PromoTheRobot Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The Business of Football Forbes says the Bills are worth $909M, but the Cowboys at #1 are worth $1.7B and that's before their new "goldmine" opened. May be worth over $2B next year. What is shocking is that teams like the 49ers, Falcons, and Vikings are worth less than us. If you're curious, here are NHL team values. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The Business of Football Forbes says the Bills are worth $909M, but the Cowboys at #1 are worth $1.7B and that's before their new "goldmine" opened. May be worth over $2B next year. What is shocking is that teams like the 49ers, Falcons, and Vikings are worth less than us. If you're curious, here are NHL team values. PTR Another 40 mil into Ralph's sarcophagus. Awesome! The NHL is an absolute disaster. You couldn't give half of those teams away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Another 40 mil into Ralph's sarcophagus. Awesome! The NHL is an absolute disaster. You couldn't give half of those teams away. Over the past dismal decade of performance on the field Ralph has made a quarter of a Billion $$$. Who says losing doesn't pay? Who doesn't doubt that Ralph is going to hang on until the bitter end because he finds it profitable for him and his estate. It is just Ralph being Ralph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperKillerRobots Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Over the past dismal decade of performance on the field Ralph has made a quarter of a Billion $$$. Who says losing doesn't pay? Who doesn't doubt that Ralph is going to hang on until the bitter end because he finds it profitable for him and his estate. It is just Ralph being Ralph. Who are you, Mother Teresa? These teams were essentially worth what hockey teams are now in the 90s. Ralph was bullish on the NFL and values, so he figured that the longer he held on the more he would get from it. Whatever you want to say about the guy and football, one thing is for sure - he is one of the best businessmen in the country. He made a ton of money and stands to make more. If I were him, I'd have my head frozen so i could keep earning more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Another 40 mil into Ralph's sarcophagus. Awesome! The NHL is an absolute disaster. You couldn't give half of those teams away. The NHL is a lot better post-lockout. Before 2004 almost a majority of the league (About 14 teams were losing money annually). Now its estimated that 6-8 teams loose money yearly and the losses are a lot less. Honestly if the NHL was smart and moved a few teams to better markets the league would much stronger. Allow the Coyotes to move to Hamilton, move the Panthers to Winnipeg, move the Thrashers to another city in Canada. As for the Islanders if they can't get a home in Long Island move to Kansas City. The Coyotes aren't viable, there doesn't need to be 2 teams in Florida, and Atlanta doesn't support many sports teams let alone hockey. As for the Islanders I like them and want them to stay but if they aren't viable KC has been begging for a team. The NHL is so afraid to have a lot teams in Canada but if Canadians are willing to support hockey why not move more teams there (I mean the southern hockey experiment needs to be scaled back a bit)? I am sorry but there are too many teams in the South and if you could just take 2-3 teams out of the South (Atlanta, Florida, and maybe Nashville) and if you can move the Coyotes to a better location you have made your league a lot more viable. Still even with too many teams in the South and a bankrupt franchise (As well as another franchise in Long Island having serious issues) the NHL is in a lot better shape then it has been in a while. I would say the NHL by the end of the next decade might have a chance to overtake the NBA if the NBA continues to have serious troubles with their salary structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 If you're curious, here are NHL team values. PTR Not a pretty picture for the Sabres. 24th in revenue and 25th in operating income. A $5MM loss on $79MM in revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cale Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The truth of the matter is that it simply doesn't matter. It isn't a simple one to one correlation equation in terms of franchise viability. As much as the Bills have a rabid fan base, the cost of tickets is one of the lowest. The new NFL is about PSLs, luxury boxes and new stadiums. Our Bills simply can't compete in that scenario. I'm not a big fan of Ralph's recent moves. But as much as the Bills have been his little "toy", I believe he does want to see the franchise remain in WNY. However, his daughters will inherit the franchise when he passes away and they can't wait to sell to the highest bidder. Therefore he is more concerned with the franchise having a solid bottom line. RW is also incredibly stubborn and old school. So I think the long term future of this franchise in Buffalo is very much in doubt. Here is an MSN article that kinda sheds some light; http://www.minyanville.com/articles/canada.../23233/from/msn I maintain that the most powerful man in this franchise is Jeff Littman. Yet we hear very little about him. He was responsible for Polian leaving and I'm sure also for Butler being fired. C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The NHL is a lot better post-lockout. Before 2004 almost a majority of the league (About 14 teams were losing money annually). Now its estimated that 6-8 teams loose money yearly and the losses are a lot less. Honestly if the NHL was smart and moved a few teams to better markets the league would much stronger. Allow the Coyotes to move to Hamilton, move the Panthers to Winnipeg, move the Thrashers to another city in Canada. As for the Islanders if they can't get a home in Long Island move to Kansas City. The Coyotes aren't viable, there doesn't need to be 2 teams in Florida, and Atlanta doesn't support many sports teams let alone hockey. As for the Islanders I like them and want them to stay but if they aren't viable KC has been begging for a team. The NHL is so afraid to have a lot teams in Canada but if Canadians are willing to support hockey why not move more teams there (I mean the southern hockey experiment needs to be scaled back a bit)? I am sorry but there are too many teams in the South and if you could just take 2-3 teams out of the South (Atlanta, Florida, and maybe Nashville) and if you can move the Coyotes to a better location you have made your league a lot more viable. Still even with too many teams in the South and a bankrupt franchise (As well as another franchise in Long Island having serious issues) the NHL is in a lot better shape then it has been in a while. I would say the NHL by the end of the next decade might have a chance to overtake the NBA if the NBA continues to have serious troubles with their salary structure. That's not happenin. Aside from maybe Ovechkin and Crosby, the average American has never heard of any hockey players. Listen, we love hockey, but it will always be a niche sport in a country that is far more interested in watching cars drive in circles for hours on end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I think they should sell or move some of the struggling NHL teams to Europe. Why not let Phoenix go to Moscow. Send the Panthers to Stockholm. In the future, you could put other teams in hockey friendly cities like Prague and figure out a way to schedule games in a sane manner. The league would become the first truly international league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaineMoxie Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 That's not happenin. Aside from maybe Ovechkin and Crosby, the average American has never heard of any hockey players. Listen, we love hockey, but it will always be a niche sport in a country that is far more interested in watching cars drive in circles for hours on end. Yeah, I never understood that. I mean, I like some car racing (IndyCar, F1, Rally), but I never understood the appeal of watching cars drive in circles for hours. As for hockey, I don't understand the NHL's (or maybe it's just Gary Bettman's) stubborn insistence on having teams in some of these markets. I mean, maybe it was good to test the waters, but the experiment has failed. No one in Phoenix gives a rat's backside about hockey and they likely never will. But then, as the NFL is showing us, it's no longer about the fans and the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 As for hockey, I don't understand the NHL's (or maybe it's just Gary Bettman's) stubborn insistence on having teams in some of these markets. I mean, maybe it was good to test the waters, but the experiment has failed. No one in Phoenix gives a rat's backside about hockey and they likely never will. I'd be all for a Constitutional Amendment banning hockey south of the 38th parallel. Send all those teams back to Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Who are you, Mother Teresa? These teams were essentially worth what hockey teams are now in the 90s. Ralph was bullish on the NFL and values, so he figured that the longer he held on the more he would get from it. Whatever you want to say about the guy and football, one thing is for sure - he is one of the best businessmen in the country. He made a ton of money and stands to make more. If I were him, I'd have my head frozen so i could keep earning more money. What is the point of owning a football team if you have no desire or are too incompetent to compete. Of course he will make more money the longer he holds on to the team. He is over 90 yrs old and he presides over a franchise that is outright dreadful. The franchise has been floundering for a long time with limited prospects in getting better with him in control. There comes a point where how much is enough. Whether the team is sold for $900 millionor $1 billion what is the difference? The beneficiaries of his estate under any circumstances will do very well for themselves. The people of the region have supported his "business" for half a century. The local authorities have supported him with taxpayer money by building the facility he plays in. The value of the franchise didn't appreciate merely because of his business brilliance. The support of his franchise by the fans and taxpayers certainly enhanced the value of his company. As the owners did in Baltimore and Miami there are ways to ensure the franchise stays in the region and transition to new ownership with him being fairly compensated. Ralph doesn't care. He is going to squeeze the piggy to the very end. Whatever happens afterwards is no concern to him. That's Ralph being Ralph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Do they take debt into account? Obviously not appropriately, because that new stadium in Texas is worth more than the franchise. The Business of Football Forbes says the Bills are worth $909M, but the Cowboys at #1 are worth $1.7B and that's before their new "goldmine" opened. May be worth over $2B next year. What is shocking is that teams like the 49ers, Falcons, and Vikings are worth less than us. If you're curious, here are NHL team values. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I maintain that the most powerful man in this franchise is Jeff Littman. Yet we hear very little about him. He was responsible for Polian leaving and I'm sure also for Butler being fired. C I think RW has less control than we think, with people like Littman and to a lesser extent Berchtold guarding him from the media. But I agree Littman is controlling the direction of the team in order to maximize revenue and keep debt to value low for prospective buyers. This off-season will give us a window into where this team is headed. If they fail to re-structure the front office with real football people, it's an indication their objective remains to ride it out and let the chips fall where they may when the owner passes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 The NHL is a lot better post-lockout. Before 2004 almost a majority of the league (About 14 teams were losing money annually). Now its estimated that 6-8 teams loose money yearly and the losses are a lot less. Honestly if the NHL was smart and moved a few teams to better markets the league would much stronger. Allow the Coyotes to move to Hamilton, move the Panthers to Winnipeg, move the Thrashers to another city in Canada. As for the Islanders if they can't get a home in Long Island move to Kansas City. The Coyotes aren't viable, there doesn't need to be 2 teams in Florida, and Atlanta doesn't support many sports teams let alone hockey. As for the Islanders I like them and want them to stay but if they aren't viable KC has been begging for a team. The NHL is so afraid to have a lot teams in Canada but if Canadians are willing to support hockey why not move more teams there (I mean the southern hockey experiment needs to be scaled back a bit)? I am sorry but there are too many teams in the South and if you could just take 2-3 teams out of the South (Atlanta, Florida, and maybe Nashville) and if you can move the Coyotes to a better location you have made your league a lot more viable. Still even with too many teams in the South and a bankrupt franchise (As well as another franchise in Long Island having serious issues) the NHL is in a lot better shape then it has been in a while. I would say the NHL by the end of the next decade might have a chance to overtake the NBA if the NBA continues to have serious troubles with their salary structure. I agree pretty much EXCEPT your statement there doesn't need to be two teams in Fla. Fla has a LARGE number of transplanted hockey fans down here and SUPPORTS both teams. Tampa Bay holds the NHL record for game attendence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I'd be all for a Constitutional Amendment banning hockey south of the 38th parallel. Send all those teams back to Canada. I think everyone would agree that the League was a lot cooler when you had the Whale, the Nordiques and the Jets instead of the Hurricanes, Avs and Coyotes. Moving all the southern teams that nobody gives a crap about back to hockey-hungry cities like Quebec and Winnipeg would undoubtedly be good for hockey, however, it would do nothing in terms of boosting the popularity of hockey in the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I agree pretty much EXCEPT your statement there doesn't need to be two teams in Fla. Fla has a LARGE number of transplanted hockey fans down here and SUPPORTS both teams. Tampa Bay holds the NHL record for game attendence. I think 1 team in Florida (Tampa Bay) is more then viable. Florida is a big place so having a hockey team their makes sense (also a big hockey transplant audience) but 2 teams is over exposing the product and making the league carry a bad franchise (the panthers) which overall hurts the league. Like I said taking a few teams out of the South and moving them back to Canada would strengthen the league by having less dead weight franchises to carry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I think RW has less control than we think, with people like Littman and to a lesser extent Berchtold guarding him from the media. But I agree Littman is controlling the direction of the team in order to maximize revenue and keep debt to value low for prospective buyers. This off-season will give us a window into where this team is headed. If they fail to re-structure the front office with real football people, it's an indication their objective remains to ride it out and let the chips fall where they may when the owner passes. BillsVet, I respectfully disagree with your view that Littman is the controlling authority of the franchise. Littman has been with the owner going back to their Michigan business days. Littman works for Ralph, the boss. Is Ralph less engaged now? Of course, he is 91 yrs old and tiring more and more. When the Polian and Littman feud came to a "one or other" point the owner selected Littman, his money guardian within the franchise. There is no surprise as to why Littman would be the one left standing and Polian shown the exit. With Ralph the money issue is always going to trump the football issue. Ralph Wilson has owned the Bills for half a century. There has been little change in how he runs his "business" over that same period of time. Littman works for Ralph. Littman knows that and acts accordingly. He is doing what the boss wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts