**Official CBA Thread II - Update: Owners Approve CBA!** | Page 16 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

**Official CBA Thread II - Update: Owners Approve CBA!**

Jimmy James said:
Man, if I had a time machine, I'd send you to Matewan, WV circa 1920. You'd come away with a very different perspective.
Click to expand...

I know unions began for good reason. doesn't mean every one is good, or every union task is good. Come on, these players are not hard done by at all if that is where you are going.

Do you like unions?
 
I know you think your bright but studying one model dont tell the whole story. You can laugh all you want. But if doesnt factor in models then they lose. JJ says sony will sell below cost because they believe they can make up the diff in licensing etc.. Yeap that is true. Never disputed that, in fact I said NUMEROUS times that other factors play into the equation, such as other revenues, such as licensing fees, or in teh NFL case, tv revenue, ad sales, naming rights, etc..

Of course an profit oriented business owner looks to maximize his profits, isnt that what he is in business for. LMAO. But to say cost is not a factor and is an ignorant statement. Trust me I have reworked and work companies bottom lines. They need to generate enough revenuesto offset cost. generation of revenue thru pricing, licensing fees etc. are how they do it. If you cant generate revenue your out of business.

I also understand teh market will bear what it will bear. Never disagreed, but in the end you have to determine if what the market will bear will cover costs plus give profit. If it doesnt, you need to A- adjust pricing or generate other sources of revenue to compensate for the shortfall. And yes if an owner can get enough licensing fees to meet his profit projections and can get more, he will.

But here is how it works. if read this, IF the company only has one revenue source such as specialized contractors, whose sole revenue source is of gov't contracts, then he better have set his contract price at an amount that allows for the recovery of cost, or is dam confident that by taking the loss increases his market presence to allow for increased market share and increased revenues. If it means to an end and can absorb intial loss and can increase market, then they will do it. But in the end, if they cannot generate revenues to cover costs, then there is no business. So to ignore costs in teh pricing model is a death sentence in many industries. Those with multiple revenue sources, some with little or no direct costs involved with generating that revenue, can absorb teh pricing diff. single source rev cannot.

If you cant grasp the concept, you need some real experience.
 
nopony said:
Ok, Alex22...

What are you going to sell the lemonade for?

A dollar? Let's say a dollar.

Ok, so if the same people are buying your lemonade for a dollar... Why wouldn't you being selling the lemonade for a dollar even if your costs were a nickle?

Goodness of your heart?

Of course not. You would charge what you could get for the lemonade, regardless of your costs.

If your costs are HIGHER than you can sell lemonade for.... then again, your costs haven't set the price because you can't sell it.

See? It's irrelevant.

Owners are not going to voluntarily charge less if payroll goes down... and they are not going to charge more if people won't pay.
Click to expand...


LOL if you could get a dollar and you only have a penny in costs of course you sell it for teh Dollar. Who says they dont? Argue apples to apples. LOL if your costs exceed teh what the market will bear you wont sell it, but it does effect pricing,how? Because you dont stay in the business if you cant recoup your costs If your pricing brings in revenue only to your cost point, you discontinue that business if you cant increase the revenue. One way to do it is to decrease your costs, thereby increasing the amount you keep. Yes teh market determines teh price you can get, costs determine whether it is profitable. So costs are factored in when comparing pricing to costs.
 
Man i don't like the sound of this... They just had Jerry Jones on espn they asked him about the new proposal he said he heard from some peoplE who have seen it already and told him what it was and he said he doesn't like it, he doesn't like it at all.. Looks like there could be no CBA.
 
Some more CBA news !

NFL | League unwittingly declares NFLPA winners
Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:39:40 -0800
Len Pasquarelli, of ESPN.com, reports the NFL has unwittingly declared the NFLPA and NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw the winners in the public relations battle by taking the union's proposal to the owners. NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue took Upshaw off the hook when he agreed to present the union's proposal to the 32-owner membership.

NFL | Deal not likely to get ratified
Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:40:11 -0800
Len Pasquarelli, of ESPN.com, reports NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue has agreed to present the NFLPA's offer to the league's 32 owners. One league source told ESPN.com that he had an e-mail assurance that the deal would go through, but there are no signs that the membership is ready to ratify it. Tagliabue needs 24 of 32 votes to pass the collective bargaining agreement extension, but it does not appear he will have sufficient support for it.
 
RnR3423 said:
NFL | League unwittingly declares NFLPA winners
Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:39:40 -0800
Len Pasquarelli, of ESPN.com, reports the NFL has unwittingly declared the NFLPA and NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw the winners in the public relations battle by taking the union's proposal to the owners. NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue took Upshaw off the hook when he agreed to present the union's proposal to the 32-owner membership.

NFL | Deal not likely to get ratified
Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:40:11 -0800
Len Pasquarelli, of ESPN.com, reports NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue has agreed to present the NFLPA's offer to the league's 32 owners. One league source told ESPN.com that he had an e-mail assurance that the deal would go through, but there are no signs that the membership is ready to ratify it. Tagliabue needs 24 of 32 votes to pass the collective bargaining agreement extension, but it does not appear he will have sufficient support for it.
Click to expand...

GRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrr:fire:
 
I figured that it would turn out like this. They haven't voted yet, but I have never been real optimistic about the outcome of this vote.
 
Nublar7 said:
I figured that it would turn out like this. They haven't voted yet, but I have never been real optimistic about the outcome of this vote.
Click to expand...

Come on Nub, if they can send a monkey to the moon, surely the NFL can pull their **** together.
 
Nublar7 said:
I figured that it would turn out like this. They haven't voted yet, but I have never been real optimistic about the outcome of this vote.
Click to expand...

It's sad to say, but I agree with you Nubs, and the even bigger tragedy is that deep down, neither sides wants to get to a uncapped year, but, I don't feel there is any way around it. I never had a good feeling about this thing. Call it trying to set myself up for the worst case scenario or whatnot, i've just never been optimistic myself.
 
clear.gif


short-sighted and a horrible facelift

please die in hell
 
espn had an interview with Jerry Jones this evening and he basically said that he REALLY didnt like the new offer (dont know how he knows all the details about it but) he just went on and on about how he really didnt like it and didnt think he could support it.

The report went on to say that the union was saying that this was a final offer senario and that if the offer wasnt accepted that there wouldnt be anymore negotiations.

Didnt sound good at all for a deal to be reached.
 
YoMamma said:
espn had an interview with Jerry Jones this evening and he basically said that he REALLY didnt like the new offer (dont know how he knows all the details about it but) he just went on and on about how he really didnt like it and didnt think he could support it.

The report went on to say that the union was saying that this was a final offer senario and that if the offer wasnt accepted that there wouldnt be anymore negotiations.

Didnt sound good at all for a deal to be reached.
Click to expand...


Jerry Jones has been sabatoging this process from the beginning IMO. From his statements about not sharing revenue with small market teams (referred to it as "welfare") and stating the players 60% offer is completley unreasonable and the owners 56% is the only "fair" offer that can be considered. This from an owner that spent 176 million (40% of his 436 million total revenue) on player expense the last 2 years when the Vikes spent 208 million and Arizona 193 million. I honestly don't think he ever wanted a new CBA agreement. Jones is going to have a 650 million dollar stadium complex in 2009. Which is very expensive but 50% is going to be covered by taxes and other local funds. This will put him ahead of current top dog Redskins in revenue and team value. This isn't a question of what he thinks is best for the NFL, but what is best for Jerry Jones wallet and his ego.

http://www.nflfans.com/x/archive/index.php/t-3652.html


Edit: Not to mention the added bonus of having new kid Snyders and rival Skins be completely awful after having to make so many cuts with no CBA agreement in place.
 
rickeyrunsover said:
LOL if you could get a dollar and you only have a penny in costs of course you sell it for teh Dollar. Who says they dont? Argue apples to apples. LOL if your costs exceed teh what the market will bear you wont sell it, but it does effect pricing,how? Because you dont stay in the business if you cant recoup your costs If your pricing brings in revenue only to your cost point, you discontinue that business if you cant increase the revenue. One way to do it is to decrease your costs, thereby increasing the amount you keep. Yes teh market determines teh price you can get, costs determine whether it is profitable. So costs are factored in when comparing pricing to costs.
Click to expand...

:shakeno:

That's what I have been saying from the beginning. Costs do not determine price, but price can determine costs.

The whole point was always that rising player salaries does not mean rising ticket prices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom