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.

lets all feel sorry for CRL (sigh)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-29-2004, 11:05 PM
  #1
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,669
vCash: 500
lets all feel sorry for CRL (sigh)

lets all feel sorry for CRL .. one of the poster boys for "cost certainty"

source: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1208/nhl_26.html

- The Carolina Hurricanes are owned by Peter Karmanos Jr, who bought them in 1994 for $48 mil.
- Current Value $109 mil
- The team controls the lease to a new arena and sold the arena's naming rights to RBC Centura for $80 million

So, lets see, in 10 years his team has grown in value by a good 60m and 1 single contract netted the team 80m. Keep in mind, there is ZERO cost to the team to fulfill the obligations to RBC, other than to have a sign on the building.

Yup, those owners are hard done by, unless of course you dont believe Forbes. Forbes reputation surely carries as much weight as Levitts, no ?

Only a a few teams (can count on one hand) hasnt seen expontential franchise value growth.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
09-29-2004, 11:20 PM
  #2
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
lets all feel sorry for CRL .. one of the poster boys for "cost certainty"

source: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1208/nhl_26.html

- The Carolina Hurricanes are owned by Peter Karmanos Jr, who bought them in 1994 for $48 mil.
- Current Value $109 mil
- The team controls the lease to a new arena and sold the arena's naming rights to RBC Centura for $80 million

So, lets see, in 10 years his team has grown in value by a good 60m and 1 single contract netted the team 80m. Keep in mind, there is ZERO cost to the team to fulfill the obligations to RBC, other than to have a sign on the building.

Yup, those owners are hard done by, unless of course you dont believe Forbes. Forbes reputation surely carries as much weight as Levitts, no ?

Only a a few teams (can count on one hand) hasnt seen expontential franchise value growth.

DR
love it

mr gib is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 11:26 PM
  #3
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,391
vCash: 500
The link you gave says it all: 70% of Carolina's revenues go to the players.

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 12:13 AM
  #4
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,669
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
The link you gave says it all: 70% of Carolina's revenues go to the players.
yup, the owners choice. he could have chosen to pay players less, but then maybe his franchise value wouldnt have grown by 100%.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
09-30-2004, 12:40 AM
  #5
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
lets all feel sorry for CRL .. one of the poster boys for "cost certainty"

source: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1208/nhl_26.html

- The Carolina Hurricanes are owned by Peter Karmanos Jr, who bought them in 1994 for $48 mil.
- Current Value $109 mil
- The team controls the lease to a new arena and sold the arena's naming rights to RBC Centura for $80 million

So, lets see, in 10 years his team has grown in value by a good 60m and 1 single contract netted the team 80m. Keep in mind, there is ZERO cost to the team to fulfill the obligations to RBC, other than to have a sign on the building.
A nice deceptive post. That's 80 million over 20 years, a paltry 4 million a year. Which simply means instead of losing 17 million in 2003, they "only" lost 13 million. And likely lost even more this year. But you don't mention the losses at all, do you?

As for the increase in value, it's all on paper. They can value it at anything they want (and that number is before debt), but until they sell, it's unknown what the actual sale price would be. Ask Anaheim how easy it is to get someone to fork over that 100+ million the team is worth on paper.

But even then, let's assume they get it. So they gain 60 million over 10 years. Too bad the losses over that 10 years are over 60 million.

There are *two* sides to finances. Looking at revenue and assets only is inane.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 12:59 AM
  #6
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
A nice deceptive post. That's 80 million over 20 years, a paltry 4 million a year. Which simply means instead of losing 17 million in 2003, they "only" lost 13 million. And likely lost even more this year. But you don't mention the losses at all, do you?

As for the increase in value, it's all on paper. They can value it at anything they want (and that number is before debt), but until they sell, it's unknown what the actual sale price would be. Ask Anaheim how easy it is to get someone to fork over that 100+ million the team is worth on paper.

But even then, let's assume they get it. So they gain 60 million over 10 years. Too bad the losses over that 10 years are over 60 million.

There are *two* sides to finances. Looking at revenue and assets only is inane.
bull

mr gib is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 01:01 AM
  #7
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr gib
bull
Well thought-out, rational post. Maybe you could mention the part you disagree with?

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 01:04 AM
  #8
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
Well thought-out, rational post. Maybe you could mention the part you disagree with?
two sides with different views - the nature of the problem in the first place -

mr gib is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 01:05 AM
  #9
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
As for the increase in value, it's all on paper. They can value it at anything they want (and that number is before debt), but until they sell, it's unknown what the actual sale price would be. Ask Anaheim how easy it is to get someone to fork over that 100+ million the team is worth on paper.
Those valuations are a bit deceptive. Take the sale of the Thrashers about 6 months ago.

The new owners (Atlanta Spirit LLC) bought the Hawks, Thrashers and the operating rights to Philips Arena for $250M. At the time of the sale, the Hawks were quoted as being worth $204M and the Thrashers worth $134M (no real change in those numbers over the last six months). Don't know what money value could be put on the operating rights to Philips, but it is a decent sum.

So either these valuations are way off, or AOL/TW made a bad deal. They needed to off-load the teams to relieve some of their debt, but I somehow doubt they would have made such a terrible deal if those valuations were accurate. They weren't that desperate. And they had another buyer (David McDavid) but blew him off at the last minute. Makes it a little scarier if the deal they made with Atlanta Spirit was a step up from what McDavid was offering.

I agree, the valuations don't mean much until you try to sell the team.

cws is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 01:13 AM
  #10
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw7
Those valuations are a bit deceptive. Take the sale of the Thrashers about 6 months ago.

The new owners (Atlanta Spirit LLC) bought the Hawks, Thrashers and the operating rights to Philips Arena for $250M. At the time of the sale, the Hawks were quoted as being worth $204M and the Thrashers worth $134M (no real change in those numbers over the last six months). Don't know what money value could be put on the operating rights to Philips, but it is a decent sum.

So either these valuations are way off, or AOL/TW made a bad deal. They needed to off-load the teams to relieve some of their debt, but I somehow doubt they would have made such a terrible deal if those valuations were accurate. They weren't that desperate. And they had another buyer (David McDavid) but blew him off at the last minute. Makes it a little scarier if the deal they made with Atlanta Spirit was a step up from what McDavid was offering.

I agree, the valuations don't mean much until you try to sell the team.
good quote - which is exactly what ted turner did - the thrasher apple cart with it -

mr gib is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 02:03 AM
  #11
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr gib
good quote - which is exactly what ted turner did - the thrasher apple cart with it -
Even one of the zen koans might be more understandable and more relevant than that reply.

But we each go about it in our own different ways.


Last edited by cw7: 09-30-2004 at 01:15 PM.
cws is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 06:41 AM
  #12
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,943
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
lets all feel sorry for CRL .. one of the poster boys for "cost certainty"

source: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1208/nhl_26.html

- The Carolina Hurricanes are owned by Peter Karmanos Jr, who bought them in 1994 for $48 mil.
- Current Value $109 mil
- The team controls the lease to a new arena and sold the arena's naming rights to RBC Centura for $80 million

So, lets see, in 10 years his team has grown in value by a good 60m and 1 single contract netted the team 80m. Keep in mind, there is ZERO cost to the team to fulfill the obligations to RBC, other than to have a sign on the building.

Yup, those owners are hard done by, unless of course you dont believe Forbes. Forbes reputation surely carries as much weight as Levitts, no ?

Only a a few teams (can count on one hand) hasnt seen expontential franchise value growth.

DR
Remains to be seen when actual sales take place. Canes lost $17m in value last year, many of the teams are on downward slopes over the last year or so of those valuations. Are the 2003 starting to show a major market correction? It'll be interesting to see what the 2004 valuations bring. Also that high valuation was just after a Stanley Cups finals appearance, they've sucked since then. No wonder they are dropping in value.

As for the naming rights I'd bet it hasn't contract it hasn't netted Canes anything like $80m. It might by the time its finished in another 15 or so years but remaining years are all pie in the sky till their paid. They can't exactly pay the players today out of money they'll get in 15 years. If they relocation they deal is probably invalidated, if they fold its probably invalidated etc.

No Forbes doesn't carry the same weight unless they went through the books with the same detail as Levitt.


Last edited by me2: 09-30-2004 at 06:48 AM.
me2 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 09:28 AM
  #13
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 110,427
vCash: 5602
1-Yr Value
Change -14%

Operating
Income(4) -$13 mil




I hope he has more tricks like that up his sleeve, or he sells the team right now because within not too long he's gonna be right back where he started.


Poor gate revenues didn't help.

GKJ is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 10:00 AM
  #14
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
Poor gate revenues didn't help.
Damn CBA (ironic)

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 10:35 AM
  #15
Bob Clarke Fan Club
Registered User
 
Bob Clarke Fan Club's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
Well thought-out, rational post. Maybe you could mention the part you disagree with?

Thanks...knew I wasn't the only person here who wanted to say that.

Bob Clarke Fan Club is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 12:07 PM
  #16
Bruwinz37
Registered User
 
Bruwinz37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 26,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr gib
bull
Wow, who could argue with this? Its posts like this that make HF a worthwile place to discuss differences in opinions.


Bruwinz37 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 01:01 PM
  #17
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,253
vCash: 500
Doesn't matter how much money the team is worth or how much money the team makes if they have to spend more than that to be competitive in the league. Here's the thing that people don't think about, what if the teams who are losing money didn't spend that extra money on the players and chose to instead break even? Many of these teams would have lost overall quality of their teams and that quality would have gone to the teams who are making the most money and have profits to spend. There would be quite a few players that would then be making the most lucrative teams even better than they are by setting the market. It would come closer and closer to having 4-6 teams that should even be in the playoffs and 24-26 teams who are their developmental league. If that's what you want, petition the NHL to set up a 6 team league based on the teams that spend the money, and let the other 24 teams compete in a minor league by comparison.

Better yet, split the teams who want a cap and the teams who want to spend. I've proposed this times before too. Split the two sides up, one with no cap and a salary floor, the other with a cap. Keep them as seperate leagues for the most part and let the finalists play for the Cup at the end. It could work, and it'd keep most of the competition among teams of equal value.

Guest is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 01:20 PM
  #18
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
yup, the owners choice. he could have chosen to pay players less, but then maybe his franchise value wouldnt have grown by 100%.

dr
Maybe he shouldn't have offered Sergei Fedorov $28 million for four months of work in 1998 out of spite.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 04:30 PM
  #19
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,779
vCash: 500
wow - what a reaction - the plea's for the owner's i just don't get - on and on and on you go - i'm in the entertainment buisness - capping salaries is nuts - i love brian burke - just don't pony up - let em walk - yashin - now wang is pouring cash into the building in long island - who's going broke here -

ps - i really don't mean to offend anyone

mr gib is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 09:25 PM
  #20
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
lets all feel sorry for CRL .. one of the poster boys for "cost certainty"

source: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1208/nhl_26.html

- The Carolina Hurricanes are owned by Peter Karmanos Jr, who bought them in 1994 for $48 mil.
- Current Value $109 mil
- The team controls the lease to a new arena and sold the arena's naming rights to RBC Centura for $80 million

So, lets see, in 10 years his team has grown in value by a good 60m and 1 single contract netted the team 80m. Keep in mind, there is ZERO cost to the team to fulfill the obligations to RBC, other than to have a sign on the building.

Yup, those owners are hard done by, unless of course you dont believe Forbes. Forbes reputation surely carries as much weight as Levitts, no ?

Only a a few teams (can count on one hand) hasnt seen expontential franchise value growth.

DR

You missed the (1) after the value that says without deduction for debt. The debt load is at 55%, so your $109 mil is worth $49.05 mil after a deduction for debt.

You trust Forbes numbers? They say that 18 of the franchises lost value in the last year, and that's before debt. While 20 lost money, for a total of $123.7 mil in losses. These are 2003 numbers but I doubt much changed for the better in the last year.

BM67 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 09:43 PM
  #21
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67
You missed the (1) after the value that says without deduction for debt. The debt load is at 55%, so your $109 mil is worth $49.05 mil after a deduction for debt.

You trust Forbes numbers? They say that 18 of the franchises lost value in the last year, and that's before debt. While 20 lost money, for a total of $123.7 mil in losses. These are 2003 numbers but I doubt much changed for the better in the last year.
you can see the confusion - players vs owners

mr gib is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 12:47 AM
  #22
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr gib
wow - what a reaction - the plea's for the owner's i just don't get - on and on and on you go - i'm in the entertainment buisness - capping salaries is nuts - i love brian burke - just don't pony up - let em walk - yashin - now wang is pouring cash into the building in long island - who's going broke here -

ps - i really don't mean to offend anyone
I don't get the plea for the owners or the players. Doesn't make sense to me from a business/financial standpoint that people could almost completely believe one side above the other. Whether they believe it or not, both sides had a hand in causing this mess.

But the blame-game seems to be one of the few ways to keep the discussions going, sad as that may be.

cws is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 03:36 AM
  #23
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,642
vCash: 500
this article on the canes missed something, unless im blind. they had to pay a penalty fee of 20 million dollars to hartford for leaving before they were allowed to. i dont see that 20 million anywhere in here.

bleedgreen is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 10:19 AM
  #24
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw7
I don't get the plea for the owners or the players. Doesn't make sense to me from a business/financial standpoint that people could almost completely believe one side above the other. Whether they believe it or not, both sides had a hand in causing this mess.

But the blame-game seems to be one of the few ways to keep the discussions going, sad as that may be.
how can the players agree to a cap - a share of the total revenues - if the owners don't show them the - real - books - ?

mr gib is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 11:02 AM
  #25
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,943
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr gib
how can the players agree to a cap - a share of the total revenues - if the owners don't show them the - real - books - ?
Perhaps if the players put forward a list of items they consider as revenue and the % of that revenue they will settle for then NHL might listen and both sides might get a deal done before Christmas 2058.

me2 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 02:56 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.