View Single Post
11-20-2012, 07:15 PM
Registered User
sjaustin77's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
When you or any one else constantly refer to billionaire owners who should be able to afford blah blah blah, you are talking about money earned outside of hockey. No owner became a billionaire from hockey. And it's referred to here as mutual. It's not.

Hockey teams ( all 30 of them - not the league as a whole) have to be able to sustain themselves.

Again, the franchise value IMO means diddly squat. The owners don't make a penny off franchise values until they sell and can get that franchise value.

You and I agree on a lot of things, but we'll continue to disagree on this.
Well, some earned their money from their parents not always on their own. I've never said they earned it on hockey.

I've showed how each one can profit off the players offer. And I disagree they have to sustain themselves. There are too many market indifferences to force teams to spend a certain amount. To have competitiveness and profits they need help from each owner unless you just want to contract a lot of teams. That doesn't benefit the rich either. They will make more by revenue sharing than by contracting, by expanding into other markets and growing the game.

NFL works because it is more popular right? Wrong - it works because of revenue sharing. Look at the difference in operating income in the Cowboys and the lower teams. The NFL,MLB & NBA would have lots of teams not survive either. Sports need a huge amount of revenue sharing or the leagues will look far different. The NHL shares so little of their revenues compared to the other leagues.

I can't believe someone as smart as you (and I know you are smart because you agree with me on a lot) can say Franchise value doesn't mean squat. I know it is a paper value until they sell but if it wasn't for franchise value we would barely have sports leagues. There certainly wouldn't be the number of teams or the profits that they generate.

Owners are in it for the franchise value and related businesses more than the operating income IMO and I think is well backed up. Leipold for example. Jacobs only making a little per year on operating income. You think Jacobs would be in this business if it was about operating income?

We will have to disagree on that. It is a main principle of business, real estate etc. The end game isn't just the operating income.

Bottom line - When do you think we see hockey? I say early to mid December.

sjaustin77 is offline