Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
Can we stop with the 'owning a hockey team is a hassle' rhetoric though? (not directed only at you, it's been a common refrain in these threads). Franchise values have exploded across the Big 4. Could you generate a better return elsewhere? Probably. You could also generate less, or lose money altogether.
At the end of the day, this is one of the most exclusive assets to own - 124 in North America, only 9 of them in Canada. Most are generating annual dividends in the form of net income (the Flames certainly are, despite what King & Bettman may want us to believe). And this doesn't even begin to mention the personal experience returns (ie. owner's box, and basically being a little kid playing with real-life hockey cards) and ego play. Some art lovers may know which rich dude bought the latest Van Gogh or Banksy up for auction, but almost everyone in your local community knows who owns their sports club...perhaps more importantly, Murray & co. own something that a lot of their other rich friends don't own and can't own.
It's not a hassle. It's a super rare, vintage Ferrari, but we're being asked to subsidize the garage.
|
The car example is a good one ... a vanity asset so I can see that sure.
The Flames have moved into the recipient range in revenue sharing though, so said car would have to have some pretty big maintenance bills.
We've seen ownership struggles (difficulty finding suitors) in other sports and other cities, and we've seen teams move.
There isn't a huge demand asking these guys to sell these teams every day, and if there is I'm guessing locals like Calgary aren't all that high on the list. I'd assume the line up to tie up capital isn't all that long.
And that's fine. As I said I get it. The don't give them a dollar of public money side has a very viable stance.