Forbes: The Toronto Maple Leafs, worth $2.8 billion, have overtaken the New York Rangers to become hockey’s most expensive franchise.

[Peltz]

Is this real money or Loonies and pelts?

I take offense to that

 

[zar]

I wonder if their value will drop after the first two periods of tonight’s game?

 

[nturn06]

And don't tempt Bell/Rogers to put those up in the rafters.

Can't be worst than the Nucks retiring #7 to honour the crowd

 

[nturn06]

Imagine what the Leafs lineup would look like with no cap?

Rich folks do not like to spend more when there is no need.... And the TML fans seem to be willing to throw a lot of money to the organisation no matter how badly the team is doing.

 

[viceroy]

Holds true for Montreal as well.

Well our rinky dink hockey team was in the Stanley Cup Finals like a little over 2 years ago and you guys haven't made it to the Finals since '67. Anywho anyone on here remember these beauts?



The MTL players got different rings that year.

 

[Bounces R Way]

When your club is, in a particular way, underwriting the league, I think competition in expenditure is a just thing.

Let ingenuity work both ways as it did in the past.

The idea of equitable outcome through disproportionate support/value is null and void while different economic realities exist within the various league jurisdictions.

Moreover when they’re used as competitive selling points in free agency.

There are financial advantages to operating in Florida for example. That wasn’t the example of fair you had in mind, correct?

You think the Leafs are worth 2.8 billion dollars because of all their ingenuity?
lol cmon


Leafs can and do spend the most on their hockey team. They could put a scout in every rink every night if they wanted to. They no doubt have the best facilities, the best support staff, the best everything money can buy. There's no such thing as total equity, different markets have different pros and cons. If you think it's easier running a profitable hockey team in Florida than it is Toronto then I guess I'll just go ahead and disagree. I think watching a 120 million dollar big market roster take on a 50 million small market one would just be boring and defeat any competitive integrity in the sport.

 

[wetcoast]

The Most Valuable NHL Teams 2023

The Toronto Maple Leafs, worth $2.8 billion, have overtaken the New York Rangers to become hockey’s most expensive franchise.

www.forbes.com

1. Leafs 2.8 billion
2. Rangers 2.65 billion
3. Canadiens 2.3 billion
4. LA kings 2 billion
5. Bruins 1.9 billion

It's really not that surprising as they are literally the center of the hockey universe...and I say this in a respectful way.

 

[Ducer]

Rogers was willing to give Ohtani 600 million to come play for the Jays, I think the NHL rights deal is still losing money.

 

[JianYang]

It boggles my mind that the average nhl team (at least according to forbes) is now worth a billion dollars.

It was only like 23 years ago that a franchise like Manchester united sold for a billion dollars if I remember correctly.... now a middling franchise in a niche sport can command the same?

 

[BKIslandersFan]

It boggles my mind that the average nhl team (at least according to forbes) is now worth a billion dollars.

It was only like 23 years ago that a franchise like Manchester united sold for a billion dollars if I remember correctly.... now a middling franchise in a niche sport can command the same?

You say niche sport but its still the 5th most profitable sports league in the world. Very closely behind Premier League, with their Manchester United and Arsenal and Liverpool.

 

[Megustaelhockey]

Does anyone care about this?

All being at the top of this list means is no civilian can afford to go to more than one or two games a year, if that.

 

[34]

Yes, everyone knows Toronto is the hockey Mecca. Biggest and best hockey market in the world.

 

[ITM]

You think the Leafs are worth 2.8 billion dollars because of all their ingenuity?
lol cmon


Leafs can and do spend the most on their hockey team. They could put a scout in every rink every night if they wanted to. They no doubt have the best facilities, the best support staff, the best everything money can buy. There's no such thing as total equity, different markets have different pros and cons. If you think it's easier running a profitable hockey team in Florida than it is Toronto then I guess I'll just go ahead and disagree. I think watching a 120 million dollar big market roster take on a 50 million small market one would just be boring and defeat any competitive integrity in the sport.

To the bold: Where do I make THAT connection specifically?

Ingenuity in terms of clubs with different budgets competing is the reference.

 

[BruinsFan37]

It boggles my mind that the average nhl team (at least according to forbes) is now worth a billion dollars.

It was only like 23 years ago that a franchise like Manchester united sold for a billion dollars if I remember correctly.... now a middling franchise in a niche sport can command the same?

And it boggles the minds of billionaires that two-thirds of the population couldn't afford 1000 in an emergency.

Different planets.

 

[Section 104]

So every team in the league is making money…even Arizona? No wonder the owners love Gary Bettman

 

[Megustaelhockey]

So every team in the league is making money…even Arizona? No wonder the owners love Gary Bettman

Something Bettman haters need to understand: he will run the league until he no longer wants to.

 

[JianYang]

You say niche sport but its still the 5th most profitable sports league in the world. Very closely behind Premier League, with their Manchester United and Arsenal and Liverpool.

I'll take your word regarding the profitability, however, I don't think that's the greatest measure of determing whether a sport is niche or mainstream. The profitability could be tied to player wages, for example where one sport purchases players with obscene offers versus a hard capped league.

What I mean by niche is that ice hockey's global appeal is mainly limited to parts of North America and eastern europe.

You mention liverpool, that's a true global brand where the club is recognized everywhere. No nhl team has that brand power on a global level and I'd wager that liverpool dwarfs the valuation of any nhl club.

 

[Megustaelhockey]

I'll take your word regarding the profitability, however, I don't think that's the greatest measure of determing whether a sport is niche or mainstream. The profitability could be tied to player wages, for example where one sport purchases players with obscene offers versus a hard capped league.

What I mean by niche is that ice hockey's global appeal is mainly limited to parts of North America and eastern europe.

You mention liverpool, that's a true global brand where the club is recognized everywhere. No nhl team has that brand power on a global level and I'd wager that liverpool dwarfs the valuation of any nhl club.

Niche vs. mainstream = top line
profitable vs. not = bottom line

The Raptors' valuation vs. the Leafs' valuation tells the niche/mainstream story in very simple terms.

 

[JianYang]

Niche vs. mainstream = top line
profitable vs. not = bottom line

The Raptors' valuation vs. the Leafs' valuation tells the niche/mainstream story in very simple terms.

Yeah, I think that makes sense. A sport's mass appeal is not a function of how efficiently an operation is run.

 

[Bounces R Way]

To the bold: Where do I make THAT connection specifically?

Ingenuity in terms of clubs with different budgets competing is the reference.

Well you suggested that removing the cap would make ingenuity the key ingredient of winning. Are the Leafs the richest franchise because of their ingenuity? Or is that only a requirement for the smaller markets.

 

[centipede2233]

Also how are the Oilers the 7th most valuable franchise? Theres no way they’re that high

They won’t be if mcdavid takes his talents to Lake Ontario…

 

[ITM]

Well you suggested that removing the cap would make ingenuity the key ingredient of winning. Are the Leafs the richest franchise because of their ingenuity? Or is that only a requirement for the smaller markets.

No, I said "competition in expenditure" in the previous paragraph. I also clarified the statement you didn't connect per your claim in my response (i.e. #63) to you: "Ingenuity in terms of clubs with different budgets competing is the reference."

So, the "key ingredient" is an environment that allows for competitive management. Toronto can't compete with Florida's tax structure, but if the flat cap is removed, then the raised ceiling provides Toronto another means of leverage to off-set advantages in different markets.

So to your question: No. Toronto isn't the richest franchise because of MLSE's ingenuity. And I suspect five of the original six teams listed in the top 6 from Forbes list aren't there by your preferred inferred connection either.

That's Toronto's loyalty and legacy expressed in numbers. How we wish it was reciprocated.

But it speaks to the idea that there's an earned place in competition where the sum of an organization's accomplishments, be it championships, wealth or longevity, should not be held against them for "the good of the league".

Explain to a fan in Toronto or Montreal or Detroit about the necessity of a flat cap, and they'll rightly reply that they don't mind contraction. That the league would benefit from a distillation of talent and a return to hard-hitting, fighting hockey, and that the owners can find other ways to maximize their profits, while returning to the days when the league allowed the natural cycle of success and profit and failure to advise the composition of teams.

Mindful that there's certainly a stakeholder's mentality throughout professional sports and that league health depends on good economic hygiene...The idea that Toronto has fiduciary responsibility for Florida, Tampa and Carolina and Nashville, but can't exceed more modest club's budgets while they enjoy greater financial freedom to attract talent, is irksome.

And don't get me wrong, I've done deep dives on Carolina's management, called for Toronto to go get a hold of the Canes' AGM, and accepted correction that it's also the ingenuity of Carolina's organizational structure at play as well, etc, etc...But it buffers the point that success does not depend on parity of purse.

Carolina at 80M (and whatever internal cap they adhere to) is going to be just fine, even if Toronto could spend 10M more, precisely because guys like Tulsky, who are phenomenal at finding value, found their way into management roles.

 

[2014nyr]

Is this real money or Loonies and pelts?

had the exact same question...well technically i didn't know they transacted in pelts i thought it was monopoly money and molsons but needs an answer

if the leafs are 2.8 billion chez paris must be a trillion whatever operation

 

[Bounces R Way]

No, I said "competition in expenditure" in the previous paragraph. I also clarified the statement you didn't connect per your claim in my response (i.e. #63) to you: "Ingenuity in terms of clubs with different budgets competing is the reference."

So, the "key ingredient" is an environment that allows for competitive management. Toronto can't compete with Florida's tax structure, but if the flat cap is removed, then the raised ceiling provides Toronto another means of leverage to off-set advantages in different markets.

So to your question: No. Toronto isn't the richest franchise because of MLSE's ingenuity. And I suspect five of the original six teams listed in the top 6 from Forbes list aren't there by your preferred inferred connection either.

Well then I'll apologize for inferring wrongly what your previous statements were suggesting. A competition of expenditure is just a spend off, and I personally don't find a who can spend the most money contest to make for compelling sport at all. You can find that in the NBA or MLB if that's really what floats your boat.

A hockey team should be built through drafting, developing, savvy trades, coaching hires, and worthwhile signings. The Stanley Cup is supposed to be hard to win, and it is supposed to be won through a contest that has competitive integrity. It's not meant to be bought like some gaudy piece of jewelry.

That's Toronto's loyalty and legacy expressed in numbers. How we wish it was reciprocated.

But it speaks to the idea that there's an earned place in competition where the sum of an organization's accomplishments, be it championships, wealth or longevity, should not be held against them for "the good of the league".

Explain to a fan in Toronto or Montreal or Detroit about the necessity of a flat cap, and they'll rightly reply that they don't mind contraction. That the league would benefit from a distillation of talent and a return to hard-hitting, fighting hockey, and that the owners can find other ways to maximize their profits, while returning to the days when the league allowed the natural cycle of success and profit and failure to advise the composition of teams.

Mindful that there's certainly a stakeholder's mentality throughout professional sports and that league health depends on good economic hygiene...The idea that Toronto has fiduciary responsibility for Florida, Tampa and Carolina and Nashville, but can't exceed more modest club's budgets while they enjoy greater financial freedom to attract talent, is irksome.

And don't get me wrong, I've done deep dives on Carolina's management, called for Toronto to go get a hold of the Canes' AGM, and accepted correction that it's also the ingenuity of Carolina's organizational structure at play as well, etc, etc...But it buffers the point that success does not depend on parity of purse.

Carolina at 80M (and whatever internal cap they adhere to) is going to be just fine, even if Toronto could spend 10M more, precisely because guys like Tulsky, who are phenomenal at finding value, found their way into management roles.

This pity party here however I just can't accept. The Leafs for many many years have had the most resources to commit to their hockey team to make it competitive. That they had to do it within the confines of a salary cap every other team also adheres to is no injustice. That would be akin to Mercedes-AMG complaining they can't use an engine that's twice the size of their competitors in a F1 race because it's against the rules. These are the rules the teams and owners have agreed to, in the interest of having a healthy functioning pro sports league.

Not every market is created the same, it's similarly 'irksome' to fans of smaller market teams when bigger markets like TO or NY land the best FAs. Or that they get the best national TV spots. Or any number of similar complaints. Is their fandom worth less in anything other than a monetary sense? Hockey should be enjoyed by all these people, contracting just so original 6 teams and their fans have a better chance at winning is on it's face ridiculous. Go find your own Tulsky. Go find your own Dellow. Build a winner and win, don't get upset you can't cut corners. Tampa didn't win back to back cups because of their tax conditions, they won because their management built a great team.

 

[TheNumber4]

No surprise considering the Roger/Bell cabal owns the only two sports networks in Canada, so they get to blast propaganda about the hockey team they own.

True. This guy seems the truth.