NYR469
Registered User
NYIsles1 said:How can revenue be understated from a team with an 80m dollar product that only drew ratings equal to 60,000 homes (0.75) on Msg in 2003-04 and generated only 85.5m in revenue with an 80m dollar payroll?
Levitt had no problems with the Rangers television revenue or outright stating they lost money.
http://www.nhlcbanews.com/transcripts/levitt_radio_transcript100104.html
Levitt: Yes, they do lose money and I did see those numbers. And we accounted for those numbers -- we accounted for revenue that went to television ownership that the club has -- there are a number of clubs that own their own television stations and their own arenas.
Watters: What about television -- the television market in New York. Do the Rangers as a hockey club receive a fair market value for their television rights from MSG Inc. Or were you able to ascertain that?
Levitt: We were able to account for television revenue received by the Rangers by setting up a template which compared revenue for various clubs in different markets. We were able to account for it and we did account for it.
i'm saying that teams like the rangers and flyers CAN easily understate the local tv revenue. i don't care whether they did or didn't do it in the past, but in the future they can easily do it and avoid paying revenue sharing by doing so.
i remember when MLB was working on the new cba, george steinbrenner was in favor of 100% revenue sharing, he was willing to share ALL of his revenue if he got other things in his favor...the reason he was willing to do that is because the YES network allowed him to hide 80% of the real revenue, so his '100%' was only 20%