Originally Posted by Benzo
The imbalance of rewards is fine, and the owners do not have a problem with it. Its when some clubs can't afford to stay around anymore. Why would somebody stay owning a team (even if there loses are mitigated by business rules) losing money.
It doesn't make any sense.
I will agree that the owners create most of these messes themselves in pro-sports but they should also be able to change the rules if they want. If my company was losing money and they asked me to reduce my salary or lose my job I would have the following options.
1.) Lose my job
2.) Take a pay cut
3.) Find a new Job.
For the record I do not make MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR
So what owner has lost so much money that they can't make a go of it? There was the ownership in NO, and they got bailed out by the other owners.
Why is there a team in OKC instead of Seattle? Because Seattle refused to continue offering the privilege of a free stadium. That's one of many examples. I'm not sure how naive you expect me to be by answering no there. And I would ave to be even more naive to believe that any kind of losses don't get written off. Please tell me about all the taxes these guys pay. And if you bought a team you could be assured of a big return. If you're going to say no, then show me all those teams that didn't gain in value. And you might want to go back a few posts and see where all these questions are clearly and concisely answered hell yes.