I-miss-Wis Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 A bit different than last years. St Lou was last and more teams were losing money. I wonder why we are rated higher than Chicago or Boston, who have bigger markets (which in theory provides more chance of growth) and both have higher revenue and profits according to this chart? Perhaps because we did it on the basis of little or no play off revenue?? Our owner is still crying poor though and saying they are losing money. Don't believe me? Read the article --> http://www.forbes.co...-ticket-prices/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 My guess is the purchase of the Comets has a lot to do with that. Pfft; in business a change in market value is based on the (perceived) ability to generate more profits. According to this we doubled to a team that would sell for more than $700 mill from around $350 mill last year. Thats a staggering difference! One the Comets contribute very little to in terms of profit or re-sale. My guess is new stability in our ownership group (Aquaman settled his divorce case without it affecting ownership) as the minor change. The league and the Canucks in particular are expected to grow, and are paying 7% less (presumed ALL to be profits) less to players on both what we were and what we will make in revenue. The major change being our positioning to profit in the much more stable new CBA. Extremely few businesses operate at a 5% net profit. We're running at over 15%. Check any public company, its exceedingly rare. We were profitable before and just handed an extra 7% clear profit on hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. Talking out loud to come to a conclusion, that's why our team value grew so much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peaches Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Even more than Phoenix??!! Whoooaaaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giant Inflatable Beaver Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Pfft; in business a change in market value is based on the (perceived) ability to generate more profits. According to this we doubled to a team that would sell for more than $700 mill from around $350 mill last year. Thats a staggering difference! One the Comets contribute very little to in terms of profit or re-sale. My guess is new stability in our ownership group (Aquaman settled his divorce case without it affecting ownership) as the minor change. The league and the Canucks in particular are expected to grow, and are paying 7% less (presumed ALL to be profits) less to players on both what we were and what we will make in revenue. The major change being our positioning to profit in the much more stable new CBA. Extremely few businesses operate at a 5% net profit. We're running at over 15%. Check any public company, its exceedingly rare. We were profitable before and just handed an extra 7% clear profit on hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. Talking out loud to come to a conclusion, that's why our team value grew so much! Profit certainly may have grown but it certainly does not account for the massive change in team valuation from less than 400 million to over 700 million. As I stated in my original post, the change in valuation is a simple case of the the team requiring to bring completely up to date the FMV of the assets of the team. Forbes is like anyone else, they have to get their sources from somewhere. In this case, the best and most available numbers were from the divorce settlement. Like I said, the same was the case when the leafs were valued for the MLSE purchase and hit over a billion. Also the canucks aren't a publicly traded company, so I'm not sure exactly why you are comparing them as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Our owner is still crying poor though and saying they are losing money. Don't believe me? Read the article --> http://www.forbes.co...-ticket-prices/ Hey, don't all good (lets use that term instead of greedy?) businessmen cry poor? That profit figure is off from $25 mill, by memory, the year before. But, as I edited the post you responded to, its in large part on the backs of the smaller revenue of the lockout. What I bet Aquaman is really reeling from lost play off profit. He would have made nearly $25 mill in our cup run alone! The hindering factor right now is he can't (or should not) bank on this atm. We have made virtually no play off money the last two years, and may not this year. Another reason our team is valuable, is he can raise ticket prices to make up for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-miss-Wis Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Our owner has several large beverage companies which provide his family the main profits. They use the Blackhawks team to write off losses so him crying poor is really just a matter of creative accounting. Otherwise who would retain ownership of a team if you lose money after winning it all? So I agree with you that good businessman cry poor. Unfortunately we as fans have to pay more for his 'losses'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Profit certainly may have grown but it certainly does not account for the massive change in team valuation from less than 400 million to over 700 million. As I stated in my original post, the change in valuation is a simple case of the the team requiring to bring completely up the date to FMV the assets of the team. Forbes is like anyone else, they have to get their sources from somewhere. In this case, the best and most available numbers were from the divorce settlement. Like I said, the same was the case when the leafs were valued for the MLSE purchase and hit over a billion. Also the canucks aren't a publicly traded company, so I'm not sure exactly why you comparing them as such. Market value is market value, regardless of whether you are public. I only drew the comparison because public companies have to publish their books. You can look quickly, and will find extremely few are anywhere remotely close to as profitable as the Canucks are being reported as here. Its only that they are a point to compare against as to why I drew the comparison. The market value is up because we will generate some $200 to $230 mill in revenue generating over $33 or $34 mill in net profits. For perspective, a few years ago F Shop went public and was sold (capitalized) for $700 mill which the owner put in his back pocket clean. That was on the back of $2 Billion in revenue, and the entire chain did not make $30 mill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyfall Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 We're getting ripped off on ticket and jersey prices. The Canucks brand is powerful... I notice it in stores... the same item with a Canucks logo on it is usually 50% more expensive than the one without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Who can take these numbers seriously? Impossible for such a jump..Glad if they're truly high-value though; no matter how much the cap rises, we should always be spending to the max. People always debate the upside/downside of rebuilds. Oh look, Clb, NYI, & Flor have been rebuilding forever, they'll claim. I say if you'll spend cap-max, a decent rebuild is almost guaranteed, AND it should be rather speedy. Chi, Pitt & Wash weren't afraid to spend(keep young stars, acquire costly depth, & pinpoint necc FA's), after they'd tanked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giant Inflatable Beaver Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Market value is market value, regardless of whether you are public. I only drew the comparison because public companies have to publish their books. You can look quickly, and will find extremely few are anywhere remotely close to as profitable as the Canucks are being reported as here. Its only that they are a point to compare against as to why I drew the comparison. The market value is up because we will generate some $200 to $230 mill in revenue generating over $33 or $34 mill in net profits. For perspective, a few years ago F Shop went public and was sold (capitalized) for $700 mill which the owner put in his back pocket clean. That was on the back of $2 Billion in revenue, and the entire chain did not make $30 mill. Your right that the market value is up due to the teams' increases in revenue. But its relative to whenever the last time the team was fair valued was (I am assuming that was when Acquilini purchased the team in full years ago). That means the increase in valuation is also due plenty in fact to increases in assets in rogers arena over the years, as well as whatever other properties the canucks own which have all likely appreciated greatly due to their success since his purchase. If the team was subject to a full valuation more recently like it is now with the divorce settlement, i guarantee the increase would not be nearly as massive from year to year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronalds.Kenins41 Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Your right that the market value is up due to the teams' increases in revenue. But its relative to whenever the last time the team was fair valued was (I am assuming that was when Acquilini purchased the team in full years ago). That means the increase in valuation is also due plenty in fact to increases in assets in rogers arena over the years, as well as whatever other properties the canucks own which have all likely appreciated greatly due to their success since his purchase. If the team was subject to a full valuation more recently like it is now with the divorce settlement, i guarantee the increase would not be nearly as massive from year to year. Yes the buildings being constructed outside of rogers arena probably factor in too. http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Canucks+fans+should+room+roam+once+Rogers+Arena+tower+arrives/8709193/story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 I guess the divorce is final and Mr. Aquilini doesn't need to pretend like he is broke no more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Your right that the market value is up due to the teams' increases in revenue. But its relative to whenever the last time the team was fair valued was (I am assuming that was when Acquilini purchased the team in full years ago). That means the increase in valuation is also due plenty in fact to increases in assets in rogers arena over the years, as well as whatever other properties the canucks own which have all likely appreciated greatly due to their success since his purchase. If the team was subject to a full valuation more recently like it is now with the divorce settlement, i guarantee the increase would not be nearly as massive from year to year. A common formula for valuing businesses is 7 times profits. IE profit equals $30 mill > company value to purchase starts at $210 mill... In that formula, if you finance the company over 20 years in a purchase, you can pay the debt and remain profitable every year if it retains the same profitability. But that is an ideal purchase. There are other factors. You have to add fixed asset value. I suspect GM place is actually valued separately, but otherwise it would be worth $500 mill in RE value and immediately bring the team above valuation. You add commercial agreements (season ticket contracts, the NHL franchise is worth roughly $250 or $300 mill to purchase a start up team, sponsor agreements, tv contracts), brand value, etc. All of which contribute to the potential to increase profitability. Similarly business plans, the CBA being part here. Internet and PPV opportunities to increase revenues, merchandise sales > a brand strong enough you can raise prices and will still sell out... That the Canucks will have doubled their profits in the last year, and can make the case they will double again in only one to 3 years means people will pay more prospectively. Florida just sold last summer for $240 mill (excluding any real estate) despite losing nearly $8 mill according to Forbes and competing in a crappy market, with poor sales, ticket value... Part of their game plan which helped raise the business value was the potential to add profits using the brand to secure gaming / gambling profits. http://www.forbes.co...be-240-million/ New Jersey was losing money hand over fist ($90 miilion in 9 years), and also sold for $320 mill, just cuz its in greater NYC. http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2013/08/19/selling-new-jersey-devils-for-320-million-still-leaves-vanderbeek-with-big-loss/ Vancouver, which will conservatively make a combined$100 mill in this season and the next 2 is a relative bargain at $700 mill! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goblix Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 what a waste. We were poor during the era's when money made a difference and you could buy cups.. now that were rich, Bettman wants artificial "parity" I think the parity is a reflection of the current game format, 2 points for a win and 1 for OT loss, with the fact that there has to be 1 winner in a game at the end. I think we'd see more distance between teams if we move to a 3 points for a win in regulation and 1 for an OT loss, 2 points for a OT win. Something along those lines, for teams to push a regulation win rather than take their chances in a shootout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisbanks Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 all sorts of companies , athletes and celebrities have come out time and time again and said forbes is just guessing and they are never anywhere close to how much people and companies make which means they have no idea what their value is either. .. your company , team or brand is worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it....no more no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauii Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 I think we'd see more distance between teams if we move to a 3 points for a win in regulation and 1 for an OT loss, 2 points for a OT win. Something along those lines, for teams to push a regulation win rather than take their chances in a shootout. I like that. The broadness of the current system is just creating a log jam and is not a complete accurate or thorough representation of the results of the games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam13371337 Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 I think the parity is a reflection of the current game format, 2 points for a win and 1 for OT loss, with the fact that there has to be 1 winner in a game at the end. I think we'd see more distance between teams if we move to a 3 points for a win in regulation and 1 for an OT loss, 2 points for a OT win. Something along those lines, for teams to push a regulation win rather than take their chances in a shootout. I was talking about financial parity... The rangers team in 94 that beat us definitely qualify as "buying a cup" The canucks had always been at a disadvantage when money made a huge difference.. personally speaking, I think its insulting that bettman thinks there should be parity between real hockey market teams, and dead weights like CBJ, panthers, Coyotes etc...... I don't mind revenue sharing to TEMPORARILY save a struggling (but potentially) viable franchise from collapse.. but not a low Hard cap that prevents teams from flexing any financial muscle. fans of those teams are getting ripped off big time when you think about it; instead of being invested to make the canucks competitive, The money fans spend just makes the owner richer/ subsidizes dead beat franchises Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Canada's job to subsidize expansion down south. This.. Bettman's cash cows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauii Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 I was talking about financial parity... The rangers team in 94 that beat us definitely qualify as "buying a cup" The canucks had always been at a disadvantage when money made a huge difference.. personally speaking, I think its insulting that bettman thinks there should be parity between real hockey market teams, and dead weights like CBJ, panthers, Coyotes etc...... I don't mind revenue sharing to TEMPORARILY save a struggling (but potentially) viable franchise from collapse.. but not a low Hard cap that prevents teams from flexing any financial muscle. fans of those teams are getting ripped off big time when you think about it; instead of being invested to make the canucks competitive, The money fans spend just makes the owner richer/ subsidizes dead beat franchises I agree. The league is too big and bulky and inefficiant. Too many deadweight teams. What other pro league has as many teams as we do? Not many, if any. Because it's in efficient to do so! Find other means to grow the business. Invest in other ways then carrying deadweight teams that are hugely expensive and costly with no prospect of conceivable return. Money is being thrown away instead of investing the monies in a more appropriate means that will truly grow the league not hinder it when monies are being invested in bottomless pits. It's like a bad stock that at the end if the day is worth Nil and all the money invested is down the tubes. Actually it's even worse then a bad stock because you will continue to still owe monies to it. It's like getting a loan for a stock with high interest and never recover the monies to pay it off. Just not a good financial business idea all around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedMachine Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 So on a value for money basis, we are the most overpriced team in the league! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.