A sunk cost is a sunk cost. If it made sense financially to move, it wouldn't matter what happens with those real estate investments. Except the 'cost' is an asset that will lose value if the team moves, so its not really a sunk cost in the traditional sense. Again, if the move were to hypthetically make sense financially, they may move. If it doesn't, they won't. Determining this obviously would include accounting for any lost value to those properties. If his point really is, "Ricketts isn't going to move the team if it doesn't make them more money," then, yes, I agree. I think his pointing out the existing assets and revenue streams tied to the current location puts the recent comments made by ownership in better context. It would take a lot for a move to make financial sense which indicates this is just posturing.