Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
Do I really need to spell out for you the fact that MGM is a red herring in this discussion?
I read it. (I do know how to read, you know. You get no points for assuming that I am either illiterate or imbecilic, so I suggest you dial it the hell down.) The post was explicitly talking about the concession sales:
In other words, MGM or some other company may choose to subsidize the team (in effect) by buying empty seats, but those empty seats will not be as valuable to the owner as occupied seats would be.
|
Thats not necessarily true...
Many large companies purchase businesses that take losses so as to apply those losses against gains accrued by their much more profitable and thus more highly taxed, primary businesses.
In which case, an empty hockey arena with unpaid seats is in fact applying those losses to very lucrative gambling gains.
If the savings rates are right the parent company could actually profit from holding a losing company.