Can the New York Rangers be worth a billion?

viper0220

Registered User
Oct 10, 2008
8,473
3,436
According to Forbes the Maple Leafs are worth a billion dollars(I think that is close enough we will know cause they are not going to open their books). Now onto the New York Rangers, they will be playing in a billion dollar arena, the NHL revenues are expected to rise significantly and with 50-50 share between the owners and the players(all NHL teams will see a rise in their values) can the New York Rangers join the Maple Leafs in the billion dollar club? I think the Montreal Canadiens will also come close to a billion dollars(close but not there).


Just a side question, if the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Montreal Canadiens were to met in the playoffs, does that help them financially going forward and what will that mean for the teams?
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Well, breaking it down, wasnt Forbes "guesstimate" (because thats what Forbes is all about, VooDoo Appraisals) in the $550M range, that the Leafs were worth $550M then adding the Marlies, Raptors, TFC, the ACC & real estate holdings etc you had the total sale price from the OTPF of $1.8B or whatever it was? And that wasnt 2yrs ago. Now were supposed to just blithely accept this new appraisal of $1B? 100% increase in the evaluation in just 18mnths or so?... Ok. I suppose. NOT. I guess someone somewhere with more money than God would pay that but its not accurate, that clubs not worth one billion dollars and nor are the Rangers. Maybe in 10-15yrs I could see it but not now, not yet & not even close. Whatever Forbes suggests, I urge you take it with a big grain of salt. Wildly inaccurate. They cant even get actual sale prices right.
 

Pi

Registered User
Nov 16, 2010
48,856
13,830
Toronto
Yeah, I don't see how the Leafs are worth a billion. Forbes is just guessing.

Even MLSE said that they have no idea how Forbes came to that number when that article was released.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
^^^ ya, a lot of examples of Forbes getting it so wrong Im afraid. The NHL is under no obligation whatsoever to come clean & be honest when a club is sold, as witness the confusing numbers that came out of Florida when the Lightning were sold. Reported sale price was north of $160M however that included the arena & land surrounding it, pundits having a field day, some (like Nick Kypreos for eg) suggesting the club itself, indeed, the entire transaction went down for maybe $80M, $60M in cash, the rest assumed debt. Dallas, recently Phoenix, very little actual cash put up by the buyers, a lot of assumed debt, loans. Yet if you read Forbes, they throw out these valuations that are simply the farthest thing from reality as is almost imaginable. Wildly inaccurate. Unfortunately its all we as fans who follow this stuff have as base-lines, so as long as you understand that their really basing valuations on averages league wide and divide accordingly while paying attention to what really went down on the ground, good to go.
 

aqib

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
5,135
1,148
Yeah, I don't see how the Leafs are worth a billion. Forbes is just guessing.

Even MLSE said that they have no idea how Forbes came to that number when that article was released.

Forbes pulls a lot of stuff out of thin air. In the case of either the Rangers or Leafs you have to factor in the arena (since they own it) and also have to determine how much revenue you would lose if you didn't have an NBA team with them. In both cases corporate sponsorship, suites, and premium seats get bundled for both teams. So there are companies that buy both because they really want one or the other.
 

No Fun Shogun

34-38-61-10-13-15
May 1, 2011
56,097
12,757
Illinois
Forbes doubled the value of the Leafs from a half billion to a billion in the span of a single year, so they were clearly vastly underestimating the Leafs previously, are greatly overestimating their value currently, or both, none of which paint a very good picture for how accurate their guesstimates are.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Forbes doubled the value of the Leafs from a half billion to a billion in the span of a single year...

Its absolutely ludicrous. How do you go from $550M to over a Bi$$ion in 18 to
12mnths? Really, to take their valuations seriously you do so at your own folly.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
The valuations that carry some validity are based on actual sale price-- and we have seen nearly half the NHL turn over in the past few years.
 

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,742
18,870
Sin City
FWIW, Forbes releases their annual valuations of NHL franchises in November (~third week, IIRC). So we have about four weeks of discussion on this before we can talk about the 2013 $s.
 

tony d

Registered User
Jun 23, 2007
76,590
4,550
Behind A Tree
They could be given the fact they might be the most recognized NHL franchise in the US. That said a billion seems a bit lofty.
 

Burke the Legend

Registered User
Feb 22, 2012
8,317
2,850
The Canadiens in 2009 sold for $575 million. That includes the arena + land, plus the pretty successful promotion company that books acts at the Bell Centre but also other big & small venues all over Quebec & Maritimes.

How much would the actual hockey franchise be worth there? 300 million? 350? Some multiple of revenues, 3x-4x? You'd have to guess the Rangers' and Leafs' hockey teams would be valued similarly, pretty much strictly off revenue. What are they, double the Canadiens? 50% more? So maybe 600-700$ max.

The rest of that 1.8$ billion was all land, buildings and the other sports teams.
 

aqib

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
5,135
1,148
Forbes doubled the value of the Leafs from a half billion to a billion in the span of a single year, so they were clearly vastly underestimating the Leafs previously, are greatly overestimating their value currently, or both, none of which paint a very good picture for how accurate their guesstimates are.

When the deal went down my dad and I were discussing it (he is a retired banker) and he said the ACC alone would be worth about $800 million. When you figure the cost for a new arena is around $400 million its not hard to get to get to that number given that its on very expensive land.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Why do you say that? I'm a Bruins fan but I'd say its either the Rangers or Redwings.

If not the Rangers, it's the Wingos! The Rangers have a lot going for them financially but they're not particularly well liked...

I think your both off on this. Id say the most iconic hockey team in the US would be the Chicago Black Hawks and much of that based on the strength of their logo & colors as their Cup Wins of late. Always respectable performances on the ice, competitive, reaching back through the Esposito & Hull, Hall & Mikita era's, bit of a blip early 50's & during the war years, but previously with Mr.Zero Frankie Brimsek & so on. Chicago the states Second City throughout the 20th & early 21st Centuries, its residents fanning out to the southwest, California & Florida, the Southeast. Definitely a transcendent franchise on several levels in comparison to Boston, New York & Detroit. Now, had the Rangers rather than Montreal, Toronto & Detroit won all those Cups in the 50's & 60's and had the Star Power of Chicago then perhaps. And in fact I suspect the game would be a lot farther ahead in the US had they won as frequently as the Habs or Leafs during the 06 era...
 

Betamax*

Guest
I think your both off on this. Id say the most iconic hockey team in the US would be the Chicago Black Hawks and much of that based on the strength of their logo & colors as their Cup Wins of late. Always respectable performances on the ice, competitive, reaching back through the Esposito & Hull, Hall & Mikita era's, bit of a blip early 50's & during the war years, but previously with Mr.Zero Frankie Brimsek & so on. Chicago the states Second City throughout the 20th & early 21st Centuries, its residents fanning out to the southwest, California & Florida, the Southeast. Definitely a transcendent franchise on several levels in comparison to Boston, New York & Detroit. Now, had the Rangers rather than Montreal, Toronto & Detroit won all those Cups in the 50's & 60's and had the Star Power of Chicago then perhaps. And in fact I suspect the game would be a lot farther ahead in the US had they won as frequently as the Habs or Leafs during the 06 era...

Uh, how about the the popularity of the Blackhawks "brand" before Rocky Wirtz took over from his father? I think it reached "rock" bottom with previous policies like not airing home games on television, for example.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Uh, how about the the popularity of the Blackhawks "brand" before Rocky Wirtz took over from his father? I think it reached "rock" bottom with previous policies as not airing home games on television, for example.

Ya I took that into account alrighty. Still feel the Black Hawks are the more iconic certainly of the 4 US based 06'rs, that brand more instantly recognizable, more identifiable than the other 3 clubs amongst non-hockey fans.
 

Betamax*

Guest
Ya I took that into account alrighty. Still feel the Black Hawks are the more iconic certainly of the 4 US based 06'rs, that brand more instantly recognizable, more identifiable than the other 3 clubs amongst non-hockey fans.

I'm in Canada, and my own perception of the most iconic American hockey team would be the Detroit Red Wings and that has a lot to do with their multiple Stanley Cup wins and consistent on ice excellence during Yzerman and then Lidstrom era that still continues to this day.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
I'm in Canada, and my own perception of the most iconic American hockey team would be the Detroit Red Wings and that has a lot to do with their multiple Stanley Cup wins and consistent on ice excellence during Yzerman and then Lidstrom era that still continues to this day.

Yes perhaps so. And of course under Adams, Howe & Sawchuk etc post WW2. An awful lot of years in ignominy there though during the birth of television & its impact from the mid 50's & through the 60's followed by another almost 2 decades of some pretty bad teams. Its an interesting question.
 

aqib

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
5,135
1,148
Yes perhaps so. And of course under Adams, Howe & Sawchuk etc post WW2. An awful lot of years in ignominy there though during the birth of television & its impact from the mid 50's & through the 60's followed by another almost 2 decades of some pretty bad teams. Its an interesting question.

Michigan is also helped by the lower levels of hockey. They have a couple of OHL teams and a few top college programs. IIRC the colleges in Michigan have more Frozen Four titles than any other state.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
I'm in Canada, and my own perception of the most iconic American hockey team would be the Detroit Red Wings and that has a lot to do with their multiple Stanley Cup wins and consistent on ice excellence during Yzerman and then Lidstrom era that still continues to this day.


As an American who grew up in Chicago, I think Detroit is the most iconic team. One still sees more Wings gear around the country (and world) than any other team.
 

aemoreira1981

Registered User
Jan 27, 2012
7,168
304
New York City
The company that owns the Rangers is publicly traded (NASDAQ: MSG), although the traded shares are non-voting shares as Madison Square Garden is a dual-class company), but given that MSG has a market capitalization (as of the closing bell on 10/30/13) of US$4.664 billion, it's not out of the realm of possibility. The Rangers franchise if sold as one piece would likely include, in addition to the team itself, 50 percent of Madison Square Garden, the AHL franchise Wolf Pack, 50 percent of the TV network that airs their games, and 50 percent of the MSG Training Center.

The non-Rangers assets would be the Knicks and Liberty, part of the MSG arena and the MSG Training Center, the Fuse music network, the Forum in Los Angeles, the Radio City Christmas Spectacular, and operating rights to Radio City Music Hall, the Beacon Theatre, and the Chicago Theatre. As such, $1B may be a low-ball estimate for the Rangers. Fuse and the non-sports assets can't be worth that much to the market cap.

If the Rangers were up for sale, chances are that to impress the Dolans to sell the company, one would have to offer at least $6.5 billion, and that would be a 39 percent premium.
 
Last edited:

Kane One

Moderator
Feb 6, 2010
43,103
10,625
Brooklyn, New NY
The company that owns the Rangers is publicly traded (NASDAQ: MSG), although the traded shares are non-voting shares as Madison Square Garden is a dual-class company), but given that MSG has a market capitalization (as of the closing bell on 10/30/13) of US$4.664 billion, it's not out of the realm of possibility. The Rangers franchise if sold as one piece would likely include, in addition to the team itself, 50 percent of Madison Square Garden, the AHL franchise Wolf Pack, 50 percent of the TV network that airs their games, and 50 percent of the MSG Training Center.

The non-Rangers assets would be the Knicks and Liberty, part of the MSG arena and the MSG Training Center, the Fuse music network, the Forum in Los Angeles, the Radio City Christmas Spectacular, and operating rights to Radio City Music Hall, the Beacon Theatre, and the Chicago Theatre. As such, $1B may be a low-ball estimate for the Rangers. Fuse and the non-sports assets can't be worth that much to the market cap.

If the Rangers were up for sale, chances are that to impress the Dolans to sell the company, one would have to offer at least $6.5 billion, and that would be a 39 percent premium.

Why are you including 50% of other MSG assets in the Rangers value? The Rangers and, for example, MSG Network are two different companies. They are just both owned by MSG Inc. If Dolan were to sell the Rangers, that doesn't mean he's selling 50% of MSG Network.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->