The Sabre don't have zero corporate support. I know your not asserting that just responding to that claim. It obviously isn't on par with some bigger cities but its hardly non-existant. The Sabres have a season ticket base capped at about 14,900 and a waitng list of 3,000 for ST. They also have all their suites sold out. What percentage is corporate I don't know.
Thank you for reading through the posts and seeing that I did not make the original claim. The coverage on the Sabres' financial issues has been pretty good so I'd be surprised if a breakdown didn't exist somewhere. I may try to dig it up if I have time....
But the premise of this thread is completely false and misleading. Cap problems implies they are losing money and are struggling to stay in the payroll range. All the Sabres owner and general partner have said is this. The league should be vigilant in regards to the rising cap number and its effects. They have also said due to the revenue realities in Buffalo they will not spend to the upper cap limit. They plan on spending somewhere in the lower 40mil area. Or about only 5mil-ish below the upper limit. How this translates into Buffalo having Cap "problems" is beyond me. Considering the Sabres lost money the year prior to the lockout ( about 8mil) with a 33mil payroll. This past season with a payroll of 40+ mil they made a little money prior to the playoffs. So its fairly obvious they are in much better shape now than they were before the lockout. The point of the CBA was to try and make all teams economically viable. Obviously in some cases that hasn't happened but in the Sabres case they are very much a viable franchise.
I highlighted the part that I believe is most relevant. There is little the league can do about the cap at this stage, thus how Golisano expects "them" to be vigilant is beyond me. He is part to the "them" he references (as a member of the BOG). Bettman works for the BOG, not the other way around. Bettman may have negotiated the agreement, but the BOG had to approve it on behalf of the NHL. However.... the cap is set by an agreed to formula as stipulated in the CBA. There is some discretion in applying an otherwise "automatic" factor of 5% to take inflation into account, so at the very least - w/o any other revenue growth - it would go up by at least this amount.
How can the league be vigilant with regard to the cap at this stage?
Furthermore, I think Golisano was pointing out that the Sabres were only profitable because they went deep in the playoffs and received revenue sharing. He's trying to point out that they have done all the other things-- sold out the arena, huge interest in the team, waiting list for season tickets, etc. That's the grim reality for many small market teams, that in spite of their on ice success, or in Buffalo's case on- and off ice 'success'... it could still be very difficult, and
only works if there's a playoff run. [In the Preds' case, maybe not even then.]
I know there are some posters here who've discussed how the huge revenue gap skews the cap to a very high point thanks in part to such a large part of the total revenue being concentrated in the top third of the NHL. The average NHL team revenue would ~$75 MM, where 54% of that is $40 MM. However if there are 6-7 teams that are above $90 MM, 2 of at an est. $104 and $119. On the flip side, it seems that half of the league is $70 MM or less... Last year the cap was at $44 MM, while this coming season it may be in the $47-50 MM range...