League Revenues

[norrisnick 1]

Where did you pick up this factoid? Because the last time a staggering percentage (it was 30% last time I heard it) was bandied about Canadian media outlets, Bettman vehemently denied those claims.

[toby91_ca 620]

Where did you pick up this factoid? Because the last time a staggering percentage (it was 30% last time I heard it) was bandied about Canadian media outlets, Bettman vehemently denied those claims.

I believe it was Mr. Melnyk, or however you spell it, who was on the radio the other day. I would suspect, as one of the owners, he would have a pretty good idea of the breakdown of total revenues and the source thereof.

[eva unit zero 271]

I believe it was Mr. Melnyk, or however you spell it, who was on the radio the other day. I would suspect, as one of the owners, he would have a pretty good idea of the breakdown of total revenues and the source thereof.

I don't know about current revenues, but here are the numbers from 2004.

Total league revenue was 2.24 billion. Canadian teams made a total of 476m, about 20%. The Canadian dollar has gone from around 85 cents to aroudn $1.05 USD. If the revenue stream stayed basically the same, Canadian teams would now have 588 USD, representing 24% of the revenue. If Canadian teams were 40%, assuming the only change in their revenue was the exchange rate, then that would mean league revenues were down to 1.47B. If Canadian teams increased revenue by 50% in Canadian dollars, that would mean league revenues would have to be 2.2B. League revenues are greater than that, meaning that either 40% is way off, or the Canadian teams have increased their revenue by some ridiculous percentage.

[Dabura 12,232]

fac·toid

–noun

1. an insignificant or trivial fact.

2. something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised esp. to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition.

[/semantics nazi]

[toby91_ca 620]

I don't know about current revenues, but here are the numbers from 2004.

Total league revenue was 2.24 billion. Canadian teams made a total of 476m, about 20%. The Canadian dollar has gone from around 85 cents to aroudn $1.05 USD. If the revenue stream stayed basically the same, Canadian teams would now have 588 USD, representing 24% of the revenue. If Canadian teams were 40%, assuming the only change in their revenue was the exchange rate, then that would mean league revenues were down to 1.47B. If Canadian teams increased revenue by 50% in Canadian dollars, that would mean league revenues would have to be 2.2B. League revenues are greater than that, meaning that either 40% is way off, or the Canadian teams have increased their revenue by some ridiculous percentage.

You can't just look at that table and add up the revenues by team and then pick out the Canadian teams and calculate a percentage, that wouldn't include ALL revenues, unless I am missing something.

Also, your exchange is way off. The Canadian dollar during 2004 was worth, on averge $0.76 US, not $0.85.

I listen to an owner say it's 40%, I tend to take it as a reasonable fact. Also, I did read something that suggested a few years ago, revenues in Canadian dollars represented 30% of the total and since then, the Canadian dollar has appreciated in value by 30%. Assuming nothing else changes, that right there gets you in the high 30s.

fac·toid

–noun

1. an insignificant or trivial fact.

2. something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised esp. to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition.

[/semantics nazi]

So...what's the issue? I think this is a "trivial fact" - it fits the definition.

I was initially going to say FACT, but I didn't have any cold hard support to back it up, so I changed it to Factoid.

[eva unit zero 271]

You can't just look at that table and add up the revenues by team and then pick out the Canadian teams and calculate a percentage, that wouldn't include ALL revenues, unless I am missing something.

Also, your exchange is way off. The Canadian dollar during 2004 was worth, on averge $0.76 US, not $0.85.

I listen to an owner say it's 40%, I tend to take it as a reasonable fact. Also, I did read something that suggested a few years ago, revenues in Canadian dollars represented 30% of the total and since then, the Canadian dollar has appreciated in value by 30%. Assuming nothing else changes, that right there gets you in the high 30s.

So does that 'revenues in Canadian dollars' include money spent on the Wings and Sabres, who are at the border, as well as money spent on the Coyotes or Avalanche by people in Winnipeg or Quebec still loyal to their team? Canadian dollars is not the same as 'Canadian teams' and it's a flat lie to present it as such.

[toby91_ca 620]

So does that 'revenues in Canadian dollars' include money spent on the Wings and Sabres, who are at the border, as well as money spent on the Coyotes or Avalanche by people in Winnipeg or Quebec still loyal to their team? Canadian dollars is not the same as 'Canadian teams' and it's a flat lie to present it as such.

I know, there is clearly a difference, but what Eugene was talking about was revenue generated by the Canadian Teams.

What I don't understand is how you handle revenues generated by a sale of a Wings jersey at the HHOF. Does that form part of the Wing's generated revenue? I don't think it would. In terms of total revenue, I think you have what is generated by the league itself (which I presume would be these merchandise sales) and those that are generated by each individual team (laregly gate driven).

Where the Canadian teams really have the advantage is on broadcast revenues. The NFL adds all the TV revenues up and splits it across all the teams, which makes for mostly healthy and stable franchises, but the NHL doesn't do this. The reason for this is very clear, the NFL agreement to do this was reached a long, long time ago and when it was reached, no one thought these revenues would be very significant, so it wasn't a big deal. If someone had the insight, no way they would have agreed to split those revenues.

[eva unit zero 271]

I know, there is clearly a difference, but what Eugene was talking about was revenue generated by the Canadian Teams.

What I don't understand is how you handle revenues generated by a sale of a Wings jersey at the HHOF. Does that form part of the Wing's generated revenue? I don't think it would. In terms of total revenue, I think you have what is generated by the league itself (which I presume would be these merchandise sales) and those that are generated by each individual team (laregly gate driven).

Where the Canadian teams really have the advantage is on broadcast revenues. The NFL adds all the TV revenues up and splits it across all the teams, which makes for mostly healthy and stable franchises, but the NHL doesn't do this. The reason for this is very clear, the NFL agreement to do this was reached a long, long time ago and when it was reached, no one thought these revenues would be very significant, so it wasn't a big deal. If someone had the insight, no way they would have agreed to split those revenues.

NFL TV revenues also exceed the salary cap. The NFL could have free admission and every team would still be able to cover all of their player expenses with TV revenue. The NHL does not have this luxury.

[vangvace 12]

I know, there is clearly a difference, but what Eugene was talking about was revenue generated by the Canadian Teams.

What I don't understand is how you handle revenues generated by a sale of a Wings jersey at the HHOF. Does that form part of the Wing's generated revenue? I don't think it would. In terms of total revenue, I think you have what is generated by the league itself (which I presume would be these merchandise sales) and those that are generated by each individual team (laregly gate driven).

Where the Canadian teams really have the advantage is on broadcast revenues. The NFL adds all the TV revenues up and splits it across all the teams, which makes for mostly healthy and stable franchises, but the NHL doesn't do this. The reason for this is very clear, the NFL agreement to do this was reached a long, long time ago and when it was reached, no one thought these revenues would be very significant, so it wasn't a big deal. If someone had the insight, no way they would have agreed to split those revenues.

I was under the impression that teams get revenue on all their merchandise sales regardless of where it's purchased whereas the league only gets a share of league licensed merchandise. Wasn't that part of the NHLPA's gripe with the revenue numbers?