Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemenz
Do we have an example of them blocking a relocation because there was a team that was “worse off”?
Again I am not arguing it just seems there is a bunch of people with this concrete notation that they are correct in this thread yet it seems strictly opinion and is not really backed up by any previous facts. If there is some I’m totally on your side I’m just trying to understand why people so firmly believe the team will stay when from a financial aspect it makes zero sense for the owners to do so. I am a consultant for a private equity company and I cannot think of a single example in the last 20 years where anyone on any board blocked a relocation of a company, a business, or a project due to another entity within that company being less profitable, even if that meant that it would enter into an area that was already saturated. Like I said before I am far from an expert in the sports world economics which is why I am looking for some information on why it would operate differently.
On a side note thank you for the information in this thread from posters, a lot of it is great and is very informative!
|
Imagine if your firm had 2 different offices, one being successful by most metrics and another being an absolute tire fire. You get the opportunity to expand into a *potentially* lucrative market, but you must relocate one of your existing offices. Why on earth would you move the office that performs well while keeping the failure? Why would you put move yourself from a position of having 1 known good franchise and 1 POTENTIALLY successful franchise to one known bad office and one potentially succesful franchise. it makes absolutely no sense to me, and these guys are by all accounts much more business savvy than i am