View Single Post
Old
11-23-2012, 09:54 PM
  #13
nexttothemoon
Eight Straight
 
nexttothemoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,726
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowe in Oil View Post
I find that extremely hard to believe.

Actually I do not believe it at all.

It's impossible.

I read an article earlier this week that examined the area the Panthers play in and the profit that arena makes. They looked at each year for the past 10 years. During the last lockout, that arena's profits took a dive. How could profits go down if the Panthers don't make any, seeing as they're one of the have-not teams?
Also, how to rich billionaires keep buying NHL teams if they continually lose money? These businessmen are billionaires for a reason. They aren't stupid. They won't buy a team that is not profitable.

Losing money, and actually losing money are two very different things.

The Oilers are currently losing money (because if they were in a new arena, they could be making more) but they aren't actually losing money. No one in their right mind would buy something for $200 million if it didn't make any money.
Not really arguing with you because accountants can do some magical things with profit and loss statements... but to your last point... there are literally multi-billion dollar companies who have never made a dime (and many likely never will). See the dot com craze... many alternative energy companies, medical/drug research companies etc for plenty of current and historical examples.

Plenty of people and huge entities invest billions in corporations which may or may not turn a profit.

Billionaire owners also didn't get to be billionaires by running hockey teams... for some of them (maybe the majority)... owning a team is a trophy, a hobby on the side... and year to year profits/losses from the team itself is often insignificant to their overall income and net worth.

Besides... you also have to consider other factors such as the capital growth of owning a team and how it fits into the "portfolio" of entertainment assets a corporation may own. Very often one asset could on paper be losing money but still be an integral part of the overall stable of assets... which allows the entire portfolio to make more profits than if that team wasn't part of the total package... ancillary/tangential revenue streams, etc.

nexttothemoon is offline   Reply With Quote