Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - [News Roundup] CSEC/City arena deal UPDATED: Third Party Facilitator

powderjunkie · 08-27-2022, 08:39 PM

This is hopelessly idealistic, but I question the premise that a franchise needs to be profitable in every regard.

Owning one is an extravagant hobby. It's a really nice bonus that most owners manage to grift a very positive return out of the deal, but as is often mentioned in the weird mental-gymnastics of "arenas are terrible investments so taxpayers should pay" - is "there are better ways to make money than owning a pro sports team".

While that statement is probably true, I'd also argue that franchises have had a pretty darn good risk/reward profile.

Nearly every other hobby has a net-negative cash flow:

Golf
Skiing
Boating
Cars
Collectibles (stamps/coins/cards/toys/wine/etc)
Camping
Video Games
Hockey/concert tickets
Rec-League
Travel*

You may recover costs on some of these, but generally it's a one way flow of cash for experiences/consumption. And it's definitely proportional to income. *The one exception might be a vacation home if you can use AirBnB to cover ongoing costs, though sooner or later you'll need something major like a new roof...

Murray gets an owners box to enjoy his fantasy real-life hockey team with a back-stage pass to every event. Is it really a crazy idea that he doesn't need to be entitled to profit on every single aspect of his luxury hobby?

I think the real issue is ego and competitiveness with other owners. I suspect most owners wouldn't be devastated to the point of selling if their team actually cost them a bit of money...but they'd never accept being the only one to face those costs. But still, the question for Calgary is whether another prospective owner might be willing to accept a different line in the sand to get that owner's box? League wide ownership does not want to give up their grift so easily, but I also doubt they want to permit cheap relocation. It would take a whole bunch of stars to align for a buyer seeking relocation to meet a price that would satisfy Murray that is also lower than Meruelo/or any other owner would accept, while also being higher than anyone is willing to pay to keep the team here. I would be more than willing to play that game of high-risk chicken, but I get that others aren't.

08-27-2022, 08:39 PM	#2278
powderjunkie Franchise Player Join Date: Dec 2011 Exp:	This is hopelessly idealistic, but I question the premise that a franchise needs to be profitable in every regard. Owning one is an extravagant hobby. It's a really nice bonus that most owners manage to grift a very positive return out of the deal, but as is often mentioned in the weird mental-gymnastics of "arenas are terrible investments so taxpayers should pay" - is "there are better ways to make money than owning a pro sports team". While that statement is probably true, I'd also argue that franchises have had a pretty darn good risk/reward profile. Nearly every other hobby has a net-negative cash flow: Golf Skiing Boating Cars Collectibles (stamps/coins/cards/toys/wine/etc) Camping Video Games Hockey/concert tickets Rec-League Travel* You may recover costs on some of these, but generally it's a one way flow of cash for experiences/consumption. And it's definitely proportional to income. *The one exception might be a vacation home if you can use AirBnB to cover ongoing costs, though sooner or later you'll need something major like a new roof... Murray gets an owners box to enjoy his fantasy real-life hockey team with a back-stage pass to every event. Is it really a crazy idea that he doesn't need to be entitled to profit on every single aspect of his luxury hobby? I think the real issue is ego and competitiveness with other owners. I suspect most owners wouldn't be devastated to the point of selling if their team actually cost them a bit of money...but they'd never accept being the only one to face those costs. But still, the question for Calgary is whether another prospective owner might be willing to accept a different line in the sand to get that owner's box? League wide ownership does not want to give up their grift so easily, but I also doubt they want to permit cheap relocation. It would take a whole bunch of stars to align for a buyer seeking relocation to meet a price that would satisfy Murray that is also lower than Meruelo/or any other owner would accept, while also being higher than anyone is willing to pay to keep the team here. I would be more than willing to play that game of high-risk chicken, but I get that others aren't.