Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjesse
Today King said some things that take the bite, a little bit, out of his words.
Here is one thing he was quoted as saying: "[Some people ask], why don't you do the [private-funding] deal that was done in Toronto? Why don't you do the deal that was done in Montreal? If we had five million people, or four million people, we would do those deals," he said.
I think that's a reasonable statement. But there's flip side to this, which is, those teams revenues are greater than the Flames, but not by as large of a margin as I would have guessed. According to Forbes:
Montreal Revenue: $202M
Toronto Revenue: $186M
Vancouver Revenue: $146M
Calgary Revenue: $121M
Edmonton Revenue: $117M
Winnipeg Revenue: $112M
Now that doesn't include the revenue from other events, which I'm sure are very lucrative in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, however the multiples of extra millions of people in Toronto and the Montreal greater area do not appear to translate into multiples of revenue. I'm also assuming this counts all Hockey Related Revenue including TV rights payments etc. In that regard Toronto seems low.
Here's the CBC article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...tics-1.4287118 |
The Forbes list also has operating income which is earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation.
If their numbers are right it's pretty easy to do some math on net present value of building their own arenas.
So NPV at 10% for a 35 year building life (I had operating income rise by 2.5% per year)
Montreal - $307M
Toronto - $209M
Every other team has a losing investment.
Vancouver - ($216M)
Calgary - ($345M)
Edmonton - ($375M)
Winnipeg - ($418M)
Ottawa - ($476M)
Very simple analysis but it works.
If you bump that cost down to $200M Calgary moves into the +$18M category, not a big investment gain but a bump.
Clearly franchise values raising makes being in business worthwhile however, assuming the values continue to rise, or at least maintain their value.