|
Analogy
Mar 11, 2015 16:25:42 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Mar 11, 2015 16:25:42 GMT -5
If our wife comes to us and says we would be able to buy more if our salary was $20,000 higher, I don't think we would disagree with her. We might tell her our salary is what it is, but there is certainly no disagreeing with what she says.
The same thing is true when we say the Giants could get better players if their salary budget was $20 million higher. No question about it.
But like our salary which our wife seems to think is $20,000 too little, it is what it is. About all we can do is say, "Yes, dear. You're right, as usual, dear."
It probably isn't advisable to say, "What a rocket scientist YOU are!"
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Analogy
Mar 11, 2015 17:55:31 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Mar 11, 2015 17:55:31 GMT -5
The difference is the control of adding income is up to an employer...the Giants have full control of their payroll budget. They could very easily raise it if they wished. We could always ask for a raise in our salary, but that decision is not ours.
|
|
|
Analogy
Mar 11, 2015 20:43:51 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Mar 11, 2015 20:43:51 GMT -5
Randy -- The difference is the control of adding income is up to an employer... Rog -- The adding of income to a company is similar to the adding of income by an employee in that a company risks getting less profit rather than more if it raises its prices, while the employee may have limited control of his income, at least in the short run. As an employee, though, we can improve our work to increase our raise, work toward a promotion, perhaps move from salary to commission, go into business for ourselves, take a second job, or learn a new, more lucrative skill. As individuals, we probably have MORE control over our income than a corporation does. Randy -- the Giants have full control of their payroll budget. Rog -- Just as we have control over our own budgets. Randy -- They could very easily raise it if they wished. Rog -- I suspect the Giants could have raised their payroll budget as early as this season if they had increased ticket prices. They're a hot enough commodity right now that I think they could have made the extra profit to fund a significant increase in ticket prices -- especially the most expensive ones. Just as we as employees could stop putting money into our retirement accounts or stop our life and disability insurance so that we could increase our own spending budget. But in doing so the Giants would run the risk of a backlash from the fans that could hurt their future business, just as we as individuals would run the risk of protecting our futures. Randy -- We could always ask for a raise in our salary, but that decision is not ours. Rog -- The Giants could always ask for the fans to raise what they would pay for tickets, but the buying decision is the fans'. The individual actually has more control, beginning with taking a second job or working more overtime. The Giants could add a second business, but they would need to increase their business risk to do so. The employee can often increase his income without taking extra risk. In fact, he may be reducing it. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2756/analogy#ixzz3U890TsKK
|
|
|
Analogy
Mar 12, 2015 0:56:06 GMT -5
Post by donk33 on Mar 12, 2015 0:56:06 GMT -5
raise your player's payroll budget by accepting a drop in profit. eliminate the brokers , lower prices and sell more tickets directly to the fans. .....in fact, lower ticket prices might even increase revenue. ...once they get the fans in the park, they would increase the money that they collect from all the goodies they sell inside the stadium... however, make sure someone is holding Sabean's hands if you give him more budget as he has a pattern of over spending on some players...
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Analogy
Mar 12, 2015 2:21:58 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Mar 12, 2015 2:21:58 GMT -5
Donk...they have sold out every game for the last 4 seasons...not possible to sell more than they have no matter what they charge
|
|
|
Analogy
Mar 12, 2015 10:47:00 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 12, 2015 10:47:00 GMT -5
Not sure they've sold out all the home games, but it's been close. I do think they should decrease the price of remaining tickets right before the start of the game. That way they come closer to actually selling out.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Analogy
Mar 12, 2015 13:10:37 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Mar 12, 2015 13:10:37 GMT -5
They rarely have seats left on gameday...in years following titles the season is mostly sold out before opening day
|
|
|
Analogy
Mar 12, 2015 13:29:17 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 12, 2015 13:29:17 GMT -5
The Organization buys out the remaining tickets after the game starts so they can continue the streak of sellouts. There are games when it's declared a sellout by Kruk and Kuip, yet I still see a number of empty seats. I think it would better for everyone if they just reduced the price right before or even after the game started.
|
|
|
Analogy
Mar 12, 2015 15:51:46 GMT -5
Post by donk33 on Mar 12, 2015 15:51:46 GMT -5
The Organization buys out the remaining tickets after the game starts so they can continue the streak of sellouts. There are games when it's declared a sellout by Kruk and Kuip, yet I still see a number of empty seats. I think it would better for everyone if they just reduced the price right before or even after the game started. dk..I think what happens in many ball parks is the team sells blocks of non-season tickets to the Ticket Brokers...thus they sell out there seats...the brokers raise the prices depending on the importance of the game...not all tickets are sold, but the raised price of the tickets sold still gives the broker a profit......the Dodgers always had 6 to 8000 empty seats on sell out games...
|
|