RangerBoy said:
How much revenue did the Rangers have in 2003-04?Forbes magazine reported the Rangers revenue at $118 million.Tops in the NHL.The team is worth $282 million.That's a small market NHL team?
Forbes magazine is an estimate, nothing more that historically has under-estimated NHL losses in most cases. There are other ways to judge a large market from a small market and the Rangers fit the criteria of being a small market team in an oversaturated market, which explains their loss. Why should a team that had only 60,000 homes watch an 80m dollar product trap for 82 games be considered a big market?
Larry Brooks (pro-NHLPA) even reported the leagues revenues from a February NHL offer to the NHLPA and did not question the reported revenue. The Rangers were fifth in team revenue at 85.5 million, thirty-three less million than Forbes report who had no access to the team books. Montreal also reported 85m in revenue and reportedly have been losing 20m a year in a building more modern than Msg.
Maybe we should start calling Charles Wang's New York Dragons big market too because they are a New York team also. Let's ignore the fact Arena Football on NBC had better ratings than hockey (Ranger hockey) on ABC..
RangerBoy said:
No media?Here we go again.We had this conversation about six months.You never stop.How many newspapers cover the Rangers?Name another NHL team which has more papers covering their teams
One article per game, per paper. They put the score in and little else. The A.P can do that too, that's your idea of coverage with an 80m dollar team?
RangerBoy said:
Worry about your team.You are so fixated on Rangers.Your Ranger envy never fails to show up
Unfortunatley when the league is shutdown we as fans have to worry about all the teams, especially ones run as poorly as the one in Manhattan that have no clue how to operate without a checkbook and were the seventh team in their own media market. It's not envy, the Rangers are a problem with this business that should be discussed because no star player could bring them any attention. The Isles beat the Rangers out three years in a row for a playoff spot with half the payroll and half the reported losses, the Isles are not good for this business either for the same reasons.
However unlike you, I do not come onto these boards and talk about contraction of other teams for nothing more than a sense of entitlement. Why not include your own team as part of the league's problem instead of telling us why the Rangers must have Crosby for the good of the league when all those star players in Manhattan might as well have played in Carolina for all the good it did ?
The Ranger perception in their own market is so low today they get coverage equal to the minor league baseball teams in town and I'm not writing that to
give you a hard time. You like posting articles? Please go do some research for yourself. When was the last time a Ranger player or prospect had a update in a city paper with some quotes or a feature on their backgrounds?
I bet the two papers in Pittsburgh are covering the WBS team in the AHL playoffs, while the Dolans would have to purchase a newspaper company to get a Wolfpack story in a Manhattan paper. Even the Sound Tigers outdrew the Wolfpack in their worst season in the AHL with no television and barely any radio coverage while Dolan put some Pack games on Msg and still had their worst attendance turnout in it's history.
RangerBoy said:
You can't compare any other franchise to the Yankees.How stupid can you be?
I'm not comparing any other franchises to the Yankees. I am pointing out whether you care to admit it or not that baseball draws so much attention it has taken whatever attention hockey used to receive and reduced it to a minor league sport in Manhattan and the tri-state area, win or lose.
Feel free at this point to bring up 1994 and something eleven years ago as your proof of the big New York hockey market in 2005. I'm sure I can bring up the Isles popularity in the city press when they were champions too.
Whether you want to see it or not neither no longer applies.