Sharks face deficit; ticket prices to be raised again

USF Shark

Zôion politikòn
Aug 19, 2005
22,176
1
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.
 

Northern Dancer

The future ain't what it used to be.
Mar 2, 2002
15,199
13
5 K from the ACC
dpetri2000 said:
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.

And what exactly is the purpose of this gymnastic accounting ?
 

Pure Rock Fury*

Guest
Northern Dancer said:
And what exactly is the purpose of this gymnastic accounting ?
Claiming a net loss and raising ticket prices even though you technically made a profit.
 

USF Shark

Zôion politikòn
Aug 19, 2005
22,176
1
DC Area
Patrick Bateman said:
Claiming a net loss and raising ticket prices even though you technically made a profit.

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.
 

OrrNumber4

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
15,717
4,975
acr said:
That's what they get for adding salary from the Thornton deal :sarcasm:

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.
 

BigE

Registered User
Mar 12, 2004
4,476
0
New York, NY
dpetri2000 said:
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.

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. ;)
 

BigE

Registered User
Mar 12, 2004
4,476
0
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. ;)
 

Jerky Leclerc

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,637
0
Anaheim
Visit site
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.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
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.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
BigE said:
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. ;)

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.
 

BigE

Registered User
Mar 12, 2004
4,476
0
New York, NY
kdb209 said:
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.

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.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
BigE said:
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.

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:
Nielsen Media Research Local Universe Estimates* (US)

*Estimates used throughout the 2005-2006 television season which starts on September 24, 2005


RANK Designated Market Area (DMA) TV Homes % of US
1 New York 7,375,530 6.692
2 Los Angeles 5,536,430 5.023
3 Chicago 3,430,790 3.113
4 Philadelphia 2,925,560 2.654

5 Boston (Manchester) 2,375,310 2.155
6 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose 2,355,740 2.137
7 Dallas-Ft. Worth 2,336,140 2.120
8 Washington, DC (Hagrstwn) 2,252,550 2.044
9 Atlanta 2,097,220 1.903
10 Houston 1,938,670 1.759

Boy, that 2.5M households really is a "screw Wirtz and nobody else" rule.

edit again: I guess I can't read.

The Sharks' precise deficit can't be determined because all revenue has not yet been calculated, Jamison said. The league's new collective bargaining agreement, for example, provides for limited revenue sharing between the haves and the have-nots. But Jamison said the Sharks don't know yet whether they will be drawing from -- or contributing to -- that fund.

edit again again:

In case anyone was wondering:

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

There are two batches of revenue sharing:
First batch - equal to 4.5% of league revenues (estimated to be $78 mill. this season); this batch aims to allow clubs to afford payrolls of $4 mill. below the midpoint; it is funded by league media revenue, playoff gate receipts, escrow funds, and top-grossing clubs

Second batch - designed to help clubs get to the midpoint but not over it; funded by excess escrow funds, if available

Any leftover escrow funds are to be distributed evenly between all 30 NHL clubs.

An example: a club has revenue of $50 mill. in a season when the midpoint is set at $32 mill. They would be able to afford a payroll of only $27 mill. (54% of their revenue) "in the league's eyes." They would receive, as the first batch of revenue sharing, $1 mill. from the league to get to within $4 mill. of the $32 mill. midpoint. The second batch (if they are eligible--see below), would provide up to an additional $4 mill., bringing them to the $32 mill. midpoint.

Rules:

Any club in the bottom half of revenues is eligible for the first batch (regardless of payroll amount)
Any club spending over the midpoint on player salaries is not eligible for the second batch
Clubs in markets with more than 2.5 mill. TV households are ineligible for revenue sharing
By the third year of the deal, clubs will have to grow revenues faster than the league avg. and have attendance of 75% of capacity to be eligible for their full revenue-sharing allotment
By the fourth year, the required attendace capacity increases to 80%
That's essentially the article. It doesn't answer every question but hopefully is a start at understanding this complex agreement.

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:

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,682
37,468
Jerky Leclerc said:
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.


What the hell? How does all of this happen?
 

Northern Dancer

The future ain't what it used to be.
Mar 2, 2002
15,199
13
5 K from the ACC
dpetri2000 said:
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.

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.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Northern Dancer said:
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.
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.
 

rekrul

Registered User
Mar 7, 2003
1,589
11
bittersville,ca
Visit site
Northern Dancer said:
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.

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:

RTWAP*

Guest
dpetri2000 said:
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.
The teams can't hide their profits. They've audited to ensure the league revenue numbers (on which the cap is based) are accurate.
 

arinkrat*

Guest
Originally Posted by Jerky Leclerc
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.
go kim johnsson 514 said:
What the hell? How does all of this happen?

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

At the same time, Burke said the Ducks lost "somewhat north of $15 million" under first-year owners Henry and Susan Samueli.

The NHL's new collective bargaining agreement requires a portion of revenue from playoff games be returned to the league, he said.

"Every time we played a home game, the net to us was significantly, significantly, significantly lower to us than in years past," Burke said, adding that the Ducks were losing more money before the Samuelis bought the franchise from The Walt Disney Co.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->