[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by rage2

Oh I agree for valuation sakes. I'm just making sure people look at the big picture, and that a money losing hockey team isn't the end of the world if there are tangible benefits elsewhere.

You're talking about looking at two different pictures.

Also, from the article behind the chart of numbers:

Originally Posted by Forbes

Here's how Kurt Badenhausen, Christina Settimi and I put the numbers together, and what they mean: Every team was sent a questionnaire, looking for confirmation on ownership, price paid for team, various stadium information, among other information. Sports bankers were hammered with questions on past and potential deals. Publicly available information, such as leases, credit rating documents and financial statements of arenas were gathered and scrutinized. Lots of phone calls to media rights analysts for the skinny on TV deals.


Revenues and operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) are for the 2016-17 season and net of revenue sharing and arena debt service. Our income statements include revenue team owners get from non-NHL events at their arena, but do not include the expansion fee from the Knights that was divvied out to the other 30 teams in the league. We use revenue multiples to calculate our team values (equity plus net debt) based on the economics of each team’s current arena deal. If a team has definite new arena, media deal or sponsorship agreement kicks in subsequent to the 2016-17 season, we estimate its impact on the enterprise value.