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.

Phoenix LXXII: Send in the Clowns

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-15-2013, 05:33 PM
  #176
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The new owners hypothetically say you can have it as cash or we assume your -$200 MM debt.
Right. I'm just suggesting that there is often a very large practical difference between taking on someone else's existing debt, and convincing someone to give you the same size pile of money and create new debt, even if it just replaces old debt.

IMO in the vast majority of cases it is extremely misleading to say something sold for "$X" when all that really happened is the old owner mailed in the keys and the new owner opened the envelope.

 
Old
02-15-2013, 05:37 PM
  #177
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
It depends completely on what the installment plan is, and what is meant by "when you can".
Well, of course, that's true for any transaction. If the NHL would accept interest-only with a balloon payment in 10 years, there would probably be all kinds of legitimate ownership groups sniffing around.

 
Old
02-15-2013, 05:41 PM
  #178
Glacial
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
I think the priority among Canadian fans is #1 Quebec City, #2 Seattle, and after that, I don't think people really care.

Even as a GTA fan who is all but shut out from Leafs games, I am not passionate in the slightest about a second Toronto team.

If it happens, great! And I will be sitting at my computer when season tickets go on sale hoping to cash in on the secondary market just like everyone else, but the feeling around acquiring the team is nothing like Winnipeg or Quebec.

Winnipeg and Quebec are seen as wrongs that need to be righted. GTA2 has no such sentimental attachments. It is a pure business decision.
Very interesting. I would have thought there would be a market clamoring for a more affordable/accessible team (given all the talk of Leafs ticket prices and the issue with getting tickets) and with the Leafs being big rollers like the Yankees but lacking the trail of championship trophies to match, people would be willing to try a 2nd team or have a 2nd team make the Leafs shape up.

I'm trying to think of parallels (2nd team arriving after a long established first)...
- Kings & Ducks. Ducks arrived ~25 years later, but tried to follow the same pattern as Dodgers/Angels. Maybe a LA area hockey fan can provide more insight into team dynamics/support in the area pre/post Ducks.

- Rangers go way back, but there was that other NY team that the NHL screwed over (the temporary hiatus which quietly became a permanent fold). The Islanders seemed to target suburban long island (similar position as the Ducks & Angels). Devils were tied to Jersey. Hmm, anyone know more of the Islanders backstory, how the team was pitched back when it was created?

- Yankees & Mets. Mets arrived in Queens, trying to replace the Dodgers that exited Brooklyn & Giants that exited Manhattan (Yankees based out of the Bronx). They went from 3 teams to 1. The Mets had to be created as the lynchpin of thwarting a rival league from forming. Doesn't quite seem to parallel. The Giants were fairly successful early on, though the Yankees eclipsed them by the 1920s.

- Dodgers & Angels. Dodgers only preceeded the Angels in LA by 3 seasons. Angels settled in Orange County. There was also NL/AL rivalry. Remember, before 1968, the Angels were the only AL team in California. They seemed to market themselves as a statewide team, thus their name for many years, the California Angels.

- Giants & A's. Giants had 10 years, but the Bay Area is famously fragmented (only shared MLB market where the teams have different territory). IIRC, 49ers and Raiders was the NFL vs. AFL situation. Same went for Giants & Jets. There's no rival league involved in Toronto. It'll be all NHL.

- White Sox arrived ~30 years after the Cubs but that was over a century ago. Phillies were only around 20 years when the Athletics arrived and same goes for Cardinals & Browns in St. Louis (Browns became the Orioles). Same for the Red Sox & the Braves.

I'm not seeing any close parallels except Kings/Ducks.


Or would it be a case where many are indifferent about a theoretical 2nd GTA team but when one actually arrives, they'll change their tune?

Glacial is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 05:44 PM
  #179
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacial View Post
Or would it be a case where many are indifferent about a theoretical 2nd GTA team but when one actually arrives, they'll change their tune?
If Team 2 gets to a Cup Final before Team Classic, new allegiances will be forged, instantly.

 
Old
02-15-2013, 05:48 PM
  #180
Undertakerqc
Registered User
 
Undertakerqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
http://www.fiveforhowling.com/2013/2...cial-situation



The team is doing slightly better each year off the ice. With no owner, and no effort. Good to see.
Well with the run they had last year, anything but an increase would have been ridicoulous.

Undertakerqc is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 05:52 PM
  #181
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,181
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
http://www.fiveforhowling.com/2013/2...cial-situation

The team is doing slightly better each year off the ice. With no owner, and no effort. Good to see.
It's impossible for me to not sound like a jerk on this, so I won't even try to preface it. It appears that the link above is using the Fan Cost Index by TMR as the primary source of information. There's a [Standard TMR Disclaimer] that you can find in BOH archives that will provide a rather complete assessment of why it's not a good idea to use TMR figures.

The author also appears to be using ESPN or similar attendance numbers. As the BK documents show, those numbers are significantly inflated over the true drop count. So pretty much all the data used is corrupt.
"... you can start to see how hockey in the desert can become a profitable venture to any potential new owners."
The author is pretty much alone on an island with that conclusion. Well, maybe not alone. Ice Edge and Matt Hulsizer may be enjoying colorful umbrella drinks with him. I'll probably get more nasty messages for saying it, but that article is a moonbeam assessment of the NHL in Glendale.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 06:04 PM
  #182
Glacial
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
It's impossible for me to not sound like a jerk on this, so I won't even try to preface it. It appears that the link above is using the Fan Cost Index by TMR as the primary source of information. There's a [Standard TMR Disclaimer] that you can find in BOH archives that will provide a rather complete assessment of why it's not a good idea to use TMR figures.

The author also appears to be using ESPN or similar attendance numbers. As the BK documents show, those numbers are significantly inflated over the true drop count. So pretty much all the data used is corrupt.
"... you can start to see how hockey in the desert can become a profitable venture to any potential new owners."
The author is pretty much alone on an island with that conclusion. Well, maybe not alone. Ice Edge and Matt Hulsizer may be enjoying colorful umbrella drinks with him. I'll probably get more nasty messages for saying it, but that article is a moonbeam assessment of the NHL in Glendale.
Well, it sounds like they went to school at the TL Hocking School for Statistics. Any 'sound' analysis in clarkonomics uses multiple sets of corrupt data. You need that compounding effect to feel the statistical gobblygook to be able to see the profit of a team based on ice in the desert. It's like hitting your head hard enough and enough times to see the stars.

(Edit: but to Arizona's credit, Pluto was discovered from there [Flagstaff])

Glacial is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 06:31 PM
  #183
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
http://www.fiveforhowling.com/2013/2...cial-situation

The team is doing slightly better each year off the ice. With no owner, and no effort. Good to see.
Sure, all they have to do is play the Kings on a Saturday instead of a a Thursday to draw better crowds. They had two games against the kings the prior year, one on a thursday and one on a saturday. One drew 7,000 and one drew 10,000.

You also cannot compare attendance in October to attendance in January and February. Football (college and NFL) and baseball are still in heavy swing during those months.

Let him put up the same time period numbers and see where that gets him.

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 07:19 PM
  #184
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacial View Post
- Rangers go way back, but there was that other NY team that the NHL screwed over (the temporary hiatus which quietly became a permanent fold). The Islanders seemed to target suburban long island (similar position as the Ducks & Angels). Devils were tied to Jersey. Hmm, anyone know more of the Islanders backstory, how the team was pitched back when it was created?

- Yankees & Mets. Mets arrived in Queens, trying to replace the Dodgers that exited Brooklyn & Giants that exited Manhattan (Yankees based out of the Bronx). They went from 3 teams to 1. The Mets had to be created as the lynchpin of thwarting a rival league from forming. Doesn't quite seem to parallel. The Giants were fairly successful early on, though the Yankees eclipsed them by the 1920s.

- Dodgers & Angels. Dodgers only preceeded the Angels in LA by 3 seasons. Angels settled in Orange County. There was also NL/AL rivalry. Remember, before 1968, the Angels were the only AL team in California. They seemed to market themselves as a statewide team, thus their name for many years, the California Angels.

[Or would it be a case where many are indifferent about a theoretical 2nd GTA team but when one actually arrives, they'll change their tune?
The Islanders were similar to the Mets in that they were to thwart a rival league. The NHL didn't want the WHA to move into Long Island.

The Dodgers/Angels was partly due to the fact that back then the AL and NL really considered themselves separate leagues. They each had their own commissioner until the 90s. Until the 93 expansion the leagues did their own expansions and neither contributed players or received expansion fees from the other. Ao the AL wanted to be in SoCal too. for 4 years the Angels shared Dodger Stadium they moved to OC because they were tired of the second tier treatment they got there.

aqib is online now  
Old
02-15-2013, 07:29 PM
  #185
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
Private Equity
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 1,819
vCash: 500
Agenda Time! - Workshop Variety

http://www.glendaleaz.com/clerk/agen...das/021913.pdf


Quote:
Meeting Date: 2/19/2013
Meeting Type: Workshop
Title: COUNCIL ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST: INTERNAL AUDITOR
INDEPENDENCE

Staff Contact: Candace MacLeod, City Auditor
Quote:
Meeting Date: 2/19/2013
Meeting Type: Evening
Title: CITY MANAGER RECRUITMENT
Staff Contact: Jim Brown, Interim Executive Director, Human Resources and Risk Management
And the behind closed doors stuff, as expected

Quote:
B. The City Council will meet with Jose De Jesus Rivera, of Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally, P.L.C. for legal advice, discussion, and consultation regarding an external audit. (A.R.S. SS 38-431.03(A)(3))


A. Discussion and consultation with the City Attorney and City Manager to receive an update, consider it's position and provide instruction and direction to the City Attorney and City Manager regarding Glendale's position in connection with agreements associated with the Arena and the Hockey Team, which are the subject of negotiations. (A.R.S. SS 38-431.03(A)(3)(4)(7))

Major4Boarding is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 07:36 PM
  #186
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacial View Post
Very interesting. I would have thought there would be a market clamoring for a more affordable/accessible team (given all the talk of Leafs ticket prices and the issue with getting tickets) and with the Leafs being big rollers like the Yankees but lacking the trail of championship trophies to match, people would be willing to try a 2nd team or have a 2nd team make the Leafs shape up.

I'm trying to think of parallels (2nd team arriving after a long established first)...
- Kings & Ducks. Ducks arrived ~25 years later, but tried to follow the same pattern as Dodgers/Angels. Maybe a LA area hockey fan can provide more insight into team dynamics/support in the area pre/post Ducks.

- Rangers go way back, but there was that other NY team that the NHL screwed over (the temporary hiatus which quietly became a permanent fold). The Islanders seemed to target suburban long island (similar position as the Ducks & Angels). Devils were tied to Jersey. Hmm, anyone know more of the Islanders backstory, how the team was pitched back when it was created?

- Yankees & Mets. Mets arrived in Queens, trying to replace the Dodgers that exited Brooklyn & Giants that exited Manhattan (Yankees based out of the Bronx). They went from 3 teams to 1. The Mets had to be created as the lynchpin of thwarting a rival league from forming. Doesn't quite seem to parallel. The Giants were fairly successful early on, though the Yankees eclipsed them by the 1920s.

- Dodgers & Angels. Dodgers only preceeded the Angels in LA by 3 seasons. Angels settled in Orange County. There was also NL/AL rivalry. Remember, before 1968, the Angels were the only AL team in California. They seemed to market themselves as a statewide team, thus their name for many years, the California Angels.

- Giants & A's. Giants had 10 years, but the Bay Area is famously fragmented (only shared MLB market where the teams have different territory). IIRC, 49ers and Raiders was the NFL vs. AFL situation. Same went for Giants & Jets. There's no rival league involved in Toronto. It'll be all NHL.

- White Sox arrived ~30 years after the Cubs but that was over a century ago. Phillies were only around 20 years when the Athletics arrived and same goes for Cardinals & Browns in St. Louis (Browns became the Orioles). Same for the Red Sox & the Braves.

I'm not seeing any close parallels except Kings/Ducks.


Or would it be a case where many are indifferent about a theoretical 2nd GTA team but when one actually arrives, they'll change their tune?
That is possible. I am sure with time people would embrace and be passionate about a new team.

But to speak to your first point, nobody in the GTA is naive enough to think a second Toronto team would mean more accessible, and definitely not any more affordable tickets. It may be more accessible through the simple fact that an arena full of season tickets will be available for a whole new group of people, but after that initial rush, I think most people just assume a GTA2 team would become another Maple Leafs type financial giant/bully pretty damn quickly.

I dont think there is a similar comparable in sports because there is no other city on earth that is such a financial monster, and so crazy about a professional league, but still only has one team. No pro sports market has ever been in a situation where demand so wildly outpaces supply.

Pilky01 is online now  
Old
02-15-2013, 07:40 PM
  #187
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Hawk View Post
Sure, all they have to do is play the Kings on a Saturday instead of a a Thursday to draw better crowds. They had two games against the kings the prior year, one on a thursday and one on a saturday. One drew 7,000 and one drew 10,000.

You also cannot compare attendance in October to attendance in January and February. Football (college and NFL) and baseball are still in heavy swing during those months.

Let him put up the same time period numbers and see where that gets him.
Its an ongoing theme with many of the pro-Coyotes sites out there is that they rely on the opponent to be the draw, not the Coyotes themselves. When they draw poorly against a team that doesn't have a lot of transplants in the Phoenix area or its a weeknight you hear stuff like "you can't really expect us to come out to see Columbus on Wednesday do you? "

If the visiting team is your draw then sign a deal with the NHL for 10 Saturday night neutral site games.

aqib is online now  
Old
02-15-2013, 08:25 PM
  #188
BnGBear1970
YUP!
 
BnGBear1970's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llama19 View Post
On the flip-side...

Your Views: Jamison failure is a blessing

"At least our new City Council can look for ways to restore city services instead of laying off more people. It won't be easy, but Glendale has a chance now to become financially sound like we were before our council started paying blackmail for an NHL hockey team."

Source:
http://www.azcentral.com/insiders/we...is-a-blessing/
This should put an end to anyone's belief that Weiers will simply take a little off the top of the Jamison AMULA and call it a good day. He's burning bridges with the NHL with that statement, too, so the league might just do a big ol' "all bets are off" presser if they feel like they have their buyer lined up at their number early, with the prerequisite that the team stay in Phoenix for the remainder of the season.

BnGBear1970 is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 08:26 PM
  #189
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
That is possible. I am sure with time people would embrace and be passionate about a new team.

But to speak to your first point, nobody in the GTA is naive enough to think a second Toronto team would mean more accessible, and definitely not any more affordable tickets. It may be more accessible through the simple fact that an arena full of season tickets will be available for a whole new group of people, but after that initial rush, I think most people just assume a GTA2 team would become another Maple Leafs type financial giant/bully pretty damn quickly.

I dont think there is a similar comparable in sports because there is no other city on earth that is such a financial monster, and so crazy about a professional league, but still only has one team. No pro sports market has ever been in a situation where demand so wildly outpaces supply.
Maybe third time will be the charm. Anytime i see the bolded part I ask, how many teams in the GTA would it take to see attendance and ticket prices at league average? Nobody that makes the claim, there will not be cheaper seats, ever replies

Confucius is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 08:30 PM
  #190
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BnGBear1970 View Post
This should put an end to anyone's belief that Weiers will simply take a little off the top of the Jamison AMULA and call it a good day. He's burning bridges with the NHL with that statement, too, so the league might just do a big ol' "all bets are off" presser if they feel like they have their buyer lined up at their number early, with the prerequisite that the team stay in Phoenix for the remainder of the season.
You realize Ken Jones of library petition fame wrote that, right?

XX is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 10:15 PM
  #191
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamiltonFan View Post
Your $200M assumption is correct, as it is generally accepted that little or no money changed hands during the 'transaction'. In your opinion, where did the $200M debt come from? Why was Cohen $200M in debt to begin with?
I guess we can gander over to the that recent thread on the Panthers' and arena operations. That indicated that money was being made. Cohen, iirc, claimed about $10 MM in losses per annum. That doesn't come out to $200 MM since he didn't operate the team long enough to accrue that level of debt on just the team if that figure is accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Right. I'm just suggesting that there is often a very large practical difference between taking on someone else's existing debt, and convincing someone to give you the same size pile of money and create new debt, even if it just replaces old debt.

IMO in the vast majority of cases it is extremely misleading to say something sold for "$X" when all that really happened is the old owner mailed in the keys and the new owner opened the envelope.
I understand your point, D, but at the same time the people assuming the operation and its debt will consider what it costs to service that debt. Opening that envelope may mean you need $80 MM in revenue to pay down the debt (and hopefully not incur more). As soon as you do that, you have to have some valuation (for a variety of reasons). Also noting that they got about 165 acres of land around the arena and arena rights. Main thing is we don't really have all the bits needed to really piece this together.

Fugu is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 08:19 AM
  #192
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
It's impossible for me to not sound like a jerk on this, so I won't even try to preface it. It appears that the link above is using the Fan Cost Index by TMR as the primary source of information. There's a [Standard TMR Disclaimer] that you can find in BOH archives that will provide a rather complete assessment of why it's not a good idea to use TMR figures.

The author also appears to be using ESPN or similar attendance numbers. As the BK documents show, those numbers are significantly inflated over the true drop count. So pretty much all the data used is corrupt.
"... you can start to see how hockey in the desert can become a profitable venture to any potential new owners."
The author is pretty much alone on an island with that conclusion. Well, maybe not alone. Ice Edge and Matt Hulsizer may be enjoying colorful umbrella drinks with him. I'll probably get more nasty messages for saying it, but that article is a moonbeam assessment of the NHL in Glendale.
I'd say that this is pretty much dead on as far as a critique of the article at hand. Not sure why any nasty messages would be justified.

Fourier is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 10:57 AM
  #193
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Outside GZ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,356
vCash: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
The author is pretty much alone on an island with that conclusion. Well, maybe not alone. Ice Edge and Matt Hulsizer may be enjoying colorful umbrella drinks with him. I'll probably get more nasty messages for saying it, but that article is a moonbeam assessment of the NHL in Glendale.
I think there is a picture of that...


Llama19 is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 12:13 PM
  #194
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llama19 View Post
I think there is a picture of that...


My god, who dresses these people? Open toe and sandals? No socks required. Do not wear socks with open toed shoes and sandals. Do no wear closed shoes without socks. White socks with sneakers, never with dress shoes. Sigh.

Unless you're a professor wearing Berkies.... then you can do whatever you want as far as fashion (or lack thereof).


(Yeah, I know but this is as relevant as anything else in this thread.... )

Fugu is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 01:01 PM
  #195
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacial View Post
Well, it sounds like they went to school at the TL Hocking School for Statistics. Any 'sound' analysis in clarkonomics uses multiple sets of corrupt data. You need that compounding effect to feel the statistical gobblygook to be able to see the profit of a team based on ice in the desert. It's like hitting your head hard enough and enough times to see the stars.

(Edit: but to Arizona's credit, Pluto was discovered from there [Flagstaff])
Pluto's no longer a planet though.

barneyg is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 01:16 PM
  #196
HamiltonFan
bettman's a Weasel
 
HamiltonFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I guess we can gander over to the that recent thread on the Panthers' and arena operations. That indicated that money was being made. Cohen, iirc, claimed about $10 MM in losses per annum. That doesn't come out to $200 MM since he didn't operate the team long enough to accrue that level of debt on just the team if that figure is accurate.



I understand your point, D, but at the same time the people assuming the operation and its debt will consider what it costs to service that debt. Opening that envelope may mean you need $80 MM in revenue to pay down the debt (and hopefully not incur more). As soon as you do that, you have to have some valuation (for a variety of reasons). Also noting that they got about 165 acres of land around the arena and arena rights. Main thing is we don't really have all the bits needed to really piece this together.
Yes it does add up to $200M when you consider the time value of money, and the fact that the debt compounds every year. Cohen bought the panthers in 2001 from Huizenga for $100M, then gave them away in 2009. That's 8 years. If you plug the numbers into a compound interest calculator, assuming 6% interest per year, with an end sum of $200M, you get $19 million. In other words, $19M of losses per year, for 8 years, compounded at 6% per year, equals $200 million. You say the losses were more like $10M per year, but I've seen multiple reports that suggest $20M per year. Since we're dealing with a moribund franchise that has to tarp off sections in the upper bowl to make the rink look fuller, a franchise whose local TV ratings are a paltry 3000 viewers per game, less than late night infomercials, I would say the reports of $20M losses per year are probably more accurate than $10M, which makes my $19M number plausible. It's entirely reasonable to assume that Cohen lost $19M per year for his 8 years, which accounts for the $200M accumulated debt.
You can't separate this $200M from the team, and declare a '$200M transfer value'. That's patently ridiculous, a shallow, transparent attempt to assign a monetary value to a franchise that is indeed worthless.

Look at it another way. Cohen bought the team for $100M. He left with nothing. The so called $200M 'transfer value', is counter balanced by the $200M accumulated debt. Cohen lost his $100M 'investment'. He has $0 to show for that initial $100M. Ask him if the florida panthers are worth anything. At least he was smart enough to know when to cut his losses. As for the other 2 owners who assumed control, it's well known that they don't have much money. It's somewhat surprising that they've managed to keep this franchise going for the last 4 years given the continuing compounding of the annual losses, but their time will come.

So, to summarize, my initial assertion that Cohen 'threw the keys on the table' is indeed true, and the florida panthers franchise is literally worthless. If bettman wants to try to mislead by separating the debt and declaring a $200M 'transfer value', then good for him. I would expect nothing less from that conniving, lying, arrogant little weasel.

HamiltonFan is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 01:39 PM
  #197
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
My god, who dresses these people? Open toe and sandals? No socks required. Do not wear socks with open toed shoes and sandals. Do no wear closed shoes without socks. White socks with sneakers, never with dress shoes. Sigh.

Unless you're a professor wearing Berkies.... then you can do whatever you want as far as fashion (or lack thereof).


(Yeah, I know but this is as relevant as anything else in this thread.... )
It was one of the two fashion related things Paul Beaston ( President of Blue Jays) was
noted for, Dressed to the nines with his $500 shoes but no socks. He always put his feet up to make sure you noticed. The other thing was the big Cuban cigar.

I tried the no socks thing, I wouldn't recommend it unless you can buy new shoes every week. The B O emanating from the feet was just intolerable.

Confucius is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 01:44 PM
  #198
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
I tried the no socks thing, I wouldn't recommend it unless you can buy new shoes every week. The B O emanating from the feet was just intolerable.
You need a stable of shoes with cedar trees. Only wear the same shoes once every 3-4 days - rotate between them. And about once every couple of months, take them in to your shoe guy for fumigation.

That's not a recommendation, BTW - just saying how it's done.

And Fugu - you can blame this on Thom Browne and idea of "male cleavage".

 
Old
02-16-2013, 01:53 PM
  #199
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
You need a stable of shoes with cedar trees. Only wear the same shoes once every 3-4 days - rotate between them. And about once every couple of months, take them in to your shoe guy for fumigation.

That's not a recommendation, BTW - just saying how it's done.

And Fugu - you can blame this on Thom Browne and idea of "male cleavage".
Thanks, I knew I came here to learn something

Confucius is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 02:07 PM
  #200
PSGJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 516
vCash: 50
What I've read regarding Florida is that losses are nowhere near as bad as reported. They do some accounting voodoo to make it look like they lose tons of money. The company that owns the Panthers and run the arena is profitable, largely due to a favorable arena deal. I'm sure there's someone here on the forum who knows more about this.

PSGJ 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 10:44 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.