tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
At some level I’m sympathetic with both sides here.
As a NC taxpayer, and understanding what all businesses/agencies are going through right now financially, it’s perfectly reasonable for CA to push back on a $2.6M/year budget hole. That’s peanuts in the scheme of things, but the money has to come from somewhere. As a public agency they’re required to be good stewards and not just throw cash around.
On the other hand, I can also understand Dundon pushing for a deal to get done ASAP. He and other NHL owners are faced with a wildly uncertain future, and keeping the arena up-to-date with a stable lease is mission-critical. Sure, he’s a billionaire and an NHL team could cut a $2.6M check, but that’s real money over the term of the lease. He could buy several Scott Darlings with that kind of cash.
In conclusion, I propose the Darling be adopted as a standard unit of financial risk representing the worst possible potential waste of $4.15M per year. For example, in signing Alex Semin to a long term contract, the Canes took on 8.43 total Darlings at a rate of 1.69 Darlings Per Year. When they bought him out, 3.37 of those were converted to Actual Darlings, of which the team continues to pay 0.56 Actual Darlings per year.
Understandable that neither side wants to be saddled with over 3 Darlings in these uncertain times.
As a NC taxpayer, and understanding what all businesses/agencies are going through right now financially, it’s perfectly reasonable for CA to push back on a $2.6M/year budget hole. That’s peanuts in the scheme of things, but the money has to come from somewhere. As a public agency they’re required to be good stewards and not just throw cash around.
On the other hand, I can also understand Dundon pushing for a deal to get done ASAP. He and other NHL owners are faced with a wildly uncertain future, and keeping the arena up-to-date with a stable lease is mission-critical. Sure, he’s a billionaire and an NHL team could cut a $2.6M check, but that’s real money over the term of the lease. He could buy several Scott Darlings with that kind of cash.
In conclusion, I propose the Darling be adopted as a standard unit of financial risk representing the worst possible potential waste of $4.15M per year. For example, in signing Alex Semin to a long term contract, the Canes took on 8.43 total Darlings at a rate of 1.69 Darlings Per Year. When they bought him out, 3.37 of those were converted to Actual Darlings, of which the team continues to pay 0.56 Actual Darlings per year.
Understandable that neither side wants to be saddled with over 3 Darlings in these uncertain times.
Last edited: