NHL Team Valuations

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Absolutely brutal take.

Why? It's my opinion on how I want to spend my money. Sorry if it doesn't conform to your liking.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

It really doesn't, especially as it pertains to sports team ownership. Valuations are wildly inaccurate and never amount to a hill of beans. The value of the team only matters when someone is trying to sell it. What other mechanism will the valuation of the team matter?



Being 21st in revenue is a bit problematic, especially in a league where most teams are likely not making a lot of money. You may claim it's an exclusive club, but if only 10 of 32 members are making money, then coming in the top 10 is kind of important, no? The numbers reported certainly fly in the face of the claims the Flames are some juggernaut of a market.



Misleading is suggesting the Flames are in great shape and raking it in. More data is required to determine just how healthy the team and market is. Suggesting being 21st in a 32 team league is a good thing is something I never thought I would hear someone say. I guess Phoenix is in a great shape too, seeing as they are a member of that same very exclusive club?

The Nashville predators were just sold for ~ 3/4 of a billion. So there's real money to be had here. Sale is not the only way you can derive value from an asset though.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Why? It's my opinion on how I want to spend my money. Sorry if it doesn't conform to your liking.

No, it's your opinion about how the government should spend its tax revenue. Suggesting that you want tax dollars to only go to things you would personally enjoy using is... not a very defensible theory of public policy.

[Monahammer]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/flamesn...p-40-years-ago

Here's a Ryan pike article from 2 years ago. Og sale of flames to ownership group (still partially intact) was 16 million. In today's dollars about 70 million.

Please lanny, tell us how a ten times multiplier on an investment isn't enriching oneself. You clearly have a massive dividends paying stock portfolio, no?

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Misleading information is misleading. Valuations only mean something if you're willing to sell the asset and can find someone willing to give you what that valuation is set at. More importantly, the Flames were 21st in revenues last season. That's substantial, especially when you're spending to the cap and trying to make a profit. Most of the metrics places the Flames in the bottom third of the league, so everything is not roses as the OP would like to suggest. I would actually like to see what teams are turning a profit and what those profits look like. I suspect that the majority of the teams are not in positive situations, including the Flames, especially after the past few years. I seriously doubt that anyone invested in the Flames is doing a Scrooge McDuck money dive with the dollars coming in from this investment.

Well we know what player payroll is, and it would be a massive stretch to assume that the remaining expenses towards operations, travel and staff etc would exceed $90M annually. There's also likely several more revenues that have been conveniently omitted from these figures due to creative accounting on the team's front. There's also likely expenses that are unaccounted for.

Either way, these guys are making dump trucks full of money in their other ventures away from the NHL. It may pale in comparison, but they are certainly all cashing significant cheques on the back of this franchise since the lockout in 2004.

Rest assured, if this team came available, it would be snapped up in a hurry and the league isn't allowing this market to be deleted if the city won't give these greedy owners a massively subsidized building.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

https://www.google.com/amp/s/flamesn...p-40-years-ago

Here's a Ryan pike article from 2 years ago. Og sale of flames to ownership group (still partially intact) was 16 million. In today's dollars about 70 million.

Please lanny, tell us how a ten times multiplier on an investment isn't enriching oneself. You clearly have a massive dividends paying stock portfolio, no?

$16M 42 years ago -> $630M today = about 9.2% per year growth, which is about what you would expect from the stock market.

However, that doesn't account for whatever amount they contributed to building the Saddledome, which would substantially reduce that return.

Spending another few hundred million on an arena in the next few years also changes the equation significantly

[Jiggy]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Well we know what player payroll is, and it would be a massive stretch to assume that the remaining expenses towards operations, travel and staff etc would exceed $90M annually. There's also likely several more revenues that have been conveniently omitted from these figures due to creative accounting on the team's front. There's also likely expenses that are unaccounted for.

Either way, these guys are making dump trucks full of money in their other ventures away from the NHL. It may pale in comparison, but they are certainly all cashing significant cheques on the back of this franchise since the lockout in 2004.

Rest assured, if this team came available, it would be snapped up in a hurry and the league isn't allowing this market to be deleted if the city won't give these greedy owners a massively subsidized building.

Players get paid in USD, while most of their revenue is in CAD. Players salaries alone take expenses over 100 million.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Spending another few hundred million on an arena in the next few years also changes the equation significantly

The question is how much of that new arena spending in the next few years immediately inflates the value of the team. Because the value definitely goes up significantly if they build a new arena, regardless of who owns said arena.

[boogerz]

Originally Posted by Jiggy

Players get paid in USD, while most of their revenue is in CAD. Players salaries alone take expenses over 100 million.

Revenue: $174M USD

Player Salaries: $88M USD

That's $86M USD remaining to cover the operations and administration. If CSEC operations and administration can't breakeven on $86M USD / $117M CAD...

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by boogerz

Revenue: $174M USD

Player Salaries: $88M USD

That's $86M USD remaining to cover the operations and administration. If CSEC operations and administration can't breakeven on $86M USD / $117M CAD...

You have no idea what the costs to run the business are.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

$16M 42 years ago -> $630M today = about 9.2% per year growth, which is about what you would expect from the stock market.

However, that doesn't account for whatever amount they contributed to building the Saddledome, which would substantially reduce that return.

Spending another few hundred million on an arena in the next few years also changes the equation significantly

What is also lost in the equation is the number of cash calls that took place over the years to keep the franchise afloat. The younger generation of fans won't recall this as it was in the darkest days of the franchise and before the currency equalization program. ROI is complex and requires a lot more information than is presented, just like valuation of property.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Someone better inform the entire stock market that asset valuation growth doesn't matter.

Stocks are bought and sold every day. Sports teams aren't. You're comparing a liquid market to an extremely illiquid one, and the comparison is not valid.

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

$16M 42 years ago -> $630M today = about 9.2% per year growth, which is about what you would expect from the stock market.

However, that doesn't account for whatever amount they contributed to building the Saddledome, which would substantially reduce that return.

Spending another few hundred million on an arena in the next few years also changes the equation significantly

I believe the entire Saddledome construction cost was funded via a mix of public funds.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Well we know what player payroll is, and it would be a massive stretch to assume that the remaining expenses towards operations, travel and staff etc would exceed $90M annually.

In other words, you have no information but assume that a hockey team must be cheap to run, because that's the answer you want.

There's also likely several more revenues that have been conveniently omitted from these figures due to creative accounting on the team's front.

In other words, you have no information but assume that the owners are hiding HRR from the NHLPA and its lawyers and accountants, as well as the other 31 owners (who all have a competitive interest in seeing that the salary cap is correctly accounted for), because that's the answer you want.

There's also likely expenses that are unaccounted for.

First accurate thing you've said, as the people doing these valuations have access to the top line (HRR) but not the bottom line.

Either way, these guys are making dump trucks full of money in their other ventures away from the NHL.

Is there something wrong with that? Why shouldn't they just ditch their NHL teams and keep their dump trucks full of money?

It may pale in comparison, but they are certainly all cashing significant cheques on the back of this franchise since the lockout in 2004.

Every team lost a bundle in the 2012 lockout. Every team lost massively from the Covid shutdown. Two events like that can wipe out a lot of years' profits.

Rest assured, if this team came available, it would be snapped up in a hurry and the league isn't allowing this market to be deleted if the city won't give these greedy owners a massively subsidized building.

And this is the conclusion you wanted to reach, so you made up your own facts to reach it. Bravo.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I believe the entire Saddledome construction cost was funded via a mix of public funds.

Considerable private funds went into the renovation in the mid-90s. Haven't got the figures handy.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No, it's your opinion about how the government should spend its tax revenue. Suggesting that you want tax dollars to only go to things you would personally enjoy using is... not a very defensible theory of public policy.

To be clear, I'm also ok spending money on the library as I do understand it's for a public good. All I'm saying is I'm also ok with public money going toward the arena, and that, given the choice of where I'd prefer it to go, for me personally, I'd rather see it it in the arena because I would use it more. Why's that such a hot take?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Absolutely brutal take.

That's what happens when you don't go to the library.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by zamler

That's what happens when you don't go to the library.

Ladies and Gentlemen. Please stay calm. We have a ZAMLER sighting. Please be quiet so as to not scare it away. Look at the plumage on that beast! Truly magnificent!

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Stocks are bought and sold every day. Sports teams aren't. You're comparing a liquid market to an extremely illiquid one, and the comparison is not valid.



Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

My house might be sold once every 20 years. It's still making me a pretty penny when I sell it.

There are buyers out there. So they can realize their gain if they want to.