**Official CBA Thread II - Update: Owners Approve CBA!** | Page 20 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

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

Geauxfins said:
So if your cost for your widget is $3.00/ea and you sell them for $3.50 for each, or $2.50 each, how does your price affect your cost?? Wrong again pony.....I think you mean costs do not necessairly drive the max price, but they do drive the minimum price as one of several factors.

exactly. he is looking at it from a pure economic model of pricing which is simply what the market is. The company itself factors in more than an economic model. Some industries are more cost basis in nature, such as manufactoring where you have labor and materials costs directly related to the product that are factored in pricing.

I am done arguing this point, he can believe he knows and I am wrong stupid ignorant whatever. It doesnt matter, I know what I know.
 
I am really pessimistic about chances owners will be able to get 24 out of 32 votes to pass the new CBA deal. And owner revenue sharing will be the reason. According to Clayton the large revenue owners Jerry Jones, Dan Synder, Robert Kraft, Jeff Lurie, and Bob McNair have got enough support to block any owner revenue sharing plan that is attempted to be included in the new CBA. And the small revenue also have enough votes to block any new CBA that does not include owner revenue sharing. :shakeno:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2356871
 
Here is a line on costs from today:

But one potential drawback of an extension: Because of the higher cap number, some teams eventually would lose money.

"You would get some teams operating in the red, and no one wants to see that," a person familiar with the CBA

Goggle Sports News Search
 
Eshlemon said:
I am really pessimistic about chances owners will be able to get 24 out of 32 votes to pass the new CBA deal. And owner revenue sharing will be the reason. According to Clayton the large revenue owners Jerry Jones, Dan Synder, Robert Kraft, Jeff Lurie, and Bob McNair have got enough support to block any owner revenue sharing plan that is attempted to be included in the new CBA. And the small revenue also have enough votes to block any new CBA that does not include owner revenue sharing. :shakeno:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2356871


Actually, Jerry Jones was an unlikely source of optimism as bargaining began.

"We want to play football," Jones said as he entered the meeting. "We have an obligation to everyone, particularly our fans.

"My gut is we're going to come up with something, but it's still up in the air. It's going to be long and drawn out and tough."

Owners start deliberations
 
Geauxfins said:
...I think you mean costs do not necessairly drive the max price, but they do drive the minimum price as one of several factors.
Costs must be kept under control. In business, you attempt to lock in the lowest possible expenses and then increase productivity to reach profitability.

Bad cost control can shipwreck a business model. Look at General Motors. About $2000 of overhead (Union benefits) is built into every vehical. The rising costs are sinking this company fast. They do 193 billion in sales and are losing 5.79 per share. Naturally, it's leading to a scale back in health care, pensions, and continued lay-offs. GM agreed to a bad deal with the Unions and now they can't compete with the rest of the world because of the inherent high costs of operation.

The solution for the NFL stand-off is to find a reasonable deal for both sides. Both sides need to understand each others limitations.

The largest block of revenue is from TV contracts...so the obvious thing to do is to protect those markets as much as possible and allow them to continue to grow.
 
PhinstiGator said:
Costs must be kept under control. In business, you attempt to lock in the lowest possible expenses and then increase productivity to reach profitability.

Bad cost control can shipwreck a business model. Look at General Motors. About $2000 of overhead (Union benefits) is built into every vehical. The rising costs are sinking this company fast. They do 193 billion in sales and are losing 5.79 per share. Naturally, it's leading to a scale back in health care, pensions, and continued lay-offs. GM agreed to a bad deal with the Unions and now they can't compete with the rest of the world because of the inherent high costs of operation.

The solution for the NFL stand-off is to find a reasonable deal for both sides. Both sides need to understand each others limitations.

The largest block of revenue is from TV contracts...so the obvious thing to do is to protect those markets as much as possible and allow them to continue to grow.

Good point, but it only goes so far. When a union dictates what % of your revenue goes for player salaries, you can't control those costs as an owner. So you have to try to keep that down as much as possible too....right??
 
I'm waiting to read..."The talks between NFLPA and Owners broke-off." Any second now.....

Go Fins!!!
 
Sal Lisitano said:
I'm waiting to read..."The talks between NFLPA and Owners broke-off." Any second now.....

Go Fins!!!


Extremely unlikely, since the owners are the only one talking.
 
Jimmy James said:
That's a wonderfully substantive argument. Somebody wake me up when there is actually a point to respond to.
Can you help me out with my revenue sharing question on the previous page...am I right or did it screw it up somehow?
 
Geauxfins said:
So if your cost for your widget is $3.00/ea and you sell them for $3.50 for each, or $2.50 each, how does your price affect your cost?? Wrong again pony.....I think you mean costs do not necessairly drive the max price, but they do drive the minimum price as one of several factors.

No. That's not what I mean. Good gravy, this is very simple. Why is it so hard to understand? Or do you understand and are just being difficult?

Costs do not set price. Ok so far? It doesn't matter what your widget costs, the price point is determined by the market.

However, if the market will only pay $2.50 for your widget, you have two choices, lower your costs or find a new widget... because raising the price because of your cost does. not. work. The market will pay what it will pay, regardless.

The market determines price. Your costs determine your profits or loss.
 
DrAstroZoom said:
Actually, Jerry Jones was an unlikely source of optimism as bargaining began.



Owners start deliberations


That is good news. Jones statement "we're going to come up with something." is a big reversal on his earlier stance of no "welfare" to small revenue teams. When the biggest no revenue-sharing owner (at least publicly) reverses like that, gives a little more hope large & small revenue teams will come to come to some compromise.
 
nopony said:
No. That's not what I mean. Good gravy, this is very simple. Why is it so hard to understand? Or do you understand and are just being difficult?

Costs do not set price. Ok so far? It doesn't matter what your widget costs, the price point is determined by the market.

However, if the market will only pay $2.50 for your widget, you have two choices, lower your costs or find a new widget... because raising the price because of your cost does. not. work. The market will pay what it will pay, regardless.

The market determines price. Your costs determine your profits or loss.
do you work in the business world? If I build a widget who is this 'market' person that tells me how much to charge? I think you are coming at this from a theoritical point of view (nothing wrong with that), and the rest of us are coming at it from a more practical (lemonade stand) point of view. If you have that lemonade stand, you make your lemonade, then you have to come up with a price, you don't go do market survey's and comparison shop and figure out about the price of convienence etc, you start with your cost and go from there......have I got it now?? (btw Pony, I would appreciate your insight on my revenue sharing post on the previous page also, even if you tell me I have it all wrong).
 
Geauxfins said:
do you work in the business world? If I build a widget who is this 'market' person that tells me how much to charge? I think you are coming at this from a theoritical point of view (nothing wrong with that), and the rest of us are coming at it from a more practical (lemonade stand) point of view. If you have that lemonade stand, you make your lemonade, then you have to come up with a price, you don't go do market survey's and comparison shop and figure out about the price of convienence etc, you start with your cost and go from there......have I got it now?? (btw Pony, I would appreciate your insight on my revenue sharing post on the previous page also, even if you tell me I have it all wrong).

Fair enough. I think we can either get back to the specific example of player's salaries increasing ticket prices or let it go.

re: your revenue sharing post...

Yess, I think that's about right. I didn't trace the math, and I am not privy to the exact proposals, but your understanding is similiar to mine.

The only difference is that I think the example, while logical, is a little misleading. 56% or 60%, no owner is in danger of actually losing money. Not after their cut of the tv deal. So the argument is more that Buffalo would make less money than Dallas and have their profit margin unfairly deflated by basing player's salary on the whole pie without compensating owners from the same whole pie.

And I think that's exactly what you said.

But honestly, Wilson isn't in any danger of losing money overall from anything on the table.
 
Back
Top Bottom