View Single Post
10-26-2003, 07:20 PM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Originally Posted by
DB, I really don't think you're clearly reading anything I'm saying. You're really not getting the points I'm arguing, and that this is about the simple economic principle when it comes to sports franchises, in my mind, that if you raise ticket prices, you raise the budget. I don't appreciate the fact that I am paying more, not to fund a better hockey team, as is usually claimed, but to create a profit for ownership.
My point is this team has lost money for years, and the owners are finally in a position to make a little of it back, whether it is to put back in their pockets to compensate for years past, or maybe use in the future, I really don't know.
Increased revenues means they would not lose money with the same payroll, and I think it's pretty obvious we have increased revenue.
There were also times where revenues didn't increase at the same rate as expenses, and this could simply be an evening out of that... which is perfectly fair.
BTW, we're MAKING MONEY on the Toronto franchise.
No, we are just guaranteed not to lose any money. The only way the Oilers make money here is if the Roadrunners do well attendance-wise... and it doesn't look like they will (less that 1000 seasons tickets so far).
Nowhere did I say we should jack up the payroll $10 mil. We don't need to to be competitive.
The point of jacking the payroll $10 mil was to illustrate a point, not suggesting that is what you want.
I too want to build for post-2004 success. But the way to do that is to ice a very good team NOW and be ready to come flying out of the gates after the skirmish is over, not to set the team back 3-5 years, which is what tanking would do.
In order to come flying out, guys like Stoll, Torres, MAB, Semenov need games at the NHL level, which is what they are getting. Don't forget the team was bad out of the gate last year too, and they turned it around.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by dawgbone