View Single Post
Old
11-12-2004, 08:27 AM
  #30
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Sounds to me like the article is saying the teams should basically be run as loss-leaders in order for the owners to get all the business that comes from the arena.

I worry that an owner would decide to stop running the team after a while, though. Especially if the popularity of the game continues to drop. The owners have the sweet arena deals and the revenue from all the ancillary stuff. At some point, the balance sheet will look better without the team on it. What happens then?

Whether it's right or not, I don't know, but if the owners are going to insist on profitable hockey teams with a very conservative definition of hockey revenues, what can I do about? Not a damned thing, that's what. I can decide not to give them any money, but then I don't get to see any NHL hockey. I can try to pressure them (not sure how, though) to abandon their plans for profitable teams, but if they then decide to fold the team, I don't get to see any NHL hockey. Either way, I get no NHL hockey. The owners stay rich in any case. They get no sympathy from me, but they've got me by the short hairs.

ceber is offline