View Single Post
Old
11-28-2012, 11:36 AM
  #843
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
The thing is, each franchise has seen it's value increase since the last CBA. Even a money pit like the Yotes (which is an easy enough problem to solve - move the franchise to Quebec City). How many businesses in the "real world" has this happen? (re: experience so-called "accounting losses" but see the actual equity of the company increase). And it's not like these owners (who have other business ventures) can't make use of these "losses" to apply against their other companies they run.

As well, for owners who own their arena's & other sports teams like the Caps owner - having a steady tenant (even if it is experiencing an operating loss) is a plus.
This is a completely overlooked aspect of hockey "losses", by the way. Look at this quote from a Jonah Keri article about the notoriously cash-strapped Frank McCourt when he owned the Dodgers:

Quote:
Originally Posted by "Jonah Keri"
]It's a system, first and foremost, in favor of owners who fall in line with the commissioner's office. When McCourt bought the Dodgers for $430 million in 2004, he did so using approximately no dollars of his own. This was not a problem at all, because McCourt said all the right things, choosing compliance over controversy, curtsies over Cubanisms. When he finally sold the team to Guggenheim Partners last summer, McCourt owed heavy debts to numerous creditors. Still, the final purchase price was $2.15 billion. Even after settling his accounts, this was a pretty decent return for an initial investment of nothing.
Source: http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...print?id=42760

A team might lose 5 million a year and see the value of their franchise increase by 7. The NHL is completely disingenuous when it comes to the way they spin economics.

Proto is offline