KevFu
Registered User
Value and worth are subjective. Franchises are not sold off the shelf.
Something is only actually worth what another person would write a check for. All Forbes is saying is that a sale of the Leafs would go in the billion dollar range -- however, that number is trying to itemize something that is rarely itemized because they're part of a corporate empire, just so they can have an "Apples to Apples" list of teams values.
Valuing the Leafs at a billion is fine for that purpose. It doesn't matter that the idea that someone would buy JUST the Leafs for $1 billion is absurd: It would take much more money, and the buyer would get much more than JUST the Leafs -- as 65% (or whatever) of MLSE went for $1.088 billion (I think).
But in all these franchise sales in sports, where teams go for X dollars there's two massive additional factors making the sale a different price that Forbes' sticker price:
#1 - The additional elements besides just the team. The Dodgers price tag was $2 billion because it included the TEAM, the ballpark, the parking lots around the ballpark, and their TV rights which were up for free agency. The Islanders sales have seen the owners (Spanos/Wang) paying $165/$180 million because the TV contract is "worth more than the team."
#2 - The need/desire to sell/buy. Just like a player trade, if an owner wants out, they're going to take less to get a deal done. Like Atlanta Spirit Group taking $110 million ($54 less than Forbes' value) because they really wanted no part of the Thrashers.
But an owner with no desire to sell is going to have to be blown away by an offer. And that's why valuing the Leafs or Rangers at over a billion is fine. They could value the Rangers at TWO billion, because no one would WANT to buy just the team, they'd want the whole package of Rangers, Knicks, (the Liberty), The Garden and MSG Network. And Cablevision would probably need at least an $8 billion offer to even entertain discussion on the subject of selling.
Something is only actually worth what another person would write a check for. All Forbes is saying is that a sale of the Leafs would go in the billion dollar range -- however, that number is trying to itemize something that is rarely itemized because they're part of a corporate empire, just so they can have an "Apples to Apples" list of teams values.
Valuing the Leafs at a billion is fine for that purpose. It doesn't matter that the idea that someone would buy JUST the Leafs for $1 billion is absurd: It would take much more money, and the buyer would get much more than JUST the Leafs -- as 65% (or whatever) of MLSE went for $1.088 billion (I think).
But in all these franchise sales in sports, where teams go for X dollars there's two massive additional factors making the sale a different price that Forbes' sticker price:
#1 - The additional elements besides just the team. The Dodgers price tag was $2 billion because it included the TEAM, the ballpark, the parking lots around the ballpark, and their TV rights which were up for free agency. The Islanders sales have seen the owners (Spanos/Wang) paying $165/$180 million because the TV contract is "worth more than the team."
#2 - The need/desire to sell/buy. Just like a player trade, if an owner wants out, they're going to take less to get a deal done. Like Atlanta Spirit Group taking $110 million ($54 less than Forbes' value) because they really wanted no part of the Thrashers.
But an owner with no desire to sell is going to have to be blown away by an offer. And that's why valuing the Leafs or Rangers at over a billion is fine. They could value the Rangers at TWO billion, because no one would WANT to buy just the team, they'd want the whole package of Rangers, Knicks, (the Liberty), The Garden and MSG Network. And Cablevision would probably need at least an $8 billion offer to even entertain discussion on the subject of selling.