View Single Post
11-21-2004, 12:37 PM
Registered User
Pepper's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by GregStack
Also, guaging the value of franchises year to year can be quite difficult. Did anyone take into account players that joined, or left the franchises during those years when coming up with those figures? Also, I don't believe there are very large markets for the sale of NHL franchises, normally there is only one, or two suitors for the team, making it a buyers market, and not a sellers market. It's kind of like when one gets something appraised, you need a buyer who believes it's worth that price as well, and quite normally you don't get that price..
Yes, gauging the value of a franchise is very hard and Forbes has a CLEAR TREND of overvaluing the franchises. In the last 6 years Forbes overestimated the value of NHL franchises by 45% on average (their estimation being always higher than the actual price paid for a franchise). Player movements is one thing but most likely very minor variable and doesn't even begin to explain how they got it so badly wrong.

So would any of the pro-NHLPA posters here answer this question:
Is there ANY evidence of Forbes getting their numbers right this time when their track-record is beyond horrible in the last 6 years?? I most certainly haven't seen it.

Originally Posted by GregStack
Like I said though, I don't trust the Forbes, or the NHL's numbers. I fall on the side of supporting the players as I'm sure you can guess, but I don't completely disagree with the owners when they say they'd like a cap of sorts. I'd like a complete compromise, of a soft cap with a luxury tax, sitting around $45-50,000,000 as the cap.
It's funny how the most rabid pro-NHLPA people are fans of big teams such as Leafs, Flyers and Rangers. I can understand that you don't want to give away the only advantage they have over smaller teams that allows them to patch up the mistakes done by horrible managing (there are exceptions like Flyers) but they should look at the bigger picture. Oh and $50M softcap is about the same as doing nothing, effects are marginal and the gap between biggest and smallest payrolls will be around $40M or 100%.

Pepper is offline