Except now with cost certainty the only ones that will lose money are the poorly run teams.Spungo said:There is no doubt that some teams will still lose money. If NHL teams never lost money, nobody would ever sell them. At least before the new CBA, the idea of running an NHL team was the probably the single worst business proposition on earth.
Spungo said:There is no doubt that some teams will still lose money. If NHL teams never lost money, nobody would ever sell them. At least before the new CBA, the idea of running an NHL team was the probably the single worst business proposition on earth.
Falloooooon said:If a team is making money, the money which can be earned by selling the team at a much higher price than what was paid is often greater than what you would get collecting profits for many years.
NFL teams can't lose money, and they get sold because some guy bought it for 100M way back and can sell if for 800M now.
TransportedUpstater said:The NFL blows the NHL, NBA and MLB out of the water when it comes to making money though. It makes more money every year than some 3rd world countries. It's the closest thing America has to a national sport. By far.
I would be interested to see the potential selling price of the NFL franchises...
TransportedUpstater said:The NFL blows the NHL, NBA and MLB out of the water when it comes to making money though. It makes more money every year than some 3rd world countries. It's the closest thing America has to a national sport. By far.
I would be interested to see the potential selling price of the NFL franchises...
Skittles said:Around 300 M I believe is the price it'd cost you for the Washington Red Skins ..
Quick folks, buy your powerball tickets !!
Falloooooon said:So? The concept is the same, only on a smaller scale. If somebody paid $90M for an NHL team recently, but thanks to the CBA will be able to get $135M in the near future, the extra $45M would probably take almost ten years to make in profit.
Spungo said:Why not wait 5 years, rake in 22.5M, then sell it for a 160M-170M? You don't think a guaranteed investment like that would drop in value over 5 years, do you? Especially sports teams, which are some of the most overvalued propeties known to man because they make great toys for billionaires.
NHL teams are not guaranteed investments. They are pretty much the worst investment anyone can have. I have zero doubt that the teams who claim to lose money actually do loose bucketloads of money. There's no reason for a Walmart or a Disney to abandon a guaranteed money maker. They cut things that bleed red ink, like those 2 hockey teams did and still do.
If Disney and Walmart had 2 investments that were guaranteed to make money every year and guaranteed to rise in value, they would not have sold them. They didn't need the quick cash.
Falloooooon said:Your points are not without merit. But what I am talking about is what really happens. It's just the way it is. NFL teams get bought and sold, even though the owner could just sit there and make money for 5 more years and then sell. There are lots of things which go into the decision to sell a team besides if it is losing money.
And by the same logic, hockey teams can't be such bad investments if people buy them. While it is an industry fueled by attendance and not TV, I think people underestimate how much money these teams can haul in with ticket prices, parking, concessions, merchandise, etc.
I'm sure some teams lose money, but losing is not guaranteed.