Hey Pro

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

    Hey Pro

    Did you see the info that JBJ is doing a feasibility study on an NFL stadium in Toronto? 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Hey Pro

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Did you see the info that JBJ is doing a feasibility study on an NFL stadium in Toronto? 

    [/QUOTE]


    Yeah.  The CBC reported that according to "John Vrooman, a Vanderbilt professor who specializes in sports economics," the Bills are more valuable in Toronto:

    "Vrooman projected the Bills to be valued at between $950 million and $1 billion in western New York, and about $1.5 billion if they moved to Toronto and even more in Los Angeles"

    Personally, I hope the Bills stay in Buffalo and Toronto gets its own NFL team, but the possibility of the Bills coming here is pretty real I think.  Toronoto is a much bigger and wealthier city than Buffalo.  The NFL is very popular here, but I also think Toronto sports fans are pretty lame supporting any team that's not the Leafs. 

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Hey Pro

    It is going to take an extra 400 mil to move them anywhere. According to the lease agreement with the county Erie I believe I read that they have a buyout clause through 2019.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Hey Pro

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It is going to take an extra 400 mil to move them anywhere. According to the lease agreement with the county Erie I believe I read that they have a buyout clause through 2019.

    [/QUOTE]


    The rumours are that they'll keep the team in Buffalo for a few years.  That gives them time to get a stadium built here and then they make the move down the road.  

    I'm against moving the Bills out of Buffalo though.  It's only a two-hour drive (or a bit less) between here and Buffalo, but I do think Toronto and Buffalo are pretty different cities with very different fan bases.  Crossing the border to go to games is a pain too . . . you never know how long the lines at customs are going to be.  I think a much better plan is to introduce a new team in Toronto, maybe at the same time the NFL expands to LA, London, and wherever else they plan to go.  Bring in four new teams at once, expanding to a 36 team league and add Toronto then. 

     

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: Hey Pro

    I still think the Bills end up in LA, and the $400m is chump change on a deal like that

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

    Re: Hey Pro

    I'm not necessarily questioning the idea that the Bills would be more valuable in Toronto than in Buffalo, but in my experience most of these analyses are bs.  I've never seen any analysis that suggested that the Dodgers or Clippers were worth anywhere near as much as they sold for.  The NFL is even more of a cash cow.  Who knows how much one of these teams is actually worth given how infrequently they are bought and sold.

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

    Re: Hey Pro

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm not necessarily questioning the idea that the Bills would be more valuable in Toronto than in Buffalo, but in my experience most of these analyses are bs.  I've never seen any analysis that suggested that the Dodgers or Clippers were worth anywhere near as much as they sold for.  The NFL is even more of a cash cow.  Who knows how much one of these teams is actually worth given how infrequently they are bought and sold.

    [/QUOTE]

    PCM, I don't agree. The Dodgers are valued where they are because of Fox. The revenue streem from that deal made the valuation of the Dodgers pretty clear cut

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

    Re: Hey Pro

     

    yes, Mr Spellcheck. I spelled streem incorrectly. MOds do not allow the correct spelling to post

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

    Re: Hey Pro

    In response to rkarp's comment:




    PCM, I don't agree. The Dodgers are valued where they are because of Fox. The revenue streem from that deal made the valuation of the Dodgers pretty clear cut



    I don't think that deal was done when the team was bought.  In fact if I recall correctly McCourt had to sell the team precisely because he needed the money and Selig had just rejected a proposed deal between McCourt and Fox.  Despite all of this he still got a huge price.



    I don't think the valuation was clear cut at all in the sense that the kinds of economic analyses that I was criticizing in my original post never came up with that kind of number from what I could tell.  Consider the excerpt from this article:


    Prior to the sale, many economists believed the price tag of the Dodgers would surpass the $845 million the Chicago Cubs sold for in 2009, which was the most ever for an MLB team. Most figured it would be around the $1.1 billion figure the Miami Dolphins fetched three years ago, which was a record price for a professional sports team in North America. In the end, the sale of the Dodgers shattered both marks and set a world record, surpassing even the $1.47 billion Manchester United went for in 2005.


    "It's the craziest deal ever; it makes no sense. That's why you saw so many groups drop out," said Mark Rosentraub, a University of Michigan sports management professor. "I don't get it. The numbers just don't work. It doesn't make business sense. Nobody came up with this number.


    http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7747848/economist-2b-los-angeles-dodgers-makes-no-sense

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: Hey Pro

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I still think the Bills end up in LA, and the $400m is chump change on a deal like that

    [/QUOTE]

    Especially since the $400 mill would be part of a larger financed deal with the costs amortized over 20+ years

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

    Re: Hey Pro

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:



     

    [QUOTE]

     


    PCM, I don't agree. The Dodgers are valued where they are because of Fox. The revenue streem from that deal made the valuation of the Dodgers pretty clear cut

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't think that deal was done when the team was bought.  In fact if I recall correctly McCourt had to sell the team precisely because he needed the money and Selig had just rejected a proposed deal between McCourt and Fox.  Despite all of this he still got a huge price.

     



    I don't think the valuation was clear cut at all in the sense that the kinds of economic analyses that I was criticizing in my original post never came up with that kind of number from what I could tell.  Consider the excerpt from this article:

     

    Prior to the sale, many economists believed the price tag of the Dodgers would surpass the $845 million the Chicago Cubs sold for in 2009, which was the most ever for an MLB team. Most figured it would be around the $1.1 billion figure the Miami Dolphins fetched three years ago, which was a record price for a professional sports team in North America. In the end, the sale of the Dodgers shattered both marks and set a world record, surpassing even the $1.47 billion Manchester United went for in 2005.

     

    "It's the craziest deal ever; it makes no sense. That's why you saw so many groups drop out," said Mark Rosentraub, a University of Michigan sports management professor. "I don't get it. The numbers just don't work. It doesn't make business sense. Nobody came up with this number.

     

    http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7747848/economist-2b-los-angeles-dodgers-makes-no-sense" rel="nofollow">http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7747848/economist-2b-los-angeles-dodgers-makes-no-sense

    [/QUOTE]

    This link does not tell the entire story. At the time of the sale, there was a bidding war for the rights, with the expected windfall to be north of $5b

    while the valuation of the franchise was certainly worth more than the Cubs or Phins deal due to this TV deal, the deal also including partial but controlling rights to parking, as well as surrounding land that was to be developed. So the tea did not sell for $2b plus, it was the team, parking and land surrounding the stadium. As we saw with the Clippers, I order to secure these high profile sports franchises, the sale price will certainly exceed market value

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Hey Pro

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:



     

    [QUOTE]

     


    PCM, I don't agree. The Dodgers are valued where they are because of Fox. The revenue streem from that deal made the valuation of the Dodgers pretty clear cut

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't think that deal was done when the team was bought.  In fact if I recall correctly McCourt had to sell the team precisely because he needed the money and Selig had just rejected a proposed deal between McCourt and Fox.  Despite all of this he still got a huge price.

     



    I don't think the valuation was clear cut at all in the sense that the kinds of economic analyses that I was criticizing in my original post never came up with that kind of number from what I could tell.  Consider the excerpt from this article:

     

    Prior to the sale, many economists believed the price tag of the Dodgers would surpass the $845 million the Chicago Cubs sold for in 2009, which was the most ever for an MLB team. Most figured it would be around the $1.1 billion figure the Miami Dolphins fetched three years ago, which was a record price for a professional sports team in North America. In the end, the sale of the Dodgers shattered both marks and set a world record, surpassing even the $1.47 billion Manchester United went for in 2005.

     

    "It's the craziest deal ever; it makes no sense. That's why you saw so many groups drop out," said Mark Rosentraub, a University of Michigan sports management professor. "I don't get it. The numbers just don't work. It doesn't make business sense. Nobody came up with this number.

     

    http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7747848/economist-2b-los-angeles-dodgers-makes-no-sense" rel="nofollow">http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7747848/economist-2b-los-angeles-dodgers-makes-no-sense" rel="nofollow">http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7747848/economist-2b-los-angeles-dodgers-makes-no-sense

    [/QUOTE]

    This link does not tell the entire story. At the time of the sale, there was a bidding war for the rights, with the expected windfall to be north of $5b

    while the valuation of the franchise was certainly worth more than the Cubs or Phins deal due to this TV deal, the deal also including partial but controlling rights to parking, as well as surrounding land that was to be developed. So the tea did not sell for $2b plus, it was the team, parking and land surrounding the stadium. As we saw with the Clippers, I order to secure these high profile sports franchises, the sale price will certainly exceed market value

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    krafts deal had huge ties to the parking lot. I believe that's how he got the team by buying the parking lot first. 

     

Share