Would sports be better if it was 1 owner per city?

[Johnnydollaz89]

im not saying your dumb im just saying it wouldnt work

[Chitownhero14]

im not saying your dumb im just saying it wouldnt work

Oh i know that, im not saying u said that, and frankly i dont care what people say it because it doesnt get to me.

I'm just saying no one has yet to answer would it make things better or more interesting everyone has simply said it wouldn't work which in the original post i said that it wouldnt but in a perfect world if it did work, would things be better?

[Johnnydollaz89]

I dont think it would work, take this as an example say the Wilpons who own the Mets also owned the Knicks, Rangers, Yankees, Sabres, Jets, Giants, Bills, they would be runned to **** and the NY sports scene would be horrible and runned to the ground

[Chitownhero14]

I dont think it would work, take this as an example say the Wilpons who own the Mets also owned the Knicks, Rangers, Yankees, Sabres, Jets, Giants, Bills, they would be runned to **** and the NY sports scene would be horrible and runned to the ground

Well like said in the original post there would be 1 owner per city, all those teams are not in the same city and also stated is one team per sport per city so they'd have to choose between mets and yankees and giants and jets...etcso most they could own is 4 teams.

[Johnnydollaz89]

okay sorry i thought you meant state, okay so still lets say the Wilpsons own the Mets, Yankees and Rangers, those 4 teams with a world wide fan base would be run to the ground. but say Steinbrenner owned the Giants, and Jets, and Knicks those would probably be top franchises in their respected sports spending the most money year in and year out cuz hes a good owner unlike Wilpon lolol

[tyfreak]

That would be pretty cool at first but get lame. Also NO WAY owners would survive having to pay all his players.