Archived

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

Max-a-Million

How much per game do they lose?

50 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.