vanlady said:
Because quite simply, the owner would not have the arena if it were not for his team. You seem to think that the owners have invested their hard earned money in these arenas. Wrong, read the article again over 19 billion dollar in facilities have been built and owners of major league franchises have paid less than 1/3 of that. The tax payer pays the rest. What do the tax payers get, a guarentee that there team stays in the city.
Generalisations like that make you look bad. There are owners who paid for their arenas (example #1, Montreal). Also, while it was popular during the 90s to give arenas to teams, this has changed lately and the taxpayers dollars are much harder to come up with to finance arenas.
Also, you look like the perfect spin-doctor. Instead of putting a straight-up argument, you usually spin things around to "support" whatever you want. You contradict yourself through several posts, but always spinning it your way. You purposely use extreme examples while keeping quiet on the examples that don't support what you want (sharks guy who made some money vs the devils guy who lost $50M in assets value over 2-3 years?).
As to the Forbes, well their numbers have consistently been wrong on franchise values. The prices that franchises are sold at are very seldomly close to the Forbes values. The true test is the market, not some theoretical number you come up with. Plus, most of their claims of what is "hockey revenue" is ludicrous. They're talking like the NHL teams are currently a jewel for TV channels (when hockey's rating is lower than Poker and many other things), like the NHL teams are carrying NBA teams on their backs (hahahaha....). The real estate exploits of some owners are the exception, not the rule. The facts are that even if you include all kind of bogus revenue streams (LA Clippers rent? WTH!!!??? I guess AEG wouldn't pull that in if the LA Kings were moved to another city...) and use vague estimations, the Forbes still comes up with a $100M loss for an industry, before amortization (which kind of negates the fact some NHL teams didn't pay their rink), before loans, etc.
In a post, you even claim that investments in bonds and such aren't reported in the team's earnings. I find that hard to swallow, especially for a canadian team. Tell me who their auditor is so that I know they do a real crappy job (and tell the CCRA, I'm sure they'll be all over it).
As to the players not trusting the owners, well then why not go play for someone else? Would you work for someone you don't trust? Imo, it's a given that if you work for another party, you need to have a certain level of trust...
You write that the Phoenix Coyotes had asset valuation going up 14%. Can you provide details? Which assets? Why? Also, if you go into asset valuation, you're going to have to include debts and so on on top of the usual loss, otherwise it doesn't make any sense. (side note: I'm not really surprised though that you would skip certain details)
In today's NHL, the best run teams are the Minessota Wild, the Chicago Blackhawks. Why? Because they make a profit even though on ice they aren't the best, and since about 50% of the teams can't make the playoffs every year, financially it is the best way to run your team. Is it your wish to have more teams run like them? Do you really think that is what the NHL should become? I find that hard to swallow.
The market is changing daily. The way entities are managed is also evolving on a daily basis. Today, each "center" must contribute to the overall profit. If the hockey team doesn't make you money, ditch it and replace it with something else that brings you more profit (or cut the loss).
As a fan, I want a stable NHL, where the franchises will stay and be competitive every year in the same cities. That can only be achieved through a remake of the financial operations of the NHL as a whole. Whether the players agree or not, I could care less honestly.
P.S.: One glaring proof that the NHL is not "economically viable" (as in the risk/reward return rate is a very bad one) is that when teams are for sale they have a hard time finding a local buyer. What this means is that local investors (which are plenty everywhere in NA) feel they can invest their money in something else that will give them a better rate of return. When not even a single local entity/group/holding is interested in buying the local hockey team, you're in a very bad position...