|
|
Post by Montrealer on Dec 17, 2003 13:14:18 GMT -5
Well if you haven't noticed most sports franchises are bought by people with money to burn. There are rare cases that someone invests in a sports frnachise because of a business reason. Obviously they dont want to lose so much money that they start to feel the crunch financially. Do you really think that George Gillett's primary reason to buy the Habs was business? So what you're saying is that people should buy franchises with the full expectation of losing money on them? Puhleeze..... They were buying them because franchise values kept going up, up, up in the nineties, and it was a very good investment. Now that they've peaked, you'll only get buyers that will get a decent return on their investment notwithstanding the franchise value itself. As for franchises that have failed, I point to last year's bankrupcies of the Buffalo Sabres and the Ottawa Senators. Is a bankrupcy not enough evidence for you of a failure? Sure, the teams are still there, bailed out by new investors. Lucky for them! How many more bankrupcies will happen before new investors are impossible to find? Let us hope that does not happen. I keep coming back to this thread because your arguments defy logic. It's refreshing. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Dec 17, 2003 16:02:43 GMT -5
So what you're saying is that people should buy franchises with the full expectation of losing money on them? Puhleeze..... They were buying them because franchise values kept going up, up, up in the nineties, and it was a very good investment. Now that they've peaked, you'll only get buyers that will get a decent return on their investment notwithstanding the franchise value itself. As for franchises that have failed, I point to last year's bankrupcies of the Buffalo Sabres and the Ottawa Senators. Is a bankrupcy not enough evidence for you of a failure? Sure, the teams are still there, bailed out by new investors. Lucky for them! How many more bankrupcies will happen before new investors are impossible to find? Let us hope that does not happen. I keep coming back to this thread because your arguments defy logic. It's refreshing. Finally, a same voice admidst all of this madness. |
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Dec 21, 2003 17:49:18 GMT -5
So what you're saying is that people should buy franchises with the full expectation of losing money on them? Puhleeze..... They were buying them because franchise values kept going up, up, up in the nineties, and it was a very good investment. Now that they've peaked, you'll only get buyers that will get a decent return on their investment notwithstanding the franchise value itself. As for franchises that have failed, I point to last year's bankrupcies of the Buffalo Sabres and the Ottawa Senators. Is a bankrupcy not enough evidence for you of a failure? Sure, the teams are still there, bailed out by new investors. Lucky for them! How many more bankrupcies will happen before new investors are impossible to find? Let us hope that does not happen. I keep coming back to this thread because your arguments defy logic. It's refreshing. What defies logic is that you think Ted Leonsis who got his billions in AOL bought the Capitals to make money??? What defies logic is that Melnyk of the Senators who made his billions in Biovail bought the Senators to make money??? What defies logic is that Tom Hicks of the Stars who paid AROD 250 million to play baseball bought the Stars to make money??? What defies logic is that members of The Walton family of the Walmart franchises who are the richest family in the world bought the Blues to make money??? PUleeeesseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Last I heard the Sabres and Senators have never stopped operations and the fact the Sabres owner went to prison because he was stealing from his company and the fact the Senators owner had no money to buy a hockey franchise have anything to do with anything Puleeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzeeeeeeeeee  |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Dec 29, 2003 12:18:48 GMT -5
If you think billionaires made their money by throwing it away on a whim, you are sorely, sorely mistaken.
They do it for the ego, yes, but they won't do it to lose thirty million a year*. Nor should they.
Why are you so insistent that owners should lose money to ensure that hockey players should make $8 million a year instead of $4 million a year? Why should hockey accept that 75% of revenues go into player's salaries, anyway? Name me one other business where that sort of percentage of revenue (not profit) is paid out in salaries. Just one! Then I'll shut up.
*-I guess there are a couple of exceptions that would prove this rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Dec 29, 2003 18:42:43 GMT -5
If you think billionaires made their money by throwing it away on a whim, you are sorely, sorely mistaken. They do it for the ego, yes, but they won't do it to lose thirty million a year*. Nor should they. Why are you so insistent that owners should lose money to ensure that hockey players should make $8 million a year instead of $4 million a year? Why should hockey accept that 75% of revenues go into player's salaries, anyway? Name me one other business where that sort of percentage of revenue (not profit) is paid out in salaries. Just one! Then I'll shut up. *-I guess there are a couple of exceptions that would prove this rule. The point I was making is that Leonsis is a web businessman, Melnyk is a pharmaceutical businessman, the Walton family is in retailing. If they want to make money normal business practice is to continue in their line of business. You dont buy sports franchises to increase your wealth when your wealth is earned in pharmaceuticals, you buy it because your filthy rich and want a play toy period. Now as for the industries, hmm how bout the entertainment industry where Stallone or De Niro or whatever can make 20 million a picture. And believe it or not sports is an entertainment industry not a pharmaceutical. As for viability and losing money when oh when are these teams gonna go under. I am still waiting. By the way the figures can be distorted accounting wise that no one really knows how much teams make or lose. All I know is that when a company goes under it collapses, people are laid off, debts are forgiven, the enterprise stops operating. Not even the WHA stopped operations they just merged with the NHL. Nor the AFL or ABA so where is this financial crisis? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Dec 29, 2003 19:17:36 GMT -5
All I know is that when a company goes under it collapses, people are laid off, debts are forgiven, the enterprise stops operating. Sorry... a lot of companies that have declared bankruptcy are still operating. If you need an example... how about Air Canada. You can argue that they didn't go under because they are still operating... but the current owners have lost almost all of the money they invested in the company. New ownership has now offered to step forward and pull the company out of bankruptcy. That sounds a lot like the situation that Rob Bryden was in with the Senators. The players weren't even getting paid by the team... the league had to step in until someone could be found to pay the bills. In any case it will be an interesting nine months. |
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Dec 30, 2003 22:46:25 GMT -5
Sorry... a lot of companies that have declared bankruptcy are still operating. If you need an example... how about Air Canada. You can argue that they didn't go under because they are still operating... but the current owners have lost almost all of the money they invested in the company. New ownership has now offered to step forward and pull the company out of bankruptcy. That sounds a lot like the situation that Rob Bryden was in with the Senators. The players weren't even getting paid by the team... the league had to step in until someone could be found to pay the bills. In any case it will be an interesting nine months. If you had read my earlier posts I mention precisely that bankruptcy is a technical term, it is used to reduce debt. However, what I mention in my post is real closure of operations and virtually no sports franchise has done that. Wait I remember one one of those the XFL. Aside from mickey mouse operations no one has stopped operations. As for the Senators, Rob Bryden is not wealthy and he was trying to flim flam his way to ownership of a sports franchise with the backing of financial institutions. He had no collateral to back up his wants. |
|
