Jump to content

Dec. 2, Sharks vs Habs, 7 PM


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, BCHabnut said:

A lot of those broke stories are about money management.  I think that's the biggest problem there. They make massive money and blow it all.

 

Right. Basically all positions average over $1M salary. Multiply by three years. But too many athletes (not just NFL -- and not just athletes, either, other entertainers have same issues) have no idea about how to manage their finances. They'll spend freely and make bad investments when that $3M over three years could set them up a very nice nest egg for a modest retirement.

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Your such a buzz kill...  

A 10 million dollar goalie needs to stop the first goal 100% of the time.  The team seems to have reduced odd man rush and lateral pass plays against. I needed to see price perform now. Over a year of

That's great for the super-rich. Meanwhile all the other guys are putting their long-term health at great risk and their teams can f*ck them right up the arse to boot. What a brutally exploitative sys

You're right. NFL is 50/50. Or very close. That's a cap issue. NFL also has the highest percentage of college graduates, so there is that to fall back on. You can't cut an injured player. His career may be over though. It's an interesting topic. How do you take care of these injured guys and retain the right to cut players that suck just cuz they suck. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

 

Right. Basically all positions average over $1M salary. Multiply by three years. But too many athletes (not just NFL -- and not just athletes, either, other entertainers have same issues) have no idea about how to manage their finances. They'll spend freely and make bad investments when that $3M over three years could set them up a very nice nest egg for a modest retirement.

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/

 

The AVERAGE is 3 years. Many players play more, so this means that many players also play less than 3 years.  Your link is also about AVERAGE salaries.

 

I'm concerned about the players who are making the lower end of the pay scale, who are playing less than three years.  Heck some of these players might not even play a full season before they are hurt, so we aren't talking about 3M in the bank.  We are talking a few hundred grand, which is not a nest egg for retirement if you have considerable medical expenses. 

 

Also you didn't address the fairness issue in that this completely favours the owners and not the players.

The average job... if I underperform I can be fired... but also if someone likes me more and offers me more money,  i can quit at any time and go take a new job.

In the NFL... if I underperform my contract i can be cut after year 1.... but if i have a three-year contract for 5 million per season, and in year one i play like a $15 million player, i can't cancel my contract and become a free agent open to the highest bidder.  Why not?  Why does a three year deal mean that the team is only committed to the player for as long as they want and they can cut him at any time, but the player is now attached to that contract for three years, no matter how well he plays? 

 

So in the NHL if we get rid of guaranteed contracts, then are we only getting rid of the player's guarantee, but not the owners?  Can Connor McDavid say I want to be a free agent and lets see who has the most money to sign me every summer? Can Max Domi say, I played like a number 1 centre this season, I don't want the second year of my contract, I'm cancelling it and becoming a free agent as a point per game guy?  Why does this only work one way for underperformance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't (and don't want to) speak about NFL fairness since I have near-zero knowledge about it.

 

But fairness in the NHL finances ... I think we should have ticket price caps, or require teams to sell some (nosebleed?) seats for lower prices. Because the prices are crazy for many families. And I think both players and owners could manage with a bit less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

 if I underperform my contract i can be cut after year 1.... but if i have a three-year contract for 5 million per season, and in year one i play like a $15 million player, i can't cancel my contract and become a free agent open to the highest bidder.  Why not?  Why does a three year deal mean that the team is only committed to the player for as long as they want and they can cut him at any time, but the player is now attached to that contract for three years, no matter how well he plays? 

That's an excellent point.  I suppose performance bonuses could solve this, but not for teams up against the cap. This to me is the best arguement against that system. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

I can't (and don't want to) speak about NFL fairness since I have near-zero knowledge about it.

 

But fairness in the NHL finances ... I think we should have ticket price caps, or require teams to sell some (nosebleed?) seats for lower prices. Because the prices are crazy for many families. And I think both players and owners could manage with a bit less.

 

Its business, supply and demand. 

 

Teams and players are never going to agree to this.  

 

Nor should any business in a capitalist society.  

 

Cheaper tickets would still have demand at a high price point, all you are doing by lowering prices is encouraging even more people to be involved in scalping tickets via places like Stubhub, etc... which means more money going to those scalpers instead of the team and players. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Commandant said:

Its business, supply and demand. 

 

Teams and players are never going to agree to this.  

 

Nor should any business in a capitalist society.  

 

Cheaper tickets would still have demand at a high price point, all you are doing by lowering prices is encouraging even more people to be involved in scalping tickets via places like Stubhub, etc... which means more money going to those scalpers instead of the team and players. 

 

Salary caps (or other revenue sharing schemes) aren't pure capitalism either. :)

 

I would support having, say, 5% of the seats priced as "affordable". Sold by lottery only. If you win (and pay for the tickets), show your photo ID to be admitted. I would bet that we could get some strong cheering sections from this kind of cheap seats. The team could still make extra money from the $10 beers and hotdogs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting line of thought mentioned above.

Perhaps, the cost of some extra tix gets worked into pricing of corporate boxes and the “extra tix” from that are used by the club exclusively for schools, minor sports teams, charities? 

No net gain or loss for team, negligible increase to the price of corporate boxes, does some good for people who may not get to see an NHL game otherwise???

Go Habs Go! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supply and demand.

 

If a team can increase the cost of corporate boxes without reducing the demand... they should do this and there is no reason financially to reduce other tickets as a result of that increase.

 

The organizations goal is to maximize revenue.  We shouldnt assume that the team has room to increase the cost of boxes.  We should assume that has already been maximized.

 

 

Besides all this.  Hockey is a business.  The team has no obligation to take less than market value for their tickets or their boxes or anything else they sell. Professional Sports is not altruistic, its pure capitalism.  At the end of the day we as fans might want cheaper prices.. but things dont work that way.  Just like we want a playstation to be cheaper, wanting it to be cheaper is not enough, the company selling it is trying to maximize their profits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Commandant said:

There is no incentive for teams or players to agree to that.  So how does such a rule ever get introduced?

 

It probably never will. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a nice idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...