The Forbes figures
I'm a day late in getting to the Forbes numbers, which have already been passed around and digested by the blogosphere.
It really would be a worthwhile exercise to somehow determine revenues for every NHL club, as then you could make some pretty accurate assumptions when it comes to things such as revenue sharing. The problem with these figures, as was the case last year, is that they are merely best guesstimates, and already include the revenue sharing handout.
That means teams like Toronto, the Rangers, Detroit and Montreal are actually listed up to $20-million short in terms of revenue, while Nashville, St. Louis and others are getting a big bump in the basement.
Putting what we do know to good use, however, I think we can make these figures dance a bit in the right direction.
For one, we know all six Canadian teams paid into revenue sharing, to varying degrees. We also know that the teams in Toronto, New York, Anaheim, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago, Newark and Long Island are ineligible to receive these funds.
We also know that the Top 10 teams pay into revenue sharing and the bottom 15 receive, and that in 2005-06, 11 teams were dealt roughly $90-million. Teams that spend over the midpoint — which was $36-million last season — also receive less revenue sharing (there is incentive for teams to have smaller payrolls).
A look, then, with some fudging thrown in with the already fudged numbers (please keep in mind these are, in most cases, not actual figures; if you have seen reports with more accurate numbers I'll adjust what I've got here):
|Rk||Team||Forbes # ||Payout||Handout||Adj. Rev.|
|1||Toronto Maple Leafs||138||20||Ineligible||158|
|2||New York Rangers||122||17||Ineligible||139|
|3||Detroit Red Wings||109||9||x ||118|
|7||Dallas Stars||91||5||x ||96|
|11||Tampa Bay Lightning||85||85|
|12||Los Angeles Kings||84||Ineligible||84|
|18||Chicago Blackhawks||69||x ||Ineligible||69|
|19||San Jose Sharks||72||3||69|
|20||New Jersey Devils||65||x ||Ineligible||65|
|21||Columbus Blue Jackets||68||x ||8||60|
|22||Carolina Hurricanes||68||x ||8||60|
|23||New York Islanders||60||x ||Ineligible||60|
|24||Pittsburgh Penguins||67||x ||8||59|
|25||Atlanta Thrashers||67||x ||9||58|
|26||Phoenix Coyotes||67||x ||9||58|
|27||Florida Panthers||67||x ||10||57|
|28||Washington Capitals||66||x ||10||56|
|29||St Louis Blues||66||x ||11||55|
|30||Nashville Predators||65||x ||14||51|
I think that gives us a better idea of what's happening in the NHL, although clearly Forbes has Calgary and Edmonton far too low given we know they were Top 10 revenue clubs last season.
Interesting to note just how big the handouts are, as if Nashville's receiving (at most) $14-million, that means there are seven or eight others eating up a big portion of the estimated $90-million revenue sharing.
I honestly don't know teams like if Anaheim paid into, or Columbus received, revenue sharing, but given that playoff revenues make up a good portion of this money exchanging hands, this shouldn't come as a surprise.
The Canada-U.S. Divide
Others have pointed this out, but using the Forbes figures, things don't look so rosy south of the border in the NHL:
|Current Value||1-Yr Value Change (%)||Debt/Value (%)||Revenue||Operating Income|
Using my fudged figures, which attempt to take revenue sharing out of the equation:
|Adj. Revenue||Adj. Income|
Taking revenue sharing out of the equation, teams that lost money with it are in dire straights. Carolina, Florida, Atlanta, Phoenix, St. Louis and Nashville all would have lost $15-million or more.
The Predators would have lost nearly $24-million.
According to these adjusted figures, the Canadian franchises generated 26 per cent of league revenues. Most have had that figure at 30 per cent or higher, which would mean those six teams generated nearly $90-million more than these adjusted figures.
It would also mean lower U.S. revenues and larger losses than what I've got here.