This is a great example of how shaky Forbes' numbers really are, especially their estimate of the value of the franchise. From another thread: In 1998, Forbes valued the Blues at $154 mil. In 1999, they sold for $100 mil. (-54 mil) In 1999, Forbes had the Penguins valued at $100 mil. They sold for $76 mil. (-24 mil) In 1999, Forbes had the Caps valued at $145 mil. They sold for $85 mil. (-60 mil) In 1998, Forbes had the Sabres valued at $91 mil. They sold for $76 mil. (-15 mil) So on these four recent deals, Forbes values them at $490 mil but when someone actually had to pay for them, they only got $336 mil. Forbes was short -$154 mil on four deals when their valuations faced reality. In 2000, the NJ Devils were purchased for $175 mil and then sold shortly there after for $124 mil. (-51 mil). Let's face it : this was a pure hosing of a deal when it originally sold. In 2000, when the Islanders were purchased, $188 million was paid but $85 mil went towards buying the separate cable deal (according to the Pickett deal). The balance of the team went for $103 mil and Forbes had it at valued at $139 mil. (possibly short -36 mil). So the claim by Forbes that the owners have recently been making out like bandits on asset growth gets very shakey when someone's hand starts to scribble out a cheque for buying an NHL team. In 1995, the LA Kings were sold for $113 million. In 1999, Forbes valued them at $109 million. When they moved into an arena they invested in for co-ownership in 2000, their value suddenly leaped to $160 million. In other words, they had to put a bunch of money in to get that $160 mil value. Also the authors of that Forbes article have admitted that they haven't seen the books. My question to you pro-NHLPA people is this: How on earth do you still believe that Forbes is telling the truth and owners are lying?? I know that owners do their best to make the situation look as bad as possible but Forbes really has absolutely NO credibility in this issue for several reasons.