View Single Post
Old
10-23-2013, 02:48 PM
  #120
Off Sides
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 929
vCash: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
So, paying several players tens of millions of dollars to NOT play hockey is good for business? Sather's budgeting bloopers are even more egregious than the poor rosters he churns out year after year.

Ranger fans are amongst the most loyal in any sport - this is also NYC, where its quite a bit easier to fill an 18,000 seat arena with 8M+ people roaming the streets.

I dont understand your argument because it makes zero sense.
There is a cap correct?

There player payroll besides buyouts is set.

Which team is more marketable to advertisers, to those who buy luxury boxes, to those who can afford to sit in the high priced seats, One with Richards, Nash and the other name players on it or one who is rebuilding through the draft?

The couple million in buyouts pales in comparison to selling out luxury boxes, to getting high paying advertisers to do just that on the network they own. To the merchandising opportunities. To the regular ticket buyer.

They'd still make money regardless, but in order to charge more every year for all those things you have to increase demand for those things. How do you do that, you sell marketable players. why else do you think we've seen Lindros, Messier, Jagr, Shanahan, Naslund, Gaborik, Richards, Nash here? Because they lose money on them?

The point of this team is not to contend for years upon years, it's to make as much money as possible yearly.

Off Sides is offline   Reply With Quote