Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 42

Thread: The NHL owners need a reality check... I think

  1. #16
    DuklaNation's Avatar
    DuklaNation is offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,269
    Rep Power
    21

    Dobber Sports Pro

    Default

    Some owners do need a reality check. Easier returns can be made in other investments. Aside from tax planning, I really dont understand why you would be an owner in one of these weaker markets.

  2. #17
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Ninja

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
    Some owners do need a reality check. Easier returns can be made in other investments. Aside from tax planning, I really dont understand why you would be an owner in one of these weaker markets.
    Because it's fun. You use your other business ventures to offset the losses and you enjoy owning a sports franchise and the esteem that goes with it.

    There are all sorts of reasons why you would own a sports franchise that may have nothing to do with money. As long as you can afford to take the financial hit that is.

  3. #18
    Location
    Ontario
    Rep Power
    40

    Administrator

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doulos View Post
    Because it's fun. You use your other business ventures to offset the losses and you enjoy owning a sports franchise and the esteem that goes with it.

    There are all sorts of reasons why you would own a sports franchise that may have nothing to do with money. As long as you can afford to take the financial hit that is.
    There is also the thing about buying low and selling high. You buy a team in a tough spot and *if* Bettman can fix the financial model and turn those teams into profitable businesses then isn't that a worthy investment?

    I may be wrong but franchise values aren't franchise values skyrocketing even if they are not profitable?


    Contact me for Frozen Tools bug reports and inquiries
    Follow Frozen Tools on Twitter @FrozenTools
    Follow me on Twitter @DH_EricDaoust

  4. #19
    Location
    Pegulaville
    Rep Power
    40

    Moderator

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ericdaoust View Post
    There is also the thing about buying low and selling high. You buy a team in a tough spot and *if* Bettman can fix the financial model and turn those teams into profitable businesses then isn't that a worthy investment?

    I may be wrong but franchise values aren't franchise values skyrocketing even if they are not profitable?
    Pre-Pegula Sabres owner, Tom Golisano can vouch for that. He turned a $63 mil investment into $189 mil. Not bad....
    @SmittysRant

  5. #20
    Location
    Ontario
    Rep Power
    40

    Administrator

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eyemissgilmour View Post
    From the twitterverse, it sure sounds like the owners are firmly applying foot on throat.
    300mil make whole off the table, and 210mil possibly too (according to Dreger).

    And I think the players are united enough (and idealistic enough) to not back down.

    As close as they appear to be, I still think the season is toast.
    They are very close, but like many other problems in life the final 5% can be the toughest to complete.


    Contact me for Frozen Tools bug reports and inquiries
    Follow Frozen Tools on Twitter @FrozenTools
    Follow me on Twitter @DH_EricDaoust

  6. #21
    Location
    TERRACE is hockey
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Giant

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
    Some owners do need a reality check. Easier returns can be made in other investments. Aside from tax planning, I really dont understand why you would be an owner in one of these weaker markets.
    id own a team and do all the work for no money earned. in fact we all do this wiith our fantasy teams. plain and simple - its fun.
    there are other ways for bussiness men to make money and sports teams are the 'rich guys' fantasy hockey.
    10 team Full Keeper Roto League
    4C-4LW-4RW-6D-2G-5bench-unlimited farm.

    C= eichel,horvat,malkin,kuznetsov
    LW= forsberg,kreider,lee,b.tkchuch,hertle,granlund
    RW= reinhart,radulov,hoffman,laine,hayes
    D= doughty,ghostebehere,karlsson,jones,klefbom,dahlin ,skjei
    G= price,murray,grubauer,georgiev,ullmark,samsonov

    under250gp=nichushkin,tuch,mathesson,marino,pujuja rvi,hosang,terry,andersson,j.hughes,patrik,crouse, zadina,podkolzin,k.miller,nedeljkovic,kravtsov,hay ton

    --G,A,P,PPP,SHP,GWG,PIMS,+/-,SOG,hits,FOW,blks-Wins,GAA,SV%,saves,SO

  7. #22
    Location
    Ontario
    Rep Power
    40

    Administrator

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kevinsrangers View Post
    id own a team and do all the work for no money earned. in fact we all do this wiith our fantasy teams. plain and simple - its fun.
    there are other ways for bussiness men to make money and sports teams are the 'rich guys' fantasy hockey.
    Except the real NHL "pool" costs a bit more than the $20 range that most money leagues cost...


    Contact me for Frozen Tools bug reports and inquiries
    Follow Frozen Tools on Twitter @FrozenTools
    Follow me on Twitter @DH_EricDaoust

  8. #23
    Location
    Dryden, Ontario.
    Rep Power
    40

    Administrator

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skin Blues View Post
    I got the impression from the tax-payers owning the arenas that they should be considered the owners of the teams. Is the suggestion that a giant co-op should buy all of, or some of, the teams? Why would the existing owners sell the teams? I'm just not getting the point in any of this I guess. Is it that you think a co-op wouldn't have allowed a lockout to happen? That they'd concede to the players in CBA negotiations, or "do what's fair"? That's a grand idea but I'm not so sure would work in practice.
    I'm simply pointing out that owners of sports franchises have it way easier than they could/should have it, which is part of this reality check.

    It's been argued in this thread that sports teams are like "rich guy fantasy teams" and that it's fun to be a sports team owner. Well then if it's a fun expenditure then it really shouldn't have to be profitable should it. They want to have their cake and eat it too in every facet of sports ownership.

    If you look at this lockout and the last NBA lockout the whole area of debate has been about restricting contract lengths and player salaries to basically take the gun out of their own hands. The owners can't control themselves so they are asking the players to become mutual (if not more than mutual) partners in the stake of the league. But if they can't control themselves and they continually need to get bailed out by the players then maybe this whole system of team ownership in sports is broken.

    I don't know what the right answer is but the point is the owners need to wake up and smell the roses. And if sports owners are really only going to be in it for the money then Bettman and Co. need to do a better job of screening prospective owners to select guys who are more passionate about the game than about being money grubbers.
    Follow me on Twitter@SteveLaidlaw

    https://image.ibb.co/k3o8Sa/dobber_banner_sig.jpg

  9. #24
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Ninja

    Default

    The onwers don't HAVE to make money but it should be ONE of the goals of ownership.

    You speak like these things are mutally exclusive.

    They want to win, they want the prestige of being an NHL owner, and they want to make money.

    Even the most passionate owner can lose money for so long before they have to give up their expensive little toy. They want to own that toy for as long as possible, and they know that their competitive nature works against them to possibly do things they should not.

    So in order to stay an NHL owner they want to restructure things to help themselves from themselves. Since the players agreed to play in the league - they also will need to agree to the rules. You don't like it? Then go to Switzerland, Russia, Germany, Finland etc where they have different ones.

  10. #25
    Location
    Pegulaville
    Rep Power
    40

    Moderator

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by metaldude26 View Post
    I'm simply pointing out that owners of sports franchises have it way easier than they could/should have it, which is part of this reality check.

    It's been argued in this thread that sports teams are like "rich guy fantasy teams" and that it's fun to be a sports team owner. Well then if it's a fun expenditure then it really shouldn't have to be profitable should it. They want to have their cake and eat it too in every facet of sports ownership.

    If you look at this lockout and the last NBA lockout the whole area of debate has been about restricting contract lengths and player salaries to basically take the gun out of their own hands. The owners can't control themselves so they are asking the players to become mutual (if not more than mutual) partners in the stake of the league. But if they can't control themselves and they continually need to get bailed out by the players then maybe this whole system of team ownership in sports is broken.

    I don't know what the right answer is but the point is the owners need to wake up and smell the roses. And if sports owners are really only going to be in it for the money then Bettman and Co. need to do a better job of screening prospective owners to select guys who are more passionate about the game than about being money grubbers.
    Boom!

    Relief from existing debt, subsidized funding on the land, on the building, tax breaks on the revenue, subsidies on renovations, updates or entirely ne arena....they're bailed out through their entire life expectancy as an owner, with minimal risk/consequences and all the glory.

    Merriam-Webster may want to re-assess it's working definition of "own" and all its derivations.
    @SmittysRant

  11. #26
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Ninja

    Default

    But so what. A sports team/arena is nothing but a status symbol for a city. Financially it's incredibly stupid but if you want to be a 'big boy' city then you buck it up and do it.

    Yes, owners completely screw over cities with arena deals.
    Yes, they make money AND have fun doing.

    It's just the way it goes.

    If a city doesn't want a team and wants better roads and schools then they just say so and the team can go somewhere else, along with the owner.

    The players also need to realize that it's not their league and the fact that they get any say at all in the deal is only because they are marketable, but that they are getting such an astoundingly good setup in life through it all they even if they took a 50% cut on everything they would still be filthy rich.

  12. #27
    Location
    Pegulaville
    Rep Power
    40

    Moderator

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doulos View Post
    But so what. A sports team/arena is nothing but a status symbol for a city. Financially it's incredibly stupid but if you want to be a 'big boy' city then you buck it up and do it.

    Yes, owners completely screw over cities with arena deals.
    Yes, they make money AND have fun doing.

    It's just the way it goes.

    If a city doesn't want a team and wants better roads and schools then they just say so and the team can go somewhere else, along with the owner.

    The players also need to realize that it's not their league and the fact that they get any say at all in the deal is only because they are marketable, but that they are getting such an astoundingly good setup in life through it all they even if they took a 50% cut on everything they would still be filthy rich.
    No I get it...I just wish they'd stop crying poor. That's my only point.
    @SmittysRant

  13. #28
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Ninja

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bomm Bastic View Post
    No I get it...I just wish they'd stop crying poor. That's my only point.
    It would be far more fun if they let the players come into the room, allowed for about 10 seconds of silence and then just mooed at them.

  14. #29
    Location
    Pegulaville
    Rep Power
    40

    Moderator

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doulos View Post
    It would be far more fun if they let the players come into the room, allowed for about 10 seconds of silence and then just mooed at them.
    Also, and more to MD's point (I think), if owners were more vested they would be more cautious, perhaps reasoned, in their daily financial decisions. Including but certainly not limited to these bloated contracts.

    So I guess that's two points....
    @SmittysRant

  15. #30
    27Blue's Avatar
    27Blue is offline
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    3,785
    Rep Power
    0

    Banned

    Default

    maybe they should make it a true capitalistic enterprise and run 30 seperate businesses instead of failing at running an organized cohesive league. drop the salary cap. drop revenue sharing. and let the strong survive. then we would have a true business model where only the profitable can survive and the market will trully dictate player value. sure we would end up with a league with about 10 teams, but at least then owners would have to live and die with their business decisions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •