I've got a feeling the lease terms are going to be fair if not overly complimentary to the team. As I've said a number of times, this arena is going to make money regardless, and the real goal has got to be to get 750,000/year more people into the area surrounding the arena more than the arena itself, at least from MGM's perspective. I've got very little clue how AEG operates, so that's the wildcard and their involvement does add a little wrinkle to my line of thinking. MGM will spend millions building theaters, pay the shows to perform, and give away free tickets to shows just to get people into their properties. The shows aren't the product they're selling, the entire package is, and the more people they get in the more they'll profit. I don't see this being too much different except in scale.
Of course this makes sense from MGM's perspective, and you answered the question I posed to Ace.
The operational side to an NHL team rather easy to figure out, at least in a ballpark sense, as are the potential revenue sources.
*Player salaries ($50-70 MM presently)
*Admin/operations ($15-20 MM)
*Lease for arena - ??
*Misc - travel, NHL duties, etc.
Potential revenue sources:
*Ticket sales - $55/ticket avg, 41 home dates, 18K seats = $40 MM
*In-arena revenue (50% of above, rule of thumb per Levitt) = $20 MM
(assumes sellouts above)
*Local TV contract - smaller market, so $10 MM/yr?
*Share of NHL revenue sharing - $14 MM ?
To see how it can go wrong from the ideal above, see some of the other smaller or newer markets and their HRR.
Having revenue from the arena, inclusive on nonhockey events, is often something that can make the difference for viability.
I know these are back of the napkin type numbers, so anyone with different ideas or figures is welcome to add, subtract, correct, etc.