03-03-2013, 06:03 AM
|
#1
|
Some kinda newsbreaker!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
|
Brooks: NHL projected to make $2.4 billion on shortened season
Argues its a good enough reason to go to a 70 game sched.
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...gfhPdXnsX2QvFI
Quote:
Slap Shots has learned the NHL recently informed the NHLPA the projected hockey-related revenue (HRR) for this truncated season will reach $2.4 billion, a staggering number with implications far beyond the obvious that the league essentially suffered no damage by locking out the players for more than three months.
Remember: HRR for 2011-12 hit a record $3.3 billion. That was for a 1,230-game regular-season, plus playoffs, preseason and special events — including the Winter Classic and All-Star festivities.
This $2.4 billion projection is for a 720-game regular season plus the playoffs. Thus, the NHL expects to generate 72.7 percent of last year’s revenue in 58.5 percent of the season — and without the benefits reaped from the money-printing outdoor game.
|
Quote:
The lesson here for the NHL (and NHLPA) is reducing the schedule to 70 games in a season that begins in the final week of October — it would be important to get a jump on the NBA — very well could and almost certainly would not only produce better hockey but generate more interest and thus more revenue.
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-03-2013, 07:47 AM
|
#2
|
Fearmongerer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
|
So Brooks wants to scale back approximately 15% of the season.
I wonder if he advocates cutting signed player contracts an equivlalent amount?
__________________
|
|
|
03-03-2013, 07:49 AM
|
#3
|
CP Pontiff
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A pasture out by Millarville
|
For owners, the lockout will prove to have been worth the short term cost.
This is only the latest example demonstrating lockouts cause no lasting damage to a professional sports league. (Baseball in 1994 was a player strike at the end of a season, not an owner lockout at the start of a season.)
Secondly, that demonstratable long term trend, experienced across all sports, is ample encouragement for owners to continue to use lockouts liberally in the future to achieve their economic and particularly systemic goals.
Still, you have to see what season ticket renewal rates will be league wide to make a final judgement of the fallout of the lockout of 2012-13.
But right now, the aftermath of this latest lockout is following a well established, multi-decade pattern.
Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Cowperson For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-03-2013, 08:14 AM
|
#4
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Virginia
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowperson
For owners, the lockout will prove to have been worth the short term cost.
This is only the latest example demonstrating lockouts cause no lasting damage to a professional sports league. (Baseball in 1994 was a player strike at the end of a season, not an owner lockout at the start of a season.)
Secondly, that demonstratable long term trend, experienced across all sports, is ample encouragement for owners to continue to use lockouts liberally in the future to achieve their economic and particularly systemic goals.
Still, you have to see what season ticket renewal rates will be league wide to make a final judgement of the fallout of the lockout of 2012-13.
But right now, the aftermath of this latest lockout is following a well established, multi-decade pattern.
Cowperson
|
I agree that is the case for partial season lockouts, and the NHL was unscathed by the last lockout, in part because there were a lot of fans supporting tge cause. But if they had lost 2 full seasons so close to each other, I believe it would have turned off a significant number of fans.
Part of the reason revenue is more than 58% is that most of the tv deals pay in full if they play a partial season.
|
|
|
03-03-2013, 08:16 AM
|
#5
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Virginia
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
So Brooks wants to scale back approximately 15% of the season.
I wonder if he advocates cutting signed player contracts an equivlalent amount?
|
Kind of an irrelevant question now that 50/50 revenue sharing has become the expected norm.
|
|
|
03-03-2013, 08:53 AM
|
#6
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Calgary
|
Larry Brooks is a moron, but I would love to see a 70-75 game season
__________________
GO FLAMES GO
|
|
|
03-03-2013, 11:36 AM
|
#7
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
I would like 70 game seasons. I don't know why Brooks offer to start it right when NBA does though. The season should start when it does now, AND the Stanley Cup Final should be done before the NBA playoffs enter the conference finals round. It would be ideal for the NHL to avoid the NBA marquee moments as much as possible.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Joborule For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-03-2013, 12:08 PM
|
#9
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kelowna
|
Very interesting. Personally I am loving the shortened season. Players would certainly love to axe 12 games and save the wear and tear on their bodies/careers. Plus it'd be nice to have hockey finished before the end of June, and let us NFL fans enjoy a couple extra weeks of football-only sports involvement.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Ro For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-03-2013, 12:18 PM
|
#10
|
Realtor®
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Calgary
|
I want a 100 game season lol. I actually really like the condensed schedule.
Then again I hate waiting more than a couple days to cheer on the flames.
|
|
|
03-03-2013, 12:19 PM
|
#11
|
Franchise Player
|
I'd enjoy a 70 game season. But I agree with Joborule - don't start it later. The SCF is way to late in the year, IMO.
I'm curious if they'd see those profits every year with a shortened season though. I can see fans spending more this year because of pre-season deals, happy to see a season this year, etc. I'm not sure you'd see that again if fans were used to a shortened season.
|
|
|
03-03-2013, 12:24 PM
|
#12
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
For players, this lockout may prove to have been less harmful than projected.
Very roughly, 2.4B over 48 games, if prorated neglecting seasonality, could be viewed as equivalent to 4.1B over 82 and used to set the next season cap. 50 percent of 4.1B is greater than 57 percent of 3.3 B. So players signing new contracts will not be shortchanged due to minimal cap space remaining after committed contracts.
|
Next year's cap is already set. They knew they couldn't use revenue projections from a shortened season to predict where things will go when they return to a full schedule, so next year's cap is already in place.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-03-2013, 12:37 PM
|
#13
|
Franchise Player
|
I don't think the NHL is going to make $2.4B
|
|
|
03-03-2013, 12:49 PM
|
#14
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYYC
|
I'm really liking the compressed format of this season, and I'd be all for a shortened season during normal years. Chop it down to 65-70, but start it even earlier, as opposed to later, to make sure the Stanley Cup is done with by April.
|
|
|
03-03-2013, 01:16 PM
|
#15
|
Celebrated Square Root Day
|
I'd imagine that tv and advertising deals being paid put in full and all the incentives to get people back into hockey are a big reason for that number. I highly doubt that would be sustainable if you permanently shortened the NHL season.
Also, why do so many NHL fans always beg for a shorter season? Hockey's awesome, that's why I watch it. If I wanted a shorter season it would likely be because I wasn't that interested in the games anymore. In which case maybe some of you guys should just not watch hockey for periods of time during the regular season.
Also, hockey playoffs when it's warm out? Hell yeah! Bring it on. Warm weather outside, beers on a patio and playoff hockey? Who the heck wouldn't want that?
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-03-2013, 01:22 PM
|
#16
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYYC
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by flameswin
Also, why do so many NHL fans always beg for a shorter season? Hockey's awesome, that's why I watch it. If I wanted a shorter season it would likely be because I wasn't that interested in the games anymore. In which case maybe some of you guys should just not watch hockey for periods of time during the regular season.
|
Because that 20 game stretch in the middle doesn't really mean much, and it shows. Quality over quantity please. The fewer the games, the more they mean, and the more passion/effort shown by the players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flameswin
Warm weather outside, beers on a patio and playoff hockey? Who the heck wouldn't want that?
|
This guy. It's like Xmas in a tropical climate.....shorts and hockey just doesn't feel right. There's so much more stuff to do in the summer, and watching hockey for 3 hours feels like a waste. Not that we have to worry about hockey in the May and June, but unless it's my team playing, I don't really care about watching, and rarely do.
|
|
|
03-03-2013, 02:16 PM
|
#17
|
Scoring Winger
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Pole
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Table 5
Because that 20 game stretch in the middle doesn't really mean much, and it shows. Quality over quantity please. The fewer the games, the more they mean, and the more passion/effort shown by the players. ...
|
It would make sense there should be more passion & effort to every game by the players this season....
Unfortunately I do not think that is what we as fans of the Flames are seeing.
Notwithstanding the club generally isn't very good & the effort by a few of the top players who get a bunch of the ice time has been lacking.
I think overall Iginla has been trying hard most games (dominant in a couple), but is snakebit obviously in the goal-scoring.
Last edited by Inferno099; 03-03-2013 at 02:20 PM.
|
|
|
03-03-2013, 03:16 PM
|
#18
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYYC
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno099
It would make sense there should be more passion & effort to every game by the players this season....
Unfortunately I do not think that is what we as fans of the Flames are seeing..
|
That's unfortunately a Flames problem, not necessarily a league-wide problem. I'm seeing plenty of passion and effort elsewhere.
|
|
|
03-03-2013, 03:18 PM
|
#19
|
Franchise Player
|
big surprise we are all suckers
|
|
|
03-03-2013, 03:19 PM
|
#20
|
Franchise Player
|
I think the Flames play hard they just aren't that good...THEY HAVE ONE ####ING CENTER its amazing they have won any games
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:17 AM.
|
|