. i had to re-read the info.

 

[Fugu]

Yes, it was the Sharks:

Here is the link:

Only 11 of 30 teams benefited this summer when revenue-sharing money was handed out for the first time through a system set up in the league's lockout-ending labor agreement. The Sharks were one.

They might be again in 2007. Sharks CEO Greg Jamison is projecting his team will end up in the red once more.

"We're closer than we have been," he said. "I said last year we'd lose around $7.5 million, and we did a little better. If everything goes right, I think losses will be around the $4 million mark."

An infamous Forbes article mentions this:

The only reason why the Buffalo Sabres, Pittsburgh Penguins, San Jose Sharks and Washington Capitals posted profits last season was because of the money they received from revenue-sharing.

 

[Rob]

Imagine how bad Carolina's bottom line will be this year if they miss the playoffs.

Good thing they were moved from Hartford.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

yes, you are correct. i had to re-read the info.

Interesting how quickly you went from "100% sure" to being absolutely wrong.

 

[Fugu]

Interesting how quickly you went from "100% sure" to being absolutely wrong.

That's because he was talking to me! He knows I'm always right.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

That latest list looks about right, but is there a source for it?

Thanks,

GHOST

 

[Hawker14]

That's because he was talking to me! He knows I'm always right.

exactly. i have no problem admitting a mistake.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Imagine how bad Carolina's bottom line will be this year if they miss the playoffs.

Good thing they were moved from Hartford.

And has been pointed out 137 times here, whatever the fans (who don't own the team) think doesn't matter squat, while what the owners (who do actually own the team) think is what really matters.

If it was that big of a deal for the owners, they'd look to move the team elsewhere. Apparently they either (A) don't care if they lose money b/c it's a tax write-off, (B) know that moving the team would be prohibitively more expensive than staying put b/c of lease obligations and penalties, and/or (C) are looking at building a fan base long-term and are willing to take on losses now for the expectation of profits down the road.

 

[Fugu]

That latest list looks about right, but is there a source for it?

Thanks,

GHOST

Hi GHOST.


I haven't seen one place compile the entire list, but if anyone did do it, it's probably a Canadian news source. It's purely deductive reasoning by the group here.

We know there are 11 teams based on the earlier citations.

We know whom to exclude based on the CBA (TV market size): Toronto, Montreal, Chicago, NYR, NJD, NYI, Boston, LA, Anaheim, Philadelphia. Technically I don't think Dallas, Colorado, Detroit or Minnesota would meet the exclusion requirement, however since these teams rank in the top half of NHL revenues, it is not an issue. Others can correct this paragraph since I don't feel like looking up the DMA charts.

We know none of the Canadian teams received revenue sharing due to their ranking in the top half of all NHL teams.

We also have some estimates (mainly Forbes) on what the overall NHL rank looks like (even if the exact numbers are not available).

Mark Spector of the National Post provided some numbers for gate receipts and how the teams stacked up overall in an article that has been widely discussed here (well, sort of...).

Finally, while I don't have the links, several local media reports on the Predators, Capitals, Thrashers, Penguins, Sabres, and Sharks have discussed the teams' revenue sharing receipts. We can ask the individual posters here who are familiar with their team's situation to add to the citation list.

 

[soundtigersfan]

Peter Karmanos is probably the worst owner in the league. We had one of the highest percentages of individual season ticket holders in the league when we left even after missing the playoffs for years and only having a winning record (above .500) in the 1985-86, 1986-87, and 1989-90 seasons (and we never broke .600). I'm surprised that anyone came to the games at all. When the state finally offered Karmanos the new arena he wanted he still decided to move the team without knowing where they were going. First, he wanted to put another team in Detroit. When the league laughed at him for that he tried moving them to an abandoned airplane hanger in Columbus. The city of Columbus rejected him (good for them). Finally, he settled on North Carolina. Soon after moving the team from Hartford, Karmanos also took hundreds of Compuware jobs with him, leaving those people unemployed. He has no respect for the fans of this game or the people who work for him. I have nothing against fans of the Canes...it's not your fault we lost our team, and you've proven to finally latch onto the sport despite being in a non-traditional hockey market. I probably won't even care about the Canes once Karmanos finally sells the team to someone else. However, until then I hope he continues to lose money year after year.

Sorry for that rant. I just can't stand that man and hate the idea of him making a profit after causing so much pain up here and showing no respect for the fans who did show up to the games when our team continued to lose year after year.

 

[kdb209]

We know whom to exclude based on the CBA (TV market size): Toronto, Montreal, Chicago, NYR, NJD, NYI, Boston, LA, Anaheim, Philadelphia. Technically I don't think Dallas, Colorado, Detroit or Minnesota would meet the exclusion requirement, however since these teams rank in the top half of NHL revenues, it is not an issue. Others can correct this paragraph since I don't feel like looking up the DMA charts.

Actually, the only US markets that are excluded by the 2.5M household DMA are NY, LA, Chicago, and Philly. The Boston DMA has only 2,372,030 households.

Nielsen Media Research Local Market Universe Estimates
Estimates as of January 1, 2007 and used throughout the 2006-2007 television season
Effective September 23, 2006
RANK Designated Market Area (DMA) TV Homes % of US
1 New York 7,366,950 6.616
2 Los Angeles 5,611,110 5.039
3 Chicago 3,455,020 3.103
4 Philadelphia 2,941,450 2.642
5 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose 2,383,570 2.141
6 Dallas-Ft. Worth 2,378,660 2.136
7 Boston (Manchester) 2,372,030 2.130
8 Washington, DC (Hagrstwn) 2,272,120 2.041
9 Atlanta 2,205,510 1.981
10 Houston 1,982,120 1.780

I haven't seen (or really looked for) any DMA equivalent data for Toronto or Montreal - although thats really a moot point given their revenues.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

Hi GHOST.


I haven't seen one place compile the entire list, but if anyone did do it, it's probably a Canadian news source. It's purely deductive reasoning by the group here.

We know there are 11 teams based on the earlier citations.

We know whom to exclude based on the CBA (TV market size): Toronto, Montreal, Chicago, NYR, NJD, NYI, Boston, LA, Anaheim, Philadelphia. Technically I don't think Dallas, Colorado, Detroit or Minnesota would meet the exclusion requirement, however since these teams rank in the top half of NHL revenues, it is not an issue. Others can correct this paragraph since I don't feel like looking up the DMA charts.

We know none of the Canadian teams received revenue sharing due to their ranking in the top half of all NHL teams.

We also have some estimates (mainly Forbes) on what the overall NHL rank looks like (even if the exact numbers are not available).

Mark Spector of the National Post provided some numbers for gate receipts and how the teams stacked up overall in an article that has been widely discussed here (well, sort of...).

Finally, while I don't have the links, several local media reports on the Predators, Capitals, Thrashers, Penguins, Sabres, and Sharks have discussed the teams' revenue sharing receipts. We can ask the individual posters here who are familiar with their team's situation to add to the citation list.

Thanks Fugu!

GHOST