Still believe Forbes? I know I don't.

[Orange]

That's ridiculous.

Nope, that's common sense.

The bottom line is that the owners are making boatloads off of parking, concessions and service charges. Those revenue streams only exist because of the players.

So wrong. These revenues streams exists because of the arena, whatever is going on inside it ! These arenas continue to operate outside of hockey.

Just because someone owns an hockey team doesn't entitle the players to the revenues of every single business that person owns. That is what I find ridiculous !

 

[Pepper]

So what you're saying is that since only some owners own their arena's, all teams arena revenues should be left out? What about the teams owners that DO own their arena's?

This is about the business known as owning a NHL team, not about the other businesses the owner of the NHL team might have.

You can't punish the owner for being successful in other business ventures.

Owning an arena too doesn't mean the revenue from the arena should be included as there are several other happenings in the arena besides hockey.

If all teams owned their arenas then I wouldn't have any problems with somehow linking those sales but as this is not the case you can't do that.

 

[Pepper]

However, if you believe that once the Leafs aren't allowed to pay higher than other teams that no players will sign there, then you are sadly mistaken.

Newsflash dude, there are currently 28 other teams besides Toronto and Montreal, also the number of non-canadian NHL players increases all the time and they don't have any emotional ties to those cities/teams. Yes, Gary Roberts and Joe Niuwendyke wanted to play for Leafs but they were born in the 60's when there was 6 teams in total and Canada had 2. Nowadays young players have so many options to choose their fav teams.

So if you're expecting players to flock to Leafs just because they so eagerly want to play for them you're in for a rude surprise.

 

[garry1221]

Definition of hockey revenue: TICKETS, concessions during an nhl game, parking revenues during nhl games (at least on site parking, if other INFO was available about what other parking lots accumulate during nhl games and what these other lots charge for parking or what % the lots give to the team for use of the lot ), lux box revenue during a game (i mentioned in an earlier post about how i think lux box revenue should be divided up), game programs (most arena's charge, though i know a few don't)

at the present time i'm currently compiling a database of what could be listed as hockey revenue. I'm only using the numbers for what i've listed above as well as NHL Fan Cost Index. It gives an interesting in depth look and IMO could be used pretty accurately at gauging the amount of revenue teams pull in.

 

[quat]

Definition of hockey revenue: TICKETS, concessions during an nhl game, parking revenues during nhl games (at least on site parking, if other INFO was available about what other parking lots accumulate during nhl games and what these other lots charge for parking or what % the lots give to the team for use of the lot ), lux box revenue during a game (i mentioned in an earlier post about how i think lux box revenue should be divided up), game programs (most arena's charge, though i know a few don't)

at the present time i'm currently compiling a database of what could be listed as hockey revenue. I'm only using the numbers for what i've listed above as well as NHL Fan Cost Index. It gives an interesting in depth look and IMO could be used pretty accurately at gauging the amount of revenue teams pull in.

But these things are IMPOSSIBLE to do !!!

I don't understand why negotiating a definition for revenue has to be impossible. It only gets out of hand when people stop being rational. As for cheating owners, well they should be given very, very, very large fines for cheating. Keep it simple. Make the game better. Everyone benifits. These shouldn't be and aren't "impossible" goals for Owners and players to meet.

 

[garry1221]

But these things are IMPOSSIBLE to do !!!

I don't understand why negotiating a definition for revenue has to be impossible. It only gets out of hand when people stop being rational. As for cheating owners, well they should be given very, very, very large fines for cheating. Keep it simple. Make the game better. Everyone benifits. These shouldn't be and aren't "impossible" goals for Owners and players to meet.

you just contradicted yourself there. You claimed that they're impossible to do yet said that they shouldn't be ''impossible'' goals, which means that they are possible if tried. I'm basing my numbers on the site i mentioned in my last post, coupled with the attendance figures found here: NHL Attendance Figures. I've still got a ways to go and still not sure if i can find certain prices that could be useful, but i'm doing my best to get everything that i can find that could be included as hockey revenue.

 

[SuperUnknown]

you just contradicted yourself there. You claimed that they're impossible to do yet said that they shouldn't be ''impossible'' goals, which means that they are possible if tried. I'm basing my numbers on the site i mentioned in my last post, coupled with the attendance figures found here: NHL Attendance Figures. I've still got a ways to go and still not sure if i can find certain prices that could be useful, but i'm doing my best to get everything that i can find that could be included as hockey revenue.

I know Discostu made something like this about a year ago.

 

[Lexicon Devil]

Nope, that's common sense.

So wrong. These revenues streams exists because of the arena, whatever is going on inside it ! These arenas continue to operate outside of hockey.

Yes, and the hockey revenues consist of the arena revenues taken in during hockey games. Is that hard to understand? Most NHL teams are the primary tenants anyways.

Just because someone owns an hockey team doesn't entitle the players to the revenues of every single business that person owns. That is what I find ridiculous !

You're right. Only the revenues that are directly dependent on the hockey team.

 

[quat]

you just contradicted yourself there. You claimed that they're impossible to do yet said that they shouldn't be ''impossible'' goals, which means that they are possible if tried. I'm basing my numbers on the site i mentioned in my last post, coupled with the attendance figures found here: NHL Attendance Figures. I've still got a ways to go and still not sure if i can find certain prices that could be useful, but i'm doing my best to get everything that i can find that could be included as hockey revenue.

heh... should have been a little more clear. I was being sarcastic in an ironic manner. I thought your post was great.

 

[garry1221]

heh... should have been a little more clear. I was being sarcastic in an ironic manner. I thought your post was great.

yeah, i thought that was a little strange coming from you, should have read the sarcasm into it.

 

[ceber]

... coupled with the attendance figures found here: NHL Attendance Figures.

Probably not likely, but have you found anywhere that talks about "giveaway" numbers? Prior to the lockout I heard, I believe it was Lou Nanne, (could be wrong.. if it wasn't Lou it was Sonmor or one of those guys) on the radio talking about what he thought would happen. One of his points was that hockey had probably moved into areas it shouldn't have, and his basis for that remark was the claim that some teams were giving away 3-4 _thousand_ tickets a night. I thought that was pretty unlikely, but Lou does have connections into the business.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

and you are also ignoring any factors that lead up to the sales of those teams or that occured between the time of those reported numbers and the sales...

the pens and sabres filed for bankruptcy and then were sold for far less than they were actually worth...that doesn't make the original value wrong, that just means that circumstances caused the team to sell for less...

Just a quick update in capitalism. Something is worth whatever someone else is willing to pay for it.

Quick example - you've got a mint condition baseball card for Ted Williams. You check out the publications (Beckett's) and they say it's worth $10,000. You have some unexpected expenses and need to raise some cash in a hurry, so you take the card down to the local card shop, and to your surprise, they're only willing to give you $4,000 for the card. You find that there is no one willing to pay you what Becketts says the card is worth. What do you think the card is worth?

I'm a CPA, and have worked on valueing businesses in the past. It is a VERY, VERY complex calculation, and it's incredible to me that a "credible" publication that is known for being financially savvy could think that Team Revenue x 2 approximates market value.

To awnser your point above - why were the Penguins in bankruptcy? Might that be that their expenses were greater than their revenues? In that case, how could reveneues be an accurate baseline for valuing the team?

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Whoa. Just because teams were sold for less than Forbes says they're worth, automatically makes their value that much less? Wrong.

If Forbes consistently overstates the value of franchises by 20% why should I believe what they say.

Add in that they don't have access to the books, and I can't see how you could have any faith in their valuations.

BTW, I'm not saying that I beleive the owners say 100%, but I sure don't think that I'd treat anything that Forbes says as gospel.

 

[garry1221]

Probably not likely, but have you found anywhere that talks about "giveaway" numbers? Prior to the lockout I heard, I believe it was Lou Nanne, (could be wrong.. if it wasn't Lou it was Sonmor or one of those guys) on the radio talking about what he thought would happen. One of his points was that hockey had probably moved into areas it shouldn't have, and his basis for that remark was the claim that some teams were giving away 3-4 _thousand_ tickets a night. I thought that was pretty unlikely, but Lou does have connections into the business.

haven't found anything saying anything about giveaway numbers. For my total team revenue costs i'm taking average ticket price multiplied by the average attendance figures. Adding concessions and parking to that using the NHL Fan Cost Index site that i linked to a couple posts ago. After all this multiply by 41 (number of home games) and there you have it.

the only problem i've run into thus far is that two arenas don't have any numbers anywhere for parking. To my knowledge there's no parking on groungs at madison square garden. I believe staples center has only one lot on its site as shown by this map: Staples Center Parking Map.

If anyone knows the actual number of parking spaces on the site i'd be grateful. For all I know the site could actually encompass all the lots aside from 4,9 and 14, but as i said, the site doesn't give any actual numbers which is making it a little more difficult. Right now that part of my database is marked unknown.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

haven't found anything saying anything about giveaway numbers. For my total team revenue costs i'm taking average ticket price multiplied by the average attendance figures. Adding concessions and parking to that using the NHL Fan Cost Index site that i linked to a couple posts ago. After all this multiply by 41 (number of home games) and there you have it.

Why are you bothering? Average ticket price times attendance won't give you an accurate number. Average ticket price is based on a discounted season ticket price and ignores club pricing and premium pricing. Average attendance ignores giveaways in less than full arenas and excludes the extra tickets sold in luxury boxes and hospitality seats on the popular teams.

Furthermore, gate receipts reflect an unknown percentage of total revenues and gate receipts are the easiest of revenues to sort out.

One of the things that came out of the public hearings on the sponsorship scandal in Quebec is that the cost of a board advertisement at the Bell Centre is $500,000 a year. How much is that money in total? How do you split it between the rink and the team? Why isn't it all hockey revenue? If the ad isn't on TV during a hockey telecast, no one buys it. Other events at the rink have no claim on that money because the board advertisements aren't seen if there is no hockey game.

Tom

 

[copperandblue]

One of the things that came out of the public hearings on the sponsorship scandal in Quebec is that the cost of a board advertisement at the Bell Centre is $500,000 a year. How much is that money in total? How do you split it between the rink and the team? Why isn't it all hockey revenue? If the ad isn't on TV during a hockey telecast, no one buys it. Other events at the rink have no claim on that money because the board advertisements aren't seen if there is no hockey game.

Where has it come out that board advertising isn't part of the hockey revenue?

 

[AM]

How I see it

Buying the Vancouver is a win-win scenario.

No new CBA===> likely Edmonton and Calgary will fold. That would increase the Vancouver market.

New CBA===> well the economics in Vancouver look better as cost certainty allows them to grow their business with a stable base.

 

[Pepper]

Buying the Vancouver is a win-win scenario.

No new CBA===> likely Edmonton and Calgary will fold. That would increase the Vancouver market.

New CBA===> well the economics in Vancouver look better as cost certainty allows them to grow their business with a stable base.

I don't think the loss of Oilers & Flames would help Canucks at all, those fanbases are so hardcore that they won't simply jump on Canucks bandwagon. Besides, those two teams are the biggest draws in Vancouver so the loss of them would actually hurt.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Where has it come out that board advertising isn't part of the hockey revenue?

Well, according to Levitt, teams get $401 million in arena revenues and pay $138 million in arena costs. The average team therefore realizes $8.8 million a year from naming rights, premium ticket pricing, concessions, in rink merchandising, parking, luxury boxes and corporate sponsorships.

Does that seem about right to you?

From the Levitt Report:

"...f your Club or an Affiliated Entity owns, manages or operates the
arena in which your Club plays in, the URO requires that you report the NHL hockey
related revenues and operating costs of the arena.

Since non-hockey event revenues and expenses are excluded from the URO, an
appropriate share of the arena fixed revenues and building operating costs should
also be attributed to the non-hockey events and excluded for URO purposes. The
method of revenue/cost allocation between hockey and non-hockey may vary from
one Club to another depending on the significance of the events held in your
building."

This all sounds reasonable to you? How easy is that to fiddle? The only way to see if it is reasonable is to audit the books of all 30 teams and affiliated entities. It's not practical - Levitt didn't do that because it wasn't practical - and the NHL teams aren't willing to open up the books and affiliated entities. They did allow the NHLPA to look at four teams and the NHLPA was very unhappy about how revenues were split by the teams audited.

Furthermore, even it it was practical, there is no way to decide what an appropriate share for the players should be. What, pick 55% out of a hat? Why 62% instead of 64% or 73% or 29%?

The whole idea of it is silly. The whole idea that any of this - tracking revenues, tracking other costs, deciding a fair profit for the owner and a fair share for the players - is the province of the employees or collective bargaining is nuts.

Every single team can track revenues, track other costs - another huge can of worms - decide a fair profit for the owners, and stick to a budget for players. There is absolutely no reason to do any of this stuff. It is all a management responsibility. What are club presidents and general managers doing for their million dollar salaries if they don't do this?

There is no reason for a "Unified Report of Operations" except to try to set up a system that will transfer money from the players to the owners by fiat. The players would be crazy to go along and they won't go along.

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I don't think the loss of Oilers & Flames would help Canucks at all, those fanbases are so hardcore that they won't simply jump on Canucks bandwagon. Besides, those two teams are the biggest draws in Vancouver so the loss of them would actually hurt.

The TV contract would go way up. Alberta fans won't stop watching hockey. The idea that either team will fold under the old CBA is stupid. The Oilers make money. They made money under the old CBA.

If they really need a new CBA to survive, let them fold. If any team needs a new CBA to survive, they should fold.

Tom

 

[Old Hickory]

I believe staples center has only one lot on its site as shown by this map: Staples Center Parking Map.

If anyone knows the actual number of parking spaces on the site i'd be grateful. For all I know the site could actually encompass all the lots aside from 4,9 and 14, but as i said, the site doesn't give any actual numbers which is making it a little more difficult. Right now that part of my database is marked unknown.

Staples has 10 parking lots. Lots 1-9 and Lot 14. No idea on the number of spaces though

 

[Guest]

The author of that article stated that all Forbes does to come up with franchise valuations is take revenue * 2. That's it.

May as well take number of albino season ticket holders and multiply it by 50 million, it'd be just as accurate.

I never job to the smilies, but that genuinely made me laugh, and it was a very valid point.

I don't see how anyone can put much worth into the Forbes numbers, but then again who hired Forbes Magazine to analyze the finances of the NHL? Forbes doesn't have much at stake, besides their subscribers, so fudging a few numbers to make a report look good doesn't hurt their bottom line. They got their article, and they covered their own side by stating how they achieved their numbers. Anyone reading more into the numbers is just looking at it short sighted.

 

[AM]

SO I guess

The TV contract would go way up. Alberta fans won't stop watching hockey. The idea that either team will fold under the old CBA is stupid. The Oilers make money. They made money under the old CBA.

If they really need a new CBA to survive, let them fold. If any team needs a new CBA to survive, they should fold.

Tom

You think the whole of the NHL should fold?

There's no way that the NHL will survive in any recognizable shape w/o a new CBA.

You think teams should fold? Who is going to pay out those owners? Or do you think they will just take 100 million dollar investments and file them in the bad debts file?

 

[gary69]

You think teams should fold? Who is going to pay out those owners? Or do you think they will just take 100 million dollar investments and file them in the bad debts file?

Nobody is paying out any owners, when they don't get the cap system, they can make a business decision they think is best for them, legally, financially etc. whatever they consider relevant.

They can stay in the league and continue losing/making money, or voluntarily concede they made a bad investment to get into/stay in the hockey business and take the losses that come with that decision.

It happens in other business all the time, the owner has to decide whether to get out of some (bad) venture and at what point of time, and take the one-time losses accompanied. Or whether to choose to stay in the business and try to improve and hope for the better future.

 

[copperandblue]

Well, according to Levitt, teams get $401 million in arena revenues and pay $138 million in arena costs. ....

Tom

That's all very interesting but I was wondering where it was stated that board advertising doesn't count as hockey revenue. A general statement from the Levitt report doesn't say that.

I think it's quite reasonable for the two sides to sit down and hash out what exactly constitutes hockey revenue.

Even if you take the cap out of the negotiations then there would still be an apparent underlying problem of supposed trust between the players and owners. Seems to me that if the players were aware of the financial realities of the league under an accounting system that they mutually agreed upon then that should go a long way to establishing that needed trust (wether Levitt is proven right, or wether Forbes is proven right, or wether Tom Benjamin was proven right....).

It also appears that the players have no interest in getting to the bottom line in fear of perhaps actually knowing the realities.

To suggest that board advertising isn't counted is simply your assumption but even if it managed to prove right, then again, why wouldn't the PA want to get in there and argue what is and isn't revenue. Any addititonal revenue only helps to support their cause.

Same with the silly argument that "it can't be done". That's crazy, anything can be done and again if it benefits the PA (which with all of what you suggest should be the case) then why aren't they demanding to sit down to hash it out.

Bottom line, if the PA is aware or believes that there is more money out there then it must be supported with some knowledge of where that money lies. Surely they aren't saying there is more but we don't know where? Based on that, they have the grounds to sit down and argue it, if they are legit.

Why aren't they, they have the most to gain from it. Atleast they have the most to gain based on your arguments.