Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

How much per game do they lose?


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#1 Max-a-Million

Max-a-Million

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 539 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 08

Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:08 PM

Has anyone done the math?

The HRR has been posted as $3.3 Billion and that divided by an 82 game season for 30 teams and a playoff season for 16 teams relates to about (say 110 games) average means that each game is worth about $366,000 per team per game of which the owners currently get 43% which is about $157,000 per game.

So, every game that isn't played costs the owners approximately $160,000 net profit, after the players are paid. That's a lot of money, per owner, per game.

If the owners are currently arguing over 3 or 4% of an increase, I wonder how many games they will agree to cancel before it costs even this billionaires more than they can warrant financially? Sure, for some of these owners, 160 grand is nothing but these guys don't get filthy rich by letting that kind of money get out of their greedy hands.

Comments?
  • 0

I spend half my money on Wine, Women and Song.
The other half I waste!


#2 TowelPower12

TowelPower12

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 449 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 12

Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:17 PM

Hurts the owners more than the players the longer this goes on, players lose their salary which is anywhere from roughly $500,000 to 9mil

The owners of these teams will lose tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars if this goes on long enough, GG nhl
  • 0

#3 skeena1

skeena1

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 827 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 06

Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:40 PM

Hurts the owners more than the players the longer this goes on, players lose their salary which is anywhere from roughly $500,000 to 9mil

The owners of these teams will lose tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars if this goes on long enough, GG nhl


The owners who are billionaires aren't worried. 10 or 20 million is nothing to them.
  • 1

#4 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,875 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:51 PM

*
POPULAR

Has anyone done the math?

The HRR has been posted as $3.3 Billion and that divided by an 82 game season for 30 teams and a playoff season for 16 teams relates to about (say 110 games) average means that each game is worth about $366,000 per team per game of which the owners currently get 43% which is about $157,000 per game.

So, every game that isn't played costs the owners approximately $160,000 net profit, after the players are paid. That's a lot of money, per owner, per game.

If the owners are currently arguing over 3 or 4% of an increase, I wonder how many games they will agree to cancel before it costs even this billionaires more than they can warrant financially? Sure, for some of these owners, 160 grand is nothing but these guys don't get filthy rich by letting that kind of money get out of their greedy hands.

Comments?


Your math is flawed.

HRR = Hockey Related Revenue. Revenue does not equal profit. Revenue is just the amount of money that comes in and does not take expenses into account.

As for the last bit about owners and their greedy hands; if they were so greedy, they wouldn't have purchased a hockey team. Do you really think that Aquilini is in it for the money?
  • 11
Posted Image

#5 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,269 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:59 PM

Some owners were already losing money running the teams. Not running their teams saves them money as the stadium pays for itself by renting itself out for events like concerts, car shows, conventions, etc. However if the lockout lasts long enough, they do start to cut into their main income source, which incidentally is not HRR: resale value. A team gains value as it gets more coverage, a larger fanbase and more success. That is a good indicator of future ticket/merch sales and ad dollars which mean the franchise can be sold at a massive profit. (This is also why it's total crap when owners say they're going broke just because they had a loss last year.) As the lockout goes on, advertisers lose interest, fans become angry and the team's value decreases. Buying a team that's frequently locked out definitely starts to look less attractive too, which is why the owners have been much more interested in getting a deal done than last lockout.

Whether this motivates owners to make concessions before the players is the big mystery. My guess is that the owners know they can't keep this game of chicken up for long though.
  • 1

#6 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:00 PM

*
POPULAR

If it's the Leafs you're talking about... they lose by about 3 or 4 goals a game.
  • 27

#7 Nuck_in_NorCal

Nuck_in_NorCal

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Joined: 30-December 11

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:02 PM

Let's not forget about the people behind the scenes not getting paid because of the lockout. I think the owners should have to cover the lost wages while this is going on - the least they could do!
  • 3

#8 GodzillaDeuce

GodzillaDeuce

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,123 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 08

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:04 PM

If it's the Leafs you're talking about... they lose by about 3 or 4 goals a game.


bazinga
  • 0

well I'm sorry that gd is soo perfect


#9 CanucksSayEh

CanucksSayEh

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,079 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 12

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:07 PM

Let's not forget about the people behind the scenes not getting paid because of the lockout. I think the owners should have to cover the lost wages while this is going on - the least they could do!


Whoever comes out above 50% of the revenue can pay the water boy.
  • 0

#10 PlayStation

PlayStation

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,106 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 08

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:20 PM

Whining over a few percent... The amount they will lose this season ALONE will be more than they'll lose their entire careers by dropping it a mere few percent.

Suck it up players, do a 50/50 split.
  • 2
Posted Image


"Real Men" :bigblush:

#11 Max-a-Million

Max-a-Million

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 539 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 08

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:28 PM

Your logic that the owners are not in it for the money is interesting. If not for the money, then what? The game, the recognition of owning a team, the social stigma? With a lock out, all of these ego hits are gone.

So, yeah, the money generated from the game is not pure profit, it was used as a value test to try to understand the philosophy in the decision to lock out the players without a contract. Of course, none of us will be privy to how much money these guys really make.

OK, not for the money, not for the social status of owning a team, then why? Power?
  • 0

I spend half my money on Wine, Women and Song.
The other half I waste!


#12 That Commentator

That Commentator

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 12

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:46 PM

Your logic that the owners are not in it for the money is interesting. If not for the money, then what? The game, the recognition of owning a team, the social stigma? With a lock out, all of these ego hits are gone.

So, yeah, the money generated from the game is not pure profit, it was used as a value test to try to understand the philosophy in the decision to lock out the players without a contract. Of course, none of us will be privy to how much money these guys really make.

OK, not for the money, not for the social status of owning a team, then why? Power?


I would imagine it's for the prestige. Honestly, if you were a billionaire, what do you think you would do with all your money?

ps: I believe the revenue generated per game is a lot more than what you said. There's something like 1300 games per season including playoffs, so it's more like $1.25 million per game, per team, on average (including playoffs) before paying the players. But yes, it's just revenue... not profit. I don't think this is really useful for anything without knowing expenses, considering the fact that not every team is making money.

Edited by That Commentator, 17 September 2012 - 10:49 PM.

  • 0

#13 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,910 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:46 PM

Hurts the owners more than the players the longer this goes on, players lose their salary which is anywhere from roughly $500,000 to 9mil

The owners of these teams will lose tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars if this goes on long enough, GG nhl


They don't actually "lose" the money. Lets put it this way, it's money they "could" have earned, if the NHL season was still going. That being said, lets say 70% of the owners, have alternate source of income with out their NHL teams. For example our owners will be fine without the Canucks season, (not that they want this to happen). Darryl Katz Oilers owners, is billionares themselves, so they be fine, these owners are business men, and have other source of income. The players on the other hand, don't. Also most of them will play in leauges that won't pay them as much, so in the end, players lose more, but in this case, the fans lose out the most. I blame this on Gary Bettman.
  • 0
November 20th 2013, Canucks just lost their 5th straight game. Last time this happened the Canucks, they missed the playoffs.

#14 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,875 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:51 PM

Your logic that the owners are not in it for the money is interesting. If not for the money, then what? The game, the recognition of owning a team, the social stigma? With a lock out, all of these ego hits are gone.

So, yeah, the money generated from the game is not pure profit, it was used as a value test to try to understand the philosophy in the decision to lock out the players without a contract. Of course, none of us will be privy to how much money these guys really make.

OK, not for the money, not for the social status of owning a team, then why? Power?


The lockout isn't permanent. It will end eventually (I'm hoping for sooner, rather than later).

I would say in some cases it's an ego thing, and in others it's a sense of giving back to the community. But there are far easier ways to make money than owning an NHL franchise, so they certainly aren't doing it for the money.

Plus, imagine if you were the owner that finally succeeded in bringing the Stanley Cup to Vancouver. Imagine the status that would come along with that.
  • 0
Posted Image

#15 Canucksbiggestfan

Canucksbiggestfan

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,027 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 07

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:54 PM

I read somewhere that Vancouver will lose up to 40 million this year, if there is no season.

http://www.vancouver...html?id=7245376

So this would have a bigger impact on the owners, no?

Edited by Canucksbiggestfan, 17 September 2012 - 10:58 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

Posted Image

#16 Max-a-Million

Max-a-Million

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 539 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 08

Posted 18 September 2012 - 07:41 AM

Yes, you are right, the money is more like $1.6 million per game. Now, even billionaires don't become billionaires by turning their back on that kind of coin.

The point I was trying to make is how long of an OWNER IMPOSED lockout do these rich men need before it makes no sense when it seems they are arguing over small bits (3 to 4%) differential in the split of the HRRs?

The nagging thing in the back of my mind is that these owners, in hours before the lock out they imposed, were handing out contracts in the amounts of about $200 million and in direct contradiction to the new CBA they are searching for according to Bettman.

I guess what I'm feeling is that something stinks here. Can it just be the split of the money or is there something bigger at hand?

Edited by Max-a-Million, 18 September 2012 - 07:42 AM.

  • 0

I spend half my money on Wine, Women and Song.
The other half I waste!


#17 Oregon Canucky

Oregon Canucky

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Joined: 23-September 11

Posted 18 September 2012 - 08:40 AM

Edit:

My math was out of context so i removed it....

-peace out

Edited by Oregon Canucky, 18 September 2012 - 09:19 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

Portland Oregon: The first U.S. city to play for the Stanley Cup!

#18 Dion Phaneuf

Dion Phaneuf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,185 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 12

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:32 AM

By the US Thanksgiving long weekend all teams will offically be making a profit for the 2012/13 season. My guess is that hockey will start on that weekend or the 1st week of December.

Win-win situation for the owners...
  • 0

Posted Image


#19 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,482 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:52 AM

By the US Thanksgiving long weekend all teams will offically be making a profit for the 2012/13 season. My guess is that hockey will start on that weekend or the 1st week of December.

Win-win situation for the owners...

Whut? Sorry to break the news to you but numbers that magically come out of your arse have no meaning in the context of NHL team's profit.
  • 0
Posted Image

#20 Dion Phaneuf

Dion Phaneuf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,185 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 12

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:55 AM

Whut? Sorry to break the news to you but numbers that magically come out of your arse have no meaning in the context of NHL team's profit.


I'm not making it up...

I did the caculations but I'd rather not type out a page for no reason.

Edited by A1 CANUCK, 18 September 2012 - 09:56 AM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#21 nuckin_futz

nuckin_futz

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 12

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:57 AM

Owning a team is definitely an ego thing. Once you real a certain level of wealth money just becomes a way of keeping score. You move on to other ways to stroke your ego.

When you have an ego that big you're certainly not going to be told what to do by your employees.
  • 0

#22 nucklebucker

nucklebucker

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 09

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:02 AM

The lockout isn't permanent. It will end eventually (I'm hoping for sooner, rather than later).

I would say in some cases it's an ego thing, and in others it's a sense of giving back to the community. But there are far easier ways to make money than owning an NHL franchise, so they certainly aren't doing it for the money.

Plus, imagine if you were the owner that finally succeeded in bringing the Stanley Cup to Vancouver. Imagine the status that would come along with that.


Yeah, sure, sports teams are expensive teams are fun toys for owners. But a lot of these teams, including the Canucks, are making crazy money. I should say, they profit hugely--they don't actually make any of that money, they just own and employ the assets and people who do.
My point is, our money passes through their hands. Just because they make a capital investment doesn't mean they are entitled to x amount of it.

Edited by nucklebucker, 18 September 2012 - 10:03 AM.

  • 0

#23 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,875 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:03 AM

By the US Thanksgiving long weekend all teams will offically be making a profit for the 2012/13 season. My guess is that hockey will start on that weekend or the 1st week of December.

Win-win situation for the owners...


Considering several teams lost money over the course of an entire season, how is it possible for all teams to be making a profit by Thanksgiving?
  • 0
Posted Image

#24 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,482 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:05 AM

I'm not making it up...

I did the caculations but I'd rather not type out a page for no reason.

Smashing random numbers on a calculator to see what comes out is not "doing the calculations" there bud.
  • 0
Posted Image

#25 Dion Phaneuf

Dion Phaneuf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,185 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 12

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:08 AM

Considering several teams lost money over the course of an entire season, how is it possible for all teams to be making a profit by Thanksgiving?


Concerts, etc. and not paying millions for player contracts.


  • 0

Posted Image


#26 nuckin_futz

nuckin_futz

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 12

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:08 AM

Considering several teams lost money over the course of an entire season, how is it possible for all teams to be making a profit by Thanksgiving?


Easy, you simply mistakenly assume every team makes the same amount of money. Communism at it's finest.
  • 0

#27 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,875 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:10 AM

Yeah, sure, sports teams are expensive teams are fun toys for owners. But a lot of these teams, including the Canucks, are making crazy money. I should say, they profit hugely--they don't actually make any of that money, they just own and employ the assets and people who do.
My point is, our money passes through their hands. Just because they make a capital investment doesn't mean they are entitled to x amount of it.


I agree. Several teams are insanely profitable. But I still contend that if it was ONLY about the money, they would invest it in other, far more profitable ventures that are likely less headache for them too.

I was originally trying to make a point where another poster labelled the owners as greedy. I just feel that if it was all about greed, then they wouldn't own sports franchises.
  • 0
Posted Image

#28 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,875 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:16 AM

Concerts, etc. and not paying millions for player contracts.


Not all teams own their own building. So that still doesn't add up.
  • 1
Posted Image

#29 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,482 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:35 AM

Not all teams own their own building. So that still doesn't add up.

Exactly! Teams still have to pay leases whether games are played or not. If it was much more profitable for NHL teams not to play games they never would.
  • 0
Posted Image

#30 Dion Phaneuf

Dion Phaneuf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,185 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 12

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:51 AM

Not all teams own their own building. So that still doesn't add up.


Crap. Well most of the teams will still make a profit.

- Whoever owns a building...

Edited by A1 CANUCK, 18 September 2012 - 10:52 AM.

  • 0

Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.