Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Revenues are only half the equation, and not the real number of interest. Profit is what matters. If the Flames make 20% less revenues, and have similar or lesser costs, they turn an extra 5-10% profit, just on exchange alone. Revenue is only half the story when you're talking about seeing your expenditures drop by a substantial amount as well. Sharing a building with a basketball team as a secondary tenant is going to drop costs dramatically and increase profitability.
|
Costs are basically a fixed scenario. Expenditures in a cap league don't change a lot unless you're a perennial cap floor, noncompetitive club or if you cut front office spending for things like community outreach, marketing, scouting, and club operations. But, paying the bare minimum has its consequences too, and in a zero sum environment like a salary capped professional sports league, that kind of cost cutting gets you nowhere.
Their costs are relatively fixed.They still have to run and ice a competitive hockey club that meets the bare minimum salary restrictions, and that continues to make up the vast majority of operating expenses.
And again, this scenario involves moving the team to a privately owned building of which the Flames owners are not the owners. So now they are in a situation of paying rent? Going from Rent Seeking to Rent Paying? That's madness.
No, better to sell the team entirely to prospective owners in Seattle and wash your hands of owning a team entirely.
The money is in the real estate. The Flames apparently want something for nothing and the city isn't prepared to give it to them. The Stampede Board has been giving them a place to play in exchange for things like parking revenues, but the Flames apparently don't like that deal either.