HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Islanders (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=22)
-   -   News Article: Forbes NHL Team Values 2012: Islanders #27 (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1299081)

periferal 11-28-2012 05:19 PM

Forbes NHL Team Values 2012: Islanders #27
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozan...rth-1-billion/


If these numbers are even close to accurate then the notable thing is how much of a difference there is between the top valued teams and not even the bottom, but the middle-ranked teams. It's the equivalent of John Tavares playing against 5th graders.

And isn't it amazing that about 5-10 NHL owners are negotiating this lockout on behalf of all owners?

I'm no apologist for either side, but ALL NHL owners need to sit in a room with each other first and come up with a reasonable revenue sharing plan before they should talk to the NHLPA.

Islanders1932 11-28-2012 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by periferal (Post 56099637)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozan...rth-1-billion/


If these numbers are even close to accurate then the notable thing is how much of a difference there is between the top valued teams and not even the bottom, but the middle-ranked teams. It's the equivalent of John Tavares playing against 5th graders.

And isn't it amazing that about 5-10 NHL owners are negotiating this lockout on behalf of all owners?

I'm no apologist for either side, but ALL NHL owners need to sit in a room with each other first and come up with a reasonable revenue sharing plan before they should talk to the NHLPA.

Yes! The Islanders aren't last at something!

StrongIslanders90 11-28-2012 07:19 PM

CRAZY!!! I cant believe the difference between some of the franchises....

Damn can we get some revenue sharing on the island?

Homeland Security 11-28-2012 08:27 PM

http://www.newsday.com/sports/hockey...tion-1.4273049

Steve55 11-29-2012 03:56 PM

It will be interesting to see how Forbes value the Islanders when they move into Brooklyn. Would a 100M increase be reasonable?

IslesArchieFan 11-29-2012 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve55 (Post 56122433)
It will be interesting to see how Forbes value the Islanders when they move into Brooklyn. Would a 100M increase be reasonable?

Right from the Forbes write up

Quote:

The value of the Islanders increased 4% over last year due to the team moving from the antiquated Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum to the new Barclcays Arena for the 2015 season.
Honestly i don't think the move makes the needle move all that much, adding $100M would put the value of the team at $250M. That would mean being more valuable than Devs, Wild, Sens, Oilers, Flames. It puts them in the realm of the Caps and right behind the Kings and the Pens.

Lets see what the one ice product looks like. IMO the barn was only half the problem. 2+ big names (that actually make difference) will see the value of the team increase more substantially.

Bert Marshall days 11-29-2012 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IslesArchieFan (Post 56124465)
Right from the Forbes write up



Honestly i don't think the move makes the needle move all that much, adding $100M would put the value of the team at $250M. That would mean being more valuable than Devs, Wild, Sens, Oilers, Flames. It puts them in the realm of the Caps and right behind the Kings and the Pens.

Lets see what the one ice product looks like. IMO the barn was only half the problem. 2+ big names (that actually make difference) will see the value of the team increase more substantially.

:facepalm:

Yup the move hardly increases value at all. :sarcasm: Only 35 million more for starters. Should've stayed in poverty nassau at 150+ mil value. Maybe Monti will still save 'em in nassau and increase the value by billions. :sarcasm:

The value of the franchise increases via revenue increases, capital worth not 2 star players. The continued ignorance shown is mind bogglng.

As for the Forbes article, NYI is again dead last in revenue on LI. They've lost 4,8 and 16 million the last 3 seasons. The gap in revenue between last season and the year before compared to other teams is signifcantly worse. Last season, other teams were at 70+ mil revenue while NYI was at 63 mil and this time the nearest team is in the 80+ mil range while NYI is at 66 mil revenue.

Bottom line - NYI can't get out of nassau fast enough to be financially viable.

Thank God for Brooklyn.

periferal 11-29-2012 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bert Marshall days (Post 56125421)
:facepalm:

As for the Forbes article, NYI is again dead last in revenue on LI. They've lost 4,8 and 16 million the last 3 seasons. The gap in revenue between last season and the year before compared to other teams is signifcantly worse. Last season, other teams were at 70+ mil revenue while NYI was at 63 mil and this time the nearest team is in the 80+ mil range while NYI is at 66 mil revenue.

Bottom line - NYI can't get out of nassau fast enough to be financially viable.

Thank God for Brooklyn.


Yes, but also why the idiot owners MUST create a revenue sharing program that's fair for the bottom TWENTY teams. Without that then in the best case scenario you are going to see poorer NHL teams have seasons like the Kansas City Royals year in and year out. In the worst case you're going to see more franchise moves and possible contraction of one or more teams.

blitzkriegs 11-29-2012 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by periferal (Post 56132729)
Yes, but also why the idiot owners MUST create a revenue sharing program that's fair for the bottom TWENTY teams. Without that then in the best case scenario you are going to see poorer NHL teams have seasons like the Kansas City Royals year in and year out. In the worst case you're going to see more franchise moves and possible contraction of one or more teams.

And some of the teams contentions are that they don't want to share revenues when the operating costs are too high to be sustainable in a lot of markets. If the cap was $38 million, then I doubt you need the subsidy at all.

IslesArchieFan 11-30-2012 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bert Marshall days (Post 56125421)
:facepalm:

Yup the move hardly increases value at all. :sarcasm: Only 35 million more for starters. Should've stayed in poverty nassau at 150+ mil value. Maybe Monti will still save 'em in nassau and increase the value by billions. :sarcasm:

The value of the franchise increases via revenue increases, capital worth not 2 star players. The continued ignorance shown is mind bogglng.

As for the Forbes article, NYI is again dead last in revenue on LI. They've lost 4,8 and 16 million the last 3 seasons. The gap in revenue between last season and the year before compared to other teams is signifcantly worse. Last season, other teams were at 70+ mil revenue while NYI was at 63 mil and this time the nearest team is in the 80+ mil range while NYI is at 66 mil revenue.

Bottom line - NYI can't get out of nassau fast enough to be financially viable.

Thank God for Brooklyn.


Get over it Bert.

A new arena is HALF the battle, IMO.

Dan-o16 11-30-2012 08:05 AM

The Islanders have finished out of the playoffs for 14 out of the last 20 years. I believe (I'm too tired to check) that 10 of those 14 have been last place finishes in their division.

Of the 6 in twenty they've made the playoffs, they've lost in the first round 5 of those 6 times. In 4 of those 5, those series have lasted 5 games or less.

The TV contract has softened the blow of their terrible arena situation over the years. so if you want to know the #1 reason for the Islanders pitiable state, it's their record of extreme futility and nothing more.

Put them in a beautiful building, like the one the Pittsburgh Pirates have, at any point, and they would still have sucked horribly, just like the Pittsburgh Pirates.

Cheers,

Dan-o

OlTimeHockey 11-30-2012 11:12 AM

St.Louis has a new arena, a high population density....$130M. Yeah, it's the location and arena.

periferal 11-30-2012 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blitzkriegs (Post 56133007)
And some of the teams contentions are that they don't want to share revenues when the operating costs are too high to be sustainable in a lot of markets. If the cap was $38 million, then I doubt you need the subsidy at all.


Well the owners should blame the guy representing them for expanding and moving franchises to markets where operating costs are "unsustainable." And even if they contracted 6 teams so there were only 24 and they placed them in the most "sustainable" 24 Canadian/US markets, the owners would still need to adapt a fair revenue sharing plan.

The Rangers, Leafs, and Canadians make 50-80 Million a year. The Blackhawks, Bruins, and Red Wings make around 20. I think we can all agree all those markets should have an NHL team, but even amongst them there is is about a 200% disparity in revenue.

And then you have Minnesota, Philadelphia, LA, Pittsburgh, Calgary, Dallas, Colorado, Ottawa who made under 10 million. Now we're talking an 800% disparity between the top earners and teams just turning a profit.

And then you have your group losing millions of dollars a year: Buffalo, St. Louis, Edmonton, Anaheim, Tampa Bay, and your New York Islanders.

Are you ok moving or eliminating NHL franchises from any of these markets because they are "unsustainable" or perhaps is revenue sharing necessary for the long-term health of those franchises and the league? Tell me which of those cities above you'd eliminate because if you take out all teams losing money then you're going to have about a 12 team league.

You want to eliminate teams like Columbus, Nashville, Florida, and/or Phoenix, I'm not for it, but could understand it. However the owners should blame Gary Bettman for putting teams there. Hell...He's already had to move one of his expansion teams back to a city where he moved one out (and that team is draining the city of Glendale dry financially).

I just think you know all you need to know about the current state of NHL economics when a team in the second biggest city in the United States has to win the Stanley Cup just to turn a profit. Then a month later the owner of the Minnesota Wild gives out TWO one hundred million dollar contracts to two players only to want them to give it back with a new CBA before they play one game under those contracts.

NHL revenue sharing = Mandatory.

redbull 11-30-2012 09:33 PM

when did this all go south?

In a six team league, was it profitable and sustainable?

What about 12? 16? 21?

I remember Bossy's last contract was around $700k per year, that was in the mid 80s.

The NYR in 94 had a team payroll of $19Milliion almost TWICE as much as finalists VAN at $10Million.

I'd love to see some real analysis on how it's possible to earn that much revenue and lose money. This league's been around a long time and revenues are sky high with better arenas, private boxes, gate receipts and TV money.

I always felt the league has a responsibility (both the owners AND the players, collectively) to try and develop a system that allows hockey to thrive in hockey markets AND potentially grow to non-hockey markets.

There are dozens of cities across Canada that would sell out NHL hockey every night, with reasonable ticket prices. Yet, little regional money, corporate money for boxes and not significant potential for tv money in smaller markets. So they get screwed.

Larger tv markets with business & corporate dollars, in many of the US cities (outside the few hockey markets) - well, they simply don't care for hockey, relative to other sports, UNLESS they are successful in the W-L column, at best. So how do you grow in these markets? When do you cut your losses and move on? (see; phoenix? anaheim? others?)

Bettman's tried to grow the league, both the number of franchises and the value of those franchises. He's made the owners richer, albeit many have lost operating dollars along the way, the equity in the teams (franchise value) has been largely very successful (with a few examples where that hasn't been the case).

Few teams have moved, the league has not contracted, markets that should have died a long time ago are still around.

What would happen if the league (AND PLAYERS) agreed to a 75-25% share in revenues, owners get 75%.
Would all the teams be profitable under those circumstances? So Crosby makes no more than $4Million a year (for example) and other players "settle" for $1Million, maybe the average salary drops to $400k per year, minimum $150k per year. What happens?

Some players take off to rival leagues in hopes of making more money - but are those leagues sustainable?
Some players swallow hard, trade in a few BMWs, downsize to 4000 sq ft homes and maybe ONE ferrari.

Are there more jobs?
Can they THEN sustain maybe 40 teams? Maybe a Div 1, Div 2 league? Can cities like Halifax, Saskatoon, Quebec, and many other smaller markets suddenly have NHL franchises?

The talent gets diluted further and players make less money but still significant and maybe there are an additional 200 jobs? Can TV money or PPV make up some of the money that might be lost by losing some of the major US hockey markets? Are there other potential revenue streams? What about expansion to Europe? Merging with the AHL?

Random thoughts during a lockout, for sure, but I sometimes hate the way this league is run.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.