PDA

View Full Version : Some making financial plans


Jerry_Manuel
08-09-2002, 01:13 PM
Mo Vaughn says he has no financial worries and has invested wisely in case their is a strike. But Vaughn says he knows some players who haven't and that is a concern to those. (http://www.msnbc.com/news/791939.asp)

However, should a work stoppage extend well into next season, inevitably some players would find themselves strapped for cash.

RedPinStripes
08-09-2002, 01:21 PM
Any MLB player who can't stash money away even with the minimum salary is a complete moron. Living too high on life.

Kind of like some of these guys who build a 10 million dolar home , get divorced and find themselves strapped for money. (frank Thomas)

There are many otehr cases that are worse. Like guys who just have to throw money around for the hell of it weather it's night life fast cars, or drugs.

Paulwny
08-09-2002, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
Any MLB player who can't stash money away even with the minimum salary is a complete moron. Living too high on life.

Kind of like some of these guys who build a 10 million dolar home , get divorced and find themselves strapped for money. (frank Thomas)

There are many otehr cases that are worse. Like guys who just have to throw money around for the hell of it weather it's night life fast cars, or drugs.



August 7th, 1992: Boston slugger Jack Clark files for bankruptcy, listing debts of $11,459,305.97 and assets of $4,781,780. Clark is in the middle of a 3-year contract worth $8.7 million. Among other things, Clark owns 18 automobiles.

doublem23
08-09-2002, 07:03 PM
Man, they should talk to the guys of the 50s and 60s who had to work 2nd jobs over the off-season (and usually made more money than they did playin baseball).

NUKE_CLEVELAND
08-09-2002, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Man, they should talk to the guys of the 50s and 60s who had to work 2nd jobs over the off-season (and usually made more money than they did playin baseball).

:payrod

"I may need to renegotiate my contract. I'm not making enough to support myself. Using bricks of hundred dollar bills as firewood is getting expensive."

NUKE_CLEVELAND
08-09-2002, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Man, they should talk to the guys of the 50s and 60s who had to work 2nd jobs over the off-season (and usually made more money than they did playin baseball).

They put up with the low pay because they loved the game. If the players of today actually loved the game a 100th of what the old timers did then baseball wouldn't be in the shape it is these days.

MarkEdward
08-09-2002, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by NUKE_CLEVELAND


They put up with the low pay because they loved the game. If the players of today actually loved the game a 100th of what the old timers did then baseball wouldn't be in the shape it is these days.


You think they didn't want more money? They didn't "put up with low pay because they loved the game." They weren't organized, therefore couldn't negotiate for better salaries. And what gives you the right to say if the players of today love the game or not? These guys hustle, day in and day out, for 162 games (even more for the playoffs). How dare you criticize their love for the game.

By the way, in your day, you had to walk 15 miles a day, in the snow, with no shoes, to school, right? You sound like Dana Carvey's "Grumpy Old Man" character from SNL.

NUKE_CLEVELAND
08-09-2002, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



You think they didn't want more money? They didn't "put up with low pay because they loved the game." They weren't organized, therefore couldn't negotiate for better salaries. And what gives you the right to say if the players of today love the game or not? These guys hustle, day in and day out, for 162 games (even more for the playoffs). How dare you criticize their love for the game.

By the way, in your day, you had to walk 15 miles a day, in the snow, with no shoes, to school, right? You sound like Dana Carvey's "Grumpy Old Man" character from SNL.

In my day? It was something like 1985 when I started walking 6 blocks, not 15 miles, to school. I know they wanted more money back in the old days & I feel bad they didn't get it. These guys today make millions a season for hitting .215 or so & they still complain about money.

Cry me a river!

:whiner:

voodoochile
08-09-2002, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by NUKE_CLEVELAND


In my day? It was something like 1985 when I started walking 6 blocks, not 15 miles, to school. I know they wanted more money back in the old days & I feel bad they didn't get it. These guys today make millions a season for hitting .215 or so & they still complain about money.

Cry me a river!

:whiner:

Whose fault is it that a guy hitting .215 is making millions, the player for wanting it or the owners for paying it?

Case in point, Royce Clayton. He is a career .265 hitter being paid 4.5 million/season. Whose fault is that?

Zednem700
08-09-2002, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by NUKE_CLEVELAND


In my day? It was something like 1985 when I started walking 6 blocks, not 15 miles, to school. I know they wanted more money back in the old days & I feel bad they didn't get it. These guys today make millions a season for hitting .215 or so & they still complain about money.

Cry me a river!

:whiner:

Oh give me a break, name one player doing what you are accusing them of. The players just want to keep what they have which is the right to get as much money for their services as they can. Even then they allow a team to have exclusive rights to their services for as much 8 years. Players in years past played professionaly for the same reasons they do now, it pays. Yeah players get paid more now, but I challenge you to offer ANY real proof that players played for the love of the game. I can show you complaints about money from ballplayers going back to the 1870s. PLayers complained they weren't getting paid enough (and they weren't, the reserve clause was practically slavery) and owners complained that they were losing money. Today's players are the best we've ever seen, and millions of people pay billions of dollars to watch them play. They have a right to their salaries, and it is absolutelty ridiculous to accuse them of caring about the game less than some mythical players from a bygone age that never existed.

NUKE_CLEVELAND
08-09-2002, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Whose fault is it that a guy hitting .215 is making millions, the player for wanting it or the owners for paying it?

Case in point, Royce Clayton. He is a career .265 hitter being paid 4.5 million/season. Whose fault is that?

It's the managers fault for paying them that kinda money. My point is that I think it sucks that they seem like they're going to shut down baseball because a bunch of dudes making a few million a year want to make a few more.

voodoochile
08-09-2002, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by NUKE_CLEVELAND


It's the managers fault for paying them that kinda money. My point is that I think it sucks that they seem like they're going to shut down baseball because a bunch of dudes making a few million a year want to make a few more.

Some of that blame has to lie with the owners for letting this situation get this bad. They have had plenty of opportunities to straigten this mess out, but have refused to budge from the path that lead them to the brink of the abyss we all stare at now.

What about the owners crying poor poor me when the value of most of their franchises has doubled and tripled (at least) in the time they have owned them - not to mention the way they hold cities hostage for stadium money.

There are morons on both sides of this equation and plenty of blame to go around. I really don't begrudge the players for wanting all the money they can get. That is a fact of life in every job in the world. No one wants to give back gains they have received through the years...

PaleHoseGeorge
08-09-2002, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by Zednem700


Oh give me a break, name one player doing what you are accusing them of. The players just want to keep what they have which is the right to get as much money for their services as they can. Even then they allow a team to have exclusive rights to their services for as much 8 years. Players in years past played professionaly for the same reasons they do now, it pays. Yeah players get paid more now, but I challenge you to offer ANY real proof that players played for the love of the game. I can show you complaints about money from ballplayers going back to the 1870s. PLayers complained they weren't getting paid enough (and they weren't, the reserve clause was practically slavery) and owners complained that they were losing money. Today's players are the best we've ever seen, and millions of people pay billions of dollars to watch them play. They have a right to their salaries, and it is absolutelty ridiculous to accuse them of caring about the game less than some mythical players from a bygone age that never existed.

I'll even go a step further and call those "legend in their own mind" ballplayers of the past HYPOCRITES for criticizing today's players.

Working on the new CBA, union and management have already agreed to funding the pension plan of ballplayers who played through 1973 at $165,000 per player--the maximum allowed under federal law. With the pittance those guys earned, there is no way they would see this money if not for the benevolence of the union and its current members, many of them still bad-mouthed even today.

For example, old fart Milt Pappas was whining on the Score earlier this week about today's ballplayers, overpaid and under talented, blah... blah... blah...

Unlike Selig gagging the owners, I don't see the union (or its leadership) threatening guys like Pappas by witholding their pension money just for speaking their mind. You would think he would be a bit more grateful for the sacrifices others have made on his behalf--not that he possessed the brains or the wherewithal to do it for himself.

Whine... whine... whine... typical Cub.

mrwag
08-10-2002, 09:50 AM
The whole system is screwed beyond repair. It's a total farce when a family of 3 (taking my family for example) has to plunk down over $100 to go see a friggin MLB game, taking in tolls, gas, parking, tickets, and a little bit of food. That's going cheap, too. Throw in a shirt or a hat, and it goes even higher. I applaud the independent leagues.

What's funny about the whole money thing is that if the players were THAT upset about not getting enough money, there is nothing at all that says they have to play baseball for a living. Go out and get a different job if you are that upset. It's a free country. Haven't any of use ever quit a job to go somewhere else to earn a better living? I'll bet most of us have changed careers in search of a better income as well.

NUKE_CLEVELAND
08-10-2002, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by mrwag
The whole system is screwed beyond repair. It's a total farce when a family of 3 (taking my family for example) has to plunk down over $100 to go see a friggin MLB game, taking in tolls, gas, parking, tickets, and a little bit of food. That's going cheap, too. Throw in a shirt or a hat, and it goes even higher. I applaud the independent leagues.

What's funny about the whole money thing is that if the players were THAT upset about not getting enough money, there is nothing at all that says they have to play baseball for a living. Go out and get a different job if you are that upset. It's a free country. Haven't any of use ever quit a job to go somewhere else to earn a better living? I'll bet most of us have changed careers in search of a better income as well.

That's just what it boils down to. GREED. Owners and the players are equally guilty of it and they'll all be sorry when there is no more MLB to pay them all their millions.

voodoochile
08-10-2002, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by mrwag
The whole system is screwed beyond repair. It's a total farce when a family of 3 (taking my family for example) has to plunk down over $100 to go see a friggin MLB game, taking in tolls, gas, parking, tickets, and a little bit of food. That's going cheap, too. Throw in a shirt or a hat, and it goes even higher. I applaud the independent leagues.

What's funny about the whole money thing is that if the players were THAT upset about not getting enough money, there is nothing at all that says they have to play baseball for a living. Go out and get a different job if you are that upset. It's a free country. Haven't any of use ever quit a job to go somewhere else to earn a better living? I'll bet most of us have changed careers in search of a better income as well.

You know, I don't quite get the logic in this argument. Dinner and a movie and some popcorn ($5) with Soda ($4) for 3 costs $70, unless you eat at McD's. Then of course you have to find a movie that both the kids and the adults want to watch and can safely attend without freaking out "junior". Baseball is at least good clean fun and if you do it right, it can be a lot cheaper than the $100 you quoted - (UDR seats for 3 - $36, parking $13, 3 sodas with souveneir cups - $10 = $60). Just eat before you go and the price comes down substantially. You can even sit where you want at Comiskey since the place is rarely half full...

NUKE_CLEVELAND
08-10-2002, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


You know, I don't quite get the logic in this argument. Dinner and a movie and some popcorn ($5) with Soda ($4) for 3 costs $70, unless you eat at McD's. Then of course you have to find a movie that both the kids and the adults want to watch and can safely attend without freaking out "junior". Baseball is at least good clean fun and if you do it right, it can be a lot cheaper than the $100 you quoted - (UDR seats for 3 - $36, parking $13, 3 sodas with souveneir cups - $10 = $60). Just eat before you go and the price comes down substantially. You can even sit where you want at Comiskey since the place is rarely half full...

If you want to have them sit in the upper deck then you'd better throw in another $ 200 for doctor bills stemming from the chronic nosebleeds that they are sure to have after sitting up there.

:D:

voodoochile
08-10-2002, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by NUKE_CLEVELAND


If you want to have them sit in the upper deck then you'd better throw in another $ 200 for doctor bills stemming from the chronic nosebleeds that they are sure to have after sitting up there.

:D:

I didn't say, sit up there, just by the tickets and sit where you want to. Personally, I like the UD...

MarkEdward
08-10-2002, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by mrwag
The whole system is screwed beyond repair. It's a total farce when a family of 3 (taking my family for example) has to plunk down over $100 to go see a friggin MLB game, taking in tolls, gas, parking, tickets, and a little bit of food. That's going cheap, too. Throw in a shirt or a hat, and it goes even higher. I applaud the independent leagues.


Well, let's see if we can cut that 100$ bill down a little bit, OK? First, if you're going to gripe about tolls and gas, complain to the state of Illinois and OPEC. I don't know if you know this, but baseball owners don't control oil and toll prices. Now for the tickets. The cheapest ticket total for a family of 3 is 36$. Go on a Monday or Tuesday, and that becomes 18$. If you're going to complain about the food, here's an idea: eat before the game. If you'd like to eat during the game, let's say you get 3 hot dogs, 2 sodas, and a beer. That will cost 15.30$. Total, you can spend only 65$ at the park. And that's not even being frugal.

Finally, and say it with me now: Player salaries don't affect ticket prices.

idseer
08-10-2002, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by mrwag
The whole system is screwed beyond repair. It's a total farce when a family of 3 (taking my family for example) has to plunk down over $100 to go see a friggin MLB game, taking in tolls, gas, parking, tickets, and a little bit of food. That's going cheap, too. Throw in a shirt or a hat, and it goes even higher. I applaud the independent leagues.

this is completely wrong! you don't HAVE to plunk down one DIME! you talk as if you have no choice but to pay these guys the millions they get.


Originally posted by mrwag

What's funny about the whole money thing is that if the players were THAT upset about not getting enough money, there is nothing at all that says they have to play baseball for a living. Go out and get a different job if you are that upset. It's a free country. Haven't any of use ever quit a job to go somewhere else to earn a better living? I'll bet most of us have changed careers in search of a better income as well.

again, by the same token, there is nothing that says you have to watch baseball.

i find it ironic that people complain about something that, when you get to the root of it, THEY are responsible for!

Procol Harum
08-10-2002, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward

Finally, and say it with me now: Player salaries don't affect ticket prices.

ME what are you sayin'? Let's see, a box seat could be had for $7.00 a crack in 1977 and now costs $26--that's all inflation and/or greedy owners? If MLB had a salary ceiling at $1M a year do you seriously think we'd still be paying these prices? I think you need to go back into the history of ticket prices vis a vis inflation rates over the last 30 years and wake up and smell the java.

I criticize both sides in this current debacle--there's plenty of greed going around. On the other hand, I don't begrudge either side for making a healthy buck for a prestigious product/talent in a high-demand economic sector (entertainment). But to say ticket prices and salaries are unrelated? :o:

Daver
08-10-2002, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Procol Harum


ME what are you sayin'? Let's see, a box seat could be had for $7.00 a crack in 1977 and now costs $26--that's all inflation and/or greedy owners? If MLB had a salary ceiling at $1M a year do you seriously think we'd still be paying these prices? I think you need to go back into the history of ticket prices vis a vis inflation rates over the last 30 years and wake up and smell the java.

I criticize both sides in this current debacle--there's plenty of greed going around. On the other hand, I don't begrudge either side for making a healthy buck for a prestigious product/talent in a high-demand economic sector (entertainment). But to say ticket prices and salaries are unrelated? :o:

The Sox are expected to cut twelve million dollars in salary for next season,do you think they will lower the ticket prices accordingly?

voodoochile
08-10-2002, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Procol Harum


ME what are you sayin'? Let's see, a box seat could be had for $7.00 a crack in 1977 and now costs $26--that's all inflation and/or greedy owners? If MLB had a salary ceiling at $1M a year do you seriously think we'd still be paying these prices? I think you need to go back into the history of ticket prices vis a vis inflation rates over the last 30 years and wake up and smell the java.

I criticize both sides in this current debacle--there's plenty of greed going around. On the other hand, I don't begrudge either side for making a healthy buck for a prestigious product/talent in a high-demand economic sector (entertainment). But to say ticket prices and salaries are unrelated? :o:

Yes, inflation alone could easily account for the price of a ticket going up 350% in the last 25 years, easily. The actual figure is probably closer to 500% (maybe an economics expert has a more exact figure) especially when you include the hyper inflationary years at the end of the 70's...

Do you think if the players were limited to your salary, JR would magically decrease ticket prices? No, it based on what the market will bear. Basic economics. Nothing at all to do with player salaries...

Heck, in 1972 the standard for a good wage was $5.00/hour and that isn't even minimum wage today...

Procol Harum
08-10-2002, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by daver


The Sox are expected to cut twelve million dollars in salary for next season,do you think they will lower the ticket prices accordingly?

Are you kiddin'?? To quote the Moody Blues--"Never Comes the Day." Like I said, plenty of blame to spread around. I've been pretty vocal in pointing out that the management of this franchise cares little for the fans in their chase after a buck. Granted that they're all after a buck, but there are degrees and our guy Jerry and his mates seem to be pretty far to the "screw 'em" side of the scale.

Procol Harum
08-10-2002, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Yes, inflation alone could easily account for the price of a ticket going up 350% in the last 25 years, easily. The actual figure is probably closer to 500% (maybe an economics expert has a more exact figure) especially when you include the hyper inflationary years at the end of the 70's...

Do you think if the players were limited to your salary, JR would magically decrease ticket prices? No, it based on what the market will bear. Basic economics. Nothing at all to do with player salaries...

Heck, in 1972 the standard for a good wage was $5.00/hour and that isn't even minimum wage today...

I wasn't arguing for a $1M limit, just making the point that there is a relationship between prices and salaries. Both sides are, I'm pretty sure, living higher off the proverbial hog these days than they were 20-25 years ago. I had a formula for dollars and their historic worth which I posted once on here (a link to a Federal Reserve Bank in Minneapolis, I believe), but I have suffered a computer meltdown since then and no longer have the bookmark. I'll see if I can dig it up. I performed the math once to see what the story was and I think that it came up at something like $19-20 bucks from a straight inflationary relationship.

voodoochile
08-10-2002, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Procol Harum


I wasn't arguing for a $1M limit, just making the point that there is a relationship between prices and salaries. Both sides are, I'm pretty sure, living higher off the proverbial hog these days than they were 20-25 years ago. I had a formula for dollars and their historic worth which I posted once on here (a link to a Federal Reserve Bank in Minneapolis, I believe), but I have suffered a computer meltdown since then and no longer have the bookmark. I'll see if I can dig it up. I performed the math once to see what the story was and I think that it came up at something like $19-20 bucks from a straight inflationary relationship.

That's interesting. I would be surprised if it was less than 300% including compounding. Wasn't inflation over 14% in the last 3 years under Carter? That would take it from $7 to $11 right there. It would have easily doubled from there in the last 22 years even at 4%/year...

Procol Harum
08-10-2002, 12:30 PM
Here it is:


http://www.minneapolisfed.org/econo...c/hist1800.html

According to my original figurin', a ticket that cost $7.50 (not $7 as in my earlier post) would cost $22.19 today in terms of a straight inflationary shtick. I also did a calculation on parking which cost us $3 in '77 and now duns us $13. At a straight inflationary shot, parking today would only be $8.88. So there is more money bopping around in the coffers for all concerned--especially when you consider that there is more money being paid these days for endorsements, ballpark naming rights, broadcast kickbacks, and the fact that attendance is higher these days than it was back in the mid-late '70s (remember when 1.7 million was considered a good attendance year and now our boy Jerry moans and groans about the lack of fan support at that level?).

Basically, there's a lot more money floating around. I don't begrudge the players getting a slice of that, but it would seem that their salaries must factor into that in some way. Whatever the case, unless the average player is a complete financial nincompoop he should be living well and beginning the creation of a pretty fine financial feather bed for himself and his family's future.

Procol Harum
08-10-2002, 12:34 PM
Oops, they've changed the address info slightly for the Minneapolis Fed Bank. Here's the correct address for that site:

http://minneapolisfed.org/research/data/us/calc/hist1800.cfm

Zednem700
08-10-2002, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Procol Harum


ME what are you sayin'? Let's see, a box seat could be had for $7.00 a crack in 1977 and now costs $26--that's all inflation and/or greedy owners? If MLB had a salary ceiling at $1M a year do you seriously think we'd still be paying these prices? I think you need to go back into the history of ticket prices vis a vis inflation rates over the last 30 years and wake up and smell the java.

I criticize both sides in this current debacle--there's plenty of greed going around. On the other hand, I don't begrudge either side for making a healthy buck for a prestigious product/talent in a high-demand economic sector (entertainment). But to say ticket prices and salaries are unrelated? :o:

Ticket prices and salaries are unrelated. Ticket prices are set by the market. A baseball team, like any business will set a price for their product that maximizes revenue. Ticket prices are going up because demand has been going up. Look at the average attendance numbers in the 70s compared to today. More people go to games now than ever before, though average attendance still hasn't recovered from the strike. Tickets cost as much as they do today because people are willing to pay it. If anything, ticket prices determine salaries not the other way around. Players saw how much revenue a team was getting and rightfully asked for a fair share.

Look I spent the ast 4 years near Boston, and ticket prices are ridiculously high. But the Red Sox are so popular that scalpers routinely charge double the face value of the tickets. Now the scalpers aren't charging so much because player salaries are high. THey're charging that much because people are willing to pay it. If the average fan was only willing to spend ten bucks on a ticket, that's what the ticket price would be. The problem is we aren't willing to pay only so much. We're willing to pay a lot more,and that is why ticket prices are so high. They've got a product we want, and they'll charge whatever we're willing to pay. Its not greed, its business.

SOXSINCE'70
08-10-2002, 12:52 PM
If the new contract between the players and owners goes through,MLB rooks will earn 300 K next season.
300 K might just last me 10 years,but what do I know??


:sellreinsy

"I will NEVER pay for experienced veteran pitching!! NEVER!!"

MarkEdward
08-10-2002, 01:23 PM
This should answer most questions:

http://www.baseball1.com/faqs/ticket_prices.html

This shouldn't even be an arguement.

mrwag
08-10-2002, 09:41 PM
Hell ya ticket prices have gone up. When New comiskey opened in 1991, a bleacher seat or an uppder deck seat cost $8. Not sure how many years those prices held, but those are now $18 dollar seats.

The reality is that I have a 3 year old, and my wife is pregnant with #2, so the Upper Deck seat is outta the equation. I've been up there many a time, and before we had kids, we sat there almost every time. but the thought of that 45 degree (or close to it anyway :) incline gives me nightmares. Plus, I'm not one to cheat the system, so I'm forced with the minimum of an $18 bleacher seat (which ain't a bad seat). There's $54. I live about 1-1/2 hours away, so weeknights and half-price nights aren't realistic.

My point is, it's a very expensive endeavour for a family outing, as are movies. And the truth is, if we HAD a championship caliber team to watch, I'd be more willing to fork out the cash for a superior product. That was JR's promise when prices were raised - so we could afford the FA market and get the guys we need to be a winning team. Now, all we ever face are payroll cuts, White Flag trades, and medioce teams. Where's the value in that?

Baseball, as a whole, needs to reach out to the familys and youngsters in order to build it's future fan base. Baseball is loosing it's future. Add to it the labor problems and economics and the bad image it already has.

Too quote a recent aticle about an unnamed sox player after receiving his payceck, "this is all we have to play for now". Did he forget about the fans? The young kids who look up to him, and ask for his autograph? No, dip****, that's what you have to play for. Pardon my rant.

MarkEdward
08-11-2002, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by mrwag
Baseball, as a whole, needs to reach out to the familys and youngsters in order to build it's future fan base.


NBA tickets cost 33.46$ more than baseball tickets. NHL tickets cost 30.79$ more than baseball tickets. NFL tickets cost 30.72$ more than baseball tickets. I guess all these sports are losing their future fan bases, huh?

mrwag
08-12-2002, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



NBA tickets cost 33.46$ more than baseball tickets. NHL tickets cost 30.79$ more than baseball tickets. NFL tickets cost 30.72$ more than baseball tickets. I guess all these sports are losing their future fan bases, huh?

You don't see those guys threatening to go on strike every couple of years, either. If MLB keeps p'ning off the people, it will have troubles and has probably already lost it's appeal as "America's Pastime". How many of us had "World Series" parties last year? I'll bet the number of "Super Bowl" parties far exceeded it.

LongDistanceFan
08-12-2002, 01:36 PM
that is why i am for the strike. these prices are getting outrageous. who is to blame?

Iwritecode
08-12-2002, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by daver
The Sox are expected to cut twelve million dollars in salary for next season,do you think they will lower the ticket prices accordingly?

Nope. That would make WAY too much sense for JR to do. If he lowers ticket prices, the attendance might go up and he might not get the money that he gets if the Sox don't meet a certain attendance figure. Gotta make sure and keep that attendance down.

What makes more sense? Selling 15,000 tickets at $30 or 25,000 at $20? Not to mention the extra $$$ from parking and concessions...

Iwritecode
08-12-2002, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by mrwag
You don't see those guys threatening to go on strike every couple of years, either. If MLB keeps p'ning off the people, it will have troubles and has probably already lost it's appeal as "America's Pastime". How many of us had "World Series" parties last year? I'll bet the number of "Super Bowl" parties far exceeded it.

Well, there aren't exactly NBA championship parties or Stanley Cup parties either. Football is the only sport that can set an exact date the championship will be won.

steff
08-12-2002, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes

Kind of like some of these guys who build a 10 million dolar home , get divorced and find themselves strapped for money. (frank Thomas)




ROTFLMAO!!! Did Frank tell you he was "strapped" for cash..??

Zednem700
08-12-2002, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
that is why i am for the strike. these prices are getting outrageous. who is to blame?

You are. Well not all by yourself, but basbeall fans are responsible for tickets costing as much as they do. If we weren't willing to spend the money, the tickets wouldn't cost so much. Its really a very basic example of supply and demand.

voodoochile
08-12-2002, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


Nope. That would make WAY too much sense for JR to do. If he lowers ticket prices, the attendance might go up and he might not get the money that he gets if the Sox don't meet a certain attendance figure. Gotta make sure and keep that attendance down.

What makes more sense? Selling 15,000 tickets at $30 or 25,000 at $20? Not to mention the extra $$$ from parking and concessions...

Well I agree with the comment about money from the state, the rest is pure speculation. Ideally the team will set prices to maximize revenue, but where that number lies no one really knows. Would attendance really jump by 10,000/game if the prices were lowered by $10 apiece? Probably not. As has been discussed ad nauseum on this board, there are many reasons why some fans don't go to Comiskey. Price is only part of the picture and I really don't think it is that big a part of it for most people...

Still, your general point is a good one. Try and set prices so you maximize revenue and don't worry about the attendance clause.