View Single Post
Old
11-04-2012, 03:59 PM
  #435
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 12,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
Here is a list of actual NHL value changes from 2008-2012 {I nclude recent sales for the last 10 years too.** I dont have historical data to go back further then 2008 so sorry for that being the limit of how far I can go back. The reason for this list is to see if it is reasonable to expect values of NHL teams to go up under the old CBA and if values of teams can be factored into the owners thinking whether or not they are making enough money from their investments.

First i break out the top 8 teams in the Market. Basically these are the 8 teams in the huge hockey markets that will make money under any circumstance. They dont need a good CBA to make money. No one needs to pass a poor hat for any of these 8 teams.

toronto 448-521 {sold 2012 365}
rangers 411-507
montreal 334-445 {sold in 2010 for 575}
Detroit 303-336
philadelphia 275-290
boston 263-325
vancouver 236-300 {sold 2205 207}
chicago 205-306

next we have the smaller canadien markets. If the dollar is high these teams are basically bullet proof too BUT 2 of them did become community owned last decade because the dollar wasnt at par.

ottawa 207-201 {sold 2003 92}
calgary 203-220
edmonton 175-212 {sold in 2008 170}

Then we have 9 more franchises in slightly smaller traditional markets where if the team wins then it does ok... but if it doesnt win it struggles.

dallas 273-230 {sold in 2011 265}
colorado 231-198
new jersey 222-181 {sold 2004 for 125}
minnesota 217-213 {sold in 2008 for 225}
los angeles 210-232
anaheim 202-184
pittsburgh 195-264
san jose 179-211 {sold 2004 147}
washington 160-225

and finally we have the 10 franchises that this current lockout is being fought for. The ones that provide around 240 union jobs for the players that will be in jeopordy unless the ownerships here can stop losing 5-10 mill or more every season

tampa 200-174 {sold 2010 for 93}
buffalo 169-173 {sold in 2011 210}
carolina 168-169
nashville 164-163 {sold in 2007 174}
florida 163-162 {sold in 2009 for 200}
st louis 162-157 {sold 2012 150}
atlanta/Winnipeg 158-164 {sold in 2011 for 170}
columbus 157-152
islanders 154-149
phoenix 127-134 {sold 2009 140}

so as we can see... this last CBA wasnt helping any of the bottom 11 teams get stronger in valuation. and the 8 middle teams mostly all lost alot of their value. Pittsburgh and LA did ok but they won cups. Teams cant count on winning a cup every year.

You can also see that 7 of these teams were sold very recently.

thing get complicated because theres arena ownership involved in some of these sales... theres huge subsidies by local taxpayer groups to most of these teams too. sometimes values of teams will go up due to one time benefits like a new arenas or some special event like winning a stanley cup.

overall though you can see that trying to tell owners of the bottom 10 teams to be 'happy' with their franchise value going up to offset their 10s or 100s of millions of dollars in loses over the last decade... just isnt going to cut it.

in general summary there are around 8 franchises that can look forward 5-10 years and know their franchise will be worth more then it is today. These same 8 franchises know they will make a profit too. These same 8 franchises will spend to the cap. When we are talking about a lockout it is not to protect any of these 8 franchises.

the canadian teams arent currently crying the blues. they got what they wanted from the last cba

the middle 9 teams have been getting their teeth kicked in for the most part under the last cba. Unless these 9 teams have just recently won a cup, their value is tanking. These are the main teams that desperately need the cba to be brought under control.

and then theres the bottom 10 teams that probably arent going to be helped alot whether their is a good cba or not. One can argue they are all too small and dont have enough traditional fans to ever be successful.

there arent many owners getting rich from owning hockey teams anyhow. and realistically if there was... wouldnt someone start a second league and get in on the action?

owning hockey teams isnt a way to get rich unless you are lucky enough to be in one of the top 8 markets or have recently won a stanly cup. it is however a great way to lose your shirt. the last group that tried to start a rival league all went bankrupt. the ihl went broke... the wha went broke. owners of the bottom 10 teams are all going broke.

so it is what it is... owning teams is a great way for billionares to stroke their ego. its not a great business for making alot of money for them though.
Here are the numbers for 2006 when the last CBA began

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/31/...ions_Rank.html

Tampa 172. Today 174
Buffalo 149. Today 173
Carolina 144 Today 169
Nashville 134 Today 163
Florida 142 Today 162
St Louis 150 Today 157
Atlanta 128 today 164
Columbus 139 Today 152
Islanders 140 Today 139
Phoenix 143 Today 134

JMiller is online now