Tampa Bay Lightning have begun sale process.

[Major4Boarding]

Hate to tell you man... Ronin is a title, not a name, in Japan. And most Tokyo alleys don't have room to walk that well, let alone swing (or even unsheath) a sword.

I think the joke is lighter than the reply

 

[MichaelFarrell]

I went to Tampa last winter and couldn’t believe the amount of support the Lightning have. Florida gets a bad rep, but it really felt like a hockey city to me.

 

[DownIsTheNewUp]

I went to Tampa last winter and couldn’t believe the amount of support the Lightning have. Florida gets a bad rep, but it really felt like a hockey city to me.

Yep, I mean Tom Brady moved here and the Bucs won a Superbowl here in their own stadium and I still saw way more people wearing Lightning gear than Bucs.

 

[S E P H]

Is the 2 billion the actual worth of the entire team or just the portion of the shares being sold?


Forbes's latest rankings had them worth 1.2 billion.

https://www.forbes.com/lists/nhl-valuations/

 

[Demon Eyes]

The rumoured person to buy it , his company has minority stakes in the phoenix suns and sacramento kings

 

[Todd1a]

Didn't TB sell 40% of their team about 18 months at a $1.4 billion valuation? So, at most there is 60% remaining, barring minority investors. So, a max of $1.2 billion from this valuation and the $560 mill from the 40% would give the owner $1.76 bill for the total of the 2 sales.

He sold off 20 percent from what I heard

 

[MOGlLNY]

Vinnik is one of the best owners in the NHL if not the best. It’s a lot of fun going to a Tampa game as a divisional opponent from everything he’s done down there.

It says he will be operating with them for a few years still but sucks for their fans if he’s not gonna be around eventually.

 

[Todd1a]

I went to Tampa last winter and couldn’t believe the amount of support the Lightning have. Florida gets a bad rep, but it really felt like a hockey city to me.

Tampa does far better in attendance then the Florida panthers the lightning sell out all there games

 

[MOGlLNY]

Hate to tell you man... Ronin is a title, not a name, in Japan. And most Tokyo alleys don't have room to walk that well, let alone swing (or even unsheath) a sword.

we get it, you like anime

 

[StreetHawk]

Is the 2 billion the actual worth of the entire team or just the portion of the shares being sold?


Forbes's latest rankings had them worth 1.2 billion.

https://www.forbes.com/lists/nhl-valuations/

Valuation is for 100% of the team. So, if Vinnik only has 60% or 80% interest in the club, then it's $2 billion times the % he is looking to sell for the amount he pockets from the sale.

It just makes it easier to compare team sales when you get the valuation number. As there are likely minority shareholders of any pro team, thus extremely rare for any 1 entity to own 100% of a sports team.

The math is already done. LIke the Suns being $4 bill, Bucks $3.5 bill, Hornets $3 bill. Easy comparison between those NBA clubs. Not having to deal with 40% was sold, 65% was sold, 84% was sold and having to recalculate it for comparison purposes.

 

[PhysicalGraffiti]

Hope this means a change of logos/uniform, but with him retaining control for a few years I guess that's not gonna happen for a while.

 

[Carl Hungus]

$2bn for a sunbelt team? They do know the team won’t always be this good, right? This is the Ponzi scheme in action, there is no way the Lightning have that much future profit to justify this kind of valuation unless the NHL experiences massive growth and get a bonkers TV contract.

$2bn is bag holder money. Expansion fees and gambling ads don’t justify that valuation. The entire league did $6bn in revenue last year, one team is worth a third of the entire revenue? No way, half that goes to players before they even start looking at any operating costs. I think the Lightning had about 200m in revenue. Valuations should be based on expected profit.

Valuations literally are based on expected profit in perpetuity. Not one year of gross revenue for the league. It's very subjective but theres certainly a way for the math to say $2b.

Google is worth $2 trillion. Their annual revenue is closer to $275 billion. Net income ~$75 billion. They aren't valued based on one year's profit. You can definitely argue that Tampa is overvalued at $2B, but I doubt it's really that outrageous

 

[thegazelle]

I went to Tampa last winter and couldn’t believe the amount of support the Lightning have. Florida gets a bad rep, but it really felt like a hockey city to me.

I am actually very happy to hear this. Originally when TB entered the league I thought the whole thing was gimmicky. Manon Rheaume as social experiment for goalie...I thought they would fold for sure within my lifetime. Three Stanley Cups later and two of my favourite hockey players of all time (Stamkos, St. Louis) coming from there - I am very happy to eat my humble pie and know that our great game has grown wildly in what I thought was going to be a non-traditional market that would just fall flat on its face. Very delighted to admit I was wrong on this one.

 

[NoQuitInNewMexico]

Are they being returned to the Yakuza?

 

[LeafGrief]

Valuations literally are based on expected profit in perpetuity. Not one year of gross revenue for the league. It's very subjective but theres certainly a way for the math to say $2b.

Google is worth $2 trillion. Their annual revenue is closer to $275 billion. Net income ~$75 billion. They aren't valued based on one year's profit. You can definitely argue that Tampa is overvalued at $2B, but I doubt it's really that outrageous

Yes, this is exactly my argument. That the present dollar value of the expected profit in perpetuity from the Tampa Bay Lightning does not amount to $2bn. Gross revenue for the league is not the calculation, but it is a useful illustration of how wild this valuation is. If I had the Lightning's net profit numbers I'd do the math (and make my argument) based on those, but in the absence of that information the revenue to value multiple is a valid financial valuation tool. It's the same basic premise, that value is ultimately based on future earnings. Back when I was taught finance, the way that the math was fudged was through assigning a dollar value to the brand.

To use your example, Google, far and away the most popular search engine, synonymous with searching for something on the internet, a manufacturer or phones, advertising sales, and one of the most intellectually pioneering companies of the last 50 years, has a revenue to value multiple of just over 7.

2,000/275 = 7.2727...

I think it's reasonable that there's value in the name and brand of Google, perhaps even hundreds of billions of dollars. Any value there actually comes off the revenue calculation. Let's say "Google" as a brand is worth $300bn

2000-300=1700
1700/275 = 6.1818...

If Google has a revenue to value multiple of just over six in this example, how are we supposed to believe that the Lightning are appropriately valued with a number close to 10? There's some good value in the Lightning brand, but I don't think that they're anywhere near the kind of value where they could justify ten times their revenue. The league isn't growing that much, and while the Lightning are a successful team, I don't think anyone would ever argue they're one of the most popular teams in the league. The brand itself, and further, the NHL itself, aren't worth that kind of scratch that makes this valuation make sense. Using revenue multiple valuations, the Lightning are charging a 50% premium over Google's valuation; I do believe that's outrageous.

It's been over ten years since my finance classes and I will neither pretend I was a strong student in that subject or that I work in that field, but I'd ask that anyone who does understand the material better than I do make the case for why this sort of valuation does make sense. As I see it, this valuation is insane and is better explained by a bubble, which I believe is caused by the market reacting to expansion fees. This valuation relies on a $50m check in the mail every handful of years, and when an investment's value is based on payouts from new investors, that's Ponzi scheme 101.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Yes, this is exactly my argument. That the present dollar value of the expected profit in perpetuity from the Tampa Bay Lightning does not amount to $2bn. Gross revenue for the league is not the calculation, but it is a useful illustration of how wild this valuation is. If I had the Lightning's net profit numbers I'd do the math (and make my argument) based on those, but in the absence of that information the revenue to value multiple is a valid financial valuation tool. It's the same basic premise, that value is ultimately based on future earnings. Back when I was taught finance, the way that the math was fudged was through assigning a dollar value to the brand.

To use your example, Google, far and away the most popular search engine, synonymous with searching for something on the internet, a manufacturer or phones, advertising sales, and one of the most intellectually pioneering companies of the last 50 years, has a revenue to value multiple of just over 7.

2,000/275 = 7.2727...

I think it's reasonable that there's value in the name and brand of Google, perhaps even hundreds of billions of dollars. Any value there actually comes off the revenue calculation. Let's say "Google" as a brand is worth $300bn

2000-300=1700
1700/275 = 6.1818...

If Google has a revenue to value multiple of just over six in this example, how are we supposed to believe that the Lightning are appropriately valued with a number close to 10? There's some good value in the Lightning brand, but I don't think that they're anywhere near the kind of value where they could justify ten times their revenue. The league isn't growing that much, and while the Lightning are a successful team, I don't think anyone would ever argue they're one of the most popular teams in the league. The brand itself, and further, the NHL itself, aren't worth that kind of scratch that makes this valuation make sense. Using revenue multiple valuations, the Lightning are charging a 50% premium over Google's valuation; I do believe that's outrageous.

It's been over ten years since my finance classes and I will neither pretend I was a strong student in that subject or that I work in that field, but I'd ask that anyone who does understand the material better than I do make the case for why this sort of valuation does make sense. As I see it, this valuation is insane and is better explained by a bubble, which I believe is caused by the market reacting to expansion fees. This valuation relies on a $50m check in the mail every handful of years, and when an investment's value is based on payouts from new investors, that's Ponzi scheme 101.

Ya the same thing happens in stocks. Sometimes you go why is the value so high when the P/E doesn’t reflect it.

By increasing expansion fees you also end up propping up the existing teams to a higher value.
When sports teams evaluations are increasing year over year like what have been. I can see why rich owners are buying in.

 

[ItWasJustified]

$2bn for a sunbelt team? They do know the team won’t always be this good, right? This is the Ponzi scheme in action, there is no way the Lightning have that much future profit to justify this kind of valuation unless the NHL experiences massive growth and get a bonkers TV contract.

$2bn is bag holder money. Expansion fees and gambling ads don’t justify that valuation. The entire league did $6bn in revenue last year, one team is worth a third of the entire revenue? No way, half that goes to players before they even start looking at any operating costs. I think the Lightning had about 200m in revenue. Valuations should be based on expected profit.

I think if you are a billionaire in 2024, you know every trick to stay a billionaire.

 

[StreetHawk]

If this is the value of TB, then the NHL is going to ask for this as the floor for the next round of expansion. ATL, HOU, AZ, are they going to pay that? Hou, it's Fertitia who did not like the $650 mill SEA paid. And it's Ishiba who now owns the Suns. Is that something he wants to pay? Because with expansion into NBA cities, it's either the NBA owner who needs to buy the team or another party that would build a new arena in a different county/city than where the NBA club is located in.

 

[lawrence]

the asking price is 2 billion.

anyone businessmen out there or at least sold stuff at high value in the past would know, the 2 billion is a asking price.

Well done for Tampa's owner. 2 thumbs up with him trying to get as much as he possibilily can. I doubt he gets 2 billion for it.

 

[Ulysses31]

no mo livin hard, bbq

 

[LeafGrief]

I think if you are a billionaire in 2024, you know every trick to stay a billionaire.

Billionaires make bad investments and are prone to greed, just like everyone else. The owners of the Mets put a billion into Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. The trick to staying a billionaire is to have enough billions that one $2b whiff doesn’t bankrupt you.

 

[MoneyManny]

Hate to tell you man... Ronin is a title, not a name, in Japan. And most Tokyo alleys don't have room to walk that well, let alone swing (or even unsheath) a sword.

You can't be serious lol.

My power level allows me to unsheath a sword anywhere.

 

[Night Shift]

Tampa fans should be worried. Current ownership has been outstanding and non traditional markets show they can do really well with good ownership, but really struggle if ownership is subpar or worse.

Worried, a little.. but that's life and nothing lasts forever, we would have to deal with ownership change eventually. For the little we know about the new owner, you would think investing 2B into something that you are that interested in this sport, and would care to continue to grow the market.

 

[StreetHawk]

Worried, a little.. but that's life and nothing lasts forever, we would have to deal with ownership change eventually. For the little we know about the new owner, you would think investing 2B into something that you are that interested in this sport, and would care to continue to grow the market.

Teams will be bought and sold. I don't think the days of long standing owners who hand it down to their family is going to occur much. Fewer and fewer of the Wirtz, Jacobs, Illitchs of the world now.

Even in the NFL, unless they begin to amend the rules regarding escrow for guaranteed contracts, it's really putting it to the owners whose majority net worth is in the NFL team, such as Mark Davis of the Raiders in a tough spot to put that 8 figure amount into escrow to sign a QB or other elite player. And probably some of the older family ones like Pitt, Chicago as well.