Sabres lost money in 2005/06?

[Bmwolf21]

I think it changed for a few reasons:

 

Fans started getting more concerned about money whent tickets went from $15 to $75 and teams started selling PSLs for thousands of dollars. They want to know where all that money is going.

 

Also, when storied franchises like the Baltimore Colts and Cleveland Browns moved away from passionate fan bases who sold games out for sweetheart deals in other cities. No one knew anything about finances and fans were blindsided by these moves, so the media started digging for the how and why. It mushroomed from there.

 

Also, we can say it should be kept private, but as soon as either an agent or the team can use the media as leverage in contract negotiations, numbers will be leaked. When Joe Superstar is holding out, and fans start bitching and start calling the owner cheap for not paying him, the team is going to leak the numbers and so everyone knows the Joe is being unreasonable and greedy. Or vice-versa, tha player is going the leak the weak-ass offer to put pressure on the team.

 

No doubt you are right about this: Even if we had NONE of this info, people would STILL think they could do Dacy's job! In fact it would probably be worse, if they did not understand where the team was in relation to the cap, they'd wonder why the Sabres can't keep everyone and trade for Pronger and Sakic too.

 

Good post. You could add in the leagues (not the NHL) receiving multi-million dollar contracts for TV rights; CBA negotiations, lockouts & strikes; taxpayer-funded arenas and arena upgrades; arena naming rights; parking, concession and merchandise revenues skyrocketing, and more. Point is there is a lot of money changing hands from fans to team, taxpayers to team, corporate sponsors to team, and teams paying large contracts to on-and off-ice personnel.

 

Frankly if I were spending thousands of $$ on PSL fees, season tickets, parking, food, merchandise, etc., I would be demanding to know why Joe Superstar was traded in an obvious salary dump, or not re-signed; why the team "needs" a new arena to remain competitive; or why the stadium/arena lost its cool name like Crossroads Arena or Pilot Field, and is now Marine Midland Arena, or HSBC Arena, or Dunn Tire Stadium.

 

It just shows that everyone, not just the people on this board or the ones in the arena, are paying for these teams, and we have a right to know what the hell they are doing with our money, so another passionate city doesn't get the shaft from the franchise they have supported for so long.

[PASabreFan]

What about Hollywood? We pay the huge dollars the stars get. Do you know how much Tom Hanks made last year? Do you know how contracts are structured? Do you know who heads Miramax? Do you care? I don't. I am either entertained or I am not.

[BetweenThePipes00]

What about Hollywood? We pay the huge dollars the stars get. Do you know how much Tom Hanks made last year? Do you know how contracts are structured? Do you know who heads Miramax? Do you care? I don't. I am either entertained or I am not.

 

Actually yeah they are always talking about how much so-and-so got to make this movie or that. There are sites that list their salaries for each movie (just found this one in 2 seconds ... http://www.the-numbers.com/people/ ...

 

And something tells me that when people woke up one morning to find they are going to be paying an extra 1% sales tax to build a new movie studio for these guys to act in, suddenly they would become VERY interested at what they were getting out of it.

 

Really, if you just wanted to follow the team and not know about this stuff, you could I guess. Just print out the schedule and watch the games and ignore everything in between. But I think you love it WAY too much and are WAY too into it to do that.

[PASabreFan]

I think it CAN be ignored. Hockey was a business from 1970 until 1986, too, and I don't think I could tell you what Gilbert Perreault made. No clue.

[Bmwolf21]

Good luck ignoring the business side of it. Now you can't discuss player trades, free agent signings etc, without considering how they'll affect the team's payroll, cap number, etc.

 

As for the 1970-1986 comment, well that seems to be about the time pro sports started becoming a "big business" with free agency, exploding contracts and TV rights/revenues, etc. Like it or not, the business side of sports is here to stay.

 

Re: the "Hollywood" comment - you're really comparing apples and oranges. While movie buffs (and general fans alike) will argue, dicsuss and debate the pros & cons of certain movies, actors, etc., its a completely different experience than being a sports fan. Sports fans associate themselves with a city, a team, a franchise, a player (or group of players) to the point that they feel part of the team. We've all seen posters on here refer to the Sabres as "we" or "us" in discussions. Sports are a nearly year-round distraction from real life, while a movie is just that - a movie. A ~2-hour break from reality, in which you are generally expected to suspend disbelief, while with sports you are watching normal human beings in competition. Not only that, when Sony makes a movie, we know that they are counting on ticket sales, DVD rentals and sales, merchandise sales, etc, for their bottom line. As of right now, I don't have to buy a PSL to make sure I can get a seat in a movie theatre to see Talladega Nights (which I saw last night, and I thought it was hilarious, BTW); movie theatre owners don't ask for the taxpayers to build threatres or upgrade/improve existing ones; and if you lose a movie threatre, well there's probably five more in a 10-mile radiius to fill that space.

 

Bottom line is sports fans are more passionate about their teams & sports, and as a result, end up paying a hell of a lot more than we probably should (or can afford) to support "our" team.

[BetweenThePipes00]

I think it CAN be ignored. Hockey was a business from 1970 until 1986, too, and I don't think I could tell you what Gilbert Perreault made. No clue.

 

Well then just ignore it. But then will you complain a year from now when the Sabres win 50 games again and can't keep everyone? And when someone says, "Um, dude, they are going to be over the salary cap," are you just going to ignore that part of it and be ticked off they can't keep the team together even if they wanted to?

 

As a fan, you are going to debate who plays on what line or who plays and who sits, that's part of the fun. Naturally those debates are going to extend to who stays on the team and who doesn't. And at that point you can't deny money is an issue, be it a league imposed salary cap or a team budget (which every team, even baseball teams, have, except for the Yankees) ... and as long as personel decisions have to be made, money will be a factor. It may me more in our face now than before because of ESPN and the sports media growing exponentially, but money has ALWAYS been a factor. Babe Ruth was traded to the Yankees because of money, and that was nearly 100 years ago. Ralph Wilson complained in the press about OJ's contract demands when he was drafted in 1969. It was nearly 30 years ago now (man am I old) that Tom Cousineau went and played in Canada for moremoney than the Bills would pay him ... it's not new. If you can ignore it, go for it, you'll probably enjoy it more in some ways, but you'll be frustrated as hell not knowing why certain things are happening, because they will be all about money.