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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Forbes World's Most Valuable Franchises (Leafs only NHL team in top 50, $1b)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-15-2013, 08:54 PM
  #26
FrozenJagrt
Registered User
 
FrozenJagrt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
So here's what I don't understand from a serious standpoint-all joking aside:


Detroit wins multiple cups, a team of excellence, measure post for many NHL teams, year after year playoffs, ect-

And yet they don't get the value Toronto does. Why is that? Detroit is doing every thing right year after year, yet don't see the returns.
Bigger market, more fans who are willing to pay more money for worse tickets, more historical value, better barn, more well known brand, better TV contracts.

FrozenJagrt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 09:12 PM
  #27
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 31,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeball11 View Post
$65 M in 02-03. Only one year was Detroit over $68. NYR was over $64 M twice.

They were at $78 MM right before the cap was instituted.
I'm not sure what your point is though?

Edit: I think you meant the Leafs were at $65MM precap? Thanks for the clarification.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 10:56 PM
  #28
syc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not Europe
Posts: 2,125
vCash: 500
Loyal rich fans. If detroit ever went into rebuild mode that building would be half empty.

syc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 11:19 PM
  #29
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 34,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
So here's what I don't understand from a serious standpoint-all joking aside:


Detroit wins multiple cups, a team of excellence, measure post for many NHL teams, year after year playoffs, ect-

And yet they don't get the value Toronto does. Why is that? Detroit is doing every thing right year after year, yet don't see the returns.
Consider for a moment the socioeconomic condition of Detroit and Toronto and you have your answer...

Stephen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 10:39 AM
  #30
TOGuy14
Registered User
 
TOGuy14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,269
vCash: 500
For what it is worth, I think the party / celebration of the Leafs winning the Cup would do more damage than any hockey related riot after a loss anywhere else.

TOGuy14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 11:38 AM
  #31
scotchex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 569
vCash: 500
Some summary stats from the Forbes list:

By Sport
--------
NFL: 30 Teams
MLB: 7 teams
Euro Soccer: 7 teams (3 England, 2 Spain, 1 Italy, 1 Germany)
NBA: 3 teams
F1: 2 teams
NHL: 1 team

By Country:
-------------
USA: 41 teams
UK: 3 teams
Spain: 2 teams
Italy: 2 teams
Germany: 1 team
Canada: 1 team

By Metro
---------
NYC: 5 teams
London: 3 teams (including McLaren)
Chicago: 3 teams
San Francisco: 3 teams (Includes Oakland Raiders)
LA: 2 teams
Boston: 2 teams
DC: 2 teams (I used CSA definitions, so that includes Baltimore Ravens)
Philly: 2 teams


By Language (dominant language of the team)
-------------
English: 45
Spanish: 2
Italian: 2
German: 1

scotchex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 11:46 AM
  #32
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 21,009
vCash: 50
I'd love to see how valuable a majority of NFL teams would be if they weren't, well, in the NFL and paid bonkers national TV money. I mean, the Jags more valuable than the Rangers without that...yeah right.

IU Hawks fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 12:35 PM
  #33
Brodie
it's iggy szn
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 13,015
vCash: 500
without the TV money, they'd all be valueless so...

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 02:41 PM
  #34
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,249
vCash: 500
It is surprising that the Leafs are more valuable than about 10 different NFL teams.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 03:14 PM
  #35
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 33,425
vCash: 5113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charon of Styx View Post
It is surprising that the Leafs are more valuable than about 10 different NFL teams.
Well, according to Forbes, their valuation doubled in the span of a year for some inexplicable reason, so for all that we know they're were, or are, just shooting in the dark with these things.

No Fun Shogun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 04:51 PM
  #36
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 21,009
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
without the TV money, they'd all be valueless so...
Not at all the point. I'm saying that hypothetically if these teams all had their own local deals then then say a national deal for SNF & MNF, where would the lower NFL teams sit?

IU Hawks fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 08:22 PM
  #37
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 14,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
It's not like they were the team with the highest payroll before the cap era. I believe New York, Detroit, and Colorado all had more expensive rosters.
They were consistently in the Top 5.

They didn't spend the extra $10-20 million a year for two reasons: One, the low Canadian dollar. Two, rumour has it that they were cutting back to pay off the ACC ASAP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Well, according to Forbes, their valuation doubled in the span of a year for some inexplicable reason, so for all that we know they're were, or are, just shooting in the dark with these things.
The sale of MLSE is the reason.

If MLSE is suddenly worth $2.05 billion, then their marquee property is easily worth more than the $550 million Forbes previously had the Leafs at.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 09:23 PM
  #38
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 33,425
vCash: 5113
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
The sale of MLSE is the reason.

If MLSE is suddenly worth $2.05 billion, then their marquee property is easily worth more than the $550 million Forbes previously had the Leafs at.
In other words, they rapidly changed their valuation to actually reflect reality. Namely, they were vastly undervaluing the Leafs until this past year.

Still doesn't paint a high picture of the supposed value of these valuations.

No Fun Shogun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 11:17 PM
  #39
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 31,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
In other words, they rapidly changed their valuation to actually reflect reality. Namely, they were vastly undervaluing the Leafs until this past year.

Still doesn't paint a high picture of the supposed value of these valuations.

This one is tough, to suss out the Leafs value separately from the other pieces of MLSE. I think it's a case of the sum of all the pieces amplifying the value of everything else, where the whole isn't really just the sum of the parts. You then just divide up the big number at the end and try to apportion it properly. Problem being that if you actually had to valuate the individual pieces in a vacuum somehow, you'd never get to that same big number at the end.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2013, 10:21 AM
  #40
Burke the Legend
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,412
vCash: 50
Well I question a lot of the valuations because of this. They are counting raw revenue to do the valuation, but there's a lot of different revenue structures that vary.Some streams are credited to some clubs that are controlled by the league for others, or in others are accounted to a larger corporate structure (MSG, MLSE, etc).

The bottom line is that Forbes doesn't have access to the books in most cases, the most transperancy is probably with European soccer clubs which are publicly traded but for most of the NA clubs I doubt they really know much about their real revenue situation which is why they had the Leafs valued at $550m until someone actually came along, looked at the books, and then bought it for 1$ billion or so.

Burke the Legend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2013, 10:51 AM
  #41
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 33,425
vCash: 5113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
This one is tough, to suss out the Leafs value separately from the other pieces of MLSE. I think it's a case of the sum of all the pieces amplifying the value of everything else, where the whole isn't really just the sum of the parts. You then just divide up the big number at the end and try to apportion it properly. Problem being that if you actually had to valuate the individual pieces in a vacuum somehow, you'd never get to that same big number at the end.
But then I suppose the question should be asked if the methodology they used, or are using, for the Leafs is even valid then. Counting the value of other assets combining as part of MLSE towards the Leafs makes about as much sense as counting revenue sharing payments to troubled teams as part of their valuation (which, I think, they actually do do).

It's an interesting read when these valuations, and make good conversation, but they're hardly an ideal, or even accurate, measurement of the real world value of teams.

No Fun Shogun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2013, 10:57 AM
  #42
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burke the Legend View Post
Well I question a lot of the valuations because of this. They are counting raw revenue to do the valuation, but there's a lot of different revenue structures that vary.Some streams are credited to some clubs that are controlled by the league for others, or in others are accounted to a larger corporate structure (MSG, MLSE, etc).

The bottom line is that Forbes doesn't have access to the books in most cases, the most transperancy is probably with European soccer clubs which are publicly traded but for most of the NA clubs I doubt they really know much about their real revenue situation which is why they had the Leafs valued at $550m until someone actually came along, looked at the books, and then bought it for 1$ billion or so.
Well, they are Forbes' valuations, which they generally update accordingly once there is a sale. For example, does anyone know what the lowest-valuated team in the League was according to Forbes? Hint: the franchise was sold relatively cheaply last year, and it wasn't Phoenix.

Grudy0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2013, 06:25 PM
  #43
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 14,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
In other words, they rapidly changed their valuation to actually reflect reality. Namely, they were vastly undervaluing the Leafs until this past year.

Still doesn't paint a high picture of the supposed value of these valuations.
Seems like it, which is odd, because they've all but ignored penny-on-the-dollar sales of franchises like Tampa ($85 million?), Dallas (Assumption of Debt), and Phoenix ($45 million).

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2013, 07:12 PM
  #44
Brodie
it's iggy szn
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 13,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
Not at all the point. I'm saying that hypothetically if these teams all had their own local deals then then say a national deal for SNF & MNF, where would the lower NFL teams sit?
You could make the same point for the EPL teams, though.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2013, 07:43 PM
  #45
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 21,009
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
You could make the same point for the EPL teams, though.
Hardly. They have 3 clubs on this list and nearly the entire NFL made it. PL clubs don't get their value from the TV deals, it's from the revenue thy create themselves. So I don't get what point you're trying to make here at all.

IU Hawks fan is online now   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 10:13 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.