View Single Post
Old
10-20-2012, 05:22 PM
  #871
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
No they aren't.
Holy **** you're like a six year-old. I tell you a fact and you just say "no that's not true".

Once more then:

When Geoff Molson paid 500 million for The Habs and the Bell Center, he put in a purchase price that reflects the total value of the franchise and the arena. If you want to be a child and say "no no no no", then be one, but that doesn't change economic reality. Molson is not going to pay 500 million for two properties worth 300 million as you're arguing when you say "no they aren't", he has a lot of advisers and lawyers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Gillette bought the team for that amount because the league was weaker then, back with players getting 72% of the revenue and multiple teams in bankrupt states and losing money. Molson paid more because the team and the league was doing better with the new CBA and other aspects that the OWNERS worked to get. The reason Molson would have paid less if the players were still getting 72% is because the return on the investment would be that much more pathetic. With a greater share of HRR, the value of one of the best teams in the league increased.
Now you're confirming the point you disagree with. You are arguing that the price of owning a team reflects its value, whereas previously you said "no they don't".

Here's some advice: find out what your position and then argue for that position. Don't just argue both sides of the position so that you can you disagree with every point.

DAChampion is offline