|
Post by ckwatt on Feb 25, 2007 17:15:25 GMT -5
In recent years sports have become more and more business oriented. Some owners of teams do not care about the team or even the sport, they're in it to make a big profit for themselves. But, are they good or bad for sports in general? Do you mind that the owner of your team doesn't know half the rules of the sport, as long as he's pumping cash into the team?
Some would argue that it's essential to have a fan of the team as the owner, that way he has passion and a lasting commitment. It's always great to see owners jumping up and down when their team win and getting just as much enjoyment out of the occasion as die hard fans.
Others would say that they don't mind if the guy who owns their club doesn't have much knowledge of the sport as long is he's trying to make the team successful.
What are your views?
|
|
|
Post by philliesphan on Feb 27, 2007 18:49:21 GMT -5
I don't think it's good for sports. It's like that spoiled brat kid you always see at sporting events, the kid that is usually like 3 to 10 years old with popcorn, a soft pretzel, hat jersey, and a Pepsi, but could care less about the game. He's spoiled but dosen't care because he the one getting everything. If your not rich and have a lot of money, you don't get stuff like that. This is why I hate the Yankees. They have a humongus payroll. Check this out: www.onestopbaseball.com/TeamPayroll.aspA lot of people complain to me because since I like the Red Sox too, they say that they still have the 2nd highest payroll. Yeah, well the difference between 1st and 2nd is over $72,000,000. That's more than the Blue Jays payroll who are still only 16th in that ranking. When a team has all of that money, it doesn't mean they want to win. It means they want money. If Steinbrenner didn't care about money, he wouldn't also own all those hotels in Florida.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 28, 2007 20:31:43 GMT -5
Owners who don't love the sports are bad.
Owners with deep pocked money who love the game are fine.
PP: You're stupid to hate the Yankees for that reason. Who cares if they have a high payroll?
And guess what? I don't care if a kid is rich. Who cares if a kid is spoiled? I could care less what game systems or cars my friends are getting. My parents don't care that the neighbors got a lambergini. They want to spend money? So be it.
All teams in the MLB can spend money in the Yankees. If they did, maybe they'd be in the postseason more often.
But back to the debate.
Owners, coaches, and gm's need to be passionate about their sport. If they aren't, then sports becomes a business, not a game.
|
|
|
Post by philliesphan on Feb 28, 2007 21:13:59 GMT -5
Owners who don't love the sports are bad. Which is what Steinbrenner is. Owners with deep pocked money who love the game are fine. Which isn't what Steinbrenner is. PP: You're stupid to hate the Yankees for that reason. Who cares if they have a high payroll? I do. It's an unfair advantage just because the city has more money to spend. And guess what? I don't care if a kid is rich. Who cares if a kid is spoiled? I could care less what game systems or cars my friends are getting. My parents don't care that the neighbors got a lambergini. They want to spend money? So be it. it's the unfair advantage that they have all that money makes it unfair. All teams in the MLB can spend money in the Yankees. If they did, maybe they'd be in the postseason more often. Obviously they can't, or they would. Owners, coaches, and gm's need to be passionate about their sport. If they aren't, then sports becomes a business, not a game. Which is what the Yankees are.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 28, 2007 21:49:22 GMT -5
Why is it unfair if people have more money? Some people work harder then others and earn more. Do they not deserve more money?
Others inherit money. Do they not deserve the money? And before you say no, remember, it really doesn't matter if they deserve it or not.
Steinbrenner is a baseball fan and to think otherwise is arrogant. I respect him because he does whatever it takes to put the best possible team out on the field. There is no reward for having the 15th ranked payroll.
And the MLB teams can spend more money. They just don't.
But look at other sports, with actual salary caps.
You have a team like the Eagles who refuse to use all of their Cap room. What has it gotten them? An NFC Championship. Meanwhile, for another 5 million dollars, they might have had a missing piece.
|
|
|
Post by philliesphan on Mar 1, 2007 21:27:12 GMT -5
Why is it unfair if people have more money? Some people work harder then others and earn more. Do they not deserve more money? It's unfair because of the fans. Zillions of people go to Yankee games, because theirs Zillions of people in New York. It has nothing to do with having bad fans though. Here are the most populated cities in America: www.citypopulation.de/USA-Cities.html1 New York NY 8,143,197 2 Los Angeles CA 3,844,829 3 Chicago IL 2,842,518 4 Houston TX 2,016,582 If you go back here, you'll notice that 7 of the top 8 teams are in the 4 most populated cities in America. Others inherit money. Do they not deserve the money? And before you say no, remember, it really doesn't matter if they deserve it or not. What does that have anything to do with sports owners? Steinbrenner is a baseball fan and to think otherwise is arrogant. I respect him because he does whatever it takes to put the best possible team out on the field. There is no reward for having the 15th ranked payroll. No he's not. He's a businessman. Like I said before if he didn't care about money, he wouldn't also own hotels in Florida. And the MLB teams can spend more money. They just don't. That is a pretty stupid thing to say. If you have extra money to spend on players, then you spend it. I can't even think of a reason why you wouldn't. But look at other sports, with actual salary caps. You have a team like the Eagles who refuse to use all of their Cap room. What has it gotten them? An NFC Championship. Meanwhile, for another 5 million dollars, they might have had a missing piece.[/quote] I agree with you there, but if there's a salary cap, it's totally different. When there's a cap, everybody is equal.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Mar 2, 2007 16:02:16 GMT -5
So what if George owns hotels? Tons of sports fans invest in certain things. You think every owner is only invested in sports?
You talk a lot about the Yankees, but what about the Phillies? Don't they have a huge payroll as well?
And if you put a salary cap in baseball, all of your concerns would be answered.
|
|
|
Post by SportsFan508 on Mar 3, 2007 13:12:59 GMT -5
I think rich owners are bad for sports. If they're rich, yes of course they buy more things but most rich owners dont really care who they get as long as they are big name players. Take George Steinbrenner for example. The Yankees really dont care who they get. They just want the big shot players because they can afford them and it will bring publicity. Most of the free agents are always rumored to go to the Yanks because they are interested. Other teams know what the team needs and gets that. Look at the Phillies. They needed starting pitching, so what did they do? They signed Adam Eaton and Freddy Garcia. They also needed a new 3rd baseman and they signed Wes Helmed. Rich owners will look at a roster that is perfectly fine and want to get stars for every position no matter if the position is already filled by a good player.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Mar 3, 2007 15:03:00 GMT -5
Not all rich owners don't care about sports.
In fact, that sentence makes no sense. All owners are rich. It's why they can afford to buy a sports team.
And SF508, I laugh at your Phillies/Yankees comparison.
The Yanks want the big names because lets face it, the big names help you win. When they don't, they get rid of them.
The Yankees will go farther then the Phillies this season. Maybe if the Phillies had gotten A-Rod those many years ago, they would have been a playoff team already.
Someone has to sign the big names.
|
|
|
Post by ckwatt on Mar 3, 2007 17:14:57 GMT -5
Sportsfan508 - as a fan, wouldn't you like to have an owner who tries to sign big name players? It's hard to beat the attraction of watching the big players strut their stuff and if someone has the money to pay them for doing it, why shouldn't they?
PhilliesPhan - surely if someone invests in anything they expect a return. The same is true with sports owners. And someone can be a sports fan and still have a mind for business. Lots of owners of well known companies are into sports.
GEO - do you think it's OK that teams with mega rich owners get as big an advantage over others in that they have the power to lure in the top players? Could anything else be done to bridge the gap? Salary capping may be a good suggestion, but I wonder how well it'd be taken by some of the bigger teams.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Mar 3, 2007 17:39:56 GMT -5
ckwatt: The salary cap is the only way to level the playing field. It was done in the NHL, and the big budget teams were affected. (My Avs being one of them) The owners actually liked it, because it helped them control salaries, but tons of big names were moved. (The Avs have lost five great players and fan favorites in two years) but teams that were once bottom feeders every year are signing big names and making playoff pushes.
As for baseball, the one sport without a cap, it's perfectly fair for a rich owner to have an advantage. Sports are a business. My money beats your money. If you want this guy, find a way to get more money.
|
|
|
Post by jdbsa05 on Mar 4, 2007 18:40:32 GMT -5
PP: You're stupid to hate the Yankees for that reason. Who cares if they have a high payroll? Many people hate the Yankees have a history of buying their players. They wait until the mid-season, then buy players like A-Rod, Derek Jeter, etc. In order to do that, you need a high payroll. Therefore, he can hate the Yankees for their high payroll. Also: Owners, coaches, and gm's need to be passionate about their sport. If they aren't, then sports becomes a business, not a game. That is entirely true. Take a look at Jeff Lurie. Rich? Yes, although I have no idea what his yearly payroll is. Passionate? Yes to that, he goes to every game, you can see in the box he's in, if [the Eagles] win, he's having a party up there. If they lose, he just sits there. Therefore, he definetly has a passion for his team. Sometimes, he's part buisness. That's okay, as long as he isn't all buisness. Jeff Garcia was cut, because he wasn't worth the cost. Stallworth, also gone for the same reason. Pushing fans to buy season tickets is also a buisness ordeal. He's also passionate, which keeps him here. Its important to remember that although sports is mainly entertainment, it also has buisness aspects. They need money. They get money from the fans. They are providing a service, (whether it be from entertainment, or gear, or whatever, its still a service) and the fans are using that service. So its okay to use a little buisness techniques, just not use them 24/7.
|
|
|
Post by philliesphan on Mar 4, 2007 20:02:57 GMT -5
So what if George owns hotels? Tons of sports fans invest in certain things. You think every owner is only invested in sports? Not necassarily, you might do something for fun. You don't own a hotel for fun though. You talk a lot about the Yankees, but what about the Phillies? Don't they have a huge payroll as well? Your seriously comparing the Yankees to the Phillies? Yankee Payroll: $194,663,079 Phillies Payroll: $88,273,333 That's a difference of over $106,000,000 That's bigger that the Dodgers Payroll which is 3rd highest of all MLB Teams. Point Proven And if you put a salary cap in baseball, all of your concerns would be answered. Yes they would.
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Mar 5, 2007 2:28:36 GMT -5
they're great,supporters alone cannot fund clubs,tv rights funds never makeit backto clubs and how else was SOUTHS going to improve,gain respect,attract decent players!
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Mar 7, 2007 15:31:13 GMT -5
I'm going to ask you to judge this one Ck
|
|