Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Mario Lemieux’s $20M Mansion

from QMI Agency at the Toronto Sun,

Pittsburgh Penguins owner Mario Lemieux recently took possession of a new $20-million home in Mont Tremblant, Quebec's high end ski resort town.

The 15,000 square feet sprawling, Swiss castle-style mansion about 145 km north of Montreal has 23 rooms as well as 10 bathrooms.

The castle, which is made of stone and wood, is located on a piece of land close to Tremblant's golf course and ski hills. The castle also features a triple garage and a double garage, has an in-ground swimming pool and an outdoor tennis court with a heated floor....

"It's not the time to talk about my personal affairs," Lemieux told QMI Agency through a spokesman with the Penguins organization.

more including a slideshow of the home plus check out some of the interesting comments...

Filed in: NHL Teams, Pittsburgh Penguins, | KK Hockey | Permalink
  Tags: mario+lemieux

Comments

Hockeytown Wax's avatar

ah HA ... that splains it.  Now we know why Mario hasn’t come to the table to be a voice of reason ... he’s been poisoned !! He’s one of them !!

$20 mil. “second home” ... what a douchebag.  Whether you feel he deserves it or not, I have just lost all respect for him.

I hope the players tell all the owners to take a flying leap and force them to dissolve the NHL completely.

Posted by Hockeytown Wax from West Bloomfield, Mi. on 11/25/12 at 07:07 AM ET

Vladimir16's avatar

I hope the players tell all the owners to take a flying leap and force them to dissolve the NHL completely.

Posted by Hockeytown Wax from West Bloomfield, Mi. on 11/25/12 at 06:07 AM ET

This ^^^^^

Posted by Vladimir16 from Grand River Valley on 11/25/12 at 09:25 AM ET

Avatar

Really?  This house has been in the making for at least two years.  Crosby is/was building a house in Pittsburgh.  Should he stop the the house from going up just because of the lockout?  I don’t get it.  He’s been poisoned?  He is an owner.  All owners, even Mike Illitch, voted for the lockout.  It is what it is.

Posted by pens fan in baltimore on 11/25/12 at 10:10 AM ET

Red Winger's avatar

The only question that matters: Will Sid get the basement?

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 11/25/12 at 10:24 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Really?  This house has been in the making for at least two years.

People who read the article and didn’t blindly jump in to defend their owner would know that it says construction was started in 2009.

It’s just that if the record revenues =/= record profits crowd is right, that’s a lot of house for Lemieux to be investing in during the time which the NHL would have you believe their finances were at their absolute worst.

Especially at the end of a year that the Forbes numbers claim the Penguins lost money (their fourth straight year of declining operating income).

I don’t know; maybe the euphoria of winning the cup overpowered the cold, harsh “reality” that running the Penguins was going to sap his fortune instead of grow it?  That’s certainly a possibility.

 

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/25/12 at 11:14 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Especially at the end of a year that the Forbes numbers claim the Penguins lost money (their fourth straight year of declining operating income).

My mistake, the Penguins brought in a whopping $3.3M in operating income, having seen that number decline for three straight years. They didn’t start “losing” money until Lemieux had already started construction on his castle.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/25/12 at 11:18 AM ET

NHLJeff's avatar

Who cares? The man had a great career, and aside from an NHL team, I’m sure he’s made some sound investments. Let him enjoy what he’s earned.

Posted by NHLJeff from Pens fan in Chicago, IL on 11/25/12 at 11:44 AM ET

Avatar

$20 mil. “second home” ... what a douchebag.  Whether you feel he deserves it or not, I have just lost all respect for him

Yeah and being paid $8 million to play a game has real integrity. Not sure how Lemieux being wealthy has anything to do with this debate. If the issue is that there is too much money spent on sports then that is something for both sides to consider.

 

Posted by timbits on 11/25/12 at 11:48 AM ET

starsfan26's avatar

If the issue is that there is too much money spent on sports then that is something for both sides to consider

Exactly.  As long as people love sports, the players and owners (and universities) will always make a ton of money.

Posted by starsfan26 on 11/25/12 at 12:00 PM ET

pensfan29's avatar

It’s his money. Let him do what he wants

Posted by pensfan29 on 11/25/12 at 03:58 PM ET

Avatar

what’s Lemieux thoughts on lockout his fellow brothering and adopted son?

Posted by FlyersFan on 11/25/12 at 04:24 PM ET

Avatar

He is both player and owner.  I don’t begrudge him anything, but do you think either side knows how a blue collar guy lives?

Posted by 13 user names on 11/25/12 at 04:58 PM ET

Avatar

It’s just that if the record revenues =/= record profits crowd is right, that’s a lot of house for Lemieux to be investing in during the time which the NHL would have you believe their finances were at their absolute worst.

What percentage of Lemieux’s net worth is tied into his NHL ownership? 

Is that ownership position a salaried one, or one indexed on profit loss? 

Pittsburgh is a roughly break even club even with limited postseason revenues.  Is it fair to lump them in with one of the 15ish teams that allegedly lose money? 

How much of this 20 million dollar house is being financed?

 

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/25/12 at 05:16 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

What percentage of Lemieux’s net worth is tied into his NHL ownership?

Unknown. NHL teams don’t reveal their finances.

Is that ownership position a salaried one, or one indexed on profit loss?

Unknown. NHL teams don’t disclose their books.

Pittsburgh is a roughly break even club even with limited postseason revenues.  Is it fair to lump them in with one of the 15ish teams that allegedly lose money?

Unknown. We don’t even know if they’re even a break-even club.

How much of this 20 million dollar house is being financed?

Great question. It’s certainly an interesting concept that NHL owners could use the values of their franchise as collateral to fund extra-hockey ventures.

When you finance something, you have to convince the financing company that you’re in good enough financial shape to pay back the loan. Clearly if any of it was financed, the company doing so was comfortable enough lending Mario Lemieux money.

Ultimately though? Unknown.

The optics are that Mario Lemieux had a $20M mansion built during a time that the NHL has asked the fans to believe the finances were so bad that they had to blow up (so far) half of this season to “fix”. 

Sure there are external factors and considerations at play here. If Mario Lemieux wants to release additional context, I’d be happy to take that into consideration.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/25/12 at 05:32 PM ET

Avatar

Group 1:

Unknown.

Unknown.

Unknown.

Ultimately though? Unknown.

Group 2:

It’s just that if the record revenues =/= record profits crowd is right, that’s a lot of house for Lemieux to be investing in during the time which the NHL would have you believe their finances were at their absolute worst.

I see. wink

Great question. It’s certainly an interesting concept that NHL owners could use the values of their franchise as collateral to fund extra-hockey ventures.

Have you ever taken a home loan before, JJ?  You don’t have to finance the home with external assets if the home is valued sufficiently to serve as collateral for the loan itself. 

All you really need to have is sufficient salary to make a payment on the outstanding value of the home.

At a 16 mil outstanding mortgage at going 3.45% rates you’re talking about less than a mil a year in house payments.

Dude made 50 mil+ in his playing career and I bet he’s making at least a mil a year as a figurehead executive for the Pens.  Probably more like 2 mil a year.  If he’s not a complete moron he put 10-15 mil away over the course of his career so he’s drawing 750 grand a year just on baseline 5% returns.

The optics are that Mario Lemieux had a $20M mansion built during a time that the NHL has asked the fans to believe the finances were so bad that they had to blow up (so far) half of this season to “fix”.

That’s odd.  I don’t recall seeing an earlier reference to optics, but to realities.  The reality is that 3 years ago Lemieux started construction on a house which if he pays 20% down only costs him 4 mil up front and he made way over 50 million bucks in his playing career.

I think if one is using rational optics one isn’t thinking that Lemieux is building this house on the back of the money he’s made as a part owner, but as a player.

If one is trying to gin up an argument to reach a pre-determined finish line, well, all bets are off I suppose.

Sure there are external factors and considerations at play here. If Mario Lemieux wants to release additional context, I’d be happy to take that into consideration.

I know.  I’ve heard the song before.  You assume a position based on no real information, assume it is correct, and then require irrefutable information to change your mind.

Check.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/25/12 at 05:54 PM ET

Avatar

What percentage of Lemieux’s net worth is tied into his NHL ownership?

Unknown. NHL teams don’t reveal their finances.

I think some are forgetting that Ron Burkle is the majority owner of the Penguins not Mario Lemieux.  Here is a story in the Post Gazette about him.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/the-secret-life-of-ron-burkle-247001/

Posted by timbits on 11/25/12 at 06:00 PM ET

Hockeytown Wax's avatar

OK .. here is why I said what I said.

Yes, Mario made a buttload of money while he was a player which he obviously invested wisely.  Thats a good thing.  That shows he’s a smart guy and knows what to do to keep himself & his family afloat after his hockey career ended. Every player should have that same opportunity.

But, at the same time, it also shows he’s become one of “them”.  He’s built a huge “second home” which shows he’s still got plenty of money yet he went along with the other owners and decided it was best to lock out the current players so he can make even MORE of what he already has plenty of.

Mario could have been the voice of reason. He could have come to the table and helped get a reasonable deal done so todays players have the same opportunity to build a castle like he has.  But sadly, he has decided to squeeze the players for more cash just like the rest of the greedy owners.

Mario building that house also shows me that any NHL team owner gets his money elsewhere.  He doesn’t (nor shouldn’t) need the NHL team money to survive.

We, the fans of the NHL, provide all of the money these people are arguing over. Where do you want your money going ??  Into Mario’s castle or the players pockets ??

Posted by Hockeytown Wax from West Bloomfield, Mi. on 11/25/12 at 06:26 PM ET

Avatar

Into Mario’s castle or the players pockets ??

Neither, but that isn’t the issue. My desire with this lockout is to sufficiently support the 10 to 15 franchises that break even or lose money regularly. I want to see the game go into new areas, to grow the game of hockey, not just the NHL. If more teams make money, there will be less pressure to have future work stoppages, because more teams have something to lose. I hope this is achieved with real revenue sharing and cost controls through a reduced hard cap tied to a smaller percentage of HRR, which also ensures the best parity in major league sports.

Posted by timbits on 11/25/12 at 06:54 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Have you ever taken a home loan before, JJ?  You don’t have to finance the home with external assets if the home is valued sufficiently to serve as collateral for the loan itself.

Well sure, and obviously the way loans work changes when you get into the $20M range, but most companies want that 20% equity at least.  You can also get yourself a much better rate if you collateralize against stable assets.

Of course, that’s all completely speculation about how Lemieux actually paid for his mansion.

That’s odd.  I don’t recall seeing an earlier reference to optics, but to realities.

That’s because you’re pretty good at misreading things. The only time I ever used “reality” in a previous post, I did so using quotes.  That was intentional and the reason for them should be obvious. Clearly, it was a reference to optics rather than realities. You just seem to have internet commenter autism.

Dude made 50 mil+ in his playing career and I bet he’s making at least a mil a year as a figurehead executive for the Pens.  Probably more like 2 mil a year.

On a barely break-even team?  The selfish bastard.  But wait, it gets better.

At a 16 mil outstanding mortgage at going 3.45% rates you’re talking about less than a mil a year in house payments.

So while we’re wildly speculating about things that you think make sense, Mario Lemieux took out a 30-year mortgage on $16M which costs him about $850,000 in payments per year on a salary of about $1M.

Yet I’m the one assuming a position based on no real information?

Again, it’s a strawman. You’re overstating my position again. All I’ve said is that Lemieux’s timing looks bad. You’ve thrown a lot of garbage into the water to muddy things up about how nothing means anything and you’re using nothing but guesswork about what’s actually going on to confuse the issue. It would be sad if it weren’t so ridiculous.

 

 

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/25/12 at 07:11 PM ET

Avatar

But, at the same time, it also shows he’s become one of “them”. 

Here’s the thing, Wax.  They are all “them”.  All the owners, all the players.

That’s because you’re pretty good at misreading things.

Oh?  So, which comment of yours here referred to optics?

Yet I’m the one assuming a position based on no real information?

Yes, obviously.  That’s not the stupid part, because there isn’t any real information out there.  The stupid part is when, after forming your opinion based on absolutely nothing, you then dismiss all other similarly-based opinions and refuse to countenance any change until irrefutable evidence is presented.

All I’ve said is that Lemieux’s timing looks bad.

“It’s just that if the record revenues =/= record profits crowd is right, that’s a lot of house for Lemieux to be investing in during the time which the NHL would have you believe their finances were at their absolute worst.”

You’ve thrown a lot of garbage into the water to muddy things up about how nothing means anything and you’re using nothing but guesswork about what’s actually going on to confuse the issue. It would be sad if it weren’t so ridiculous.

Eyeroll.

What you are trying to do is cast aspersions on Lemieux’s completion of a house purchase because, since he’s an owner now, you think it looks bad.

Never mind that in real terms it’s entirely possible that he’s in that house for a fraction of his earnings as a player.  Never mind that it was his earnings as a player that facilitated his entry into ownership status.

Nah.  Throw all that stuff out.  Since you’re vitriolically pro-player, and since Lemieux is an owner now, why, there you go.  Open fire.  Greedy owner.

Oh, but you’ll change your mind if Lemieux submits to a third party audit.

Maybe.

Big of you.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/25/12 at 08:42 PM ET

Hockeytown Wax's avatar

timbits ... changing UFA status age, eliminating arbitration, restricting contract length to 5 years, restricting max. salary increase year over year to 5% are just a few of the sticking points in the negotiations and will not make the insolvent teams solvent.  If they were just arguing over HRR I’d agree with you but alas ... its not that simple.

Even so, profit sharing between teams is pathetic.  Taking more money from the players isn’t going to make Phoenix a profitable team.  Sharing more than 6% of the HRR would.

Time for the owners to learn how to share their toys.

And shame on the owners for allowing people/investment groups to buy teams that really can’t afford to.

Owning a hockey team isn’t going to make you rich ... being rich allows you to buy a hockey team… huge difference.

Which brings us back to Mario Lemieux.

Yes HD, Mario probably built his $20 mil. house with his player money/investments. Thats a good thing .. and you would think he’d be at the table making sure the players got a fair shake so they could do the same thing when they retire.

One can only image what Nick Lidstrom is doing with the $100 mil. he’s made over his 20 year career.

Mario and Nick are the cream of the crop superstars of the league.  It would be nice if he looked out for the career 3rd/4th liners that make room for players like him and Sid etc.

Whoever becomes the voice of reason ... however the next CBA looks .... I think we can all agree that Bettman is as good as gone when its all over.  He’ll probably try to bow out gracefully, sighting health reasons or some sort of family situation that needs attending to.

Posted by Hockeytown Wax from West Bloomfield, Mi. on 11/25/12 at 09:56 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Oh?  So, which comment of yours here referred to optics?

All of them; or are you crediting me with being more of an expert than either you or I deserve again? I told you to stop doing that.

you then dismiss all other similarly-based opinions

What have I dismissed again?  If I recall the conversation (and I do because it’s all still up there), I’m the one who’s consistently talked about alternate possibilities while framing the discussion solely about how it looks and not how it actually is.

You think disagreeing is the same as dismissal? Well that might be your problem right there, although the inability to see things as anything other than black or white does lend credence to the hypothesis that you’re just not very good at conversation.  Well I’m not going to baby you. Catch up.

Nah.  Throw all that stuff out.  Since you’re vitriolically pro-player, and since Lemieux is an owner now, why, there you go.  Open fire.  Greedy owner.

Vitriolically? That’s what I’m talking about with you constantly overstating my positions. I’m vitriolically anti-Bettman and I’m vitriolically anti-bullshit. I’m the pro-player version of Timbits here. Would you say that he’s vitriolically anti-player?

I think you take this too seriously.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/25/12 at 11:49 PM ET

Avatar

I’m sure Ilitch was subject to the same jibes when he was pricing a vanity basketball investment of much greater cost around the same time while drilling it into his underlings heads that athletes are nothing but cattle. Of course, that may be a little misleading of a thing for me to say, but that seems to be par for the course for the comments in this thread. What’s good for the goose…


Most of this isn’t worth responding to, but something Hockeytown Wax has been saying caught my eye enough to make an account.

But, at the same time, it also shows he’s become one of “them”.  He’s built a huge “second home” which shows he’s still got plenty of money yet he went along with the other owners and decided it was best to lock out the current players so he can make even MORE of what he already has plenty of.

Mario could have been the voice of reason. He could have come to the table and helped get a reasonable deal done so todays players have the same opportunity to build a castle like he has.  But sadly, he has decided to squeeze the players for more cash just like the rest of the greedy owners.

Mario building that house also shows me that any NHL team owner gets his money elsewhere.  He doesn’t (nor shouldn’t) need the NHL team money to survive.

Couple things, here. First thing is that the Penguins do not lose money (know you didn’t say that, but it goes to the next point). In fact, they don’t even come close to losing money. If it looks as if they do in the NHL’s filings, blame it on how HRR is calculated. Something that they’re also not responsible for.

On the flipside of that, they’re also not lockout hawks. In fact, if Flyers’ beat writer Frank Seravelli is to believed, they were never in favor of one to begin with, don’t want one now, and have long wanted to organize against it, but lack a ‘good old boy’ of a governor to “spearhead a charge” in the boardroom, which is why they reached out to Ed Snider, a mortal enemy, but ally of convenience who does happen to be a good old boy. Of course, Ed Snider, Ron Burkle/David Morehouse, Geoff Molson and Jim Dolan, who are the 4 governors Seravelli mentioned as not wanting a lockout to begin with, are 4 votes, not the 23 votes needed to end a lockout.

Which brings us to Lemieux. Mario Lemieux tried to pressure the governors into doing something league-wide exactly once as an owner (twice as a player), when he threw an over-the-top-tantrum about the Michael Haley/Trevor Gillies clown show.

What was the response to that?

It was along the lines of “if Mario wants to be an owner of this game and decide how its played, he should start showing up at the meetings.” In other words, “this guy’s not one of us…he’s an outsider…how dare he tell us how to run our game.”

Mario Lemieux may be a legend in the world of hockey, just like Jaromir Jagr is. But they’re both outsiders in the worlds that have caused a lockout (board of governors, and NHLPA executive committee, respectively). Lemieux “taking leadership” in the boardroom would be shrugged off as thoroughly as Jagr’s comments from months ago that the PA should just take the deal and shut up (paraphrasing), which no PA member or executive even bothered to respond to.

Posted by larry on 11/26/12 at 12:04 AM ET

redxblack's avatar

The only question that matters: Will Sid get the basement?

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 11/25/12 at 09:24 AM ET

Sorry Mario, but the princess is in another castle.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 11/26/12 at 12:50 AM ET

Avatar

What have I dismissed again?

“all other similarly-based opinions”.  I thought that was sort of clear, JJ.

You take a position based on nothing.  Someone else takes a different position, based on approximately the same amount of stuff.  You say that unless that other person is able to irrefutably prove their position, you are right and they are wrong.

That’s what I’m talking about with you constantly overstating my positions.

Heck, ‘vitriolically’ might be giving you too much credit for self-control with regards to moderation of tone.  Go look up what vitriolic means and then try and say that’s not totally your move.  Well, that and the make-believe.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/26/12 at 06:38 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

You say that unless that other person is able to irrefutably prove their position, you are right and they are wrong.

I never said I was right and you were wrong. I came to a conclusion based on all available information and I said that if the information available changed, so might my opinion. Don’t put words in my mouth.

Don’t worry, your silly opinions are safe. I haven’t dismissed them; I’ve merely placed them on the proper tangent where they belong.

Go look up what vitriolic means

This coming from a guy who doesn’t know what mediocre-at-best means? I’m happy with my definition and with where I stand in relation to the word.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/26/12 at 09:10 AM ET

Avatar

I never said I was right and you were wrong.

I haven’t dismissed them; I’ve merely placed them on the proper tangent where they belong.

Depending on monitor size that might be the shortest distance between calling yourself a liar in history.

I’m happy with my definition and with where I stand in relation to the word.

What’s bliss?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/26/12 at 12:18 PM ET

Avatar

I’m just glad that when the Penguins went into bankruptcy Lemieux came up with a plan to make sure everyone got paid what they were owed.  He could have easily taken a pay cut to help save the team like the NHL is now asking the NHLPA, but instead he took an ownership share based on the value of his SPC. As for his castle, its his money, although as a hockey player he apparently didn’t “earn” any of it with a “real” job but, that doesn’t mean he can’t spend it any way he wants.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/26/12 at 12:20 PM ET

WingsFanInBeanLand's avatar

  The only question that matters: Will Sid get the basement?

  Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 11/25/12 at 09:24 AM ET

Sorry Mario, but the princess is in another castle.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 11/25/12 at 11:50 PM ET

Well played sir.

Posted by WingsFanInBeanLand from Where the GM likes his team. on 11/26/12 at 12:27 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Depending on monitor size that might be the shortest distance between calling yourself a liar in history.

Well when I talk about one thing and you drag it off in another direction, it’s a tangent. You want to talk about what’s authoritative and I want to talk about what’s opinion.  It’s not that I don’t think your opinion isn’t valid; it’s just that there’s no real point in talking about what’s “real” when we’ve both concluded neither of us knows that.

The tangent ended and we’re all ready to move on, but until I admit…hell, I don’t know…SOMETHING… we can’t possibly move on because your opinions are being unfairly dismissed… or something.

You’re just arguing to argue at this point.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/26/12 at 12:44 PM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com

 

image

image

image