IpsoPostFacto
No opinions, just reactions
- Dec 17, 2017
- 889
- 955
tend to agree. The only thing that strikes me off the top if rich guy A (who is not a developer) wants to marry rich guy B who is and A believes that sharing equity in team in return for equity in broader building project is better/quick/cheaper in the long run than just going out and hiring a developer.It doesn't, and all of this talk of groups getting together is fantasy. Rich dudes didn't get rich by "collaborating" on ownership - they buy stuff and run it themselves. The NHL also doesn't want a messy ownership situation where there are multiple squabbling partners. They want one clear majority owner with perhaps one partner - that's it.
Didn't Conn Smythe famously build Maple Leafs Gardens in the depression by giving equity to the workers. Just looked that up - 20% reduction in pay in return for shares in the team. So this is an example of a very specific solution to a very specific problem.
This is the practical issue with Sparks imo. What are they at now, UK money, snoop money?, KZA money; others. The Native group has to vote on joining. Do they have to vote every time there is a money call? That's like a publicly traded corporation, which is not ideal as the shareholders don't really care about the owners' little hobby.
There are NHL owners that are owned by public companies I suppose - Ranger, Leafs, and Habs jump to mind, but those companies are in the entertainment business, so a sports portfolio makes sense.