Mackus, on 16 Oct 2019 - 11:04, said:
I'd be happy if the Angelos family was putting every dollar earned from the team into the team. Payroll could be low without drawing my ire if it was being saved and made available to be spent on the team over that year's revenue-supported budget later. Only way I can support an owner making more than a modest profit off of their franchise is if that team is meeting every fan expectation from a competitive standpoint. My firm belief is that franchises are not the property of their owners but belong to the cities and the fans with the owners as caretakers or stewards. A few exceptions can be given for families that have owned the team since their inception, but any owner that purchased the team recently should know the drill. If teams didn't have insane monopoly protections and operated as standard businesses, I'd feel differently and more capitalistically. But they are not standard businesses so the owners don't get to profit off of them as if they were.
That essentially every franchise in existence falls short of this doesn't change my opinion.
You believe that, but that's not factually accurate. Businessmen buy or create businesses to make money. It's not actually your or my team, it currently belongs to Peter Angelos who runs it as he sees fit.
Yeah, this the way it works.
The franchise is indeed the owners' property and they can run the franchise any way they like.
Further, the owner of the franchise can actually move the franchise in certain cases.
Would a "caretaker" move something that is so near and dear to the city or it's residents in the name of profit?
Maybe not, but an owner of the franchise has every right to explore the possibility or act upon it under the league's bylaws.