People are getting overly upset about the use of the word 'franchise'. I live in the US and generally the word is used when describing the business aspects of a sports team......e.g. "we need a new stadium deal to move this franchise forward". The operational aspects are generally referred to as the 'organization', which has a shadowy, sinister ring to it....."as General Manager I want this organization to...". The franchise word has a bad name in the UK due to the whole Wimbledon/Franchise FC thing. Its just a word, don't worry about it. Winter's comment about the club being an "ATM" is so wide of the mark its untrue. Sports teams (frnachises) are rich men's playthings in this country. The NFL is the most exclusive rich men's club in the world. The price of entry is incredible. I'm in banking and I've worked on 4 NFL financing deals and nobody is getting rich on the cashflow. There is plenty of prestige attached to owning an NFL team but you only get payback on the day you sell....and thats assuming that you have a better stadium deal than on the day you bought. All other revenues are more or less split evenly between the teams. Its better that Hicks and Gillett are hockey and baseball guys. There isn't the same cushion of shared revenues that the NFL enjoys. As an owner, you have to spend to put a good team out otherwise there will be a direct impact on your gate receipts which are key in both sports as the media contracts are much smaller than the NFL. A good tem in an attractive stadiium (or hockey arena) is vital. They also understand that nuturing of young talent coming through the ranks is essential.....both sports have "farm systems" whereas NFL teams are generally looking for prime time ready talent from the college game. I do think that these guys really get this. Just give them a break on the language issue.