View Single Post
10-24-2012, 10:01 AM
A guy with a bass
Tawnos's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,502
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Forbes cites actual numbers.

Speculating that few teams are up for sale is just that, speculation. It COULD indicate that teams aren't really losing money. Or there could be other reasons to explain it.

In the absence of someone getting some numerical evidence that the majority of owners are not losing money, I simply can't buy that position.

It's like asking me to believe that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Ok, show me the proof. The opinions of a couple speculators in the intelligence field isn't good enough.

If the owners are making money, there should be some kind of numerical reports demonstrating that. And I've already said, if the owners are making money hand over fist, I'd side with the players.
So, you really think that Forbes has access to all team's books. The naivety of that statement is beyond words. Forbes numbers are estimates.

And good job ignoring the fact that they've been wrong as often as they've been right. Pierre McGuire, an actual hockey reporter with sources in every front office, says that 5 more teams are making money than Forbes reports.

Again, I'm not saying so much that Forbes is absolutely wrong. I'm saying that they are not the be-all/end-all and the simple fact that they are the only ones reporting hard numbers doesn't make their numbers right. There's evidence that they aren't.

There are owners out there who wouldn't put up the team even if they were losing money. Like Terry Pegula. Craig Leipold, however, is not one of those owners (we know this from his history). And yet the Wild are not up for sale (a team up for sale is an impossible fact to keep secret in this age) while Forbes has them losing over $5m per season. The facts don't jive.

Tawnos is offline