Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

How much per game do they lose?


Max-a-Million

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...