Ahhhhhhh....the NHL lost 240 mil.......boo hoo hoo!


Mowich
#1
Here's a real knee-slapper for you, talloola.

Report: NHL has lost 240 million in the last two seasons

Jason Brough

Despite posting record revenues, the NHL has lost approximately $240 million over the last two seasons, a league source tells RDS's Renaud Lavoie.

In a related story, the timing of this leak is about as accidental as Milan Lucic bowling over Ryan Miller.

The NHL has faced a considerable, if not impossible, PR challenge during the latest CBA negotiations. How, many have wondered, can the owners be demanding concessions from the players following a season that saw the league crowing that business has never been better?

The NHL painted a much bleaker picture ahead of the 2004-05 lockout, going so far as to commission a report from former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt that showed a $273 million loss during the 2002-03 season.

The NBA painted a similarly bleak picture prior to last season’s lockout, claiming the league was losing upwards of $300 million per season.

Of course, now that the NHL has played the “we’re losing money” card, it’s also opened itself up to the “maybe if you didn’t have a team in Phoenix” rebuttal.

After all, not all business losses can be chalked up to paying the employees too much.

Report: NHL has lost $240 million the past two seasons | ProHockeyTalk (external - login to view)
 
GroundWater
+2
#2  Top Rated Post
They lost 240 million supporting american franchises.
 
MapleDog
#3
If a team is losing money,it would be simpler just to get rid of it.
 
shadowshiv
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by GroundWaterView Post

They lost 240 million supporting american franchises.

I was just going to say that.

However, it should be mentioned that it's only certain American franchises. Phoenix is the biggest one of them all. I have no idea why Buttman fought so hard to keep them in a city that will never give them the proper support. It sounds like the guy who is buying(or bought) the team is going to be financed, so it looks like the soap opera continues...

Quote: Originally Posted by MapleDogView Post

If a team is losing money,it would be simpler just to get rid of it.

That makes sense(if it happens for more than a couple of seasons), but if someone has a personal agenda at stake(like Bettman does with his brainchild of franchises in places like Florida, San Jose, Tampa Bay, Phoenix) the franchise will remain far longer than is economically feasible.
 
MapleDog
#5
Its a little idiotic to have hockey team in places where the people do not give a rat's a$$ about the sport,its a northern region sport,let the southern region have other sport.
 
GroundWater
#6
As far as I know, there isn't any team in the south that is making money. This isn't the 80's, look at Winnipeg, bring in Quebec City, hell even Halifax or Saskatoon, good markets but the NHL won"t even consider them, Hamilton would be a great market...but we know how that story goes.
 
shadowshiv
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by GroundWaterView Post

As far as I know, there isn't any team in the south that is making money. This isn't the 80's, look at Winnipeg, bring in Quebec City, hell even Halifax or Saskatoon, good markets but the NHL won"t even consider them, Hamilton would be a great market...but we know how that story goes.

I truly believe that Ontario could support another team in the area. It would make for a good rivalry with Toronto, and I honestly don't think that the fanbase of the Leafs would dry up and go away(regardless of how futile their play has been for a long time, and I speak as a long-time fan of the Leafs!).
 
GroundWater
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

I truly believe that Ontario could support another team in the area. It would make for a good rivalry with Toronto, and I honestly don't think that the fanbase of the Leafs would dry up and go away(regardless of how futile their play has been for a long time, and I speak as a long-time fan of the Leafs!).

With 6 million people or more in the GTA, I dont see a problem, look at NewYork and the Islanders and New Jersey, all within a 100km radius and good markets, Toronto has some major pull with the NHL and they suck, growing up I was a leafs fan, I remember Sittler and old Eddy Shack it was good entertaiment, but they cant even entertain you now a days.
 
shadowshiv
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by GroundWaterView Post

With 6 million people or more in the GTA, I dont see a problem, look at NewYork and the Islanders and New Jersey, all within a 100km radius and good markets, Toronto has some major pull with the NHL and they suck, growing up I was a leafs fan, I remember Sittler and old Eddy Shack it was good entertaiment, but they cant even entertain you now a days.

I honestly thought they had a chance to at least make it into the playoffs last year, but they just fell apart and quickly dropped like a stone. Their defensive core needs to improve otherwise they won't ever be going anywhere. Of course, LA (another team that I don't like for the reasons I gave above, but they DO have a great team) would have steamrolled them had they miraculously made it to the Finals. LOL!

I still wish that they had given Wayne Gretzkey that penalty in 1993. They wuz robbed!

And you're right about their pull. Their complaining about a lost fanbase was one of the main reasons Baisille didn't get the franchise. Another reason was that Bettman didn't like the way he tried to purchase the Coyotes. Bettman's ego couldn't handle it, so he put the kabosh on it.
 
GroundWater
+1
#10
I dont think even the Great One could have helped them, there cursed..I blame Ballard..
 
shadowshiv
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by GroundWaterView Post

I dont think even the Great One could have helped them, there cursed..I blame Ballard..

Well, perhaps not during his 1993 days, but if he was in his prime, the Leafs could have been dangerous!

And I agree. Ballard was one of the worst owners(if not THE worst) in NHL history.
 
talloola
+1
#12
i'm afraid all of those old 'big statements' like the above, 'big money losses by the NHL' don't work
anylonger, as everyone is much more informed and aren't fooled, so much comes thru the electronic
media, twitter and whatever else, news reaches people in seconds, and the people are better informed
than ever before, yet, we have to listen to old old cliche statements like that????

jeeesh, why should phoenix bother to work hard for a new owner, the NHL are looking after them just fine,
stuck with them, and many others.
I wonder when the owners of the 'do well' teams will all stand up and protest, as they have to hand out
millions to support the have-nots of the league.
anyway they deserve it, as they agreed to hand bettman a big fat new contract to keep him around for a lot
longer, and on it goes.
I'm also glad to see that many onlookers/fans etc., have finally seen the light, and realize that it isn't
the players who are running the money way up and out of sight, it is the owners and
gen mgrs., they set the height of
contracts, hmmmmm they just finished stating that in the future contracts should never go beyond 5 years,
then in days after that, two new contracts were given for longer than that, how foolish they look.
 
skookumchuck
+2
#13
The only thing i am sure of is that Bettman is a fugging egotistical little weasel!
 
Mowich
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by MapleDogView Post

If a team is losing money,it would be simpler just to get rid of it.

One would think so, Maple................but as long as Buttman and certain owners think it is fine and dandy to have teams in the desert and other places where hockey is the last thing to garner fans, the league will continue to suffer losses. The fact is that the league while crying over a few million in losses also made millions, far far more than they lost. Like the article contends, the timing of this 'announcement' is suspect coming as it does on the heels of yet another rejection of an NHLPA proposal.

Quote: Originally Posted by GroundWaterView Post

As far as I know, there isn't any team in the south that is making money. This isn't the 80's, look at Winnipeg, bring in Quebec City, hell even Halifax or Saskatoon, good markets but the NHL won"t even consider them, Hamilton would be a great market...but we know how that story goes.

Saskatoon would be a great market. They have been lobbing hard for an NHL team.
 
MapleDog
#15
I wonder if owners of canadian teams could say,they have it with "paying" for cities that do not give a phoque about hockey.

There are too many hockey teams now,a little cleanup,and resurection of team that i think deserves a comback.
 
Mowich
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by MapleDogView Post

I wonder if owners of canadian teams could say,they have it with "paying" for cities that do not give a phoque about hockey.


Owners of some Canadian teams bow just as low to Lord Buttman as American owners, Maple........the others just stand by and nod.

Quote:

There are too many hockey teams now,a little cleanup,and resurection of team that i think deserves a comback.

I agree that the league could do with a few less teams, for sure it would shorten the season and the seemingly endless round of play-offs.
 
JLM
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by MowichView Post



Saskatoon would be a great market. They have been lobbing hard for an NHL team.



Can you fill an arena from a population base of 200,000? Regina might be a better choice!

 
Mowich
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

[/FONT]

Can you fill an arena from a population base of 200,000? Regina might be a better choice!



Saskatoon is but a few hours drive from Regina, JLM. For many fans a that drive is nothing when you support a team.................just look at the support that the Riders get for their games. Not all those fans live in the city........heck some of them live in other provinces and the States.

 
petros
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by MowichView Post

Saskatoon would be a great market. They have been lobbing hard for an NHL team.


Saskatoon is a viable NHL city, promoter insists | NHL | Sports | National Post
 
darkbeaver
#20
You can make money by appearing to lose money, someone said.
 
Mowich
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

You can make money by appearing to lose money, someone said.

You can also appear to be making money while losing your shirt.

“I’ve been out here four years now, and I get a little surprised at the arrogance of experts who don’t know the market,” said the Toronto-based businessman. “If I take this whole population crap, that means the Toronto Argonauts would sell out every night, and the Roughriders wouldn’t. That means the three teams in the NHL in New York City would be sold out, and Winnipeg wouldn’t. It has nothing to do with population. It has everything to do with educated market and passionate fans.”

"He wanted to move the New York Islanders’ training camp out of Moncton, and made a cold call to Saskatoon’s Credit Union Centre. After agreeing to shift the camp and setting up pre-season games against Calgary and Edmonton, tickets went on sale and sold out in less than half an hour."

Saskatoon all the way, baby!
 
dumpthemonarchy
+1
#22
The NHL has very creative accounting. I applaud them.
 
Mowich
#23
A headline in the G&M reads: "Bettman, Daly and Fehr all plan to decline salary during NHL lock-out"

Magnanimous gesture one might think.........but no........a deeper look into the article and you find that Donald Fehr already stopped collecting his salary on July 1.

However, "On Thursday, Daly declined to confirm directly that he and Bettman would stop being paid, but said “the assumption that high-ranking league executives will continue to receive a salary during a lockout is not necessarily accurate.”

Any bets on who will stick be sucking at the NHL trough if a lock-out becomes reality?? We already know it won't be the NHLPA's representative.

Bettman, Daly and Fehr all plan to decline salary during NHL lockout - The Globe and Mail

 

Similar Threads

16
Lost
by Zan | Feb 28th, 2008
0
Lost Dog
by haveyouseenthiscreature | Feb 5th, 2007
no new posts