Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky
This argument has really become pointless to argue anymore.
Because someone may own 4, 5 6, whatever number of businesses does not mean that he/she should lose money on one of those businesses.
Every business has a right to make money regardless of what their other business ventures are doing. They have a right to be self sustaining. If I own three business ( A, B and C) if A and B are doing well and C sucks, I fix C regardless of what A and B are doing.
It's really not rocket science.
A small part may be mis-management, but a larger part is trying to improve the economics by spending to improve the product and an even larger part is just pure economics.
|
But these are related businesses that they have as a result of owning a hockey team. They are package deals. The operating income on hockey is a loss leader (and profitable on its own for many) for franchise value, arena and cable deals. Agree with the numbers or not these things have to be considered in the overall picture.
What were franchise values in 1970, 80, 90, 2000 and now? What are they making on related businesses that they wouldn't have without the hockey team?
Should it stand on its own? Yes and at 57% it could have. 50% certainly will - which will also benefit the owners related businesses.
It really is common sense people. If Jacobs is barely breaking even and in fact probably losing money as some say on operating income now; then how many millions was he losing when paying the players 75%? Do you really think Jacobs was actually losing money? Don't you think he would have sold the team?
If Leipold really lost $70M on Nashville why would he buy another team? Look at the whole picture. Most are making money. Some from operating income alone. Most of the others when you factor in FV, & hockey related businesses.