Sharks face deficit; ticket prices to be raised again

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Blades of Glory, Jun 13, 2006.

  1. Blades of Glory

    Blades of Glory Troll Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    18,401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Investment banker
    Location:
    California
  2. acr*

    acr* Guest

    That's what they get for adding salary from the Thornton deal :sarcasm:
     
  3. Hasbro

    Hasbro Can He Skate?! Sponsor

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    42,039
    Likes Received:
    2,220
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Drone
    Location:
    South Rectangle
    New moto: "San Jose Sharks, ticket buyers are our chum."
     
  4. Dave is a killer

    Dave is a killer Dave's a Mess

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    26,465
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    171
    Location:
    Mount Juliet
    Home Page:
    whats another 5 million among friends?
     
  5. Realm

    Realm Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    5,929
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    96
    brutal
     
  6. USF Shark

    USF Shark Zôion politikòn

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    22,185
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    114
    Location:
    DC Area
    I take this with a HUGE grain of salt...there's a lot of crafty stuff that the SVSE ownership group can do to claim that they're losing money. I suggest everyone go read the book May The Best Team Win...it's about baseball economics but it relates directly back to the NHL.....teams that are owned by groups like the Sharks are with SVSE can really doctor books creatively. Things such as concession/merchandise sales and revenue from parking can all be marked as gains for the group SVSE, but don't have to be written down as profits for the TEAM. SVSE makes lots of money by getting preformers like Andrea Bocelli and other events like WWE to come to the Tank, but those don't go down as profits for the SJ Sharks. Many baseball teams have done this and do do this...it's not illegal it's just creative accounting. I bet if all of SVSE's gains were compared to their expendatures they would be not be in the red.
     
  7. Northern Dancer

    Northern Dancer The future ain't what it used to be.

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Messages:
    15,192
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    171
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Laytex Salesman
    Location:
    5 K from the ACC
    And what exactly is the purpose of this gymnastic accounting ?
     
  8. Claiming a net loss and raising ticket prices even though you technically made a profit.
     
  9. USF Shark

    USF Shark Zôion politikòn

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    22,185
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    114
    Location:
    DC Area
    exactly. Especially if there is revenue sharing with regards to TV contracts and such...teams that make less get more...so it's almost a good idea to trim your profits.
     
  10. OrrNumber4

    OrrNumber4 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Messages:
    10,315
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Occupation:
    Doctor
    I believe they only added about 1.1 million in salary from that deal? Anyway, SVSE is full of cheap old guys who's only goal is to make a profit, so I woudn't be surprised if there is some chicanery in their reports. However, The Sharks's former ownership groups (which had Jamison and others but was mostly owned by the Gunds) generally lost more than 10 million US$ per year on the Sharks. Since the Gunds were multi-millionaires and had no problem losing that much money, they did not see much reason to hide that fact. When the losses became too much, the Gunds took the high road by selling the team instead of gutting it or raising ticket prices to save money.
     
  11. BigE

    BigE Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    New York, NY
    These were old tactics that teams frequently used, and probably the biggest reason why the lockout took as long as it did.

    The new CBA has defined exactly what revenue is and is not, and for better or worse they've closed a great many of these accounting loopholes.

    Yes, indeed, it's a sad day for all bean counters. ;)
     
  12. BigE

    BigE Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    New York, NY
    It would be nice to see some of those boxes fill up. As much as fans hate to see corporate suits taking up all the good seats, these guys also buy boxes and that is a huge revenue source.

    Here's to hoping corporate San Jose gets on board for 06-07.

    Joe winning the Hart and Lester trophies wouldn't do any harm to their marketing schemes either. ;)
     
  13. Jerky Leclerc

    Jerky Leclerc Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    7,637
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Charlize Theron's love sl
    Location:
    Anaheim
    Home Page:
    The Ducks lost over 15 million dollars this past season. According to Brian Burke, the Ducks gave a portion of their revenues from the playoffs back to the league.
     
  14. kdb209

    kdb209 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    16,271
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    126
    But note that even with the 6-8% ticket price increases, most tickets are still less than what they were pre-lockout.

    My seats - upper bowl, row 13 (first row of cheap seats), center ice - went from $28 (STH price) in '03-'04 to $24 this season and to $26 next year.
     
  15. nomorekids

    nomorekids The original, baby

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    33,375
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Home Page:
    The stage is set! Shed some salary! Marleau to the Preds! I can FEEL it! ;)
     
  16. kdb209

    kdb209 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    16,271
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    126
    All true, but so was the original point - SVSE can lose money on the Sharks, but still turn a profit from the other events at the HP Pavilion.

    And how SVSE spins the revenues in a Murky News piece doesn't necessarily have to jibe with the CBA HRR definitions.
     
  17. BigE

    BigE Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    New York, NY
    I agree, although for whatever reason I didn't read the original point as such. Especially when you consider the article frequently mentioned revenue sharing as a possibility for the club.
     
  18. kdb209

    kdb209 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    16,271
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Actually the article never mentions revenue sharing. It does mention the disparity in local TV revenues between teams, but nothing about revenue sharing.

    Anyway, the Sharks are not eligible for revenue sharing because:

    1. Their team payroll will very likely be above the salary range midpoint. They were close to the $28.6M midpoint last year before adding Thornton and the new deals with Nabakov, Cheechoo, and Toskala, and any RFA raises or UFAs. They would likely have to do some salary cutting to stay below next years $35M midpoint (based on the projected $43M cap).

    and

    2. They are in a market with >2.5M TV households (ie the SF Bay Area, the 6th largest US market), and thus ineligible for revenue sharing.

    edit: Actually the Bay Area has only 2.36M TV households:
    Boy, that 2.5M households really is a "screw Wirtz and nobody else" rule.

    edit again: I guess I can't read.

    edit again again:

    In case anyone was wondering:

    Details from the Revenue Sharing sticky thread (from the Sports Business Journal article):

    A quick read of Article 49 of the CBA seems consistent with these descriptions and rules.

    When I get a chance, maybe I'll start a revenue sharing thread with a more detailed reading / summary of Article 49 - but I'm too damn tired now.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2006
  19. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    139,756
    Likes Received:
    2,269
    Trophy Points:
    232

    What the hell? How does all of this happen?
     
  20. Northern Dancer

    Northern Dancer The future ain't what it used to be.

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Messages:
    15,192
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    171
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Laytex Salesman
    Location:
    5 K from the ACC
    I am unfamiliar with the Sharks ownership, does the group that owns the arena also own the Sharks. If so, there is no point to creative accounting to make one entity appear to be losing money while the other coins it.
    The bottom line for ticket prices is economics, suppply and demand. If people do not like the new prices just don't go to the games. All this accounting justification is total nonsense.
     
  21. mooseOAK*

    mooseOAK* Guest

    I believe that the city owns the arena and the Sharks are in charge of managing it including all other events in addition to hockey.
     
  22. rekrul

    rekrul Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    bittersville,ca
    Home Page:
    SVSE ( Silicon Valley Sports & Entertainment) is the ownership group that bought the team from the Gunds and thus got the Sharks on the original "sweatheart" deal motivating the Gunds to sell the Northstars and move to San Jose to set up shop with the expansion sharks in 1991. Besides having the city ( as in Us tax payers )pony up the majority of the Arena construction costs ( $170 mil of the $220 mil it cost after overruns ) the Gunds have a fixed lease of $500K they pay the city each year. Yet even with that fixed lease the Gunds, and Now SVSE, keep ALL revenues streams, Parking, conssesions, tix for all events at HP pavillions. Every concert, arena football game, moster truck thingy. I do belive that off the property the parking is a city/ SVSE agreement. So like was said above take any "we are in the red" comments with a lump of salt, its more PR for smokescreen the public to why the tickets are going up again.

    FYI the sharks subsidy is just one of the many things our city has in its history of throwing $$ just to get its own citizens to come downtown, like the $4 mil for a CART race http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/columnists/mark_purdy/14737411.htm
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2006
  23. RTWAP*

    RTWAP* Guest

    The teams can't hide their profits. They've audited to ensure the league revenue numbers (on which the cap is based) are accurate.
     
  24. arinkrat*

    arinkrat* Guest

    Brian Burke said it was a part of the new CBA. I haven't read the new CBA to see what the exact language is.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2482563

     
  25. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"