Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who makes up MLSE?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
    I think you missed my point. You seem to think that running professional sports franchise as a business means that they don't worry about winning. My whole point was that worrying about winning can be the most effective way of making the business more successful and more profitable.

    Back when the OTP was running the show, they were worried about short-term profitability for their pensioners. They weren't running the team from a sports (winning) or business (long-term view with market share, viewership, advertising dollars, etc...) goals in mind.

    I don't think the current MLSE and the old MLSE/OTP situations are anything close to being the same.
    Do you think Mark Cuban worries about winning to make a profit?

    Comment


    • #17
      psrs1 wrote: View Post
      Do you think Mark Cuban worries about winning to make a profit?
      Very much so. He is willing to spend big bucks to win, but when all the spending goes for naught, he holds people accountable and cleans house. He knows very well that the best way for him to make money is by winning. He certainly didn't buy his team to be a profit making machine; he's young, rich beyond belief and a huge basketball fan. He puts winning first and isn't afraid to lose money to do so, but I guarantee you that he's not a happy camper if he's losing both money and games.

      Comment


      • #18
        But you can have a bad team and still make a lot money a la Leafs.

        Comment


        • #19
          Bonus Jonas wrote: View Post
          But you can have a bad team and still make a lot money a la Leafs.
          "Bad team" is sugar-coating it.

          "The worst North American pro sports franchise" (as per ESPN) is more accurate

          Comment


          • #20
            Bonus Jonas wrote: View Post
            But you can have a bad team and still make a lot money a la Leafs.
            This is always true in a strong market. But a good team winning championships with best-in-league talent makes a lot more money.

            I agree the OTP was just happy to make sure their investment was stable. I think Bell/Rogers realize that a successful team is a much bigger deal than a mediocre one, from the business side as well as from the fan perspective. Having Rogers involved in broadcasting helps a lot - viewership goes way up when the team is good.

            MLSE has already started spending more money under Bell/Rogers. If anything screws this ownership group it won't be OTP-style disinterest and stinginess, it'll be two corporate competitors failing to work together and having their separate business interests spill over into boardroom politics/dysfunction.
            "We're playing in a building." -- Kawhi Leonard

            Comment


            • #21
              CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
              Very much so. He is willing to spend big bucks to win, but when all the spending goes for naught, he holds people accountable and cleans house. He knows very well that the best way for him to make money is by winning. He certainly didn't buy his team to be a profit making machine; he's young, rich beyond belief and a huge basketball fan. He puts winning first and isn't afraid to lose money to do so, but I guarantee you that he's not a happy camper if he's losing both money and games.
              I see it differently. His primary motivation is to win with making money secondarily. The reverse is true of MLSE. As evidence I point to this offseason knowingly overpaying Chandler Parsons. Do you really believe the primary motivation of all they do at MLSE is to win? Of course not....when you have one owner it is potentially a lot better situation re developing a consistent winning team ---nobody wants to lose money but what primarily motivated ownership is key to understanding why certain moves are made and why a SUSTAINED CULTURE of winning or losing can continue. Look at MLSE vs Mike Ilich.

              Comment


              • #22
                psrs1 wrote: View Post
                I see it differently. His primary motivation is to win with making money secondarily. The reverse is true of MLSE. As evidence I point to this offseason knowingly overpaying Chandler Parsons. Do you really believe the primary motivation of all they do at MLSE is to win? Of course not....when you have one owner it is potentially a lot better situation re developing a consistent winning team ---nobody wants to lose money but what primarily motivated ownership is key to understanding why certain moves are made and why a SUSTAINED CULTURE of winning or losing can continue. Look at MLSE vs Mike Ilich.
                Ilich knows that winning in a sports-crazed town is what makes him his money. He also knows that Detroit fans are fickle; if the teams are losing, the fans stay home. Savvy owners understand that winning and profitability go hand-in-hand, and none of them would stand for spending money that doesn't result in winning.

                I never said that owners didn't place a high priority on the financial well-being of their investment. I just argued with your presumption that profitability and winning are mutually exclusive, where an owner picks to be concerned about one or the other.

                Comment


                • #23
                  psrs1 wrote: View Post
                  I see it differently. His primary motivation is to win with making money secondarily. The reverse is true of MLSE. As evidence I point to this offseason knowingly overpaying Chandler Parsons. Do you really believe the primary motivation of all they do at MLSE is to win? Of course not....when you have one owner it is potentially a lot better situation re developing a consistent winning team ---nobody wants to lose money but what primarily motivated ownership is key to understanding why certain moves are made and why a SUSTAINED CULTURE of winning or losing can continue. Look at MLSE vs Mike Ilich.
                  Mark Cuban is a great owner who swings for the fences with almost every big name FA, but part of the reason he overpaid Parsons is that everybody else turns him down. He's had a lot of trouble drawing players to Dallas.

                  Also, in spite of his billions, he decided to let Tyson Chandler walk immediately after he anchored a championship team rather than pay the guy his next contract. Three years later and Cuban brings him back via trade.

                  All that aside, it's pretty goofy to say Bell/Rogers won't spend on players because they're more worried about the bottom line than championships. So far all they've done is spend $$$ at basically every opportunity that's come up for each of their teams. I think you're transferring opinions about OTP to Bell/Rogers and mistakenly categorizing them all as "MLSE." Two completely different owners.
                  "We're playing in a building." -- Kawhi Leonard

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    "We're gonna drop $30 million on a practice facility because we don't care about winning.

                    Sincerely,

                    MLSE"

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Nilanka wrote: View Post
                      "We're gonna drop $30 million on a practice facility because we don't care about winning.

                      Sincerely,

                      MLSE"
                      Read the fine print re funding and tax breaks. B

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                        Ilich knows that winning in a sports-crazed town is what makes him his money. He also knows that Detroit fans are fickle; if the teams are losing, the fans stay home. Savvy owners understand that winning and profitability go hand-in-hand, and none of them would stand for spending money that doesn't result in winning.

                        I never said that owners didn't place a high priority on the financial well-being of their investment. I just argued with your presumption that profitability and winning are mutually exclusive, where an owner picks to be concerned about one or the other.
                        My point is what motivates owners and people. You seem to focus a lot on money and profits in your analysis.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          S.R. wrote: View Post
                          Mark Cuban is a great owner who swings for the fences with almost every big name FA, but part of the reason he overpaid Parsons is that everybody else turns him down. He's had a lot of trouble drawing players to Dallas.

                          Also, in spite of his billions, he decided to let Tyson Chandler walk immediately after he anchored a championship team rather than pay the guy his next contract. Three years later and Cuban brings him back via trade.

                          All that aside, it's pretty goofy to say Bell/Rogers won't spend on players because they're more worried about the bottom line than championships. So far all they've done is spend $$$ at basically every opportunity that's come up for each of their teams. I think you're transferring opinions about OTP to Bell/Rogers and mistakenly categorizing them all as "MLSE." Two completely different owners.
                          Different owners but likely similar motivations.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            psrs1 wrote: View Post
                            My point is what motivates owners and people. You seem to focus a lot on money and profits in your analysis.
                            You started out by implying that there are two types of owners: those who only care about profitability and those who only care about winning.

                            I (and others) have been trying to explain that the two things aren't mutually exclusive and that, more often than not, winning is in fact the most effective way to maximize your profitability.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                              You started out by implying that there are two types of owners: those who only care about profitability and those who only care about winning.

                              I (and others) have been trying to explain that the two things aren't mutually exclusive and that, more often than not, winning is in fact the most effective way to maximize your profitability.
                              Despite what you think I get that point. My point is that when an owner wakes up in the morning what does he think? What motivates him/her? What is the PRIMARY concern / motivation? Sports has a huge business component but it should not be all about business and making money ...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                This thread is weird.
                                "We're playing in a building." -- Kawhi Leonard

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X