#27TheDominator Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 and the players are not???still trying to figure this entire deal out,but both the owners and players are grossly overpaid.seems the only real losers are going to be the broke folks(the fans and lower level employees),and not the millionaire players or billionaire owners.you know what would be great?if after all the dust settles after this lockout b.s,the fans create their own lockout and boycott football for the year I think this is kind of a silly premise. The owners are making money. They want to make MORE money. The players are risking their lives and health to play. You can't blame them for trying to maximize their earnings. As far as I know the players have never set the prices for tickets and concessions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Set a trap? I think you are giving them way too much credit. I think the issue is that the owners are far from a united front. Opening the books will give them more trouble with each other than with the players. Smith may very well be an ego-filled tool. But the problem is owners of big market new stadium clubs(Jets, Giants, Bears, Eagles, Pats, Skins, Cowboys) have serious debt service and HAVE to play a season to pay their bills.While you have small market guys(Vikings, Bills, Jags, Packers, Panthers, Falons, Rams) with no debt service sharing the big teams' revenues who probably fiscally be on better footing not playing a season.And that later bought franchises for way less than the former. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelticwizard Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Actually, you do expect billionaires to get their way, even if they inherited their way into their position, because the competitiveness of the financial world forces those in it to become tough and sneaky. The trouble with the owners getting a backup plan is simply the difficulty of maintaining an anti-trust exemption. Can you imagine America's corporations holding a draft for the best college graduates each year, with the graduate only being able to sign with one company? Yet that preposterous scenario goes on every year with the NFL. It's a very complex system which allows the league to continue with labor practices which would land the owners in jail in any other industry, so finding one way to keep this going is difficult enough. Finding two different ways is almost impossible to imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Set a trap? I think you are giving them way too much credit. I think the issue is that the owners are far from a united front. Opening the books will give them more trouble with each other than with the players. Probably so Dom. I tend to agree there is more issues between owners than between owners and players. My sole 'leap' of faith in the owners are the new breed like Kraft, Lurie and Jones who are businessmen first and foremost. I could be misguided in that they want it open so they can force the cheap owners like Mike Brown in Cincy and Ralph Wilson to $hit or get off the pot. I could see an NHL like salary structure where larger market teams have a higher ceiling and the smaller market teams have a lower basemant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Actually, you do expect billionaires to get their way, even if they inherited their way into their position, because the competitiveness of the financial world forces those in it to become tough and sneaky. The trouble with the owners getting a backup plan is simply the difficulty of maintaining an anti-trust exemption. Can you imagine America's corporations holding a draft for the best college graduates each year, with the graduate only being able to sign with one company? Yet that preposterous scenario goes on every year with the NFL. It's a very complex system which allows the league to continue with labor practices which would land the owners in jail in any other industry, so finding one way to keep this going is difficult enough. Finding two different ways is almost impossible to imagine. It wasn't difficult at all. They had the way to keep it going in place and opted out of it. The CBA didn't expire, the owners opted out. Just another reason to root for the players. Wah! Wah! We need another billion straight off the top! Wah! Being sneaky and competitive is no indication of business acumen. If it were I'd be a billionaire too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelticwizard Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Being sneaky and competitive might not guarantee success in high stakes financial matters, but the people who are successful there develop those traits. Or to be polite, should I say "resourceful" instead of sneaky? At any rate, they are adept at applying leverage to people to get what they want. The sports anti-trust exemption was a unique thing in labor matters, finding something to replace it-a backup plan-would be difficult to imagine. Perhaps the owners were't brilliant for having it instituted, but up to now the owners were at least smart enough to hang onto the exemption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visajets Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I think this is kind of a silly premise. The owners are making money. They want to make MORE money. The players are risking their lives and health to play. You can't blame them for trying to maximize their earnings. As far as I know the players have never set the prices for tickets and concessions. Instead of these big outlandish contracts why not offer them all insurance policies to protect them if they are injured. The NFL is a get rich scheme for ALL involved owners,players you name it . Everybody wants a piece of the pie. Pay the players on a pay scale using different criterias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Instead of these big outlandish contracts why not offer them all insurance policies to protect them if they are injured. The NFL is a get rich scheme for ALL involved owners,players you name it . Everybody wants a piece of the pie. Pay the players on a pay scale using different criterias. If everybody is getting rich why the hell do they need a pay scale? Reasons why a pay scale won't work: 1. It's un-American. 2. You want players to bust their a$$ and try to kill each other. For that you need incentive. Incentive is not a reasonable contract and some lame-a$$ insurance if they get hurt. It's a shot at getting themselves and their families out of poverty (or the middle class for that matter) for generations. 3. They are all fighting over the same pie. IMO the owners are about to get their asses handed to them. Why under those circumstances should players accept a wage scale? What do you want? Merit based compensation? Negotiate a better deal. If the owners can't pay that much, don't pay that much. We all know they are making a fortune, so why shouldn't they have to pay the reason that they make all that sweet, sweet cash? I hear a ton of bullsh*t about big market and small market, but all these teams sell-out. The TV deal is split evenly as far as I know. With the internet, the world is getting smaller. There is no reason why a small market team like the Rams can't make money. Hell I know a guys over here with ******* Rams, Raiders, 49ers and Dolphins tattoos. It's not like they don't have exposure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billo83 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Some became billionaires by having moms who slept with billionaires (or the then-dollar equivalent) and being the fastest sperm once upon a time while she was ovulating. You really think Woody Johnson is a billionaire because of his unequivocal brilliance? That may be true for some of them, but an idiot can easily run an empire into the ground. Don't forget too that most of these guys also are trained in the business at an early age, and get the best education money can buy. No reason to think most of them aren't successfull in their own right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 If everybody is getting rich why the hell do they need a pay scale? Reasons why a pay scale won't work: 1. It's un-American. 2. You want players to bust their a$$ and try to kill each other. For that you need incentive. Incentive is not a reasonable contract and some lame-a$$ insurance if they get hurt. It's a shot at getting themselves and their families out of poverty (or the middle class for that matter) for generations. 3. They are all fighting over the same pie. IMO the owners are about to get their asses handed to them. Why under those circumstances should players accept a wage scale? What do you want? Merit based compensation? Negotiate a better deal. If the owners can't pay that much, don't pay that much. We all know they are making a fortune, so why shouldn't they have to pay the reason that they make all that sweet, sweet cash? I hear a ton of bullsh*t about big market and small market, but all these teams sell-out. The TV deal is split evenly as far as I know. With the internet, the world is getting smaller. There is no reason why a small market team like the Rams can't make money. Hell I know a guys over here with ******* Rams, Raiders, 49ers and Dolphins tattoos. It's not like they don't have exposure. I do not think that is the owner v owner problems. Even a once proud franchise like the Rai-Duhs that are being driven into the ground make money, but the issue (I am trying to find a an article that covered this years ago) is some of the team generated money that is pooled and shared equally among the teams. The teams that try and spend money to develop their product (i.e. Dallas, New England, Philadelphia's of the NFL) want to stop sharing some of this money and keep it for themselves. They are tired of subsidizing teams like Cincy that does little to promote their product or the Bills whose owner is stuck in the past and do not believe in doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason423 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I do not think that is the owner v owner problems. Even a once proud franchise like the Rai-Duhs that are being driven into the ground make money, but the issue (I am trying to find a an article that covered this years ago) is some of the team generated money that is pooled and shared equally among the teams. The teams that try and spend money to develop their product (i.e. Dallas, New England, Philadelphia's of the NFL) want to stop sharing some of this money and keep it for themselves. They are tired of subsidizing teams like Cincy that does little to promote their product or the Bills whose owner is stuck in the past and do not believe in doing so. I think you are thinking about when the Cowboys begans signing their own sponsorships outside of the NFL back in the mid 90s when they brought in Pepsi despite the NFLs exclusive deal with Coke. I think the other revenue issues are the team generated revenues themselves. Sure all the stadiums might be sold out but the Jets charge 100s of dollars a seat now and make a killing in the stadium with the concessions and everything else. They also get major sponsorship money associated with naming rights on the stadiums. A team like the Bills gets none of that. They cant charge that kind of money. The fans dont have the money to spend. Sponsors dont want to spend the money on the stadiums. This is where some of these revenue imbalances come in. What happens then is the cap keeps rising and rising and teams like the Jets are generating huge cash flows to keep up with it while tems like the Bills are probably keeping less and less every year because their revenue growth is not growing nearly as fast as the cap floor is growing. All of the sides are greedy, but I can at least somewhat understand the position of the small market teams here. I think the Packers made about 5 million last year. That was a bit low due to some huge cash they paid out in 2009 for cap reasons. They made 20 the year before, so the real number is probably around 14 or 15. Mark Sanchez is going to make nearly 15 million for the Jets next year. Its not insane to think the team itself should be making at least as much in profit as the highest paid player on the team. I think that is your issue. Should the teams earn more profit in a year or does the increase in worth of the franchise make up for the fact that they are not making a year over year killing the way the star player is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelticwizard Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 a. I am not convinced the Packers only made 5 million last year, or at least I'm not convinced that is the whole financial picture' b. A big, big part of the profit of owning a team comes when you sell it for hugely more than you paid for it. The teams go up in price so high that it must be considered part of the overall financial picture. Of course, this doesn't apply to the Green Bay owned Packers, but it does to everyone else in the league. I'm pretty sure these teams are doing better than $5 million profit, overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 a. I am not convinced the Packers only made 5 million last year, or at least I'm not convinced that is the whole financial picture' b. A big, big part of the profit of owning a team comes when you sell it for hugely more than you paid for it. The teams go up in price so high that it must be considered part of the overall financial picture. Of course, this doesn't apply to the Green Bay owned Packers, but it does to everyone else in the league. I'm pretty sure these teams are doing better than $5 million profit, overall. Would love to know what the depreciation on a billion or billion half privatley-owned stadium is the first few years-a whole lot, and that is a deduction from income. Or what subsidiareis the big market clubs sues to divvy un ancillary revenues like concessions, luxury boxes, parking, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.