Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/#page:1_sort:6_direction:desc_search:

     

    So the Bruins are fifth in value behind the Leafs (who hit the $1 billion mark) Rangers, Habs, and Hawks. Wings round out the top six. They were also fifth in revenue and 8th in operating income. If I read that report correctly, and remember how the old CBA worked, under the old CBA the top ten revenue sharing teams would have been (I think - correct me if I'm wrong as I think it worked around operating income) would have been:

    Leafs

    Rangers

    Canucks

    Wings

    Hawks

    Oilers

    Sens

    Bruins

    Jets (what a difference a relocation makes)

    Flames

     

    I may be wrong in understanding the old CBA, and how rev. sharing worked, but those are the top ten teams for profits as calculated by Forbes.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    and the Leafs are now valued at 1 BILLION.  times are tough.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    I wish I had an extra hundred billion dollars kicking around.  Just one of the fun things I might do is move the Leafs to Hamilton and the habs to Quebec city, and then move Phoenix to Toronto and Tampa to Monteal.  The world would be a WAY funner place if the badhab had over a hundred billion dollars.  Or at least the US would have universal healthcare.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    And the top three ( Montreal, New York and  Detroit) made up 83% of the operating income for the entire NHL. Eye opening !

    Thirteen teams in the negative. Maybe what the owners are trying to sell to the NHLPA isn't a load of crap if these numbers are anywhere close to reality. 

    83% for three teams out of 30. Think about that ! 


     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    In response to BadHabitude's comment:

    I wish I had an extra hundred billion dollars kicking around.  Just one of the fun things I might do is move the Leafs to Hamilton and the habs to Quebec city, and then move Phoenix to Toronto and Tampa to Monteal.  The world would be a WAY funner place if the badhab had over a hundred billion dollars.  Or at least the US would have universal healthcare.



    Buy BDC and allow swearing for all ?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

    In response to BadHabitude's comment:

    I wish I had an extra hundred billion dollars kicking around.  Just one of the fun things I might do is move the Leafs to Hamilton and the habs to Quebec city, and then move Phoenix to Toronto and Tampa to Monteal.  The world would be a WAY funner place if the badhab had over a hundred billion dollars.  Or at least the US would have universal healthcare.



    Buy BDC and allow swearing for all ?



    Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck yeah!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

    And the top three ( Montreal, New York and  Detroit) made up 83% of the operating income for the entire NHL. Eye opening !

    Thirteen teams in the negative. Maybe what the owners are trying to sell to the NHLPA isn't a load of crap if these numbers are anywhere close to reality. 

    83% for three teams out of 30. Think about that ! 





    That is crazy..I know Forbes usually releases this info once a year..Is it the same timing as last year? I wonder if one of these rich owners had soemthing to do with this story being released at this time. I'm probably reading too much into it, so if it was the same time as all the years before, disregard my conspiracy theory.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    Same timing - last year it was November 30. It's usually during the last week of November, beginning of December.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

    And the top three ( Montreal, New York and  Detroit) made up 83% of the operating income for the entire NHL. Eye opening !

    Thirteen teams in the negative. Maybe what the owners are trying to sell to the NHLPA isn't a load of crap if these numbers are anywhere close to reality. 

    83% for three teams out of 30. Think about that ! 





    That is crazy..I know Forbes usually releases this info once a year..Is it the same timing as last year? I wonder if one of these rich owners had soemthing to do with this story being released at this time. I'm probably reading too much into it, so if it was the same time as all the years before, disregard my conspiracy theory.



    Kel, I couldn't find 2011 but in 2010 the list came out December 1st. So scrap the conspiracy theory.

    http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/31/hockey-valuations-10_land.html

    P.S. When I heard this earlier today I thought the same thing as you. It seemed too much of a coincidence considering what's going on.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    Chowdah, like I said last year's was the 30th. It's always this time of year - my B-day is on the 1st, and for as long as I can remember that Forbes has been doing this list, I've been talking about it to my brothers on my b-day.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    In response to red75's comment:

    Chowdah, like I said last year's was the 30th. It's always this time of year - my B-day is on the 1st, and for as long as I can remember that Forbes has been doing this list, I've been talking about it to my brothers on my b-day.



    So you would know better then anyone when it comes out. Happy early birthday btw. Hope you have a good one. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    My the Canadian dollar has finally equaled the value of it's natural resources.  Shale any one?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    Last year's Cup winning Kings:  $1.8M

    Last year's bankruptcy filing Devils:  $2.8M

    Along with the teams in the negative, there are also four teams that are positive for a lower amount than they pay one of their players.

    It is surprising to see Calgary and Edmonton so far up on the list, but not as surprising as seeing The Blues in dead last for value.  You know you have major problems when the sad sack Coyotes are above you.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    Last year's Cup winning Kings:  $1.8M

    Last year's bankruptcy filing Devils:  $2.8M

    Along with the teams in the negative, there are also four teams that are positive for a lower amount than they pay one of their players.

    It is surprising to see Calgary and Edmonton so far up on the list, but not as surprising as seeing The Blues in dead last for value.  You know you have major problems when the sad sack Coyotes are above you.




    Not that we usually disagree....but I have to on this one.  I don't think I'll get much argument regarding the fact that the Torono Maple Leafs are a 1 billion dollar saleable asset, and that value keeps growing beyond logic..  Despite that financial genious that so many want to worship here......the leafs payroll (wat this whole fight is about) was a laughable 206 grand less than the cup winning Los Angeles Kings.  Not 20 million, not 2 million, but 2 hundred thousand dollars.  Think about this for just a moment.  Isn't that proof that tteams don't need to spend equally?  Don't most businesses live and die by that reality?   If these guys need to be "protected" to operate within their industry...why are so many doing such a shitty job when they have the same resouces as their competitors?

    It's been a while since TO made the playoffs, let alone "competed".  I 've read countless posts arguing the fact that some "have nots" need special consideration.  Give me one example where any industry is going gang busters, but reality is based on the economics of the bottom feeders.

    It should be pretty obvious that the pressing issue is the cap floor.  What Toronto can afford has nothing to do with Phoenix, and vice versa.  Anymore than the country's best Ford dealership vs the weakest.  Wouldn't a more reasonable cap floor make sense?  Why is living within your means such a novel concept?

    If we were to properly pigeon hole the players, we can't just call them emplyees.  Using farming as an example...they're not the just the workers harvesting the bounty.....they're the crops ....and the weather that dictates the yield.   Thy're pretty much everything that decides the value of a franchise.

    This is round 2.  So far, the product has agreed to about a 45% decrease in their share of the bounty, while those entrusted to nothing more than "marking it up", have put that amount in their collective pockets.  The process here digusts me. 

    I'm probably a lot older than most, so I realize my views may not resonate with everyone.

    But to me...it was never about the Colonel, or Sun Records.  Their combined  brilliance should never be diminished, but the scales are at least slightly tipped towards Elvis.  Why should they ever be entitled  to the financial promised land.  As for the B's  They're worth a paltry 348 mil today.  Not a bad profit for someone who paid 10 mil for the franchise, and took a hefty payday every year since..

    I'll go out on a limb and say that ridiculous growth is largely due to  those who've played.  Bobby Orr's legacy has lined Jeremy Jacobs wallet with hundreds of millions.  Ray Bourque, Phil Esposito to a lessor extent, there are dozens since 1975 who've built the brand more than he has, yet, it's his 348 million dollar profit.  No one elses. 

    JJ shouldn't be villanized for that...but then again, most of his NHL brethern shouldn't be pitied either.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    Last year's Cup winning Kings:  $1.8M

    Last year's bankruptcy filing Devils:  $2.8M

    Along with the teams in the negative, there are also four teams that are positive for a lower amount than they pay one of their players.

    It is surprising to see Calgary and Edmonton so far up on the list, but not as surprising as seeing The Blues in dead last for value.  You know you have major problems when the sad sack Coyotes are above you.




    Not that we usually disagree....but I have to on this one.  I don't think I'll get much argument regarding the fact that the Torono Maple Leafs are a 1 billion dollar saleable asset, and that value keeps growing beyond logic..  Despite that financial genious that so many want to worship here......the leafs payroll (wat this whole fight is about) was a laughable 206 grand less than the cup winning Los Angeles Kings.  Not 20 million, not 2 million, but 2 hundred thousand dollars.  Think about this for just a moment.  Isn't that proof that tteams don't need to spend equally?  Don't most businesses live and die by that reality?   If these guys need to be "protected" to operate within their industry...why are so many doing such a shitty job when they have the same resouces as their competitors?

    It's been a while since TO made the playoffs, let alone "competed".  I 've read countless posts arguing the fact that some "have nots" need special consideration.  Give me one example where any industry is going gang busters, but reality is based on the economics of the bottom feeders.

    It should be pretty obvious that the pressing issue is the cap floor.  What Toronto can afford has nothing to do with Phoenix, and vice versa.  Anymore than the country's best Ford dealership vs the weakest.  Wouldn't a more reasonable cap floor make sense?  Why is living within your means such a novel concept?

    If we were to properly pigeon hole the players, we can't just call them emplyees.  Using farming as an example...they're not the just the workers harvesting the bounty.....they're the crops ....and the weather that dictates the yield.   Thy're pretty much everything that decides the value of a franchise.

    This is round 2.  So far, the product has agreed to about a 45% decrease in their share of the bounty, while those entrusted to nothing more than "marking it up", have put that amount in their collective pockets.  The process here digusts me. 

    I'm probably a lot older than most, so I realize my views may not resonate with everyone.

    But to me...it was never about the Colonel, or Sun Records.  Their combined  brilliance should never be diminished, but the scales are at least slightly tipped towards Elvis.  Why should they ever be entitled  to the financial promised land.  As for the B's  They're worth a paltry 348 mil today.  Not a bad profit for someone who paid 10 mil for the franchise, and took a hefty payday every year since..

    I'll go out on a limb and say that ridiculous growth is largely due to  those who've played.  Bobby Orr's legacy has lined Jeremy Jacobs wallet with hundreds of millions.  Ray Bourque, Phil Esposito to a lessor extent, there are dozens since 1975 who've built the brand more than he has, yet, it's his 348 million dollar profit.  No one elses. 

    JJ shouldn't be villanized for that...but then again, most of his NHL brethern shouldn't be pitied either.

     



    TLDR.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:



    TLDR.



    At least 50% of his posts are like that.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from scooter244. Show scooter244's posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

     

    TLDR.



    You should have.  He made a good point.  But ya, Steve, you do tend to ramble on a bit.....

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davinator. Show Davinator's posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

    And the top three ( Montreal, New York and  Detroit) made up 83% of the operating income for the entire NHL. Eye opening !

    Thirteen teams in the negative. Maybe what the owners are trying to sell to the NHLPA isn't a load of crap if these numbers are anywhere close to reality. 

    83% for three teams out of 30. Think about that ! 





    That is crazy..I know Forbes usually releases this info once a year..Is it the same timing as last year? I wonder if one of these rich owners had soemthing to do with this story being released at this time. I'm probably reading too much into it, so if it was the same time as all the years before, disregard my conspiracy theory.



    If the Forbes list comes out at the same time each year (as red75 says) then it is not a stretch to think the owner's most important date in this process was not September 15th but November 30th.

    Perhaps they held off until now to gain some leverage with the players and sway public opinion(although to date it doesn't appear they give a crud about public opinion).

    Interesting too that 45 years after expansion, the top 6 teams on Forbes list are Original Six teams.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    Just listening to CBC radio, and they were chatting about how he operating income numbers can be slightly decieving since that operating income is prior to amortization, interest, taxation and depreciation. For example teams that own their rink outright or that do not pay property taxes or have lower corporate tax rates than other teams will be in a better position than what those numbers say than other teams with higher rates, outstanding mortgages or rapidly depreciating facilities. The examples they used were the Blackhawks and Jets - the Jets pay no mortgage interest, no property taxes and have the lowest tax rate - the Hawks have high tax rates and high porperty taxes, so the actual numbers after taxation, amortization, interest and depreciation would be close together after those calculations are brought in.

    Just thought it was a good point to bring up so that we understand that those numbers,while a good ballpark, aren't precise and need to be taken with a grain of salt

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    In response to red75's comment:

    Just listening to CBC radio, and they were chatting about how he operating income numbers can be slightly decieving since that operating income is prior to amortization, interest, taxation and depreciation. For example teams that own their rink outright or that do not pay property taxes or have lower corporate tax rates than other teams will be in a better position than what those numbers say than other teams with higher rates, outstanding mortgages or rapidly depreciating facilities. The examples they used were the Blackhawks and Jets - the Jets pay no mortgage interest, no property taxes and have the lowest tax rate - the Hawks have high tax rates and high porperty taxes, so the actual numbers after taxation, amortization, interest and depreciation would be close together after those calculations are brought in.

    Just thought it was a good point to bring up so that we understand that those numbers,while a good ballpark, aren't precise and need to be taken with a grain of salt




    1.  Most numbers are not what they appear.

    2.  It gives that information about the final number right on the chart.

    3.  The Jets are a joke.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    In response to scooter244's comment:

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

     

    TLDR.



    You should have.  He made a good point.  But ya, Steve, you do tend to ramble on a bit.....




    You're probably right Scooter, but some of these kids need detailed explanations to penetrate the cement.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to red75's comment:

    Just listening to CBC radio, and they were chatting about how he operating income numbers can be slightly decieving since that operating income is prior to amortization, interest, taxation and depreciation. For example teams that own their rink outright or that do not pay property taxes or have lower corporate tax rates than other teams will be in a better position than what those numbers say than other teams with higher rates, outstanding mortgages or rapidly depreciating facilities. The examples they used were the Blackhawks and Jets - the Jets pay no mortgage interest, no property taxes and have the lowest tax rate - the Hawks have high tax rates and high porperty taxes, so the actual numbers after taxation, amortization, interest and depreciation would be close together after those calculations are brought in.

    Just thought it was a good point to bring up so that we understand that those numbers,while a good ballpark, aren't precise and need to be taken with a grain of salt




    1.  Most numbers are not what they appear.

    2.  It gives that information about the final number right on the chart.

    3.  The Jets are a joke.




    When at least 80% of your posts are as juvenile as the above....the fact they're brief is greatly appreciated.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share