HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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.

Forbes 2012 annual review of NHL

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-28-2012, 10:52 PM
  #76
JetsFlyHigh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
They're losing money, sure, but the size of their losses would seem to indicate that things might not be operating as efficiently as they should be. If the Hurricanes only lose $10m on revenues of $85m, why is Phoenix losing $20m on revenues of $83m? They have the highest operating expenses of every team in the bottom 10 of revenues aside from Columbus (who decided to spend to the cap).
For a really good team, Phoenix is the lowest ranking playoff team. Unless you count the value of the team, then the Blues is at the bottom. But to be a fairly good team that could potentially win the cup, the numbers does tell a story about the market. And to be honest, Carolina sells out more games than Phoenix, if you check the Forbes NHL fan ranking, you would know why Phoenix is losing that much, even though they have the potential like Nashville is having.

JetsFlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 10:57 PM
  #77
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tortorella View Post
lol.

Leafs, Rangers and Habs account for over 80% of league revenue.

The **** with the NHL and create their own league.
It's operating income, not revenue.


Last edited by Crease: 11-28-2012 at 11:04 PM.
Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 11:07 PM
  #78
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19 View Post
Are you really trying to blame the great depression for Montreals problems yet it didn't effect any of the other original 6?
Huh? The Great Depression affected every single team in the league. Unemployment in Canada was hovering at 27% and the national GDP had dropped by 40%. Nearly half of the league folded during this time period and attendance was down significantly across the board. Montreal was twice almost moved or folded, Detroit found itself in bankruptcy, and the other teams were backed by very wealthy businessmen who could afford to take annual losses (Norris, Bickell, and Adams). It is simply ridiculous to compare that time to today, no matter how you put it.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 11:13 PM
  #79
thenextone
Registered User
 
thenextone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 3,965
vCash: 500
How can the league have legitimate revenue sharing if 10% of its franchises provide 83% of the revenue?

thenextone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 11:14 PM
  #80
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenextone View Post
How can the league have legitimate revenue sharing if 10% of its franchises provide 83% of the revenue?
Operating income, not revenue.

The Leafs ($200M), Rangers ($199M) and Habs ($169M) make up about 17% of NHL's revenue.

The top third make up 43% of league revenues. The top half make up 60% of league revenues.


Last edited by Crease: 11-28-2012 at 11:21 PM.
Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 11:18 PM
  #81
Kane One
Global Moderator
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,539
vCash: 2960
So how could it be possible that they are worth this much? It says % Change is 92; that's just way too high. Also, wasn't this estimate based on how much Bell and Rogers bought their share in MLSE for? If so, how much a team is worth and how much someone paid for it isn't the same thing.

I don't get it..

Another thing to note is that the Rangers' % Change was 48. Could this be from the Rangers increasing the ticket prices? If so, I'm just curious to know how much they will be valued at when for next season, the cheapest ticket will be $50, compared to the $36 (or $39, I forgot) from 2011-12.

__________________
Kane One is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 11:29 PM
  #82
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Didn't go down the rabbit hole yet but the numbers seem to imply that the average operating expenses for a franchise are around $105 million.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 11:34 PM
  #83
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
they do?
Misread it, my bad.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 11:36 PM
  #84
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawksfan50 View Post
The figures i guess include ALL REVENUES not just HRR..

If so, the Chicago case for example states:

REVENUES: $125 million

OPERATING INCOME : $20.9 million


ASSUMING approx. 70 million on salaries last year (they still had to pay Huet) to players --this leaves approx $55 million-the remaining operating income of $20.9 million --ie. it leaves approx $34.1 million to run all other expenses except interest,depreciation,amortization and taxes...

Now travel,insurance,minor leagues, coaching staff,all office staff and depts.including upto McD,hockey ambassadors,and any other hockey related expenses eat up this 34.1 million which one might think should be nearly about the same expense cost for everyteam (though it is possible some teams save on staff ,spend less on marketing, but otherwise a lot of the costs for the other expenses are nearly the same unless you share an ahl affiliate with another nhl team to halve that cost-- travel costs could be less for Eastern time zone teams that play mostly in closer proximity games to their most frewuent competitors in a dIvision of coNference...But allowing for some divergence in this category we PROBABLY get approx $25-$34 million reqiured to fund such expenses ...clubs spending at the max probably spend to the high end of this range...

so this means that a CAP team needs approx $105 million to just cover salaries and these other hockey expenses before any leftover for taxes,interest,amortization
and depreciation expense allocations...

At the bottom end though,you get NYI with just $66million in REVENUES
--even at the floor level of cap approxmationg payroll they still managed a remainder of $16million operating income --must have been some very cheap office overhead and maybe travel cost savings are mmuch much greater than i had assimed for certain teams in their Division in the Eastern Conference.. $66m-$48.3m = $17.7m remaining -$16 million in operating income--leaves only $1.7 million for minor leagues,coaches,travel,insur. and office staff and depts. expenses..


SO how did WANG get away so cheaply when Rocky Wirts had to spend approx $34.1 million for all that?

Can someone make sense of this wide apparent disparity...Maybe $10 million off I could fathom --but $32.4 million off on such apparent ''necessary" costs to run an NHL team? Accountants please explain!
It's called Wang digging out his cheque book and covering the difference. Keep in mind that he had a lot of cap hits that were higher than the salary owed that helped him reach the cap floor. But the only way the Islanders survive year to year is Wang writing cheques.

And I strongly suspect that that 34m is on the low side. It was ~22m 10 years ago according to Doug Maclean. I would be quite surprised if the average non-hockey costs are less than 35-40m.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."

Last edited by Riptide: 11-28-2012 at 11:45 PM.
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 11:48 PM
  #85
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk View Post
I wonder how this takes into account arenas.

I know the top 3 teams own the team and arena as one entity but Chicago and Boston own their arenas under different business.

I would imagine if the Bruins package of the TD Garden, Bruins, and 20% of NESN would fetch far more than $348 mil.
So because company A is owned by a larger company (company B), when deciding the value of company A, they need to take into account company B's value as well? Things do not work that way.

Yes there's rules around how the NHL determines HRR so that teams don't funnel all the money into the larger parent company, but that still doesn't mean that company A is suddenly worth 3 times as much because of company B's value.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 11:50 PM
  #86
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
Author's brief bio:

I report on the business of sports for Forbes' SportsMoney group. My sports interests range from baseball and hockey to cricket and Formula One, though I have a special place in my heart for college football. Studying sports business interests me as both a writer and a sports fan, and I've found that digging through financial reports is often just as enjoyable as combing a box score.

LOL. No real detail on his qualifications. If you guys rely on Forbes in any way, please note that this guy has ZERO access to the real #'s. Seriously, this guy is in way over his head.

Simple proof. Total debt would be all liabilities (incl short term). Virtually every company has short term liabilities for operations at a minimum. Yet his report has teams with zero?

I wont ever bother with the rest. Intercompany transactions would complicate this A LOT.

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 11:56 PM
  #87
Wingsfan2965*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,539
vCash: 500
Essentially:

New CBA puts Washington and SJS in the black. (And Minnesota and Nashville once they get out of those first few years of albatross contracts)

New management puts the BJs and Inlanders in the black.

New locations put the Coyotes and Panthers in the black.

Wingsfan2965* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 12:05 AM
  #88
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaneone View Post
So how could it be possible that they are worth this much? It says % Change is 92; that's just way too high. Also, wasn't this estimate based on how much Bell and Rogers bought their share in MLSE for? If so, how much a team is worth and how much someone paid for it isn't the same thing.

I don't get it..

Another thing to note is that the Rangers' % Change was 48. Could this be from the Rangers increasing the ticket prices? If so, I'm just curious to know how much they will be valued at when for next season, the cheapest ticket will be $50, compared to the $36 (or $39, I forgot) from 2011-12.
Rangers are probably seeing the benefit of the upgrade on MSG. I think part of the value for the Leafs and Rangers is in the synergy of their holdings as perceived by Forbes.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 12:15 AM
  #89
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,654
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post
Essentially:

New CBA puts Washington and SJS in the black. (And Minnesota and Nashville once they get out of those first few years of albatross contracts)

New management puts the BJs and Inlanders in the black.

New locations put the Coyotes and Panthers in the black.
well, there are 13 teams 'in the red', by EBITDA

New CBA puts Washington and SJS in the black (though one would argue that both should already be in the black but insist on overspending their means, as teams with comparable revenues do fine - so it's either a choice or incompetent business management).

New CBA might actually end up being enough to get Minnesota and Nashville out of the hole too. Nashville is a team that needs to beef up their revenue. Minnesota is a team that needs to spend a more realistic amount of money.

Of the remaining 9 teams, buffalo stands out as a team that should stop pretending they arnt a small market. Anaheim could probably use a dose of that reality too, and revenue sharing eligibility should kick in about 1M.

So you're left with PHX, CBJ, NYI, TBL, FLA, STL, and CAR. PHX should take a significant step with the new lease + no more storm clouds hanging over the arena formerly known as jobing.com. NYI just needs revenue-sharing eligibility and is a few years away from the real fix - a major league arena. For the remaining six teams? Not sucking so much would certainly help, but other than st. louis, which has proven to be a great financial team when successful in the past, it's probably not enough. Your possible solutions are lowering player costs even further (this is what the NHL will try six years from now), increasing revenue sharing to more meaningful levels as seen in the 3 other major US sports leagues that havnt been locked out twice in 7 years, or moving the teams to better markets, if better markets even exist.

__________________
RIP Kev.
danishh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 12:18 AM
  #90
Hugo Sham
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Montreal
Posts: 10,098
vCash: 500
at this crazy rate % increase and 50/50 split, the Rangers will be worth a billion within 3 years and the Habs in 5-6. That's impressive if the NHL could have 3 teams valued at a billion. The leafs are now in Man U, Real Madrid, Dallas Cowboy, NY Giants, Yankees territory

Hugo Sham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 12:23 AM
  #91
Errol Swaghammer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 53
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan34222 View Post
Worth more than the Rangers..

A Canadian team in any league being worth more than a NY or Dallas or LA franchise tells me the NHL never be a real league.
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. There is literally no logic behind this. Never mind the fact that the Knicks and Rangers are according to Forbes essentially worth the same amount of money so it's certainly not because NY is somehow struggling.

The Leafs just happen to be huge. They're worth more than every NBA team apparently. And about the same as the Red Sox if we're looking at the Forbes numbers. So whatever argument you can make about the NHL not being a real league is not going to be based on the fact that the Leafs are worth the most money.

Errol Swaghammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 02:09 AM
  #92
ES
Registered User
 
ES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
The Coyotes numbers seem rather odd though. According to Forbes, their revenue numbers are within $10m of 8 other teams. If this is right, the market is not as hopeless as we've been lead to believe.
Maybe the fact that they went to CF decreases the difference?

ES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 02:31 AM
  #93
rockinghorse
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
Author's brief bio:

I report on the business of sports for Forbes' SportsMoney group. My sports interests range from baseball and hockey to cricket and Formula One, though I have a special place in my heart for college football. Studying sports business interests me as both a writer and a sports fan, and I've found that digging through financial reports is often just as enjoyable as combing a box score.

LOL. No real detail on his qualifications. If you guys rely on Forbes in any way, please note that this guy has ZERO access to the real #'s. Seriously, this guy is in way over his head.

Simple proof. Total debt would be all liabilities (incl short term). Virtually every company has short term liabilities for operations at a minimum. Yet his report has teams with zero?

I wont ever bother with the rest. Intercompany transactions would complicate this A LOT.
Can the Forbes information be depended on? I've bolded above to bring attention to the area I'm addressing.

Interesting connections. Forbes Inc is 40% owned by Elevation Partners. Roger McNamee is named as a partner.

http://www.elevation.com/images/Elev...ners_Intro.pdf

In 2001 Roger McNamee and Ted Leonsis were both on the same seven person panel.
http://tv.nytimes.com/2001/02/28/tec...anted=all&_r=0

There may be other connections out there too. Interestingly Bono the U2 singer is also a partner in Elevation.

rockinghorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 03:23 AM
  #94
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,654
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
Author's brief bio:

I report on the business of sports for Forbes' SportsMoney group. My sports interests range from baseball and hockey to cricket and Formula One, though I have a special place in my heart for college football. Studying sports business interests me as both a writer and a sports fan, and I've found that digging through financial reports is often just as enjoyable as combing a box score.

LOL. No real detail on his qualifications. If you guys rely on Forbes in any way, please note that this guy has ZERO access to the real #'s. Seriously, this guy is in way over his head.

Simple proof. Total debt would be all liabilities (incl short term). Virtually every company has short term liabilities for operations at a minimum. Yet his report has teams with zero?

I wont ever bother with the rest. Intercompany transactions would complicate this A LOT.
so far, i've demonstrated that forbes revenue data, at the very least, adds up. I intend on tackling costs next, which is far more messy, but regardless, i would consider it inexcusable to simply dismiss the only information that we as fans have access to.

if you would like to provide a counterargument, please drop the rhetoric. I've seen that every year. Please provide an empirical counterargument. You appear to attempt to provide one, but it is inherently flawed. Every company does not have debt. Many companies either choose to be responsible by funding liabilities through cash calls, or have such a large surplus of funds that taking on debt is counterproductive in terms of taxes. This easily explains the 4 teams that forbes reports as having zero debt.

So please, bother with the rest. Actually, dont just bother, try this time. Try hard. I very much appreciate academic discourse and debate, so dont waste my time with this garbage.


Last edited by danishh: 11-29-2012 at 03:30 AM.
danishh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 03:39 AM
  #95
burf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
well, there are 13 teams 'in the red', by EBITDA

New CBA puts Washington and SJS in the black (though one would argue that both should already be in the black but insist on overspending their means, as teams with comparable revenues do fine - so it's either a choice or incompetent business management).

New CBA might actually end up being enough to get Minnesota and Nashville out of the hole too. Nashville is a team that needs to beef up their revenue. Minnesota is a team that needs to spend a more realistic amount of money.

Of the remaining 9 teams, buffalo stands out as a team that should stop pretending they arnt a small market. Anaheim could probably use a dose of that reality too, and revenue sharing eligibility should kick in about 1M.

So you're left with PHX, CBJ, NYI, TBL, FLA, STL, and CAR. PHX should take a significant step with the new lease + no more storm clouds hanging over the arena formerly known as jobing.com. NYI just needs revenue-sharing eligibility and is a few years away from the real fix - a major league arena. For the remaining six teams? Not sucking so much would certainly help, but other than st. louis, which has proven to be a great financial team when successful in the past, it's probably not enough. Your possible solutions are lowering player costs even further (this is what the NHL will try six years from now), increasing revenue sharing to more meaningful levels as seen in the 3 other major US sports leagues that havnt been locked out twice in 7 years, or moving the teams to better markets, if better markets even exist.
With regards to St. Louis, one of their big problems is they don't control a number of the revenue streams associated with their hockey operations/the arena. Notably, the city takes all parking revenue, and the concession rights were sold a few years back by their previous owner to make a quick buck, and those are two of the biggest revenue streams available to a gate-driven league like the NHL.

They also don't own their arena (and have a bad arena deal), and they have to pay a weird (and huge) luxury tax to the city that no other pro sports team has to pay.

Basically, St. Louis would probably be a decent market right now if not for previous management and the city itself screwing them over. Their on-ice struggles haven't helped, but I'm pretty sure at this point there isn't too much that can be done to help St. Louis. Even a new CBA wouldn't fix their problems, since their problems are entirely structural, rather than related to player costs.

burf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 04:57 AM
  #96
BDEuph
Hotty Toddy
 
BDEuph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by burf View Post
With regards to St. Louis, one of their big problems is they don't control a number of the revenue streams associated with their hockey operations/the arena. Notably, the city takes all parking revenue, and the concession rights were sold a few years back by their previous owner to make a quick buck, and those are two of the biggest revenue streams available to a gate-driven league like the NHL.

They also don't own their arena (and have a bad arena deal), and they have to pay a weird (and huge) luxury tax to the city that no other pro sports team has to pay.

Basically, St. Louis would probably be a decent market right now if not for previous management and the city itself screwing them over. Their on-ice struggles haven't helped, but I'm pretty sure at this point there isn't too much that can be done to help St. Louis. Even a new CBA wouldn't fix their problems, since their problems are entirely structural, rather than related to player costs.
BINGO!!!

Bill "Wal Mart" Laurie and Dave Checketts royally hosed the team in their own unique way (Laurie sold off the players and Checketts sold off the lucrative food consessions revenue streams) and yes, the Arena lease stinks with no parking revenue and being straddled with having to fund the newly renovated Opera House attached to the rear of the arena, and having to fund the AHL affiliate as well. The ticket revenue is minimal because of our insanely low ticket prices. Yet, with the less than stellar on-ice performance from 2005-2012 (2 playoff appearances) we still back the joint with 19150 nearly every night. Now that we have local ownership, this will be much better soon, even still I'd be on board with a 10-15% raise in ticket prices (I pay 2250 for a full season in the lower bowl, corner, blues shoot twice). The ownership need to generate more streams of revenue to acquire a ringer FA forward or D-man to put us over the top.

BDEuph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 07:51 AM
  #97
Kane One
Global Moderator
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,539
vCash: 2960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Errol Swaghammer View Post
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. There is literally no logic behind this. Never mind the fact that the Knicks and Rangers are according to Forbes essentially worth the same amount of money so it's certainly not because NY is somehow struggling.

The Leafs just happen to be huge. They're worth more than every NBA team apparently. And about the same as the Red Sox if we're looking at the Forbes numbers. So whatever argument you can make about the NHL not being a real league is not going to be based on the fact that the Leafs are worth the most money.
Well the MLB numbers are from last March, so when the new one comes out before the season starts, I'd bet that Boston will be valued higher. Same goes for the Lakers this January.

Kane One is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 09:03 AM
  #98
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
so far, i've demonstrated that forbes revenue data, at the very least, adds up. I intend on tackling costs next, which is far more messy, but regardless, i would consider it ignorant to simply dismiss the only information that we as fans have access to.

if you would like to provide a counterargument, please drop the rhetoric. I've seen that every year. Please provide an empirical counterargument. You appear to attempt to provide one, but it is inherently flawed. Every company does not have debt. Many companies either choose to be responsible by funding liabilities through cash calls, or have such a large surplus of funds that taking on debt is counterproductive in terms of taxes. This easily explains the 4 teams that forbes reports as having zero debt.

So please, bother with the rest. Actually, dont just bother, try this time. Try hard. I very much appreciate academic discourse and debate, so dont waste my time with this garbage.
I've audited some big companies in the past. I've never seen a company with zero debt. Never. Just holding companies and then maybe. If its zero, the players should be suspicious. Your comment centres on cash, what about accrual accounting? Anyways, the zero is debt figure is what you would call a red flag.

Anyways, your answer doesnt substantiate the numbers at all and neither does his article. Not explained by Forbes what the exact methodology was used. The big issue is intercompany transactions. What does MLSE (which also owns raptors) charge Bell for broadcasting $ on TSN. Arena costs are similar.

Bottom line, go ahead and rely on Forbes. Stating that its the only thing you got isnt an acceptable supposition.

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 09:16 AM
  #99
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
I just want to add something here. Based on my experience, its extremely difficult to estimate certain #'s. Operating costs, impossible without access. Broadcast, advertising revenues, too hard as well. I can say one thing, some of the stronger markets are more profitable than you or Forbes seem to think. And the bottom are actually worse. You can choose to ignore that but it is in fact one of the reasons we have a lockout today. Disparity between franchises.

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 09:20 AM
  #100
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHill Seeker View Post
at this crazy rate % increase and 50/50 split, the Rangers will be worth a billion within 3 years and the Habs in 5-6. That's impressive if the NHL could have 3 teams valued at a billion. The leafs are now in Man U, Real Madrid, Dallas Cowboy, NY Giants, Yankees territory
So you leave out the $2B team, MLB Dodgers?


I think one thing that will keep a drag on the Canadiens value is their 50% (estimate) debt.

LadyStanley 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 03:00 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.