Free Agency/Salary Cap?

[westsidegrounds]

Westsidegrounds welcome to the fray. Would you like to offer us the reasons underlying your response?

Just very briefly cause it's time to go home -

salary cap no because it's too radical a social step - should movie actors or lawyers or doctors have their salaries capped? When the CEO of microsoft gets his salary capped, then maybe.

revenue sharing because baseball is a cooperative enterprise. If Steinbrenner (for example) doesn't believe that, let him announce the Yanks will only be playing Boston next year, and that in between Red Sox visits to the Bronx fans will get to pay to watch the Yanks playing intrasquad games. See how many tickets he sells then.

[Ubiquitous]

Gate receipts are not where most of the money comes from anyway. Most of the money comes from TV deals, lisencing and luxury seating. So Ubi and Jennifer your entire argument has little effect on revenue sharing or a salary cap. .

Actually gate receipts are a big deal for practically every team including the Yankees. We are not talking about a revenue stream that only accounts for 1-2% of a teams revenue stream.

If you draw 2 million fans and your average ticket costs say $25 dollars then you brought in around 50 million dollars in revenue. An amount that far exceeds the money you make in National TV money and most local TV contracts. Gate money is very important it usually accounts for about a quarter to half the money a team takes in on a yearly basis.

[Jennifer]

Gate receipts are not where most of the money comes from anyway. Most of the money comes from TV deals, lisencing and luxury seating. So Ubi and Jennifer your entire argument has little effect on revenue sharing or a salary cap. The Yankees make approximately $500 million a year on thier TV deal alone. Teams like Yankees and Red Sox raise ticket prices every year for additional money because people are willing to pay them. For teams that can't sell ticket at that high a price, they don't care as much for attendence as long as they have their TV deal. In 2004 the Pittsburg Pirates made about $12 million in revenue. It wasn't from ticket sales, I can tell you that.

Baseball is a business. The point is some owners have realized they can make money without fielding a winning team. So why should they? For the fans and the integrity of the sport. But some owners don't care about that. So while a salary cap should help make the game more competitive, it won't. Even increased revenue sharing won't make a difference to a lot of owners expect for increased profits.

One thing baseball can take from the NFL is that all the owners at least try to field a winning team. Even if they have seasons upon seasons of losing, every franchise tries to get better every year. The Cardinals have been at the back of the back for a long time now. They sign 2 time MVP Kurt Warner and give they're new star wide reciever Boldin a big deal. The Lions, well they try. That's the expectation, because of the different systems since top drafted rookies come right into the big leagues, teams that do badly get the high draft pick, who always gets a large deal. NFL teams are always dancing around right under the cap, spending the max they can.

You really are pretty condescending. First off the Yankees did not make $500 million last year in TV revenues. Going into the season their total estimated revenue was $315 million with $143 million from attendance. Based on this estimate attendance constituted more than $45% of revenue. Putting it another way, the Yankees revenues were estimated to be $172 million without attendance revenue or roughly $35 million less than player payroll.

Second, I am clueless as to where you got the $12 million revenue figure for the Pirates. In 2004 the Pirates attendance was 1,583,031 if one assumed that the entire $12 million came from attendance that means that the average ticket sold was $7.59 -- No way. But all revenue was not derived from attendance, indeed without checking my guess is that the Pirates share of the National TV contracts alone exceeded $12 million.

Third, before you claim that others do not understand the revenue structure of MLB you should first familarize yourself with it. To assist you is a copy of the post that I posted a few days ago on the Yankee board in the Ticket vs. Payroll thread. The post contains some very good links.

I don't have a lot of time right know but I wanted to quickly post some links (six or eight months ago I did a fair amount of research and I need to figure out what forum (and where in the forum) it posted it. These links are all based on 2001 MLB numbers and disaggregate to some extent the revenues and expenses. Bear in mind that some of the expenses are for non-cash items such as depreciation expense. The last document is multi-linked and the link I included is not the first one. I chose this one because it tells a story that fans do not take into account when talking about player payroll size. Specifically, the non-payroll operating expense. Since much of this expense is unavoidable and, therefore, this expense is generally a larger percentage of total expense for revenue poor teams than it is for revenue rich teams. This last link (with the ones that go with it are an excellent primer on MLB accounting.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseb...s-expenses.htm

http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haupert.mlb

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/0415/092tab2.html

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=1325

[Jennifer]

Your linkage is that you believe that since they would make money elsewhere they wouldn't raise ticketprices. And that is not how the real world behaves.

As for the rest take a look at Doug Pappas' site he lists the average ticket price of every year, he lists the average opening day payroll for every team, and I believe he even has attendance. If he doesn't then check out B-Ref or download Lahman's database. you can even download a salary database and play with the numbers that way. Others have studied it and shown conclusively that payroll does not correlate well to ticket prices. I believe I mentioned it before, check out books by Andrew Zimbalist he will tell you the same thing.

Finally I have never said anything negative about a team wanting to maximizing revenue, nor have I ever said that the only way to do that would be to raise ticekt prices. I am perfectly aware of the balance between getting money through tickets and getting money through people spending money at the stadium. What I have always said is this, "what does any of that have to do with Salary caps?"

It makes no sense. If the salary cap is 50 million dollars and the KC Royals spend 50 million dollars why wouldn't they raise ticket prices? If the Salary Cap is 100 million and the Yankees spend 100 million dollars why wouldn't they raise ticket prices. What part of the salary cap reduces that? If somehow the salary cap works and the KC Royals start to become a premier team and the demand for them goes up why wouldn't they raise ticket prices?

There you go again. Who has tried to make the point that payroll correlates with ticket prices -- whether true or not it is totally irrelevant to our discussion. My point was and is that winning teams drive up demand and thus results in higher attendance. Salary caps increase the likelihood that revenue poor teams have a chance to compete.

As for Zimbalist I have read two books he authored and a third where he served as co-editor. I would be deeply indebted to you if you would specifically identify where in his books he makes points specifically supporting the arguments you have offered in this thread.

[Knick9]

There are already limits to how much a team can spend its called revenue. KC only spends so much because they only take in so much, and that is never going to change. What do you think the salary cap is actually going to be? And why do you think that all teams will utilize it? You set it at 75 million and there is still 15 teams that won't spend that much. You think KC is going to spend 75 million dollars when right now they only spend 36 million? So what does the Salary Cap need to be? 50 million? 40 million?

If all the teams shared 90% of the money equally then right there you have equal footing. If somebody wants to spend 200 million dollars to win while losing 50 million then so be it, but everybody would be equal in terms of revenue and money to spend. Salary Cap does nothing, if anything it gives large market teams even more of an advantage because a) they would still be spending more money then most teams do on payroll, b)have more money to spend on draft bonuses, and C)have more money to spend on scouting and developing foreign camps. If you tell the Yankees that they can only spend 100 million dollars on their major league payroll what do you think will happen? Do you suddenly think that 27 other major league teams will raise their payroll so they too are at 100 million dollars? No they won't. Do you think the Yankees won't do something to gain some kind of advantage with the 100 million dollars they no longer have to spend on MLB players? Heck I could see high school kids holding out or telling teams not to draft them because the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox will give them huge bonuses. The Yankees and Steinbrenner will not rest and stay on the sidelines with their 100 million dollars. On the flipside you will also be seeing more of the salary cap hell problems that you see in football. You will be seeing teams signing players to very long term contracts that are probably extremely back loaded to get them on their team. Then a few years down the road it comes time to pay the piper and you are stuck with a horrible team for a few years while the team has to wait to get out of the salary cap hell.

In the end what are we worried about? We want equality so we want to model ourselves after football and basketball? Two sports defined by dynasty like teams? Take a look at baseball in the last 25 years since free agency? You have a small period in the late 90's where the Yanks won a lot and the rest of the time you have everybody fighting for the title. We have had 6 different world series winners in 6 years and 13 different teams compete in the world series in the last 9 years. What more do you want? Why should a team like KC who is unwilling to spend, unwilling to take chances, and is run horribly be allowed to win?

The Yankees and Red Sox have made the playoffs for consecutive years now, so I don't know the base of your WS argument. Yes, KC is unwilling to spend, but that is the problem, and part of the thing that I'm worried about. All teams should be allowed to win, there should be no favorable interest, which is what Bud is doing right now. Why say that, Ubi? All teams should have a fighting chance to win, they should be allowed to win. Royals fans shouldn't be punnished for what the dudes up in the press boxes constantly messs up on.

That's exactly where I'm getting at. An advantage. Those two teams constantly gain an advantage. When they meet, the media starts drooling, but hypocritically, in a financial sense, so. In my mind, the salary cap has to be anywhere from 85 to $95 million dollars, with a salary floor being at anywhere from $40 to 50 million dollars. Those limits that you talk about don't happen as often as a salary cap would pursue a team. Ever so often after a few years, the Yankees would have to stop because of a luxury tax, but when a salary cap is in place, it will constantly draw a line and keep teams in check. If a luxury tax is your style of baseball, then you're in a New England state of mind.

I can't even debate anymore to see where this is going. Take it from here, Jennifer.

[Ubiquitous]

There you go again. Who has tried to make the point that payroll correlates with ticket prices -- whether true or not it is totally irrelevant to our discussion. My point was and is that winning teams drive up demand and thus results in higher attendance. Salary caps increase the likelihood that revenue poor teams have a chance to compete.

Wait a minute so you are saying that a salary cap will help a revenue poor team compete, which of course means you are saying teams that are bad can become good through a salary cap. Which of course means they will become more popular because they are winning. So why wouldn't they raise ticket prices? If demand is going up why wouldn't they? Again why would a salary cap keep a team from raising its ticket price?

[Ubiquitous]

The Yankees and Red Sox have made the playoffs for consecutive years now, so I don't know the base of your WS argument. Yes, KC is unwilling to spend, but that is the problem, and part of the thing that I'm worried about. All teams should be allowed to win, there should be no favorable interest, which is what Bud is doing right now. Why say that, Ubi? All teams should have a fighting chance to win, they should be allowed to win. Royals fans shouldn't be punnished for what the dudes up in the press boxes constantly messs up on.

But KC doesn't want to win, why should the entire game be manipulated so that the dumbest kid in the room is forced to be the best. KC doesn't want to compete, he could spend more but he doesn't want to, instead he takes his profit.

That's exactly where I'm getting at. An advantage. Those two teams constantly gain an advantage. When they meet, the media starts drooling, but hypocritically, in a financial sense, so. In my mind, the salary cap has to be anywhere from 85 to $95 million dollars, with a salary floor being at anywhere from $40 to 50 million dollars. Those limits that you talk about don't happen as often as a salary cap would pursue a team. Ever so often after a few years, the Yankees would have to stop because of a luxury tax, but when a salary cap is in place, it will constantly draw a line and keep teams in check. If a luxury tax is your style of baseball, then you're in a New England state of mind.

I can't even debate anymore to see where this is going. Take it from here, Jennifer.

So how does a 95 million dollar cap help? It would effect only 3 teams right now, and only one in a big way, the Yankees. A salary floor would be useless because it would only drag one or two up and it wouldn't be like it would force them to sign AROd or something. Instead they sign Derek Bell for 6 million dollars. Salary Caps don't even keep football teams in check why would they keep baseball teams? And again what do you think the Yankees are going to do with that extra 100 million dollars a year that used to spend on MLB players? Give it to charity? No they will use it to sign players from high school, college, and other countries. They will drive the cost of drafting elite players up so much that only a very few teams will be able to draft them. In otherwords haves will get the best young players while once again the have nots are shut out. Right without a salary cap it is already happening, where small revenue teams pass on elite young talent that could have helped their team.

[Twinskoop]

Ugh.

It is simply morally, ethically, politically, socially, economically, and in all other ways wrong to place an artificial limit on how much an organization is allowed to spend on labor. End of story. I don't care that other sports have done it. They shouldn't have. And they have weak unions.

[Knick9]

Before I stop, I'll just say this, whether KC wants to win or not, they should be given equal chance. They should be allowed to win whenever they start feeling like they want to win. The option has to be there for them. If KC keeps losing, are you suggesting relocation then? KC isn't the problem, it's the ownership. If hardly anybody wants to win, then just have a 2 team league, Boston nad New York. Yeah, that will last long.

I said this before: There are some traditions in baseball that just need to be abandoned. To me, this luxury tax is one of those traditions.

[Knick9]

Ugh.

It is simply morally, ethically, politically, socially, economically, and in all other ways wrong to place an artificial limit on how much an organization is allowed to spend on labor. End of story. I don't care that other sports have done it. They shouldn't have. And they have weak unions.

I tend to disagree. That is stretching the situation way too much.

[Twinskoop]

I tend to disagree. That is stretching the situation way too much.

So it is ok for ownership to artificially cap labor costs (which is essentially collusion)? It must be ok for ownership interests in other fields to do the same, right? It's ok if the owners of department stores, fast food chains, oil companies, car manufacturers, etc., get together and bind each other to not spend over a certain dollar amount on labor costs?

As others have said, I'll be alright with a salary cap when owners agree to cap their own profits and the prices they charge the public. I will never support a labor salary cap until that happens.

[Jennifer]

So it is ok for ownership to artificially cap labor costs (which is essentially collusion)? It must be ok for ownership interests in other fields to do the same, right? It's ok if the owners of department stores, fast food chains, oil companies, car manufacturers, etc., get together and bind each other to not spend over a certain dollar amount on labor costs?

As others have said, I'll be alright with a salary cap when owners agree to cap their own profits and the prices they charge the public. I will never support a labor salary cap until that happens.

Ownership cannot on its own lawfully impose a salary cap.

[Jennifer]

But KC doesn't want to win, why should the entire game be manipulated so that the dumbest kid in the room is forced to be the best. KC doesn't want to compete, he could spend more but he doesn't want to, instead he takes his profit.


So how does a 95 million dollar cap help? It would effect only 3 teams right now, and only one in a big way, the Yankees. A salary floor would be useless because it would only drag one or two up and it wouldn't be like it would force them to sign AROd or something. Instead they sign Derek Bell for 6 million dollars. Salary Caps don't even keep football teams in check why would they keep baseball teams? And again what do you think the Yankees are going to do with that extra 100 million dollars a year that used to spend on MLB players? Give it to charity? No they will use it to sign players from high school, college, and other countries. They will drive the cost of drafting elite players up so much that only a very few teams will be able to draft them. In otherwords haves will get the best young players while once again the have nots are shut out. Right without a salary cap it is already happening, where small revenue teams pass on elite young talent that could have helped their team.

First, where is your evidence that Kansas City shows a profit? The 2001 data posted earlier in this thread showed a net loss in 2001. While it is true that some of the expenses are non-cash items thus making available money for shareholder distribution it is also true that in the Economics's sense that the cost of equity is a cost of doing business and a "profit" is earning a return in excess to the cost of equity. What many people do is look at a team's payroll expense and use that as a basis to determine that a team is not spending as much as it can but to make that determination total revenue and total expense must be compared.

[Jennifer]

Wait a minute so you are saying that a salary cap will help a revenue poor team compete, which of course means you are saying teams that are bad can become good through a salary cap. Which of course means they will become more popular because they are winning. So why wouldn't they raise ticket prices? If demand is going up why wouldn't they? Again why would a salary cap keep a team from raising its ticket price?

In short, as I said many posts ago the answer is yes. Moreover, I pointed out that teams with huge payrolls with high attendance that were unsuccessful in competing would have a drop-off of demand. For further explanation how about going back and reading the rest of the thread. I find it tiresome to have to repeat myself everytime you repeat your questions and will not do it anymore.

[Jennifer]

So how does a 95 million dollar cap help? It would effect only 3 teams right now, and only one in a big way, the Yankees. A salary floor would be useless because it would only drag one or two up and it wouldn't be like it would force them to sign AROd or something. Instead they sign Derek Bell for 6 million dollars. Salary Caps don't even keep football teams in check why would they keep baseball teams? And again what do you think the Yankees are going to do with that extra 100 million dollars a year that used to spend on MLB players? Give it to charity? No they will use it to sign players from high school, college, and other countries. They will drive the cost of drafting elite players up so much that only a very few teams will be able to draft them. In otherwords haves will get the best young players while once again the have nots are shut out. Right without a salary cap it is already happening, where small revenue teams pass on elite young talent that could have helped their team.

If you have to ask the question then you are clueless. In the short-run the more you narrow the gap the less influence money has in determining victories and the more influence prudent executive decision-making has in determining victories. Consider the fact that the Tribe won 93 games in 2005 on a $42 million payroll. The Yankees spent almost five times that amount to win 2 more games than the Tribe. Is it even debatable which team's executives were more effective? Yet, the Yankees ability to imprudently spend rewarded them with a Divison Championship. Narrowing the spending gap increases the importance of good judgment making.

In the longer term a salary cap makes it more difficult for the richest teams to monopologize the acquisition and retention of star players.

Finally, the more good judgment determines a team's record then the greater opportunity revenue poor teams have a chance of winning which translates into greater revenues and a potential narrowing of the salary gap between the richest and poorest teams. Does that mean that every team that is revenue poor will suddenly become competitive, of course not. Kansas City is a prime example. Part of the team's problem is its lack of revenue to retain star players but beyond that the organization has systemic problems in that it has repeatedly made bad decisions and has failed to show it has a potentially effective plan to improve.

[Twinskoop]

Ownership cannot on its own lawfully impose a salary cap.

Obviously. That's like saying I cannot, on my own, lawfully print millions and millions of dollars for my own personal use. If I could, it would have been done a long time ago.

The question is whether or not the players should agree to it, and what fan response should be. I would never agree to it in my field. I don't think players should agree to it in their field. It's a poor deal that will limit the earning potential for the vast majority of them while increasing the profit that the team owners and shareholders take in.

And it's un-American to tell stupid rich people that they can't spend more money.

[Jennifer]

Obviously. That's like saying I cannot, on my own, lawfully print millions and millions of dollars for my own personal use. If I could, it would have been done a long time ago.

The question is whether or not the players should agree to it, and what fan response should be. I would never agree to it in my field. I don't think players should agree to it in their field. It's a poor deal that will limit the earning potential for the vast majority of them while increasing the profit that the team owners and shareholders take in.

And it's un-American to tell stupid rich people that they can't spend more money.

A few quick things. First, how can you say that players should refuse without knowing what the quid pro quo would be? For example a cap regime might include a floor that results in MLB in the aggregate spending more on salaries then are spent today. This would mean that star players would suffer -- No more A-Rod and Manny sized contracts but the vast majority of players below star level would benefit. What if the lenth of service required to qualify for the MLB pension was lessened? What if the length of the eligibility requirements for salary arbitration, free agency and right to refuse a trade was shortened? Etc., etc., etc.

Second, as to increasing owner profits. You are aware are you not that the size of a salary cap would be pegged to something like revenues? Under a salary cap regime some owners would do better and others worse but that owners as a whole would probably maintain about the same level of profits.

Third, who is "telling" rich people that they cannot spend more money? If a salary cap is adopted it will be because these rich people want it.

Finally, while I don't know what line of business you work for if you work for a large corporation then except for the very top candidates there are salary caps. Every employee within a certain job classification is paid within a certain pay range. In some instances there exists job performance bonuses.

Many people look at each team as a stand-alone corporation battling each other in a highly competitive world. But MLB is really a joint venture. Certain restrictions on competition exist that do not generally exist among true competitors. For example, in the real world any employer can hire any college graduate it wants subject to its ability to compete with everyone else who wants to hire individuals. MLB has an amauter draft where all the top players become the property of the team that drafts them. Why do these rules necessary? Because it is generally deterimental to successful teams to have unsuccessful teams go out of business.

[Ubiquitous]

If you have to ask the question then you are clueless. In the short-run the more you narrow the gap the less influence money has in determining victories and the more influence prudent executive decision-making has in determining victories. Consider the fact that the Tribe won 93 games in 2005 on a $42 million payroll. The Yankees spent almost five times that amount to win 2 more games than the Tribe. Is it even debatable which team's executives were more effective? Yet, the Yankees ability to imprudently spend rewarded them with a Divison Championship. Narrowing the spending gap increases the importance of good judgment making.

In the longer term a salary cap makes it more difficult for the richest teams to monopologize the acquisition and retention of star players.

Finally, the more good judgment determines a team's record then the greater opportunity revenue poor teams have a chance of winning which translates into greater revenues and a potential narrowing of the salary gap between the richest and poorest teams. Does that mean that every team that is revenue poor will suddenly become competitive, of course not. Kansas City is a prime example. Part of the team's problem is its lack of revenue to retain star players but beyond that the organization has systemic problems in that it has repeatedly made bad decisions and has failed to show it has a potentially effective plan to improve.

Ah clueless? Heres a question, isn't possible that the 200 million dollars and the 150 odd million dollars they spent more then Cleveland didn't help the Yankees win 2 more games but prevented them from winning more?

Or how is this for clueless. Saying Cleveland spent 43 million for 93 wins means nothing. You have a bunch of rookies, under 3 year players and under 6 year players and you are going to have a low payroll regardless of talent. Every year that team stays together is another year in which it gets more expensive, and one more year in which it will be closer to breaking apart under salary cap setups. That team that was so well put together, that turned into a winnner, that help grow revenue streams will be forced to breakup and have the team start over in the near future under salary cap rules.

[Ubiquitous]

In short, as I said many posts ago the answer is yes. Moreover, I pointed out that teams with huge payrolls with high attendance that were unsuccessful in competing would have a drop-off of demand. For further explanation how about going back and reading the rest of the thread. I find it tiresome to have to repeat myself everytime you repeat your questions and will not do it anymore.

So what was your point? Let me get this clear, you are now saying that Salary Cap will not reduce the need to raise ticket prices. That it will not deter rises in ticket prices? Is this correct?

[runningshoes]

If you have to ask the question then you are clueless.

What's with the personal attacks?

[runningshoes]

Of course ticket prices will rise. Owners are in this to make money, but the justification for a rise will be a better product on the field, not the need for revenue to pay the players.

[Jennifer]

Ah clueless? Heres a question, isn't possible that the 200 million dollars and the 150 odd million dollars they spent more then Cleveland didn't help the Yankees win 2 more games but prevented them from winning more?

Or how is this for clueless. Saying Cleveland spent 43 million for 93 wins means nothing. You have a bunch of rookies, under 3 year players and under 6 year players and you are going to have a low payroll regardless of talent. Every year that team stays together is another year in which it gets more expensive, and one more year in which it will be closer to breaking apart under salary cap setups. That team that was so well put together, that turned into a winnner, that help grow revenue streams will be forced to breakup and have the team start over in the near future under salary cap rules.

Your first paragraph kinda makes my point. The Yankees can recklessly spend money because there is no salary cap. If they make a mistake they just try to correct it by spending more money while teams that have far less money to spend must live with their mistakes and are less prone to acquire high risk players at large salaries. The Yankee mistakes have the tendency to increase the cost of business for every other team because what they pay players tends to create a benchmark for what free agents and arbitration eligible players will get paid. Before you challenge this assertion I suggest that you peruse the media comments on the signing of BJ Ryan. It was pretty universally observed that Ryan's signing drove up the market price of every other free agent closer and set-up man. It was also pretty universally accepted that the Jays overpaid.

As to whether the Yankees might not have done better with a smaller payroll I neither agree or disagree. That the Yankees would have exercised greater discipline is beyond dispute but whether this greater discipline would have succeded is something we will never know. In my earlier post I thought about including the above paragraph and this one but decided not to because I knew I could expect you to raise the issue. We are long past having a serious discussion because no matter what I say you can be expected to take a contrarian view.

As to the Tribe I think you should take a closer look at the composition of the 2005 team. The pitching staff which was the strength of the team was composed mainly of veterans. One starter had less than five years of MLB experience and the same was true of the bullpen for most of the year. The one high priced pitcher, Millwood, who was a high risk signing at the size of his contract pegged to how healthy he remained.

For position players they had two relatively priced free agents Belliard and Boone. Other key position players such as Martinez and Hafner in particular were signed prior to the season to multi-year deals below their market values because they were not yet eligible for free agency. The same was true of C.C. on the pitching side. Much of the young talent like Sizemore and Lee were obtained in very smart trades for players about to enter in their free agency and who would have been to expensive to re-sign. Shaprio was GM of the year for his efforts in constructing the team, although in my opinion the White Sox GM should have gotten it.

Can the Tribe keep the team together for a long time? Almost certainly not without a salary cap. Is that a bad thing? I suggest you look at the thread I started on the Tribe Board which I called something like "Something Interesting." The Tribe to sustain long term success absent a salary cap will have to rely on shrewdness in its player decisions. If it were not for the reckless spending of teams like the Yankees there would be a much greater chance to hold the core of the team together for the long-term.

Thank you for your last post. It has allowed me to make some very major points. I look forward to your contraian response.

[Jennifer]

What's with the personal attacks?

No offense intended but I suggest you go back and read or reread the entire thread and then decide whether it is a "personal insult" or a rhetorical question.

[runningshoes]

No offense intended but I suggest you go back and read or reread the entire thread and then decide whether it is a "personal insult" or a rhetorical question.

A rhetorical question is one that needs no answer, because the answer is obviously know..and I know you're inteligent enough to know that.

In other words..he's clueless.

Besides, that's not the point. It's the perception.

[Jennifer]

So what was your point? Let me get this clear, you are now saying that Salary Cap will not reduce the need to raise ticket prices. That it will not deter rises in ticket prices? Is this correct?

As I stated earlier I have answered that question and if you don't understand my position I apologize for our failure to effectively communicate but it seems as though we are only going around in circles which is a waste of both your time, my time and everyone else's time who is reading this thread.