Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjesse
Bingo, I don't think I can accept the approach even though I agree EBITDA is needed to compare to top line revenue.
Only because the approach suggests private owners in Vancouver sunk 200 million with full knowledge of doing so. Doesn't there have to be another explanation? Are they true philanthropists?
Also, isn't Ottawa privately funded? By your calculation, over $400 million. Who spends money on that? It doesn't pass the smell test. There has to be more to explain the figures.
One reason I used top line figures is, that's probably the most reliable estimation Forbes can obtain. Although its interesting they claim EBITDA knowledge. And I would agree in general that EBITDA is as important to the equation as the top line, or even moreso, as it informs real profit or losses.
|
To each their own.
To me revenue numbers are kind of pointless without cost numbers, so you jump to the better number which is operating income and you have net revenue streams from a theoretical investment of $600M
I tried to create a vacuum where all 7 teams built a $600M arena that opened the same day and then had their operating income increase by 2.5% per year.
Why would they do it? With the Vancouver and Montreal bankruptcies it certainly suggests they either didn't know their numbers, or had more robust growth assumptions. Either way both private buildings were sold along with the team(s)