Dolan's comments support Bettman, Msg revenue statement..

[NYIsles1*]

Revenue down only eight percent but operating income up without the Rangers expenses and losses?

Interesting that eight percent drop goes nowhere near what Forbes claimed was the Rangers revenue for a season.

http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzcab244155896feb24,0,718377.story

The National Hockey League standoff between teams and players caused an 8 percent drop in revenue, to $298 million, for Cablevision-controlled Madison Square Garden. MSG operating income, however, jumped to $41 million from $11 million, helped by higher Knicks ticket revenue, lower Knicks player compensation and lower Radio City expenses.

Dolan said Cablevision continues to support the NHL commissioner in trying to get a contract with players that will "ensure the long-term viability of the sport."

Click to read more...

 

[Jarqui]

How can Forbes really know precisely the state of the NHL finances without auditing the books ? They can't. Sure they can grab snippets of info. But they have to make assumptions and guesses on numbers only the teams would have to complete the picture.

 

[bcrt2000]

The problem is that Forbes definition of "Hockey Revenues" is including stuff outside of the Rangers organization.

To be truthful, the players have skewed their own argument. If you read the initial reaction to the Levitt Report oh-so long ago, the players told their true concern which is they didn't approve of the way hockey revenues were defined because the NHL took the NBA definition. If the NHLPA & NHL define hockey revenues then the NHL *can't* hide money.

 

[futurcorerock]

This article put a smile on my face.

Hopefully Forbes will burn in the same hell that the NHLPA will when it nosedives.

 

[Jarqui]

The problem is that Forbes definition of "Hockey Revenues" including stuff outside of the Rangers organization.

Agreed.

To be truthful, the players have skewed their own argument. If you read the initial reaction to the Levitt Report oh-so long ago, the players told their true concern which is they didn't approve of the way hockey revenues were defined because the NHL took the NBA definition. If the NHLPA & NHL define hockey revenues then the NHL *can't* hide money.

Whenever one buys a business, the purchase of that business is always contingent on due diligence which includes the joint auditing of the books. The books are audited to eliminate any mistrust or uncertainty of the state and value of the business. It is a very normal process and accepted practice in the business world.

If Goodenow had done that, he would have significantly diffused something that he uses to bind the NHLPA together : mistrust of the owners. There was a time years ago when that mistrust was well placed but it's tough to hold it against the NHL now when the other party won't allow them to address it. The NHLPA feeds off that mistrust because their leadership wouldn't step up to get to the bottom of the issue for the sanctity of their own political security and union solidarity.

Further, as I have posted before, if you split the difference between Forbes and Levitt, it works out to $37,X00 per player per year. Is that worth walking away from $1.x billion in players salaries and benefits this season for ?

 

[GKJ]

yada yada yada

 

[bcrt2000]

yada yada yada

Do you not agree that "hockey revenues" need to be defined? if you don't have a definition of that, there is NO basis to properly negotiate a new CBA. Whether or not there will be linkage, the definition of hockey revenues will play a role in the next CBA so they might as well sit down and hammer it out, and then maybe each side can get a better understanding of each other.

The attitude of ignoring this problem is counter-productive and illogical

 

[LePoche69]

I honnestly think that Goodenow and the NHLPA trusted the Levitt report more than we think. They simply could not admit it publicly in a negociation dynamic since we all know that these nego started two years ago. That's why they did a lot of "concessions" to be closer to the owners' demand, even if they are not close enough. If they were absolutly sure that the Levitt report was all wrong, they wouldn't have made so many concessions.

 

[CGG]

Revenue down only eight percent but operating income up without the Rangers expenses and losses?

Interesting that eight percent drop goes nowhere near what Forbes claimed was the Rangers revenue for a season.

Interesting to have to point out that we're talking about one quarter, which was Oct, Nov, and Dec of 2004. Hardly a full season. Plus, that 8% decrease works out to $26 million. The amount of the decrease due to hockey is clearly more than the $26 million since the same article admits Knicks revenue increased. Plus who knows if revenues for non-sports events at MSG increased as well. So they lost a lot more than $26 million in revenues due to the absence of hockey in less than half a season. This can hardly be used to prove Levitt or disprove Forbes.

 

[GKJ]

Do you not agree that "hockey revenues" need to be defined? if you don't have a definition of that, there is NO basis to properly negotiate a new CBA. Whether or not there will be linkage, the definition of hockey revenues will play a role in the next CBA so they might as well sit down and hammer it out, and then maybe each side can get a better understanding of each other.

The attitude of ignoring this problem is counter-productive and illogical

No I think Dolan is being told what to say, as the owners continue to run their 'unified' propaganda machine. There is definetaly a split in the owners, they're just doing a great job keeping it under wraps (as per forshadowing comments by Sutter, Leipold and Snider)

 

[Weary]

Interesting to have to point out that we're talking about one quarter, which was Oct, Nov, and Dec of 2004. Hardly a full season. Plus, that 8% decrease works out to $26 million. The amount of the decrease due to hockey is clearly more than the $26 million since the same article admits Knicks revenue increased. Plus who knows if revenues for non-sports events at MSG increased as well. So they lost a lot more than $26 million in revenues due to the absence of hockey in less than half a season. This can hardly be used to prove Levitt or disprove Forbes.

Let's also not forget that the Rangers only had 18 home games during that quarter. And tack on the fact that Cablevision only owned 60% of MSG during the reporting period. The Forbes revenue number looks to be in the ballpark.

 

[Russian Fan]

No I think Dolan is being told what to say, as the owners continue to run their 'unified' propaganda machine. There is definetaly a split in the owners, they're just doing a great job keeping it under wraps (as per forshadowing comments by Sutter, Leipold and Snider)

GKJ nailed it. People are so naive, they believe everything the owners or their ''relatives'' are saying.

Well I can't say it surprise me, after all, Bush (USA) was re-elected & Paul Martin (CANADA) was elected even after everyone knows that he's part of a scandal. & in Quebec they vote for the worst government in the history of the province.

 

[Morbo]

Heh.

So, this is a shock?

Did anyone expect Dolan's remarks to NOT support Bettman?

 

[NYIsles1*]

Interesting to have to point out that we're talking about one quarter, which was Oct, Nov, and Dec of 2004. Hardly a full season. Plus, that 8% decrease works out to $26 million. The amount of the decrease due to hockey is clearly more than the $26 million since the same article admits Knicks revenue increased.

Actually, it's close to half a season (three months) which is a framework to get an idea of a teams revenue. Operating income increases do not necessarily mean revenue itself increased.

 

[CGG]

Actually, it's close to half a season (three months) which is a framework to get an idea of a teams revenue. Operating income increases do not necessarily mean revenue itself increased.

Revenue decreased. That's what the article says. But only by 8%, which is supposed to backup Levitt somehow, refute Forbes, and prove that Bettman is King. I don't get it. All this proves is Ranger revenue (reported as Rangers revenue by MSG) is somewhere over $26 million for less than half a season, 18 home games to be exact.

This is part of the problem, the Rangers, Knicks and MSG all smashed into one. It doesn't tell us how much the Rangers actually made (or lost) in 2003 or 2004.

 

[Jarqui]

This is not merely about what Dolan is saying .. it is about what the numbers are saying.

 

[NYIsles1*]

And tack on the fact that Cablevision only owned 60% of MSG during the reporting period. The Forbes revenue number looks to be in the ballpark.

That's a very good point especially since Rupert Murdoch and Cablevision dissolved their partnership this week with Dolan getting control of both Msg and Fox.

From articles I have read over the years Dolan had full control of Msg and Fox was split 60/40. Many folks forgot Murdoch's part in this merger. This television rights merger began with the Mets on Fox and the Yankees on Msg.

 

[rmp]

The problem is that Forbes definition of "Hockey Revenues" is including stuff outside of the Rangers organization.

Like what?
The NHLPA is always saying the owners aren't counting all the hockey related revenue when talking about their losses, but they never give specific examples.

 

[bcrt2000]

Like what?
The NHLPA is always saying the owners aren't counting all the hockey related revenue when talking about their losses, but they never give specific examples.

and the reason they dont give examples is because "hockey revenues" are undefined... once the public & media realizes that the PA is avoiding defining this there will be much larger backlash

 

[ScottyBowman]

GKJ nailed it. People are so naive, they believe everything the owners or their ''relatives'' are saying.

Well I can't say it surprise me, after all, Bush (USA) was re-elected & Paul Martin (CANADA) was elected even after everyone knows that he's part of a scandal. & in Quebec they vote for the worst government in the history of the province.

 

[Chayos]

This article does nothing to discount anything regarding hockey at all. There is virtually no information regarding hockey that can be taken at face value. They say that revenues dropped 8% but they do not mention what events were booked on the nights that hockey didn't happen. This is MSG for christ sake those night would be 50% filled I am assuming since MSG is book every night of the Year normally. The luxery boxes I would assume would not be filled so that respensents some of the loss as well as concessions ect.

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

No I think Dolan is being told what to say, as the owners continue to run their 'unified' propaganda machine. There is definetaly a split in the owners, they're just doing a great job keeping it under wraps (as per forshadowing comments by Sutter, Leipold and Snider)

yes the owners are split, they should crack anytime now. isnt that what goodenow told the nhlpa back in october too? funny, the owners are so divided but still able to run their "unified propaganda machine", but the players cant do the same...
you all seems to think that these billionaire owners are just bettman's puppet, and everytime bettman need to do some PR-ing, he send one of his "slave" out there and do an interview. maybe, just maybe, that these rich businessmen can think for themselves and speak for themselves, unlike those members of nhlpa who just recite what goodenow told them.

 

[tritone]

I'm surprised nobody from the NHLPA brought these Nicks profits up in negotiations , I mean from the NHLPA angle I'm sure the players think they should have a piece of those profits too .... Damn the owners for not wanting to share revenue that is totally removed from anything to do with hockey , damn them!!
~picture of a whining cry-baby player with a dollar-sign pacifier and a gold framed picture of Goodenow in a ferrari~
Screw these guys , I'm going home

 

[me2]

Revenue decreased. That's what the article says. But only by 8%, which is supposed to backup Levitt somehow, refute Forbes, and prove that Bettman is King. I don't get it. All this proves is Ranger revenue (reported as Rangers revenue by MSG) is somewhere over $26 million for less than half a season, 18 home games to be exact.

This is part of the problem, the Rangers, Knicks and MSG all smashed into one. It doesn't tell us how much the Rangers actually made (or lost) in 2003 or 2004.

It doesn't tell us how much the rangers made but it does tell us they are doing MUCH better locking out the players.

Shed $80m in salary expenses.

Replace lost Rangers revenue with revenue from concerts and other things because the arena is freed up.

Operating income up $11 -> $41. That's some pressure on the Rangers to cave in, NOT! I guess we are finding out just how much the Rangers players are really worth to MSG, and its not pretty for the NHLPA.

 

[NYFAN]

Look, I can assure you that the Rangers make money for the garden! Empty seats at the Garden are payed for , as well as empty boxes, by corporate execs who just don't bother to go if a good product isn't on the ice or the hardwood! They may sell less hot dogs and beer, but they are making their money with the Rangers, don't ever think differently.