alanschu Posted July 16, 2005 Posted July 16, 2005 I'm pretty sure Goodenow won't be around much longer. He certainly doesn't have the support of his clients. Although he does have years left on his contract I believe, but there are legitimate ways around contracts too.
EnderAndrew Posted July 16, 2005 Posted July 16, 2005 On a semi-related note, anyone following the Terrel Owens deal in the NFL? He played one year on a seven year contract and now he is refusing to play unless he gets obscenely more money. Contracts like these go to arbiters every year, and arbiters almost always side against owners. TO is making really good money, and I always felt like contracts should be binding. The owners can't decide to stop paying you after one year if they like, but players can decide to stop playing. I think if a player refuses to play, that salary should not count against the cap and the team should have the opportunity to shop for a new player. Consider the player on strike.
alanschu Posted July 16, 2005 Posted July 16, 2005 I'm all for contracts being binding. However, I think things are a bit different in the NFL. I don't think contracts are guaranteed (which is why the big deal with the signing bonus), which means the team can axe them at any time, and they don't have to pay the contract. However, I believe the signing bonus aspect of the contract is guaranteed. According to this analysis over half of the salary earned by NFL players is now guaranteed. This number compared to 20% in 1993. So it seems to be changing. As far as I can tell, the other leagues have guaranteed contracts, where releasing someone merely puts them on waivers, where another team can pick up their contract....but the original team still has to pay it until then.
Volourn Posted July 16, 2005 Posted July 16, 2005 "The owners can't decide to stop paying you after one year if they like, but players can decide to stop playing." I believe the owners can buy players (and coaches) out for a ceratin percentage of the contract. of course, this all depends on the deal. I'm with alanshu to a point that in general contracts should be binding for both aprties. That said, there should be a way for either side to exit the contract if the relationship REALLY goes sour. In this day and age one shouldn't be forced to do something that is really detrimental to them. Afterall, I seriosuly doubt anyone here would be pleased if they were forced to remain in a job that was completely horrible. Nor should a boss be stock with a horrible employee. Example: x player signs with a team because he likes the coach. Team fires said coach afterards and hires a coach that makes things miserable for the player and so neither side is happy and all is hell. Both sides should be allowed to exit the contract. "And ESPN has been reporting that the new CBA is calling for lower ticket prices. Yet Volourn has been insisting the owners did all this so they can raise ticket prices and make even more of a profit." Teams including the Toronto Maple Leafs ahve already stated that ticket prices are likely to raise. This is coming from the Toronto owner, and the source is the Toronto Star a more reliable source than an y internet crap or US paper. Ha. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
alanschu Posted July 16, 2005 Posted July 16, 2005 I believe the owners can buy players (and coaches) out for a ceratin percentage of the contract. of course, this all depends on the deal. I believe it's new with the CBA, but there's a buyout option for owners that something like 70% of the remaining contract value or something. Contracts should have ways to be legally terminated, with both sides agreeing to the avenues of buying out said contract. Having said that, I don't feel too much sympathy for a player that feels he's underpaid. He signed the long term deal at that particular wage, and should take responsibility for his decision. Even with a buyout option, teams are still in a financial predicament if a player ends up not being worth the value of the contract. Although I hear that the new owner-led arbitration rules can come into play here and revalue the contract, if appropriate (or something).
EnderAndrew Posted July 16, 2005 Posted July 16, 2005 Most of these contracts are very specific. If one side violates the terms, the other side should be able to get out of it. And I don't know if most of the teams will lower or raise prices. ESPN seems to suggest on the whole, prices will go down, where as we have one example of a team raising prices. Who is the exception?
alanschu Posted July 16, 2005 Posted July 16, 2005 Edmonton needs a bigger arena. (My non sequitur point of the day).
Volourn Posted July 16, 2005 Posted July 16, 2005 "And I don't know if most of the teams will lower or raise prices. ESPN seems to suggest on the whole, prices will go down, where as we have one example of a team raising prices." ESPN is foolish. Why would teams lower prices. I could see them giving specials to the fans for the first month or so to woo back possibly lost customers; but overall ticket prices will go up espicially for teams thata re near guarnateed to sell out their arenas anyways. "Who is the exception?" Toronto is almost assuredly guarantted to raise ticket prices. I believe Ottawa and Tampa Bay have already said that they will be offering special pricing for fans for the first couple of months. "I could see ticket prices going down simply to win back the fans." Maybe for a little bit; but not long term and not for the teams guarnateed to have sell outs like Toronto or Ny. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
alanschu Posted July 16, 2005 Posted July 16, 2005 ESPN is foolish. Why would teams lower prices. I could see them giving specials to the fans for the first month or so to woo back possibly lost customers; but overall ticket prices will go up espicially for teams thata re near guarnateed to sell out their arenas anyways. I could see ticket prices going down simply to win back the fans.
EnderAndrew Posted July 16, 2005 Posted July 16, 2005 Baseball lowered ticked prices for 2 years after the strike.
Deraldin Posted July 16, 2005 Posted July 16, 2005 Maybe for a little bit; but not long term and not for the teams guarnateed to have sell outs like Toronto or Ny. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's because a lot of those fans are idiots. They sell out the building no matter how badly the teams play. Something I've never been able to understand.
Volourn Posted July 16, 2005 Posted July 16, 2005 "That's because a lot of those fans are idiots. They sell out the building no matter how badly the teams play. Something I've never been able to understand." Well... The Rangers are in NY where there are tens of millions of people living either in the city or very close so the odds are that even if someone goes to a home game once per year they'd cover the selkl out consideirng the MSG houses 18,001 people at once. I think a city that size can manage it... DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
EnderAndrew Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 City size means nothing. Phoenix is the third largest city in the country, and the Arizona Cardinals have the worst attendance in the league. Green Bay, Wisconsin has the best attendance, and is the smallest city to host a team.
Volourn Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 City size DOES matter. I never said it was the ONLY thing that mattered; but it is important. This is a fact? Why? 'Cause the large the city the alrger the teams' potential customer base which means more likely that tickets will be bought. Afterall, the NY market has a lot more potential customer base than, say, KC. This is factual by the number facts. Basic econimics, really. Learned in Kindergarten, afterall. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
EnderAndrew Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 Facts prove you wrong. LA couldn't hold either of their NFL teams because no one bought tickets. In fact, more studies are showing that smaller markets are prefferable because they have less competition. I live in little ole Nebraska, where a small town like Lincoln, NE (population 100,000) can hold a stadium that sells out 80,000 seats every single game for over 40 years straight. Why is it that an area with 20 million people can't sell tickets, but a town of 100,000 can? City size is almost irrelevant. Fan interest is all that matters.
Volourn Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 Nonsense. 1. I never said interest wasn't important. Obvious it is. In fact, I'd agree it's most important. 2. The above doesn't chnage the fact that market size IS important. This is basic econimics. The larger the market size the more potential customer base the business has. Geez.. This should be obviously; but basic example. You are opening up an ice cream stand and you have a choice of either an area of 10k or one of 50k. Where do you think you are likely to make more money? The 50k one, duh. Of course, putting a hoodwink into that is if the 50k town is, say, in Alaska wher eit is cold and the 10k area is in a hot desert. That makes it a more interesting issue where the size difference isn't as important as it once was. Basically, all things considered equal, market size *does* matter. Period. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
EnderAndrew Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 How is size important when the two of the three largest cities in this country can't maintain a team and the smallest town to maintain a professional team owns in attendance? How can Nebraska sell out 80,000 seats for over 40 years straight? Nebraska has horrid weather, so weather isn't as much of an issue, where as LA has great weather and people won't show up for games. When I went to the Rosebowl, I bought a scalped ticket, two actually. Face value was $125 per ticket. I bought them for $30 a piece well before kickoff, for one of the major BCS Bowl games. No one cared. There were empty seats, and I nabbed two cheap. There are no sports fans in LA. The Lakers are the one major franchise out there that people support, and it has nothing to do with sports. It is a celebrity status to own Lakers tickets. Ask people in LA to name the 5 starters for the Lakers last year, and I bet you they can't. The size of the city doesn't matter.
Volourn Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 *yawn* It does matter. It isn't the only thing that does. Understand these simple concepts and we'll get along great. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
alanschu Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 Nonsense. 1. I never said interest wasn't important. Obvious it is. In fact, I'd agree it's most important. 2. The above doesn't chnage the fact that market size IS important. This is basic econimics. The larger the market size the more potential customer base the business has. Geez.. This should be obviously; but basic example. You are opening up an ice cream stand and you have a choice of either an area of 10k or one of 50k. Where do you think you are likely to make more money? The 50k one, duh. Of course, putting a hoodwink into that is if the 50k town is, say, in Alaska wher eit is cold and the 10k area is in a hot desert. That makes it a more interesting issue where the size difference isn't as important as it once was. Basically, all things considered equal, market size *does* matter. Period. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> All things aren't equal though.
Laozi Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 How is size important when the two of the three largest cities in this country can't maintain a team and the smallest town to maintain a professional team owns in attendance? How can Nebraska sell out 80,000 seats for over 40 years straight? Nebraska has horrid weather, so weather isn't as much of an issue, where as LA has great weather and people won't show up for games. When I went to the Rosebowl, I bought a scalped ticket, two actually. Face value was $125 per ticket. I bought them for $30 a piece well before kickoff, for one of the major BCS Bowl games. No one cared. There were empty seats, and I nabbed two cheap. There are no sports fans in LA. The Lakers are the one major franchise out there that people support, and it has nothing to do with sports. It is a celebrity status to own Lakers tickets. Ask people in LA to name the 5 starters for the Lakers last year, and I bet you they can't. The size of the city doesn't matter. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Green Bay is another good example People laugh when I say that I think a jellyfish is one of the most beautiful things in the world. What they don't understand is, I mean a jellyfish with long, blond hair.
EnderAndrew Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 I mentioned Green Bay a few posts, back, and I referred to Green Bay when I said smallest market. They are the smallest market to host a team in the NFL, and they own in attendance.
Laozi Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 Oh and Phoenix is not the third largest city, Houston is. But the Dallas/Fort Worth area is easily the third most populated area in the U.S. The problem for the Cards has always been that before they moved from St. Louis I believe, is that the region was already a devout Dallas Cowbois stronghold. Even now they're the 2nd team in the area. Size of the city is on no way as important as fan loyalty. People laugh when I say that I think a jellyfish is one of the most beautiful things in the world. What they don't understand is, I mean a jellyfish with long, blond hair.
Volourn Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 "Size of the city is on no way as important as fan loyalty." Who said it was? DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Laozi Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 Uh-huh People laugh when I say that I think a jellyfish is one of the most beautiful things in the world. What they don't understand is, I mean a jellyfish with long, blond hair.
Volourn Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 Seriously, who said it was? I certainly didn't. I said population-market size DOES matter. I never said it was more important than 'team loyalty'. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Recommended Posts