Of course the $100 million isn't hockey revenue. It's just transferring ownership of the team from one person to another, there's nothing "hockey" related there at all. As evidenced by the fact that it can happen during a lockout.
That's the primary definition of hockey revenue - income derived from the playing of games. Sold tickets, tv broadcasts, concessions during said games, etc.
If John McCaw sold his Rolex watch, you'd declare it hockey income.
Hey, I got a great revenue idea. All they need to do is keep selling the team over and over! They could even include the players in it. McCaw can sell it to Bertuzzi, who sells it to Naslund, who sells it to Trevor, who sells it to Cooke... Why, then they could sell it back to McCaw again, and start the whole cycle all over again!
It's a money printing machine, I tell you. At $100 million a pop, they'd soon have billions of dollars rolling in. And it would all be "hockey revenue", so everyone could take their cut and all be billionaires!