it's the only numbers that fans and the media have access to, maybe it's not accurate to the cent, but it is a good waypoint.

But back to the Leafs, forbes based the team value of the leafs on their most recent sale, so saying they are not worth a billion dollars is little off base seeing as they just sold for that.
- CaptainK

not arguing your point. i agree, the leafs may be worth even more than that. i guess i just get riled up when people use this as a set in stone reference point.

anyway, carry on.

I love all these kids get all riled up because the Leafs are in the #1 position - like no it can't be! That's not right - impossible! .....like it matters at all for anything. You should be happy they can be profitable without making the playoffs - that's why they suck so bad is because they don't HAVE to make the playoffs to make money. Embrace it you nerds don't fight it.....it's part of what keeps them so damn terrible.

not arguing your point. i agree, the leafs may be worth even more than that. i guess i just get riled up when people use this as a set in stone reference point.

anyway, carry on.
- hnic

What I don't seem to quite grasp is, if Forbes is apparently so full of poop and truly have no idea what the actuals are, why would they even attempt to bother publishing this info?

I'm no publishing guru, but I'm fairly sure that a publication from company as high profile as Forbes would be fairly tight with their fact checking. I could be wrong though. I just don't know what they would have to gain by making it up as they go.

Eklund: What's Your Team Worth? Meetings with "The Mediator" Underway in DC ...
- Eklund

LA Kings, the stanley cup champions had an operating revenue of only 1.8 million....wow!?!?!?!?

it's the only numbers that fans and the media have access to, maybe it's not accurate to the cent, but it is a good waypoint.

But back to the Leafs, forbes based the team value of the leafs on their most recent sale, so saying they are not worth a billion dollars is little off base seeing as they just sold for that.
- CaptainK

Very well said. A Team Value is determined by how much someone is willing to pay for it.

I however am hopeful......
-Ek

of course you are.

No it's not. This isn't a court case where one side is going to be awarded damages based on who was at fault. Are the owners asking the players to pay back the money they lost during the last CBA? No.

The focus should be on how to fix it going forward. If the expenses are growing faster than revenue under the previous CBA framework then the framework needs to be adjusted.
- Flyers_01

Sure it is! Doesn't need to be a court case to be about fault. When one side is unwilling to accept part of the blame, and wants to take everything from the players. When that side is clearly at fault for the financial issues of the League.

I agree totally with your last paragraph. So when is the NHL going to accpet responsibilty for that and pay part of the price, and come to a deal with the players?

I keep hearing you make this statement Irish, what exactly are you referring to?
How is it possible that a team of publishers as high profile as the ones at the Forbes publication not know the difference between profit and revenue?

Site an example from that article so I can understand what you're talking about.
- MnGump

Forbes published its estimate of NHL business for 2011-12. Included in that was an estimate of each team's revenue and profit for the season.

Brian Stubits, a blogger for CBSSports.com, then put out this article, which originally contained this line:

The top three blow all the other teams in the NHL away when in terms of revenue each season. The large majority of the revenue comes from those three teams -- 83 percent to be exact, according to the Forbes report.

which has since been partially corrected as it says "the large majority of the operating income ..." but is still proceeded by "the top three blow all the other teams in the NHL away when in terms of revenue each season."

For the "83 percent of revenue" comment to be correct, it would have to be the case that the top 3 teams (Toronto, NY Rangers, Montreal) generated $2.810 billion in revenue last year (based on the Forbes estimate of $3.374 billion in revenue, and not the NHL's stated $3.303 billion in HRR). The Forbes data clearly shows that didn't happen; it does show, however, that leaguewide profit was $250 million and the top 3 teams had a combined profit of $207.5 million - or 83% of the leaguewide total.

Hence, my comment that way too many people do not understand the difference between revenue and profit - and even Stubits in his correction half-asses it as he makes a point referencing revenues and then tries to support it by referencing profits.

Hope that helps clarify things.

Fold every team in bold.....
- Symba007

Fold every Canadian Team

This just in: The NHL teeters on the brink of collapse as major owners of original six and other big markets threaten to leave the league as they grow impatient.
- Buffalo--Sabres

Well, the NHL was started when the owners became so pissed off with the owner of the Toronto Blue Shirts, they folded the NHA and started a new league without him.

So it's not without precedent...

this is where i think you are wrong

the players need the owners

the owners dont need the players.

sure they would love to see their asset flourish (that being the teams) but they do not rely on the money generated by these clubs as their primary source of income. this is why the owners dont actually NEED hockey, from a business standpoint of course.

the owners dont need anything.. so long as they dont mind being the bad guy shutting the league down (which obviously they are okay with) then there is nothing the players can do.
- Dozzer

Of course the Owners need the players. This idea that the Owner's don't need Hockey because it isn't their primary business, is an idea that has been invented here on Hockeybuzz. And it continues to be a bunch of malarkey. It's a multi billion dollar business.

Umm the Leafs, Raptors and AAC sold last year for 2. something billion.
- CaptainK

Not really.

Bell and Rogers each paid about $533 million for 37.5% (each) of MLSEL.

Is todays meeting already over with the typical "no meeting scheduled" comment

I love all these kids get all riled up because the Leafs are in the #1 position - like no it can't be! That's not right - impossible! .....like it matters at all for anything. You should be happy they can be profitable without making the playoffs - that's why they suck so bad is because they don't HAVE to make the playoffs to make money. Embrace it you nerds don't fight it.....it's part of what keeps them so damn terrible.


- BlowMonkey

... And STILL making the most money without making the playoffs in nearly a decade. What does that tell you about the rest of the league?

Love'em or Hate'em, this league needs the Leafs (along with a handful of other teams). You'd think given the current state of a number of struggling franchises that the Leafs would receive a little more support. After all, who the (frank) do you think is paying for many of the superstars on struggling franchises?

Please NHLPA, decertify! Decertify so that the Leafs (and others) can stop floating other hack teams. Decertify so the league folds a half dozen teams that are bringing down the league.

Not really.

Bell and Rogers each paid about $533 million for 37.5% (each) of MLSEL.
- Atomic Wedgie

Ah, i got it from forbes, guess that was my downfall.

the NHL approved the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan sale of its controlling interest in Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment–which owns the Maple Leafs as well as the NBA Raptors and the Air Canada Centre–for an enterprise value of $2.05 billion

Of course the Owners need the players. This idea that the Owner's don't need Hockey because it isn't their primary business, is an idea that has been invented here on Hockeybuzz. And it continues to be a bunch of malarkey. It's a multi billion dollar business.
- MJL

name one owner who relies on their hockey team as their primary business.

i think you will find the list is far shorter (say 0) than you think

name one owner who relies on their hockey team as their primary business.

i think you will find the list is far shorter (say 0) than you think
- Dozzer

Gary Bettman?

Am I seeing this right? Nine of the thirteen teams in bold were expansion or relocation under Betteman?

The teams in the top ten keep all of Betteman's mistakes afloat and they are locking out because the bottom 13 are sucking the league dry and every owner is careless with their contracts.

In the end, the players and owners are fighting over a share of what the top 10 teams combine for profit over the duration of the next CBA. There would be alot more revenue to go around if the league wasnt managed so poorly.

Betteman fights every inch of the way to keep his poor location choices where they are. There are so many contradictions with the NHL. He couldnt sell the NHL in these places when the economy was booming...what did he think would happen during recessions?

Gary Bettman?
- CaptainK

is not an owner

And people wonder why I think some of the owners are crappy businessmen.

Take Minnesota, for example. Lost $3.9M last year but thought it was a good idea to drop $196M in contracts on two guys.

name one owner who relies on their hockey team as their primary business.

i think you will find the list is far shorter (say 0) than you think
- Dozzer

I think the answer here is, Owners do not need players that make multi-millions to run their business. They could run it with a cap of 1mil per player and still would find a way to turn a profit.

Would I pay $150 to see the the Canadiens play? Yes
Would I pay $150 to see the Bulldogs play? No
Would I pay $150 to see the Canadiens play with an AHL roster assuming the whole entire league was doing the same making it a competitive league fighting for the Stanley Cup? YES!!!

Forbes published its estimate of NHL business for 2011-12. Included in that was an estimate of each team's revenue and profit for the season.

Brian Stubits, a blogger for CBSSports.com, then put out this article, which originally contained this line:



which has since been partially corrected as it says "the large majority of the operating income ..." but is still proceeded by "the top three blow all the other teams in the NHL away when in terms of revenue each season."

For the "83 percent of revenue" comment to be correct, it would have to be the case that the top 3 teams (Toronto, NY Rangers, Montreal) generated $2.810 billion in revenue last year (based on the Forbes estimate of $3.374 billion in revenue, and not the NHL's stated $3.303 billion in HRR). The Forbes data clearly shows that didn't happen; it does show, however, that leaguewide profit was $250 million and the top 3 teams had a combined profit of $207.5 million - or 83% of the leaguewide total.

Hence, my comment that way too many people do not understand the difference between revenue and profit - and even Stubits in his correction half-asses it as he makes a point referencing revenues and then tries to support it by referencing profits.

Hope that helps clarify things.
- Irish Blues

Yeah thanks. Sometimes I need things spelled out so information may more easily penetrate the millions of dead brain cells my skull houses...

name one owner who relies on their hockey team as their primary business.

i think you will find the list is far shorter (say 0) than you think
- Dozzer

That's not the point. Even if it isn't their primary business. They're still not in the Hockey business to lose money, like it's just a hobby. That's the point. This idea that the Owner's are just willing to flush money down the toilet because it's not their primary business is hogwash. They made a financial investment. They're in it to make money and build the worth of the franchise. The real 0 you want to think about is how many Owner's are currently doing that. And that's 0!

I thought MLSE was worth 1B... it's just the Leafs? Wowzer!

is not an owner
- Dozzer

Not technically, who is the onwner of the Yotes anyways?