sawchuk1971
Registered User
- Jun 16, 2011
- 1,554
- 605
I saw something a while back that said the Vegas owner had a payment plan, but can't recall which thread I saw it in.
Thanks for that, because I honestly couldn't remember where I saw it. I don't know that the league will allow debt, but I do feel that with the rise in expansion fees and team valuations, the promise of future payouts (such as the sale of property in a mixed-use development) will be considered more acceptable.The link wasn't working but according to this article it was 3 payments. My guess is as expansion fees get higher they will have to use debt.
This.I think most people who buy a team are using borrowed money. They aren't going to sink a ton of whatever liquid cash they have into a sports team; they'd rather use the banks/lenders money and pay that back.
For the bank, they know the team won't be folded by the league, but would still be setup as the top creditor to get paid back if something did happen. As long as the prospective owner has the assets that the bank is comfortable with the value of those assets being stable, no reason to not lend the money.This.
Most "cash" is tied up in investments/capital that they call a bank for, to give them a line of credit borrowing against the capital. Banks make their money off the interest and it allows the new owner to gradually pay off the debt over time rather than having to liquidate their capital and pay any gains, which would be doubly expensive in some cases.
Yeah...usually the ownership group will pool together a bunch of cash but only enough so that it isn't a heavy tax liability, with the rest being fronted by a bank. And the banks will put a lien on the capital to back themselves up. Usually the bank will get its interest and principle back within 10-15 years, because the owners don't want to be on the hook for too long.For the bank, they know the team won't be folded by the league, but would still be setup as the top creditor to get paid back if something did happen. As long as the prospective owner has the assets that the bank is comfortable with the value of those assets being stable, no reason to not lend the money.
It will end up being some combo of cash and borrowed funds.
For the bank, they know the team won't be folded by the league, but would still be setup as the top creditor to get paid back if something did happen. As long as the prospective owner has the assets that the bank is comfortable with the value of those assets being stable, no reason to not lend the money.
It will end up being some combo of cash and borrowed funds.
Yes almost all billionaires are paper billionaires meaning they don’t actually have cash. Most of their wealth is in stocks and real estate ect. The only way to acquire huge amounts of cash is through a loan from a bank or multiple banks using the stock/ real estate ect as collateral
For the 1991 expansion (that awarded Tampa and Ottawa), both team's ownership groups were chosen because they had no qualms about paying the expansion fee in one payment (Hamilton balked at this and was not granted a team). Ironically both ownership group (the "Yakuza" and Bruce Firestone) did not manage to make such payments and were forced to sell within a few years.
So many expansions. I recall that at least one league requires 50%+ of "cash" to be paid for purchase/expansion fees. The balance could be financed. Some leagues have line(s) of credit available for owners to borrow from rather than having to go out to financial institutions on their own.NFL only allows owners to borrow a certain amount against their team and they usually dont like it when teams do so. They would rather make the loan themselves.
Yet they still had Sanjay Kumar and Boots Del Baggio after the John Spano scandal exposed that they aren't very good at vetting owners.So many expansions. I recall that at least one league requires 50%+ of "cash" to be paid for purchase/expansion fees. The balance could be financed. Some leagues have line(s) of credit available for owners to borrow from rather than having to go out to financial institutions on their own.
The NHL does have accountants review finances of prospective purchasers/expansion folk to ensure they can meet normal business expenses of a club and pay their debts.
The hope for future expansion is that the league has more than learned their lessons with their poor choices. Hope, in this case, is extremely emphasized, because they don't exactly have a good track record overall. But... at least Vegas and Seattle seem to have very solid ownership.Yet they still had Sanjay Kumar and Boots Del Baggio after the John Spano scandal exposed that they aren't very good at vetting owners.
The hope for future expansion is that the league has more than learned their lessons with their poor choices. Hope, in this case, is extremely emphasized, because they don't exactly have a good track record overall. But... at least Vegas and Seattle seem to have very solid ownership.
The much higher price point protects the NHL from a lot of the riff raff issues they had in the pastWell to be fair its harder to fake a $1.2-2 billion purchase than $185 million for the Islanders for Spano and a whatever the 25% of the Predators cost Del Baggio