HFBoards

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

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.

OT: Relocation fees to cost Rams, Chargers $645M, Raiders $378M

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-16-2017, 02:51 PM
  #26
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 18,072
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cacciaguida View Post
I hope the Chargers fold. Disloyal waste of a franchise.
uh, the Angels say hello, and both started in LA, Cacciaguida, even though Anaheim/Carson isn't LA.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2017, 03:51 PM
  #27
Cane mutiny
Ahoy_Aho
 
Cane mutiny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Absolutely right, and I'll explain why.

When Peter Karmanos expressed an interest in getting one of the 1992 expansion teams, he was told that the price tag was $50 million. He publicly asked why he'd do that when he could buy an existing team for $15 million, so he bought the Whalers for much less than an expansion team.

The 1993 expansion teams were $50 million each.

When Quebec was sold in 1995, it was for $75 million.

When Winnipeg was sold in 1996, it was for $68 million.

When Edmonton was being sold in 1997, it was for $82 million.

The next four expansion teams bought in at $80 million each.

What the Winnipeg and Quebec sales did not do was damage the market for teams; in fact, it was pushed higher.

Fast forward to 2011, when Atlanta was dumped. Not sold, dumped. The price tag on that ended up being $110 million to ASG, $60 million relocation fee. So it ultimately cost $170 million to buy and move the team.

Far from the previous sales, this would have significantly damaged the marketplace for existing teams rather than even keeping it stagnant. That's why the NHL assessed a relocation fee. If you want a billion-dollar Maple Leafs or Canadiens franchise, you need a stable cushion at the very bottom; if you want a Maple Leafs or Canadiens franchise worth half that, then don't assess the relocation fee.
The Whalers, Jets, Oilers, Nords, were not expansion teams, tho. They were teams from the WHA that merged with the NHL. It's not the same. Also Karmanos and Thewes paid 47.5 mil for the Whalers in 1994. Close to the 50 million asking price, and far more than 15 mil.

Cane mutiny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2017, 04:21 PM
  #28
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cane mutiny View Post
The Whalers, Jets, Oilers, Nords, were not expansion teams, tho. They were teams from the WHA that merged with the NHL. It's not the same. Also Karmanos and Thewes paid 47.5 mil for the Whalers in 1994. Close to the 50 million asking price, and far more than 15 mil.
... actually Cm.... they were treated as "Expansion Franchises" by the NHL rather than a "Merger".... Each team paying $6M for their "Expansion Franchise" which wasnt bad considering the average Expansion Fee through the 70's was about $7M.... However, unlike normal Expansions whereby the in-coming teams at that time got to pick first in the Amateur & Expansion Draft, the former WHA teams were dealt to the bottom of the pack. Additionally, they were only allowed to "protect" 2 skaters & 2 goalies, all of the players who comprised the rest of their rosters having their rights returned to whichever NHL club had last held them and without compensation to the WHA clubs. They also had to pay $125,000 for any player they selected in the Expansion Draft, even if reclaiming a guy they had playing for them on their club the previous season when it was WHA however, that fee applied to the Expansion Fee of $6M.... Convoluted, confusing I know, but thats just the way these guys ride. Still do.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2017, 04:32 PM
  #29
Cane mutiny
Ahoy_Aho
 
Cane mutiny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... actually Cm.... they were treated as "Expansion Franchises" by the NHL rather than a "Merger".... Each team paying $6M for their "Expansion Franchise" which wasnt bad considering the average Expansion Fee through the 70's was about $7M.... However, unlike normal Expansions whereby the in-coming teams at that time got to pick first in the Amateur & Expansion Draft, the former WHA teams were dealt to the bottom of the pack. Additionally, they were only allowed to "protect" 2 skaters & 2 goalies, all of the players who comprised the rest of their rosters having their rights returned to whichever NHL club had last held them and without compensation to the WHA clubs. They also had to pay $125,000 for any player they selected in the Expansion Draft, even if reclaiming a guy they had playing for them on their club the previous season when it was WHA however, that fee applied to the Expansion Fee of $6M.... Convoluted, confusing I know, but thats just the way these guys ride. Still do.
Well, that all seems fair

edit: sounds like punishment for starting up the WHA in the 1st place. You can join us, but you lose everything you have (took).

Cane mutiny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2017, 06:26 PM
  #30
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cane mutiny View Post
Well, that all seems fair

edit: sounds like punishment for starting up the WHA in the 1st place. You can join us, but you lose everything you have (took).
.... have ye' ever been to sea Billy?.... absolutely bent them over.... then came the Oilers... Justice of a kind.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2017, 06:35 PM
  #31
needmorefighting
Registered User
 
needmorefighting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 275
vCash: 500
I still have no idea what the heck the Chargers are doing. Muscling in on LA when nobody in that city likes, wants, or cares about them, and then relegating themselves to some 30k kickball stadium. This cannot possibly end well for them.

needmorefighting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2017, 06:42 PM
  #32
Boris Zubov
Registered User
 
Boris Zubov's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
.... have ye' ever been to sea Billy?.... absolutely bent them over.... then came the Oilers... Justice of a kind.
Can you please expand on that, Kil? Thanks

Boris Zubov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2017, 06:44 PM
  #33
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 18,072
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by needmorefighting View Post
I still have no idea what the heck the Chargers are doing. Muscling in on LA when nobody in that city likes, wants, or cares about them, and then relegating themselves to some 30k kickball stadium. This cannot possibly end well for them.
it's temporary.

remember Hollywood Park isn't done yet, so the Rams are in the same exact position, when they were in Anaheim.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2017, 06:53 PM
  #34
Elephant Igloo
Registered User
 
Elephant Igloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 292
vCash: 500
Moving two teams to Los Angeles within a year was greedy and sloppy. I think the NFL will come to regret it.

Elephant Igloo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2017, 07:15 PM
  #35
needmorefighting
Registered User
 
needmorefighting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
it's temporary.

remember Hollywood Park isn't done yet, so the Rams are in the same exact position, when they were in Anaheim.
But there's no guarantee the Rams even survive in LA a second time around, much less an unwanted little brother.

needmorefighting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2017, 07:17 PM
  #36
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris Zubov View Post
Can you please expand on that, Kil? Thanks
... after essentially deliberately crippling the in-bound WHA teams with those punitive, draconian terms & conditions that all but guaranteed their eventual extinction, Edmonton wins its first of 5 Stanley Cups in just 4 short years, consecutively in 84 & 85, 87 & 88. Totally dominating the League.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2017, 07:46 PM
  #37
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 18,072
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by needmorefighting View Post
But there's no guarantee the Rams even survive in LA a second time around, much less an unwanted little brother.
uh, the Rams nor the Chargers are likely going anywhere...

CHRDANHUTCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2017, 02:14 AM
  #38
Boris Zubov
Registered User
 
Boris Zubov's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... after essentially deliberately crippling the in-bound WHA teams with those punitive, draconian terms & conditions that all but guaranteed their
eventual extinction, Edmonton wins its first of 5 Stanley Cups in just 4 short years, consecutively in 84 & 85, 87 & 88. Totally dominating the League.
Gotcha. Wasn't sure where you were going, but now it makes total sense. At first I thought you were talking financials.

Boris Zubov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2017, 06:38 AM
  #39
USAUSA1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 363
vCash: 500
LA is just not a strong football market. St Louis and San Diego are strong football markets. They move the teams because they needed a reason to build a huge stadium.

USAUSA1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2017, 07:32 AM
  #40
Mike Liut
Registered User
 
Mike Liut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 9,429
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAUSA1 View Post
LA is just not a strong football market. St Louis and San Diego are strong football markets. They move the teams because they needed a reason to build a huge stadium.

Rams moved back to LA because Kroenke was the only owner who was going pay for a stadium with his own money. That's why it took 20 years to get a team in LA. Public money never gets approved in California these days. The NFL broke every one of their relocation rules moving the Rams out of St.Louis. LA is a terrible NFL market. Did you see the 1/2 empty stadium by week 10?

Mike Liut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2017, 02:06 PM
  #41
King_Stannis
Registered User
 
King_Stannis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Erie PA, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,071
vCash: 500
The Chargers and Rams have to to pay more than half a billion dollars because the market the are going to is so valuable that the NFL abandoned it for 20 years.

King_Stannis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2017, 03:02 PM
  #42
USAUSA1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 363
vCash: 500
Its amazing to think the NFL never caught fire in LA and they got the nerve to have two things there. Makes me think Las Vegas will struggle as well. Its one thing to draw 16k fans to a NHL game but 60k fans is harder to draw in a non established market and the NFL is not bulletproof like many people think.

USAUSA1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2017, 03:45 PM
  #43
OmniCube
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by needmorefighting View Post
I still have no idea what the heck the Chargers are doing. Muscling in on LA when nobody in that city likes, wants, or cares about them, and then relegating themselves to some 30k kickball stadium. This cannot possibly end well for them.
Don't worry, they'll sell out at least 1 game this season, though everyone in the stands for that game will be wearing Silver and Black.

OmniCube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2017, 02:39 PM
  #44
Cacciaguida
Registered User
 
Cacciaguida's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ottawa
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 713
vCash: 500
it's gonna be funny seeing the Chargers in St Louis in a decade.

Cacciaguida is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2017, 09:03 PM
  #45
needmorefighting
Registered User
 
needmorefighting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cacciaguida View Post
it's gonna be funny seeing the Chargers in St Louis in a decade.
The NFL isn't going down that road again.

Not many places left for the NFL to expand into. Toronto perhaps. Europe isn't happening.

needmorefighting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2017, 09:17 PM
  #46
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by needmorefighting View Post
The NFL isn't going down that road again.

Not many places left for the NFL to expand into. Toronto perhaps. Europe isn't happening.
As mush as I would love to have a team here, I don't see it happening. The Chargers and Raiders were free agents for a year and never even gave Toronto a sniff. Toronto won't contribute to a stadium so whoever comes here is going to have to pony up $1.5-$2 billion in today's dollars on top of a $1.5 billion franchise fee. Since the Chargers will be paying the fee over 10 years starting with when they move into the new stadium I could see them bailing on LA after 5 years in the new stadium if they haven't established a fan base there

aqib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2017, 09:47 PM
  #47
Gnashville
One and Done
 
Gnashville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Crossville TN
Country: United States
Posts: 9,313
vCash: 500
I still don't get why the Chargers did not go to Las Vegas and let the Raiders have LA back.

Gnashville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2017, 09:57 PM
  #48
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
Dead Dove-Do Not Eat
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Carr.187 Km9
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 5,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnashville View Post
I still don't get why the Chargers did not go to Las Vegas and let the Raiders have LA back.
I'd have preferred it. Las Vegas was definitely third place in the whole relocation thing, after LA twice. There's just too much potential in LA.

__________________
You pressed You, referring to me. That is incorrect. The correct answer is You.
BattleBorn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2017, 10:13 PM
  #49
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnashville View Post
I still don't get why the Chargers did not go to Las Vegas and let the Raiders have LA back.
I'm not sure the Las Vegas Chargers would have worked that well. The Raiders have a national fan base that travels well. You'll have plenty of people from all over Cali pouring into Vegas for the Raiders every week that you wouldn't have if it was the Chargers.

aqib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2017, 10:57 PM
  #50
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 18,072
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnashville View Post
I still don't get why the Chargers did not go to Las Vegas and let the Raiders have LA back.
THE DEAL WAS struck by the NFL, Gnashville, had the Chargers not taken the deal with the Rams over Hollywood Park, then, only then, would Mark Davis entertain that deal.

CHRDANHUTCH 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 03:59 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.