View Single Post
Old
09-10-2004, 02:32 AM
  #21
Blane Youngblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpsharkfan
The NHLPA finished there audit of the 30 teams last week. They have kept suspiciously silent as to what they found. Their silence makes me believe that they found that the NHL had been telling the truth regarding the millions of dollors of losses per year! If the NHLPA found otherwise the would have been all over the press spouting that the NHL lies etc..etc..

Owners of professional sports teams are extremely wealthy and can afford to lose some money for the privilege of owning a team. That does not mean they want to continue to invest more and more money in a business that has no hope of ever making a profit.
I'm going to assume that the NHL correctly reports their earnings. Let's keep in mind though, that a lot of the loss is generated through the amortization of things such as planes and arenas, many of which have other uses and aren't even depreciating at the rate used for tax purposes. Also, if these venues are generating other revenues, it's not too hard, and pretty reasonable to start another company to simply be the owners of the asset and lease the asset to the team. If a team is losing money on its arena simply because it's paying the owner's other company a huge amount for the lease, the owner isn't actually losing money while the team is. There are a lot of ways to make numbers look a certain way, and many of them are reasonable and legal.

That being said, I'm in complete agreement with a luxury tax (2x or 3x) at 35 mil and I believe in the right to revenue sharing. I'm pretty sure that some of the owner's aren't interested in revenue sharing but I figure 35 or 30 mil luxury tax is what we'll end up with. If the Canucks can turn a profit with a payroll of 45 mil, most teams should be able to earn a profit with a payroll around 35.

Blane Youngblood is offline