BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:Above when I said 3% I was simply referring to the fact that you can not compare sports business I any other business models. thats it, it's not even reasonable to bring them into the discussion.
BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:if a sports team is worth x amount of dollars it's all on paper in theory. If a business is worth x amount of dollars there are tangible assets, like a building, products, and cash reserve.
there are plenty of businesses with no assets. probably in the next few weeks you're going to hear someone bought the term 'Twinkies' from the now defunct Hostess. they'll be selling a name...and they'll be paying a lot. also, just in case you're in NYC - there are broadway plays that rent space, pay employees and make money. sure - they're probably not worth $240 million on average, but the model is very similar. there are plenty of examples just like these...
BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:As far as common sense, that's my point. Everyone keeps coming up with long reasons why the owners are wrong, when the facts are two thirds of them lost money and a handful that made money could have their fortunes turned in one season.
While I do agree that 3 or 4 teams make too much profit I don't know how you fix it being that even if you took all their profit and spread it evenly most teams would still be skating on thin ice.
they have a big hand in losing money!!! look at their decisions -- they hold responsibility for their business. they shouldn't have been running them like they have been. we all laugh each offseason at some of the prices players go for. sarge had a good year last year - i'll give him that - but who in their right mind would have thought he should have gotten that salary? i didn't. maybe if GMs (and the owners giving the go-aheads) showed some restraint player salaries would be more reasonable.
it should also be said that everything we "know" about team finances comes second hand -- as someone stated earlier, NHL franchises may be a de-facto tax shelter for some people.
no team is making "too much" - i don't think that exists. good for toronto, good for new york, good for montreal -- they deserve it!!!
BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:In my opinion, sans a few teams, the split needs to come down an some contract stipulations put in place. Up revenue sharing and be down with it.
I'm saying this too!!!! 50/50 makes sense -- just the owners (i believe) don't need to do it effective tomorrow.
because - as i outlined above -- most of them really aren't hurting.