The LA Kings are... Losing Money?

That can't be right. Or can it? The Kings have always seemed to have some financial trouble, dating back to before the lockout. That's common knowledge. After that we went through an entire year without hockey for the sole purpose of restoring the financial viability of all the clubs. There were, and are, no guarantees that the clubs are all in the green, but from everything we have been told over the last three years they are doing much better than prior to the lockout. But wait ... The Los Angeles Daily News reported today that the Kings are losing more money now than they were prior to the lockout. Those emboldened words are key here.

I'll let that you soak that in for a moment while I present you with an excerpt from the Daily News.

The Kings declined to release specific numbers, but said they're losing more money per year now than before the lockout. At the start of the lockout, the Kings claimed to be losing $8 to $10 million a year.

"We're building our organization differently, to meet the reality that we're losing even more than we did before the lockout," chief marketing officer Chris McGowan said. "We have to run a better business."

Thus, the ticket-price increases, even coming off a season in which the Kings tied for the fewest points in the NHL. The Kings believe the increases are necessary, in part, to help stabilize their bottom line.

So are the Kings really losing more money now than before the lockout? Wasn't the point of the lockout to fix problems such as these?

Now I know there are teams that still have issues in the post-lockout world that we live in. The Islanders are seemingly going to have issues until the day that they get a new lease/arena. I reside in the Carolinas and the word around here in some circles is that the Canes are struggling and with their lease expiring, they may be in limbo. Is it so far fetched to believe that the Kings are losing money at a higher pace than prior to the lockout? Would it (again) save them money if they closed up shop for a year?

The answer is that there is no clear answer. It's a little from Column A and a little from Column B. There's no doubt that there are teams in the league that are losing money. In professional sports, it's hard to keep 30 teams above water unless, of course, you are the NFL and have a billion dollar television contract. The NHL is not the NFL and thus, does not have it's financial situation handed to it on a silver platter. I can't say I think the Kings are lying. They finished tied for dead last in the NHL this year and, if you believe ESPN's attendance numbers, they were 21st at the gate this year. Those are not good numbers.

But there's one thing that everyone seems to overlook here. The Kings are not a sole entity. That is to say, they're not akin to a mom and pop store down the street (I know it sounds weird, but let me explain). What I mean is that the Kings have backing and other assets, even if it's not owned in title. For example, the Pittsburgh Steelers are a mom and pop operation, owned by the Rooney family for ages. The Rooneys did not make their money elsewhere and then buy the franchise -- just the opposite. The Steelers are the family business. This is what the Kings are not. What the Kings are is a subsidiary of Anschutz Entertainment Group. Anschutz is a big conglomerate of sports and entertainment properties and, locally speaking, they own Staples Center, the Kings, Los Angeles Galaxy of the MLS and have a stake in the Los Angeles Lakers of the NBA. And that's not even the half of it. It's quite the lineup they have there.

Now here's what I'm not trying to say. I'm not saying the Kings are a big bad corporation. I'm not saying Anschutz is either. What I am saying, however, is that when you have a large corporation that owns many properties and has private books, money can get hidden. For example, the Kings pay rent to Staples Center so that they can play 42 home games a year there. But in reality, it's like writing a check to your significant other. The money is still in the family.

That is precisely why there is a question mark in the title. It's a cloudy and confusing matter and is not as cut and dry as it may seem to be. The Kings may not be in imminent danger but the quirky part is that we really don't know. While they may certainly be in trouble, the money may not be as far from the roost as you may think. It's tough to tell. It's not something I -- or any of us not directly associated with a private company can say for sure.