HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Islanders
Notices

Forbes NHL Team Values 2012: Islanders #27

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-28-2012, 05:19 PM
  #1
periferal
Registered User
 
periferal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,162
vCash: 500
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.

periferal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 06:52 PM
  #2
Islanders1932
Registered User
 
Islanders1932's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 4,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by periferal View Post
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!

Islanders1932 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 07:19 PM
  #3
StrongIslanders90
Registered User
 
StrongIslanders90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: StrongIsland
Country: United States
Posts: 13,254
vCash: 500
CRAZY!!! I cant believe the difference between some of the franchises....

Damn can we get some revenue sharing on the island?

StrongIslanders90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 08:27 PM
  #4
Homeland Security
Mod Supervisor
#beLIeve
 
Homeland Security's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY/FL
Country: United States
Posts: 14,162
vCash: 500
http://www.newsday.com/sports/hockey...tion-1.4273049

__________________
Homeland Security is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 03:56 PM
  #5
Steve55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,494
vCash: 500
It will be interesting to see how Forbes value the Islanders when they move into Brooklyn. Would a 100M increase be reasonable?

Steve55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 05:16 PM
  #6
IslesArchieFan
Oh Cptn, My Cptn
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve55 View Post
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.

IslesArchieFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 05:59 PM
  #7
Bert Marshall days
Registered User
 
Bert Marshall days's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IslesArchieFan View Post
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.


Yup the move hardly increases value at all. 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.

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.

Bert Marshall days is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 10:54 PM
  #8
periferal
Registered User
 
periferal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert Marshall days View Post


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.

periferal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 11:11 PM
  #9
blitzkriegs
Registered User
 
blitzkriegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beach & Mtn & Island
Posts: 8,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by periferal View Post
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.

blitzkriegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 07:53 AM
  #10
IslesArchieFan
Oh Cptn, My Cptn
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert Marshall days View Post


Yup the move hardly increases value at all. 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.

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.

IslesArchieFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 08:05 AM
  #11
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,712
vCash: 500
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

Dan-o16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 11:12 AM
  #12
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,648
vCash: 500
St.Louis has a new arena, a high population density....$130M. Yeah, it's the location and arena.

OlTimeHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 08:29 PM
  #13
periferal
Registered User
 
periferal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkriegs View Post
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.

periferal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 09:33 PM
  #14
redbull
Expect more
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,574
vCash: 500
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.

redbull is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 05:07 AM.

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.