Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

NHL Forbes Team value list, VAN with largest drop in value


Mackcanuck

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Would any one of us not "toy" with the team as much (if not more) if we owned the team?  Sure we don't like to hear that our owner is hands in in hockey decisions, but he's a fan - a lot like us.  Maybe he even surfs CDC?  Which one of us is Aquaman?  Apollo?

 I'm actually pretty surprised that no one has made an account called Aquaman. It's pretty catchy, plus you get to poke your head whenever people complain about him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mackcanuck said:

List of Canuck home games with less than 18K in attendance

5 of 12 games so far this season at less than 18,000!

 

Cyh96qIXAAEoB-Q.jpg

 

Those numbers are incredibly skewed anyway.

 

Management would buy up the remaining few hundred tickets to solidify the sell out streak over the past few years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alflives said:

Well, where there's smoke there's fire, and (in this regard) there's been A LOT of smoke for several years.  If Aquaman is as big a fan as he is supposed to be, I would expect him to be involved in hockey ops.  Like I said before: as owners we would be doing the same.

Actually if I had an asset worth 700M I would hire the people that knew the business best to run it rather than try and make decisions by myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MJDDawg said:

Still more than a 200% increase in value from when they bought it.

 

In terms of reduced revenue, they bled this thing dry for many years, profiting from a high business cycle that allowed them to charge stupid high ticket prices and receive huge playoff revenue.

 

Now they'll have ride out the low part of the business cycle for a few years until the team is good again.

 

That's why it's not even that big of a deal.

 

This was always bound to happen as the product on the ice diminished. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What businees always increases in value over a long period of time? none.

Were down but were getting back up again

And the value of the team will again and good for aquaman because hes a good owner.

Heaven forbid they ever let me buy the team. id have my bed put in the luxury sweet and live at the rink. id make it mandatory when a player signs a contract he has to have me over for dinner once a month or no contract.

Id fire evrybody because i would want to be gm (with cdc as a resource ) coach, head scout and president. heck id even be stickboy.

The only thing i wouldnt do is mascot.

Alf. are you employed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mackcanuck said:

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/#tab:overall

 

Canucks have the greatest de-valuation at -6%, Aquaman will not be happy with this

 

Canucks value drops 6% from $745m- $700m - 7th in #NHL. Revenue fell from $152m-$146m; Income down from $35.5m to $29.6m, via @Forbes.

Surprised by the value of the blues (low) red wings (low) and flyers (a bit high)

But i gather the city of detroit is in a bit of a mess thats probably why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

If any 'value' has taken a hit, it's the integrity of the media & NHL Hindquarters(& how they operate). Much ado 'bout nada.

This. How many customers did Aqua lose because of perceived shabby treatment of the team by the NHL? Or the media? And whether it's a bone fide complaint or just fanbase paranoia doesn't matter, those dollars are still gone. Add that to ordinary-to-poor play by the team (last year, this year is much better) and you've got your 6% drop. Also keep in mind that these are last years numbers. I expect they'll be worse yet on the next Forbes list, for a variety of reasons. And if I'm Aqua, I'm livid about this.

 

When you're starting to have problems selling hockey to Canadians anywhere, you're a cabal of idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Owning sports team is for vanity, not for return on investment.  

Net income of $30 million, but the team is valued at $700 million..... that's like a 4.3% return on asset last year.  Plus he owns one of the more financially stronger teams.  Most of the other teams are losing money or just barely treading water.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2016 at 7:05 PM, X-PatLostInEdm said:

When you're starting to have problems selling hockey to Canadians anywhere, you're a cabal of idiots.

This.  Hockey is a Canadian thing, it's easy to sell hockey in this country.  Back int he mid 80's Vancouver had the same problem they're facing this past couple years, I remember going to their games in '86-87 and Pacific Coliseum was eerily quiet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016-11-30 at 7:05 PM, X-PatLostInEdm said:

This. How many customers did Aqua lose because of perceived shabby treatment of the team by the NHL? Or the media? And whether it's a bone fide complaint or just fanbase paranoia doesn't matter, those dollars are still gone. Add that to ordinary-to-poor play by the team (last year, this year is much better) and you've got your 6% drop. Also keep in mind that these are last years numbers. I expect they'll be worse yet on the next Forbes list, for a variety of reasons. And if I'm Aqua, I'm livid about this.

 

When you're starting to have problems selling hockey to Canadians anywhere, you're a cabal of idiots.

After 24 games last year the Canucks had 25pts and a +4 goal differential, this year they have 22pts after 24 games and a -18 goal differential. So other than the famous CDC "eye test", what exactly are you seeing that makes the Canucks "much better" this year than last..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...