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.

2009 Forbes NHL Team Valuations

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2009, 10:11 AM
  #26
The Messenger
Registered User
 
The Messenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert Marshall days View Post
How does Forbes have Islanders losing only $5.5 mil when their owner claims he's lost $20+ mil every year for the last 5 years?

How does San Jose lose $5 mil a year with great attendance and corporate support?
Big difference between operating profit (EBITDA) and actual profit. Both can be true. The Leafs actual profit is much, much less than the operating profit shown in Forbes.

The Messenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 10:32 AM
  #27
Sony Eriksson*
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: N. Dallas/NYC
Country: Faroe Islands
Posts: 13,583
vCash: 500
Forbes new team values

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/31/...ions_Rank.html

Dallas at #8 ...... cool!



MOD: moved from NHL Talk to BOHB.


Last edited by Fugu: 11-12-2009 at 11:30 AM. Reason: move/merge
Sony Eriksson* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 10:32 AM
  #28
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
"30 Healthy Franchises"???? Makes me wonder what books is GB looking at when says that?

CC Chiefs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 10:34 AM
  #29
brtriad
Registered User
 
brtriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Loop
Country: United States
Posts: 13,004
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to brtriad
Wow. The profit drop off from the Leafs to number two is just scary.

brtriad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 10:36 AM
  #30
Ron Fournier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Montreal Area
Posts: 84
vCash: 500
Calgary losing money

Ron Fournier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 10:41 AM
  #31
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Courtesy Flush View Post
The exercise looks like total BS to me. Look at the Habs page.

Gillette sold 80% of the team and the Bell Centre for $500 million. Forbes then valued the team with the Bell Centre for $331 million, and noted the sale!

Forbes must be throwing darts at a dartboard to come up with values.

TaketheCannoli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 10:42 AM
  #32
octopi
Registered User
 
octopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 30,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Fournier View Post
Calgary losing money
...Half the teams in the league losing money, apparently.

I'm a little surprised Washington is losing $4.5, even after going up 15% from last year. Everybody and their dog is buying Ovechkin stuff.

And i'm also the suspicious type of person, I'm wondering how many of these teams have fudged books. A lot of these owners have other things they run, its so easy to divert money from one thing to another.

octopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 10:47 AM
  #33
AfroThunder396
Lou's Secret Sauce
 
AfroThunder396's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 22,405
vCash: 500
I love how people think moving a team to Canada will instantly make it successful despite the fact that half of the Canadian teams are losing money.

AfroThunder396 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 10:57 AM
  #34
TorFC-TML*
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Ireland
Posts: 2,247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfroThunder396 View Post
I love how people think moving a team to Canada will instantly make it successful despite the fact that half of the Canadian teams are losing money.


The argument isnt 'move a team to Canada, it will instantly be successful'.

The argument is 'move a team to souhtern Ontario, it wil be instantly successful'.

TorFC-TML* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 10:59 AM
  #35
Frankie Spankie
Registered User
 
Frankie Spankie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Dorchester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfroThunder396 View Post
I love how people think moving a team to Canada will instantly make it successful despite the fact that half of the Canadian teams are losing money.
Actually only 2 Canadian teams are operating at a loss (Calgary and Ottawa) and 14 teams are operating at a loss. Looking at the small sample of the NHL, it would suggest that Canadian teams at least have a better chance of being successful.

Frankie Spankie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 11:08 AM
  #36
oilers_guy_eddie
Registered User
 
oilers_guy_eddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Intolerable climate
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 10,733
vCash: 500
I doubt Calgary is "losing money". I suspect the figures include financing costs and creative accounting. There's no other explanation for how the Flames can have higher revenue than the Oilers, yet be "losing money" while the Oilers are making money.

oilers_guy_eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 11:09 AM
  #37
BreakTheWallsDown
HFBoards Prospect
 
BreakTheWallsDown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kennesaw, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,317
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BreakTheWallsDown Send a message via MSN to BreakTheWallsDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krejci46 View Post
Actually only 2 Canadian teams are operating at a loss (Calgary and Ottawa) and 14 teams are operating at a loss. Looking at the small sample of the NHL, it would suggest that Canadian teams at least have a better chance of being successful.
or it's because there are way more American teams so the chance for having a team thats losing money is greater.

Competing with 5 other teams in a country is easier than competing with 23 other teams in another.

BreakTheWallsDown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 11:09 AM
  #38
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfroThunder396 View Post
I love how people think moving a team to Canada will instantly make it successful despite the fact that half of the Canadian teams are losing money.
Southern Ontario is a very safe bet. But I don't believe Winnipeg or Quebec City can succeed like a lot of people do.

RogerRoeper* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 11:11 AM
  #39
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brtriad View Post
Wow. The profit drop off from the Leafs to number two is just scary.
It wasn't that long ago that the Leafs were #2 behind the Rangers. They'll widening the gap every year.

RogerRoeper* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 11:12 AM
  #40
Jonas1235
Registered User
 
Jonas1235's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by yooper wings fan View Post
"30 Healthy Franchises"???? Makes me wonder what books is GB looking at when says that?
What books are Forbes looking at?

Jonas1235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 11:17 AM
  #41
octopi
Registered User
 
octopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 30,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilers_guy_eddie View Post
I doubt Calgary is "losing money". I suspect the figures include financing costs and creative accounting. There's no other explanation for how the Flames can have higher revenue than the Oilers, yet be "losing money" while the Oilers are making money.
Ah, creative accounting, that's the phrase I was looking for.

but actaully there are some explainations as to why more intake could =less profit.

Simply put, they're more expensive to run for various reasons.

Although I still remain skeptical, because I think theres a huge deal of "creative accounting" not neccesarily the Flames, pretty much many teams.

octopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 11:20 AM
  #42
LawnDemon
Registered User
 
LawnDemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Danger Bay
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,984
vCash: 500
I don't understand how the Oilers can be that low on the list while being one of the few teams making a profit. OF course, the fact that the Oilers suck and have lots of terribad contracts should factor into it but so should the legions of fans who keep showing up to watch inferior hockey. The fact that they are bad and yet still selling out every game is significant.

One would assume, when determining business value, that one might want to consider the ability to make money specifically during difficult times...

LawnDemon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 11:24 AM
  #43
Gulvorn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ohio St/Cincy/Dayton
Country: United States
Posts: 4,578
vCash: 500
Some of the teams on those lists have 100% attendance but are still losing money. Plus, you obviously aren't familiar with the fact that if you don't sell a certain number of tickets in a year, then you don't get revenue sharing.


Last edited by mouser: 11-12-2009 at 12:20 PM. Reason: qdp
Gulvorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 11:25 AM
  #44
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulvorn View Post
Some of the teams on those lists have 100% attendance but are still losing money. Plus, you obviously aren't familiar with the fact that if you don't sell a certain number of tickets in a year, then you don't get revenue sharing.
That's a pretty flawed system though. Nashville has bought their own tickets to qualify. The NHL should not alow that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LawnDemon View Post
I don't understand how the Oilers can be that low on the list while being one of the few teams making a profit. OF course, the fact that the Oilers suck and have lots of terribad contracts should factor into it but so should the legions of fans who keep showing up to watch inferior hockey. The fact that they are bad and yet still selling out every game is significant.

One would assume, when determining business value, that one might want to consider the ability to make money specifically during difficult times...
It's the market they're in. Edmonton is a tiny market.

RogerRoeper* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 11:36 AM
  #45
jabberhockey
 
jabberhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 713
vCash: 500
Mod: deleted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by illusion856 View Post
or it's because there are way more American teams so the chance for having a team thats losing money is greater.

Competing with 5 other teams in a country is easier than competing with 23 other teams in another.
Teams from the US do not necessarily compete with each other for the same fans and even if they did this logic is flawed since the US has a much larger population than Canada.

By this logic, competing with 5 teams in a country of 30,000,000 would actually be considered much harder than competing with 23 teams in a country of 300,000,000.

It’s pretty obvious to most that Canada per capita has more hockey fans. Thus, all things being equal, an NHL team likely has a greater chance of succeeding in Canada than the US.


Last edited by Fugu: 11-12-2009 at 11:43 AM. Reason: generalization, indirect flame
jabberhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 11:36 AM
  #46
Gulvorn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ohio St/Cincy/Dayton
Country: United States
Posts: 4,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
That's a pretty flawed system though. Nashville has bought their own tickets to qualify. The NHL should not alow that.



It's the market they're in. Edmonton is a tiny market.
My point was just that there are different reasons for the lose of money. Some are tiny markets like Edmonton, but still sell out. Many of the teams on that list that are losing money have good attendance. So it's just misleading. If the Jackets didn't have a bad contract with Nationwide Arena then I think they'd be doing much better.

But I think you get a hint of how good the market in Columbus could be considering they tied 6th in 1 year value change after just simply making the playoffs and getting swept.

Gulvorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 11:40 AM
  #47
Gulvorn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ohio St/Cincy/Dayton
Country: United States
Posts: 4,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Spy A Sedin Duck View Post
Teams from the US do not necessarily compete with each other for the same fans and even if they did this logic is flawed since the US has a much larger population than Canada.

By this logic, competing with 5 teams in a country of 30,000,000 would actually be considered much harder than competing with 23 teams in a country of 300,000,000.

It’s pretty obvious to most that Canada per capita has more hockey fans. Thus, all things being equal, an NHL team likely has a greater chance of succeeding in Canada than the US.
There isn't that much competition between markets but here's the main problem with it in the U.S. On the East coast, the population is much higher and much closer and teams are a lot closer together. Rangers, New Jersey, Islanders etc. So who would be an Islanders fan if you could be a Jersey or Rangers fan?

Then there's also recently added teams. I know a lot of people here in Ohio who are Red Wings or Penguins fans. Both cities are 150 miles away from here and Ohio never had a hockey team of it's own. Plus, both these teams have been good for years. Now that Columbus has the Blue Jackets, theres still a lot of Red Wings and Pens fans here, and they have to compete with this because the history is against them.

Gulvorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 11:52 AM
  #48
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
Some other curious info from the Forbes' charts/statements.

-- Edmonton had plus 9.4 million in operating income last year, without revenue sharing (I understand) and without making the playoffs?

-- San Jose had a negative 5.0 million in operating income last year with about the same revenues as Edmonton and they had a very successful team that made the playoffs.

-- the Predators had negative 5.7 million in operating income despite a low payroll and revenue sharing. Forbes included the following statement:



http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/31/...rs_310472.html

GHOST
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert Marshall days View Post
How does Forbes have Islanders losing only $5.5 mil when their owner claims he's lost $20+ mil every year for the last 5 years?

How does San Jose lose $5 mil a year with great attendance and corporate support?
I usually take the claims of "losses" by the Sharks with a large grain of salt. The Sharks claim to lose money, but SVSE which owns the Sharks and operates the HP Pavilion makes a significant profit. The Sharks can claim losses by allocating revenues and expenses between the two - unlike HRR there are no rules for PR losses.

When I directly asked Greg Jaimeson about this at a STH breakfast, I got a tap dancing answer and a VERY uncomfortable look.

That being said - I wouldn't be surprised if the Sharks (by a reasonable definition of revenues and expenses) did lose some money last season due to a significantly increased payroll and a first round playoff exit - however SVSE remains quite profitable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
That's a pretty flawed system though. Nashville has bought their own tickets to qualify. The NHL should not alow that.
No. They're were reports that the Predators looked into doing that, but attendance increased in the second half of the year (as it always does) and it was never necessary. Both the Nashville and the league have denied that any tickets were bought.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 12:10 PM
  #49
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
That's a pretty flawed system though. Nashville has bought their own tickets to qualify. The NHL should not alow that.


Nashville did not buy their own tickets. This comes up over and over but it didn't happen.

They did discuss the option, as per this TSN story

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=264253

Quote:
According to the Tennessean, Predators officials have discussed the option of buying up unsold tickets to ensure they collect the maximum revenue-sharing from the league. Earlier this month, an ESPN.com report indicated the Coyotes forfeited 25% of their full share for failing to meet specific targets.
They discussed the option. The League let them know that buying their own tickets would not qualify the team for a full share. Additionally, Nashville attendance exceeded the required 14,000 seat minimum.

I've verified this with both James Mirtle and John Glennon.

TaketheCannoli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 12:14 PM
  #50
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert Marshall days View Post
How does San Jose lose $5 mil a year with great attendance and corporate support?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
That being said - I wouldn't be surprised if the Sharks (by a reasonable definition of revenues and expenses) did lose some money last season due to a significantly increased payroll and a first round playoff exit - however SVSE remains quite profitable.
I'm guessing, even with the economy down turn, with all the cost cutting the team (and SVSE) did to restrict costs, that they were shooting for break even after 2nd-3rd round of playoffs (5+ home games).

The fact that they "only" lost $5m (which is about the number that Pres/CEO Jamison announced as the loss for 08-09), is OK (insofaras it's a down turn economy, etc.).

LadyStanley 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 09:11 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.