no, my assumption was meant to parody yours. basically illustrating that your logic can be used both ways. which makes it an assumption. your logical deduction is nothing more than taking disparate facts and fitting them into a narrative that "sounds" logical...but really isnt.
im not saying youre wrong, but its a huge jump.
buys team in aggressive manner (whatever that means...again if you were a fly on the wall in negotiations this might hold water)
In a very short time span 3 majority owners were bought out, one turned around and immediately tried to buy a new team and the other two made no statements about wanting to sell and had in fact just recently attended a press event (something Sharks owners rarely do) and made statements about the state of the team going forward and their plans. Then quickly sold their shares to Hasso a short time later. Why? We will never know, but to me that looks like an aggressive buyout situation. I could certainly be wrong, it's certainly not conclusive, but I see pretty strong indicators Hasso pushed the other owners out.
says he doesnt see the team making money (okay great, so it wasnt purely a business decision...but we know nothing else) so i can ride this one a little bit
Well, that doesn't mean it wasn't a business decision, just not a profit center. It means his issues with the teams operation are likely not about profit/loss, more likely he disagress with some business directive the team was operating under and wants to change it. Maybe he simply felt they were too conservative, maybe he wanted a bigger tax shelter, we don't know, we only know he went from a minority owner to the majority owner in a very short time frame for some reason.
basic human psychology? are you serious? the basics would be to buy out a business to capitalize on an emerging market...or possibly on some grander scheme in his overall business. however, you take that basics and say its because he is passionate enough about the sharks to take over their business and make hockey changes to turn it into a stanley cup winning team.
None of that is psychology. By psychology I mean that people like him do not spend huge sums of money and large amounts of their time and effort buying out a hockey team just to say they own a hockey team. It could happen, but i'd say it's unlikely. I am simply making an assumption about what that is. My 'leap' is that I assume he bought the team because he disagreed fundamentally about how the team was run and decided that it mattered enough to him to go through with a lengthy and costly buy out in order to institute the changes he wants to see. I don't see the front office changes as significant enough to warrant than level of investment. Is he going to micro-manage the day-to-day operation of the team? Probably not, other owners have, but I don't think so. Does he plan to give Doug Wilson a framework with which to operate and then leave him to see it done? I think that's the most likely thing. What changes he wants instituted only time will tell, and I am just speculating, but I don't see the idea that he doesn't like how the team was being run as a motivating factor as much of a leap. If you agree that it's a possibility, then it's not much more of a leap to assume things like pay-structure are one of the things he wants changed, since he's the one now footing the bill. I certainly would have something to say on the topic if I were in his shoes.
which of those sounds less likely?
