What do you exactly mean? Something like how much money would be needed to buy them? If so, I'd say they are worth zero as it's extremely unlikely that anyone would buy them, at least concerning top teams and near future.
__________________
Алексей Черепанов навсегда в наших сердцах
Well I could make a table that would consist of 23 team names and 23 zeroes if that's what you want because what Alessandro already wrote is true - they are not businesses like NA hockey teams. They are worth as much as owner and sponsors are willing to burn on their roster per year. So one could say they have a negative value if that even makes any sense
Well I could make a table that would consist of 23 team names and 23 zeroes if that's what you want because what Alessandro already wrote is true - they are not businesses like NA hockey teams. They are worth as much as owner and sponsors are willing to burn on their roster per year. So one could say they have a negative value if that even makes any sense
While that is probably true, do any KHL teams own the stadiums they play in? If they do even though the sport isn't ran like a business there would be some value in the team because of the stadium.
I can tell you that the disclosed payrolls of KHL teams go from 4 mil to +35 mil.
its extremely varied to say the least.
also the mafia (no exaggeration) owns [at least partially] several teams. so that value is not counted. the black market is a quite substantial part in the russian financial picture. its sortof what NA economists would call "implicit costs".
I can tell you that the disclosed payrolls of KHL teams go from 4 mil to +35 mil.
its extremely varied to say the least.
also the mafia (no exaggeration) owns [at least partially] several teams. so that value is not counted. the black market is a quite substantial part in the russian financial picture. its sortof what NA economists would call "implicit costs".
I can tell you that the disclosed payrolls of KHL teams go from 4 mil to +35 mil.
its extremely varied to say the least.
also the mafia (no exaggeration) owns [at least partially] several teams. so that value is not counted. the black market is a quite substantial part in the russian financial picture. its sortof what NA economists would call "implicit costs".
also the mafia (no exaggeration) owns [at least partially] several teams. so that value is not counted. the black market is a quite substantial part in the russian financial picture. its sortof what NA economists would call "implicit costs".
Did you read that from The Economist or from Guardian?
Do you mean that even Magnitogorsk or Minsk (some of the teams with the better finances in the KHL) would not be worth even what the Florida Panthers would be?
99% of the KHL teams are not profitable, therefore they don't really possess any value to potential buyers, they are more like an instrument in political game.
99% of the KHL teams are not profitable, therefore they don't really possess any value to potential buyers, they are more like an instrument in political game.
first of all there are only 23 teams so 99% doesnt make any sense as a digit.
second they do carry some monetary value. I mean the Ak-Bars brand is not free
Obviously in terms of profitability its not valuable, but thats likewise with many other professional sports clubs in europe-not just hockey in Russia or KHL in specific.
and please, if you could, enlighten me on this 'political game'.
I understand that oligarchs like to own clubs for status and such, but another underlying factor such as politics is not as apparent to me. I dont quite imagine what sort of political statement Severstal is making.
Surely you wont have me believe that brands such as CSKA or Dynamo have NO value. They have owners and to overtake that ownership would cost lots of money.
first of all there are only 23 teams so 99% doesnt make any sense as a digit.
you trolling?
Quote:
second they do carry some monetary value. I mean the Ak-Bars brand is not free
heh, show me any sane businessman who would want to buy that "brand". Obviously if you got so much money that you don't care how much you lose, you are good to go. However, if you are planning to run a profitable business it's not exactly what you want.
Quote:
and please, if you could, enlighten me on this 'political game'.
I understand that oligarchs like to own clubs for status and such, but another underlying factor such as politics is not as apparent to me. I dont quite imagine what sort of political statement Severstal is making.
A lot of teams are sponsored by their respectable areas(regions, oblasts and such) as not every club has Gazprom or TatNeft as their general sponsor, so the governors can use that card for the next elections saying "look, we support sports and stuff" while stealing tons of money...
Quote:
Surely you wont have me believe that brands such as CSKA or Dynamo have NO value. They have owners and to overtake that ownership would cost lots of money.
yeah, Dynamo has such big value that it almost ceased to exist prior to this season. Say thanks to that merger with HC MVD.
Its beyond me how a person can be so inconsistent and lopsided. Either you cant read or cohesively respond to posts, or you have carefully crafted some sort of reply in a manner that does not respond to any of my points.
1/4 forget it
2/4 The valuation of a brand has nothing to do with what YOU think profitable businesses should make or about the level of sanity certain businessmen have.
3/4 The sponsorship, and a sports budget for municipal and provincial regions is a common practice in most countries of the world. This does not suggest any 'political game'. I'd be very interested to hear otherwise, and not with some ambiguous assumption.
4/4 You have not addressed my point at all, just merely gone off topic with some example. Dynamo or CSKA are just examples of valuable clubs that would cost money to acquire. If you dont like the Dynamo example, insert any other club. Nevertheless it would in fact cost you, and therefore prove that the clubs do have value
Moreover it is a common practice for clubs not to be profitable and still carry a value. I doubt that anyone would be foolish enough to say that British Premier league football clubs carry no value, and yet nearly all of them run on debt and deficit. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...e-1912244.html
2/4 The valuation of a brand has nothing to do with what YOU think profitable businesses should make or about the level of sanity certain businessmen have.
If that's so easy, please explain me how Lada Togliatti was disbanded? That was the only big sports brand in a pretty big city. Since the car manufacturer didn't need the team, noone else was there to take over.
Quote:
3/4 The sponsorship, and a sports budget for municipal and provincial regions is a common practice in most countries of the world. This does not suggest any 'political game'. I'd be very interested to hear otherwise, and not with some ambiguous assumption.
You just don't know anything about how it's done in Russia. One governor comes in the office and he likes hockey. So he makes the companies sponsor the teams in return for some tax cuts, then he finds money in the regional budget and the team is secure. Some time later, the next governor comes in and he doesn't give a **** about hockey, the team will be left hanging. That has happened numerous times with many sport teams, not just hockey.
Quote:
Moreover it is a common practice for clubs not to be profitable and still carry a value. I doubt that anyone would be foolish enough to say that British Premier league football clubs carry no value, and yet nearly all of them run on debt and deficit.
That's because the teams have land, infrastructure, stadium, stocks and other possessions. If it's just a "name", nobody will care about it unless it's some rich hardcore fan.
I am not really familiar whether KHL teams own their stadiums and if they are not, you realize that people are not going to pay crazy money just to own that "brand" which only has name and history behind it.
And what sources, we should read according to you?
Hmm, I was under impression that Vitjaz was owned by, erm, shady businessman. The whole concept of their roster building kinda supports this theory.
You must have a very liberal use of the term "mafia" then.
C'mon. 'Shady businessmen' who made millions in the 90s are not currently mafia as understood in Western terms today.
You must have a very liberal use of the term "mafia" then.
C'mon. 'Shady businessmen' who made millions in the 90s are not currently mafia as understood in Western terms today.
Quit being disingenuous
Okay. Term "mafia" clearly isn't used properly in this topic, but how would you describe Vityaz owners? Siloviks (Силовики)?
FSU is a red herring......nothing to do with KHL. OK what KHL teams are supported by mafias? You said several were.
the reason I said FSU because the KHL is an INTERNATIONAL organization. unless you consider latvia, belarus, and khazahkstan part of russia? not to mention places like tatarstan which are amazingly far from muscovite influence. regionalism is quite strong in parts of russia, like really strong.
