Ducks Sold!

[kenabnrmal]

It's not propaganda when 50 Million in a savings account for 13 years generates a better Return on Investment than owning an NHL franchise.

Its all propaganda, both sides. Regardless, this isn't the thread for that discussion.

 

[Wetcoaster]

I think one could easily debate who is scorching the earth with a vast majority pointing the finger towards the suicidal PA in this dispute.

Forbes lowered the valuations again Feb 17th after the cancellation of the season. But when you consider that the NHL was well into this "scorched earth" situation as of November 29th, when Forbes pinned the $108 Ducks valuation up with the other clubs for everyone to see. And when you consider that this Armageddon had been forecast for years. And when you consider that Forbes did this so that Forbes could try to tout how financially great NHL ownership really was last November, Forbes credibility sinks badly.

The average NHL franchise valuation fell $23 million between November 29th and just after the cancellation of the season - according to Forbes. That is very likely a worst case for the Ducks because if you did percentage of valuation (a better approximation), the Ducks would fall less numerically. As the Ducks are near the bottom of the NHL valuation totem pole, there wasn’t a lot further one could justify putting them down. But the sale of the Ducks fell about $50 million short of the Nov 29th Forbes valuation and about $30 million short of the Feb 17th/05 Forbes valuation. Ridiculously off by 35% such that we can’t take their advice of November at all seriously.

If you look at several other recent NHL transactions, you see the same pattern. Forbes are off by about 38%. It just goes to show you how wrong one can be when they pull numbers "out of the air" rather than looking at a company's books.

With all due respect, Forbes is out to lunch and has been for some time in this area. It might sell magazines but it turns out to be about as reliable and accurate as an Al Strachan rumour.

The NHL's main investment banker, Moag and Company relies upon the Forbes valuations.

The Canucks just sold half their team for almost exactly half of what Forbes had set their value.

 

[arnie]

Disney agrees to sell Mighty Ducks

Associated Press
2/25/2005

ANAHEIM, Calif. (AP) - The Walt Disney Co. agreed to sell the Anaheim Mighty Ducks to billionaire Henry Samueli and his wife Susan.

The deal, announced Friday by Samueli, is subject to approval by the NHL. Samueli's company operates Arrowhead Pond, where the Mighty Ducks play.

''The Mighty Ducks have become a wonderful asset to this community, with a terrific following, a history of winning and a strong nucleus of outstanding young prospects and talented veterans,'' Samueli said. ''Our acquisition of the team assures that the Mighty Ducks will remain in the hands of local ownership committed to keeping the team in Orange County and putting a consistent winner on the ice.''

Disney paid $50 million US for the Ducks to join the NHL as an expansion franchise in 1992. Samueli's offer reportedly was in the $50 to $60 million range.

Although the Ducks were Western Conference champions and went to the Stanley Cup final during the 2002-2003 season, Disney has had them on the market for years.

''We are confident that Henry and Susan Samueli will bring continued success to the Ducks and we will remain among the biggest fans of the team going forward,'' Disney chief executive Michael Eisner said.

Fornes is revealed to be idiots again. They valued the Ducks at $111 million, and the yeam actually sells for half. This is why their criricism of the Levitt report has zero credibility.

 

[kolanos]

Anaheim Assault & Battery
Anaheim Orange Crush
Anaheim Asskickers of Los Angeles

 

[kolanos]

Fornes is revealed to be idiots again. They valued the Ducks at $111 million, and the yeam actually sells for half. This is why their criricism of the Levitt report has zero credibility.

Psst...there's been a lockout since that report. Not to mention the league losing $1.5 billion dollars.

 

[Jarqui]

The NHL's main investment banker, Moag and Company relies upon the Forbes valuations.

I've seen Moag make reference to Forbes numbers for discussion purposes in a newsletter showing the divergence of the valuation of NHL franchises with NBA francise valuations. I do not see any reference where they would rely upon these numbers if they were going to purchase a team. The fact is, they would not. They, like any other financial institution, would look at the company's books or finanacial statements with an assurance that they would survive auditing and due diligence or the deal is off.

Forbes numbers are financial guesses. They do not have access to all the books or financial details. As you know, there are a variety of theoretical business valuation methods (ie. profit multiple, sales multiple, book value, adjusted book value, etc) and multiple permutations or combinations. And then there is true value business valuation - the real amount that a buyer is finally willing to pay. With the downward trend of NHL business valuation, when Forbes is compared to the true value that an owner actually received for an NHL team, what we're seeing is Forbes valuations being revealed for exactly what they are: guesses. Nothing more. Forbes has not done due diligence to arrive at their guesses. They can't because they don't have access to the books. In several cases, they would not even have access to the real transaction prices or details due to the private business nature of the transaction = more guesses.

The Canucks just sold half their team for almost exactly half of what Forbes had set their value.

Apples to apples ? The Canucks also sold half of GM Place bundled in with that sell price - like the Disney Ice example above. It doesn't wash.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

This is my question. I thought the league specifically said if the Ducks were going for between 50-60 million they would buy the team themselves. Wasn't there a quote or article on this?

I think that was only if there was no buyer to bail Disney out.

 

[miccim]

Fornes is revealed to be idiots again. They valued the Ducks at $111 million, and the yeam actually sells for half. This is why their criricism of the Levitt report has zero credibility.

Well, the price the team was sold doesn't completely depend on its estimated value. If Disney absolutely wanted to sell and that they couldn't find a buyer (which must be hard indeed : who wants to buy somehting that's not "working" right now), prices will necesserly go down, even if the could get more in therms of value. So it means that the Ducks could be valued at 111m$, but the market didn't allow to sell for such money.

 

[Jarqui]

In 2000, 2001, 2003 & 2004 (couldn't find 2002 quickly), the Ducks losses totaled $46.3 million according to Forbes guesses. Where does having to dump that additional cash into that team to keep it afloat over those years come out on the Forbes valuation ? It really doesn't. Those losses also ignore paying interest, building depreciation, capital improvements, etc and would be closer to double when all is said and done.

It is fine and dandy to spin guesses on valuations of teams to sell magaziens but rather silly to overlook how much additional investment has had to have been made by many of these losing owners to keep their original multi million dollar investment in the team alive. Yet Forbes would tell you on November 29th/04 how great it is to do that by clinging to their valuation guesses while ignoring the sizeable losses that have had to be made up with cash that these owners can't get back when they sell the team. With all due respect, Forbes is full of crap.

 

[PecaFan]

Well, the price the team was sold doesn't completely depend on its estimated value. If Disney absolutely wanted to sell and that they couldn't find a buyer (which must be hard indeed : who wants to buy somehting that's not "working" right now), prices will necesserly go down, even if the could get more in therms of value. So it means that the Ducks could be valued at 111m$, but the market didn't allow to sell for such money.

Disney has been trying to sell for *years*. Yes, it's been extremely hard to find a buyer, but they couldn't find one even when things were good. The lockout had nothing to do with artificially lowering the sale price.

 

[Scheme]

Its all propaganda, both sides. Regardless, this isn't the thread for that discussion.

From the HFBoards Posting Rules - Unacceptable Conduct:

15) Playing the Role of Moderator: you're not a moderator so don't correct posters like one. If you have a problem with a post, use the "Report This Post" button, rather than playing the parent. More often than not, that causes more problems than it fixes. Let us handle what is ours to handle.

 

[nomorekids]

From the HFBoards Posting Rules - Unacceptable Conduct:

15) Playing the Role of Moderator: you're not a moderator so don't correct posters like one. If you have a problem with a post, use the "Report This Post" button, rather than playing the parent. More often than not, that causes more problems than it fixes. Let us handle what is ours to handle.

oh, the irony..kenabnrmal has a point. Threads should stay on topic. Starting another Bettman\Goodenow pissmatch is going OFF topic, and should not occur in this thread. This thread is for discussing the sale of the Ducks and anything directly related. Thank you.

 

[vanlady]

In 2000, 2001, 2003 & 2004 (couldn't find 2002 quickly), the Ducks losses totaled $46.3 million according to Forbes guesses. Where does having to dump that additional cash into that team to keep it afloat over those years come out on the Forbes valuation ? It really doesn't. Those losses also ignore paying interest, building depreciation, capital improvements, etc and would be closer to double when all is said and done.
It is fine and dandy to spin guesses on valuations of teams to sell magaziens but rather silly to overlook how much additional investment has had to have been made by many of these losing owners to keep their original multi million dollar investment in the team alive. Yet Forbes would tell you on November 29th/04 how great it is to do that by clinging to their valuation guesses while ignoring the sizeable losses that have had to be made up with cash that these owners can't get back when they sell the team. With all due respect, Forbes is full of crap.

One small problem, Disney has never owned the Pond. Thus any capital improvement, building depreciation and interest on building loans do not apply.

 

[rwilson99]

oh, the irony..kenabnrmal has a point. Threads should stay on topic. Starting another Bettman\Goodenow pissmatch is going OFF topic, and should not occur in this thread. This thread is for discussing the sale of the Ducks and anything directly related. Thank you.

So comparing a 50 Million dollar investment in a CD to a 50 Million dollar investment in the Mighty Ducks is now propaganda.

I didn't mention Bettman or Goodenow by name, but I pointed out that the PA arguement about franchise values which is perfectly legitamate in a discussion thread about the sale of a franchise. It's not propaganda, it's a set of facts

Why don't you read my original post and get back to me and show me how I stepped over the line and went off topic.

 

[kenabnrmal]

oh, the irony..kenabnrmal has a point. Threads should stay on topic. Starting another Bettman\Goodenow pissmatch is going OFF topic, and should not occur in this thread. This thread is for discussing the sale of the Ducks and anything directly related. Thank you.

Thanks for the assistance. It was a request to perhaps stay on topic.

 

[nomorekids]

So comparing a 50 Million dollar investment in a CD to a 50 Million dollar investment in the Mighty Ducks is now propaganda.

I didn't mention Bettman or Goodenow by name, but I pointed out that the PA arguement about franchise values which is perfectly legitamate in a discussion thread about the sale of a franchise. It's not propaganda, it's a set of facts

Why don't you read my original post and get back to me and show me how I stepped over the line and went off topic.

Did I mention you by name, wiseguy?

 

[Scheme]

Did I mention you by name, wiseguy?

I think rwilson99 was replying to kenabnrmal's post about "off-topic propaganda".

Personally, I don't see how discussing the Ducks as a poor investment in a topic called "Ducks Sold!" is off-topic (but that's just me). And since it's true, how can it be considered "propaganda"?

 

[nomorekids]

I think rwilson99 was replying to kenabnrmal's post about "off-topic propaganda".

Personally, I don't see how discussing the Ducks as a poor investment in a topic called "Ducks Sold!" is off-topic (but that's just me). And since it's true, how can it be considered "propaganda"?

I was referring more to the PA\NHL rumblings that were stirring up.

 

[kenabnrmal]

I think rwilson99 was replying to kenabnrmal's post about "off-topic propaganda".

Personally, I don't see how discussing the Ducks as a poor investment in a topic called "Ducks Sold!" is off-topic (but that's just me). And since it's true, how can it be considered "propaganda"?

Thats not propaganda, and if thats what I was initially calling propaganda, then you'd be right. However, what I was commenting on was the comment: "Nice try. It's the players with the scorched earth policy, with their refusal to let the owners implement the changes needed to fix the game.". That isn't on topic. Like I said, there are a billion threads in which to debate the owners and players' positions. If the intent of the comment was to point out that the Ducks was a bad investment, then fine. But, there was no hint at that. So, I mean if you want to get all hissy over me requesting that perhaps we could have just ONE thread on the board that doesn't degrade into "the owners are greedy! No the players are greedy!", then fine. However, now we're nearing ten posts on discussion what is exactly on topic or off topic, and that seems a little ridiculous when it could have just been left as a discussion on the sale of the Ducks.