Re: Annual Forbes numbers in Bruins fifth in value.
posted at 11/29/2012 5:59 PM EST
In response to stevegm's comment:
In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
Last year's Cup winning Kings: $1.8M
Last year's bankruptcy filing Devils: $2.8M
Along with the teams in the negative, there are also four teams that are positive for a lower amount than they pay one of their players.
It is surprising to see Calgary and Edmonton so far up on the list, but not as surprising as seeing The Blues in dead last for value. You know you have major problems when the sad sack Coyotes are above you.
Not that we usually disagree....but I have to on this one. I don't think I'll get much argument regarding the fact that the Torono Maple Leafs are a 1 billion dollar saleable asset, and that value keeps growing beyond logic.. Despite that financial genious that so many want to worship here......the leafs payroll (wat this whole fight is about) was a laughable 206 grand less than the cup winning Los Angeles Kings. Not 20 million, not 2 million, but 2 hundred thousand dollars. Think about this for just a moment. Isn't that proof that tteams don't need to spend equally? Don't most businesses live and die by that reality? If these guys need to be "protected" to operate within their industry...why are so many doing such a shitty job when they have the same resouces as their competitors?
It's been a while since TO made the playoffs, let alone "competed". I 've read countless posts arguing the fact that some "have nots" need special consideration. Give me one example where any industry is going gang busters, but reality is based on the economics of the bottom feeders.
It should be pretty obvious that the pressing issue is the cap floor. What Toronto can afford has nothing to do with Phoenix, and vice versa. Anymore than the country's best Ford dealership vs the weakest. Wouldn't a more reasonable cap floor make sense? Why is living within your means such a novel concept?
If we were to properly pigeon hole the players, we can't just call them emplyees. Using farming as an example...they're not the just the workers harvesting the bounty.....they're the crops ....and the weather that dictates the yield. Thy're pretty much everything that decides the value of a franchise.
This is round 2. So far, the product has agreed to about a 45% decrease in their share of the bounty, while those entrusted to nothing more than "marking it up", have put that amount in their collective pockets. The process here digusts me.
I'm probably a lot older than most, so I realize my views may not resonate with everyone.
But to me...it was never about the Colonel, or Sun Records. Their combined brilliance should never be diminished, but the scales are at least slightly tipped towards Elvis. Why should they ever be entitled to the financial promised land. As for the B's They're worth a paltry 348 mil today. Not a bad profit for someone who paid 10 mil for the franchise, and took a hefty payday every year since..
I'll go out on a limb and say that ridiculous growth is largely due to those who've played. Bobby Orr's legacy has lined Jeremy Jacobs wallet with hundreds of millions. Ray Bourque, Phil Esposito to a lessor extent, there are dozens since 1975 who've built the brand more than he has, yet, it's his 348 million dollar profit. No one elses.
JJ shouldn't be villanized for that...but then again, most of his NHL brethern shouldn't be pitied either.