Another year of record revenues expected

[LadyStanley]

NHLKerry 4:01pm via Web As Stanley Cup Playoffs about to begin, just released biz metrics stating NHL is on pace for its 5th consecutive yr of record total revenue.


http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=559630
Press release

Led by dramatic increases in sponsorship and merchandise sales, landmark corporate investment in its big events and impressive digital growth, the NHL is on pace for its fifth consecutive year of record total revenue and is projected to bring more than $2.9 billion by the end of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. NHL Enterprises' revenue is forecasted to increase by 14.8 percent and also will set a new best. Sponsorship sales set an all-time record with gross sales increasing by 33 percent over last year as the League added to its blue chip roster of corporate partners, attracted by the most coveted fan demographic in all of pro sports. In February, the NHL announced a new seven-year partnership with Molson Coors in Canada and MillerCoors in the U.S. to begin in July – the biggest sponsorship in the League's 93-year history.

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/...siness-for-2010-11-estimates-2-9b-in-revenue/
Commentary

Click to read more...

 

[southpaw24]

Read this on twitter the other day:




@NHLdilo Michael DiLorenzo

"21mm fans attended @NHL games this season, a slight increase over last season. 12 teams played to capacity (or more), and 20 played to 90%+"


So the NHL numbers say that the yotes, thrashers, isles and devils played to 90 or more capacity??

Do you think that sounds right???

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Read this on twitter the other day:




@NHLdilo Michael DiLorenzo

"21mm fans attended @NHL games this season, a slight increase over last season. 12 teams played to capacity (or more), and 20 played to 90%+"


So the NHL numbers say that the yotes, thrashers, isles and devils played to 90 or more capacity??

Do you think that sounds right???

No it does not sound right, because it is not right.

20 teams are playing 90% capacity. That means 10 are not.

Lightning
Hurricanes
Ducks
Devils
Avalanche
Stars
Panthers
Blue Jackets
Thrashers
Coyotes
Islanders

Where did you see that the Thrashers, 'Yotes and Devils played to 90% capacity?

 

[LPHabsFan]

"21mm fans attended @NHL games this season, a slight increase over last season. 12 teams played to capacity (or more), and 20 played to 90%+"


So the NHL numbers say that the yotes, thrashers, isles and devils played to 90 or more capacity??

Do you think that sounds right???

20 + 12 = 32

 

[Hamilton Tigers]

Those 12 are part of the 20.

 

[southpaw24]

Those 12 are part of the 20.

If that was the case why wouldnt they just say that 20 teams were 90%+ then.

I think he means that 12 were to capacity or more as it says and then another 20 teams were over 90% capacity....

if it was they way you mentioned why didnt they show the numbers of the other 12 teams?

 

[kdb209]

If that was the case why wouldnt they just say that 20 teams were 90%+ then.

I think he means that 12 were to capacity or more as it says and then another 20 teams were over 90% capacity....

if it was they way you mentioned why didnt they show the numbers of the other 12 teams?

No. It's quite clear as worded - 12 teams sold out and 20 teams were over 90% capacity (including those 12, which were by definition over 90%).

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

If that was the case why wouldnt they just say that 20 teams were 90%+ then.

I think he means that 12 were to capacity or more as it says and then another 20 teams were over 90% capacity....

if it was they way you mentioned why didnt they show the numbers of the other 12 teams?

There are only 30 NHL teams.

 

[seanlinden]

Not really suprising...North America is starting to come out of a major recession, and the NHL is doing a very good job at marketing itself for the most part.

There are of course some micro-issues in specific cities, but that's going to happen when you've got a 2-tiered league developing. You've basically got 20 teams (give or take) that can afford to spend within $3-4m of the cap. Then you've got the remaining 10 who are usually $8m off the cap or more.

 

[obsenssive*]

they should really specify these releases because the international breakdown would be highly disproportionate towards Canada.

 

[Jeffrey93]

I'd like to take about 6 to 8 teams in the NHL (25% of the league) and show just how opposite they are compared to this blanket statement.

This basically means...the teams in the NHL that do well....are still doing well...because they are increasing revenues.

Somewhere close to a quarter of this league is for sale.....is that supposed to be good because overall revenues are up? Obviously revenues aren't up across the board.

 

[danishh]

you cant just say "1/4 of the teams are up for sale".

you have to look at it situation by situation.

Dallas, St. Louis, and obviously Toronto have proven that hockey works there. Those teams being for sale is not a bad thing. In dallas the owner has personal financial problems. In st. louis the ownership group couldnt find minority investors willing to put up significant amounts of cash for no control, so they have to sell the whole thing. In toronto the majority owner is an investment firm and has decided that this is the best time to take their cash and go (most likely related to the completion of the real estate developments).

NJ and Carolina, it's simply a restructuring of ownership, for whatever reason. Majority owners are still intact.

Minny is a unique situation, where in order for the 40% holder of minnesota to collect his debts from a loan on a vegas casino, he would break NHL ownership agreements (as that casino has a sportsbook, and the only way for him to collect the debt would be to take ownership of the casino as it is declaring bankruptcy). A solution will likely be found, but it certainly has nothing to do with the financial health of the wild or him.

there are really only two teams for sale in bad situations.

 

[Pucknacious*]

Lies!! All lies!!

Everyone knows that Bettman and southern expansion have ruined the NHL.

 

[seanlinden]

you cant just say "1/4 of the teams are up for sale".

you have to look at it situation by situation.

Dallas, St. Louis, and obviously Toronto have proven that hockey works there. Those teams being for sale is not a bad thing. In dallas the owner has personal financial problems. In st. louis the ownership group couldnt find minority investors willing to put up significant amounts of cash for no control, so they have to sell the whole thing. In toronto the majority owner is an investment firm and has decided that this is the best time to take their cash and go (most likely related to the completion of the real estate developments).

NJ and Carolina, it's simply a restructuring of ownership, for whatever reason. Majority owners are still intact.

Minny is a unique situation, where in order for the 40% holder of minnesota to collect his debts from a loan on a vegas casino, he would break NHL ownership agreements (as that casino has a sportsbook, and the only way for him to collect the debt would be to take ownership of the casino as it is declaring bankruptcy). A solution will likely be found, but it certainly has nothing to do with the financial health of the wild or him.

there are really only two teams for sale in bad situations.

QFT. The whole # of teams for sale arguement is a load of crap used by people who can't come up with a good indication of the NHL struggling. Yes -- even the Leafs are up for sale and the Habs were sold a coulpe of years ago, but the Habs got a valuation of ~$500m and the Leafs organization is problably going to end up somewhere in the vicinity of $2b.

In Dallas like you said, Hicks got hit really hard by the recession, much like some other owners. People like to point out how "NFL owners don't run into these problems", that's because NFL owners in general are much higher net worth individuals (you have to be to get a NFL team), so they can lose more money and not have to sell their sports assets.

Of course, there is a discrepancy in what teams like Philadelphia can spend versus what teams like Anaheim can spend. That doesn't mean Anaheim is a problem franchise, in any system that's not like the NFL's ridiculously low salary cap, there are going to be discrepancies between teams.

 

[MaskedSonja]

I think it sould read something like

20 Teams played over 90 percent, and of those teams 12 played to full Capacity.

Something like that-the way it's worded now, as said makes it sound like 32 teams played.


Guess Winnipeg and Quebec were counted as Capacity before playing a single game!