Are NHL teams a bad investment??

Status
Not open for further replies.

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
vanlady said:
If NHL teams are such a bad investment why do millionaires and billionaires still buying them?

Tommorow morning at 10pst the announcement that a 49% stake in the Canucks will be sold. The new owner is rumored to be the majority owner of EA, that's right the guys who make NHL2005.

Gee, last week you swore up and down we knew who was buying the Canucks and for how much for over a year. Turns out that was wrong. As is the "EA owner" thing.

The answer to your question is "rich guys like fancy toys". Especially guys who are hockey nuts.
 

ceber

Registered User
Apr 28, 2003
3,497
0
Wyoming, MN
Hasn't McCaw been trying to sell part of the team for a long time...like several years? If it's a good investment, should it take years to find a buyer?
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
triggrman said:
vanlady do you know who Levitt is?

Yes I do, the former head of the SCC, who the US Senate pointed the finger at for the collapse of Enron and Worldcom. As head of the SCC Arthur Levitt was famous for allowing expemptions to large business, without these exemptions any 3 year old with a calculator would have caught the accounting nightmare before the collapse of Enron.
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
ceber said:
Hasn't McCaw been trying to sell part of the team for a long time...like several years? If it's a good investment, should it take years to find a buyer?

McCaw got the Canucks because he was freinds with the last owners. When he passed away and financial issues developed with his heirs, McCaw bought the team, he paid 100 million dollars for GM place and the Canucks. He never wanted to be an NHL owner, but did it for a freind. Since then he has turned down offers for years, he never had any intention of selling the team outright to start with, and required a partner he could work with, (as stated in the press conference today). Names like Jimmy Pattison have been turned down.
 

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,717
7,488
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
vanlady said:
Yes I do, the former head of the SCC, who the US Senate pointed the finger at for the collapse of Enron and Worldcom. As head of the SCC Arthur Levitt was famous for allowing expemptions to large business, without these exemptions any 3 year old with a calculator would have caught the accounting nightmare before the collapse of Enron.

What?

The Vindication of Arthur Levitt
The former SEC chief's demand for tougher accounting standards got the cold shoulder in Washington. After Enron, it's obvious he was right
During his tenure as chairman of the Securities & Exchange Commission, Arthur Levitt Jr. took a lot of heat from the accounting industry and Corporate America for his plan to strengthen enforcement of securities laws and require far greater disclosure from companies. At the time, Levitt's comments sounded alarmist to many.

Levitt, of course, was right. And as Congress and the Bush Administration consider which changes to enact in this Enron-induced reform frenzy, they would be wise to rip a page out of his playbook. With investor anger on the rise and trust in the markets on the wane, Washington should embrace a bold agenda of reform. New SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt and other regulators would do well to avoid halfway steps (see BW, 2/25/02, "The Betrayed Investor").

This is not campaign-finance reform, where the Shays-Meehan compromise plan approved by the House on Feb. 14 is viewed by most reformers as only a "first step" in changing a corrupt system. When it comes to protecting investors, it's an all-or-nothing proposition. The 100 million Americans who play the market depend on accurate and reliable information to make their investment decisions. The accounting industry has already been pressured into reversing its decades-long opposition to restrictions on mixing its auditing and consulting work (see BW Online, 1/31/02, "An Abrupt About-Face by Accountants"). Washington should now act quickly and decisively to enact additional reforms.

"CULTURAL EROSION." Levitt's view is that the Investor Class, though huge in size, isn't an effective interest group. "It is potentially the most powerful lobbying force in the country, and it is the least well-organized," he told a breakfast group of reporters recently. As a result, investors are outmaneuvered politically by business interest groups, most specifically by the accounting industry.

Levitt, a former chairman of the American Stock Exchange, publisher, and investment-company founder, worries that the Enron situation is being viewed by many as "merely an accounting problem." He sees "very widespread" breakdowns in the entire oversight system -- from corporate lawyers and accountants to investment bankers, analysts, and boards of directors. There has been "a vast cultural erosion cutting across virtually every gatekeeper that operates in this arena," he argues. "A culture of 'What can we get away with,' [has taken] hold, rather than a culture of 'What's good for investors'.... The ones who are hurt are the investors who get lured into this culture, get caught up in the hype, and are the last ones to get out."

As a result, public confidence in the truthfulness of corporate financial documents has been badly shaken (see BW Online, 2/19/02, "Enron's Legacy: A New Wariness"). But how to deal with it? Levitt has a simple and obvious first step: "Financial statements should be written in plain English." To police today's unreliable corporate overseers, he would create an accounting watchdog board with broad authority. "To restore public confidence today, we need to have an oversight body that has the power to subpoena documents," he says, "to bring in the clients [to testify under oath]." The funding and staffing for any oversight body would need to be independent of the industry, he adds. And that's just the beginning.

WATERED-DOWN REFORM. Levitt urges Congress to provide more funds to pay for expanding the SEC's enforcement staff. In the most cynical kind of Washington shell game, lawmakers have authorized the hiring of more SEC workers -- but haven't agreed to pay for their salaries. That's old-fashioned game-playing.

Business Week article

Former Chairman, Securities & Exchange Commission: I think that the problem we have is not just the accounting but it's the standard setting, it's the board structure, it's the analysts, the investment bankers, the company itself and I think what's happened in effect is in the competition between the major accounting firms, the power of the client has become so great as a result of huge fees paid for not just the audit but for consulting fees, that more and more instances we see the accountant going along with the company as it tries to state earnings as they would like to see them, the rather than as they are. And the major problem is that the standard setters, in this case of Enron, were not able to come to grips with the kinds of standards to prevent this from happening.

No matter where you stand on the fault of Enron (I blame Arthur Andersen myself). He's still well qualified to do this report. More than some little CPA anyway. Also if there's so many wrongs in the report why doesn't the PA take him to task on them? He's opened himself up to them to discuss it, they have refused.
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
tantalum said:
Did you take into acoount his losses in majoity of those years? Did you take into account the building cost?

You've seen the details hmmm? So enlighten us. Is it $130 mil for the team or the team and a share of the building? Given your bible (Forbes :rolleyes: ) has the canucks valued at $148 mil one of three things must be true. 1) He has bought part of the building built worth a substantial amount of money 2) He has completely lost his mind and overpayed by atleast 200% 3) Forbes is completely out to lunch on valuations.

According to you Forbes is bang on so then it must be choice #2...the guys a lunatic who doesn't know how to do business.

I don't think that's the case. I do know Forbes is usually out to lunch so my guess is #1. Hey I could be wrong but I'd be absolutely shocked if it was choice #2 and he paid full share price for a minority interest in the team. If he did it was done with some assurances or he is crazy.

The team and the building were bought for 100 million. He is a complete 50% owner in Orca Bay which owns both the building and Team. He hasn't lost his mind, Forbes reported the Canucks profit at 1.7 million, they actually have made 43 million in 2 years. Yes he paid more but the one thing anyone in this city will tell you is Franco Aquilini is very careful, if he paid more he knows he is going to see a return on investment.
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
Thunderstruck said:
Another aspect of the sale that is interesting.

How were the parties able to determine the definition of revenue needed to calculate each parties share of future profits/losses?

I thought this was an impossible task. HMMM...maybe the PA is just putting up a smokescreen to hide their greed and it is really possible for two parties to agree on a set of books for a franchise.

Who ever does the books are going to have 10 different confidentiality agreements. LOL the Aquilini family is so tight lipped about their finances no reporter in Vancouver even has the slightest clue about the families finances, they are rumored to be billionaires, but no clue. John McCaw is just as bad. These guys will never agree to open the books. Just look at the press conference they wouldn't say word one about finances, they just kept repeating that finances are private because they are privately held companies.
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
vanlady said:
He hasn't lost his mind, Forbes reported the Canucks profit at 1.7 million, they actually have made 43 million in 2 years.

Wow, Forbes sure was out to lunch...

But I'm sure they were dead on with their conjecture re: The NHL's underreporting of losses.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
vanlady said:
Who ever does the books are going to have 10 different confidentiality agreements. LOL the Aquilini family is so tight lipped about their finances no reporter in Vancouver even has the slightest clue about the families finances, they are rumored to be billionaires, but no clue. John McCaw is just as bad. These guys will never agree to open the books. Just look at the press conference they wouldn't say word one about finances, they just kept repeating that finances are private because they are privately held companies.

A whole lot of words that still avoids the central point.

Two parties, both of whom had a financial interest in a hockey franchise, were able to examine the books and come to an agreement. The PA has the same option.

The owners put their books on the table by offering "cost certainty". The PA simply doesn't want to know what the books really say because then they'd have to make some serious concessions to address the very real problem.
 

copperandblue

Registered User
Sep 15, 2003
10,719
0
Visit site
vanlady said:
The team and the building were bought for 100 million. He is a complete 50% owner in Orca Bay which owns both the building and Team.


Is the 100 mil a confirmed number?

If so, then didn't McCaw actually take a bit of a hit here?

I thought he was looking at selling 100% for 250 mil?

Which means he took a $25 mil bath.... I wonder if the original deal fell through because of McCaw's "selection" process or the whole "good investment" question that the other buyer obviously had to decide on....
 

ceber

Registered User
Apr 28, 2003
3,497
0
Wyoming, MN
vanlady said:
McCaw got the Canucks because he was freinds with the last owners. When he passed away and financial issues developed with his heirs, McCaw bought the team, he paid 100 million dollars for GM place and the Canucks. He never wanted to be an NHL owner, but did it for a freind. Since then he has turned down offers for years, he never had any intention of selling the team outright to start with, and required a partner he could work with, (as stated in the press conference today). Names like Jimmy Pattison have been turned down.

Makes no difference how he got the team. Google has quite a few articles that say McCaw's been trying to sell for years. Still seems like NHL teams are a bad investment if you can't easily find a buyer.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
vanlady said:
He hasn't lost his mind, Forbes reported the Canucks profit at 1.7 million, they actually have made 43 million in 2 years.

LOL. This is rich.

Forbes is an unassailable authority when it comes to team losses, and you PA types will trot out the $96 million as gospel, yet when it comes to profits, it's "Ignore Forbes, they have no clue, Vancouver actually made way more money than that".

What a joke. Complete hypocrisy.
 

gr8haluschak

Registered User
Jul 25, 2004
3,269
113
This is once again for Vanlady, maybe you should get your facts right, you talk about Comcast trying to by the Ducks and Angels, well that is not correct they tride to take over ALL of the Disney Corporation.
 

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,717
7,488
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
vanlady said:
No and she doesn't pretend to be, unlike Mr Levitt. Oh and just to give you some perspective, the Levitt report took 300 hours to write, that is 10 hours per team. When the accountants moved into Ottawa during the bankruptcy, it took them 3 weeks to finish the audit. Boy Levitt must have been real thourough.

Again you're wrong.

Work began in April, 2003, and was completed in February, 2004. Mr. Levitt's report estimates that "during that 10-month period, over two thousand man-hours were incurred by Eisner, Mr. Turner and myself. In addition, thousands of man-hours were spent by the League and team personnel collecting data, meeting with us, and answering our inquiries. Further, thousands of man-hours were spent by the teams' independent auditors in the performance of their audits and the special procedures requested as a part of the project."
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,875
1,535
Ottawa
Was this buyer a last minute off the radar thing? As in he outbid everyone at the last second? He has bought half the team purely as an investment, with no management rights? He must have great confidence in the operation. Vancouvers GM has been saying publicly they were making over $40mil in profits over a couple of years. When Levitt listed the profit and losses numbers for each team, but anonymously as to which team the number represented, was there a profit figure over $20mil on the list

Forbes offered the league and teams the chance to comment and correct any of his numbers. Why isnt the league anxious to set him straight? You'd think an honest man would want that info out there.
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
Digger12 said:
Wow, Forbes sure was out to lunch...

But I'm sure they were dead on with their conjecture re: The NHL's underreporting of losses.

Oh and Levitt was dead on, check how many teams made over 20 million according to the Levitt report, the answer 0. If the Canucks made 25 million last year, what do you think Toronto made? Oh and Forbes is known as the most conservative magazine in the world. So if Forbes underestimated what the Canucks made, who else did they under estimate?? And what does that mean to the bottom line?b
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
thinkwild said:
Forbes offered the league and teams the chance to comment and correct any of his numbers. Why isnt the league anxious to set him straight? You'd think an honest man would want that info out there.

To set him straight and comment or correct his numbers would build credibility for the Forbes report (i.e. it implies it's worthy of a detailed response)... IMO, the smart strategy for the league would be to simply say that it's bad journalism based on assumptions made from an outsider looking in (which perhaps the league truly believes is true)... If I were the league, I'd leave it at that... and I consider myself basically an honest man... Although I think I'm basically honest, I don't like to give people a rope that they can use to hang me with later...

These negotiations are all about leverage... From a league perspective, no use giving the NHLPA any more leverage by building credibility for the Forbes report... Just like from an NHLPA perspective, no use giving the NHL any more leverage by building credibility for the Levitt report (through significant comment and exploration)... For either side, the less that they say about these reports the better (for them, and for the stakeholders who want to see one or the other side 'win' - it's not better for the stakeholders who want to see negotiations start asap, and who aren't looking for a clear cut winner, but a draw)...
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,875
1,535
Ottawa
They are trying to link salaries to something they define as revenues. Not tied to the real books. But tied to an artificially contrived set of books. A contrivance that doesnt even value the franchise the same way they do with their real auditors, as Philly and NYR have been on record as saying. Another equally valid way of doing it, is the way Forbes would value any other business. Depending on how you define revenues. It is subjective. And different for each team. Unnecesary, since we know how much they are willing to spend. They will spend what they can afford. All they need is a properly structured market that allows them to make the tough choices all businessmen must make.

Dismissing the way Forbes counts revenues, with no explanation, when it is a fundamental cause of disagreement at the moment, can only be categorized as a wise PR move of a liar in my opinion.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
thinkwild said:
Dismissing the way Forbes counts revenues, with no explanation, when it is a fundamental cause of disagreement at the moment, can only be categorized as a wise PR move of a liar in my opinion.

You are definitely entitled to your opinion...
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
thinkwild said:
They are trying to link salaries to something they define as revenues. Not tied to the real books. But tied to an artificially contrived set of books. A contrivance that doesnt even value the franchise the same way they do with their real auditors, as Philly and NYR have been on record as saying. Another equally valid way of doing it, is the way Forbes would value any other business. Depending on how you define revenues. It is subjective. And different for each team. Unnecesary, since we know how much they are willing to spend. They will spend what they can afford. All they need is a properly structured market that allows them to make the tough choices all businessmen must make.

Dismissing the way Forbes counts revenues, with no explanation, when it is a fundamental cause of disagreement at the moment, can only be categorized as a wise PR move of a liar in my opinion.

In the absence of any legally binding agreement on how to define revenue, the NHL can define revenue any way they want. The NHLPA does not want to define revenues, so they have no grounds to complain about how the NHL Reports their numbers.

Just my opinion...
 

ceber

Registered User
Apr 28, 2003
3,497
0
Wyoming, MN
Isn't that 43 million over 2 years actually Orca Bay profit, and not just Canuck's profit?

Not that it matters... If the people who stand to gain the most from agreeing about the numbers can't agree about 'em, why on earth does anyone here expect to change someone's mind? :)
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
vanlady said:
Oh and Levitt was dead on, check how many teams made over 20 million according to the Levitt report, the answer 0. If the Canucks made 25 million last year, what do you think Toronto made? Oh and Forbes is known as the most conservative magazine in the world. So if Forbes underestimated what the Canucks made, who else did they under estimate?? And what does that mean to the bottom line?b

Good times...I could almost see the spittle hitting your monitor as you typed that. :lol:

Are you always wound this tight?

Anyway, I think what we can all agree on is that since the numbers on one side of this battlefield aren't trusted at all by the other side, that pretty much renders them meaningless.

So where does that leave us? Square fricking one, that's what. I'm at the point now where these two losers should just fish or cut bait. Enough with the foreplay, either get a deal or cancel the damn season right now.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,875
1,535
Ottawa
ceber said:
Isn't that 43 million over 2 years actually Orca Bay profit, and not just Canuck's profit?

Not that it matters... If the people who stand to gain the most from agreeing about the numbers can't agree about 'em, why on earth does anyone here expect to change someone's mind? :)

Why do I keep banging my head against the wall?
Well, you know, it feels real good when I stop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad