interstorm wrote:shmenguin wrote:So just because something appreciates means that
A) the owner wants to sell it
B) the owner finds it acceptable that is loses money every year
...nope - the owner can keep it (if they want money, you know they can get loans against it -- right?) and for some teams like Anaheim that Forbes estimates lost $10 million a year -- what we don't see is that overall the team has appreciated over $17 million a year. So "losing" money many not really be true if one looks holistically at the franchise.
you can look at it however you want (as you clearly already know), but you're very disconnected from how a business owner would look at it. if you sink a large chunk of your fortune into a business that's in the red in any given year, but think it's ok because you'll just sell it one day, then great. but in this premise, you most definitely do not represent the mindset of a franchise owner. their standards are that they see a business that can appreciate AND put money in the bank in the mean time. so they're going to pursue their options (as we're seeing right now with the lockout). so what are you saying?
and another thing to consider...al davis. george steinbrenner. jerry buss. the mara family. the rooney family.
successful, iconic franchise owners. they all saw their asset appreciate beyond their wildest dreams. and you know what they did? either held onto it until they were in their grave or passed it down to their kids. this idea of a franchise being an investment isn't the rule.
i don't even know what you're doing with this thinking, honestly. you're presenting yourself as someone who knows better than the owners themselves - elite businessmen and negotiators. and you're not the only one doing it. that has baffled me throughout this thread.