Pepper
Registered User
- Aug 30, 2004
- 14,693
- 269
This is a great example of how shaky Forbes' numbers really are, especially their estimate of the value of the franchise.
From another thread:
In 1998, Forbes valued the Blues at $154 mil. In 1999, they sold for $100 mil. (-54 mil)
In 1999, Forbes had the Penguins valued at $100 mil. They sold for $76 mil. (-24 mil)
In 1999, Forbes had the Caps valued at $145 mil. They sold for $85 mil. (-60 mil)
In 1998, Forbes had the Sabres valued at $91 mil. They sold for $76 mil. (-15 mil)
So on these four recent deals, Forbes values them at $490 mil but when someone actually had to pay for them, they only got $336 mil. Forbes was short -$154 mil on four deals when their valuations faced reality.
In 2000, the NJ Devils were purchased for $175 mil and then sold shortly there after for $124 mil. (-51 mil). Let's face it : this was a pure hosing of a deal when it originally sold.
In 2000, when the Islanders were purchased, $188 million was paid but $85 mil went towards buying the separate cable deal (according to the Pickett deal). The balance of the team went for $103 mil and Forbes had it at valued at $139 mil. (possibly short -36 mil).
So the claim by Forbes that the owners have recently been making out like bandits on asset growth gets very shakey when someone's hand starts to scribble out a cheque for buying an NHL team.
In 1995, the LA Kings were sold for $113 million. In 1999, Forbes valued them at $109 million. When they moved into an arena they invested in for co-ownership in 2000, their value suddenly leaped to $160 million. In other words, they had to put a bunch of money in to get that $160 mil value.
Also the authors of that Forbes article have admitted that they haven't seen the books.
My question to you pro-NHLPA people is this:
How on earth do you still believe that Forbes is telling the truth and owners are lying?? I know that owners do their best to make the situation look as bad as possible but Forbes really has absolutely NO credibility in this issue for several reasons.
From another thread:
In 1998, Forbes valued the Blues at $154 mil. In 1999, they sold for $100 mil. (-54 mil)
In 1999, Forbes had the Penguins valued at $100 mil. They sold for $76 mil. (-24 mil)
In 1999, Forbes had the Caps valued at $145 mil. They sold for $85 mil. (-60 mil)
In 1998, Forbes had the Sabres valued at $91 mil. They sold for $76 mil. (-15 mil)
So on these four recent deals, Forbes values them at $490 mil but when someone actually had to pay for them, they only got $336 mil. Forbes was short -$154 mil on four deals when their valuations faced reality.
In 2000, the NJ Devils were purchased for $175 mil and then sold shortly there after for $124 mil. (-51 mil). Let's face it : this was a pure hosing of a deal when it originally sold.
In 2000, when the Islanders were purchased, $188 million was paid but $85 mil went towards buying the separate cable deal (according to the Pickett deal). The balance of the team went for $103 mil and Forbes had it at valued at $139 mil. (possibly short -36 mil).
So the claim by Forbes that the owners have recently been making out like bandits on asset growth gets very shakey when someone's hand starts to scribble out a cheque for buying an NHL team.
In 1995, the LA Kings were sold for $113 million. In 1999, Forbes valued them at $109 million. When they moved into an arena they invested in for co-ownership in 2000, their value suddenly leaped to $160 million. In other words, they had to put a bunch of money in to get that $160 mil value.
Also the authors of that Forbes article have admitted that they haven't seen the books.
My question to you pro-NHLPA people is this:
How on earth do you still believe that Forbes is telling the truth and owners are lying?? I know that owners do their best to make the situation look as bad as possible but Forbes really has absolutely NO credibility in this issue for several reasons.