Latest Lists - How is the business side of the NHL looking...?

How is the business side of the NHL looking...?

Forbes annual report has been released, and some numbers are good, while others numbers are not so good (I'll post two links after). According to the article, 18 teams lost money in the past year, and that is before teams had to pay out bank loans or write down assests. Forbes is quite frank, the operating costs, most notably the players salaries, are costing too much at their current rate, and they believe a 50/50 or 48% revenue like those found in the NBA and NFL are much more suitable. They state that it is only a handful of the top earning teams that make piles of money, while the middle teams are either basically breaking even or losing money, while the bottom teams are bleeding money. What sticks out to me: - Although barely, the Penguins lost money last year (in terms of Operating Income) - Despite not having an owner for a long time, the Dallas Stars are the 11th most valuable franchise Questions: 1) How does your team fair, and what is your opinion of where they sit? 2) In your opinion, do these team values indicate the need for any relocation of current teams? 3) Will the next CBA result in the changes needed to make the NHL more profitable without resulting in another lockout? Team value list: http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/#p_1_s_a0_ The article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2011/11/30/the-business-of-hockey/

Public Comments

We're a bit in the red. It's hard to believe player salaries are that bad. The NHL players get tiny salaries compared to other major sports. I don't think so. I think there are strong marketing flaws somewhere along the line... I do hope so. A lockout is likely though, unless they find some genius solution. The NHL can't survive if that many teams can't make money...
1)We're the Rangers... 2)Columbus and Phoenix need to move. Period. Also I know the Islanders have been around a long time, but them being ranked 29th and the Rangers lighting cigars with rolls of hundreds might indicate that one is too close to the other. 3)That better be the case. If there's another lockout I want Bettman lynched. The product is incredible. There's no excuse for not making money. Also, not sure what's going on with the Blues. St. Louis is a great hockey city. That's the one that stuck out to me. I'm not sure what they can do about it at this point but fact of the matter is there's just too many f*ckin teams. The NHL needs to stop catering to places that just don't give a sh*t and give this sport back to the people that have kept it alive and will keep it alive in the future.
1. given the fact that in 2004 the franchise was #1 in merchendiseing revenue the stars are a valuable market still It shouldnt be surpriseing that they fall slightly better then middle of the pack even after no owner..reduced salarly caps and 2 straight seasons of wiffing on the playoffs... to me things will be much better this year the stars have recived a good amount of media focus with the fresh of a champ title mavs fans hungry to get back in the AAC I have noticed a FEW more hockey fans running around then normal and rumor has it that the new ower is going to shake things up at the arena and hopefully boost more sales.. also with so many faces of the franchise leaveing the stars you willl likely see a lot of jersey sales for those that want to be hip and current in a new jersey (i will stick to my zubov jersey thanks) 2. I dunno the islanders are a low income team but that is more of a horribly run team in my opinion then it is an issue of the team not being supported.. did you know that even tho they have hand down the worst arena in the NHL that they are still one of the most exspensive average nights at an arena? of course your not going to make money when people can hop on a train and see their isles play the devils for way cheaper.. as much as i love the stars if there was a new NHL team in denton tx (maybe an hour from my house the other direction) and they had a much cheaper deal.. i would deffinitly make it to more denton games... 3. I think its just part of a CBA rewrite at this point that there has to be at least a short lock out.. I mean the main issues that drive a poor team are like you said poor spending on large cap hits (and that is too common place now to be taken off the table players are not going to just accept less money to help their team) and low fan interest how does a CBA combat that?
1. Right behind the Original 6, seems fair. 2. Yup, Seattle, Quebec and Kansas city are sure looking nice right now for some teams. 3. I agree with the Rangers guy, if there is another lockout Bettman needs to go.
1) First (again). I really expected it, but I really couldn't care less. 2) Partly. It is a good indicator of how teams are doing financially. For example, Phoenix is last, and probably should be moved. 3) I really hope so. The last thing we need is another lockout.
1. The Coyotes can't stay. I hate to say it because the city of Phoenix deserves a franchise, but Gretzky has destroyed them beyond repair. Their arena doesn't work being way out in the boonies, and this stupid game of "will we even be here 2 months from now?" isn't working. Nobody wants to buy tickets because of this stupid charade. I say just move them to Seattle. 2. Besides my Coyotes, I would say that Columbus and the Islanders need to go too. I think the Islanders would be okay in the general NYC area though, Brooklyn, Queens or whatever, maybe Columbus to Quebec. 3. I doubt it. The lockout was a huge fail for everyone involved, I think the main focus will be to avoid another one so nothing will get solved.
1. The Caps are 12th, but they, once again, lost money. I'm sure D.C.'s high income tax rate had an affect on it though. Most D.C. teams lose money every few years. The Wizards are pretty far in the red and the Nationals are only above water because they didn't have to pay for their new stadium. There's a reason Dan Snyder has kept the Redskins out of the district, he's paying about half as much in Maryland and Virginia. 2. I don't think so. Buffalo and St. Louis are in the bottom eight, but nobody is complaining about them right now. The Florida Panthers are worth less, but brought in almost as much as the Colorado Avalanche, and I don't hear anybody complaining about them. They are even in less debt than the Caps. Phoenix is an injustice because so many owners have wronged that team. It could have easily been successful, and was for a few years, until the downward spiral was initiated by the move to Glendale. Everything's been terrible since. I still don't understand how Columbus ended up so bad, but somebody f*cked that situation up royally. 3. I'm hoping the NHL can avoid another lockout, but the players got the man who single handedly orchestrated the MLB strike of 94-95, so I wouldn't put my money against another lockout. The players needed a hockey guy, not a money guy.
Unless Forbes has access to actual team financials and P&L's I'm skeptical on a lot of this; not to mention teams making themselves look bad on paper to write off losses. In the case of Pittsburgh they moved into a new taxpayer-funded arena...I'm curious as to how those transactions look on their P&L. They have a new arena with all the big-ticket items, increased capacity, increased ticket prices, solid local cable dollars...as talented as their on-ice roster is their bean counters are either pulling some colossal porkies or these people couldn't manage a 2-car parade. 1) MLSE is...well, MLSE. They've ventured out into other stuff (condos, restaurants, etc.) and are a money-printing factory. They're ranked 1st and frankly they should be. 2) No. Phoenix is a problem because they don't have an owner in a market that has lost money every year since they got there (which really stinks because their on-ice product is good; damn good in fact). Plus, the valuations are little more than a topic to argue. The value of something isn't what Forbes magazine says it is (again, have they actually seen the books?). It's what someone is willing to pay for it. I may put two dollars as the value of something, but if someone is is willing to pay five dollars for it, it's worth five dollars. 3) Seeing MLB with labour peace, and the NFL and NBA having gone to a 50-50 split, clearly that's going to be the direction the NHL is heading. Would the NHLPA accept a 50-50 split with no escrow, guaranteed contracts, Olympic participation in 2014, 2018, and 2022, and UFA at age 26? What about a hybrid 50-50 but allow teams to go over (paying a luxury tax that goes to the poors) to resign players who have played 400/500 games for the club? Putting on my selfish Toronto-is-the-centre-of-the-universe hat...why should Toronto (who has s***tonnes of money) have to artificially limit themselves? People took a giant crap on MLSE for setting something called a "budget" for expenses during the pre-lockout days- why should they be punished like they are? If MLSE's bean counters say "based on projected revenues we can spend $90mm on player salary and still be profitable" why shouldn't they? This is more of a rhetorical point...I understand the metrics of a 30-team franchise league (I also understand that other leagues outside of North America don't have wage caps...the Barclays Premier League doesn't and teams spend what they are able to spend which means that the big boys can spend more than the smaller clubs). I'm just saying.
1. As a Leafs fan the team is always number one. 2. Relocation only works if there is a place to move to. There are very few locations which will be profitable hockey markets. If there were any the lineup to buy the Coyotes and the Panthers would be long and loud. There is only one market and the NHL has already promised it to David Eaton so until Winnipeg can find another owner there will be no second team in southern Ontario. 3. Will the players accept a 50% split in revenue without striking? Will the NHLPA accept contraction without striking? There will be no lockout but there will likely be a strike. The NHL will enter negotiations with a massive cut in revenue sharing with the players say in the 48% range. There will be a drop in the cap floor. Each team will have a salary exemption where they can negate an existing contract at minimal or no cost. And there will be a reduction in roster size. Each and any of these items will be enough to cause a strike but all are necessary to ensure survival of a 30 team NHL.