No I don't work on Wall street, nor I am an electrician but if I need to do simple electrical work I look it up, internet helps. Under Bettman, the NHL has seen rapid growth of league revenues, from $400 million when he was hired to over $3.0 billion in 2010-11.
Not surprised whatsoever, Canada is NOT a soccer country at all, cities like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver can be successful because of the immigrant community and grows from there, rest of the country has no interest in soccer.
To be fair, the metro areas of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver alone make up 1/3 of the entire country's population. I'm not sure Canada's any less interested in soccer than the US - to the contrary, EPL ratings are higher there than in the US. In both countries, they crush MLS TV ratings.
from 400 million to 3 billion in revenue in hockey. sweet god. in what 10 years? shows me our issues with growth in MLS. What kind of revenue does MLS have? Its almost impossible to find reliable numbers. What is it 200 million a year? 300 million? In 8 years bettman takes NHL from 400 million to 3 billion. God we have so far to go....
Yeah, but how? What they get from US TV barely went up $100 million in that time. There weren't any new teams added. Attendance is basically the same as 2005. They play the same number of games. Is it just crazy high ticket prices?
I already know you are uninformed. thrashers moved from my home state to winnipeg. thats a new team and money exchanged. still 400 million to 3 billion. good god. http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=559630 there you have it. increasing ad revenue. increasing partnerships, INCREASING draft coverage. everything we are getting more and more deficient in. SMH
The NHL doesn't get that money, oh informed one. If they can get more ad money on stagnant attendance and stagnant TV ratings for everything outside the Stanly Cup, then the MLS can do it to. Especially if MLS is expanding, as it is.
Drumroll please.... The announcement ended an agonizing wait for Winnipeg hockey fans as rumors of the sale dragged on for weeks before True North, led by partners Mark Chipman and billionaire David Thomson, were finally confirmed as the new owners by NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman at the MTS Centre where the team will play. Thomson is Canada's richest man and chairman of news and information company Thomson Reuters (TRI.TO), while Chipman's family owns auto dealerships and real estate in the Western Canadian province of Manitoba. The sale agreement will still need approval by the NHL's board of governors at its June 21 meeting. The price was not released, however numerous reports have said True North will pay $170 million, including a $60 million "relocation fee" to the NHL. BOOM! HEADSHOT!
But then this is a one-time thing, and the NHL don't make $3 billion a year, unless they plan on moving teams each season. And anyway, $60 million is only 2% of 3 billion, so that doesn't answer my first question. Also, you are an ass.
Bettman took over in Feb 1993. Teams Added Atlanta Nashville Columbus Minnesota Wild Moved Quebec to Colorado- great move Winnipeg to Phoenix-bad move Minnesota North Stars to Dallas- good move Hartford to Carolina-good move US TV Deals Fox Deal 31m a year 94-99(155m total) ABC/ESPN- 120m a yr 99-04(600m total) NBC revenue sharing deal Versus- 05-11 70m a year NBC/Comcast 11-21 10yr deak 200m a year (2b total) All NHL playoff games shown live on NBCSN or NBC Hard to find CBC deals but rumored to be around 100m a year Can't really find the TSN deal but probably close to CBC Other sources of huge revenue Reebok full league jersey deal Winter Classic A 53m a year deal with Miller/Coors
The Canadian dollar is trading nearly 1:1 with US dollar right now. That has a lot to do with it. The Sharks situation is less and indictment on NHL teams than it is on pro sports accounting. Half the NBA claimed losses before the last CBA was negotiated. That's just how this works. The only pro sports league where teams are consistently profitable is the NFL, and that's because revenue sharing and TV contracts have pretty much idiot-proof that business.
They also forgot about this team.............. from the Arena Football League and they play in the same arena with the Sharks.
According to this source, the term "sun belt" was not coined until 1969. http://geography.about.com/od/specificplacesofinterest/a/sunbelt.htm Although the article concedes that some extend the sun belt as far north as San Francisco, the article also makes clear that the term "sun belt" describes a post-World War II rapid growth phenomenon "due to the invention of affordable and effective air conditioning" which greatly extended the pale of inhabitability. As I've mentioned previously, San Jose doesn't require air-conditioning, and I, for one, am quite comfortable without it. So, although it's sunny here almost every day, I would not consider San Jose to be a "sun belt" city.
There's a weird lexicon for hockey markets as well. "Sun belt" has a lot of leeway to it. It's not simply geographical. For example, a lot of hockey fans and writers (on both sides of the 49th parallel) would consider the Ducks a Sun Belt team, but the Kings are not. Of course, most hockey fans also claim the Ducks and Lightning are Gary Bettman's "fault" when they were both awarded under Gil Stein's tenure as NHL President (a position which no longer exists).
I was at my employer's HQ in Milpitas last week and the week before. One day, it only got up into the 40s, someone came in the office complaining about how cold it was outside. This was very amusing to my boss and me, who live and work in the Denver area and had just come from HIGHS in the 20s that week along the Front Range. Yeah, San Jose is Sunbelt.
Huh, my boss did the exact opposite, came from San Mateo to Denver each of the last two weeks. He wanted to know who blew the pilot light out...
We've got a guy coming out from Milpitas next week. Fortunately for him, it'll be unseasonably warm while he's here.
Milpitas is a post World War II city, incorporated 1954, which would fit the definition of a sun belt city. Nearby San Jose, on the other hand, was founded (1777) more than eight decades before Denver (1858), more than seven decades before gold was discovered in California (1848) and nearly two centuries before anyone conceived the term "sun belt" (1969). It is one of California's oldest cities and its first (Anglo) capital. Like ancient cities ringing the Mediterranean, it is not the "sun belt" merely because its climate is sunny and usually warm. And, by the way, last week's "highs in the 40s" cold spell here was an aberration. Things are more normal now for mid-January. I was at an outdoor dusk wedding last night in the Santa Cruz mountains featuing a bare-armed bride.
That's not that impressive I saw a guy in one of my classes today wearing shorts, the current temperature here is 3 with a wind chill of -11.
What about Northern California ? San Jose is pretty much right on the accepted line for the Sun Belt, a whopping 1 degree above the given geographic South of the US, the 36th parallel.