my point from the lockout

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Brent Burns Beard, Apr 30, 2007.

View Users: View Users
  1. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Feb 27, 2002
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    In the article about hte current Canucks ownership fight, I found this interesting comment from the new owner of the Canucks about why they wanted to buy into the team.

    the article:

    the comment:

    "He soon increased the proposed stake to 50%, believing, he said, that this would allow his family to "write off the [team's] player contracts," which then totalled US$42-million.
    "We were relying on those tax writeoffs," he told lawyers, in an examination for discovery process."

    anyone else find it somewhat inconsistent with the claims by the NHL that there business model was sick?
  2. Butch 19

    Butch 19 Go cart Mozart

    May 12, 2006
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Geographical Oddity mean "sick" as in good, right?
  3. Wetcoaster

    Wetcoaster Guest

    Tax write-offs, increasing value of the team asset, etc. - all go into a decision to buy a sports franchise and in many cases also involve associated reals estate developments (LA, Ottawa). In the case of the Canucks, GM Place was part of the deal as it is owned and operated by Orca Bay.

    The Canucks from the get go were not in favour of the salary cap as they were profitable without it.

    If you look at the subsequent HRR (Hockey Related Revenues) as reported and audited under the new CBA it is pretty much in line with what the NHLPA claimed were the correct revenue figures. They certainly were not anywhere near what Bettman claimed and what was put out in the Arthur Levitt work of fiction. Remember the claim was that the most the NHL teams could afford was $31 million per team?

    Once the hockey revenue streams were exposed to the light of day that figure jumped rapidly.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"