2011/12 Rumours Thread - Absolute nonsense spotted!

ASHIPP

ASHIPP

Well-Known Member
#421
#421
Wannabe2 said:
These are the words from the Wales-on-line Blog.

Paul: That said, there do remain a few exceptional cases such as players on two year contracts for example, but I can guarantee you that wages will be 99% identical
Click to expand...
What Steelers players were on 2 year contracts apart from Tait?
 
DevilDom

DevilDom

Well-Known Member
#422
#422
Wannabe2 said:
These are the words from the Wales-on-line Blog.

Paul: That said, there do remain a few exceptional cases such as players on two year contracts for example, but I can guarantee you that wages will be 99% identical
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for me he may as well have said they would be different because that 1% difference could mean anything. i.e. the salary budgets could be the same but the 1% difference could refer to the fact that some steelers players are having their mortgages paid etc.
 
wildthing74

wildthing74

Well-Known Member
#423
#423
ASHIPP said:
Wannabe2 said:
These are the words from the Wales-on-line Blog.

Paul: That said, there do remain a few exceptional cases such as players on two year contracts for example, but I can guarantee you that wages will be 99% identical
Click to expand...
What Steelers players were on 2 year contracts apart from Tait?
Click to expand...
Exactly,this was a strange point for Ragan to come out with.Tait is the only one and we had 2 of our own but even that could be accomodated and both coaches work with the remaining budget after those salaries had been factored.To me a budget is a budget and if they are supposed to be the same 2 year deals so make no difference.
 
ASHIPP

ASHIPP

Well-Known Member
#424
#424
DevilDom said:
Wannabe2 said:
These are the words from the Wales-on-line Blog.

Paul: That said, there do remain a few exceptional cases such as players on two year contracts for example, but I can guarantee you that wages will be 99% identical
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for me he may as well have said they would be different because that 1% difference could mean anything. i.e. the salary budgets could be the same but the 1% difference could refer to the fact that some steelers players are having their mortgages paid etc.
Click to expand...
Perhaps he means that the WAY the budget will be spent will be 99% identical........no mention of the budgets VALUE being identical! And, as has been said, the 1% could include all sorts of 'perks' for those players.
 
Koop11

Koop11

Well-Known Member
#426
#426
To play Devil’s advocate for a moment, would it not be fair to apply a slightly higher player budget to Sheffield given that their business model is different than ours? We have to remember that they need to fund the rental costs of an arena, rumoured to be £10k per week, whereas we have a 2000 seater which I’m not even sure we pay any ice time for.

A slightly higher player budget does have to be reasonable. It cannot be anywhere near 40% higher than ours, as suggested to be last season, not least because its unfair for competition but is completely unsustainable for Sheffield to operate long term.

Thoughts?
 
DevilDom

DevilDom

Well-Known Member
#427
#427
Koop11 said:
To play Devil’s advocate for a moment, would it not be fair to apply a slightly higher player budget to Sheffield given that their business model is different than ours? We have to remember that they need to fund the rental costs of an arena, rumoured to be £10k per week, whereas we have a 2000 seater which I’m not even sure we pay any ice time for.

A slightly higher player budget does have to be reasonable. It cannot be anywhere near 40% higher than ours, as suggested to be last season, not least because its unfair for competition but is completely unsustainable for Sheffield to operate long term.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I would agree that maybe Sheffield would require a different business model to the Devils but don't agree that should be reflected in playing budget. Besides why would PR come out and say the playing budgets are going to be the same if they are not? That would only wind fans up more.

If you simply give all the arena teams a bigger playing budget than the teams in the smaller rinks then over time the interest in the smaller teams would fall making them unsusutainable - just look at the Caps, Stingrays and Vipers as examples of that. I'm not sure i'd be interested in watching us week in week out with the thought that we never really had much of a chance against the arena teams - after all loyalty can only relied upon for so long. Perhaps the different business model should involve cheaper prices or more / better marketting to attract sponsors at sheffield to fill the seats up in order to pay for their bigger rink?
 
wildthing74

wildthing74

Well-Known Member
#428
#428
Bottom line is that PR stated that both clubs will be treated the same and especially made the point that budgets would be the same.I for 1 don't think that will happen but I guess we will never know.After all to get treated equal we pay the same to watch our team in the tent as the Squeelers in the arena.
 
O

osh

Well-Known Member
#429
#429
Perhaps I am seeing things diffently - and I am not PR's greatest ally normally - but surely and in fairness to him, the budget he mentioned was surely based on wages to each team. I assumed by his statement that wages would be identical ( apart from already contracted players on extended deals) but lets face it, running costs and overheads would probably be higher at Sheffield and would need to be taken into consideration. This is one of the many items that I feel does not sit well with me regarding dual ownership and I see even more problems arising during the course of next season, but I am prepared to give the organisation the benefit of the doubt on this one.
 
H

Holl_5

New Member
#433
#433
I presume when people talk about players having their mortgages paid, they're actually on about having their rent paid? As there are British players who earn a good wage, plus have summer jobs to subsidise their wage, and they can't get a mortgage for love nor money!
 
Wannabe2

Wannabe2

Well-Known Member
#434
#434
Holl_5 said:
I presume when people talk about players having their mortgages paid, they're actually on about having their rent paid? As there are British players who earn a good wage, plus have summer jobs to subsidise their wage, and they can't get a mortgage for love nor money!
Click to expand...
Yea right. :roll:
 
H

Holl_5

New Member
#435
#435
Wannabe2 said:
Holl_5 said:
I presume when people talk about players having their mortgages paid, they're actually on about having their rent paid? As there are British players who earn a good wage, plus have summer jobs to subsidise their wage, and they can't get a mortgage for love nor money!
Click to expand...
Yea right. :roll:
Click to expand...

Given that I know people in the property trade who have known hockey players be refused mortgages I am intrigued to know where your intel comes from to be so dismissive of my attempt to be helpful with some info I know to be true on this matter?
 
buzzwagon

buzzwagon

Member
#436
#436
Holl_5 said:
Wannabe2 said:
Holl_5 said:
I presume when people talk about players having their mortgages paid, they're actually on about having their rent paid? As there are British players who earn a good wage, plus have summer jobs to subsidise their wage, and they can't get a mortgage for love nor money!
Click to expand...
Yea right. :roll:
Click to expand...

Given that I know people in the property trade who have known hockey players be refused mortgages I am intrigued to know where your intel comes from to be so dismissive of my attempt to be helpful with some info I know to be true on this matter?
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends who you declare as your employer and wether that company who employ you is seen by the lender as a stable business, if you know what i mean ;) . It's called assesing your risk!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top