local broadcasting revenue

Status
Not open for further replies.

NYR469

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
5,785
0
Visit site
NYIsles1 said:
How can revenue be understated from a team with an 80m dollar product that only drew ratings equal to 60,000 homes (0.75) on Msg in 2003-04 and generated only 85.5m in revenue with an 80m dollar payroll?

Levitt had no problems with the Rangers television revenue or outright stating they lost money.

http://www.nhlcbanews.com/transcripts/levitt_radio_transcript100104.html

Levitt: Yes, they do lose money and I did see those numbers. And we accounted for those numbers -- we accounted for revenue that went to television ownership that the club has -- there are a number of clubs that own their own television stations and their own arenas.

Watters: What about television -- the television market in New York. Do the Rangers as a hockey club receive a fair market value for their television rights from MSG Inc. Or were you able to ascertain that?

Levitt: We were able to account for television revenue received by the Rangers by setting up a template which compared revenue for various clubs in different markets. We were able to account for it and we did account for it.

i'm saying that teams like the rangers and flyers CAN easily understate the local tv revenue. i don't care whether they did or didn't do it in the past, but in the future they can easily do it and avoid paying revenue sharing by doing so.

i remember when MLB was working on the new cba, george steinbrenner was in favor of 100% revenue sharing, he was willing to share ALL of his revenue if he got other things in his favor...the reason he was willing to do that is because the YES network allowed him to hide 80% of the real revenue, so his '100%' was only 20%
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
NYIsles1 said:
The Dallas Stars get big bucks in local TV revenue thanks to owner Tom Hicks' 15-year, $550 million deal with Fox Sports to broadcast both the Stars and Texas Rangers baseball games on a local and regional level.
Not all of the Stars games are not broadcasted on Fox Sports. They are also carried by a local station KDFI channel 27 with Ralph and Razor. It's about a 60/40 with 60% going to the local station. Their broadcasts are also carried on WBAP on the radio for every game (home and away). People in Dallas cringe when ESPN carries a game because the broadcasting is so lousy. Fox Sports is ok, but nothing to write home about, but the local KDFI broadcasts are the best and that is where the Stars make most of their money, not through Fox Sports.
 
Last edited:

GSC2k2*

Guest
NYR469 said:
i'm saying that teams like the rangers and flyers CAN easily understate the local tv revenue. i don't care whether they did or didn't do it in the past, but in the future they can easily do it and avoid paying revenue sharing by doing so.

Actually, they can't. In accounting, it is a pretty simple matter to allocate a fair market value to media rights. There are enough available data points to establish those numbers. In fact, for audited financial statements, that must be done. Even if the Rangers were to try to ascribe a number to it themselves, it has to be in accordance with GAAP.

i remember when MLB was working on the new cba, george steinbrenner was in favor of 100% revenue sharing, he was willing to share ALL of his revenue if he got other things in his favor...the reason he was willing to do that is because the YES network allowed him to hide 80% of the real revenue, so his '100%' was only 20%

I do not recall anything about Steinbrenner being in favour of 100% revenue sharing. Quite the opposite. Is there somewhere where this was reported that I missed?
 

Isles72

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,520
465
Canada
apparently the Levitt report included some type of matrix which would prevent the Rangers and Flyers shuffling hockey rev's to make it look like they are making less than actually reporting.

you would think with the nhlpa finally agreeing to a linked system they will leave no stone unturned when it comes to these unique situations in which the owners of the team also owns the cable company that airs their games.
 

arnie

Registered User
Dec 20, 2004
520
0
ej_pens said:
The Pens have very high local TV ratings. At one point in the mid-late 90's, they were in the top 3 of all Fox Sports local channels.

The are still likely near the top of the local ratings numbers, despite their record.

A Fox TV rep said tha the Pens rating are in the top 5 of all their teams, which is virtually all US NHL cities. A lot of people are seriously confused about Pgh. It is not a small market like Nasville, Edmonton or Calgary. Metro Pgh is twice as big as those places. The Pens' lack of money has been not due to a problem with the hockey market there but due to mismanagement, and the arena situation.
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
NYR469 said:
i'm saying that teams like the rangers and flyers CAN easily understate the local tv revenue. i don't care whether they did or didn't do it in the past, but in the future they can easily do it and avoid paying revenue sharing by doing so.
I would not count on that. One of the things both sides were negotiating earlier in the lockout was both sides would agree to have a third party look at the complete books for every team every year. Non-disclosure would result in fines and forfiture of first round draft picks.

Also if the Rangers reported revenue in 2003-04 (85.5m/7th among teams) after cutting ticket prices they may not even be in the top ten revenue producers next year so they may not have to share.

Supposedly revenues only will apply to regular season revenue.
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
arnie said:
A Fox TV rep said tha the Pens rating are in the top 5 of all their teams, which is virtually all US NHL cities. A lot of people are seriously confused about Pgh. It is not a small market like Nasville, Edmonton or Calgary. Metro Pgh is twice as big as those places. The Pens' lack of money has been not due to a problem with the hockey market there but due to mismanagement, and the arena situation.
I recall reading in 2000 or 2001 the Pens and Blues were by far the teams with the highest television ratings in the US markets. The Pens and Isles both have the same problem and that's Smg's contract.
 

StevenintheATL

Registered User
Jun 12, 2004
2,747
0
The ATL!
I'm not really sure about the Thrashers' TV revenues, as this season (when it finally starts) will be the first full season under the new ownership. With the team formerly being majority owned by Time-Warner and having the bulk of their broadcasts on Turner South (with some on the local UPN affiliate UPN-69) which Time-Warner owns, the info really isn't out there. As part of the agreement that sold the Thrashers, Hawks, and Philips Arena operating rights to Atlanta Spirit LLC, Time-Warner still has a small stake in both clubs and the teams still use Turner Sports as their broadcast partner. If Atlanta Spirit ever decided to find another outlet in Atlanta to broadcast their games, they'd really be in a bind, as other than the WB affiliate (WB36) or the PAX affiliate (Channel 14, who in the past has broadcast some Hawks games), there really isn't another over the air broadcast network that they could use (There is WTBS aka TBS, but is T-W owned and has severely cut down the amount of sports on the network). Cable sports networkwise, they'd have Fox Sports Southeast and Comcast Sports Southeast.
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
RangerBoy said:
According to Forbes,the Rangers have/had the second richest cable TV deal worth $18.4 million in hockey behind Toronto for 2003-04

According to Forbes, the LA Kings are worth more because the team owner also owns the surrounding community.

While I have absolutely no doubt that the Rangers do, or should have one of the most valuable local TV deals in the league, "According to Forbes" isnt exactly a convincing argument, imnsho.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
Jaded-Fan said:
I have heard quoted on these boards that the Pens have something like the 4th highest television ratings of local Fox broadcasts. Perhaps a slightly deceiving figure as I am not sure if Fox broadcasts to all or any markets in Canada, but still an impressive number.

How many teams does FSNYactually broadcast for ?

Cancell the 6 Canadian teams
I also believe that you can cancell the Caps, Flyers, Hawks, Sabres, Rangers, Devils and Islanders.
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
If Forbes 18m is correct the Rangers television revenue dropped seven million from 25m in 2003. (Andrew Stars report on previous pages) If Forbes is consistent at all Msg now pays out to the Isles 17m (below) as much as they take in themselves with the Rangers.

Between the Isles and Devils they have contracts that run until 2030 (Isles) with a twenty year extension just given to the Devils last summer with a significant bump from the eight million they were getting.

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/1129/124.html

For instance, the NHL included only half of the $17 million the New York Islanders got last year for their cable broadcasts. For Islanders owner Charles Wang, who paid $188 million for the team and its cable deal in April 2000, the economic value of owning the team certainly includes the entire cable deal.
 

NYRangers

Registered User
Aug 11, 2004
2,850
0
Well the Rangers/Knicks have their own TV network so they have a huge amount of revenue from that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->