Vanflyer

I am not sure if this one is legal or not, but here we go:

Andy Moog.

I do agree. But WHO are the low light teams? Montreal? Winnipeg? Colorado? There is the problem. Many if not most think it is the Florida, TB, Nashville's of the world that are hemoraging. Yet, they are and they are not. If I was a NHLPA rep, that would be my stance 100%. We only hear tid bits, but there is much more behind the scenes. How about St Louis- are you going to get rid of them? Or Minnesota? All of those are teams that are extremely viable but are either losing valuation or losing operationally. I just gave you a list of some very successful teams. There are a couple of limbs that need to be transplanted, but that is not the problem. I know what I would do immediately to remedy the situation and add parity to the league.

Exactly! Yet look at my post in which I hope Forbes and other sites are doing due diligence to state the numbers. Dallas, St Louis, Tampa and Buffalo are great poster childs for this situation. I of course chose to natural hockey markets v. on non-traditional. 1) Dallas- a- Revenue to Salary> nearly half half (54 / 46). b- Operating income> -1.1M c- Attendance> 28th in the league 2) St Louis a- Revenue to Salary> (60/40) b. Operating income> -2.7M c. Attendance> 9th in the league 3) Tamba Bay a) Revenue to Salary> (33 / 63) b) Operating income> -8.5M c) Attendance> 13th in the league 4) Buffalo a) Revenue to Salary> (33/ 63) b) Operating income> -5.6M c) Attendance> 11th in the league How is it that Dallas is operating at a significantly lower loss than St Louis or Buffalo (not to mention Tampa)? Looking at all the data, I think the answer is not easy. But allot has to do with operations / Tix cost. For example, some teams charge allot less on average to see a live game. Other teams charge more, but lose more (thus undercutting the whole have / have not theory). At the end of the day, I think that there are teams that are well managed AND price themselves correctly for their geographical region and others that do not. There in lies a triumverant of issues regarding teams that are both solvent and insolvent: 1) Management- capability to function the front office and back office at a reasonable expense. 2) Priceability- How to create equal foot steps on tix prices despite market region. 3) Cap- Combining item 1 and 2 create a reasonable cap for all teams. In summation, a teams ability to manage, draw revenue AND attendance should all be significant factors. When over 80% of the league is drawling 90% plus attendance, there should not be these significant issues. Yet, they are. In looking at all the numbers, I am disgusted with the owners. Despite loses annually by a handful of teams, most are appreciating at record levels that extremely overshadow any loses. Make more and more money, sure. But to cry poor is completely beyond me after looking at these numbers. I am now 100% behind the players now- unless someone can post some compelling data that states other wise!

Meow.

My thought is incomplete and there is more to come. I am definitely a simpleton when it comes to accounting. Yet, I have been in large corporations as an executive strategists. If I was a controller, or CFO- I would have a greater ability to grind these numbers down. Forbes is one of the most refutable financial rags. With that said, everything I stated, based on their numbers, should be taken with a +10 / -10 variance (assuming they did allot of homework first). Even at that, the variance will still wash the same way. I will work on the summation now- and a bit more statistics to follow.

Your post made me do some additional research (in the spirit of @aziz statistical research). What I did was look at the forbes list and then combined it with some other statistics from other sites. I took the top 11 valued teams and the bottom 12 valued teams. I am not a corporate financial guru / controller nor accountant, so what I say should not be taken as fact, but my perception of how to read the data. 1) Valuation Appreciation / Depreciation- From a appreciation perspective, most teams are very healthy in the sense that many teams that have been acquired / purchased from 1994 onward have at least doubled their investment (valuation). Highlights: - Carolina has nearly quadrupled their value (purchased in 1994). - TB has nearly doubled their value (purchased in 2010). - Anaheim has nearly tripled their value (purchased in 2005). - Dallas has nearly tripled their value (purchased in 1995). - Columbus has nearly doubled their value (purchased in 1997). Lowlights: - Montreal has lost nearly 23% of their value (purchased in 2009). - Florida has lost nearly 20% of their value (purchased in 2009). - Nashville has lost nearly 8% of their value (purchased in 2007). - Winnipeg has lost nearly 4% of their value in their first year back there. I am using this as a geographical display on value of a team and viability as an initial point. Everyone of those teams are a post 1980's expansion team except one: Montreal- Winnipeg is arguable, but it more into that later. Yet Montreal has depreciated the most. The reason I bring up the appreciation / depreciation is that it is an important ingredient to the stability and value of a league. The owners can post marginal losses and say "We are not making money!!", yet the value of their teams keep on increasing. There of course is a line where the valuation and annual loses even out to net and perhaps one or two as overall losses. 2) Revenue to Player Salary Percentage- How much of a teams revenue is eaten by players salary expense Highlights: - Toronto while having one of the larger payrolls in the league, absorbs only 30% of their revenue in player cost. - Montreal while having a mammoth depreciation since the recent ownership, absorbs only 40% of their revenue in player cost. Lowlights: - Columbus, NYI and Phoenix all operate at about 70% of their revenue is absorbed in player costs. I listed 5 of the 23 teams as highlights / lowlights. The remaining 18 teams all operate between a range of 50% to 60% of revenue is absorbed in salary costs. 3) Operating Income- This category baffles me a bit, but their is a direct correlation to this, gate receipts and attendance. I am not sure where it falls with the revenue category, but they do not seem to be connected (not immediate to my simpleton mind at least- which is baffling). Highlights : 1) Toronto, NYR and Montreal, and Vancouver led the way. Head an shoulders above the rest of the league. Toronto was doubled as compared to NYR and Montreal. (+81.8m, 41.7M, 47.7M and 23M respectively for each team). 2) Three other teams: Chicago, Boston and Philly posted in the positive for Operational income. Lowlights: 1) The rest of the league posted a negative in this category (between a -1M to a -8M). 2) Phoenix, under the NHL ownership posted an astonishing -24.4M in this category (closest other team was Columbus at -13.7m and NYI at 8.1M each). 4) Gate Receipts / Attendance: This one shows how much revenue was generated from the gate and the attendance.Tickets prices differ drastically by geography. Highlights: 1) Two teams AVERAGE over $100 usd for a tix: Toronto ($116) and Vancouver ($105). 2) Two teams AVERAGE over $90 usd for a tix: NYR ($93) and Montreal ($95). 3) One team AVERAGES over $70 usd for a tix: Boston ($79). 4) Pitts, Detroit and Philly are the teams in the $60 range for average. Lowlights: 1) The rest of the league (22 teams) averages between $35 to $50 per tix. The Lowlights should probably be reversed with the Highlights. I need to write a semblance of a conclusion, but I am tired of writing and probably need to abridge this later. For now, I feel this: 1) The owners are still making money (valuation). 2) Some teams do not know how to manage revenue / operational expense. 3) Some teams have extraneous revenue that makes them more profitable (for example, Torontos numbers do not line up). 4) Ticket prices are not uniform in the league, thus fueling the fire that it is a league of separate owners (not even franchise, because even as a franchise, the corporate headquarters gonvern prices.

True, but as an index combined with the other indexes, I think it is an important factor on achieving overall value- particularly with defencemen.

Too easy. Your turn.

Yahoo does a real nice job of tracking hits, blocked shots, etc (significantly better than NHL.com). What I would say is use the same set of categories for all players without a multiplier. Goals (ES, SH, PP, GW, GT) A (ES, SH, PP) +/- Hits Blocked shots Minutes played Those are the categories that I believe really reflect a players all-around play.

I saw that on another thread as well and does make one raise an eyebrow. The question comes down to what are forbes numbers based on and what are the tax filing numbers based on. Some organizations umbrella corps and underneath, they separate the gate revenue / merchandising from facilities (parking / concessions- etc.). So, it would be interesting in Florida's case how they are structured as a company. How is Toronto the richest organization in the league revenue (nearly double the Flyers)? Corporate sponsors? Different tv deals (regional, not national)? Larger merchandising / concession sales? Whatever it is, it begs the question on how do the lower revenue teams use the same kind of blue print model for success as the richer teams have. Particular for those teams that are above the 90% attendance line. That shows that there is fan support for the team.

Next mask (thanks @hf101 for the instructions).

Okay, I see your point much better now. Here is an interesting article (I think @jammer2 might have posted excerpts from it before). What is compelling to me is the estimated revenue graph based on Forbes annual "The Business of Hockey" expose. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/why-nhl-teams-cry-poor-despite-the-leagues-record-growth/article4429817/ Here are the bottom 15 teams with estimated revenue earnings for 2011 along with average home attendance: 1) Phoenix- 52M revenue, 12,420 attendance (last) 2) Atlanta / Winnipeg- 57M revenue, 15,004 attendance (25th) 3) NYI- 63M revenue, 13,191 attendance (29th) 4) STL- 68M revenue, 18,809 attendance (9th) 5) CBJ- 70M revenue, 14,660 attendance (27th) 6) Car- 72M revenue, 16,042 attendance (22nd) 8) Fla- 72M revenue, 16,628 attendance (21st) 9) NSH- 72M revenue, 16,690 attendance (20th) 10) COL- 76M revenue, 15,498 attendance (23rd) 11) Ana- 78M revenue, 14,760 attendance (26th) 12) Buf- 87M revenue, 18,850 attendance (11th) 13) TB- 87M revenue, 18,468 attendance (13th) 14) Dal- 90M revenue, 14,226 attendance (28th) There are some usual suspects on here, but some surprises too (notably Colorado and St Louis). The other surprises are to see where Tampa and Dallas are (middle of the back). So, in a way, I am piggy backing Radorans subsequent post that it is not all about the expansion regions. 17 of the 30 teams in the league are operating at 100% capacity. Another four are operating at near capacity (96.4%). So, 21 teams are operating at or near full capacity. In just looking at the above, you have to ask yourself how does Dallas sit at #14 in revenue, but 28th in attendance while St Louis sits at 27th in revenue, but 9th in attendance. How does Dallas generate 30% more revenue than CBJ when their attendance is nearly identical? The simplest answer is two fold: 1) Operations- some teams operate their business end much better (front office, etc.). 2) Additional revenue- some teams do better at making more money outside of ticket sales alone (ie. better corporate sponsorship / sales, merchandising etc.). So, back to your point, geography (and particularly into the "southern regions" is not a stand alone reason of the have's vs. the have nots. Source for attendance: http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/year/2012/sort/homePct

It is already heading back in that direction. Every year it progressively regresses.

That would be Patrick Lalimes mask.

How about dipietro- I am sure the NYI are going to buy him out.

I think the cannucks buy out luongo. If the new cap is going to as low as proposed, he is an easy target because of his cap hit (same as Bryz) AND the length of his contract. Vancouver got him for peanuts (todd bertuzzi, Bryan Allen and Alex Auld), so they wouldn't really be losing anything by cutting him.

Ding ding ding!!!! We have a winner. Johnny, tell him what he has won. Johnny: He has won a BRAND NEW sheep.

I would like to see the books for all the teams. When 18 teams are at 100% capacity in attendance (or very near) and another 8 teams are at 85% capacity, it becomes confounding to me how they lose money. The salaries are the SAME as they were in 1998. These stats beckon again that this is lockout is about a minority of teams that can not sustain financial profitability. Beyond geographical reasons, there are a host of other reasons why that is (NYI are a poster child for this). At the end of the day, the reality is that it is not the fans that buy tickets that butter the bread (not directly). It is the corporate suites / advertisers and associated TV contracts that generate all that revenue. Of course without high attendance, corporate suites, advertisers and tvs deals do not get signed / sold. I am on the owners side regarding the money. I am on the players side regarding the existing contracts and the new UFA terms. Yet, at the end of the day, I do believe firmly that is the owners fault that they are in the mess they are in. You cite they are taking course corrections steps to remedy that mess, but those course correction steps are at the expense of the players- when the players are not the ones that made the mess or should be attributed to the mess. I again cite that contracts in 1998 are the same as today. If a tree is dying, what do you do?? You cut off the dying limbs / prune it. The league / owners have decided to keep the dying limbs and let the players be the ones to pay for the life support.

So, let me see if I understand this. The salaries are the SAME as 1998. The revenue is quadrupled since 1998. The ticket prices since 1998 have increased nearly 90%. I know it is about corporate sponsorship and tv contracts and the peon season ticket holder gets pissed on. Aside from that, you want to cite the players for the expansion (or include them in any part of that)? Really? I never heard of ANY union in ANY sector have the ability to veto where their employers should or should not expand their business to. A stretch does not even begin to describe that concept.

And whose fault is that?? The owners of course- they are the ones that approved expansion into geographical regions where it was unrealistic to sustain. In doing that, they bankrupted their league. By the same stroke of their genius, they deny a franchise saving move (Basilles- Phoenix), only to let the league foot the bill to keep that team viable. Why you might ask? Because of ego's and idiocy. I have zero sympathy for the owners. They made their bed, let them lay in it. At this point, just blow it up and start anew.

This entire post is exactly what I was thinking too. The new league will only be in geographical regions that support and follow hockey. It is the OWNERs who eff'd themselves by putting teams in markets that it is not reasonable to expect sustainability. I could never grasp this when there were plenty of regions / markets available where hockey would be sustainable. They essentially cut one leg off and now are teetering on collapse because of their stupidity and greed. I say teetering despite the record revenue. I also am very suspectful of the claimed losses for some teams. There are many ways to state bottom lines. Yet, I am certain that at least 1/3 of the league is operating in the red. And that is WAY too much. The owners piss and moan about the price of current contracts. Guess what: Eric Lindros contract in 1998 was 8.5 million. So, 14 years ago, his contract was essentially the same as Webers, Parise, Crosby, Malkin etc. My point being that the league is crying poor over players contracts while revenue is at a record high. I know the Flyers have always been a rich team (as has Detroit, Toronto, NY, Montreal, etc.), but there would have been ALLOT of teams willing to give E-train 8.5 million in 1998. So what is different now??

I am an innocent bystander thus far. But the seeds are planted!!!

Okay, as long as there can be some sexy puck bunnies in bra and panties, I am in!

Fair enough, but if I am a hollywood writer, it is a great starter for a story line and Elisha is already and actress (well sort of!!).