HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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 slams Levitt report

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-13-2004, 08:13 AM
  #151
c_mak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Waterloo
Country: Canada
Posts: 752
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to c_mak
Now we have both sides numbers?.. Ok are the players missing something.. Both reports, report a loss. does noone see this as amusing that the two sides are now arguing over how much they lost.???. If you have a business that is lossing money isn't that bad?
I don't side with either of them but .............
I think the players look more ridiculis claiming "look they only lost this much they, the owners, lie" This forbers article is a win for the players

c_mak is offline  
Old
11-13-2004, 08:39 AM
  #152
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67
So arena revenue is hockey revenue, but arena expenses are not hockey expenses? So instead of under reporting profits, you want them to over report them? Were you involved with Enron?
It wasn't me that wanted it both ways. Bryden was declaring he was going broke with his hockey team and using arena taxes as a reason. What I said at the time - and still say - is that rink revenues and team revenues should be set against team and rink expenses. Count 'em both.

When the books were finally published, both made good money before interest and taxes.

Quote:
A few years ago when they were looking for a government bailout for Canadian teams, it was reported that several of the Canadian teams were paying more in "property taxes" than all the US teams combined. Large enough taxes to wipe out the profit of Toronto, so ignoring them is not insignificant.
Shhh. Don't bring this one up. The bailout was required to save hockey in Canada, remember? If we did not pay up taxes, US arena subsidies and player payrolls in American dollars was going to kill NHL hockey in Canada. Bryden even announced he was going to sell and relocate.

The teams did not get their subsidy. It turned out hockey in Canada was not doomed even though there was no subsidy. "Wolf, wolf" shouted Bryden and the fans believed. "The sky is falling, the sky is falling," echoed every Chicken Little.

What happened? Oh yeah. Nothing.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-13-2004, 09:31 AM
  #153
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
Well something slightly more than nothing happened. It turned out apparently that 5 of the 6 Canadian teams were in the most profitable of the league. Even Edmonton was one of the more profitable teams. That leak may not be good for the team. Now their fans may start questioning management a bit. Only Ottawa appears to have lost money during the transition to new ownership, although the franchise value has already risen and they may still be structured to create a loss.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
11-13-2004, 11:17 PM
  #154
QQQ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 48
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Here ya go, according to Forbes Magazine the NHL only lost 93 million in 03/04. Have a read, according to them, most of the money losing teams are losing money for a reason, go figure. Now who looks like a liar?

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/1129/124.html
On reflection of this finding of the NHL losing only 93 mil the NHLPA with their solution are giving more than enough to help fix the problem. Maybe they should scale back their offer.

QQQ is offline  
Old
11-13-2004, 11:36 PM
  #155
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QQQ
On reflection of this finding of the NHL losing only 93 mil the NHLPA with their solution are giving more than enough to help fix the problem. Maybe they should scale back their offer.
Yes scale it back tomorrow. That will get a deal done quickly.

SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 02:59 AM
  #156
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
What taxes do the Canucks pay to the city of Vancouver? What taxes do the Canadiens pay to the city of Montreal? They pay corporate income tax on profits.
Montreal pays at least *8.2 million a year* in property taxes to the city.
http://montreal.cbc.ca/regional/serv..._taxes20042502

Tampa evidently pays a million a year.
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/a...s/2004_02.html

You're supposedly a Canuck fan, and don't know how much they've complained in the past about the millions in taxes they have to pay to all the various levels of govt?

PecaFan is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 08:48 AM
  #157
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Montreal pays at least *8.2 million a year* in property taxes to the city.
http://montreal.cbc.ca/regional/serv..._taxes20042502
What does whether the Forbes report includes taxes have to do with the Bell Centre? The story says that the arena pays property tax. It might matter if the Forbes report valued hockey rinks, but it doesn't. The Forbes report values hockey teams.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 09:32 AM
  #158
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
What does whether the Forbes report includes taxes have to do with the Bell Centre? The story says that the arena pays property tax. It might matter if the Forbes report valued hockey rinks, but it doesn't. The Forbes report values hockey teams.

Tom
In determining team values we include all collateral revenue sources, such as real estate, broadcasting, cable, sponsorships and concessions.

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/1129/124.html

When Forbes says they include all collateral revenue sources, the only real estate I can think of would be what the rink and associated parking lots sit on... It sure sounds like they are determining the value of the team based on the owners other holdings...

The article does go to great lengths to show that the teams that are increasing in value are the teams where the owner has used the team to leverage cable companies and other revenue that is not directly related to the team.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 11:06 AM
  #159
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
In determining team values we include all collateral revenue sources, such as real estate, broadcasting, cable, sponsorships and concessions.

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/1129/124.html

When Forbes says they include all collateral revenue sources, the only real estate I can think of would be what the rink and associated parking lots sit on... It sure sounds like they are determining the value of the team based on the owners other holdings...

The article does go to great lengths to show that the teams that are increasing in value are the teams where the owner has used the team to leverage cable companies and other revenue that is not directly related to the team.
So what? Forbes take a piece of the rink revenues and calls them hockey revenues. The rink revenues that are left in the rink have to cover the property tax. The team doesn't pay property tax on those revenues.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 11:16 AM
  #160
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
What does whether the Forbes report includes taxes have to do with the Bell Centre? The story says that the arena pays property tax. It might matter if the Forbes report valued hockey rinks, but it doesn't. The Forbes report values hockey teams.

Tom
It's clear that the Forbes includes the rinks in the teams values.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 11:19 AM
  #161
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
It's clear that the Forbes includes the rinks in the teams values.
Forbes definitely does not.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 12:57 PM
  #162
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67
A few years ago when they were looking for a government bailout for Canadian teams, it was reported that several of the Canadian teams were paying more in "property taxes" than all the US teams combined. Large enough taxes to wipe out the profit of Toronto, so ignoring them is not insignificant.

Not sure how things stand today, they might be paying a reduced tax, but they are still paying something.
In Ottawa's case, if my memory serves, the profitable Corel Centre (not the money losing team) were paying $4mil in property taxes. And were charged with paying off the highway offramp to the arena, them being the only devlopment in the middle of a cow pasture. Also all expenses were in American dollars.

Bryden successfully lobbied to have the property tax bill cut from $4mil to about $1mil. With all the new land development around the arena now, the govt also agreed to spread the offramp charges through all the new land development charges in the area now benefitting from the arena and new offramp. Development that was also part of the initial reason for building the arena there, and made a lot of money for the various owners as it is now being fully developed. The Canadian dollar also zoomed enough to cover previously stated deficits. We are talking well over $10mil a year overall in savings.

Yet they still need a salary cap.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 01:31 PM
  #163
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Forbes definitely does not.

Tom
It includes the LA Clippers rent paid to the rink in the LA Kings revenues...

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 02:14 PM
  #164
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
It includes the LA Clippers rent paid to the rink in the LA Kings revenues...
So what? That is miles from saying that the Forbes valuations includes the rink. When Forbes says the Kings are worth $193 million, they are definitely not saying that the Kings and the Staples Centre are worth $193 million. It is ridiculous to call the property tax paid by the Staples Centre an expense of the LA Kings. It is ridiculous to say that the property tax paid by the Bell Centre is an expense of the Montreal Canadiens. The property tax affects the profitability and the valuation of the rink. It does not affect the profitability of the team.

It is like Peddie disputing the Forbes report because MLSE has debt. What does the MLSE debt have to do with the value of the Toronto Maple Leafs?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 04:45 PM
  #165
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
What does whether the Forbes report includes taxes have to do with the Bell Centre? The story says that the arena pays property tax. It might matter if the Forbes report valued hockey rinks, but it doesn't. The Forbes report values hockey teams.
Ah, I see. So your position is that the *revenues* from the rink should be included in hockey discussions, but the expenses shouldn't be.

Can't say the inconsistency surprises me.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 05:03 PM
  #166
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Ah, I see. So your position is that the *revenues* from the rink should be included in hockey discussions, but the expenses shouldn't be.
If Sens owner Melnyk, works out a deal with a Bank, to buy board advertising, and a luxury suite, as well as rink ads and work with the foundation, these are rink revenues or team revenues? I can see a valid case for designating them as rink revenues. Unless you are trying to desgnate a revenue figure that players get a percentage of. If the team wasnt in Ottawa, what would the value of that business deal be? I say next to nothing.

In Wirtz's case, it seems $0 of that is desgnated hockey revenue. And the players are expected to cave.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
11-14-2004, 06:15 PM
  #167
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
So what? That is miles from saying that the Forbes valuations includes the rink. When Forbes says the Kings are worth $193 million, they are definitely not saying that the Kings and the Staples Centre are worth $193 million. It is ridiculous to call the property tax paid by the Staples Centre an expense of the LA Kings. It is ridiculous to say that the property tax paid by the Bell Centre is an expense of the Montreal Canadiens. The property tax affects the profitability and the valuation of the rink. It does not affect the profitability of the team.

It is like Peddie disputing the Forbes report because MLSE has debt. What does the MLSE debt have to do with the value of the Toronto Maple Leafs?

Tom
If you include the revenues made by the rink, you need to include the expenses. Anyway, I think it is ludicrous and stupid to do so, and I would probably have failed my accounting exams if I had submitted such an idea.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 01:08 AM
  #168
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Not really getting why the Forbes valuations are being taken so seriously by some. As long as I can remember they have always been "educated guesses", as someone else here put it. And another poster was correct in saying that valuations don't mean much of anything. If someone is buying a team they will go through their due diligence, using info that Forbes doesn't have and subsequently come up with a more accurate number.

You don't even have to go back very far back to see this. At the time of their sale, Forbes had the Hawks and Thrashers valued at somewhere close to $340M combined. The accepted offer for the eventual sale was $250M, and that included the operating rights to Philips Arena as well. Either Forbes was way off in their valuation, or AOL/TW got royally screwed in the deal. Gonna have to go with the former on that one.

Take it with a grain of salt.

cws 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 11:31 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.