Originally Posted by eyemissgilmour
My bad, 2/3 aren't profitable. Better?
(roughly) 1/3 make money, 1/3 break even, and 1/3 in the red
Although I do consider "break even" a loss in the sense that there's an enormous opportunity cost involved with running a franchise that has to struggle just to break even. It seems like an unsustainable model to witness that kind of salary growth with 2/3 of the franchises not generating a profit.
The hockey team per se or the entire organizations as a whole? Cuz Jacobs et al make a shit ton of revenue off secondary revenue streams (parking, merchandise, vendors, F&B etc), effectively off setting any "loss" the team itself might accrue.
Four out of three people have difficulty with fractions
Commish - Twisted Wrister
Fantasy Hockey League
12 team, $$$, 24 players, Weekly, H2H, limited keeper (8), multi-cat (G, A, PIMs, Hits, SOG, HT/ W, GA, SV%, SO)
Start: 2C, 2RW, 2LW, 4D, 2G