Top Hockey Towns

Status
Not open for further replies.

NYIsles1*

Guest
regehr

I have one question.

It's very hard to find out what teams are making as revenue. Many of the teams are very protective of those numbers and even during this lockout the numbers have not been made public and are a point of contention in this dispute because one side does not believe the others numbers. That said how were you able to come up with a credible source that accounts for all thirty teams over the last four years for you to even estimate an avg when no one else reporting this info has made these numbers public with any kind of consistency for even one team?

The padded (or othewise) attendance figures are available from ESPN.

Respectfully, I think until you have a credible source that reports revenue of each team you have nothing to go by but guesswork.

As a fan in the New York area I follow this very close with all three teams and always look for this kind of info to get a good idea on the business. The Isles gave their books to the NY Times in the summer of 2003 for a complete review so I have a framework of that team from one year, not four over two ownerships.

Today the NY Post claimed the Rangers total revenue was 85.3 million. Forbes put them at 118 million and the team claimed 40m in losses. This is the landscape we are dealing with and it's just not very consistent.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
regehr said:
I did a composite ranking of revenues and attendance (averaged over the past 4 years) - I think this is a pretty good proxy for the top hockey towns:

...

I just cme to this thread late, but how did you come up with 4 years? I know from a Buffalo perspective, we have been in kind of a rebuilding mode for 3 of the last 4 years, so you will see a decrease in revenues and attendance. How many other teams would this apply to?
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
cassius said:
I don't know whats the deal with peoples obsession with moving teams to Hartford, Winnepeg, and Quebec. The teams left there for a reason. :banghead:

This coming from a Minnesota Wild fan? Under a new financial system with reasonable cost-certainty, I see no reason Winnipeg and Quebec cannot support an NHL franchise. The fan-base is more than alive in Winnipeg for sure and have a brand new building.
 

waffledave

waffledave, from hf
Aug 22, 2004
33,415
15,734
Montreal
cassius said:
I don't know whats the deal with peoples obsession with moving teams to Hartford, Winnepeg, and Quebec. The teams left there for a reason. :banghead:

Teams left Colorado, Atlanta and Minnesota too.
 

hockeyscribe22*

Guest
They left there for two reasons:

$$$$ and the greed of Gary bettman and his compadres!

Those were good hockey markets!! They deserve a team!
 

regehr

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
747
0
Mars
NYIsles1 said:
I have one question.

It's very hard to find out what teams are making as revenue. Many of the teams are very protective of those numbers and even during this lockout the numbers have not been made public and are a point of contention in this dispute because one side does not believe the others numbers. That said how were you able to come up with a credible source that accounts for all thirty teams over the last four years for you to even estimate an avg when no one else reporting this info has made these numbers public with any kind of consistency for even one team?

The padded (or othewise) attendance figures are available from ESPN.

Respectfully, I think until you have a credible source that reports revenue of each team you have nothing to go by but guesswork.

As a fan in the New York area I follow this very close with all three teams and always look for this kind of info to get a good idea on the business. The Isles gave their books to the NY Times in the summer of 2003 for a complete review so I have a framework of that team from one year, not four over two ownerships.

Today the NY Post claimed the Rangers total revenue was 85.3 million. Forbes put them at 118 million and the team claimed 40m in losses. This is the landscape we are dealing with and it's just not very consistent.


One reason the numbers are in contention because the union refuses to look at the books - many teams have opened the books to them but they don't want to see them. A lot of the time, you are comparing apples to oranges -- i.e. hockey-related revenues to overall revenues. This is why there is uncertainty. The Rangers, for example, have a lot of revenue that is not directly hockey-related, so the $85m is closer to their hockey-related revs while the $117m includes all sources. The Kings are similar - they receive a lot of revenue because of the Staples Center development (surrounding real estate). Should that be included or not? My numbers are not all taken from public sources, but I average them with Forbes, etc. to even out the variations. My numbers for some teams are very firm where I have a source. For others, they are averages of public sources. It's not perfect but it is, on balance, reasonable.

The variations in the reported numbers are not as great as it often seems -- in truth, non-hockey related revenues are typically only about 10% of all revenues (but higher for some teams than others). But it means that everybody can agree on 90% of the revenues. But because often owners don't report those non-hockey related revenues, the players cry foul.

My feeling is that if we are trying to assess the viability of a team, we should include all sources of revenue. But, like the other pro sports, players should only get a fair share of the hockey-related revenues. If a team like L.A. makes $ off of its peripheral enterprises, good for them. Think about it, for the teams to make as much money as the players, every team should make $44 million (the average payroll). Why should the players make more than the owners?
 

regehr

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
747
0
Mars
djhn579 said:
I just cme to this thread late, but how did you come up with 4 years? I know from a Buffalo perspective, we have been in kind of a rebuilding mode for 3 of the last 4 years, so you will see a decrease in revenues and attendance. How many other teams would this apply to?

The 4 years is the data that I have. It's hard enough to get any data, but over a longer period is nearly impossible. It is a limitation.
 

Lanny'sDaMan

Registered User
Feb 19, 2005
1,734
0
Calgary
PartizaN said:
Calgary? Because they had 1 fluke Stanley Cup run. Please.

Ok First is was not a flukey run it was hard work and solid team effort that got them to the cup AND it was not the first time the Flames have been to The Dance. 85-86 Lost to Montreal 88-89 Won against Montreal <only visiting team to ever win the cup in the Forum, also the first President's Cup winners to win the Stanley cup>.
Secondly the Flames are well supported and have a HUGE fanbase who is loyal to the point of fanaticism. So you may not be a fan but believe me when I tell you that the Flames, and Calgary definitly deserve to be in the NHL.
Perhaps you should get relevant data and research things before you go ahead and make an ass of yourself Eh?
 
Last edited:

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
regehr said:
One reason the numbers are in contention because the union refuses to look at the books - many teams have opened the books to them but they don't want to see them. A lot of the time, you are comparing apples to oranges -- i.e. hockey-related revenues to overall revenues. This is why there is uncertainty. The Rangers, for example, have a lot of revenue that is not directly hockey-related, so the $85m is closer to their hockey-related revs while the $117m includes all sources. The Kings are similar - they receive a lot of revenue because of the Staples Center development (surrounding real estate). Should that be included or not? My numbers are not all taken from public sources, but I average them with Forbes, etc. to even out the variations. My numbers for some teams are very firm where I have a source. For others, they are averages of public sources. It's not perfect but it is, on balance, reasonable.

The variations in the reported numbers are not as great as it often seems -- in truth, non-hockey related revenues are typically only about 10% of all revenues (but higher for some teams than others). But it means that everybody can agree on 90% of the revenues. But because often owners don't report those non-hockey related revenues, the players cry foul.

My feeling is that if we are trying to assess the viability of a team, we should include all sources of revenue. But, like the other pro sports, players should only get a fair share of the hockey-related revenues. If a team like L.A. makes $ off of its peripheral enterprises, good for them. Think about it, for the teams to make as much money as the players, every team should make $44 million (the average payroll). Why should the players make more than the owners?


please.

if the owners trusted each others' books they'd accept revenue sharing.

it's funny players are held to a higher standard of ethics than the owners.

if owners shared 100% of revenues there are no issues, no lockout, and a salary cap.
 

kruezer

Registered User
Apr 21, 2002
6,717
274
North Bay
Skip contraction, focus on growing the NHL's popularity, man the NHL screwed up for the last ten or so years, but its not time to give up now, keep attempting to grow hockey on the whole, then the players will fill out the teams as needed. The NHL may have expanded to fast, but there's no need to turn around and make enemies out of the 100,000s of fans they gained from expansion, use them wisely.

Expansion is certainly a sunk cost, but its unreasonable to go back now. (Barring an owner willingly contracting his team, which would be extremely odd)
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
regehr said:
The Rangers, for example, have a lot of revenue that is not directly hockey-related, so the $85m is closer to their hockey-related revs while the $117m includes all sources. The Kings are similar - they receive a lot of revenue because of the Staples Center development (surrounding real estate). Should that be included or not? My numbers are not all taken from public sources, but I average them with Forbes, etc. to even out the variations. My numbers for some teams are very firm where I have a source. For others, they are averages of public sources. It's not perfect but it is, on balance, reasonable.
The Post today claimed these were the total revenue's of these teams. Seems like
all related revenue is included and runs somewhat similar to Forbes over-estimate of most teams besides the 33 million disparity on the Rangers.

http://www.nypost.com/sports/40560.htm

SHARING THE CRUMBS

NY Post 3/1/05
Revenue
Toronto 117.3m
Dallas 96.8
Detroit 93.9
Colorado 93.6
Philadelphia 89.8
Rangers 85.3
Montreal 84.4


Forbes Estimate:
http://www.forbes.com/home/lists/20...0/04nhland.html

Toronto 117m
Dallas 103m
Detroit 97m
Colorado 99m
Philadelphia 106m
Rangers 118m
Montreal 90m


 

DARKSIDE

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
1,053
0
PartizaN said:
You would be crazy to eliminate the Islanders. Can someone tell me what the only team in the U.S. to win 3 or more cups in a row? The Islanders. The fans on Long Island are very passionate. Huge Fan base as well.

11. Los Angeles
15. Columbus
17. Calgary
18. Chicago
19. Edmonton

Those teams deserve to be there? Chicago? Calgary? Because they had 1 fluke Stanley Cup run. Please.

I agree! With one the greatest teams of all time, it would be a dam shame. Man, they played in 5 consecutive Stanley Cups and won 4. "Potvin, Trots, Bossy". etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->