ScottM Posted July 21, 2015 Author Share Posted July 21, 2015 But it has seemed to work out for most if not all of the franchises that paid it. As I said earlier in the thread, a good product in a good market will make up for it over time. As you say, the odds are, you win in the long run, and as I said earlier, only serious applicants need apply. That's the point. They want people who are serious. But yeah, $500 million is high. @WordsOfWisdom As for teams paying expansion fees through history, take a look at this picture: Those guys are Walter Bush and Gordon Ritz, the original owners of the Minnesota North Stars, and they're holding the $2 million check that they wrote to cover their expansion fee. An interesting fact about the 1967 expansion is that since there were six existing teams and six new teams, each one of expansion franchises paid the fee directly to one of the established teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Let me Google that for you. Aside from, perhaps, the Original Six? Yes. And the Original Six created the league. That's about $14M in today's dollars. In 1996, Ed Snider sold the franchise to Comcast (and continued to run it) for $160M. An 80x return on his franchise fee. The team value in 2009, according to Forbes, was $273M. It's not a "make believe fee" - it's what every franchised organization in the world does. Every. Single. One. Look! Haverford has an ice surface and people on skates - why can't they be in the NHL!?!? Because that's not the way it works. To be clear, I think $500M is absolutely ridiculous. But it does work out to about $16.67M per team. And, really, it's not all that bad if you can be, for example, a franchise that hasn't even made the Cup Final since 1966 and is the most valuable franchise in the league. They were first sold back in 1927 for $127,000. One might say it was absolutely ridiculous for them to be charging a "made up fee" almost 10 times what the Maple Leafs were sold for in 1927 to get into the NHL. But it has seemed to work out for most if not all of the franchises that paid it. Interesting. I hadn't looked into the history of how each team came into the league and what they paid to do so. In any event, my original point is still the same: the $500 million is a number pulled out of Bettman's derriere, and I think (like you do) that it's ridiculous. I doubt that any owner today would ever make that money back because all of the "good" (big city) markets are taken. All that is left is non-hockey markets like Vegas, Kansas, etc. and one strong hockey market with a weakening Canadian dollar in Quebec. Why dig yourself a $500 mil hole to climb out of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Why dig yourself a $500 mil hole to climb out of? Seems like Quebec and Vegas are busily digging themselves holes. I think this might be why Seattle is hedging on the idea - their taxpayers seem to be shy of giving billionaires tax breaks and stadium money so they can own a sports team with which they can blackmail the taxpayers for more money. Odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Seems like Quebec and Vegas are busily digging themselves holes.I think this might be why Seattle is hedging on the idea - their taxpayers seem to be shy of giving billionaires tax breaks and stadium money so they can own a sports team with which they can blackmail the taxpayers for more money.Odd.I'm reminded of the famous saying: "A fool and his/her money are easily parted."A part of me likes having an NHL team around, but another part of me likes when NHL teams are located elsewhere so that they can be a drain on the resources of other people and not people in my area. It's like having a casino in that it's a tax against poor people. Congrats to Seattle if they took a stand and said no thanks to the NHL's publically funded, privately owned business model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted July 23, 2015 Author Share Posted July 23, 2015 @radoran @WordsOfWisdom Public funding doesn't seem to be the hold-up in Seattle based on what I've read. Coleman said he didn't want to apply until having a location finalized, and Bartoszek said that construction on an arena could begin before the end of the year on the land he holds the option on . It almost seems as if he simply changed his mind. Coleman, I think is still feeling out his options. I get the impression from some of the articles I've read that he thinks he can still get a team after missing the deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 @radoran @WordsOfWisdom Public funding doesn't seem to be the hold-up in Seattle based on what I've read. Coleman said he didn't want to apply until having a location finalized, and Bartoszek said that construction on an arena could begin before the end of the year on the land he holds the option on . It almost seems as if he simply changed his mind. Coleman, I think is still feeling out his options. I get the impression from some of the articles I've read that he thinks he can still get a team after missing the deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted July 23, 2015 Author Share Posted July 23, 2015 That picture sums up my thoughts about Coleman's side of things for sure. Supposedly, he wants to make an arena sharing deal with Hansen, but Hansen says no offer has been made. Supposedly, he's still dedicated to bringing a team to Seattle, but was going to intentionally skip the deadline over the arena thing. Right now, the Seattle situation strikes me as being a ship of fools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.