this is why we suck.

[Craiger]

Well, there are two ways to interpret this thread: either it relates to ownership or to the GM. If it's the GM not building the team properly because he still puts asses in the seats, then yeah I consider that a conspiracy theory because it doesn't pass the smell test at all. The man's job is on the line in the near future and I would think his history of dealing should show you he's a lot more interested in trying to win now than he is in letting the team languish along.

If you're talking about ownership then I could buy that if we were the Bulls, who refuse to spend into the tax despite the fact that they obviously could and should. I could also buy it if the OTPP still had a controlling stake, because they didn't spend when the team was employing Bosh and setting it's sights on playoff runs.

But since Rogers purchased that stake in 2010 there has been zero reason for ownership to sign off on going over the cap and possibly into the tax. You're essentially pre-judging them based on how the previous owners behaved.

Consider that the controlling interest in the team is now a media company that would benefit ENORMOUSLY from building the Raptors into a better brand with consistent playoff appearances. Ticket revenue is just a fraction of the revenue pie. If the times to spend comes and ownership fails to step up to the plate, then go ahead and judge them. Until then, you're passin out the tin foil hats.

I think by delving way to deep into some theoretical depths here your kind of missing the point and arguing something no one else is.

If a company offers a product or service (whether its a good or bad product/service) and the customers keep buying it (ie. dollar voting) they'll keep making and offering that product.

Now thats not to say they won't change, they won't try to invest more in an attempt to get more 'votes', or vice versa. The point is there is little reason to change if what you are offering is working, because nothing is driving a need for change.

This isn't "judgement" of BC or Rogers or MLSE. If anything its a judgement of the fans and what they want and what they are willing to pay for.


Ticket revenue itself may only part of total revenue, but it indirectly drives alot of other revenues. For example concession sales (or concession rental), in house advertising revenue, and product sales can all be effected by ticket sales. Its also a clear indicator of market demand.

[Lark Benson]

I think by delving way to deep into some theoretical depths here your kind of missing the point and arguing something no one else is.

If a company offers a product or service (whether its a good or bad product/service) and the customers keep buying it (ie. dollar voting) they'll keep making and offering that product.

Now thats not to say they won't change, they won't try to invest more in an attempt to get more 'votes', or vice versa. The point is there is little reason to change if what you are offering is working, because nothing is driving a need for change.

This isn't "judgement" of BC or Rogers or MLSE. If anything its a judgement of the fans and what they want and what they are willing to pay for.


Ticket revenue itself may only part of total revenue, but it indirectly drives alot of other revenues. For example concession sales (or concession rental), in house advertising revenue, and product sales can all be effected by ticket sales. Its also a clear indicator of market demand.

No I get it, I just think the argument is ridiculous and you're not fully considering what the implications of the point you're trying to make. What you're saying is that the team has no real reason to improve and change because the fans keep filling the seats and the team remains profitable. What your argument essentially boils down to is that team is too lazy to try to maximize it's profits even though the NBA's salary cap floor floor guarantees that they have to spend X amount every year and any sane person/company/whatever would try to maximize the return on the investment they're forced to make.

[Craiger]

No I get it, I just think the argument is ridiculous and you're not fully considering what the implications of the point you're trying to make. What you're saying is that the team has no real reason to improve and change because the fans keep filling the seats and the team remains profitable. What your argument essentially boils down to is that team is too lazy to try to maximize it's profits even though the NBA's salary cap floor floor guarantees that they have to spend X amount every year and any sane person/company/whatever would try to maximize the return on the investment they're forced to make.

the point doesn't even remotely boil down to that

[Sig]

have you ever heard about myopic management vs far sighted management?


being better in the future, could risk a loss of profit in the next quarter. It doesn't matter to them that one day they could be making a much bigger profit, if they lose out on profit in the near future (especially since nothing is for sure in this league) then they have a problem. Economic theory ftw!!

Oh you're right. Every other team in the league is totally doing it wrong. That's why they're losing so much money and Mr.Rogers has bills flyin out the ass with a shit team!

[TheGloveinRapsUniform]

I've been to numerous Raps games.

I've had 3 courtside seats, 2 nosebleeds and maybe 30 side prime

And i never paid for any of those seats. Not a single one.

What i have observed is usually in games, there are a lot of suites, and im guessing, attendance is good because corporations mostly buy raptors tickets, one, as giveaways to employees, two, for entertaining clients and three, for appreciation to vendors. and thats how ive gotten my tickets.

it weirds me out that attendance is always at a high, be it vs the bobcats or the heat. and i think this possibly explains why. of course heat games would get a little bit higher attendance because the casual fan only knows teams like the heat, but as far as i know, there really isnt much of a discrepancy in attendance regardless of what team plays. hopefully its because canadians just love the raps, but im more inclined to think its because tickets are handed out rather than bought.

[akashsingh]

Oh you're right. Every other team in the league is totally doing it wrong. That's why they're losing so much money and Mr.Rogers has bills flyin out the ass with a shit team!

It's a different situation in several markets, no need to be snarky.

[Lark Benson]

the point doesn't even remotely boil down to that

Alright, let me try this again.

Your argument is that since the Raps continue to have good attendance despite the team performing poorly, there's a lack of pressure to change or perform due to guaranteed profits.

But the team has to spend money to put a product on the court regardless of how much money they take in. That's the salary cap floor (as well as operating expenses, etc).

So that means (according to your logic) that the team has no interest in getting the largest possible return for their investment. They're happy to rake in the profits, keep a shitty team on the floor and just keep the status quo.

Call it lazy, apathetic, content, whatever you want, the point is that I find it incredibly unlikely that the company operates this way. We're not talking about David Sterling here, we're talking about MLSE; they have a board and they have shareholders they have to satisfy.

[JasonS]

I've been to numerous Raps games.

I've had 3 courtside seats, 2 nosebleeds and maybe 30 side prime

And i never paid for any of those seats. Not a single one.

What i have observed is usually in games, there are a lot of suites, and im guessing, attendance is good because corporations mostly buy raptors tickets, one, as giveaways to employees, two, for entertaining clients and three, for appreciation to vendors. and thats how ive gotten my tickets.

it weirds me out that attendance is always at a high, be it vs the bobcats or the heat. and i think this possibly explains why. of course heat games would get a little bit higher attendance because the casual fan only knows teams like the heat, but as far as i know, there really isnt much of a discrepancy in attendance regardless of what team plays. hopefully its because canadians just love the raps, but im more inclined to think its because tickets are handed out rather than bought.

Bingo, but don't the ratings take a hit though? that must be an important topic, and contending teams bring in casual fans to watch their games form their own homes.

[Craiger]

Alright, let me try this again.

Your argument is that since the Raps continue to have good attendance despite the team performing poorly, there's a lack of pressure to change or perform due to guaranteed profits.

But the team has to spend money to put a product on the court regardless of how much money they take in. That's the salary cap floor (as well as operating expenses, etc).

So that means (according to your logic) that the team has no interest in getting the largest possible return for their investment. They're happy to rake in the profits, keep a shitty team on the floor and just keep the status quo.
Call it lazy, apathetic, content, whatever you want, the point is that I find it incredibly unlikely that the company operates this way. We're not talking about David Sterling here, we're talking about MLSE; they have a board and they have shareholders they have to satisfy.

I already stated earlier

Now thats not to say they won't change, they won't try to invest more in an attempt to get more 'votes', or vice versa. The point is there is little reason to change if what you are offering is working, because nothing is driving a need for change.

This is much more about the fans (customers) than the business. That the fans, by voting with their dollars, are stating they are content with the product.

[Employee]

What we should be doing is not go to any games until the team is a contender (as in never) thus forcing the NBA into moving the team to Seattle. Then we could all go back to not watching basketball and watching hockey for the rest of our lives. That would be awesome.

And this thread sucks.

[Lark Benson]

This is much more about the fans (customers) than the business. That the fans, by voting with their dollars, are stating they are content with the product.

Look, I understand that. Even if we drop all the economic connotations from that statement, it's flat out untrue. All it takes is 2 minutes at basketball reference to see that this year is an anomaly, that attendance has correlated with record in the past. Hell I'm pretty sure I posted the numbers last time someone made a post about this same topic. You could just as easily attribute this year's attendance figures to pre-season sales based on hope and the lack of hockey.

Second, even if the fans ARE content with the product, you can't just make the statement that it's the reason why we suck and ignore all of the connotations that come with it.

[Craiger]

Look, I understand that. Even if we drop all the economic connotations from that statement, it's flat out untrue. All it takes is 2 minutes at basketball reference to see that this year is an anomaly, that attendance has correlated with record in the past. Hell I'm pretty sure I posted the numbers last time someone made a post about this same topic. You could just as easily attribute this year's attendance figures to pre-season sales based on hope and the lack of hockey.

Second, even if the fans ARE content with the product, you can't just make the statement that it's the reason why we suck and ignore all of the connotations that come with it.

Last all say on this:

I did not say that. You claimed this was a conspiracy theory. I was pointing out that it was not, but rather economic theory.

I'm done.

[Lark Benson]

Last all say on this:

I did not say that. You claimed this was a conspiracy theory. I was pointing out that it was not, but rather economic theory.

I'm done.

And I'm trying to tell you it's utterly groundless, whether you call it economic theory or not. If you didn't want to argue the merits of the statement, why jump in at all? You just wanted to correct me on that one point, that's what all this was?

You could have just stated the above the first time.

[akashsingh]

What we should be doing is not go to any games until the team is a contender (as in never) thus forcing the NBA into moving the team to Seattle. Then we could all go back to not watching basketball and watching hockey for the rest of our lives. That would be awesome.

And this thread sucks.

I've blocked you, you stupid donkey.

[Eric Akshinthala]

To say that MLSE is satisfied with mediocrity because they are making profits is very untrue. Their Sports teams may not have been very successful but not many owners are as passionate and desirous of success as MLSE. Both Leafs and Raptors have hired top notch executives after a string of failures, with one intention and one intention only. SUCCESS. Have they had success? The obvious answer is 'no'. Do they want to be successful? Undoubtedly.

[mountio]

To say that MLSE is satisfied with mediocrity because they are making profits is very untrue. Their Sports teams may not have been very successful but not many owners are as passionate and desirous of success as MLSE. Both Leafs and Raptors have hired top notch executives after a string of failures, with one intention and one intention only. SUCCESS. Have they had success? The obvious answer is 'no'. Do they want to be successful? Undoubtedly.

Well said. This is one of the most idiotic threads Ive seen here.

First, as people have pointed out, fans showing up if your team isnt great is the sign of a STRONG fan base, not a weak one. It means you will fill the building when you have success and hopefully that will (at least in some way shape or form) help in free agency. To think that not showing up for games will somehow force your ownership into action to improve the team is the most ludicrus thing Ive heard in a while.

Next, the whole point that MLSE is somehow cheap or doesnt spend on players is totally crazy. Doesnt spend wisely? Thats a very legit argument. We overpaid Landry, and tried to overpay Nash and he still wouldnt come! Cant blame the owners there. We just re-upped DD at a healthy sum ... could have easily not done that and let him play out taken the "cheaper" route (developed T Ross and low-balled DD) .. we chose not to.

Ive probably already typed too much to give this thread any sort of justice .. so Ill stop there.