Bettman comments @ ASG 2011

[Crazy_Ike]

Good lord, not this again.

The Loonie is up more 50% from the days of "it would take 25 cent phone call to move Vancouver". It's a trivial exercise to figure out what HRR would be if the Loonie were back at those levels - and it's a damn ugly sight.

It's painfully obvious that HRR growth is being driven by Canadians spending Canadian dollars. And that's why, all of a sudden, Winnipeg and QC are back in the (re)location mix.

Yes, not only is it trivial, but I already worked it out... and the Canadian dollar is not even remotely close to the major factor in the NHL's growth in the past seven years. Not even close.

From about a month ago:

League revenues have grown just above 32% since 2003 if my math is correct. Using rough numbers, this means that according to your claim that it was solely the Canadian dollar's rise that is to be thanked for this, it would have to be responsible for about 700m more in revenue per year. The entire revenue of all Canadian teams combined in 2003 was ~500m (estimating high, my numbers have them a little lower than that). In effect, to get the raise you are claiming, they would have needed to more than double their revenue over the last seven years. If this was solely due to the Canadian dollar, it would now be worth 1.80 US (or in other words the US dollar would be worth about 0.55 C).

It goes without saying that the US dollar isn't quite that weak just yet.

Maybe you were just a victim of extravagant exaggeration? Let's say the Canadian dollar was just HALF of the reason. The dollar ratio would be about 1.27 US to 1 C. Better, but not right either.

In fact, the absolute maximum impact the Canadian dollar could have on revenues is, if we assume all Canadian increases are due to the dollar, is about 150m. The other 550-600m has to come from somewhere else. Even that number is unfair, since it's unrealistic to assume the Canadian markets haven't grown their revenue at all beyond the currency advance. The Canadian markets have grown their revenue by 250-300m total over that time, which the dollar is simply unable to account for. The US markets revenue have grown, on average, about 29.5%, since 2003. If we make the reasonable assumption that the Canadian markets grew that much as well, we get a number of about 650m for true market value, about 100m less than they actually rose.

Therefore, we can conclude fairly reasonably that the Canadian dollar is responsible for about 100m in increased revenue for the league compared to 2003, or about 14% of its increase. Under no definition could this possibly be declared as the main reason for the league's increase in revenue.

You're about 600-650m short, Fugu.



Numbers used for this calculation:

2003 revenue 2.2b (500m from the six Canadian teams)
2010 revenue 2.95b (750m from the six Canadian teams)
C dollar 2003: 0.75 US
C dollar 2010: parity

edit: If we back it up a bit and use the 2.7b the league was talking about before the offseason, I would need specific numbers of the Canadian teams themselves as the 750m number isn't valid. Going apples to apples in sources suggests current revenues of 2.95b. Reducing everyone evenly to get the 2.7b number reduces that to 670m, the growth of US markets is now 330m or ~14m a team, a percentage increase of 20%. Give that to the Canadian teams and you get an increase of 600m, leaving 70m to the change in the Canadian dollar, about 14% again.

Unless you have the league's numbers for Canadian teams as it relates to the 2.7b they gave in June, that is the best estimate possible. Either way, about 14% of the increase in league's revenues from 2003 to now is due to the Canadian dollar.

 

[Killion]

Surely anyone with a modicum of interest in the business side of things here will notice a lack of growth in revenues in the 4-5 yrs since the lockout ended-- and be concerned. Why do people spend so much time denying any problems when you can see the numbers for yourself? They may not be absolute, but relatively speaking, I think we're in the ballpark. This isn't about just winning arguments but seriously analyzing the lack of any ability of the weaker teams to close the gap in revenue. The NHL's new TV deal, 50% higher !!!!!!, will only serve to raise that same cap/floor.

I reviewed the numbers you posted & concur that they are likely in the ballpark (with the exception of Chicago and a few others but close enough) and see growth, substantial growth, in all but a handful of markets since 04. The markets that make the cut here on these boards, the ones were' all more than familiar with are obviously experiencing little or negative gains to be sure. Again, if we consider tweaks to the CBA, revisions to the revenue sharing mechanisms & thresholds, increased wealth collectively through the new medias & a richer broadcast deal; the socialization of some of those funds to aide the laggards, Im looking at a pretty decent upside for the franchises and the entire hive once corrections are made. And ya, I really do think Bettmans' got them on the right path to getting there.

I understand & empathize with the concerns expressed pursuant to the increased collective wealth raising the caps top & bottom, and how devastating it would be to the weaker teams absent oversite & control. Those logistics can be worked out Im sure, and in my world would include the movement of a few franchises. As for the bolded part?. Absolutely. Couldnt agree more. We die when we stop learning. Im open, dont pretend I have all or even any answers. Im not here to win or lose anything. All any of us want Im sure is honest discussion & debate.....

 

[AllByDesign]

Ike...
On Bettman lying...

I maintain he has done so twice. You maintain otherwise. Neither of us will change our mind.

On holding the league to a higher standard...
I searched and searched and searched. I could not find one single circumstance of an NBA, NFL, or MLB owner being charged with fraud or obtaining any stake in any organization by fraudulent means. I believe that I should be able to hold the NHL to the same standard as the competitors in the exact same business.

There is one example of a team in Bankruptcy (Texas Rangers)
I found one example of an owner in scandal (Sterling NBA owner paid for sex)

In the end, it isn't my responsibility to vet owners for the league. It is their reputation at stake.

On Boots...
Never claimed to be adding anything new, you asked for an example and why I believe he is relevant to my stance and I provided that. Rambling on what was discussed before is moot.

On Phoenix...
I cannot find any example in major professional sport where it has been encumbent upon the Municipality to seek ownership for a franchise. Had Moyes not plunged the team into bankruptcy the team may have been able to sell to Reinsdorf, but the lease would not have been negotiated. Moyes' actions have enabled the league to gain leverage in the construction of a new AMULA and subsequent subsidies.

It is within the leagues power to take the financial hit while having MH purchase the team without city subsidy and also avoiding the GWI and the gift clause. I will clarify that I cannot blame the BOG for not wanting to lose the money and holding fast to the options that are beneficial to them... it is prudent. It is still an option though.

On Poker...
I look forward to my invite to your next poker night. I'll bring the beers.

 

[Killion]

A refresher: "The NHL as a group has missed steps in chosing their partners. They have been made the fool in countless ownership debacles in a very short period of time. They need to just stop being
sloppy". That's the first relevant quote from you. Of course, you are simply referring to the NHL, not necessarily Bettman - though my point would still stand regardless. In any event you explicitly said Bettman a post or two later, ending any doubt.....The burden of proof is still on you. Show us, if you will, how your claim above indicates "sloppiness" outside of the norm of big business.

Due diligence often takes a back seat to desperation, and in IMO its completely unreasonable to lay 110% of the blame at Bettmans doorstep for runaways like Boots who IMO wouldve' been unmasked in Tennessee regardless, pre-formal application to the NHL. Spano was dealt with appropriately. As was Len Barrie whose day of reckoning is surely coming.

Historically, the leagues due dilly has been suspect, virtually since its inception, with many a colorful miscreant in residence. A league that for decades sat just on the cusp of greatness attracting grifters from Osaka to Chicago & all points in between like a magnet. Little spills still happen, will happen, are gonna happen, both Bettman & Daly rather adept Cleaners to say the least, mopping the floor with whomever it might be that has the temerity to try and break the bank. Clear signals sent (Jerry Moyes) & policies instituted to *vet applicants.

Pre-Bettman, I agree with ABD that the league was "sloppy", and unfortunately the sloppiness did continue for a few years into his tenure as Commissioner. Changing that culture was a priority, and he's done a fantastic job in doing so, bringing many kicking & screaming into the 21st Century; while others were sent packing, off to serve time as guests of the state. Your reference; "Eye of Sauron" is both hysterical & accurate Ike; while your position of "sloppiness" is also correct & amusing ABD, but really, only when applied to individual franchisee's, many thinking their running a Taco Bell. Okee Dokee fine to fill the tortilla with 80% filler, hide the tomato, hide the lettuce, hide the beef. Hide everything. Buying it from a guy pushing a shopping cart out back. Sorry, cant be doing that.

*Note; my understanding of the leagues practices with respect to the vetting process is they hired Pinkertons' along with a few other rather serious players in the form of forensic accountants etc on a case by case basis, employed at the discretion of the BOG's should questions of financials/integrity be cause for concern. I for one would not wanna have those kinds of Klieg Lights shone on me, however, I wouldnt want to be a member of a club that'd have members like me anyway.

 

[AllByDesign]

while your position of "sloppiness" is also correct & amusing ABD, but really, only when applied to individual franchisee's, many thinking their running a Taco Bell.

Absolutely. Many owners of the league are pillars of integrity. Small portion are taco slingers.

 

[Killion]

Absolutely. Many owners of the league are pillars of integrity. Small portion are taco slingers.

And tell ya what?. I sure wouldnt wanna be the restaurant owner standing behind the counter, hearing the wee bell tingling, looking up to see Inspectors Bettman & Daly marching through the front door followed by a phalanx of forensic specialists in hazmat suits with armed Pinkerton's men staring you into a puddle wanting to inspect the kitchen.

 

[AllByDesign]

And tell ya what?. I sure wouldnt wanna be the restaurant owner standing behind the counter, hearing the wee bell tingling, looking up to see Inspectors Bettman & Daly marching through the front door followed by a phalanx offorensic specialists in hazmat suits with armed Pinkerton's wanting to inspect the kitchen.

Sure.. once Bettman and Daly take over the kitchen,the tacos began to be filled with Soylent Green...

 

[Killion]

Sure.. once Bettman and Daly take over the kitchen,the tacos began to be filled with Soylent Green...

See?, there ya go again, being sloppy. Now were gonna have to clear the building & send in Robbie the Robot to pick that dropping up. . Gentle Ben always used his litterbox, why cant you?. And stop drinking from the toilet bowl up their ABD. That waters not good for you. Side effects include feelings of persecution; can cause psychotropic hallucinations. Giant rabbit's & such. And no, not the nice friendly kind like those experienced by Jimmy Stewart in Harvey.

 

[AllByDesign]

See?, there ya go again, being sloppy. Now were gonna have to clear the building & send in Robbie the Robot to pick that dropping up. . Gentle Ben always used his litterbox, why cant you?. And stop drinking from the toilet bowl up their ABD. That waters not good for you. Side effects include feelings of persecution; can cause psychotropic hallucinations. Giant rabbit's & such. And no, not the nice friendly kind like those experienced by Jimmy Stewart in Harvey.

Ohh Killion... that Irish wit.

I was just thinking of "Nurse Kelly", and thought it was her meds that did that... also had some wierd vision of being pounced on by a large cat... I should just go back to eating mushrooms in the forest.

 

[Killion]

I should just go back to eating mushrooms in the forest.

And yet again. 1 step forward, 2 steps back in the s a m e f r e a k i n p o s t!.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

See?, there ya go again, being sloppy. Now were gonna have to clear the building & send in Robbie the Robot to pick that dropping up. . Gentle Ben always used his litterbox, why cant you?. And stop drinking from the toilet bowl up their ABD. That waters not good for you. Side effects include feelings of persecution; can cause psychotropic hallucinations. Giant rabbit's & such. And no, not the nice friendly kind like those experienced by Jimmy Stewart in Harvey.

Not to mention they'd hire Robin Hood to steal from the rich and give it to the poor. Oh wait............

 

[LadyStanley]

Thread topic long ago abandoned with tangents.

Closed.