HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Mario Lemieux moves into $20-million Mont Tremblant home

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-26-2012, 04:08 PM
  #101
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Yes, Burkle is the money behind the Pens, which is why I tried to take a look at Lemieux's earnings while a player. Given the timing of his career, the majority of his money would have come from playing. The sponsorship money available to hockey players back then probably wasn't as high. [If anyone has any info, that would be great to see. I remember seeing something about Gretzky's earnings from endorsements once, which seemed smaller than I expected.]
I don't have the links, but for one year around the last lockout Naslund and Iginla led the league in endorsements ($6mil each). The top 10 combined for roughly $35mil. That $6mil was almost halved for the next players on the list and Gretzky was still in the top group despite having retired. There were allusions to Gretzky getting endorsements in the 90s that were well into 7 figures. Gretzky was also credited with re-establishing the PA from his personal wealth (endorsements) post-Eagleson. From everything that I have seen, it is a very limited few who get the big endorsements and that goes for most professional sports.

I recall an article that had Crosby leading the NHL with ~$20mil/year recently. They didn't have second place et al listed.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 04:23 PM
  #102
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Personal philosophy and political views mainly. I don't think government should get involved in enterprises that are run for-profit. If there's a greater public need being fulfilled, say schools or libraries, the costs of these may be prohibitive on a for-profit basis but the benefit to all citizens can be demonstrated. Peer-reviewed research also suggests that the economic gains given as justification for funding aren't really gains, but transfers of the economic activity from one zone to another. There are many examples of privately funded arenas that do very well, with the returns going fully to their owners/investors. I don't see that as a problem, and in fact, believe this model shows that there indeed is a real demand/need for a facility in that enough patrons will attend to cover the cost of building and operating it.
so, you would be happy with a grand total of three hockey arenas, two baseball parks and one football stadium in north america? wouldn't make for very exciting leagues.

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 04:34 PM
  #103
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
so, you would be happy with a grand total of three hockey arenas, two baseball parks and one football stadium in north america? wouldn't make for very exciting leagues.

I'd be happy if there were zero baseball parks and football arenas, to be perfectly honestly.


The fact that I may love a sport personally shouldn't justify a hypocrisy though, should it?

Fugu is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 04:40 PM
  #104
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,026
vCash: 500
I'd agree with Fugu in general. Public funding just means that the government is subsidizing the sport.

If everyone could agree to no public funding for sports facilities, those facilities would still exist. It would just cost more for the respective leagues to operate them. Which would mean that those leagues would be able to pay the players less.

So.. in essence, your tax dollars are going towards millionaire athletes. I can think of better uses of funds.

Ernie is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 04:43 PM
  #105
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 6,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I don't begrudge Lemieux his money. What I don't like is the use of taxpayer money to pave your way to extra riches. Sure, everyone that can do it does it, but that doesn't make it right. He even admits to using the threat of a move to get more money out of government. I also think this doesn't support the premise that most NHL teams are hurting financially. The Pens are a smaller market team. If you can get your players to take discounts and then hammer some more out of them via lockouts, get tax money to build you an arena, while crying poor to your fans..... yes, you too can build a second home for $20 MM.
What an awful way to look at it. It's wrong to cross personal finances with team finances. Lemieux made nearly $50 million in just salary alone. Then add on endorsements. And then investments. And then the deferred payments in forms of team ownership. It's kinda silly to use his personal finances as a way to insult team actions.

bluesfan94 is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 04:45 PM
  #106
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 6,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
I'd agree with Fugu in general. Public funding just means that the government is subsidizing the sport.

If everyone could agree to no public funding for sports facilities, those facilities would still exist. It would just cost more for the respective leagues to operate them. Which would mean that those leagues would be able to pay the players less.

So.. in essence, your tax dollars are going towards millionaire athletes. I can think of better uses of funds.
Actually, the owners would probably both try to pay players less or else charge more for tickets, which means that you'd be paying more anyways. So either via tax or via ticket increases, you're still paying for the stadium.

bluesfan94 is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 04:51 PM
  #107
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
I'd agree with Fugu in general. Public funding just means that the government is subsidizing the sport.

If everyone could agree to no public funding for sports facilities, those facilities would still exist. It would just cost more for the respective leagues to operate them. Which would mean that those leagues would be able to pay the players less.

So.. in essence, your tax dollars are going towards millionaire athletes. I can think of better uses of funds.
yes, like an armed security state. it's bread and circuses, folks. and its a well established technique for the ruling class to placate the masses and help to prevent violent uprising. if the romans did it, so can we. it's not rocket science, its football.

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 08:16 PM
  #108
edog37
Registered User
 
edog37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Washington DC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Now that's very fair.

What was the corruption that derailed the private deal? I'd guess something to do with the casinos and licenses?

The axe I'm grinding is about the Marlins Syndrome, because that's up there with Jerry Jones of Dallas Cowboys/ have no shame in getting public money to make the experience for paying customers to Jerry's pockets that much more lucrative.

I actually like Lemieux, for the most part. He fought back, and I think he's one of the greatest to ever play. I'm happy that the misfortune of playing for a bankrupt team worked out for him in the long run, that the deferred salary was actually made up to him. He did a lot put that team on the NHL map.

In fact, it may not be fair to pick on him in this context because the Pens may be among the moderates in the NHL, recognizing that they're doing well enough that it just may not be worth the losses so far. (I don't know where they stand in reality, other than the blurb about Snider.)

The axe is about the current pro sports model. It seems that its never enough. Publicly subsidized arenas, or outright publicly built stadiums and arenas, lockouts to get more off the players, expansion fees for the simple reason to expand because you can collect a fee. Just makes me wonder why I even watch. When is enough enough for some of these guys? Watching the Glendale mess for the last three years, whereby the only way teams can even be considered viable is if cities and govts give them even more money? It's just off kilter.
I don't disagree with you on sentiment, but let's face it, this is how a big business operates. I'm not talking about sports either. Most big businesses get all kinds of tax breaks & other incentives that rival frunding for sports stadia. Case in point, in Pittsburgh, the largest employer (UPMC) enjoys non-profit status even though it rakes hundreds of millions of dollars each year in revenue. It pays little to no property tax on its many facilities around town.

Rich people are rich because they figured out a long time ago how to get other people to pay for their stuff.

edog37 is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 08:59 PM
  #109
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
I'd agree with Fugu in general. Public funding just means that the government is subsidizing the sport.

If everyone could agree to no public funding for sports facilities, those facilities would still exist. It would just cost more for the respective leagues to operate them. Which would mean that those leagues would be able to pay the players less.

So.. in essence, your tax dollars are going towards millionaire athletes. I can think of better uses of funds.
Absolutely, when governments get involved it skews everything. Just let the markets take care of themselves a balance would be found.

Confucius is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 09:04 PM
  #110
madhi19
Registered User
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,148
vCash: 500
Mario get a pass from me on that whole taxpayer on the hook for the arena. After all he did accept a piece of the ownership of the team for money he was owned and could have flipped it immediately for relocation.

madhi19 is online now  
Old
11-26-2012, 09:09 PM
  #111
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Kukla's Korner had this tidbit up this morning, as Lemieux moves into his 'second' home.

The original article:
Pittsburgh Penguins owner Mario Lemieux recently took possession of a new $20-million home in Mont Tremblant, Quebec's high end ski resort town.
The 15,000 square feet sprawling, Swiss castle-style mansion about 145 km north of Montreal has 23 rooms as well as 10 bathrooms.
The castle, which is made of stone and wood, is located on a piece of land close to Tremblant's golf course and ski hills. The castle also features a triple garage and a double garage, has an in-ground swimming pool and an outdoor tennis court with a heated floor....
"It's not the time to talk about my personal affairs," Lemieux told QMI Agency through a spokesman with the Penguins organization.
...
The Tremblant home will remain his second residence, however, as the Penguins' owner also has a home in the Pittsburgh area.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/24...tremblant-home


Out of curiosity, I decided to look up Lemieux's career earnings, which from 1989 - 2005 totaled $48,926,829. Missing are the five seasons prior to that (1984 being his first NHL season). However, his was paid roughly $2.0, 2.17, and 2.34 MM the first three years for which we have data. Let's assume it was $1 MM/yr for three of those years, and $2 MM/yr for two: $7 MM
www.hockeyzoneplus.com/search/salaries-search.cgi?template=nhl-salaries-search-detail.htm&dbname=NHL-Salaries-test.txt&key2=2199&action=searchdbdisplay

His Pittsburgh home has a tax valuation of roughly $2-3 MM, per Zillow.com.


I think he needs to let Crosby and Malkin use the home whenever they wish. Prior to their arrival, Pittsburgh's valuation was $140-150 MM, iirc. After getting the taxpayers of Pennsylvania to build the team the Consol Energy Center for $321 MM.* (Forbes notes that the Pens control all the arena events.)
From Wiki
:
On to Forbes:
Franchise valuation for Pittsburgh - $264 MM

The team was acquired by Burkle and Lemieux in 1999 for $107 MM.

Now, this is where it gets interesting. It's noted what Lemieux was contractually set to get above, however the Pens ownership was a mess during Lemieux's career. Some of that money above was deferred and paid out as a stake in the franchise:

In 1999, Mario was owed $32.5m, so the $20m above was converted to equity, $5m was paid out in cash. [Deduct $7 MM from lifetime earning above.]


$48.9 - 20 - 7 = $21.9 MM cash earnings, + 7 MM from my estimate, thus $28.9 MM


Moral of the story:

If you can get players to keep giving back on their salaries and take hometown discounts, plus convince tax payers to pay for your $320 MM arena = Cha ching.

I notice you failed to account for sponsorships and advertising revenue he may have received.

I guess anyone who ignores factors can make things look different than they actually are.

Orrthebest is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 10:23 PM
  #112
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
I notice you failed to account for sponsorships and advertising revenue he may have received.

I guess anyone who ignores factors can make things look different than they actually are.

If you bothered to read the thread, and not just do a drive-by, you'd notice it was addressed.

Fugu is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 08:47 AM
  #113
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,247
vCash: 500
I don't currently live in Pgh (be moving back next Summer), but I do still own a home in the city limits. The funding for the CEC doesn't hit city residents as hard as other arena deals I know of. I'm not getting nailed on county or city taxes anymore than I was before the arena was built. The CEC was funded by a 30 year revenue bond, with 7.5m of that annual repayment coming from Rivers Casino.

The problem here is opportunity cost. That money from the casino (and the 7.5m from the PED) could have been used to fund other projects around the city that would have been of greater benefit to the residents (most especially infrastructure repair).

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 09:42 AM
  #114
sina220*
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
I'd agree with Fugu in general. Public funding just means that the government is subsidizing the sport.

If everyone could agree to no public funding for sports facilities, those facilities would still exist. It would just cost more for the respective leagues to operate them. Which would mean that those leagues would be able to pay the players less.

So.. in essence, your tax dollars are going towards millionaire athletes. I can think of better uses of funds.
That's what I've said all along. The burden under this system is shared by the owners who have to cover all the costs of running the team as well as usually pay at least part of the arena, and the local governments who come up with funding for the arenas and then need to work out owner friendly leases because the operating costs of an NHL franchise are so high teams need revenue from all sorts of non hockey places just to cover hockey costs. That in turn screws tax payers because the local governments either have to wait longer to recoup their bonds or forgoe the money altogether as grants.

So on one hand fugu is bemoaining lemieux for a sweetheart deal for the arena, but on the other hes defending the system that forces teams into needing these sweetheart arena/lease deals on the backend in the first place to cover the player/operating costs on the front end.

Hey fugu, here's a clue. If the cba made it easier for more teams to make money then teams wouldn't have to ask govts, and thus taxpayers, for sweetheart arena deals to make up the losses from hockey operations.

Which is exactly what lemieux did. Very honestly and openly I might add. He was very candid in saying no team could be viable without the addition of all this new revenue and a new arena. And as we all know he was right, considering the team has barely broke even most years and only cleared a few mil profit in years with their deepest playoff runs.


Last edited by sina220*: 11-27-2012 at 09:49 AM.
sina220* is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 10:45 AM
  #115
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
I don't currently live in Pgh (be moving back next Summer), but I do still own a home in the city limits. The funding for the CEC doesn't hit city residents as hard as other arena deals I know of. I'm not getting nailed on county or city taxes anymore than I was before the arena was built. The CEC was funded by a 30 year revenue bond, with 7.5m of that annual repayment coming from Rivers Casino.

The problem here is opportunity cost. That money from the casino (and the 7.5m from the PED) could have been used to fund other projects around the city that would have been of greater benefit to the residents (most especially infrastructure repair).
All you need to know right here.

The casino money (15M out of 19M annual cost) was contingent on a government agency (PA gaming board) approving the casino licence. It IS public money. You could have a deal with exactly the same economic substance where the casino gives a fixed 15 million annual licence cost to the state, and the state officially foots the bill.

It's like saying Medicare isn't really funded by public funds -- it's really privately-funded by companies and individuals (through their taxes). That's nonsense.

barneyg is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 12:23 PM
  #116
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sina220 View Post
That's what I've said all along. The burden under this system is shared by the owners who have to cover all the costs of running the team as well as usually pay at least part of the arena, and the local governments who come up with funding for the arenas and then need to work out owner friendly leases because the operating costs of an NHL franchise are so high teams need revenue from all sorts of non hockey places just to cover hockey costs. That in turn screws tax payers because the local governments either have to wait longer to recoup their bonds or forgoe the money altogether as grants.

So on one hand fugu is bemoaining lemieux for a sweetheart deal for the arena, but on the other hes defending the system that forces teams into needing these sweetheart arena/lease deals on the backend in the first place to cover the player/operating costs on the front end.

Hey fugu, here's a clue. If the cba made it easier for more teams to make money then teams wouldn't have to ask govts, and thus taxpayers, for sweetheart arena deals to make up the losses from hockey operations.

Which is exactly what lemieux did. Very honestly and openly I might add. He was very candid in saying no team could be viable without the addition of all this new revenue and a new arena. And as we all know he was right, considering the team has barely broke even most years and only cleared a few mil profit in years with their deepest playoff runs.
Actually, no, I'm not defending the system at all. Not only am I a contractionist, I'm a fiscal conservative when it comes to sports. I don't believe universities should be in the 'trade you a pseudo-education for sports' programs either. They take advantage of disadvantaged kids more than anything else. I could go further and say that the entire American educational system that has communities building sports facilities which are then available to 30-40 students, or less, also has lost its way from its mission.

To channel Bill Daly for a second, all of these people need a reality check.

Fugu is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 04:46 PM
  #117
isles31
Poster Excellont
 
isles31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman View Post
Look at the poor struggling owner. This is his "second" home too. Screw the rich spoiled kids who play hockey. Give more pie and ice cream to the owners so they can make this game better.

In all honesty, this is another reason why I think the owners are a bunch of liars.
lol talk about real piss poor timing. Mario never really cared about what people thought about him. IE the draft. Its always what mario whats is what mario does/says/gets.

isles31 is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 06:02 PM
  #118
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,533
vCash: 500
I think arenas should be privately funded. If they are such money makers let the owners invest in them.

Our tax dollars should go to fixing and building the infrastructure that we all use every day.

Publicly funded arenas do nothing other than subsidize the owners' profits and the players' salaries.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 07:53 PM
  #119
iamjs
Unregistered User
 
iamjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 8,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by isles31 View Post
lol talk about real piss poor timing. Mario never really cared about what people thought about him. IE the draft. Its always what mario whats is what mario does/says/gets.
did you bother reading the article? You know the part where it said that construction started on this place in 2009, or almost 4 years ago? Probably not.

iamjs is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 08:24 PM
  #120
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,805
vCash: 500
Not entirely surprised to see a debate about public financing of stadiums/arenas pop up here. I'm not for or against it, per se. Ultimately the circumstances dictate whether it would be smart for the municipality to get involved in the funding.

We've seen circumstances where it has worked out very well for the public. Camden Yards. Cleveland, with the football stadium, baseball stadium, and Rock 'N Roll Hall of Fame. A lot of it comes down to site selection. If you're talking about a suburban setting or another site where the stadium/arena is not going to have a positive effect on economic redevelopment, then there's a strong case against public funding.

Crease is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 12:11 AM
  #121
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
I think arenas should be privately funded. If they are such money makers let the owners invest in them.

Our tax dollars should go to fixing and building the infrastructure that we all use every day.

Publicly funded arenas do nothing other than subsidize the owners' profits and the players' salaries.
Well they do help the city's economy. It's a window to the World for most cities.

The Canadian Goverment just financed the building of a Le Manege Militaire in Quebec city for the price of 93 million yet they did not want to put a cent for a new arena because of bad perception. Because of course Conservatives do not use public money. Yet they easily put money in cause when it was military-linked. It's a big hypocrisy. Since if it don't go for arenas, it will go for other big costly things anyway.

Kimota is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 12:52 AM
  #122
Captain Hook
Olli Määttä
 
Captain Hook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 13,385
vCash: 500
Agree with the above. Here's an article about how the Pittsburgh area loses money with every home Pens game missed due to the lockout. http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2...ins-game-lost/

I see no problem with Mario treating himself to a house like that though. He's rich from his playing days more than anything. I mean really. It may be bad timing to show off that kind of wealth but it's not like the guy is going to go live in a trailer park because there's a lockout going on.

Captain Hook is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 10:22 AM
  #123
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman View Post
Look at the poor struggling owner. This is his "second" home too. Screw the rich spoiled kids who play hockey. Give more pie and ice cream to the owners so they can make this game better.

In all honesty, this is another reason why I think the owners are a bunch of liars.
ok, new CBA rule: all owners' salaries must be equal to the salary of all 25 players on their roster. Okay?

Will that do?

Butch 19 is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 10:40 AM
  #124
CapitalsCupFantasy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
CapitalsCupFantasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 27,627
vCash: 500
This just in....owning a major professional sports team pays off well....apparently very well.


Sorry, this isn't his playing days money here folks. Retired athletes, even greats don't typically buy $20 mil vacation homes 6 years AFTER retirement. This is being an owner money....

CapitalsCupFantasy is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:57 AM
  #125
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Well they do help the city's economy. It's a window to the World for most cities.

The Canadian Goverment just financed the building of a Le Manege Militaire in Quebec city for the price of 93 million yet they did not want to put a cent for a new arena because of bad perception. Because of course Conservatives do not use public money. Yet they easily put money in cause when it was military-linked. It's a big hypocrisy. Since if it don't go for arenas, it will go for other big costly things anyway.
Studies have shown that new arenas do not give that big a boost to a city's economy. A new arena simply shifts the location of where the citizens of that city spend their disposable income.

I don't want to get too political here, but isn't national defense exactly where public dollars should be spent? You can argue about how much to spend, but using tax money for the military is a legitimate public expense.

KINGS17 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:13 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.