GCK
Registered User
- Oct 15, 2018
- 15,740
- 9,957
i think it’s a myth that owners treat teams like a toy/hobby. This may have been true 30 years ago and there are a couple of exceptions still today but the vast majority of owners still run their teams like a business. Take a look at the EPL with the big 6. Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, Tottenham are not toys. When Chelsea was bought by Abramovich he spent to win and suffered big losses and now the team is run as a business. Too much money is at stake to just play in the pro sports world now.I was about to post exactly this using different words. Good job.
A player's value is driven by his labour market 31 teams in size. The Senators' market is entertainment and driven mostly by the residents and corporations of this city.
As CGK posted it is true that there's an inherent link between the two in that revenues drives the Senators' ability to afford market rates for players (low revenue = low end players, high revenue = high end players). That's in a conventional situation where you operate purely like a business. Some teams have the luxury of spending disproportionately due to wealthy ownership who treats the team like a toy. We don't have that.
Every business in the history of business has (had) the objective of growth. Unless the Senators move they have a decision to make on how they operate here:
1) "Pray" for growth => link labour spending to revenues and likely be a bad/mediocre team in perpetuity, while praying for a stroke of luck that will bring the team a championship and propel growth (of the fan base, of revenues, of the brand).
2) "Invest" in growth => de-link spending from revenues on a short/medium term basis (FYOUS?) and invest in the labour that is more likely to achieve success, and thus growth. If it doesn't work, blow it up.
The people have spoken in this damaged relationship. #1 will give the Senators 10-12K fans per game, crappy corporate support.
What about #2?